What is going on in Revelation 11:8? Lord crucified in Egypt

[Peter Kirby]

In Revelation the author always means Babylon when he says Babylon. Rome is of no particular interest to the author; Rome being only one of the many kingdoms corrupted by "the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth.”

Impossible and completely alien to any remotely accurate understanding of the historical situation, political and social and economic and religious, that is in evidence regarding the first century.

[Peter Kirby]

Since at least 1600 years ago, a Christian writer admitted

Once again, balderdash! A third century Christian writer evinces Christian views in the third century. He cannot "admit" anything regarding a text written in the first century because he has no direct access to knowledge regarding this text any more than we do when reading it today.

[beowulf]

In Revelation the author always means Babylon when he says Babylon. Rome is of no particular interest to the author; Rome being only one of the many kingdoms corrupted by "the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth.”

Impossible and completely alien to any remotely accurate understanding of the historical situation, political and social and economic and religious, that is in evidence regarding the first century.

It is a religious book.

[dewitness]

Since at least 1600 years ago, a Christian writer admitted

Once again, balderdash! A third century Christian writer evinces Christian views in the third century. He cannot "admit" anything regarding a text written in the first century because he has no direct access to knowledge regarding this text any more than we do when reading it today.

Your post is just laughable. It does not make much sense and is not logical. You don't even know who wrote Revelation, when Revelation was composed and it is original contents.

Why can't Victorinus argue that Rev. 11.8 refers to Jerusalem in the 3rd century but Peter Kirby can argue it refers to Rome in 2013?

You yourself use writings of unknown aurhorship, unknown date of composition and uncertain contents like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and 1 Peter.

If writings attributed to Victorinus cannot admit anything then 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch of unknown authorship, date of authorship and uncertain contents cannot be used to argue that Rome is referred to as Babylon.

You use apocrypha, essentially known forgeries, to argue that Rome is equated to Babylon.

Examine an excerpt from your own post.

The Epistle to the Romans is extraordinarily in favor of civil authority (Romans 13), compared to Revelation, and does not depict a situation of persecution, as 1 Peter and Revelation do. The same post-70 AD outlook that equates Rome with Babylon led to the same device found in non-Christian Jewish literature, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, which also refer to Rome as Babylon.

Tell me who really wrote 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, when they were composed and the original contents?

Now, why must I even read what you write in 2013 about Revelation 11.8 when you don't want to accept what Victorinus wrote 1600 years ago about the same passage.

Around the end of the 3rd Victorinus, a Christian writer, claimed Revelation 11.8 refers to Jerusalem.

At the end of 2013 you have no direct access to Revelation of the 1st century and is arguing that Revelation 11.8 refers to Rome.

At the end of 2013 you have no direct access to 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 1 Peter, Romans and Revelations of the 1st century.

You really do not know what texts Vitorinus had access to in the 3rd century!!

It is most logical and reasonable that the statements of Christian writers in antiquity about Revelation 11.8 is extremely important

[Peter Kirby]

what you write in 2013 ... what Victorinus wrote 1600 years ago

The author is not important; the argument is.

the statements of Christian writers in antiquity ... is extremely important

The blithering, blathering, and blustering you make out of selective patristic citation is most laughable.

It is a religious book.

Said as if this were an invitation to egregious misuse of evidence when reading it.

[dewitness]

what you write in 2013 ... what Victorinus wrote 1600 years ago

The author is not important; the argument is.

Please, you are only compounding your errors.
Of course the author is extremely important .
It is very important to know If a writing is a forgery since it may not have been known in the time period in question.

Now it is also important to note that Victorinus directly argued that Rev.11.8 refers to Jerusalem.

Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse 11

o8. “And their dead bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.” But He calls Jerusalem Sodom and Egypt, since it had become the heaping up of the persecuting people.

The authors of 1 Peter, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and the Pauline Corpus never even argued that Rev.11.8 refers to Rome.

