Were there Jews in Smyrna and Philadelphia?

The two references in Revelation 2-3 to “them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” is commonly interpreted as referring to Non Christian Jews partly on the authority of John 8:44.

If that theory is true the way it’s used by Antisemitic Christians is still invalid.  In the late 1st and 2nd centuries Judaism was still a more privileged Religion then Christianity.  Jews were exempted from the legally mandated worship of the Imperial Cult because the Romans considered them an Ancient Religion.  Christians were included in that exception when they were perceived by outsiders as a sect of Judaism which they almost always were before the Bar Kochba Revolt and even often for a while after.  

One thing that may have sometimes prevented them from being so exempted is if some prominent Jews of a city told the Roman authorities they don’t count as Jews.  So the theory is some Jews (probably a minority of them) in Asia were doing that and so Jesus is simply responding to that by saying no you are the ones who’ve forfeited your Jewishness.

Today it's the Christians who have the political Privilege and need to learn to see Jews as brethren, fellow children of Abraham, regardless of where we diverge.

But moving on, the problem with that assumption about the Synagogue of Satan is the two cities whose messages to their Churches include this reference are ones with a severe lack of any evidence of any Ancient Jewish presence independent of this interpretation of Revelation.

For Smyrna even the Encyclopedia Judaica has only this reading of Revelation and the Martyrdom of Polycarp to go on for any claim of an Ancient Jewish presence in the City, otherwise we have no records of Jews in Smyrna till 1605.  A Jewish community only recorded by Christina sources.

And the Martyrdom of Polycarp is also Eusebius's main source but it is not a reliable source, it was written long after the events it depicts and depicts an event dated later than even my very late date for Revelation.  And it wouldn’t be an independent source, the author may well be imagining Jews to have been involved because of what they assumed about Revelation. Polycarp’s own Epistle makes no reference to Jews.  Nor do Ignatius's letters to Smyrna or Polycarp mention Jews in any way that implies the existence of a Jewish community there.

With Philadelphia also we only have this possible Revelation reference. If you Google it the AI Overview will say they’re also referenced in Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Philadelphians, but no he’s just talking about Christians who still observe Jewish Laws, and is arguably only warning about the theoretical possibility of his readers encountering them not really confirming there already are any in Philadelphia.

And it’s not as if the entirety of Jewish presence in Greco-Roman Asia was undocumented. We have a lot of references to the affairs of Jews in Ephesus from Josephus to The Book of Acts and same with Miletus.  It’s also well documented how Antiochus III Megas settled Jews in both Laodicea and nearby Hierapolis.  Josephus also records the existence of a Jewish community in Sardis, their origins too seem to come from Antiochus III (there is a theory that Sepharad of Obadiah 1:20 is Sardis which was called in it's own tong Sfrad but I doubt that to be the case, I think that's referring to Sippar in Mesopotamia).

Pergamon and Thyatira however do seem to share Smyrna and Philadelphia's lack of Ancient Jews, though the Lydian woman of Thyatira in Acts 16:12-15 seems to be implied to be Jewish or at least a Proselyte.

Philadelphia was a pretty small city today viewed as important only because of its Revelation significance, the message to Philadelphian Christians in Revelation 3 arguably alludes to this, they are a small insignificant minority in a small insignificant town.  So the idea that the affairs of its Jewish population would be overlooked even by Josephus I could consider plausible. (But it's also possible no Jews ever lived there because it was so small and insignificant they never heard of it.)

But Smyrna was important, it was the birthplace of the Roma Cult and thus equal to Pergamon as a provincial center of the Imperial Cult.  There’s no way if they had a Jewish Population they did nothing  worth noting by Josephus.  Maybe Jews avoided settling in Smyrna and Pergamon precisely because of their cult center status.

What Alternative interpretation of the Synagogue of Satan is there then?  Well early forms of Supersessionism were popping up shockingly early.  

I’m not Dispensationalist but I still reject the notion that Jews are completely abandoned.  Saying “All Israel shall be Saved” in Romans 11:25-26 is a meaningless statement if you define Israel as only being the Saved.  It's not about whether The Church and Israel are separate Tents, it's about how big the Tent is.

The Two Witnesses as Jewish rather then Christian leaders

First I want to say that given Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet is specifically what the Angel of Revelation 10 is saying as opposed to the normal mode of John narrating what he sees.  I'm willing to consider that even within my generally highly Chronological reading of Revelation this material could be chronologically displaced. 

