Sunday, September 20, 2026

Situating those Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

 



“So John [the Evangelist] and Josephus both described two individuals

in Jerusalem who were hated, basically invincible for a while, finally killed,

and not allowed to be buried”.

 

Adam Maarschalk

 

 

Adam Maarschalk, who has written, from a preterist point of view, some compelling articles on the Book of the Apocalypse, has gone a long way towards identifying the Two Witnesses: The Two Witnesses Killed by the Beast (Revelation 11:3-13) – Pursuing Truth

….

 

Revelation 11:4

 

In Revelation 11:4, the two witnesses are identified as “the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth.” As many scholars have recognized, this description draws on Zechariah’s “Vision of the Lampstand and Olive Trees”:

 

Now the angel who talked with me came back and wakened me, as a man who is wakened out of sleep. And he said to me, ‘What do you see?’ So I said, ‘I am looking, and there is a lampstand of solid gold with a bowl on top of it, and on the stand seven lamps with seven pipes to the seven lamps. Two olive trees are by it, one at the right of the bowl and the other at its left.’ … Then I answered and said to him, ‘What are these two olive trees …?’ So he said, ‘These are the two anointed ones, who stand before the Lord of the whole earth’” (Zechariah 4:1-3, 11, 14).

 

This vision came on the heels of Zechariah’s “Vision of the High Priest,” concerning the high priest, Joshua (Zechariah 3), who served alongside the governor, Zerubbabel (Zech. 4). As Albert Barnes said in his 1834 commentary on Revelation 11:4,

 

“This representation, that the ministers of religion “stand before the Lord,” is one that is not uncommon in the Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites: ‘The Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless his name,’ Deuteronomy 10:8; compare Deuteronomy 18:7. The same thing is said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: ‘As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand,’ 1 Kings 17:1; also, 1 Kings 18:152 Kings 3:142 Kings 5:16; compare Jeremiah 15:19. The representation is that they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence and under his eye.”

 

In Zechariah’s vision, he saw one lampstand (Zech. 4:2). In Revelation 1:12 John saw seven lampstands, which he was told were the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). Here in Rev. 11:4 there were two lampstands, the two witnesses.

 

Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel



I would like to propose that the two witnesses were two first century high priests, Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel (also known as Joshua). According to Josephus, they led the peace movement in Jerusalem when the Zealots were determined to rebel and incite war with the Romans, hoping to gain full independence for Israel. As we will see, their roles, deaths, the aftermath of their deaths, and the timing of their deaths line up with a number of details John saw in Revelation 11.

 

Here is a short summary of these two men.

 

1.       Ananus: The appointment of Ananus as high priest is recorded in Antiquities 20.9.1. He was appointed in 62 AD. Josephus called him “the ancientest of the high priests” and “a very prudent man” (Wars 4.3.7), “a prodigious lover of liberty” who “preferred peace above all things,” and “a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people” (Wars 4.5.2). Ironically, in December 66 AD he was appointed as a general over Jerusalem, one of 10 generals appointed to prepare for war with Rome (Wars 2.20.3). A long speech given by Ananus against the Zealots is recorded in Wars 4.3.10.

 

2.  Jesus: The appointment of Jesus as high priest is recorded in Antiquities 20.9.4. He was appointed in 63 or 64 AD, but only for about a year (Ant. 20.9.7). From that time on, Josephus said, Jerusalem was “greatly disordered” and “all things grew worse and worse” (Ant. 20.9.4). Josephus referred to Jesus as “a friend and companion” (Life 41.204), and called him “the eldest of the high priests next to Ananus.” Josephus added that “although he was inferior to [Ananus] upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest” (Wars 4.5.2). Jesus also gave a long speech against the Zealots, which is recorded in Wars 4.4.3.

 

The Zealot Temple Siege

 

Ananus and Jesus were both killed at the same time during the Zealot Temple Siege of February-March 68 AD. This siege took place after the Zealots appointed a fake high priest, Phannias, who “did not well know what the high priesthood was” (Wars 4.3.6-8), and he unworthily presided over that post until Jerusalem was destroyed. In a sense, Ananus and Jesus represented the final lampstands, the final oil-bearing olive trees, of the temple before it was destroyed.

 

Phannias was a fraud, and the people of Jerusalem finally had enough of the Zealots. Ananus and Jesus led them in an uprising:

 

“And now the people could no longer bear the insolence of this procedure, but did altogether run zealously, in order to overthrow that tyranny… The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots…” (Wars 4.3.9).

 

In his speech (Wars 4.3.10), Ananus said that he would lead the people in an all-or-nothing attack against the Zealots, and that he would not spare his own body in that effort. In that battle, Ananus and his followers actually gained the upper hand against the Zealots, forcing them into the inner temple and gaining control of the rest of the city (Wars 4.3.12). Ananus then chose 6000 armed men to keep the Zealots surrounded and under guard. Unfortunately, as we will see, this strategy came undone because of the trickery of John Levi of Gischala (Wars 4.3.13-14).

