380 G. Biguzzi kings are the Herodian dynasty, since the land spoken of in Rev is the “land of Israel” of the OT. The Beast from the land is the Jewish Diaspora, spread, in fact, over “the whole earth”, with its politically interpreted messianism. The Great Harlot, sitting on the Beast, is the Jewish high priesthood or Jerusalem itself, allied with the Herodian political power. According to de Water, Jerusalem shall be destroyed not by the Romans but by the Jews themselves, as Josephus says in his aversion for the Jewish pro-war party. Finally, de Water dates Rev to the years 44-48 A.D., i.e. the years when the first five Herodian kings were already “fallen” and the Romans administered directly Judaea through their procurators, before the seventh Herodian king, i.e. Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I, succeeded them in 48 A.D. The sixth Herod (the one “who is now”) is Herod of Chalcis, brother of Agrippa I, and king of the Chalcis from 41 A.D. to 48 (32). 3. The two interpretations discussed a) Evaluation of the anti-Jerusalem hypothesis Six major difficulties can be raised against the anti-Jewish interpretation of Babylon. (1) Persecution (33). — The Jewish persecution of Rev 2,9 is out of the question (not the same can be said of 3,9). Yet, one cannot attribute to the Jews the forced sojourn of John on Patmos (1,9)(34), the prison foreseen for some members of the Church of Smyrna (2,10), the death (32) R. de Water takes his interpretation from C.F.J. Züllig (Die Offenbarung Johannis erklärt [Stuttgart 1834]), of whom news is given by BOUSSET, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 104. The first five Herodian kings would be Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip the Tetrarch, and Herod Agrippa I. — About Herod, king of Chalcis by the will of the emperor Claudius, cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant. iud. 20, 10-15. (33) It should be remembered that “persecution” is a subjective concept: Repressive measures taken according to the law in force are felt as persecution under particular circumstances by those who are affected; yet authorities do not feel themselves persecutors when applying laws and sanctions. The same has to be said of people responsible for generalized hostility, such as that experienced by minorities; cf. G. BIGUZZI, “John on Patmos and the ‘Persecution’ in the Apocalypse”, EstBíb 56 (1998) 201-202, footnote 1. (34) Cf. D. SAFFREY, “Relire l’Apocalypse à Patmos”, RB 82 (1975) 385-417 (the measure against John was taken by municipal authorities, probably those of Miletus), and BIGUZZI, “John on Patmos”, 209-211 (the juridical position of John was probably that of a plavnh"-vagus, i.e. of one “without a country and law”, and not of a peregrinus, or, even less, of a Roman citizen, polivth"-cives).