An Atheist Website called Vridar.org agrees with me on Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  But for them that means what Revelation is claiming to foretell also happens then while I see that fulfilment as mostly still in the future when it as written. 

But it’s possible Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet could be a more immediate future then most of this vision.  Or it could be further in the Future, given my current Post-Millennial view on the Bodily Resurrection this could be at least in part after the Millennium.

There are two particular Vridar Articles I’m interested in here.

https://vridar.org/2022/08/20/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-a/

https://vridar.org/2022/08/21/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-b/

[Update: Here's a Third.

https://vridar.org/2022/09/11/the-simon-bar-kochba-rebellion/]

They argue that the Two Witnesses are Jewish but not Christian leaders and are political figures of sorts not mere homeless Prophets preaching doom in the Streets.  Specifically that they are figures in Military conflict with Rome being represented by The Beast.

The argument has a lot to do with the quoting of Zechariah 4 comparing them to Zerubbabel and Jeshua.  But also the fact that The beast “makes war” on them.  But also how their power and authority seem to come from the Chapter 10 Angel not God directly.

This logic I should note could also apply to Samaritans leaders.

They also hold the view that verses 11-13 were not in the original text.  I’m not inclined to agree with that but the sudden switch in tense here is an issue I don’t have an answer for yet.  What I am considering is a way to justify arguing their Resurrection doesn’t happen immediately, which is only viable if I can argue the three and a half days of verse 11 are different from the earlier three and a half days.

There has been much speculation about the text in the Greek using singular language to describe the two witnesses, with appeals to John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 making a single person more then one witness, as well as how the two offices represented by Zachariah 4's Olive Trees are to Christians united in Jesus.  I don't think that'll be too important to any theories I suggest here, but it's worth noting.

Now for Vridar's time frame that means arguing they are Simon bar Kochba and one of the other leaders of that revolt.  And I am currently open to that possibility as well.

But AD 70 Preterists could instead look at rebel leaders of the First Jewish-Roman War.  Simon bar Giora is the one we know for certain was killed in Titus’s Triumph, but I do think at least one of the others was as well, probably John of Gishchala or maybe Eleazar ben Simon.  

If you watch the Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5-6, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witness representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

 I read an article about how Josephus while an eyewitness to Titus's Triumph also drew in his description on prior literary accounts of Triumphs.  In that context I think when describing the execution itself Josephus focuses on just Simon mainly because the accounts of Caesar's Triumph focused on a singular enemy leader, regardless he had earlier told us there were two leaders in the procession, Simon and John.  I've come to find it highly unlikely John wasn't also killed with Simon.

But another possibility in this context is how Book IV Chapter 5 describes the former High Priests Ananas ben Ananias and Joshua ben Gamla being killed by the Zealots and their bodies left unburied.  Other people killed around this same time include Zacharias son of Baruch and then in the first part of Chapter 6 Joseph Ben Gorion/Gurion.

Going back to the Hadrianic period however.  We do not have a complete list of every Roman Triumph that happened.  So while no known Triumph celebrating the defeat of the Bar Kochba Revolt is recorded one could have happened.  Maybe Hadrian had an unconventional Triumph that wasn’t in Rome but in the newly founded Aelia Capitolina and killed Bar Kochba and Akiva at the site of one of its newly consecrated Temples?  One of which would come to be believed by local Christians to be where Jesus was Crucified.  Or maybe because of how Rome did things they definitely were executed where Jesus was Crucified wherever that was. 

But going further into the future there are more options.  The Jewish Revolt against Constantius Gallus also had two leaders, Isaac of Diocaesarea and Patricius aka Natrona. 

Then comes the often overlooked history of Samaritan Revolt during the late 5th through much of the 6th Century.  

The Justa Revolt’s history is interesting for how it’s inciting incident parallels the Hasmonean Revolt, including there being Secular Historians who want to deny that this Greek Gentile Ruler was actually oppressing these Semitic YHWH Worshipers and claim they brought it on themselves.

I'm gonna repeat here what I said in some comments on Thersites the Historian's Zeno video.

On the subject of the Samaritan Revolt I find the desire of modern scholars to say no the Persecution came after the Revolt to be an offensive Revision.  Just like the revisions people try to do regarding the Hasmonean Revolt.  The Empire had been increasingly trying to standardize Christianity as the only legal religion in the Empire for a Century by this point, it's absurd to suggest the Samaritans revolted for no reason after being perfectly content for centuries.  

We also know archaeologically that the Marian Church he built at Gerizim is similar to others being made at the same time like the Church of Mary's Seat north of Bethlehem.

