G. 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.
«The Chaos of Rev 22,6-21 and Prophecy in Asia» 2002 193-210
Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem?
The interpretation of the Babylon spoken of in Rev 16–18 conditions
the reading of the whole book of Revelation itself, since Babylon,
along with the Beast rising from the sea, is the target of John’s attacks.
The interpretations given so far through the centuries are reducible to
five:
(1) Babylon is the historical city situated on the river Euphrates in
Mesopotamia (1),
(2) Babylon is the civitas diaboli of every epoch of human
history (2),
(3) Babylon is the city of the Antichrist in the eschatological
crisis (3),
(*) Paper read at the 8-12 July 2001 International Meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature at the Pontifical Gregorian University — Pontifical Biblical
Institute, Rome, Italy.
(1) K.M. ALLEN, “The Rebuilding and Destruction of Babylon”, BibSac 133
(1976) 19-20: “The city of Babylon will be rebuilt, will become one of the centers
of operation of the coming Antichrist, and will be destroyed during the day of the
Lord (…). This doctrine honors the literal method of interpretation (…) against
(…) the non-literal method of interpretation”; C.H. DYER, “The Identity of
Babylon in Revelation 17-18”, BibSac 144 (1987) 449: “The identity of Babylon
in Revelation 17–18 is the future rebuilt city of Babylon on the Euphrates. It will
once again be restored and will achieve a place of worldwide influence only to be
destroyed by the Antichrist in his thirst for power”.
(2) Tychonius and Augustine of Hippo spread this interpretation in antiquity.
For modern times cf. M. RISSI, Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der
Heiligen. Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln
1995) 58: “[Babylon is] die weltumfassende Gemeinde der Verführten und
Verführer, das Kontrastbild zur Gemeinde der Heiligen, des Neuen Jerusalem”;
G.K. BEALE, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) 885-886:
“‘Babylon the Great’ is the entire corrupt economic-religious system (…).
Though most past commentators have tended to identify Babylon solely with
ungodly Roman culture, or the apostate church, or apostate Israel, it is better to
see these identifications as not mutually exclusive”.
(3) Th. ZAHN, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Leipzig – Erlangen 1926) II,
450: “… die aus dem Meer aufsteigende erste Bestie der Antichrist der Endzeit
ist”; J. SICKENBERGER, “Die Johannesapokalypse und Rom”, BibZeit 17 (1925-
1926) 280: “Die Hauptfeindin Israels, das alte Babylon, lebt in den Hauptstädten
der folgenden gottfeindlichen Reiche weiter und kommt am Ende der Zeiten zu
besonderer Blüte”; E. LOHMEYER, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Tübingen
RSS