Read the article.
The concept is not new. The technology is not new. But when the American Medical Association is talking about its use in humans, that’s a big deal.
Many Christians believe similar technology will be used as the Mark of the Beast. Others believe this technology is the Mark of the Beast. What do you think?
Thinking to Believe 
June 27, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I think the “mark of the beast” refers to Nero Caesar, so I’m not concerned about any such chip.
LikeLike
June 27, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I take it you are a preterist. How do you see Nero as fulfilling what was said about the mark? Did Nero issue forth some mark (physical or symbolic) on Christians, without which they were crippled economically? If it is symbolic, how could one refuse the mark?
Jason
LikeLike
June 28, 2007 at 10:53 am
I agree with Arthur.
If the mark of the Beast refers to futuristic technology some 2000 years removed from the time the Revelation was written, how could it have any relevance to the original hearers? And why would the book be preserved if it didn’t have any relevance to the original hearers?
The book was written to the churches during a time of persecution by the Jewish religious authorities in order to comfort them. Why should we assume that this clearly symbolic imagery didn’t pertain to them but to computer chips and million-man Chinese armies of a future time?
LikeLike
June 28, 2007 at 11:31 am
Anonymous,
It sounds like we have another preterist here! I wouldn’t rule out the idea that some parts of Revelation were fulfilled or partially fulfilled in the first century, but I think it is a mistake to see the entire book as pertaining to the 1st century.
I understand your point, and it is a good one. But I don’t find it persuasive. Let me ask you, Do you believe Revelation depicts the bodily return of Christ to Earth? Do you believe that return is still future? If so, using your same line of argumentation, I would ask you (1) what relevance would that have had to the original audience given the fact that Christ did not return in their lifetime, and (2) why would the Church have preserved it seeing Christ did not return, especially since the book portrays the events as taking place in the lifetime of the original audience, and that did not happen. Why didn’t second century Christians consider the book to be a false prophecy, and cease using it?
Presuming you think Christ’s bodily return is the only unfulfilled prophecy, let’s say Christ doesn’t return in our lifetime. Would that mean the book has no relevance to us? No.
If your position is that the entire book of Revelation was for 1st century Christians, and everything it predicted was fulfilled in the 1st century, then given your argument on preservation, I would ask you why the church would have preserved the book for another 1900 years seeing that it had no relevance to them? After all, the entire book was already fulfilled. The relevance door swings both ways.
I would argue that Revelation is relevant to every reader, whether the events in the book are fulfilled in their lifetime or not. It gives every Christian knowledge of the goal of the Christian faith. It tells them what will happen in the end. It shows them where they will spend eternity, and how God will bring justice to this unjust world.
Jason
p.s. I allow people to post to this blog without being a member of blogger.com, but if you could, please sign your posts so I can know who you are, and I don’t think two different people posting anonymously are the same person, when in reality they are not. Thanks!
LikeLike
June 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I’m really more of a partial preterist, so my view is similar to yours in that I do believe that some parts were fulfilled in the first century.
While I do not believe that Christ’s bodily return has already transpired, I do see His prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD as a visitation of His judgment on Jerusalem. The figurative language of Matthew 24 clearly hearkens to the OT’s use of the same (e.g. Babylon’s fall Isaiah 13:1, 10,13; Egypt’s fall Ezekiel 32:7-8; and Edom’s fall Isaiah 34:4-5). Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all relate the same conversation between Jesus and the Disciples concerning Jesus’ return and the sign of the end of the age. This sign is the destruction of the Temple in 70AD where the Temple stones were overturned. Jesus’ return then was in judgment. The end of the age was the end of Judaic temple worship. The new age is the New Testament Church age. Was the Church raptured? No.
Merely suggesting that an event is indeed a historical event and therefore has no relevance to us is simplistic. With that line of reasoning, we may as well conclude that the incarnation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are irrelevant. What about the outpouring of the Holy Ghost? It was a past event, is it relevant for us today?