Much of their argument is based on when Zeno could have been there personally.  The Problem is I don't think the Samaritan account actually intended us to think he was there personally, these kinds of Semitic Texts frequently treat a King and his Kingdom as inseparable entities.  I don't think Antiochus Epiphanes personally performed a big sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, a detail not even in the books of Maccabees, but I do believe his policies resulted in an Idol of Zeus being set up on the Brazen Altar in December of 167 BC.  So I don't think Zeno was ever personally in Samaria, it was the actions of his Regime.

A Church of specially Mary Theotokos being built at this time was probably tied to the whole Henotikon thing, Emperors trying to reunify with the Miaphysites loved to scapegoat the Nestorians and stress their common support of calling Mary Theotokos.  And 482-484 is the timeframe for that being a priority.

And that's the end of the Zeno comments. 

The Bar Sabar revolt under Justinian is the most compelling, it's connected to the building of the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which Porcipius describes in ways that make it sound like a rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple.  I no longer think its location is where The Temple actually was, but I do think a Tabernacle housing the Ark briefly before Solomon’s Temple was finished may have been there.  Its construction seems to have started in 531 and been completed in 543.

Justinian also sent The Menorah and other treasures of Herod’s Temple back to Jerusalem to be placed in Christian Churches after Belisarius’s Triumph in 534.  Which is notable considering The Menorah’s role in how Revelation 11 relates to Zechariah 4.

The 556 revolt could be of interest too, for in that one alone it seems Samaritans and Jews worked together, Judah and Joseph, and thus there could have been a leader for each.

We do not have exact dates for the terms of any of the Samaritan High Priests during this period.  So one of them being executed alongside a Civil Leader of one of these Revolts is possible.

Interestingly there is a potential Samaritan Revolt not listed on the main Samaritan Revolts Wikipedia page, and that's one implied to have happened in the time of Babba Rabba traditionally dated to 308-328.  

Constantine contrary to Eusebius and his modern critics did across the board advocate Religious Tolerance so the source of any Samaritan Persecution during this time period couldn't be him.  But perhaps the persecutions of Monotheistic religious minorities under Diocletian, Galerius and Maximinus Daza could be relevant, or even Licinius who's alleged relapse into pro Pagan Persecution is controversial.  It's possible his traditional dates are off and that the references to Constantinople were originally Nicomedia.

One source places Babba Rabba's death in 362 during the reign of Julian, but he didn't persecute anyone either.  So basically the exact timing of Babba Rabba is highly unclear.

The Tyrant of Babba Rabba's rebellion being called Pharoah of Egypt fits in well with my Maximianus Daza thesis.

Finally there was the Revolt against Heraclius which I discussed in my main Heraclius Post.  It too had two prominent leaders, Nehemiah ben Hushiel and Benjamin of Tiberias.  And the Sefer Zerubbabel has some compelling parallels to Revelation 11 in how it talks about Nehemiah ben Hushiel.

Valerian as The Beast of Revelation

Eusebius in his Church History Book VII Chapter 10 talks about the Valerian Persecution primarily using an older source named Dionysius.  And Dionysus quotes Revelation 13:5 as being about this persecution.

The Decian Persecution was the first truly Empire wide persecution of Christians, but it didn’t last nearly 42 months.  However the Decian Persecution did result in the Novatian Schism because it was the first time the Church had any significant Apostasy, making it possibly relevant to II Thessalonians 2.

This account of the Valerian Persecution also presents two possible False Prophet candidates.  First the leader of “the Magi from Egypt” who definitely sounds like a Pagan mystic of some kind in-spite of the translation misleadingly using the word “Synagogue”.  However another option is Macrianus who is likely the figure Wikipedia calls Macrianus Major who was placed in charge of the Economy under Valerian but was also a Military Commander according to the Historia Augusta.  Macarianus’s two sons could be who the second beast’s two horns represent.

The rider on the White Horse or Red Horse could be Shapur I’s invasion of Syria.  Or just the Red Horse with the White Horse being my Smyrna reading. 

The Debasement of the Denarius and other Imperial Currencies greatly escalated during the mid 3rd Century which could explain the Black Horse.

The Plague of Cyprian could be connected to the Chlorus Horse, or the first Bowl of Wrath.

Brining in my prior post arguing the Image of The Beast is his Son.  That could be Gallienus who was a co-ruler during Valerian’s reign.

It is also known that at least some of the Martyrs during the Valerian Persecution were specifically Beheaded like Bishop Sixtus II of Rome on the 6th of August 258.