Revelation 11:5-6

 

In Revelation 11:5 we read that fire would proceed out of the mouths of the two witnesses to devour their enemies who would try to harm them. Compare this to what Jeremiah was told:

 

Because you speak this word, behold, I will make My words in your mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them” (Jeremiah 5:14).

 

For more on God’s word being like a fire, and having the power to “slay” people, see Jeremiah 23:29 and Hosea 6:5.

 

Revelation 11:6 says that the two witnesses would “have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy…” Note that during the days of Elijah “it did not rain for three years and six months” (James 5:17; Luke 4:25). This matches the duration of time that the two witnesses would prophesy (Rev. 11:3). During the Roman siege in 70 AD, Josephus gave a speech to the Zealots in which he mentioned that the springs of water were “almost dried up” while Jerusalem was in the hands of the Zealots, but suddenly had more than enough water once the Romans arrived. This indicates that there was a lack of rain during the time that the Zealots controlled Jerusalem:

 

“…and as for Titus, those springs that were formerly almost dried up when they were under your power since he is come, run more plentifully than they did before; accordingly, you know that Siloam, as well as all the other springs that were without the city, did so far fail, that water was sold by distinct measures; whereas they now have such a great quantity of water for your enemies, as is sufficient not only for drink both for themselves and their cattle, but for watering their gardens also” (Wars 5.9.4.409-410).

 

Josephus said that Ananus had “the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war” (Wars 4.5.2). Josephus didn’t give many details about how he mastered his opponents, but this indicates that Ananus remained untouchable for a significant period of time even while the Zealots had their way in Jerusalem.

 

Revelation 11:7-9

 

Revelation 11:7-9 says this about the two witnesses:

 

Now when they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill themAnd their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three and a half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into the graves.

 

Here “the beast” is mentioned for the very first time in the book of Revelation. (As we discussed in the previous post, it seems evident that John expected his readers to be familiar with Daniel’s description of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.) Here is also the first mention of “the great city” (later mentioned in Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18-19, 21). “The great city” is clearly defined as Jerusalem, the place where Jesus was crucified (e.g. Luke 9:31).

 

It’s significant that the beast oversees the deaths of the two witnesses in Jerusalem. This has a bearing on whether the beast was Roman, as many suppose, or Jewish, which is the view I’m presenting in this series. As we saw in our study of Daniel, the Romans were not in Jerusalem from August 66 AD until April 70 AD, except for a few days in November 66 AD when Cestius Gallus led a failed attack on the city. If the events of Revelation 11 took place anytime between late 66 AD and the spring of 70 AD, the beast that overcame the two witnesses was Jewish, not Roman. The events which I believe fulfilled this prophecy took place in February-March 68 AD.

 

In February 68 AD, Ananus urged the people of Jerusalem to oppose the lawless Jewish Zealots who had taken over the temple as “blood-shedding villains.” John Levi of Gischala was a Zealot leader who had recently come to Jerusalem, but he pretended to be on the side of Ananus and was invited to be an ambassador to the Zealots (Wars 4.3.13). John quickly betrayed him and falsely claimed that Ananus had invited the Roman general Vespasian to conquer Jerusalem (Wars 4.3.14).

 

In response, the Zealot leaders Eleazar ben Simon and Zacharias ben Phalek requested help from the Idumeans, who lived south of Judea. The Zealots told the Idumeans that “unless they would come immediately to their assistance… the city would be in the power of the Romans.”

 

Even though the Zealots were trapped in the inner temple, they somehow managed to sneak out two messengers to deliver this message to the Idumeans (Wars 4.4.2-3). In fulfillment of Revelation 9:13-16, the Idumeans quickly prepared an army of 20,000 directed by four commanders (Wars 4.4.2):

 

“Now these [Idumean] rulers were greatly surprised at the contents of the letter, and at what those that came with it further told them; whereupon they ran about the nation like madmen, and made proclamation that the people should come to war; so a multitude was suddenly got together, sooner indeed than the time appointed in the proclamation, and everybody caught up their arms, in order to maintain the liberty of their metropolis; and twenty thousand of them were put into battle-array, and came to Jerusalem, under four commanders, John, and Jacob the son of Sosas; and besides these were Simon, the son of Cathlas, and Phineas, the son of Clusothus.”

 

When the Idumeans came to Jerusalem, at first Ananus’ guards prevented them from coming into the city. Jesus gave a speech in which he denied that anyone had betrayed Jerusalem to the Romans. He invited the Idumeans to help deliver the city from the real enemies, the Zealots, but the Idumeans were not persuaded (Wars 4.4.3-4).

 

In the midst of a terrible storm and an earthquake that night, most of the guards were allowed to go home and some of the Zealots managed to come out of the temple and use saws to cut through the gates. This allowed the Idumeans to enter the city, and the Zealots joined them in slaughtering the guards (Wars 4.5.1). The next day the Idumeans, working on behalf of the Zealots, hunted down and killed Ananus and Jesus, who had long tormented the Zealots by opposing their war and working for peace:

 

“[The Idumeans] sought for the high priests, and … went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall.

