‘Babylon the Great’ – who was ‘she’, anyway?
 

by Otto Erlend Nordgreen © 2000

 

 

One of the many enigmas in the Book of Revelation (Rev) is the identity of “Babylon (the great)”, explicitly mentioned in Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17f. The purpose of this essay is to present the most important pieces of evidence for an identification of the ‘harlot’ city – within a ‘preterist framework – with the ancient City of Rome (rather than e.g. Jerusalem).

 

1  The Identity of ‘Babylon the Great’
At a fist glance it would seem that several of the designations related to “Babylon (the great)” (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17f.) in the Book of Revelation could be attributed to different entities (more or less) equally. Therefore, the identification of the ‘harlot’ has been notoriously difficult, and there seems to be almost as many suggestions to the right identification as there are readers.

There are, however, within the Apocalypse some general observations that might serve as an interpreter’s ‘imperative’:

First of all, in order to look for the true identity of “Babylon the great” we should look to the past. Obviously, “Babylon the great” was a reality when John conceived the Apocalypse. Second, according to Rev 17:18, “Babylon the great” was a “(great) city” – thus, it might seem natural to look for such a great city in the days of John. Based on what we know about the first Christian era, the rest of the Apocalypse, and the (Jewish-Christian) socio-religious ‘Sitz-im-Leben’ normally presupposed for the NT – within a ‘preterist perspective’ only two cities of the first Century can be relevant: Jerusalem or Rome.
 

I use the term ‘preterist’ in a fairly neutral, non-confessional manner for a certain mode of interpretation (‘preterism’) indicating that the historical (but not necessarily ‘supra-historical’) events are, from our perspective, already fulfilled and, therefore, part of the history (or, at least, were intended to be so by the author) – cf. Fiorenza (1985:37ff.) and Beale (1999:44ff.).

In order to decide between our two ‘candidates’ we have to consider the parts of the Apocalypse that seem to be most clear about the identity of “Babylon the great” – this would be Rev 17f. (in which the mystery of “Babylon” is explained by the angelus interpres). Now, from Rev 17f., it is possible to derive some pieces of evidence for an identification of “Babylon the great” with Rome which, in my opinion, seem rather conclusive. The most important arguments for the traditional interpretation might be outlined thus:

(1a) The name “Babylon (the great)” – besides the original Babylon, only the City of Rome was in Antiquity related to, or designated by, the (negative) name “Babylon”. Such a use of this name (as a cipher) would be likely for a Jewish-Christian author, not only after (viz. indicating Rome as a second ‘temple destroyer’ – recalling the destruction of Jerusalem by ancient Babylon in the year 587/86 BCE, cf. Rev 16:19) but also before the fall of Jerusalem (viz. indicating Rome as a pagan place of exile) – cf. Thiede (1986; 1995), Wilson (1994), and Beale (1999).

(1b) 1 Pet 5:13 is commonly taken as a (possible) NT evidence for “Babylon” as a reference to the City of Rome – cf. e.g. Edmundson (1913), Hunzinger (1965); Thiede (1986; 1995) Collins (1993); Bachmann (1995). Contra Russel (1997 [1887]) who argues that “Babylon” here designates Jerusalem.

(2) The imagery of Rev 17 seems to correspond to a (pagan) Roman symbolism, which John may have utilised for his own purpose, viz. using it against Rome. The Roman symbolism includes a woman (‘Dea Roma’, the City of Rome), a beast and seven mountains. Within such a symbolic framework, it would be difficult not to identify the seven mountains with the seven hills, on which Rome was situated – cf. Bergmeier (1988); Aune (1998).

(3) The Apocalypse is written, at least primarily, for seven congregations in Asia Minor, thus outside Palestine but within the Roman Empire. It would seem logical, then, that the oracle against “Babylon the great” would be understood as addressing the Roman Empire, its capital city, and the pagan religious life related to it.

(4) It is common, at least within a preterist framework, to understand the ‘(sea) beast’ of Rev 13 (and 17) as a reference to the Roman Empire. The seven heads are therefore oftentimes understood as seven emperors. One of these emperors is Nero (whose number is 666 [or, according to some manuscripts, 616]). Now, if we accept that (a) the beast is the Roman Empire and (b) the seven mountains are also seven emperors, I find it difficult to avoid thinking of the City of Rome when we read about the ‘harlot’.