262 is the year Pergamon was sacked by Goths and destroyed in an Earthquake.  An argument can be made that in a local scale interpretation of Revelation the city of Pergamon is Babylon (derivative of the Rome as Babylon argument because Pergamon was Rome within Asia as the Seat of Imperial Worship). This was the end of Pergamon as it was known to the original audience of Revelation. 

The first ever Edict of Toleration directed mainly at ending a persecution of Christians was actually the Edict of Gallienus which ended this persecution.  Now there is some dispute about the exact time of that Edict, some sources like Eusebius made it sound like it was made immediately after Valerian was captured by the Persians, but it seems more likely that some time did pass. If the edict of Persecution was made in 258 then 42 months later would be in 261 or 262. 

That would in this model be the beginning of The Baptism of The Beast.

Vespasian as The Beast of Revelation

I'm a Post Millennial Partial Preterist and Semi-Historicist who still largely looks to much later then AD 74 for when I think Revelation 6-19 and the start of chapter 20 happened.

But I decided it would be fun to see if I could argue for a 70 AD Fulfillment of Revelation better than actual believers in that timeframe do.  And perhaps elements of how I make this argument could prove Typologically useful to us advocates of more niche forms of Preterism that are less focused on the 1st Century.

A lot of this draws on stuff I observed in this early post.

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2023/10/translation-issues-in-revelation-that.html

First of all I have come to take the language of Revelation 17:11 as saying that the 8th King is the Individual person The Beast passages are about even when still during the reigns of the first 7.  

Caesarea Maritima means Caesarea “by the sea”, and it was also a very sandy location.  It was always the Roman Provincial Capital of Judea and as such played an important role in the 66-73 AD War including as a location Vespasian used as a base of operations.  

The Seven Heads are further explained in Revelation 17 as being Seven Kings.  Roman Emperors didn’t like to admit they were Kings but we see in John 19:15 that Jews in Judea didn’t care about their semantics.  Why Kings would be represented as Heads is perhaps explained by the language of Bible Verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18 where Christ is The Head of The Church and God The Father is the Head of Christ, but there's also Hebrew Bible precedent for Kings as Heads in 1 Samuel 15:17 and Isaiah 7:8-9.  Your "Head" is a person who holds authority over you, hence why the 8th King which is The Beast isn’t an 8th Head.

Vitellius from the year of the 4 Emperors was never recognized in the East, the Roman Armies of the East chose Vespasian as soon as Otho was dead.  So for example when looking at the Archaeological record of the Roman Pharaohs we see that Vespasian was the 8th and the first 7 were Augustus, Tiberius, Calgiula, Claudius, Nero, Galba and Otho who did indeed have the shortest reign.  Vespasian was born during the reign of Augustus so each of those 7 had also personally been Vespasian’s Head.

I no longer believe the 6th King being associated with the present is meant to be a clue to when Revelation was written, rather for this theory I think it has to do with Revelation 17’s point in the narrative following the 7th Bowl of Wrath.  There was a major Earthquake during the reign of Galda which Suetonius refers to having been considered an Omen of his coming demise, that could be identified with the Earthquake of the 7th Bowl.  

On December 19th of AD 69 the major Temple to Jupiter in Rome was burned down during the war between Vitellius and the Armies fighting for Vespasian.  So one could see that as Revelation 18 in a Babylon=Rome reading.

Back to where we left off in chapter 13.  The 10 Horns, Leopard, Bear and Lion imagery are evoking Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 was primarily fulfilled by Intertestamental History, Revelation is picking up later with a Rome that has annexed most of the Greek Empire and portions of Babylon and Persia.  The 10 Horns we also know represent lesser kings allied with the Beast, these are likely various local Client Kings and Tribal Leaders who assisted Vespasian in the Conquest of Judea like Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene.

The Mortal Wound being Healed could have multiple meanings.  Vespasian did suffer a serious wound during the Siege of Yodfat that Josephus makes a big deal out of.  But it’s seemingly associated with one of the specific Seven Heads, most of them died violently but Vespasian presented himself as the Heir of Otho.

For Revelation 13:5 the YLT says “Make War” where the KJV says “Continue” and I think that is more accurate to the Greek.  This is about the Authority Vespasian was given to carry out the War against Judea.  There are two ways we could count the 42 months, we could begin them with when Vespasian was first formally placed in charge of the Campaign on September 22nd 66 AD ending it in March of 70 AD.  In April of 70 the War continued but now with Vespasian fully established as sole Emperor and his son the one actively carrying out the Campaign in Judea.  Or we could say the 42 months started when Vespasian actually arrived in Judea seemingly in Spring of 67 then continued to September of 70 AD when the Siege of Jerusalem was fully completed.