The relevance of the Revelation to the original audience was for its immediate purpose, to comfort those who were being persecuted by the Judaizers. In revealing Jesus Christ, it reveals his purpose – the Gospel. The Revelation answers the question, using symbolic language, of what God is doing in destroying the Temple and introducing a new covenant, a new Jerusalem; a Jerusalem from above – the Church. In this sense, was the Revelation relevant to the original audience and at the same time to us? I whole heartedly agree that the Revelation is relevant to every reader.
Dale
LikeLike
June 28, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Jason asks:
(1) what relevance would that have had to the original audience given the fact that Christ did not return in their lifetime, and (2) why would the Church have preserved it seeing Christ did not return, especially since the book portrays the events as taking place in the lifetime of the original audience, and that did not happen. Why didn’t second century Christians consider the book to be a false prophecy, and cease using it?
“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
—Matthew 16:21-28 (NIV)
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” Mark 9:1
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:27.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
Mat 24:34 Mark 13:30 Luke 21:32
(“All these things be fulfilled” refers to the things Jesus describes earlier, including essentially all of the end time events of Revelation.)
And Paul advises against having kids because the end times are so imminent, etc.
There are simply too many statements, rewordings and rephrasings to believe that none of this refers to the end times and return occuring during the apostles’ lifetime.
Why didn’t they reject all these scriptures as false prophecies? That’s a good question, Jason. What’s your explanation?
Arthur
LikeLike
June 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Anonymous asks:
If the mark of the Beast refers to futuristic technology some 2000 years removed from the time the Revelation was written, how could it have any relevance to the original hearers? And why would the book be preserved if it didn’t have any relevance to the original hearers?
This reminds me of the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. It was a prediction for OT times that was fulfilled during those times. The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people, fulfilling the prophecy. 2 Kings 16:9.
“Jews believe that God will send a ‘sign’ in the days of Ahaz who lived many centuries before Jesus. Moreover, they claim that there is no indication that Immanuel will be the Messiah, whatever the timing of his birth. The Jewish tradition has accordingly never considered Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy. Modern Jewish scholars argue that this is a Christian innovation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14
Could the birth to a “young woman” in Isaiah, relevant to and fulfilled in that time, also have a second meaning of a “virgin birth” relevant to later times?
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Jesus cursed Jerusalem, identifying that generation guilty of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth; from the blood of Abel to Zechariah (Matthew 23:35-36). Revelation 18:24 identifies Babylon the Great as being guilty of the blood of the prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth. How does a futurist view reconcile this contradiction?
I believe the futurist’s view of prophecy misplaces the focus and the very reason for Jacob’s trouble. The Revelation is Christ centric but most importantly, it is cross-centered.
Moses pronounced the curse upon Israel for disobeying God’s law (Deuteronomy 28:45-53). Seventy years were spent in Babylonian captivity to repay the Sabbath rest stolen from the land God had given Israel for an inheritance (Jeremiah 25:11; 2 Chronicles 36:21). Leviticus 26:14-46 outlines the four sets of seven judgments God would pour out on Israel for dishonoring the Sabbath. God gave them another chance; another four hundred ninety years at the end of captivity to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (Daniel 9:24). At the close of the seventy weeks, the Lord of the Sabbath comes to His people offering the kingdom of God and the true Sabbath rest in the Holy Ghost. Israel rejects the Lord of the Sabbath and His rest, calling for Caesar to be their king. Those Levitical judgments are seen in Revelation’s seven seals, seven trumpets, seven thunders, and seven vials.
Dale
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Dale,
Thanks for posting your name.
I haven’t looked real close at preterism, and would not consider myself to be a preterist, but I am open to the possibility that some things in Revelation (as well as other prophetic sections of Scripture) are either already fulfilled in their entirety, or have a dual-fulfillment of sorts in which they applied both to the immanent future of the original audience, as well as a future beyond their time.
If you are a partial preterist, and do not believe Jesus has returned to the Earth, then please answer the four questions I posed to you in the second third paragraphs.