(5) The Book of Revelation can be viewed as a kind of Jewish-Christian historiography (cf. D’Aragon 1968; Court 1979; Giet 1957). There seems to be obvious historical parallels between what is said about “Babylon the great” and what we know about ancient Rome. Thus, several studies based on a historical approach have delivered support for the traditional identification of “Babylon the great” with Rome – cf. Bauckham (1993); Biguzzi (1998); Collins (1980); Friesen (1993); Giesen (1996); Kraybill (1996).

(6) The date of the Apocalypse: whereas an identification of “Babylon the great” seems to demand an early date, the identification with Rome would be in harmony with any date within the first century CE – cf. Beale (1999), Nordgreen (2000).

How conclusive these arguments are, is still a matter of opinion. One can, of course, deny any reference to the City of Rome in the ‘Woman-on-the-seven-mountains’ imagery or the name “Babylon”. After all, we do not know for sure what John intended. Nevertheless, all of these arguments represent good reasons to assume that John did think of Rome – some way or the other. I would like to argue, that they – viewed together – put the burden of proof on those arguing for an identification of “Babylon the great” with Jerusalem. For further support for the identification of “Babylon the great” with ancient Rome – cf. Aune (1998); Bruns (1964); Collins (1993); (Deutsch (1987); Hunziger (1965); Strack and Billerbeck (1926:816).

Due to John’s ‘supra-historical’ perspective, however, “Babylon the great” should probably not be limited to historical Rome alone. It would seem that the symbolism of the seven mountains is used in some of the so-called pseudepigrapha without a (clear) reference to Rome (or, indeed, any other terrestrial city) – cf. 1 Enok 18:6; 21:3; 24:1ff. and 4 Ezra 2:19. Now, if the section Rev 17-18 depends on this Jewish (-Christian) tradition as well, it might give support for the view that John would have had something ‘more’ (or, indeed, worse) in mind when he wrote about “Babylon”: In the City of Rome, John could have seen the earthly manifestation of the ‘supra-historical’ evil City of Satan (situated on seven mountains) of his own time – without a clear limitation of this reference to Rome alone. And within this broader context, ‘unfaithful’ Jerusalem also might be relevant (cf. Rev 11:8). As pointed out by Backmann (1995:36):

Bei der “Hure Babylon” steht letztlich, traditionsgeschichtlich, Jerusalemisches im Hintergrund, und dem trägt der Seher Johannes in gewisser Hinsicht auch Rechnung.

Thus, the seven mountains in Rev 17 might be understood both (a) as a reference to the seven mountains of the ‘diabolic city’ and (b) as a refernce (and an ironic parallel) to the seven hills of Rome, indicating Rome as the main manifestation of the ‘diabolic city’ (but without excluding Jerusalem). We should not forget that in the NT, the “world” seems to be the Roman Empire. This would also explain why John could predict the end of the pagan world by pointing to the fall of the Roman Empire (and its capital city).

There is much more to be said about – and for – this identification of “Babylon the great”. Questions not being answered here properly are for instance its effect on the main understanding of the Apocalypse as a Jewish-Christian Prophecy within a preterist framework or, indeed, its relation to other parts of the NT. I am currently working on a study dealing with questions regarding the identification of “Babylon the great” more thoroughly. My interpretation of the Book of Revelation, however, might be given the following paraphrase:

Basically, I read the Book of Revelation as an ‘apocalyptic prophecy’ (cf. Mazzaferri 1989) reflecting the Jewish War (66-70 CE) and, thereby, predicting the fall of the new “Babylon” – Rome. By identifying himself as a Jewish-Christian prophet, John has utilised the ‘story’ about the fall of Jerusalem together with several OT oracles against different pagan and/or unfaithful cities for his new prophecy regarding the fall of the greatest city of his own time; the capital city of the Roman Empire (cf. Giet 1957; D’Aragon 1968).
 

2  Some Objections Considered
In the following, I would like to present – and answer – some objections usually raised against an identification of ‘Babylon the great’ with Rome. (For a rather balanced treatment and evaluation of the identification of “Babylon the great” with Rome – presented by an advocate of the identification with Jerusalem –, cf. Beagley 1997:111f.)
 

