Giancarlo Biguzzi, «Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem?», Vol. 87 (2006) 371-386
The Babylon of Revelation 17–18 has been interpreted as imperial Rome since
antiquity, but some twenty interpreters have rejected such a solution in recent
centuries and have held that Babylon instead should be Jerusalem. This is not a
minor question since it changes the interpretation of the whole book, because Rev
would become all of a sudden an anti-Jewish libel, after having been an anti-
Roman one. This article discusses the pros and cons of the two interpretations and
concludes that the traditional one matches both the details and the plot of the book
much more than any other.
374 G. Biguzzi
According to Victorinus, then, Rev is written against the Rome of
the seven hills, the seven emperors, and the Nero redivivus and redux.
For Victorinus, who died as a martyr in the persecution of Diocletian
(†304) (10), Rev’s Babylon was the Rome which persecuted the
Christians.
After Victorinus, the anti-Roman interpretation is documented
both in the East (11), and in the West (12). It was, however, little by little,
substituted by the moralistic, ahistorical interpretation spread by
Tychonius and Augustine (see above interpretation of “Babylon†n. 2),
that largely inspired the reading of Rev until Joachim of Fiore (â€
1202). The Calabrian abbot saw in Rev the chronological prophecy of
the various epochs of the Church and such kirchengeschichtlich
interpretation was used and abused in the epoch of the confessional
controversies, as is well known (13). The number of the Beast was
(10) This is the traditional date of the death of Victorinus but according to M.
Dulaey (Victorin de Poetovio. Sur l’Apocalypse [SC 423; Paris 1997] 15-16), his
commentary on Revelation seems to have been written around 258-260 A.D.,
under Gallienus, such that his martyrdom may be related to some persecution of
M. Aurelius Numerianus, associate emperor in the years 283-284 a. C., and
predecessor of Diocletian. The hypothesis was accepted for example by R.
GRYSON, “Les commentaires patristiques latins de l’Apocalypseâ€, RTLouv 28
(1997) 485.
(11) Cf. the authors hinted at by Andrew bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia
(VI-VII century, PG 106, 373.D), who writes: “Hanc meretricem quidam veterem
Romam (eij" palaia;n Rwvmhn) designare putant, utquae super septem colles
exaedificata tradaturâ€.
(12) Cf. the authors hinted at by Cassiodorus of Vivarium (†580 circa; PL 70,
1414.A). Cassiodorius writes: “… meretrix illa (…), quam nonnulli de Romana
volunt intelligere civitate quae supra septem montes sedet, et mundum singulari
dicione possidet…†(PL 70, 1414.A). The anti-Roman interpretation is also found
for example in Primasius of Hadrumetum (scripsit around 540): “Romam quae
super septem montes praesidet significans…†(PL 68, 899.C.), in Berengaudus
(IX or better XII century): “… fornicariam Romam vocat†(PL 17, 1.000.D), and
in the poet Commodianus (of a difficult dating between III century and V
century): “Ex infero redit, qui fuerat regno praeceptus / Et diu servatus cum
pristino corpore notus. / Dicimus hunc autem Neronem esse uetustum / Qui
Petrum et Paulum prius puniuit in urbem. / … Urbis perditio Nero est, hic terrae
totius…†(Carmen 825-828. 935; PL Suppl. I, 95. 98; CCL 128, 103. 107); “Cum
fuerit autem Nero de inferno leuatus / … Tunc Babillon meretrix erit incinefacta
fauilla†(Instructiones 41, 6.11; PL 5, 231; CCL 128, 33-34).
(13) About this way of interpretation cf. the severe judgment of E.-B. ALLO,
Saint Jean. L’Apocalypse (Paris 1921) CCXXXII: “De tous les systèmes
exégétiques, c’est celui dont nous parlons qui méconnaît au plus haut degré le but
et l’esprit de saint Jeanâ€.