I think everyone would agree that the destruction of the Temple was foretold by Jesus, and that this was a visitation of His judgment on Israel. But how do you justify interpreting Jesus’ “coming” language, with a mere visitation of judgment? God has visited judgment on Israel many times, and yet they were never foretold or described in the terms Jesus used: “the Son of man comes on the clouds”, “every eye will see him”,
I agree with you that just because something is past, it does not mean it is irrelevant to us (although I don’t think the Spirit outpouring is a thing of the past). But you never came out and said why those past things are relevant to us. If you stated your reasons and principles, I think you would they would equally apply to things yet future. Either way (whether past, or still future), the bottom line is that we find all of Scripture to be useful whether we experience the prophecies and events we read about, or not. It’s not as if Revelation could have no relevance to the original audience if everything it spoke of (or nearly everything) did not come to pass in their lifetime. Besides, supposing that preterists are right, what about those who died before seeing the things Revelation prophesied come to pass? Does that make Revelation irrelevant to them? I wouldn’t think so. But if that is the case for those in the original audience who died before seeing those things fulfilled, why can’t the same be said for the entire original audience, if indeed everything in Revelation was way off in the future?
By the way, do you think Revelation was written before A.D. 70?
Jason
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Arthur,
Yes, I think Isaiah 7:14 can and does have a dual fulfillment. Clearly it was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, and yet Matthew says it was also predictive of Christ. We see this sort of dual fulfillment quite a bit in Scripture. Think of Daniel’s abomination of desolation. That was fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes IV (?), and yet Jesus spoke of it as having a future fulfillment as well.
By the way, even the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) translated the Hebrew “alma” using a Greek word meaning virgin. It’s the same Greek word Matthew used. So understanding the reference to mean a virgin in the sexual sense is not unique to Christianity. But I don’t think the reading hinges on “virgin.” I don’t have the Hebrew text in front of me, but I think it could be read in one of two ways: Jewish—A virgin girl, meaning someone who is not yet married and has no children, will marry and conceive a child. Christian—A girl who has never had sexual relations with a man will conceive a child without having sexual relations with a man. The Jew assumes the virgin will no longer be a virgin in order to conceive the child, whereas the Christian takes the passage more literally to say that she will be a virgin even when she conceives the child.
Jason
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Im still waiting for the reasoning behind how the mark of the beast refers to Nero, how they received it on their hands or forheads and were not able to buy or sell without it
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Jevan,
The number of the beast changed from 616 to 666 depending on the language, Latin or Hebrew – but it added up to Nero Caesar either way. That pretty much clinches it.
“The trade or merchant guilds were dedicated to a particular god or deity, and one could only join the guild by swearing allegiance to the Greek or Roman god and goddess. This system of commerce, tied up in Rome, with the worship of the Roman Emperor as a god, meant that all Christians were effectively excluded from commerce by the very nature of the economic system. Christians could not sign contracts in the name of the divine emperor, Apollo, or any other demon deity. Without a signature or allegiance to this beastly system of economics, Christians couldn’t join merchant guilds for business or trade. To consent to this form of commerce, to buy and sell, was to deny God and to worship man and a human system of economics as the god of your life! Those who did not submit could not buy or sell.”
http://www.scholarscorner.com/eschaton/MarkBeast.html
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 8:15 pm
One more thing: hand and head just means actions and thoughts.
LikeLike
June 29, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Arthur,
I know of one variant text in a Greek manuscript that reads 616, but most agree that is a mistake. Are you aware of a Latin or Hebrew translation that has 616?
As far as your quite, I don’t see how that can be what the text is talking about. I don’t know anywhere in church history where we read that no Christians could buy or sell, and we know a lot about the natur of the persecutions against Christians.
How did you arrive at that interpretation? Nothing in the context indicates that hands mean action, and head means thoughts. It sounds quite imaginative to me.
