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

[dewitness]

I find that the claim that Revelation 11.8 refers to Rome does not make sense and is not logical.

1. In Revelation itself there is no character known as "their Lord" or "Our Lord" that was crucified in Rome.

2. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome there is no character in Revelation called "Their Lord" or "Our Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

3. In Revelation, the city of Jerusalem is mentioned many times Before Babylon and before Revelation 11.8

4. In Revelation, there is no city directly identified as Rome.

5. Even if it is presumed that Babylon is Rome, Babylon is first introduced in Revelation 14 well after Revelation 11.8.

6. In the NT Canon, a character called " Lord" was crucified in Jerusalem.

7. In the NT Canon, there is no character called "Lord" who was crucified in Rome.

8. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome, In the NT Canon there is no known character called "Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

9. In the Septuagint, Jerusalem is referred to as Sodom.

The interpretation by most that Revelation 11.8 refers to Jerusalem makes a lot of sense and is highly logical.

[Garon]

Rev 18:19 does not say that the great city was accessible by sea. It says that merchant seamen grew rich by her wealth.

Babylon also had seven hills.

17:18 And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.

18:16 “Alas, alas, for the great city
that was clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet,
bedecked with gold, with jewels, and with pearls!

18:19 And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, crying out,
“Alas, alas, for the great city
where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!

Babylon was built in a flat alluvial plain.
Only Rome fits the bill, with all the criteria, wealth, power, seven hills and making sea worthy ship owners rich (many ships from all over the Roman empire were transporting goods to Ostia and Portus, the harbors of Rome)
Next, a coin minted under Vespasian's reign showing goddess Roma seated on seven hills:

You can see full picture here: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
Cordially, Bernard

Why not Constantinople?

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/maps ... tntnpl.htm

[Garon]

I find that the claim that Revelation 11.8 refers to Rome does not make sense and is not logical.

1. In Revelation itself there is no character known as "their Lord" or "Our Lord" that was crucified in Rome.

2. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome there is no character in Revelation called "Their Lord" or "Our Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

3. In Revelation, the city of Jerusalem is mentioned many times Before Babylon and before Revelation 11.8

4. In Revelation, there is no city directly identified as Rome.

5. Even if it is presumed that Babylon is Rome, Babylon is first introduced in Revelation 14 well after Revelation 11.8.

6. In the NT Canon, a character called " Lord" was crucified in Jerusalem.

7. In the NT Canon, there is no character called "Lord" who was crucified in Rome.

8. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome, In the NT Canon there is no known character called "Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

9. In the Septuagint, Jerusalem is referred to as Sodom.

The interpretation by most that Revelation 11.8 refers to Jerusalem makes a lot of sense and is highly logical.

I agree, Jerusalem is Sodom and Egypt of Rev. 11:8,9. Sodom is symbolic of immorality and sexual abuse, Egypt represents oppression. The Jews hated both places.

[Blood]

"The present site [of Babylon], an extensive field of ruins, contains several prominent mounds. The main mounds are (1) Babil; (2) Qasr; (3) Amran ibn Ali, the ruins of Esaglia; (4) Merkez; (5) Humra; (6) Ishin Aswad. A depression called Sahn marks the former site of the ziggurat Etemenanki."

Henry WF Saggs, "Babylon," New Encyclopedia Britannica

The seven hills of Babylon.

Rev 18:19 does not say that the great city was accessible by sea. It says that merchant seamen grew rich by her wealth.

Babylon also had seven hills.

17:18 And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.

18:16 “Alas, alas, for the great city
that was clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet,
bedecked with gold, with jewels, and with pearls!

18:19 And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, crying out,
“Alas, alas, for the great city
where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!

Babylon was built in a flat alluvial plain.
Only Rome fits the bill, with all the criteria, wealth, power, seven hills and making sea worthy ship owners rich (many ships from all over the Roman empire were transporting goods to Ostia and Portus, the harbors of Rome)
Next, a coin minted under Vespasian's reign showing goddess Roma seated on seven hills:

You can see full picture here: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
Cordially, Bernard

[Blood]

I find that the claim that Revelation 11.8 refers to Rome does not make sense and is not logical.

1. In Revelation itself there is no character known as "their Lord" or "Our Lord" that was crucified in Rome.

2. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome there is no character in Revelation called "Their Lord" or "Our Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

3. In Revelation, the city of Jerusalem is mentioned many times Before Babylon and before Revelation 11.8

4. In Revelation, there is no city directly identified as Rome.

5. Even if it is presumed that Babylon is Rome, Babylon is first introduced in Revelation 14 well after Revelation 11.8.

6. In the NT Canon, a character called " Lord" was crucified in Jerusalem.

7. In the NT Canon, there is no character called "Lord" who was crucified in Rome.

8. Even if it is presumed that Babylon refers to Rome, In the NT Canon there is no known character called "Lord" who was crucified in Babylon.

9. In the Septuagint, Jerusalem is referred to as Sodom.

The interpretation by most that Revelation 11.8 refers to Jerusalem makes a lot of sense and is highly logical.