 

Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial … I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city… He … preferred peace above all things; …h e was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war… And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus” (Wars 4.5.2).

 

So John and Josephus both described two individuals in Jerusalem who were hated, basically invincible for a while, finally killed, and not allowed to be buried.

 

Revelation 11:10 (Festival of Purim?)

 

Revelation 11:10 describes the reaction of those who were glad to be rid of the two witnesses:

 

And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.”

 

The word “earth,” as we discussed earlier, often means “land,” i.e. the land of Israel. This is certainly the case here, as the two witnesses were based in, and killed in, Jerusalem.

 

In the previous verse we read that “peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations” would see the dead bodies of the two witnesses. Why was there such a diverse population at that time? Was it because it took place during a festival, when Jews from various nations would be gathered in Jerusalem? If so, the description in verse 10 sounds like the festival of Purim:

 

“Purim is a Jewish holiday that commemorates the saving of the Jewish people from Haman, who was plotting to kill all the Jews. This took place in the ancient Persian Empire … The day of deliverance became a day of feasting and rejoicing. Based on the conclusions of the Scroll of Esther (Esther 9:22): “…that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.” Purim is therefore celebrated among Jews by: Exchanging reciprocal gifts of food and drink… Eating a celebratory meal… Other customs include drinking wine or any other alcoholic beverage, wearing of masks and costumes, and public celebration (Wikipedia: Purim).

 

The deaths of Ananus and Jesus are commonly said to have taken place in February or March 68 AD. The Fast of Esther and Purim are typically celebrated from the 13th – 16th of Adar. In the year 68 AD, the last day of Adar was March 22nd, according to our modern calendar (“The Jewish war: a new tr.,” p. 191). Therefore, since each Jewish month was 29 or 30 days, we can know that the Fast of Esther and Purim took place around March 4-7 in 68 AD.

 

It appears that when the Zealots celebrated Purim in March 68 AD, they not only celebrated the deliverance from Haman that took place in Esther’s day, but they also celebrated being free from Ananus and Jesus and all their efforts to oppose the Zealots and achieve peace with Rome. 

 

After all, they believed the lie told by John of Gischala – that Ananus had invited Vespasian to capture Jerusalem, and that Ananus intended for them all to be captured by the Romans.

 

A short while later, another Zealot leader, Simon Bar Giora, found out that Ananus was dead. He was at Masada because Ananus had previously driven him away from Acrabattene, a toparchy of Judea, because of his tyranny there (Wars 2.22.1-2). When Simon “heard of the death of Ananus, he … went into the mountainous part of the country. So he proclaimed liberty to those in slavery, and a reward to those already free, and got together a set of wicked men from all quarters” (Wars 4.9.3). This is just one example of how the Zealots behaved as if they were free of the “torments” of Ananus and Jesus.

 

Revelation 11:11-12

 

Now after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here.’ And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them” (Revelation 11:11-12).

 

….

 

Revelation 11:13

 

Revelation 11:13 reads this way:

 

In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand men were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.”

 

In Wars 4.4.5 Josephus described an earthquake that took place the night the Idumeans broke into Jerusalem, the day before Ananus and Jesus were killed:

 

“[F]or there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake … anyone would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.”

 

That same night the Idumeans slaughtered those who had prevented them from coming in:

 

“The zealots also joined in the shouts raised by the Idumeans; and the storm itself rendered the cry more terrible; nor did the Idumeans spare anybody; for as they are naturally a most barbarous and bloody nation, and had been distressed by the tempest, they made use of their weapons against those that had shut the gates against them… Now there was at present neither any place for flight, nor any hope of preservation; but as they were driven one upon another in heaps, so were they slain… And now the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there” (Wars 4.5.1).

 

Did 7000 die in the earthquake, and another 1500 die by the swords of the Idumeans? In any case, John’s prediction of 7000 deaths is very close to the 8500 deaths mentioned by Josephus. Furthermore, this earthquake and the deaths of Ananus and Jesus were less than 24 hours apart, certainly qualifying as taking place “in the same hour.”

 

Typically, estimates of Jerusalem’s population in the first century range from 30,000 to 100,000 people, so it’s very reasonable to conclude that 7000 deaths in 68 AD represented a tenth of the city falling. Even if the normal population was closer to 30,000, it would have been higher at the time of that earthquake if it took place around the festival of Purim. This was a minor festival, so the population may have doubled, but it wouldn’t have swollen to 250,000 or more as it would during the major festivals.

 

Jerusalem Took a Turn for the Worse

 

The deaths of Ananus and Jesus marked a significant turning point for Jerusalem, according to Josephus:

 

“I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city… to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived they had certainly compounded matters… And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was” (Wars 4.5.2).

