378 G. Biguzzi Finally, the major argument against the anti-Roman interpretation is the one taken from Rev 11: (9) Rev 11 speaks of “the Great City” (v. 8), exactly as Rev 17-18 does for Babylon. But the Great City in Rev 11 is without any doubt Jerusalem, since it is also called “the holy city” (v. 2), since its sanctuary (oJ naov") and “courtyard of the Gentiles” (hJ aujlh; hJ e[xwqen) are mentioned (vv. 1-2), and since in that Great City “their Lord was crucified”. As an inevitable consequence, Babylon/“the Great City” is the same as Jerusalem/“the Great City” (28). b) Various configurations of the anti-Jerusalem hypothesis Limiting the review of supporters of this interpretation to the last few decades, one may start with Josephine Massyngberde Ford (1975)(29). (28) MASSYNGBERDE FORD, Revelation, 180, 286: “The great city in v. 8 cannot be other than Jerusalem”, “The phrase ‘The great city’ first found in 11,8 appears to refer to Jerusalem, not Rome, and one would expect the same identity when the phrase recurs in Rev. 18,16”; BEAGLEY, The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse, 28, 93: “… no room for doubt that [in Rev 11,8] the author has in mind the city of Jerusalem”, “11,8 (…) must refer to Jerusalem”). (29) MASSYNGBERDE FORD, Revelation, 286-289; 227-230. — To be mentioned the former contributions of Ph. Carrington (The Meaning of Revelation [London 1931]: not Rome, but Jerusalem had persecuted the prophets), W.R. Beeson (The Revelation [Little Rock 1956]: the Great Harlot is Jerusalem and with her the dissident Jews), N. Turner (Revelation [Peake’s Commentary on the Bible; London – New York 1962]: Rev is directed against Judaism which attempted to hinder the expansion of Christianity), F.E. Wallace (The Book of Revelation [Nashville 1966]: the Harlot may be the unfaithful Jerusalem, but not Rome which was not the bride of God), P.S. Minear (I Saw a New Earth [Washington 1969]: interpreting Babylon as Rome is “literalism and historicism of the worst sort”, and a “vast distortion and reduction of meaning”). — The most influential author of the past, however, was J. Stuart Russell, who devoted thirty pages (482-504; 563-569) to the question in his The Parousia. The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999; originally published in London by T. Fisher Unwin, 1887). Josephine Massyngberde Ford herself drew from Russell at least three proofs: (i) Since “the Great City” is Jerusalem in Rev 11,8, it must be the same in Rev 18; (ii) Rome could not be an “adulteress” since she was never the wife of the Lord through any marriage covenant; (iii) Jerusalem was the murderer of the prophets and saints, exactly according to Jesus’ words. — Later contributions are those of C. van der Waal (Neotestamentica [1978] 111-132); D.C. Chilton (Days of Vengeance [Fort Worth 1987] — quoted by G.K. Beale, 44-45); D. Holwerda (EstBíb [1995] 387- 396), and Deborah Furlan Taylor (Ph. D. delivered at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 2005).