Jason
LikeLike
June 30, 2007 at 9:09 am
Jason,
The oldest copy sets the number of the Beast as 616.
“This is very early confirmation of that number, earlier than any other text we’ve found of that passage,” Dr. Aitken said. “It’s probably about 100 years before any other version.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
I’ve never heard anyone allege that 616 was a mistake. The two sets of numbers, both adding up to Nero Caesar depending on the local spelling, makes the case for Nero Caesar clear.
“The fragment supports the reading of some Greek New Testament manuscripts that read 616 instead of 666. Why would someone making a copy of the Revelation scroll make such a number change? “Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.” A Latin copyist might have thought that 666 was an error because Nero Caesar did not add up to 666 when transliterated into Latin. He then changed 666 to 616 to conform to the Latin rendering since it was generally accepted that Nero was the Beast. In either case, a Hebrew transliteration nets 666, while a Latin spelling nets 616. Nero was the “man” and either 666 or 616 was his number.”
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-10-05.asp
You state that the quote about the guilds doesn’t refer to the text. But it’s quite clear that the source I quoted is referring directly to the text. It doesn’t claim that anyone claiming to be a Christian couldn’t engage in commerce, just that they were forced to make concessions to society in order to do so.
You may not find, in contemporary writings, the claim that American Christians are forbidden from watching network television. But those who refuse to conform to watching worldly shows – conforming with mind and actions – are unable to watch network television. It’s not the early Christians were unable to buy or sell, but that they were forced to compromise their principles to do so.
As to head and hand meaning heart and mind, it’s a common interpretation:
“I personally do not sit at home worrying about the mark of the beast. Maybe you have seen the emails about a bio-implant of a chip, which some say is the mark of the beast, but this depends on a literal interpretation of Revelation. In Revelation the mark of the beast is in contrast to the seal of God on the foreheads of the servants of our God, see Rev 7:3 . If the first seal is symbolic then so is the mark of the beast. I have no problem using credit cards, I even use them to support a Pastor that I know in India. The mark of the beast means that you belong to the world system, in other words you are an idolater, in contrast to Christians who worship God, they refuse to worship the beast (Rev 13:15). Do you worship Christ or the world? The mark is on the right hand which corresponds to our deeds and the forehead to our thoughts, in other words our deeds and thoughts belong to the world.“
http://www.apocalipsis.org/mark.htm
LikeLike
July 2, 2007 at 10:34 am
All this talk of preterism reminds me of a book I jusr=t read recently.
The author has some very interesting arguments, but doesn’t really replace rapture doctrine with anything else.
Is anyone else familiar with this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Rapture-End-Times-Error-Leaves-Behind/dp/1928832725/ref=pd_bbs_8/104-3918243-7127141?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183397606&sr=8-8
LikeLike
July 2, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Jason,
I just wanted to quickly respond to your questions. BTW, I don’t consider these issues as salvific, so please don’t take anything as inflammatory. Your questions are in bold.
Do you believe Revelation depicts the bodily return of Christ to Earth?
Yes.
Do you believe that return is still future?
Yes.
If so, using your same line of argumentation, I would ask you (1) what relevance would that have had to the original audience given the fact that Christ did not return in their lifetime,
My original response to this post was a rhetorical question relative to twentieth century technology. You somewhat implied that it was a valid question, yet unpersuasive. I would suppose that it is unpersuasive to anyone holding a predominately futurist view of prophecy.
Concerning the mark and whether it was indeed a first century phenomenon or a twenty-first, I’m curious how it figures that such a circumstance could be accomplished in the real world. I’m not suggesting that the prophetical premise is untrue, merely that if it is in fact an economic endeavor implemented to control the flow of commerce, how does such a thing flesh out in a real world situation? In other words, if it [“it” being the complete control of commerce] was accomplished in the first century under Nero, how is it that any Christians survived and the spread of Christianity became a historical fact? If it is to be accomplished in the twenty-first century, how do we reconcile things like black markets thriving under totalitarian regimes of our day and the successful spread of Christianity within the confines of Communist regimes? To suggest that a technology could be developed in the future to utterly control a population is speculation at best and sells millions of books nowadays but in reality it is merely an argument from ignorance. No such thing has ever happened and no such technology presently exist which could make it so; especially in light of the fact that human populations don’t generally like being controlled and tend to overthrow their oppressors and that Christianity has had a history of subverting and undermining those types of regimes.