 

After their deaths, the Zealots and the Idumeans “fell upon the people as upon a flock of profane animals, and cut their throats.” Others endured “terrible torments” before finally meeting their deaths. At least 12,000 died in that massacre (Wars 4.5.3). Then one of the Zealots told the Idumeans that they had been tricked, and that Ananus and the high priests never did plot to betray Jerusalem to the Romans. So the Idumeans regretted their actions, saw “the horrid barbarity of [the Zealots who] had invited them,” and they left Jerusalem (Wars 4.5.5). The Zealots, no longer hindered by the high priests or even the Idumeans, then increased their wickedness:

 

“[T]he zealots grew more insolent, not as deserted by their confederates, but as freed from such men as might hinder their designs, and put some stop to their wickedness. Accordingly they made no longer any delay, nor took any deliberation in their enormous practices, but made use of the shortest methods for all their executions, and what they had once resolved upon, they put in practice sooner than anyone could imagine …” (Wars 4.6.1).

 

In summary, Ananus and Jesus were two former high priests, and the most prominent of the high priests during the Jewish-Roman War. As such, they fit the Old Testament imagery of olive trees and lampstands representing those who stood before the Lord in the service of the temple. Until the time of their deaths, they were immune to the harm that their enemies wanted to inflict upon them. They gave speeches predicting the destruction that would come to Jerusalem because of the Zealots and due to the rejection of their message of peace. Jerusalem experienced a drought during that time.

 

They were killed by the Zealots (and their cohorts, the Idumeans) just as the Zealots gained full control of the city. They were not allowed to be buried, and their enemies rejoiced over their deaths. This happened at the same time as an earthquake and the deaths of 8500 people.

 

Marx and the Devil

 




Kengor cites Marx’s poem, “The Pale Maiden,” written in 1887:

“Thus heaven I’ve forfeited. I know it full well. My soul, once true to God,

is chosen for hell”.

 

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth - Charisma Magazine Online

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth

 

By CBN News  Oct 13, 2025

 

Almost two-thirds of Americans under 30 now hold a favorable view of socialism.

The frontrunner to become the next Mayor of New York City proudly calls himself a democratic socialist, and Zohran Mamdani says he wants to ban extreme wealth, telling NBC’s Meet the Press, “I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality.”

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have also helped boost the popularity of democratic socialism. They will tell you they want to help people, but the socialist principles they espouse come through a very troubled man, who, say historians, if he was not a Satanist, was obsessed with Satan.

 

Dr. Paul Kengor, the author of The Devil and Karl Marx, says Marx was also a playwright and poet, and his writings included many references to Satan and Hell.

Marx’s Fascination with Beelzebub

 

Kengor cites Marx’s poem, “The Pale Maiden,” written in 1887: “Thus heaven I’ve forfeited. I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell.”

 

In “The Fiddler or The Player,” in 1841, the same decade when he wrote the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote, “See the sword. The Prince of Darkness sold it to me. For he beats the time and gives the signs ever more boldly. I played the dance of death.”

 

Kengor says Marx would tell his children stories about a toymaker who sold his soul to the devil.

 

Marx’s father said that his son’s heart was “governed by a demon,” and Marx was, by all accounts, a terrible husband, father, and provider who sponged off his relatives.

 

To read the full story, visit our content partners at CBN News.

….

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth About Socialism

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2wFCjEu0GI

 

See also Damien Mackey’s article:

 

Fatima seer warned that U.S. could potentially turn Socialist

 

(2) Fatima seer warned that U.S. could potentially turn Socialist

 

“Does this mean,” [Professor William Thomas] Walsh then asked, “in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism?” And Sister Lucia answered: “Yes.” As the translator of this interview, Father Manuel Rocha, was later to reveal, Walsh then asked explicitly about the United States of America, adding: “and does that mean the United States of America, too?” Whereupon Sister Lucia responded once more time with “yes.” (1946 interview)

 

Two Contemporaries. Two Gospels. Two Tombstones. One Choice.

Two lives. Two legacies. Two world views at battle today.

 

Karl Marx and D.L. Moody. The contrast between these men could not be greater. They made similar promises—promises of freedom and a better world. Yet the lessons they left behind are as divergent as night and day. One sought to liberate people but ultimately enslaved them. The other preached forgiveness from sin and set people free.

 

These two men represent opposing worldviews that have competed throughout history—views that are very much alive today. Marxist ideas are surfacing all over the world, infiltrating even the most unlikely places here in America. Pastor emeritus of The Moody Church Erwin Lutzer, along with historian Dr. Gregg Quiggle, reveals the seduction and impact of Marxist ideology. Marx and Moody showcases the difference between a man-centered worldview and a God-centered worldview, critiquing Marxism through the lens of the Bible while exploring the nature of God, humanity, and the consequences of ideas.

 

In this in-depth analysis, this book compares the impact of Karl Marx with D. L. Moody's ministry and highlights what our lives should be centered on during these turbulent times in history—the joy of sharing the good news of the gospel.

