Moderator: Mark Templet
Dear Cyprian,
I wasn't trying to prove one way or the other that USA is 'Babylon'. Frankly the subject doesn't hold that much interest for me to go digging to try to find out where the real 'Babylon' is. I just wanted to show that the Athos monks opinion re:'Babylon' is not an isolated opinion held by "New Calendarists and Ecumenists" .
P.S Glad you're not offended. If you give it, you have to be willing to take it. Nice to see you can take it.
Dear Joasia and Helen,
Forgive me, but I do not agree that "it's all speculation". Prudence dictates that we should not presume to speak on behalf of others, but only ourself. It certainly is speculation for those who have not received the benefit of understanding, but who are we to place constraints upon whom God can reveal things?
"But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."
If for some reason God has not seen fit to reveal to any of us the interpretation of a mystery, we should not be so vain as to assume that God could not bestow understanding upon another. For as the holy Apostle relates, God's judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.
Granted, if God has seen fit to reveal (if but only in part) the interpretation of a mystery to any of us, that is no reason for us to glory, except in the merciful benevolence of God.
"And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know."
Nevertheless, if you will be patient with me, I will pass along what small portion God has revealed to me, and there will be no need for any more speculation as to what manner this "great city" is.
Cyprian
But at the time of the NT, Rome was considered the new babylon(see 1Pet 5.13).
Thank you. I am not unaware of this verse, nor am I unaware of Eusebius of Caesarea's interpretation as to this being Rome in his Ecclesiastical History.
But there were a number of cities that were called Babylon in ancient times. Seleucia was sometimes called modern Babylon, as well as a city in Egypt was sometimes referred to as "New Babylon". Of course there was also ancient Babylon on the Euphrates.
In all truth, there is nothing in this verse that speaks of Rome whatsoever. How does one know for certain that St. Peter was not referring to Jerusalem when he wrote: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
No one can say exactly for certain when this Epistle was composed by St. Peter, or where the Apostle was residing when he composed it.
Even if we somehow had assurance that St. Peter was in Rome when he composed this Epistle, that does not mean we should use this single reference to project Rome as an interpretation to the Babylon the Great of the Apocalypse.
As I said, it is one thing to call a powerful, godless, and decadent city Babylon; quite another to call it Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.
There is only one Mother, but the very fact that she is called "Mother of harlots" indicates that she has more than one harlot daughter Babylon.
For, as the proverb spoken to the harlot in Ezekiel goeth: "As is the mother, so is her daughter."
St. Peter's first general epistle was certainly written prior to the composition of John's Apocalypse, so it is rash to make any definitive conclusions based upon this one obscure verse.
Especially since it can be easily demonstrated that many of the verses describing the Great Whore of the Apocalypse clearly exclude Rome as any possibility of being the Harlot.
Cyprian
The babylon mentioned in Rev 17,18 has always been interpreted as Rome.
Not so. I should like to see you attempt to prove this. One would guess that you are not well acquainted with the commentary of St. Andreas of Caesarea, c. 6th century, where he identifies Jerusalem as Babylon.
You can look this up in the Orthodox NT (2vol set) under footnote (401) on Rev 17.12 where St Cyril of Jerusalem describes that 10 roman kings will come to power and an eleventh the antichrist will seize the roman power, the remaning kings will be subject to him.
I know of this passage in St. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures which you reference. Nowhere that I can recall does he say anything about the Harlot being Rome. He is simply interpreting the fourth beast kingdom in the book of Daniel to be the Roman kingdom.
Every source i have ever read interprets the Mystery Babylon to be Rome this includes Orthodox eschatological books like "Ultimate Things" and the OSB.
Two books which I found of very limited usefulness. They are both products of the New Calendarist ecumenists. They are not commentaries that bear the approval of antiquity or of the true Church, but rather come from the pseudo-church of the ecumenists.
In any case, they do not go into any sufficient detail to support their speculations. I don't think Engleman even specifically says Rome is the harlot in his book, but then again I can't say that I spent a lot of time studying it. It is a very superficial treatment.
It says the woman sits on 7 mountains (Rev 17.9). Rome was built around 7 hills.
Yes, and it should be pointed out that the Greek word used in this verse is ori, the plural for oros, which is most often translated as mountains. In the New Testament of the King James for instance, oros/ori is translated as "mountain(s)" 62 times, and as "hill" only 3 times.
There are a number of passages in both the New and the Old Testament that contain both words "mountain" and "hill".
For example in Luke 3.5: Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low;
where oros is translated as mountain and bounos as hill. Likewise for Luke 23.30.
In the Greek Septuagint we find similar examples such as:
Psalm 71.3 LXX (Psalm 72 Hebrew)
Psalm 113.3 LXX (Psalm 114 Hebrew)
Psalm 148.9 LXX
Proverbs 8.25 LXX
Isaiah 2.2 LXX
and many more.
For further confirmation of this, we can turn to the Latin Vulgate of the holy presbyter Jerome. In the Apocalypse 17.9 Jerome uses the word "montes", which is of course Latin for mountains.
Notice in the Wikipedia article on the "Seven Hills of Rome"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome
The original city was held by tradition to have been founded by Romulus on the Palatine Hill (Collis Palatinus). The other six are now the Aventine (Collis Aventinus), the Capitoline (Capitolinus), the Quirinal (Quirinalis), the Viminal (Viminalis), the Esquiline (Esquilinus) and the Caelian (Caelius).
Note that the Latin word collis is used to denote each of the seven hills of Rome, not montes.
If one checks the Latin Vulgate of Jerome with those passages I cited above from the Old and New Testament, one will find a consistent use of montes for mountains and colles for hills.
But of course the interpretation is spiritual and not literal. The prophecy itself tells us this:
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. (Rev 17.9)
The seven mountains upon which the woman sits are also said to be seven heads.
Mountains are often used to represent kingdoms in the Bible, and heads are often used to denote kings which reign over nations.
For example:
The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. (Psalm 110.5-6)
For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin [king of Syria] (Isaiah 7.8)
And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. (Isaiah 7.9)
Cyprian