It seems to me that Arthur makes a valid case for the mark being less about an actual mark and more about ceding ones principles. Here’s a legitimate question: Jesus counseled Laodicea to “buy” of Him gold tried in the fire. Was this an economical purchase? Was this commerce?
I believe that the destruction of the Temple and its significance wasn’t lost on the original audience as it seems to be to a large number of readers in our day. Those familiar with the OT’s use of the same figurative language Jesus used to describe His return in judgment recognize its significance. Obviously the Christians living within the environs of Jerusalem when Titus began to encamp the city understood and heeded Jesus’ warning. The comparisons between the synoptic Gospels which show the same conversation between Jesus and the Disciples concerning His return and the sign of such make a convincing case for a return by Jesus. What exactly that return means, I can’t say with certainty except to simply repeat what scripture says; the sign of His return was the Temple stones being overturned. How that may have affected the first century Christian’s and their understanding of the events I can’t say with certainty either but we do know that they clearly expected an immanent return early on then came to accept that such was not the case. In my view, the Revelation speaks to this very situation in symbolic yet familiar idioms known to readers of the OT.
I might ask you – did David really see God literally riding on the wings of the wind with clouds as pavilions (II Samuel 22)? Did the sun and the mood literally go dark or did the stars literally fall from the sky when God judged Babylon, Egypt, and Edom (Isaiah 13:1, 10, 13; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Isaiah 34:4-5)? If we understand these as figurative language or metaphorical in the OT, why is it so hard to understand them in the same way in the NT?
(2) why would the Church have preserved it seeing Christ did not return, especially since the book portrays the events as taking place in the lifetime of the original audience, and that did not happen.
See above
Why didn’t second century Christians consider the book to be a false prophecy, and cease using it?
I don’t believe that second century Christians considered the Revelation to be a false prophecy; I suspect that many considered it to be fulfilled prophecy. I know you’re asking this rhetorically, so I won’t spend any time with it.
Presuming you think Christ’s bodily return is the only unfulfilled prophecy, let’s say Christ doesn’t return in our lifetime. Would that mean the book has no relevance to us? No.
I don’t believe that Christ’s bodily return is the only unfulfilled prophecy. The resurrection, the rapture, and the White Throne judgment are still to be fulfilled. Do I believe in a “seven year tribulation”, a rebuilt Temple complete with animal sacrifice, a future seven year period of Mosaic law for a second ‘abomination of desolation’ in the newly rebuilt Temple, a future ‘son of perdition’ to enact the abomination, etc., etc., etc.? No, I don’t.
If your position is that the entire book of Revelation was for 1st century Christians, and everything it predicted was fulfilled in the 1st century, then given your argument on preservation, I would ask you why the church would have preserved the book for another 1900 years seeing that it had no relevance to them? After all, the entire book was already fulfilled. The relevance door swings both ways.
This is not my position. My “argument on preservation” was merely a rhetorical question.
I would argue that Revelation is relevant to every reader, whether the events in the book are fulfilled in their lifetime or not. It gives every Christian knowledge of the goal of the Christian faith. It tells them what will happen in the end. It shows them where they will spend eternity, and how God will bring justice to this unjust world.
As stated previously, I agree.
Dale
LikeLike
July 5, 2007 at 10:19 am
Jason,
I missed this one…
By the way, do you think Revelation was written before A.D. 70?
Yes.
