THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON (REV. 16:16) REVISITED by MARKO JAUHIAINEN Tampere Abstract This study challenges the old view, recently championed by John Day, accord ing to which 'ApuxxyeScov (Rev. 16:16) means the 'Mount of Megiddo' and is a conflation of'Megiddo' in Zech. 12:11 and the 'mountains of Israel' in Ezek. 38 39. Instead of betraying Zecharian and Ezekielian influence, a closer inspection of the context of Rev. 16:16 points to the Isaian and Jeremian prophecies con cerning the destruction of Babylon as a more plausible background of 'Apuaye? v. It is concluded that the solution to the riddle of 'Armageddon' is most likely to be found in the etymological approach and that within this approach, an inter pretation of the word as a reference to the "cutting down" of the "mountain" Babylon is perhaps more attractive than other alternatives. Few names or concepts in Revelation have acquired wider currency than 'Armageddon', by which the popular mind usually understands an end-time battle that more or less brings about the end of the world as we know it.*U nfortunately, the full significance of John's reference to 'Apuaye?cov is not quite as obvious, as scholars well know. Indeed, as David Aune has recently pointed out, "the name 'Harmagedon' has never been satisfactorily explained".1 As far as this is true, the import of 'Apjiaye?cbv in the context of John's story has not been fully appre ciated, either. If the full significance of this famous name remains veiled, it is by no means due to a lack of proposals, which are many and diverse. Yet while there is no consensus regarding the interpretation of 'Apficxyeocuv, the most common explanation is that it contains a refer ence or an allusion to the town ofM egiddo in northern Palestine.2 A * The following is a revised version of a paper read at the Annual Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament in Hawarden, North Wales, in April 2004. 1 D. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (WBC; Nashville: Nelson, 1998) 898. 2 Aune, Revelation 6-16, 898; M. Oberweis, "Erw?gungen zur apokalyptischen Orts bezeichnung 'Harmagedon'", B?blica 76 (1995) 305. ? Koninklijke Brill NV- , Leiden, 2005 Novum Testamentum XLVII, 4 Also available online www.brill.nl 382 MARKO JAUHIAINEN version of such a view has been championed by John Day in his influential 1994 article, where he argues that Rev. 16:16 is an inter pretation of Zech. 12:11.3 The purpose of this study is to challenge Day's proposal and to promote different interpretive avenues regard ing Rev. 16:16 and John's use of the enigmatic word fAp|xaye8c?>vI.n particular, I will argue that Armageddon has more to do with OT prophecies concerning Babylon's destruction than with the nations' attack against the saints or the Messiah, as is often believed. Before that, however, we will first briefly look at why the word is problem atic and then survey various solutions that have been offered to the problem, including Day's proposal. 1. The Problem and Previous Proposals for a Solution Though numerous variants are attested for the Greek word 'ApjiocyeScov in Rev. 16:16,4 it is not the spelling of the word but rather itsH ebrew meaning that has exercised the minds of commentators. In Hebrew, fAp|iaye8a>v appears to mean har m?gidd?n, 'mount[ain of] Megiddo', yet no such place is known to ever have existed. The question there fore is, How should we construe and interpret the Hebrew word or phrase underlying the Greek word fAppxcye8a>v? Solutions that have been offered can be divided into three groups: those that interpret 'Apjiaye?cov as 'mount[ain of] Megiddo' and try to make sense of the reference; those that suggest that eAp|Liaye8cbv derives from a different Hebrew word or phrase; and those that con sider the Hebrew background of 'Apjiaye?cov to be either unrecover able or unimportant. Day examines proposals from all three groups, deeming them unconvincing on various grounds.5 Though quite impres 3J ohn Day, "The Origin of Armageddon: Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11", in S. Porter and P.Joyce (eds.), Crossing theB oundaries: Essays inB iblical Interpretation inH onour ofM ichael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 315-26; followed, for example, by R. Rogers (An Exegetical Analysis ofJ ohn's Use of ?echariah in the Book of Revelation: The Impact and Transformation of ^echariah's Text and Themes in theA pocalypse [Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002] 111-14) and cited with cautious approval by G. Osborne, Revelation (ECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 560, and G. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999; Carlisle, England: Paternoster, 1999) 841. 