 

Two different belief systems. Two different legacies. Two different destinies. Two very different eternities. Marx and Moody is an essential book for our time—contrasting the danger and destruction of Marxism with the power, salvation, and true freedom found in Jesus Christ.

 

 

Domitian emulating Augustus?

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

In the opening chapter, the author explains how Domitian’s building programs

in the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect Domitian’s desire

not only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him.

 

Philip Mathew

  

Introduction

 

Was history merely rhyming, in the case of the emperor Domitian’s supposed emulation of (the presumably earlier) Augustus, or was it, rather, repeating?

 

Caesar Augustus (cf. Luke 2:1) must have been a highly significant figure in ancient history to have attracted so many who are considered to have been his emulators - or those characters who have been dubbed ‘a New Augustus’.

 

But he, despite his importance, is quite poorly understood – at least according to my reconstructions of him. For one, Caesar Augustus was a Seleucid Greek, not a Roman. He was that tyrannical tormentor of the Maccabees, king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, rather than that moderate and respectable Roman ruler of text book representation. He was one aspiring to be divine (‘Epiphanes’ means God Manifest), but considered by his enemies, instead, to have been a Mad Man (‘Epimanes’).

 

The Maccabeans labelled him a “butcher”, an “unholy wretch”, and the “most defiled of all men” (cf. 2 Maccabees 7:29, 34).

 

And he was the Grecophile (because he was a Greek) homosexual, Hadrian:

 

A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian

 

(4) A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian


As Hadrian, he was also the prophet Ezekiel’s ill-fated King of Tyre:

 

Putting a face to Ezekiel’s Fallen King of Tyre

 

(6) Putting a face to Ezekiel's Fallen King of Tyre

 

Hadrian, in fact, called Tyre a Metropolis,

“Great City”, Mother of other cities.

 

Now, the emperor Hadrian is one of those many who are regarded as having been an emulator of Augustus, and even:

 

[Hadrian] a reincarnation of Augustus

(3) Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus

 

Assuredly, Hadrian was an Augustus redivivus!

 

But that is not all!

 

With the insane, God-aspiring Nero Caesar Augustus likened to ‘both’ identities of Augustus (above):

 

Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, to the emperor Hadrian

 

(6) Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus 'Epiphanes', to the emperor Hadrian

 

and culminating in Augustus himself:

 

Nero Caesar Augustus was ‘a New Augustus’

 

(6) Nero Caesar Augustus was 'a New Augustus'

 

then I cannot but conclude that Nero was yet another alter ego of Augustus – not the highly sanitised version of the latter, as he is so often presented, but the tyrannical madman version as can be found in Antiochus ‘Mad Man’, and Hadrian in his excesses.

 

Let us pause here for a moment to get our heads around this radical new version of Greco-Roman imperial history.

 

Conclusion 1.

 

All of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, Augustus, and Hadrian, need to be wrapped up into the one parcel, as just the one Census emperor at the time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(3) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

And, to be wrapped up with these three names (amongst whom also we find Ezekiel’s King of Tyre), is the deranged and indulgent Nero.

 

Augustus Caesar of Luke 2:1 = Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ = Nero = Hadrian.

 

More names to be added

 

Before we consider Domitian, we need also to add, radiating out from our base above, the Census emperor Diocletian, who serves to reinforce the Luke 2 narrative.

 

Prior to my connecting of Diocletian with any census, though, I had found that some scholars were comparing him with Augustus, but especially with the latter’s alter ego (my view), Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. I wrote of this in my article:

 

Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

(6) Diocletian repeating Augustus?

….

Christian History for Everyman

 

The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’.

….

This pattern can partly be perceived from the following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at:

https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/

 

…. When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death.

 

The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.”

 

….

Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian – most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at:

https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html

 

Diocletian and the Great Persecution

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: This was rather, so I think, the Seleucid Greek persecution of the Jews.

 

….

The Great Persecution, from A.D. 303 to 311 [sic], was a time of sudden transition and massive change in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want to focus on.

….

 

The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church

 

Though it's popular to believe that Christians were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true.

 

Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting eight years.

 

The "Great" Persecution?

 

…. It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders.

 

He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor. They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the Scriptures to be burned.

 

In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see them destroyed or taken over.

 

While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not.

 

It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death.

….

 

Professor Gunnar Heinsohn, for his part, considered Diocletian to have ruled at the very time of Augustus, as noted in the above article:

 

“This transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly responsible for their implementation”.

 

Gunnar Heinsohn

 

By now I was thinking that, if Diocletian - yet another presumed emulator of Augustus - was an actual contemporary, or even more, of Augustus, then there ought to be evidence of a universal Census during Diocletian’s reign.