2. 1  The ‘evidence’ from Rev 11:8
One of the strongest arguments in favour of an identification of “Babylon the great” with Jerusalem (rather than the City of Rome) is based on Rev 11:8. Here John says about a great city that it is

(…) known by the symbolic names Sodom and Egypt, in which their Lord was crucified. (The New Jerusalem Bible)

Clearly this “great city” would be Jerusalem. This is also held by most scholars today, even if they normally identify “the great city”, viz. “Babylon”, in Rev 17:18 with Rome.

According to Preston (1999:31), Rev 11:8 identifies “the great city” once and for all. Therefore, the “great city” elsewhere mentioned in the Apocalypse has to be Jerusalem:

Scripture says “the great city” Babylon was “where the Lord was crucified.” Any city that did not crucify Jesus cannot be Babylon.

Nevertheless, the only two possible ways of maintaining the traditional identification of “Babylon the great” with Rome seem to be (a) to identify “the great city” in Rev 11:8 with Rome (as sometimes suggested – cf. Mounce 1977:226) or (b) to argue for the existence of two great terrestrial cities in the Book of Revelation. Now as I tend to concur with the latter position, I will consider only that here.

The question, than, is if we really can say that the great city in Rev 11 has to be different from the great city otherwise mentioned just because the city elsewhere is thought to be Rome whereas the great city in Rev 11 obviously is Jerusalem? This ‘argument’, presented by many scholars, sounds rather circular – and it is! Michales (1997), however, has made a rather important observation, oftentimes overlooked by his colleges:

The witnesses lie in the main street or public square of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified (v. 8). This designation send mixed signals. “The great city” in John’s subsequent visions (16:19; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21) is “Babylon the great” (14:8; 16:19; 17:5), used apparently as a symbolic name for Rome (17:18). Yet the words where also their Lord was crucified seem to identify the city as Jerusalem, the holy city of verse 2. If he had meant Rome, John could easily have said that the city was “figuratively called Babylon.” But he referred instead to Sodom and Egypt (v. 8), leaving the identification open. (Michaels 1997:141)

That it is quite possible on linguistic grounds to understand “the great city” in Rev 11:8 as different from “Babylon the great” in Rev 17f. has been demonstrated by Ruiz (1989) – cf his comments to Rev 16:19. He has, convincingly, suggested that Rev 16:19 might seem to indicate that “Babylon” and Jerusalem are not identical (viz. that “the great city” in Rev 16,19a should not be understood as identical with “Babylon” in v. 19c). Ruiz (1989) has more recently been followed by Rissi (1995).

It is difficult to decide whether the interpretation of Rev 16:19 presented by Ruiz (1989) and Rissi (1995) is right or not; but their way of thinking is quite possible. Which again would indicate that the great city ‘Sodom and Egypt’ (viz. Jerusalem) in Rev 11:8 and “Babylon the great” in Rev 17f. (understood as Rome) very well can be two different entities within the Book of Revelation.

In short: My point here is that Rev 11:8 alone just cannot be used as a proof for an identification of the city in Rev 17f. with Jerusalem; we have to look at the overall context in Rev 17 (and 18). Finally, we should also note that whereas Jerusalem (or at least the Jewish people) in fact was called ‘Sodom’ (and probably related to ‘Egypt’), Rome was called ‘Babylon’ – Jerusalem never was (Beale (1999:25)!
 

2. 2   “The Seven Hills” (Rev 17:9)
Ironically, sometimes the reference to the “seven mountains” in Rev 17:9 has been understood as an argument against the identification of ‘Babylon the great’ with Rome. Now, even if it be possible to see this reference as to some seven hills of Jerusalem (or other ancient cities), one has to acknowledge that it was Rome (not Jerusalem) that was widely known throughout the Roman Empire as the city built on seven hills.

Preston (1999) seems to accept this reference to Rome but at the same time he – strangely enough – sees it at as an argument against an identification of “Babylon the great” with Rome. The reason for this is what seems to be a misinterpretation of the symbolism in Rev 17:1ff. Like Gentry (1989) Preston seems to take the “seven hills” as a possible reference to the city of Rome. Therefore, the woman (who sits on the hills) cannot be Rome, it is argued:

The real point is that Babylon sits upon the hills. To put it another way, the woman rides upon the Beast. The woman and the beast, that is, Babylon, and the place of the seven mountains are not the same! In other words, it is possible that the “seven hills” refer to Rome, but Babylon and the separate entities! Babylon sits on the seven hills. The seven hills equal the beast. (Preston 1999:184)