4 M y?[?]?c?v, Apiieynocov, Apuaye??cov, Ap^ieye??cov, 'Ap^eyeocov, 'ApjiayeS?, Apuaye?ov, Apuaye?coji, Maye?co?, Mayi?cov, Maicc??cov (seeM etzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2nd ed.; London: United Bible Societies, 1994] 681). 'Apuayeocov is clearly the most likely original reading. 5 Here we can only present a short summary of the proposals examined by Day (for details and bibliographic references, see Day, "The Origin of Armageddon", 315 THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON REVISITED 383 sive already, his survey by no means includes all the proposals ever put forward with regard to the significance of fAp|xaye8cbvf, or he chose to leave out "patristic and other pre-critical Christian views".6 We will return to some of these later. First, however, we will evaluate Day's own proposal, which belongs to the first group. a. Day's Proposal According to Day, by coining the expression fAp(xaye8covJ, ohn has combined two important OT motifs: 'Ap is an allusion to the escha tological battle on the mountains of Israel, depicted in Ezek. 38 and 39, and MayeScov is an allusion toM egiddo in Zech. 12:11, where it ism entioned in the context of the eschatological battle against Jerusalem. While these connections have been made before,7 Day is the first to spell out fully the reasons why this is how fApjiaye8c?v ought to be understood. 22). According to him, Armageddon (a) is not Mt Carmel, for it is too far from Megiddo and is never called 'mountain of Megiddo'; (b) does not derive from TeGeuiya?cov, name of the husband of Ereshkigal (the Babylonian goddess of the underworld), for there is nothing in Revelation to suggest a connection; (c) does not come from Hebrew har m?c?d, 'Mount of Assembly', for it is too remote in form to be a source of Armageddon; (d) does not come from Hebrew har migd?, 'his fruitful mountain' (i.e., Mt Zion), for it is never employed of Mt Zion or anywhere else; (e) does not mean, 'mount of (the) Macedonian' (i.e., Alexander the Great), for this proposal has nothing to commend it; (f) does not come from Hebrew c?r m?gidd?n, 'the city of Megiddo', or car hemda, 'the desirable city', for car is never attested for c?r ('city') in Hebrew and c?r only for a Moabite place name Ar; (g) does not come from '?rac m?gidd?n, 'the land of Megiddo', for the vocalization tells against 'land' and there is even less reason to call Megiddo a land than a mountain; (h) is not a code name for Jerusalem or Rome, for such sug gestions are "far-fetched"; and (i) is not a name, whose meaning is unknown and which derives from apocalyptic tradition, for such a view is "a counsel of despair". As for the first proposal, there is some force in Day's objection, yet ifK ishon can be referred to as 'the waters of Megiddo', or if it is possible to speak about 'Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo' (Judg. 5:19-21), then Mt Carmel as 'Armageddon' is not com pletely impossible, for the mountain range where Mt Carmel is located is only about 2km farther from Megiddo than Taanach. 6 Day, "The Origin of Armageddon", 315nl. Also left out are?obviously?the views of later commentators. Beale, for example, considers Armageddon to symbolize the whole world (Revelation, 835). In addition to his unqualified acceptance of this view, Beale is cautious not to completely rule out other possibilities. Thus, he also consid ers it possible that Armageddon symbolizes Jerusalem and Mt Zion, or that it is refer ring to the 'city of Megiddo', or that it is associated with Mt Carmel. Furthermore, he deems Day's argument "probable" (841). 7 E.g., I. Beckwith, The Apocalypse ofJ ohn: Studies in Introduction with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (New York: Macmillan, 1919; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967) 685. 384 MARKO JAUHIAINEN Assuming that theH ebrew phrase underlying 'Apiiaye? v is har megid d?n, 'mountain of Megiddo', Day gives five reasons why John must have taken up the reference toM egiddo from Zech. 12: ll:8 First, prior to Revelation, Zech. 12:11 is the only place where Megiddo appears in an apocalyptic context. Second, Zech. 12:11 is the only instance of the MT spelling Megiddo with a final nun, i.e., m?gidd?n rather than megiddo. Third, not only has Zechariah "exerted a pervasive influence throughout the Book of Revelation", but also the verses immediately preceding and following 12:11, i.e., 12:10 and 12:12, are clearly alluded to in Rev. 1:7. Moreover, Rev. 16:16 is sandwiched by verses that show "evidence of influence" from Zech. 12-14, i.e., 16:13-14 and 16:18-19. Fourth, the reference to the 'valley of Megiddo' in Zech. 12:11 naturally suggests the presence of a mountain