 

And so I commenced my article:

 

Census of emperor Diocletian

 

(6) Census of emperor Diocletian

 

with this comment:

 

If Diocletian, a mirror-image of the emperor Augustus, was, in fact, said Augustus - whom I had already identified with the Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, and with the emperor, Hadrian - then it would be reasonable to expect a significant census of the kingdom to have been issued by Diocletian (cf. Luke 2:1).

 

And my readers were not to be disappointed.

 

In part, I wrote:

 

…. So, as that thought about emperor Diocletian likely issuing a census came to me today (30th June, 2026), I checked the Internet, and immediately found this truncated piece (my emphasis):

Census - Oxford Reference

The systematic assessment and registration of people and property by the Roman state. *Diocletian reformed the institution to provide the basis for his new tax regime, with a new Empire-wide census probably completed by 296. ...”.

 

“… a new Empire-wide census …”.

Cf. Luke 2:1: “… a census should be taken of the whole empire”.

 

Zvi Uri Ma‘oz tells of more than one census from the emperor Diocletian, and in reference to the governor of Syria (cf. Luke 2:2):

bisaac,+25+009+Ma'oz+02.pdf

….

 

Apart from Diocletian, the other names that I have added to the ever-growing list of alter egos for Augustus are Caligula and Trajan, who apparently stands in need of some historical and architectural complementation:

 

Where has Trajan’s Forum gone?

 

(6) Where has Trajan’s Forum gone?

 

Trajan I have duly identified with his presumed successor, Hadrian:

 

Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

(6) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

Caligula

 

Caligula was, like Antiochus, like Nero, quite insane, extremely self-indulgent, and desirous of being worshipped. He best compares with Augustus, as does Diocletian, via comparison with the alter ego of Antiochus:

 

Caligula and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’

 

(10) Caligula and Antiochus 'Epiphanes'

 

“What, therefore, do Caligula and Antiochus Epiphanes have in common,

as their reigns pertain to the Jews? Both reigned during a time when the Jews

were abandoning their God and breaking covenant with him on a national scale. The one ruler officially desecrated the Temple, while the other planned to do so. Both rulers were involved in the emperor cult that required

worship from those they ruled”.

 

Edward L. Bromfield

 

See also my article:

 

Caligula and Nero

 

(10) Caligula and Nero

 

Despite the debate over the precise details of their reigns, there’s no denying

that Caligula and Nero left an indelible mark on Roman history and

popular imagination. Their names have become synonymous with

the worst excesses of power and the corrupting influence of absolute rule”.

 

History Tools


One area in which Caligula intertwines with Augustus is with his honouring of the man (official) who was a virtual second emperor to Augustus, Marcus Agrippa.

 

Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

 

(10) Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

 

“Another reason that Caligula produced coins depicting Agrippa

was that it connected him to Augustus because, as mentioned above,

Agrippa was one of Augustus’ closest friends”.

 

Was Agrippa, in fact, ‘one of Caligula’s closest friends’?

 

‘Caligula’ (nickname) bore the very name of Augustus: Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.

 

A note: By way of further confirmation of the legitimacy of my multi-identifying Caesar Augustus - whose well-known ‘second’, or signet man, was Marcus Agrippa - is that his alter egos generally had prominent seconds.

I broadly discussed this fascinating situation in my article: 

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(10) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

For instance, the right-hand man in the case of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was Philip the Phrygian (2 Maccabees 5:22): “He appointed governors to cause trouble for the people. In Jerusalem he placed Philip, a man from Phrygia who was more evil than Antiochus himself”.

 

I Maccabees 6:14-15: “Then he summoned Philip, one of his Friends, and put him in charge of his whole kingdom. He gave him his diadem, his robe, and his signet ring …”. 

This Philip became the King of Jerusalem, Herod ‘the Great’ Agrippa/Marcus Agrippa, who was second to Augustus.

 

The same situation ought to apply as well to Caligula, exalting Marcus Agrippa.

 

In the case of Hadrian, the second (I am presuming) was, again a Herod, the less well-known Herodes Atticus (a name that also connects with Marcus Agrippa via his wife).

 

In the case of Diocletian, Maximian may have been that right-hand man: “Soon after securing sole control, Diocletian named Maximian as Caesar and, a year later, promoted him to Augustus”.

How Emperor Diocletian prevented Ancient Rome from imploding - History Skills

And so on.

 

Conclusion 2.

 

Potentially to be added to:

 

Augustus Caesar of Luke 2:1 = Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ = Nero = Hadrian

 

are:

Caligula = Trajan = Diocletian

 

Phew!

Having got all that out of the way, I can now turn to consider the main purpose of this article, how the emperor Domitian – as yet another alleged emulator of Augustus – might actually fit into this revised scheme of things.

 

Emperor Domitian

 

The question can be asked about Domitian: Was he a tyrant or a reformer?

 

And that same sort of question is also applicable to Augustus, to Hadrian, often considered to have been a good king - as was Diocletian - a highly competent ruler, but, with a big But … thrown in.

 

In other words, there is an ambivalence there.