Thus, what we have in Rev 17:1ff. is a portrayal of the Roman Empire (the ‘beast’) with seven kings (the seven ‘heads’). The seven heads also represent seven hills on which the woman is situated. Now, it was the City of Rome – the capital city of the Roman Empire – that was known as the city on seven hills. If we would (and I really think we should) interpret Rev 17 in light of this coin (or medallion), the woman (viz. the ‘harlot’) in Rev 17f. would most likely be Rome (and not Jerusalem). This imagery is, in fact, very similar to the one used by John (cf. Bergmeier 1988; Aune 1998:920ff.).

If one really wants “Babylon the great” to be a reference to Jerusalem, one would, as does Russell (1983 [1887]), have to argue that the seven hills are the seven hills on which (also) Jerusalem is supposed to be situated. Consequently, the seven ‘kings’ would have to be taken as a reference to Jewish (political or/and religious) leaders – cf. Holwerda (1995).
 

2. 3  The Book of Revelation and the Book of Ezekiel
It is commonly held that the Apocalypse is highly influenced by the OT, although not a single use of quotation can be found within it – cf. Moyse (1995) and Beale (1998). One of the most important sources for the Apocalypse seems to be the Book of Ezekiel (cf. cf. Ruiz 1989). Now, as Ezekiel clearly directed his ‘oracle’ against Jerusalem – so the argument goes – John has to have done the same thing (Preston 1999:57ff.).

This assumption reflects an understanding of John’s dependence on the OT as rather mechanical; Preston seems to indicate that the message of the Book of Ezekiel has determined or, even, dictated John’s prophecy:

[T]he parallels between Revelation and Ezekiel are impressive, and point us clearly in the direction of the identity of Revelation as a book dealing with the judgment of Israel. It would be incongruous if John, by the Spirit, was fashioning the Apocalypse in such a way as to remind the reader to Ezekiel, and his mission, when the Apocalypse was actually unrelated to Ezekiel’s mission. (Preston 1999:9)

There are, however, several problems with this assumption (or understanding), of which I will mention a few here:

True, major parts of the Book of Ezekiel are directed against Jerusalem. But from this it does not follow that John also wanted to address Jerusalem. As a kind of ‘case study’, let us – briefly – consider Rev 17 against its OT background: The imagery of the woman riding (?) the beast (viz. the Roman Empire) as such could – at a first glance – very well be applied to Jerusalem. The discourse is borrowed from Ezek 23:29,25 (and 16:39). And I believe that one could argue that Jerusalem had profited from working together with pagan Rome and, therefore, being unfaithful to YHWH. The irony, then, would be that the beast (understood as the Roman Empire) eventually hates its ‘whore’ (understood as Jerusalem) and destroys ‘her’

An important question here – as pointed out by Moyse (1995) – is whether such dependence on OT necessarily implies that John had the same in mind as the OT author or not. To me it would seem difficult to maintain that the original OT reference should (always) determine the meaning of John’s text. Furthermore, based on the OT background, John did not only have Jerusalem, but also ancient Babylon and Tyre in mind when he wrote Rev 17f. And the background in the oracles against Babylon (Jer 51) or Tyre (Isa 23) would suggest a foreign power, most likely Rome.

One should also note that John, in fact, cites the OT in a rather informal style (i.e. without any formal quotation formulas), which indicates that he uses the OT (only) as a source or discursive framework for his own thoughts (more or less unrelated to the original OT contexts) – cf. Moyse (1995).

Another question is related to the use of extra biblical material vs. the use of other sources: As several parts of Revelation seem to involve an (at least possible) OT background, others can be seen as (possible) socio-political allusions. Which should be given priority? For some, the reference to the seven hills of Rome in Rev 17f. is so clear that no amount of OT background can dislodge it.

The overall question, than, seems to be: which city (if any) did John characterise with texts from the OT and other material? (Another important question, which I cannot address here, would be whether a scholar’s identification of John’s source text is influenced by the conclusion that s/he wishes to draw?) In my opinion we have to look closely at what John actually writes; how he uses OT text/s and tries to work the material into his own discourse. Thus, it is what John actually writes that matters and not necessarily the original meaning of his sources. And as I already have demonstrated, there are severe problems related to any identification of “Babylon the great” which does not include the City of Rome.
 