also. Finally, the author of Revelation may have read Zech. 12:11 as implying that the nations of the earth will mourn inM egiddo in the context of an escha tological battle against Jerusalem and thus arrived at the idea of an end-time assembly for battle at Megiddo. Day solves the traditional problem, i.e., the absence of a mountain in or near Megiddo, by taking the prefix *Ap in fAp|Liaye8a>vas an allu sion to Ezek. 38-39. He considers this likely for the following three reasons:9 (1) Ezek. 38:8, 39:2, 4, 17 "predict that the eschatological conflict will take place 'on the mountains of Israel'"; (2) not only is EzekiePs general influence throughout Revelation obvious, but chap ters 38-39 have specifically influenced John's portrayal of the conflicts in Rev. 19:17-21 and 20:7-10; and (3) John often conflates themes from different OT books and elsewhere in Revelation we find exam ples of other conflations of Ezekiel and Zechariah. b. Evaluation of Day's Proposal There are some weaknesses with Day's proposal, however. First, it rests on the assumption that the Hebrew phrase underlying 'AppxxyeScov is indeed to be translated as the 'mountain ofM egiddo'. While this is possible, other possibilities exist as well, as we will see below. Second, Day seems to take it for granted that there is a single eschatological conflict which John narrates and to which he alludes. However, as I have argued elsewhere, John does not collapse different OT 'end-time conflict' traditions into one but alludes to at least three different tra 8 Day, "The Origin of Armageddon", 319-26. 9 Day, "The Origin of Armageddon", 323. THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON REVISITED 385 ditions in the course of his narrative and uses them for different pur poses.10 Third, the appeal to the apocalyptic context of the word 'Megiddo' in Zech. 12:11 is not very helpful, for the use of the OT inR evelation is by no means limited to apocalyptic passages. Moreover, if a name or motif appears in more than one place in the OT, there is no evidence thatJ ohn prefers the apocalyptic context simply because of the perceived similarities in the genre.11 Indeed, it is difficult to demonstrate that out of a number of possible background texts fea turing a motif, John ever alludes to one specific text rather than to the motif in general, unless there are clear indicators to the contrary. In other words, ifJ ohn intends to allude only to theM egiddo of Zech. 12:11, that needs to be established on other grounds. Fourth, the fact that Zechariah has influenced Revelation is equally unhelpful, for so have a number of other OT books as well. Furthermore, a closer analysis of the proposed allusions to Zechariah around Rev. 16:16 reveals that Day has somewhat overestimated the Zecharian influence on John's portrayal of the last two bowls.12 Fifth, while the argument from the final n?n has some force, it ulti mately remains unconvincing. The fact that the same Hebrew word 'Megiddo' (V??) has been transliterated by the translators of the LXX in seven different ways should make one at least cautious regarding the opposite process.13 Moreover, if the Greek word Maye?cov in the OT translates or transliterates in three occasions HUG in Hebrew,14 how do we know that in Rev. 16:16 the same word must come from ]Hj1D instead? After all, the only place where ]YTD appears, i.e., Zech. 12:11, has apparently been read by the LXX translator as a partici ple form of JTT3, 'to cut', 'cut down', 'cut off', or TO, 'to cut', rather than as a proper noun.15 It is also worth asking whether John's audi ence would have been aware of, and able to recall, the differentH ebrew 10M . Jauhiainen, "Recapitulation and Chronological Progression inJ ohn's Apocalypse: Towards a New Perspective", NTS 49 (2003) 543-59. 11 If this were the case, one would expect to see more allusions to Zechariah, for example (see furtherM . Jauhiainen, 'Behold, I am Coming': The Use of^echariah inR evelation [Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2003]). 12F or a thorough analysis of the use of Zechariah in Revelation, see Jauhiainen, Behold. 13M aye? v (Josh. 12:21); Maye??co (Josh. 17:11); Maye?co (Judg. 1:27); Meye??co (Judg.5 :19); Mccy?co[ ?] (3K gdms. 2:35 LXX/1 Kgs. 9:15 MT); Meke?co (3K gdms. 4:12); and Maye??cov (4 Kgdms. 9:27). 14 Josh. 12:21; Judg. 1:27 (A); 2 Chr. 35:22. 