Vespasian was in Alexandria when he was proclaimed Emperor, and as such was the only Roman Pharoah ever consecrated by proper Egyptian Ceremonies, much of which symbolically Deified him.

Verse 7 of chapter 13 repeats language from chapter 11 verse 7.  If you watch Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in AD 71 from Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witnesses representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

Revelation 13:10 is about Captivity which is obviously relevant to 70 AD.

The Beast out of The Earth called elsewhere The False Prophet I think could have been Tiberius Julius Alexander.  Many have argued “out of the Earth” in contrast to “out of the Sea” implies a Jewish background for the second Beast as opposed to the Gentile background of the First, and Alexander fits that even though he was considered an Apostate.  He had formerly been a Governor of Judea but was Prefect of Egypt when this War started and was vital to Vespasian becoming Emperor due to the control that position gave him over the Empire’s Food Supply.  And he was involved in that Ceremonial Deification of Vespasian as Pharaoh as well which did include performing False Miracles.

When the Image of The Beast is introduced in verse 14 many translations wrongly say the Image was “made”, but the Greek doesn’t use a word for "create" here, it should read that they "Set Up the Image", meaning the Image could be something that already existed.

In Genesis 5:3 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam as his son.  Multiple New Testament passages further connect Jesus as the Image of God to Him being The Son of God, like Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15.  So there is Biblical Precedent for a person’s Image being their Son.

The Image of The Beast in this model would be Titus the Son of Vespasian who had the same full name and was also elevated by Tiberius Julius Alexander who joined him in the Conquest of Judea where he was proclaimed Imperator after destroying Jerusalem.

I've already proven that 666 cannot be Nero.

That leads us to the matter of Jerusalem as Babylon.  The arguments for it are well known but in the past my issue with holding that view at the same time as The Beast being Rome was that I misunderstood Revelation 17 as implying Babylon held power over The Beast, but I now know the text doesn’t describe her as Riding the Beast.  Berenice in her affair with Titus seems frankly like a good personification of the Harlot.  The word “kill” isn’t actually used in Revelation 17 or 18 (and with Jezebel in chapter 2 only her children are killed), the City is destroyed by the people represented by The Harlot still live on to, in my view, eventually become the Bride of chapter 19 and Lamb’s Wife of Chapter 21.

Revelation 17 also strictly speaking says the Ten Horns hate Babylon and destroy her with fire not the Beast himself.  This could be relevant to how Vespasian was in Rome when the final Siege happened but also Titus himself did not want to Destroy the Temple, his troops and allies got out of control.   Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter 1 Section 2 says it was the Tenth Legion Titus left to guard Jerusalem. Then section 3 describes Titus giving Crowns to those who performed great exploits in The War.   

The Tenth Legion plays an important role throughout the War actually being for a time stationed on the Mount of Olives probably close to where either the modern Church of All Nations or Dominus Flevit is and then were vital to the conquest of Masada..  This Legio X Fretensis remained stationed in Jerusalem till it again played a vital role in putting down the Bar Kochba Revolt and seems to have still been based in Jerusalem (now officially named Aelia Capitolina) till Diocletian moved them to Aqaba.  This Legion's symbols included a Bull and a Boar the former of which is definitively a horned animal and the latter is sometimes considered one too.  For some of this war the commander of the Tenth Legion was Trajan the father of the future Roman Emperor of the same name. 

The Tenth and Fifth Legion which both used a Bull as one of their symbols were previously in Alexandria and so came to Judea by Sea entering the province via Caesarea Marittima. However Legio XV Apoolinari was already in Asia and came by land, it's symbols were likely symbols of Apollo which could have included Apollo Karneia which is Apollo with two Ram Horns. Titus was the commander of Legio XV till his Father became Emperor.

Another take on the Ten Horns could be that the height of the War involved 6 Roman Legions, XII, V, X, XV, III Cyrenaica and XII both of the last tow being Alexandria based, plus 4 armies from allied Client Kings, Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene, Sohaemus of Emesa, Herod Agrippa II and Malichus of Nabataea.  Thus arguably ten armies. 

The place called Armageddon in Revelation 16 is probably the Jezreel Valley twice called the Valley of Megiddo.  It is not in Revelation the site of a Battle but a gathering place of armies and so would most likely refer to the role of Scythiololis (Beth-Shean in The Hebrew Bible) in Titus's Campaign.  