2.  4  “Babylon the Great” – Destroyed by the Beast (Rev 17:16)
In his study, Preston notes that Rev 17:16 is derived from Ezek 16:37-41, and based on this OT background and the claim that v. 16 cannot be applied to the end of Rome, he seeks to demonstrate a problem with this identification of “Babylon the great”. On the other hand, Rev 17:16 would suit the identification with Jerusalem perfectly (Preston 1999:185f.). This objection could, however, be answered in the following way:

First, the OT background does not necessarily demand an identification of “Babylon the great” with Jerusalem. Obviously, John could have used the Ezekiel discourse for his own purpose! And the meaning of Rev 17:16 must be understood from its context, viz. chapter 17 (and 18). When John uses OT material e.g. about Tyre (and Babylon), he does not mean the literal ancient Tyre (or Babylon). This could also be the case here; in fact, John seems to indicate that he does not mean Jerusalem when he mentions the seven mountains on which the woman sits. On he contrary, Rome seems to be the best (if not the only possible) candidate.

Second, I do think it is quite possible to apply Rev 17:16 on Rome: One of the (many) reasons for Rome being destroyed was the fact that the imperial force left the city (for the eastern part of the Empire). For a similar view – cf. e. g. Swete (1906). We should, however, not expect any literal fulfilment of Rev 17:16; the language is highly symbolic and based on the OT (Ezekiel 16, referring to judgement on Jerusalem). Thus, John is using OT discourse in his own way; but the original use (alone) can hardly indicate what John was thinking of. But it indicates how he was thinking; in which theologically based universe he was living in – his so-called socio-religious ‘Sitz-im-Leben’. And the overall message is (as I understand it) that evil lacks integrity.
 

2.  5  The Maine Enemy of the (Early) Church
In order to identify “Babylon the great” with Jerusalem, Preston (1999) and others several times emphasise the ‘role’ of the Jewish community – i.e. the Jews who
did not accept Jesus as their Messiah – as the maine enemy of the Church. Rather symptomatic is the following rhetoric formula:

Whoever or whatever Babylon is or was, her judgment would settle the debate between those, “who say that they are Jews and are not” and the true
Israel. Any suggestion for the identity of Babylon that does not account for this controversy cannot be true. (Preston 1999:5)

Now, it is quite true that the Jews (who do not accept Jesus as Messiah) represents an enemy in the Book of Revelation – as in the rest of the NT
(cf. Beagley 1987). One should, however, not forget that there is another enemy of the Christians present in the Apocalypse, namely the Roman
Empire (cf. Rev 13). Thus, for John, history has not arrived its terminus with Christianity supplanting Judaism. As pointed out by Hopkins
(1965:45):

True to its literary genre, [the] Ap[okalypse] offers consolation in a crisis. The Christian community has just emerged from its encounter with Jewry, bloody but victorious, as the walls of Jerusalem totter before the might of Rome.

So, the Church had to defend herself against a new and more dangerous threat, viz. pagan Rome.

Furthermore, I tend to believe that the reason for a ‘new’ apocalypse, viz. the Book of Revelation, was this relatively new struggle between Empire and Christianity
(Christendom). The assurance John could give his fellow Christians is that that Rome, too, would fail to stamp out the Church. This confrontation is portrayed in Rev
13 (and, in my opinion, the following chapters): The persecution initiated by Nero is clearly reflected there (and elsewhere). And based on this experience, John
could anticipate more severe persecutions.

Consequently, there simply is no reason – a priori – for identifying “Babylon the great” with Jerusalem (rather than Rome), at least not based on the assumptions
mentioned in 2.1 - 2. 5.
 
 