I believe that the internal evidence alone far outweighs the external, third hand evidence provided by Eusebius. For instance:
– John wrote to seven actual churches in Asia. His expectation was that these first century Christians read, hear, and keep the words of the prophecy. The “relevance” factor cannot be overstated. John’s readers were expected to understand and heed his message as directly relevant to themselves. In fact, John expresses fellowship in tribulation with them, making the issue of relevance all the more impactful. No matter how you or I might consider the things spoken in the Revelation as relevant to us – fulfilled or not – we cannot say that we are companions in tribulation in the same sense that John conveys to his readers.
– The entire prophetic discourse is bracketed with expectant language. Revelation 1:1 begins with this language and Revelation 22:20 ends with the same language. The Greek term tachos meaning “shortly” is also used in Revelation 2:16 and 3:11. Even if one supposes that Revelation 1:19, “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later” presents an interpretive scheme to divide the Revelation into separate sections so as to place the bulk of the visions some 2000 years into the future, one cannot divorce the awareness of expectancy for the two distinct events described in the forgoing verses. In other words, the prologue states that certain events, which are specifically relevant to the subsequent addressees, are to happen shortly and in like manner Jesus’ return is repeatedly characterized as an event which is to be expected shortly. And if by chance confusion might possibly reign concerning the use of that term, John uses another. The Greek term eggus meaning “near” is used in the exact same manner and context (Revelation 1:3: 22:10). Not only does the use of such terms place a temporal nearness to the events of the prophecy but it also has the effect of harmonizing Jesus’ return with the prophetic events of the Revelation. Moreover, it is no accident that John places this temporal terminology within the historical and exhortative sections of the Revelation, bracketing the symbolic visions.
– Jerusalem and the Temple were still in existence. John was instructed to measure the Temple in the holy city (Revelation 11:1-2); an impossibility after 70AD. Jerusalem is identified as the city in verse eight (…where also their Lord was crucified) and the only Temple in Jerusalem ever characterized as the Temple of God was Herod’s Temple mentioned in Jesus’ prophecy (Matthew 23:37-24:2). Indeed, a comparison of Jesus’ statement in Luke 21:24, “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” and Revelation 11:2, “it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months” shows the same event practically using the same terms. Remember, the inquiry of the Disciples concerning the Temple destruction would have included John (Matthew 24:1-3), so Jesus’ response clearly alludes to the source of the Revelation’s statement.
– The precise measurement for the Temple’s destruction, a period of forty-two months (Revelation 11:2), perfectly corresponds to the known historical period beginning in the spring of 68AD and ending with the Temple’s collapse in 70AD. This prophecy must antedate even the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66AD.
– If a later date, the silence about the Temple destruction of 70AD is inexplicable.
– The existence of Judaizers after the Temple destruction is doubtful and absurdly pointless (Revelation 2:9).
– The existence of “other Apostles” does not fit a later date (Revelation 2:2).
– The sixth king who “now is” of Revelation 17, the one who persecutes the saints, fits Nero as he was the first and only Roman Caesar in the Julian line to persecute Christians. Galba succeeded him and only reigned for a short six months. John was clearly writing during the reign of the sixth ruler of Rome (“five are fallen, one is” v.10), so beginning with Julius Caesar, Nero was the sixth. Even if one supposed that Augustus was the first true Caesar and arbitrarily skipped any of the short-termed reigns, the case for a late date (e.g. 96AD under Domitian’s reign) cannot be reckoned as viable.
– How is it that John expected his readers to calculate the number of the beast if he were not alive at that time (Revelation 13:18). The number/name calculation fits Nero – only.
– Additionally, a case can be made for the notorious wealth and ease of Laodicea (Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; Revelation 3:17). Having rejected the proffered aid from Rome and rebuilt by its wealthy citizens after its destruction from an earthquake in 60AD, then subsequently destroyed by yet another earthquake in 66AD and not rebuilt again until the reign of Marcus Aurelius (b. 121AD d. 180AD). Whence its wealth? After the first earthquake in 60AD and prior to the second in 66AD, or after Marcus Aurelius?
Dale
LikeLike