The Great City being divided into thirds could be an allusion to how according to Josephus Jerusalem became divided between the three "Tyrants".

I have also considered that because of how the word “Wilderness” is used in Revelation this final destruction of Babylon refers to the fall of Masada.  Which was also carried out by the Tenth Legion. 

The main issue is that I can't figure out how to make Vespasian or this False Prophet candidate fit my Baptism of The Beast premise, we are still far from Rome's Christianization.

Update August 28th 2025: But I've been thinking about it and since The Beast is a collective symbol first and an individual only secondarily it may not require Vespasian or Titus themselves ever converting to Christianity but perhaps be fulfilled by the evidence that members of their family did later, Titus Flavius Clemens Consuls AD 95 and Flavia Domitilla.  Some have even argued for Clemens being the same person as the Clement who is considered an early Bishop of Rome and Author of First Clement. 

We indeed don't know anything about the life of Tiberius Julius Alexander after AD 70, so he could have become a Christian and maybe even be the same as the Alexander who was Bishop of Rome in the early 2nd Century, he's have to live to be about 100 for that to work but it's not impossible.

Update February 2026: The Baptism in The Lake of Fire of the Beast is a process rather then a single event, processes that started in the first century and still aren't complete.

What The beast from The Sea represents as a Collective is the least disputed, it's Rome.  The Beast from The Earth could represent the people of the Land of Israel or the near east more Broadly.

A Third Jewish Temple was built in the 7th Century

 I'm Copy/Pasting below something I wrote back when I was still a Futurist, but it has obvious potential relevance to the new kind of Partial Preterism I've been developing on This Blog.

__________________________________________________________________

I have been looking into theories about reconstructing the history of the 7th Century and the origins of Islam.  I however do believe the traditional Biography of Muhammad is fairly grounded in real history, unlike Jay Smith.

And the thesis I shall provide here doesn't even matter much to if the early Arab Empire was already distinctly "Muslim" or not, my theories on that I get into elsewhere.  This is just specifically about what they did on The Temple Mount.

The current Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were both originally built by Abd al-Malik the third Umayyad Caliph between 690 and 705 AD, that's pretty indisputably agreed on by everyone.  The question of whether or not the Arabs built some kind of earlier Mosque on the Temple Mount is difficult to answer since everything written on the subject from the Muslim POV is centuries later, including that account of Umar and Sophronius which many Gihon Spring Temple location supporters misunderstand.

There are however some contemporary 7th Century Christian sources, and one Jewish source.  Here is a link quoting a number of them gathered together by Hoyland in 1997.

 https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

There are Four primarily I want to quote, but first let me provide some context.

Byzantine Christians of Late Antiquity, and probably all the other mainstream types of Christians who existed at that time, on the subject of the possibly of a Third Jewish Temple being built had the exact opposite opinion of modern Dispensationalist Evangelicals.  They not only weren't expecting it but they believed God would never allow it.  So if they saw it happening they would have to either deny it, or interpret it as inherently negative.  Like how today many Anti-Semitic Post Tribbers pretty much believe the Third Temple itself will be the Abomination of Desolation.

Meanwhile I have on my other Blog documented that the Quran is actually a Zionist book, it affirms Israel's right to the Promised Land and expects their return.  The parts that seem Anti-Semitic exist in the context of the Arabs' conflict with Jews living in Arabia.  I believe Muhammad probably never intended his united Arab state to expand west of the Jordan River (or East/North of the Euphrates for that matter).  None the less when Umar did conquer Judea, even under the most traditional view of what happened he allowed The Jews to live in Jerusalem again after 500 years of Rome (both Pagan and Christian) banning them from the city.

Also on the use of the word "Mosque" in these passages, if that even is an accurate translation.  It should be remembered that in the Quran itself the word Mosque does not mean the specific type of Muslim worship building we're used to today, but rather just means a Sacred site.  The most popular interpretation of the Night Journey Sura is that the "Farthest Mosque" is the site of the Temple in Jerusalem even though no building of any kind stood there at the time.

So let's start with the witness of Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem who died in 638 AD.

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

I notice how hostile the Christians are to their Arab conquerors seems to depend on their sect of Christianity, the "Nestorians" like Ishoyahb and John bar Pankaye got along with them just fine.  At any rate this reference doesn't tell us much about what's being built, but by "the Capitol" he almsot certainly means the City's highest peak, The Temple Mount, after all Hadrian's Temple bult there was called the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

The second reference shall be the Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from about 644 AD.