15 JH3 is normally favoured (T. Jansma, Inquiry into theH ebrew Text and theA ncient Versions ofZ echariah IX-XIV [Leiden: Brill, 1949] 199; W. Rudolph, Haggai/Sacharja 1 8/Sacharja 9-14/Maleachi [KzAT XII 4; G?tersloh: G?tersloher Verlaghaus Mohn, 1976] 386 MARKO JAUHIAINEN spellings of Megiddo, and, on the basis of the final 3 in Zech. 12:11, been able to make a connection. It seems more likely thatJ ohn's point regarding Hebrew was not to draw attention to the paragogic 3 in Zech. 12:11, but rather to the fact that in Hebrew, Armageddon is a conflation of 'mount[ain]' and something else. Sixth, while the Hebrew word Hi?pD in Zech. 12:11 could have the sense Valley' or 'plain', why would the author of Revelation, usually thought to be a Palestinian Jew, read it as 'valley' if there is neither a valley, nor mountains, inM egiddo? Again, the LXX lends no sup port to Day's argument, for the translator has chosen rce?iov ('level place', 'plain', 'field') rather than (papaya ('valley', 'ravine') or koi?cx? ('a hollow', 'deep valley'), both of which would have more readily con noted a high, elevated area?such as a mountain?bordering the HtfpD. In any case, even if 7te8iov can be used to describe a proper valley surrounded by mountains, no such connotation is necessary, especially in the context of Zech. 12:11. Seventh, Day's otherwise interesting reconstruction of how John must have read Zechariah is weakened by the fact that he leaves the role of 'Hadad-Rimmon'?clearly very prominent in Zech. 12:11?unex plained in John's reading, merely stating that John may have under stood it either as a place name or as a personal name.16 Moreover, even if correct, Day's reconstruction would merely supply a motive for alluding to Zech. 12:11 in Rev. 16:16 and not function as evidence that John has actually done so in the first place. Eighth, Day's reasons for invoking Ezekiel 38-39 as the source of the mountain in the phrase 'mountain ofM egiddo' are not adequate to explain why that passage should be preferred over other OT pas sages that connect an eschatological conflict with a mountain or moun tains. Indeed, John had better traditions available, as we will see below. Finally, together with most commentators, Day fails to explain why, in the context of the summary description of the fall of Babylon, John would have a passing reference in 16:16 to a chronologically subse quent conflict described three (19:11-21) or four (20:7-10) chapters later. Thus, while Day's proposal remains the best defence of the tra 218; J. Lust, E. Eynekel, and K. Hauspie, comp., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Part II: k-co; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997] 183), though some seem to accept 113 instead (T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Twelve Prophets [Louvain: Peeters, 1993] 71). It is impossible to say whether the translator (a) misread []]V for ]1, (b) was confounded by the hapax and groped for something that was close enough, (c) considered both 113 and ITT3 to have 'to cut down' as one of their senses, or (d) had a Hebrew Vorlage different from our MT at Zech. 12:11. 16D ay, "The Origin of Armageddon", 323. THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON REVISITED 387 ditional 'mountain of Megiddo' position, we must conclude that, in the final analysis, itsm any weaknesses render it unsatisfactory. 2. AlternativeP ossibilities As an alternative to the 'mountain ofM egiddo' perspective, I would like to present an approach to interpreting Rev. 16:16 that both takes its context in John's unfolding story seriously and is more sensitive to its OT background. Let us begin by looking at the context of Rev. 16:16. One of the interesting features of 16:14-16 is the fact that no enemy is mentioned, nor a battle narrated, so that the audience need to fill in the gaps themselves. The information provided by the con text is therefore crucial. The seven bowls, beginning in 16:1, are part of the process described as "destroying the destroyers of the earth",17 16:12-16 portraying the pouring out of the sixth bowl, together with the accompanying events. This is immediately followed by the seventh bowl, as "God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath" (16:19b). The next section, 17:1-19:10, focuses almost entirely on the description of Babylon and her fate, elaborating on the summary statement in 16:19b. The place ment of 16:16 thus suggests that the gathering of troops to Armageddon has something to do with the destruction of Babylon. However, this conclusion seems to be confounded by 17:14, which says that the beast and the kings "will make war on the Lamb". As this verse clearly refers to the events in 19:11-21, most commentators have concluded that 16:14-16 therefore refers to the same battle. Yet the picture is not quite that simple, as the following five considera tions suggest. First, the immediate context concerns the destruction of Babylon, which makes it very difficult for the audience, at least at the first reading of the document, to perceive 16:14-16 as a description of something that follows three chapters later, especially if there are any reasons to connect the passage with its present context. Second, if 16:14-16 refers primarily to the confrontation narrated in chapter 19, the way the story is shaped gives the odd impression that the kings of the earth were gathered to Armageddon before the seventh bowl, presumably waiting there while Babylon was being destroyed. Third, the activities of the beast and the kings are described not only in 17:14, but also in 17:16-17, according to which the coalition 17R . Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on theB ook of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993) 21. 388 MARKO JAUHIAINEN will make Babylon "desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire", "for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose".18 Thus, while God is ultimately responsible for Babylon's fall, the actual work is done by the beast and the kings and their forces, who attack and destroy Babylon. Moreover, according to John, this takes place before the confrontation between the beast and the Lamb in chapter 19. This fits the biblical pattern whereby God uses one evil nation to punish another, which in turn is punished by yet another nation, and so forth, until God or his Messiah slays the final enemy.19 Fourth, our interpretation is consistent with the legend of Nero's return, to which John appears to allude in his description of the beast and its activities.20 One of the aspects of the legend portrays Nero as returning from the East, allied with the Parthians, and destroying Rome.21 If John understood Babylon to symbolize Rome or some aspects of the Roman Empire, then the sixth bowl is best understood as a preparation for the seventh bowl, which in turn is expanded on in 17 and 18. chapters Finally, and perhaps most importantly, some of the key OT texts behind Rev. 16:14-19:5, particularly Isa. 13 and Jer. 50 and 51, envis age the destruction of Babylon at the hands of foreign armies and many kings.22 Thus, the great gathering of kings for war in 16:14-16 is, at least in the first instance, for the purpose of attacking and destroy ing Babylon,23 rather than to attack the Lamb and his forces, which is narrated later.24 18T he "kings from the east" (16:12) and the "kings of the whole world" (16:16) are usually understood to be the same kings that "receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast" (17:12); see, e.g., Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 429; and Beale, Revelation, 878. 19C f. M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947) 327. 20 Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 407-31. 21 It is also worth noting that according to Herodotus, the historical Babylon was conquered in 539 B.C. by Medes and Persians, who entered the city by way of the dried-up bed of the Euphrates River (Herodotus 1.191; cf. Jer. 50:38). 22 See especially Rev. 16:14 // Isa. 13:4 (cf. LXX); Rev. 17:1b //Jer. 51:13; Rev. 17:2, 4 //Jer. 51:7; Rev. 17:16 //Jer. 50:13, 41, Jer. 51:25, 29; Rev. 18:2 // Isa. 13:21, Jer. 50:39, Jer. 51:37; Rev. 18:5 //Jer. 51:9; Rev. 18:6 //Jer. 50:15, 29, Jer. 51:24, 49; Rev. 18:8 //Jer.5 0:34 (27:34 LXX); Rev. 18:9 //Jer.5 0:46 (27:46 LXX); Rev. 18:20 //Jer. 51:48; Rev. 18:21 //Jer. 51:63; Rev. 18:24 //Jer. 51:49. 23T his is recognized only by few commentators, e.g., Kiddle, Revelation, and G. Caird, The Revelation of St John theD ivine (2nd ed.; BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1984). 24 The presence of the definite article with n6Xz[Loq in 16:14 may be explained as THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON REVISITED 389 Having established the close connection of Rev. 16:16 and its con textw ith the destruction of Babylon, we can now turn to the OT texts that John is primarily drawing from and see how they can illuminate John's use of 'ApixocyeocbvA. brief analysis of Isa. 13 and Jer. 50-51 reveals four significant links with Rev. 16:14-16 that affect the inter pretation of the latter. First, in these OT passages, many kings and nations are gathered together (Isa. 13:4; Jer. 50:9, 41-42; 51:27-28). Second, the purpose of their gathering is for battle. Third, the battle is against Babylon, whom the kings will make desolate (Jer. 50:13; 51:29, 37), burn (Jer. 51:25), and devour (Jer. 51:34-35). Finally, not only is the gathering of the kings and nations on the mountains (Isa. 13:4), but also Babylon itself is called a 'destroying mountain' which "destroys the whole earth" and which will therefore be made a 'burnt mountain' (Jer. 51:25). Thus, ifJ ohn's purpose in Rev. 16:16 is to draw attention to the fact that in Hebrew, Armageddon is a conflation of 'mount[ain]' and something