You have relied on forgeries or falslely attributed writings in which there is no argument about Rev.11.8.

the statements of Christian writers in antiquity ... is extremely important

The blithering, blathering, and blustering you make out of selective patristic citation is most laughable.

Again, you selected 1 Peter, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which are of unknown authorship, unknown date of authorship and questionable contents in which there is no argument about Rev. 11.8. Plus, you have no direct access to any 1st century texts for Revelation.

[beowulf]

The Book of Revelation is a religious book exclusively dealing with religious matters.

The Immaculate Bride of Christ led by the infallible Vicar of Christ on earth has mercifully recorded and preserved the eternal truth of God’s revelation and it is now available to us all.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, Second Catholic Edition RSV.Ignatius Press San Francisco 2001
Revelation 11.8

Note 11.8 The Great City. The city of Jerusalem which crucified the Lord Jesus and took the lives of numerous early Christians.(Acts 5.28-30; 7.58-60; 12.2; 26.10)

These are the referenced passages of Acts : not only was Jesus killed by the city of Jerusalem but Jerusalem also martyred the Catholic saints and persecuted the Church.

Acts 5
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, 28saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,* yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.’ 29But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority.* 30The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Acts 7
56‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ 57But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. 58Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ 60Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he died

Acts 12
About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. 2He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. 3After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. (This was during the festival of Unleavened Bread.) 4When he had seized him, he put him in prison and handed him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. 5While Peter was kept in prison, the church prayed fervently to God for him.

Acts 26
9 ‘Indeed, I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth.* 10And that is what I did in Jerusalem; with authority received from the chief priests, I not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being condemned to death. 11By punishing them often in all the synagogues I tried to force them to blaspheme; and since I was so furiously enraged at them, I pursued them even to foreign cities.

[Blood]

The main thing I'm looking for is when this supposed Babylon=Rome code became explicitly mentioned. If such a secret code was in effect in the first century or thereabouts, it is a reasonable expectation that a church father would have noted it in one of his commentaries from 150-400. But I suspect that this is a modern interpretation.

[Blood]

No, I'm thinking that the site of the former ziggurat, which is now a depression, was once a hill.

Completely irrelevant. The ancient audience had access neither to your speculation about this site nor to the catalogue of archaeological mounds in a British encyclopedia. More to the point, as Bernard illustrates, the legend of the 7 hills adhered to Rome. This is only one of several pieces of data in the text for making an identification, but what you really need to satisfy the data most fully is evident ancient tradition regarding a city, not modern views even if those modern views are based on archaeological surveys. The audience need not ever set foot in Rome to be aware of the founding myth of the city with its seven hills.

It's quite possible that the ancient audience had no idea that "Babylon" was a secret code for Rome, either; should we simply dismiss that possibility because of this?

[Blood]

I've been skimming RH Charles's Revelation commentary from 1920, which was a big influence on all later Rev commentaries. This completely advocates the position that Revelation is entirely an anti-Roman text and that Babylon in the text is secret code for Rome. As evidence for this, Charles says, "That Babylon was already a synonym for Rome in the first century AD is clear from 2 Baruch 11:1; Sibylline Oracles Book 5, lines 143 and 159; and 1 Peter 5:13 (?)."

2 Baruch cannot be dated to the first century, but even if it were, it's obvious from the context that Babylon in Chapter 11 refers to Babylon, not secret code for Rome. The author is pretending he's Baruch writing during the Babylonian exile in the 6th Century BCE.

The Sibylline Oracles cannot be dated with much precision, but it isn't "clear" that in Book 5 "Babylon" means Rome, or why the writer would need to resort to such a secret code. It's possible, but Book 5 has oracles pertaining to many ancient empires like Egypt, Assyria, etc. Babylon in Line 434 refers to the historical Babylon "by Euphrates' streams."

1 Peter 5:13 says: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." Exactly what reason would the author have for not writing "Rome" here?

So from this, the flimsiest of speculations, Charles has imagined that he has all the supporting evidence he needs for his statement that "Babylon was already a synonym for Rome in the first century AD."