The Persians . . . will go down to Egypt and much killing will accompany them. They shall seize the wealth of the Egyptians and sell their children for gold, so harsh is the persecution and oppression of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians, for they will take the church vessels and drink wine from them before the altar without fear or anxiety. They will rape the women before their husbands. There shall be great distress and anguish, and of those that survive a third will die of grief and misery.

Then after a while the Persians will depart from Egypt and there shall arise the Deceiver, who will enter upon the king of the Romans and will be entrusted by him with headship of both the military commanders and the bishops. He shall enter Egypt and undertake many tasks; he shall take possession of Egypt and its provinces, and build ditches and forts, and order that the walls of the towns in the deserts and wastelands be [re-]built. He shall destroy the East and the West, then he shall combat the pastor, the archbishop in Alexandria entrusted with the Christians resident in the land of Egypt. They will expel him and he will flee southwards until he arrives, sad and dispirited, at your monastery. And when he comes here, I shall return him and place him on his seat once more.

After that shall arise the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau, who hound the Christians, and the rest of them will be concerned to prevail over and rule all the world and to [re-]build the Temple that is in Jerusalem. When that happens, know that the end of times approaches and is near. The Jews will expect the Deceiver and will be ahead of the [other] peoples when he comes. When you see the [abomination of] desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke standing in the holy place, [know that] they are those who deny the pains which I received upon the cross and who move freely about my church, fearing nothing at all. (Ps.-Shenute, Vision, 340-41 [pp. 280-281])

Since the King of the Romans here is certainly Heraclius, my first instinct was that the "Deceiver" being referred to was Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople being condemned for the Monothelite controversy, but the Coptic perspective made me doubt that.  Since the author would have considered Benjamin I the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria this Deceiver could fit Cyrus of Alexandria who was indeed given both Ecclesiastical and Military authority in Egypt.  John of Niku was another Egyptian of the period who tied his hostility towards Cyrus into how he talked about the Arab conquest.

The last detail of that account could sound like it's saying the Arabs of this time already said Jesus didn't die on The Cross.  But in the context of how Divine Impassability was what largely drove Nestorius to develop his view of the Incarnation, this could make sense to me as a criticism of Nestorianism.  Just as Ishoyahb III saying "those who say that God, Lord of all, suffered and died" is a Nestorian criticism of Cyrilian Christianity and not opposition to the doctrine of the Crucifixion or Incarnation.  

Arculf a pilgrim from the 670s.

In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This house can, as it is said, accomodate at least 3000 people. (Adomnan, De locis sanctis 1.1.14.186 [p. 221])

However the most crucial witness to my theory is the Jewish one, Simon bar Yohai in the 680s.

The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque (hishtahawaya) there on the Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock." (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 79 [p. 311])

Not only did some Christians see this as a rebuilding of the Temple from a hostile POV, but Jews also celebrated it as a rebuilding of The Temple.  Meanwhile the Rectangular shape shows this was being built more like Solomon's Temple then like the Octagonal Dome we see there now.

This witness has actually effected my opinion on the Dome of the Rock being the Temple Site.  Having a Jewish pre Dome of the Rock witness to The Temple being on a Rock really lessens how unlikely I found that possibility previously.

Still technically it is the Al Aqsa Mosque that is in it's name claiming to be the "Farthest Mosque" of the Night Journey.  And the Crusaders called that Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of the Rock the Temple of The Lord.

However archeologically we know that where the Al Aqsa Mosque is was Herod's southern expansion of The Temple complex, the Royal Stoa, so the least likely place on the Mount for the The Temple itself to have been.

When was Jesus's Not One Stone Prophecy fully fulfilled?

You might think the answer to that is obvious and well known, but you'd be surprised.  First I'm going to quote the account of the Prophecy from Mark 13:1-2 since I think it's the most complete account of exactly what Jesus in this case.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down".

Notice that it isn't JUST about The Temple, it's about all the buildings, plural.  

While Matthew and Luke's account of this in their main Olivet Discourse chapters downplay the inclusion of other buildings, Luke 19:44 also refers to not one stone being left, with The Temple not even being the focus, that Prophecy is about the entirety of Jerusalem.

The 9th of Av in AD 70 (presumed to be August 4th on the Roman Calendar) as recorded in Josephus Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapters 4-5 is the day The Temple was destroyed in the sense of not being able to be used as a Temple anymore.  Remember what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral a few years ago?  The worst case scenario people were fearing that day is basically what happened to The Temple on the 9th of Av.  The next day however as recorded by Josephus in Wars Book VI Chapter 6 there are clearly still standing ruins.  

