Was Peter ever in Babylon?

rufus · Big Goldfish Joined: 22 Sep 2007 Posts: 68 Location: USA

1 Peter 5:13 reads "Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings" (NRSV).

Most commentators claim that Babylon means "Rome". But why would Peter have to use a code word? Why not simply say "Rome" if that's what he meant? The letter opens: "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1). These are not code words. They are distinct geographical regions in what is today called Turkey. Paul opened his letters the same way: "To God's beloved in Rome" (Rom 1:7); no code word there! "To the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2), "To the churches of Galatia" (Gal 1:2), and so forth.

In the close of Colossians Paul say's: "Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea (Col 4:15). Laodicea is a city in south-west Phrygia (western Turkey). It's not a code word for, say, Pompei. In the close of 1 Corinthians Paul says: "The churches of Asia send greetings" (1 Co 16:19). Asia is a geographical region in what is now Turkey. It is not a code word for, say, Arabia. In the close of Paul's letter to Titus he said "do your best to come to me at Nicopolis" (Titus 3:12). Nicopolis is a town in western Greece, near Actium. It is not a code word for, say, Alexandria in Egypt. The names of regions and cities are used throughout the epistles of the New Testament. So, why is it that in 1 Peter 5:13 Babylon should not mean "Babylon", a region in what is today called Iraq?

Babylon is mentioned in Matthew 1:11,12,17 and Acts 7:43. In these verses Babylon refers to a geographical region east of Judea, in what is today called Iraq. It is not a code word for Rome or anywhere else.

So, I propose that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 means just that, Babylon. Peter was writing from someplace like Dura-Europus on the northern Euphrates river, or further south in the town called Babylon. He was writing from somewhere in this region. The Mesopotamian region was called Babylon. He was not writing from Italy. Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 does not mean Rome. Babylon means Babylon.

bitterlily · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:02 am Post subject: Re: Was Peter ever in Babylon?

rufus · Big Goldfish Joined: 22 Sep 2007 Posts: 68 Location: USA

bitterlily · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject:

Hi Rufus,

I also heard reports that the ex-Iraqi Jews have been complaining because they have been displaced having nowhere to go except to the State of Israel where most of them don't want to go.

There are also claims that there are Jewish and Christian communities currently living in Iran. As I understand it Muslims, Jews and Christians have been living peacefully together in these countries for centuries, the only downside is that under Islamic Law they are forbidden from converting Muslims to their Faith, and if caught it is punishable by death. But if you haven't read some of the Koran you will be surprised to learn that many chapters are devoted to pleading with the Jews to return to the Faith of their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's quite amazing really. They believe in all the Jewish Prophets including John the Baptist and Jesus, the virgin birth and the crucifixion. However they don't believe Jesus is the Son of God.

I found a website last year with testimonies of many muslims who had experienced dreams and visions of Jesus telling them that He was the Son of God and the Saviour. Some of these muslims were living in Iraq just prior to the US invasion and the Lord Jesus warned them to flee and guided them to safe havens in other parts of the world.

I think the majority of stuff that we have been told about muslims in the media is just propaganda.

Cheers
Bitterlily

rufus · Big Goldfish Joined: 22 Sep 2007 Posts: 68 Location: USA

Hello bitterlily
Getting a bit off topic, I'd say. I wanted to demonstrate that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 means Babylon, not Rome. 1 Peter was written in the first century. Josephus wrote a few short years later.

Attempting to trace some developments in the east (east of the Roman world) from the first century to the early Middle Ages, about the time the Babylonian Talmud was written, might give us some clues about early Christianity in that part of the world.

There were some archaeological digs in northern Iraq (e.g. Dura-Europus) that uncovered some synagogues from about the second century. Paul went to the synagogue (Acts 13:14, 14:1, 17:1-2, etc.), Peter must have too.

Trying to trace any developments in the Iraq area, where Peter must have been, from the first century up to the early Middle Ages is quite a task, but who knows, maybe there is some solid evidence somewhere.