else, then these references to the moun tains in the oracles regarding the destruction of Babylon clearly pro vide a better contextual and thematic match than the mountains found in Ezek. 38-39. Contrary to the traditional view, then, the difficulty in the word 'ApjxocyeScovis not with 'Ap but with jiayeocbvW. hile the association of a mountain with the destruction of Babylon can be explained, as we saw, the alleged connection toM egiddo is less obvious, unless 'Megiddo' is understood merely as a symbol for a 'significant battle site'. However, if that were the case, then there would be no allusion to Zech. 12:11 in Rev. 16:16 as Day suggests, as the references to the battles at or near Megiddo occur in Judg. 5:19, 2 Kgs. 23:29-30, and 2 Chr. 35:22. Moreover, ifJ ohn had 'the mountfain of] Megiddo' in mind, he could have said it equally well in Greek without losing any of the significance attached to the phrase by Day and others who follow the same line of interpretation. In other words, if the name of the town in Greek appears as Maye?cov in the LXX, why draw attention to the Hebrew behind Maye?cov? Or are we to assume that John merely wanted to provoke the imagination of his audience by making them translate 'Ap?25 a reference to a well-known gathering for war against Babylon, envisaged both by Isaiah and Jeremiah. Alternatively, if one wants to see a reference in v. 14 to the conflict in ch. 19, the assembling at Armagedon in v. 16, and the subsequent destruc tion of Babylon, can be understood as an intermediate phase leading up to the battle in ch. 19. 25 Oberweis ("Erw?gungen", 316-24) has suggested that 'Apfxaye?cov is a transliter 390 MARKO JAUHIAINEN If there is a solution to the conundrum, it ism ore likely to be found in the etymology of the Hebrew word or phrase transliterated by John as MccyeScbv, than in seeking a connection between the destruction of Babylon and the city of Megiddo in northern Palestine. As already mentioned, the LXX of Zech. 12:11 suggests that )TD? was read as a verbal form from 113 or IH3. In addition to the 'to deriving meaning cut', 113 can also mean 'to band together' or 'to attack'.26 These pos sibilities have given rise to a number of views which were left out of Day's survey, the earliest well-known proposals coming from the sixth century. In their commentaries, both Oecumenius27 and Andreas of Ceasarea28 argued that in Hebrew, 'Apjiocyeocuv means 'mountain of slaughter' and that the kings of the earth are gathered to this moun tain in order to be exterminated. This view has been followed by some modern scholars as well. Hans LaRondelle, for example, understands fAp^iay??(i)v as the 'mountain of the cut down', which is the apoca lyptic name for the place where Babylon, the beast, and the kings of the world will be destroyed.29 Another variation of this view has been offered by Caird, who interprets 'Armageddon' as 'the marauding mountain', an allusion to the 'destroying mountain' in Jer. 51:25.30 Alan Johnson, on the other hand, favours the sense 'to band together' of 113, suggesting that 'Ap^ayeScov in Hebrew means 'the mountain of ation of the Hebrew phrase ]11iiD~in rather than ]T"I3D~in. If reversed and properly divided, this would give the names Nod (113) and Gomorrah (?"TIDI?).T hese, in turn, would allude to the fates of Cain ('Nod' appears in Gen. 4:16) and Gomorrah, which would help to illuminate the destruction of Babylon and certain other details of Revelation. Though Oberweis's full argument is ingenious, it fails to convince. It is unlikely that those hearing Revelation being read would somehow have been able to actualize an allusion by means of 'Apuxxye?cov to Cain (via 'Nod') and Gomorrah, given that they could have discerned?with less effort?allusions to traditions that are more closely related to the present context and the flow of John's story. 26 F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Brigss (eds.), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979) 151; L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, andj. J. Stamm (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; 4 vols; Leiden: Brill) 1:177. 27H . Hoskier (ed.), The Complete Commentary of Oecumenius on theA pocalypse: Now Printed for the First Time from Manuscripts at Messina, Rome, Salonika, and Athos (University of Michigan studies, Humanistic series, vol. XXIII; Ann Arbor, 1928) 179-80. 28J . Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischenA pokalypse-Textes, 1. Teil: Der Apokalypse Kommentar des Andreas vonK aisareia, Text (Munich: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955) 175. 29H . LaRondelle, "The Etymology of Har-Magedon (Rev. 16:16)", AUSS 27 (1989) 69-73. 30 Caird, Revelation, 207.