The beginning of Book VII is when Titus demolishes even those ruins and thus this is where most Christians talking about AD 70 via Josephus (both Preterists and Futurists) say the Not One Stone Prophecy was fulfilled.  Except Josephus tells us there were three towers that Titus left standing, in my view as long as those three towers were still standing this Prophecy of Jesus was incomplete.

In AD 131 Emperor Hadrian while visiting Jerusalem after ending his extended stay in Egypt announced his plans to rebuild Jerusalem as a Greco-Roman City with a Temple to Zeus being built over the former site of The Temple.  I think the early stages of that project is when even those three remaining towers were torn down.  

Then after Hadrian left the Near East for Asia Minor in 132 the Bar Kokchba Revolt broke out.  That probably stalled the reconstruction project even though the Rebels never held Jerusalem during that war.  Then after the revolt was put down in 135 the project restarted.

Thousand Years as a Day

The hyper literal face value understanding of the "surely I come quickly" verses that Full Preterism is built on is naturally incompatible with taking the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 at equally face value.  If EVEYTHING in the book must surely happen quickly, then clearly two of those events can't be separated by a full Millennium.

I specify Full Preterist here because Partial Preterist and Amillenialists/Postmillenialists tend to make the Thousand years longer not shorter.  I have become a believer in those as a opposed to the Futurist Pre-Millennial I was when I wrote the first version of this on a different Blog..

The problem with the Full Preterist understanding of the Millennium is that even a not exactly literal use of "Thousand years" is still clearly meant to imply a long time, it's meant to imply we shouldn't expect it to end within a mortal lifetime.  

So Full Preterists cling to the "Thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years" verses.  When you engage in very unscholarly proof texting yeah those seem like they give you the excuse they need to make a Thousand utterly meaningless.  

But when you read them in context, when you read the entirety of Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, the point being made, the Impression being given, is clearly all about how what can seem like endless ages to humans is nothing to God.  They are clearly conveying the opposite of what Full Preterists want, they give us every reason not to take "surely I come quickly" at face value and no reason to think a promised Earthly Millennium will end in a day.

2 Peter 3 is especially clear on this, because earlier that chapter is foretelling how people in the future will lose faith in the promised Coming because the "fathers fell asleep" and nothing has changed.  The whole point of the passage is specifically that Jesus did not "surely come quickly" by a mortal understanding of time, but we should none the less have faith that God is not slacking off but delaying only to give the heathens more time to repent.

1 Peter may have been written before 70 AD, but 2 Peter certainly came after, Peter never went to Rome and the Neronian persecution didn't happen.

Even without this understanding of the "Thousand Years as a Day" verses, Greek scholars understand that this kind of language used in Revelation 22 was often used euphemistically to mean "certainly will come to pass" and are not inherently meant to be literally taken as timing statements.  Hebrews 10:36-37 is similar, on the one hand it seems to say "soon" but also says "awhile" and tells us to be patient.

Honestly part of the problem with preterist interpretations of passages like Hebrew 10:36-37 is modern individualism which runs contrary the the more collectivist thinking of all first century people Pagan, Jewish and Christian.  They are speaking as if the audience reading this will be there when it happens because they are speaking to the Church and/or Israel (depending on how you prefer to look at it) as a collective not the specific individuals who were the very first to ever read it.

The "this Generation" statement of Matthew 24 exists in the context of what Jesus said before, "this" is grammatically applied to the generation that sees the signs.  Now understand that I am not a conventional Futurist, I have my doubts "this Generation" began when most Dispensationalists currently think it did.  

And it doesn't matter how many other times "this generation" means the people listening to Jesus right now, "this generation" is a phrase that doesn't automatically always mean the same generation every time it appears, the context of where it's said determines it.

And the "there be some standing here" verses always directly proceeds the Transfiguration for a reason.  The "Son of man coming in his kingdom" wording of Mathew 16:28 is in fact peculiar and in my opinion should not be interpreted as specifically about the Parousia, not even just because that word itself isn't used in the Greek, it's about Him glorified having the qualities of the Kingdom.  But if you aren't satisfied by it being fulfilled just by the Transfiguration then it could also apply to just seeing the risen Jesus which all but one of the 12 got to.

Also "some" is a misleading translation, the YLT says "certain" instead and other versions don't feature an equivalent word there at all which actually does better match the Greek.  So no the text of this verse does not imply inherently a minority of the audience being referred to.