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.
384 G. Biguzzi
(2) The two idolatries fit Rome and its empire more than
Jerusalem.
(3) The Babylon which corrupts the nations (Rev) fits Rome more
than the Jerusalem, which, instead, was corrupted by them (OT).
(4) As far as the dating of Rev is concerned, the anti-Roman
interpretation is altogether reconcilable with the post-70 dating, while
the anti-Jewish one meets insurmountable difficulties with it (44).
(5) Imprisonment at Smyrna, forced sojourn on Patmos, and death
penalty by sword or axe lead to the Imperial penal law, and exclude the
Jewish one.
The objections against the anti-Roman interpretation listed above
can be answered as follows (45):
(6) Even if the expression eJpta; o[rh is not found in Greek literature,
the singular o[ro" is repeatedly employed for one or other of the seven
Roman hills by Strabo (64 B.C. - 21 A.D.), Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(30 A.D. circa), and Dio Cassius (II-III century A.D.), while Plutarch
employs the term septomouvntion, tracing on the Latin septimontium,
the feast of the seven Roman “mountains†(not “hillsâ€)(46).
(44) As a confirmation cf. G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, The Book of Revelation
(Grand Rapids, MI – London 21987) 249, who writes: “After the terrible Jewish
war, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews would have looked for
just such a judgment of God on Rome as this chapter [i.e. Rev 17] delineatesâ€.
(45) Among the many authors who interpret the seven hills of Rev 17,9 as the
seven hills of Rome, one can mention B. REICKE, “Die jüdische Apokalyptik und
die johanneische Tiervisionâ€, RechSR 60 (1972) 174 (“unmissverständlichâ€); S.
GAROFALO, “‘Sette monti, su cui siede la donna’ (Apoc. 17,9)â€, Kirche und Bibel.
Festgabe E. Schick (Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich 1979) 97-104; K.
GENTRY, Before Jerusalem fell. Dating the Book of Revelation (San Francisco –
London – Bethesda 1997) 149, 150, 151 (“Rome is the one city in history that has
been distinguished for and universally recognizable by its seven hillsâ€,
“Everywhere throughout the empire Rome was known as the city on seven hills.
When John wrote Revelation there was no other city conceivable that was so
universally noted for its seven hillsâ€, “… there was no other city conceivable that
was so universally noted for its seven hillsâ€).
(46) Listing the seven hills in his historical-topographical treatise of Rome,
Strabo of Amaseia Pontica (64 B.C. – 21 A.D.) employs o[ro" for the Hills Caelian
and Aventine (5,3,7). Likewise the rhetorician and historian Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, active in Rome in the thirties of 1st century B.C., employs o[ro" for
the Palatinus and the Caelius (Antiq. Rom. 2,50,1), and Dio Cassius (II and III
century A.D.) uses o[ro" in Hist. Rom. 53,27,5 and 62,182,2 for the Palatinus, and
in 30,15; 44,25,3 for the Capitolinus. The term septomouvntion is found in
Plutarch, Aetia Romana et Graeca 280.C.10, and D.2. – On the contrary, the
adjective septicollis is found in Latin literature only in the work of the late