Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city--which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt--where also their Lord was crucified.
That crucifixion in Egypt is considered a Christian interpolation. Even so, what was the reason for the interpolator add a reference to crucifixion just where 'Egypt' is mentioned?
The reason is soundly philosophical and derives from Philo:
for it follows of necessity, that the body must be thought akin to the souls that love the body, and that external good things must be exceedingly admired by them, and all the souls which have this kind of disposition depend on dead things, and, like persons who are crucified, are attached to corruptible matter till the day of their death. But the soul that is united to virtue has for its inhabitants those persons who are preeminent for virtue, persons whom the double cavern has received in pairs, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebeckah, Leah and Jacob, virtues and those who possess them; Chebron itself keeping the treasure-house of the memorials of knowledge and wisdom, which is more ancient than Janis and the whole land of Egypt, for nature has made the soul more ancient than the body, that is than Egypt, and virtue more ancient than vice, that is than Janis (and the name Janis, being interpreted, means the command of answer), estimating seniority rather by dignity than by length of time
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... book8.html
Philo is identifying the strict connection between body (impure) and soul (pure) as cause of contamination and pollution of the latter by the former. The symbol of all this is a crucifixion.
In addition, in this connection, the 'body' is called figuratively 'Egypt'.
Hence, the soul is «crucified», in 'Egypt'.
It is too much impossible to be a coincidence, therefore it is NOT a coincidence. The Revelation was christianized by adding not only the incipit and the endings, but also the interpolation in 11:8.
This idea is someway related with the Gnostic view of the Logos or Primal Man, who had descended to lower heavens, being "crucified" in so doing, and had risen to lift men to eternal life. The Cross, to Gnostics, meant the boundary (Limit or Horos) between the eternal and phenomenal: and in it the Son of God was fixed.
But there is a difference between the Philonic/Gnostic view of the crucifixion and the Pauline view of the crucifixion.
For Philo and the Gnostics, the crucifixion allegorizes the act of the descending of a higher being to inferior matter/body. A Limit in outer space had to be crossed by the Son to make this descending happen.
But for Paul, the crucifixion allegorizes the act of the ascending of a higher being from inferior matter/body. A bloody sacrifice had to happen to make this ascending happen.
But is it a real difference? After all, they are saying the same thing:
By being "crucified" in the body, the soul is shown in this inferior world. Idem, the Primal Man, by crossing the Limit in outer space, is revealed in this world. Who sees, as outcome, the revealed thing, is the lower world.
By being crucified on a cross, Jesus is shown to upper world. Because God himself sees, as outcome, that the his Son has fulfilled the his will and hence he confers him the Name.