 

And the word “ambivalent” can occur in descriptions of Domitian as well, as we find in, for example, Philip Mathew’s “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy” (2025):

Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy - World History Encyclopedia

 

“… despite Domitain’s “damnatio memoriae,” he improved Augustus’ legacy …. Throughout this work, the different authors have ambivalent perceptions of Domitian’s approach to the Augustan legacy and the writers of his time’s assessment of him as emperor”.

 

Domitian can be found to be grouped with the very shady figure of Caligula, with Nero, in “damnatio memoriae”:

 

Caligula, Nero, Domitian, condemnation of memory

 

(10) Caligula, Nero, Domitian, condemnation of memory

 

Did the Apostle John encounter Nero or Domitian?

 

Years ago, I, when attempting to come to grips with Saint John’s Book of Apocalypse,

was struck by the fact that the author, John, was variously said by the ancients to have been exiled during the reign of Nero, on the one hand, or by Domitian, on the other. The reign of Domitian is generally favoured as the era when the book was written: Book of Revelation - Wikipedia

“The Book of Revelation is commonly dated to about 95 AD, as suggested by clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96) …”.

 

But that is far too late!

 

Apart from it making the yet still vigorous (even to riding a horse) Apostle John an extremely old man, the Book of Apocalypse clearly pre-dates the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (standard date). On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

(5) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

I, instead, employing a favourite trick of mine - that often, but not always, works - thought to fuse Nero and Domitian into the one emperor, based partly on the similarity of names of Nero, originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, and Domitian.  

 

Be that as it may, I do find it difficult to regard Domitian as a Flavian, following Vespasian and Domitian’s supposed older brother, Titus, the conqueror of Jerusalem.

 

I shall return to this point towards the end of this article.  

 

Anyway, if my reconstruction (above) of alter egos of Augustus is correct - and I know that it is very far reaching - Nero, at least, would have reigned chronologically far too early to have been a persecutor of John the Evangelist.

 

Here I want to give a summary of the book mentioned above, Philip Mathew’s “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy” (2025), in which Domitian is shown to have been (another) emulator of Augustus – even to the point of outdoing him, “he improved Augustus’ legacy” (as can be said as well of Nero, of Hadrian, of Diocletian).

 

Another note: Regarding the improvements on Augustus attributed to Nero, to Hadrian, to Domitian, to Diocletian, one might need to exercise a degree of caution. For instance, some of the most famous architecture that we think to have been ‘Neronian’ may, in fact, have been executed later, by the Flavian dynasty:

 

Was the so-called Domus Aurea of Nero actually a Flavian enterprise?

 

APOCALYPSE NOW? OR THEN?: Was the so-called Domus Aurea of Nero actually a Flavian enterprise?

 

We read this summation of Philip Mathew’s book, “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy” (2025):

 

The Roman Emperor Domitian has been condemned by history. However, certain scholars argue his misdeeds do not tell the whole truth. This book shows how Domitian emulated the legacy of Caesar Augustus during his reign through monuments, poetry, and artistic design. With various essays by different authors, editors Raymond Marks and Marcello Mogetta give readers a new insight into this famous Flavian emperor and argue that Augustus' legacy lived on centuries after his death.

 

The Flavian dynasty has often been portrayed in a positive light except for its final emperor, Domitian. The legacy of Emperor Augustus, according to Marks and Mogetta, was evident during the Flavian rule of Rome. “Vespasian’s other son, Domitian, not only perpetuated the ‘Augustanizing’ programs of his father and brother but greatly expanded them, making the Augustan legacy a centerpiece of his administration and imperial culture” …. It is the purpose of this book to further show how Augustus’ legacy lived on after his death, even during the reign of one of Rome’s worst emperors. The target audience is both scholars and enthusiasts alike. It succeeds in its goal by offering new research on Domitian and Augustus’ reception in the Roman Empire.

 

Part One focuses on space in a topographical sense. “Urban Narratives” examines a building and restoration program that incorporated Augustan-like features and became an enduring part of Rome’s urban landscape. The three authors here draw attention to the ambivalent aspect of Domitian’s use of the Augustan legacy. In the opening chapter, the author explains how Domitian’s building programs in the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect Domitian’s desire not only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him.

 

Part Two, ‘Gods and Models’, we explore the nature of the fictitious relationship between Hercules and Domitian. The emperor is seen as superior to the mythological hero, similar to Augustus in portrayal. The authors also explore Domitian’s relationship to his patron deity, Minerva as shown on the surviving strip of the Forum Transitorium, comparing Ovid’s depiction of Arachne’s punishment and Martial’s depiction of her.

 

Part Three, ‘From Nero to Augustus’, examines the Flavian attempt to connect Domitian with Augustus by distinguishing him from Emperor Nero. The authors point out that Nero’s adoption of Augustus’ legacy created a fragile situation for Flavian poets when they compare Domitian with Augustus. This is a comparison of ancient sources such as Calpirnius Siculus, Silius Italicus, and Lucan.