I do believe Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 means Babylon, not Rome. We'll take it from there.

As far as the modern day events in the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, well, that's for another thread in, perhaps, the political forum.

Regards
rufus

bitterlily · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject:

Don Fisher · Little Guppy Joined: 17 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

There is no independent evidence for a visit by Peter to Babylon on the Euphrates. There is, however, evidence that he visited Rome toward the end of his life and died there. It is the same kind of evidence as that which leads scholars to believe the apostle John was an overseer of the church in Ephesus (something which is seldom disputed), except that the evidence in Peter's case is actually stronger. In both cases there is literary evidence going back to the 2nd century, and in Peter's case there is also archaeological evidence.

It is well known that "Babylon" was current as a nickname (not so much a code name) for Rome among both Jews and Christians of that period.

If the question is what the apostle to the circumcision was doing so far to the West, the answer is that few cities in the world of that day would have provided such a concentration of Jews as Rome.

So I agree with those who identify "Babylon" with Rome, and the interpretation given by the KJV "the church that is at Babylon" (ie. Rome).

james · Bear Cub Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 648

Don,
Could you please explain what this evidence is, concerning Peter having been in Rome? I have always heard the contrary.

Don Fisher · Little Guppy Joined: 17 Jun 2008 Posts: 31

Hi James,

First let me say that there is no historical evidence that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome. For one thing, such a local office would have been inconsistent with his apostolic commission. Even more importantly, the institution of a single bishop overseeing the church wasn't established in Rome until well into the 2nd century A.D.

However, the literary evidence for Peter visiting Rome near the end of his life, and dying there, goes back to the 2nd century. Clement, in his Epistle to James, refers to Peter's preaching of the Lordship of Christ in Rome, and dying there. In Unger's Bible Dictionary a reference is made to Dionysius of Corinth who wrote to a letter to the Roman bishop in which he mentions what he calls the universally accepted fact that both Paul and Peter taught in Italy, and were martyred around the same time. Irenaeus wrote that both apostles labored in Rome (Against Heresies, iii,1-2). Origen testifies that after preaching to the Jews of the Diaspora in various places, Peter finally came to Rome to work among them there, and was crucified head-downward. Tertullian, in his writing On Baptism, refers to Peter baptizing converts in the Tiber River. This is just a smattering of the writings which witness to the the fact that Peter visited Rome and died there. These and the many additional writings I haven't mentioned may help explain why it is that the reference to "Babylon" in 1 Pt. 5:13 was understood as a reference to Rome by Eusebius (4th century) on the authority of Papias (2nd century). Neither of these men was at all interested in defending Roman claims to supremacy, but they did believe Peter had gone to Rome and was martyred there.

The archaeological evidence mostly revolves around the excavation of St. Sebastian's Church on the Appian Way, the large number of references to Peter in the catacombs, and early Christian sarcophagi. The large number of references to Peter found in these excavations really make little sense apart from the actual presence of Peter in Rome.

If the reference to "Babylon" in Peter's epistle were the only evidence that he was ever in Rome, I agree that the case for his residency in Rome would be on pretty thin ice. But given the universally accepted tradition of the early church (before the Roman bishop claimed supremacy) and the Petrine references found in so many of the Roman Christian excavations, I see no reason to question it.

GospelCompilation · Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: One Doesn't Preclude the Other

Excellent explanation, Don. From the accounts mentioned by early Christian writers, there is little doubt (and little reason to doubt) that Peter was, at one time or another, in Rome, and was eventually martyred there.

However, just because Peter was actually in Rome at the time of (and even a few years prior to) his death, is not conclusive evidence that he wrote his epistle from Italy.

His epistle could just as easily have been written a decade or more earlier, while sharing the gospel in modern-day Iraq. I don't mean to say that rufus is correct in this matter, but neither can I say that religious scholars are correct.

At least rufus' argument is Biblical.

Nobby · Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:07 am Post subject:

Hi GospelCompilation, "WELCOME" you should stop by our Introductory Forum & give everybody a chance to meet you! Very Happy

Nobby