Besides, if the early Christians had to speak in code, why isn't "Epistle to the Romans" called "Epistle to the Babylonians"?

[Blood]

Making sense and being logical in a religious forum is a tall order!!

I am reading the Ignatius Catholic Annotated Bible New Testament and the note

17.8

seven hills ....some see a reference to Jerusalem, noting that it too was said to rest on seven hills...

Bullinger writes in his commentary to revelation:

The greater error has always been in making anything, rather than Israel, the pivot of the
prophecies: and reckoning the points of the compass from any centre except Jerusalem, or the place
where the Vision was seen, or the prophecy written.

Very interesting indeed!

[Peter Kirby]

Besides, if the early Christians had to speak in code, why isn't "Epistle to the Romans" called "Epistle to the Babylonians"?

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.

Rome as the great city Babylon mentioned in Revelation is the only hypothesis that explains all of the data in the text in a plausible manner, chiefly, (1) the description of the economic and political significance of the great city that rules over the world, (2) why the author has it out for the city, (3) the description of the 7 kings including the one who rules for a short time [Titus] and the one who was and will be the eighth [Nero], (4) indications of date of authorship during the exiles undertaken against some Jews in the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD) that bear against the pre-70 AD interpretation that is allied with understanding it as Jerusalem, (5) indications of provenance in the text that place the original Greek text in Roman Asia Minor for whom Babylon was just another dusty barbarian village, and (6) other minor details such as the cosmopolitan inhabitants there, the seven mountains, the fornication with client kingdoms, and the name "Babylon" itself represented as a "mystery" (not literally) that is to be understood as a reference to the one that sacked Jerusalem.

The ideas that it is Jerusalem or Babylon or Constantinople or what-have-you just don't stand up. There are a lot of hacks who want to put the entire New Testament before 70 AD for ideological reasons, for whom the text cannot mean what it does, but that's about it. (This is separate from the argument surrounding Rev. 11:8, where there may be real reason for legitimate disagreement. My own view appears to be original research, so far as I am aware, so I am not surprised if no scholars can be found to support it.)

[Blood]

Besides, if the early Christians had to speak in code, why isn't "Epistle to the Romans" called "Epistle to the Babylonians"?

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.

Rome as the great city Babylon mentioned in Revelation is the only hypothesis that explains all of the data in the text in a plausible manner, chiefly, (1) the description of the economic and political significance of the great city that rules over the world, (2) why the author has it out for the city, (3) the description of the 7 kings including the one who rules for a short time [Titus] and the one who was and will be the eighth [Nero], (4) indications of date of authorship during the exiles undertaken against some Jews in the reign of Domitian that bear against the pre-70 AD interpretation that is allied with understanding it as Jerusalem, (5) indications of provenance in the text that place the original Greek text in Roman Asia Minor for whom Babylon was just another dusty barbarian village, and (6) other minor details such as the cosmopolitan inhabitants there, the seven mountains, the fornication with client kingdoms, and the name "Babylon" itself represented as a "mystery" (not literally) that is to be understood as a reference to the one that sacked Jerusalem.

The ideas that it is Jerusalem or Babylon or Constantinople or what-have-you just don't stand up. There are a lot of hacks who want to put the entire New Testament before 70 AD for ideological reasons, for whom the text cannot mean what it does, but that's about it. (This is separate from the argument surrounding Rev. 11:8, where there may be real reason for legitimate disagreement. My own view appears to be original research, so far as I am aware, so I am not surprised if no scholars can be found to support it.)

All duly noted, as is your blog post I read this morning. The "Babylon=Rome" subject is something I'd like to pursue in a different thread.

[Peter Kirby]

(I wrote this before I saw your last post. Thank you for being open-minded about the identity of 'Babylon', and please do understand that my own view on Rev. 11:8 is so far a minority of one. Maybe Michael Turton was convinced, since he liked it on Facebook.)

Babylon was built in a flat alluvial plain.

"The present site [of Babylon], an extensive field of ruins, contains several prominent mounds. The main mounds are (1) Babil; (2) Qasr; (3) Amran ibn Ali, the ruins of Esaglia; (4) Merkez; (5) Humra; (6) Ishin Aswad. A depression called Sahn marks the former site of the ziggurat Etemenanki."

Henry WF Saggs, "Babylon," New Encyclopedia Britannica

The seven hills of Babylon.

Surely you mean 6 mounds, identified by a modern encyclopedia, along with a depression marking the former site of a ziggurat.

More to the point, as Bernard illustrates, the legend of the 7 hills adhered to Rome. The rhetorical context in which the author asks us to identify the city called "Babylon" as a "mystery" demands the correct interpretation when the question is placed in the text's own historical context. If there's one thing you can be sure about immediately, it's that the answer to this mystery is not Babylon.

[dewitness]

Since at least 1600 years ago, a Christian writer admitted that Revelation 11.8 refers to Jerusalem.

It is claimed Victorinus wrote A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John sometime in the 3rd century

Victorinus' Commentary of the Apocalypse

8. “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.

It would appear that Jerusalem wins.

There seems to have been no known tradition in the Jesus cult that Rev.11.8 refers to Rome or Babylon.