Bibliography

Aune, D. E. (1998): Revelation 17-22. (WBC 52c) Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Bauckham, R. (1993): The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark
Beagley, J. A. (1987): The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse with particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies. Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter
 — (1997): “Babylon”. In: Martin, R. P. and P. H. Davids (eds.): Dictionary of the Later New Testament & its Developments. Downers Grove, Illinois (etc.): Inter Varsity Press, pp. 111-112.
Bachmann, M. (1995): “Die andere Frau: Synchrone und diachrone Beobachtungen zu Gal 4.21-5.1”. Unpublished paper delivired at the SNTS conference in Prague
Beale, G. K. (1998): John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. (JSNTSup 166) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press
 — (1999): The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. (NIGTC) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Bergmeier, R. (1988): “Die Erzhure und das Tier: Apk 12,18 - 13, 18 und 17 f.: Eine quellen- und redaktionskritische Analyse”, ANRW 25.5, pp. 3898-3916
Biguzzi, G. (1998): “Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, And Idolatry in Revelation”, NovT 40, pp. 276-290
Bruns, J. E. (1964): “The Contrasted Woman of Apocalypse 12 and 17”, CBQ 26, pp. 459-463
Charles, R. H. (1920): A Critical and Exegetical Commantary on the Revelation of St. John. (2 vols.) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark
Collins, A. Y. (1980): “Revelation 18: Tount-Song or Dirge?”. In: Lambrecht, J. (ed.): L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. (BETL 53) Leuven: University Press, pp. 185-204
 — (1984): Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press
 — (1990): “Eschatology and Apocalypticism”. In: Brown, R. E. et al. (eds.): The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp. 1359-1364
 — (1993): “Feminine Symbolism in the Book of Revelation”, Biblical Interpretation 1, pp. 20-33
Court, J. M. (1979): Myth and History in the Book of Revelation. London: SPCK
D’Aragon, J.-L. (1968): “The Apocalypse”. In: Brown, R. E. et al. (eds.): The Jerome Biblical Commentary (vol. II). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 467-493
Deutsch, C. (1987): “Transformation of Symbols: The New Jerusalem in Rv 21[,]1-22[,]5”, ZWN 78, pp.106-126
Fiorenza, E. S. (21989): The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress press
Friesen, S. (1993): Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden (etc.): E. J. Brill
Ford, J. M. (1975): Revelation. (Anchor Bible 38) Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company
Holwerda, D. (1995): “Ein neuer Schlüssel zum 17. Kapitel der johanneischen Offenbarung”, EstBib 53, pp. 387-396
Gentry, K. L. (1989): Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Tyler, Texas: ICE
Giblin, C. H. (1974): “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16 - 22”, Bib 55, pp. 487-504
Giesen, H. (1996): “Das Römische Reich im Spiegel der Johannes-Apokalypse”, ANRW II/26.3, pp. 2501-2614
Giet, S. (1957): L’Apocalypse et l’Histoire: Étude historique sur l’Apocalypse johannique. Paris: Presses Universitaires
Hopkins, M.: “The Historical Perspective of Apocalypse 1-11”, CBQ 27, pp. 42-47
Hunzinger, C.-H. (1965): “Babylon als Decknahme für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes”. In: H. G. Rewentlow (ed.): Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Herzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 67-77
Kraybill, J. N. (1996): Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse (JSNTSup 132). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press
Mazzaferri, F. D. (1989): The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. (BZNW, 54) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
Michaels, J. R. (1997): Revelation (The IVP New Testament commentary series, 20). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press
Mounce, R. H. (1977): The Book of Revelation. (NICNT) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Moyse, S. (1995): The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. (JSNTSup 115) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press
Nordgreen, O. (2000): “The Problems of a Pre-70 Date of the Apocalypse”
Preston, D. K.: (1999): Who is this Babylon? Ardmore, Oklahoma: Privately published
Rissi, M. (1995): Die Hure Babylon und die Verfuehrung der Heiligen: Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes (BWANT 7/16) Stuttgart (etc.): Kohlhammer
Ruiz, J.-P. (1989): Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16, 17-19,10. (European University Studies 23:376) Frankfurt am Main (etc.): Peter Lang
Robinson, J. A. T. (1976): Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press
Russell, J. S. (1983 [1887]): The Parousia: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming. (Reprint from the 1887 edition of The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry Into the New Testament Doctrine if Our Lord’s Second Coming) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
Strack, H. L. and P. Billerbeck: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Vol. III) München: Beck, 1926
Swete, H. B. (1906): The Apocalypse of St. John. London: Macmillan
Thiede, C. P. (1986): “Babylon, der andere Ort: Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17”, Bib 67, pp. 532-538
 — (1995): Rekindling the Words: In Search for Gospel Truth. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International
Wilson, J. C. (1993): “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of the Apocalypse”, NTS 39, pp. 387-605
 — (1994): “Babylon as a Cipher for Rome”. (Unpublished paper)

– back to My Page of Religion –