 

Part Four, ‘Poetic Journeys’, deals with the theme of space in poetry each examining the treatment of Augustan texts by a poet in the time of Domitian. Once again, this is a comparison of sources, like Statius, Silius Italicus, and Virgil. They examine how various poems depict heroic achievements, comparing them to Augustus and Domitian. They are challenging the old Augustan depictions and showing that newer interpretations by Domitian’s reign are more up-to-date. Associating Domitian with these various mythological figures was part of the Roman Imperial cult, maintaining the idea that the emperor upholds a divine status.

 

Part Five, ‘History and Reception’, discusses major historical features in Domitian’s reign stemming from Augustus. ….

 

How much of a Flavian flavour had Domitian?

 

The article from which we have just read makes Domitian seem as something of a misfit in the Flavian dynasty:

 

“The Roman Emperor Domitian has been condemned by history”.

 

“The Flavian dynasty has often been portrayed in a positive light except for its final emperor, Domitian.

 

 “Vespasian’s other son, Domitian, not only perpetuated the ‘Augustanizing’ programs of his father and brother but greatly expanded them, making the Augustan legacy a centerpiece of his administration and imperial culture” …”.

 

“In the opening chapter, the author explains how Domitian’s building programs in the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect Domitian’s desire not only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him”.

 

“Part Two, ‘Gods and Models’, we explore the nature of the fictitious relationship between Hercules and Domitian. The emperor is seen as superior to the mythological hero, similar to Augustus in portrayal”.

 

“Part Three, ‘From Nero to Augustus’, examines the Flavian attempt to connect Domitian with Augustus by distinguishing him from Emperor Nero. The authors point out that Nero’s adoption of Augustus’ legacy created a fragile situation for Flavian poets when they compare Domitian with Augustus”.

 

“Part Four, ‘Poetic Journeys’, deals with the theme of space in poetry each examining the treatment of Augustan texts by a poet in the time of Domitian. ….

 

They examine how various poems depict heroic achievements, comparing them to Augustus and Domitian”. ….

 

Emperor Domitian: The Tyrant Who Shook Rome

 

Emperor Domitian

Written by: Kate Zusmann

 

Domitian (Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus) was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96 AD. His reign is notable for peace and stability but, at the same time, for fear and paranoia. He was the younger brother of Titus, the son of Vespasian, and the last representative of the Flavian dynasty.

 

Early Life

 

Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51 AD. He was the youngest son of Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Flavia Domitilla Major. In comparison to Titus, Domitian did not share in the court education. ….

 

According to historians, the Flavian family experienced poverty at the time of Domitian’s upbringing and claim that Vespasian gained ill fame under the emperors Caligula and Nero. ….

 

Youth without relatives

 

…. By the time he was 16, Domitian’s mother and sister had long since died, while his father and brother were most of the time in the Roman forces, commanding armies in Germany and Judea. This is why much of Domitian’s youth was held in the absence of his close relatives. During the Judeo-Roman wars, most probably, he was taken under the care of his uncle Titus Flavius ​​Sabine II, who served as the city prefect of Rome, or even Marcus Coxeus Nerva, the Flavian friend and the future successor of Domitian.

….

 

Emperor Domitian

 

After the death of Titus, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard. He ruled for 15 years, and it was the longest period since that of Tiberius.

 

The emperor was successful in strengthening the economy by revaluing the Roman coinage, and he expanded the border defenses of the empire. Moreover, Domitian started a massive building program to restore the damaged city of Rome.


Domitian moved the center of government to the imperial court and rendered the Senate’s powers obsolete. He thought the Roman Empire would be ruled as a divine monarchy, with himself as the benevolent despot. He tried to influence the economic, military, and cultural programs to restore the whole Empire by following the example of Emperor Augustus. Moreover, the emperor was personally involved in all branches of the administration.

 

Military Career

 

Important wars were fought in Britain with General Agricola, who tried to conquer Caledonia (Scotland), and in Dacia, where the emperor failed to achieve a decisive victory against King Decebalus. In addition, religious, military, and cultural propaganda contributed to developing the personality cult, and he sought to control state and private morality by appointing himself a permanent censor. As a result, Domitian was popular among the people and the army but was considered a tyrant by the members of the Roman Senate.

 

Domitian saw himself as the new Augustus, an enlightened despot intended to lead the Roman Empire into a new era of brilliance.

 

The Stadium of Domitian

 

Domitian liked games, particularly chariot races, even implementing two new factions – Golden and Purple. The emperor enjoyed public entertainment of any kind, but mostly with dwarves and women. Domitian founded a festival of music, horsemanship, and gymnastics that took place every five years. However, although both the emperor and the public enjoyed such events, their cost eventually influenced its finances.

….

 

Death of Domitian

 

….

Senatorial authors such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius described the view of Domitian as a cruel and paranoid tyrant. However, modern historians claim that he was a successful autocrat with cultural, economic, and political programs that led to the foundation of the peaceful 2nd century.