PETER IN ROME
CHAPTER III
Where Peter Was
In closing his first epistle,
Peter remarks, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you,
saluteth you” (I Pet. 5:13).
Instead of theorizing that Peter was at Rome for many long years
managing somehow to escape everyone’s attention, why do we not simply accept
the testimony of Peter himself that he was at Babylon? There is not the slightest reason not to do
so despite the controversy on this point that has raged for centuries. Michaelis observes:
Commentators do not agree in
regard to the meaning of the word Babylon, some taking it in its literal and
proper sense, others giving it a figurative and mystical interpretation. Among the advocates for the latter sense,
have been men of such learning and abilities, that I was misled by their
authority in the younger part of my life to subscribe to it: but at present, as I have more
impartially examined the question, it appears to me very extraordinary that,
when an Apostle dates his epistle from Babylon, it should even occur to any
commentator to ascribe to this work a mystical meaning, instead of taking it in
its literal and proper sense.
[Michaelis, as quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d., Vol. VI, p. 838.]
As for those who would
give this clear reference to his location a mystical interpretation as John
later did in the 90s A.D., applying it to Rome, let us remember that Peter was
writing in an epistle of Christian living exhortations, not deep prophetic
symbolism, long before that allegorical meaning was understood.
Let us also recall the nature
of Peter — that he was a practical man not given to allegories and mysteries in
any of his preaching or writing and certainly would not resort to such language
in the simple and straightforward close of a letter.
Babylon Did Exist!
Some have
contended that Babylon had ceased to exist by the Christian era, but this runs
contrary to well-established historical fact.
Josephus, the notable Jewish historian who lived in the same time as
Peter, makes frequent clear references to it in his Antiquities. Speaking of the high priest in the time of
Herod (30s B.C.), he writes:
When Hyrcanus was brought
into Parthia, the King Phraates . . . gave him a habitation at Babylon, where
there were Jews in great numbers. These
Jews honored Hyrcanus as their high priest and king, as did all the Jewish
nation that dwelt as far as Euphrates. [William Winston, (translator), The Life and Works of Josephus,
15, 2, 2 (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, n.d., p. 445.]
Notice what substantial facts
we have here. First, we may be
absolutely certain that Josephus was not speaking in an allegorical
sense for he links this Babylon to the Euphrates, the site of ancient
Babylon. Next, he tell us that there were
“Jews in great numbers” at Babylon, giving us the logical reason why Peter, the
Apostle to the circumcision, was at Babylon — fulfilling his ministry
and God-given commission.
Current archeological and
historical research gives us an accurate estimate of what Josephus meant by
“great number” of Jews in the Babylonian region. Neusner in his recent work, A History of the Jews in
Babylonia, gives an estimate of the Jewish population of Babylon during the
Sasanian period about a century after the dates of our study.
J. Beloch holds that
Babylonia and Susiana held from six to eight million people, basing his
estimate on a population density of 46 to 60 per kilometer. If the Jews constituted a tenth to an eighth
of the local population, and that would be a conservative figure, then
according to Beloch’s figures, there should have been from 600,000 to a million
Jews in Babylonia and the surrounding territories. [Jacob Neusner, A History
of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden: E. L. Ball, 1966, p. 246.]
He concludes the section by stating, “Hence the
Jewish population of Sasanian Babylonia may have been approximately 860,000
which would be regarded as a conservative estimate. [ibid., p. 250.]
Those who would have Peter in Rome have made
mention of the fact that the Jewish colony of Rome, numbering at best a few
tens of thousands, justified the presence of the Apostle of the
circumcision. How weak that argument
now appears in light of modern evidence proving that his Israelitish brethren in
Babylon numbered about a million by conservative estimate!
Biblical Evidence or Christian Tradition?
In light of the
evidence, how can argument be made against Peter’s being at literal, not
mystical, Babylon? There is no proof to
the contrary, and the Biblical facts and evidence overwhelmingly support
it. Still, there is a stubborn
resistance to accept the obvious. Note
Cullmann’s line of reasoning:
It must be said, however,
that it is not completely certain that the expression must here be understood
in a figurative way. We cannot fully
exclude the possibility that the long-famous ancient Mesopotamian city of
Babylon was really meant. We know from
Josephus and from Philo that this place was still inhabited in the New
Testament period . . . So it has actually been assumed that on one of his
missionary journeys Peter came to Babylon in Mesopotamia, or if not into the
city itself, at least into the region of Babylonia, and wrote our letter from
there. One cannot exclude this possibility. Nevertheless, it is not probable, and is not
supported by later Christian tradition, which knows nothing of a missionary
work of Peter in three regions. [Oscar Cullmann, Peter — Disciple, Apostle,
Martyr (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1953), pp. 84-85.]
Let us analyze a bit further
those statements. First, the
possibility of a journey by Peter to the ancient city of Babylon cannot be
ruled out as a clear possibility by this modern author, and certainly cannot be
disproved. But he feels it would have
been “improbable.” Why should it
be improbable that the Apostle to the circumcision would journey to a
known center of the Jews? It is not at
all improbable when one remembers his commission.
But the reason the above author gives for its
improbability is most interesting — not that it goes contrary to Biblical
evidence or injunction, for it does not.
It fits the scriptural account perfectly, but it is not supported by
“later Christian tradition” which “knows nothing” of any such work by Peter.
It seems that some would hold
that the “argument from silence” cannot be used in the case of Acts, Romans,
and all of the Prison Epistles as proof that Peter was not at Rome, but they
would like to use just such an argument from silence of far more scanty and
suspicious “later Christian tradition” from the Parthian regions to prove that
Peter was not at Babylon! And note that
such inconsistent argument is the only
“proof” to the contrary that is given. He gives us no real grounds for denying the logical inference
that when Peter said Babylon he meant Babylon.
A Hostile Frontier
— Barrier to Communication
Finally, we should further
consider a few facts about this Parthian Kingdom from which Peter wrote. It is a little known and oft-overlooked fact
of history that Parthia was a formidable military power that warred with the
Roman Empire at this very time — the
60s A.D. — and successfully withstood the Roman generals sent by Nero to subdue
it. Rome had to settle with “peace
without conquest” in 62 after a thorough defeat at Rhandeia. [William L. Langer, An Encyclopedia of
World History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), p. 106.]
What this means to our study
is that a hostile frontier separated the evangelistic territories of Peter and
Paul, and that travel and communication no doubt posed real difficulties. This would readily account for why we read
so little — virtually nothing — of Peter’s later ministry, because he was
outside the Roman Empire while Paul and the first historian of the Church,
Luke, were within its bounds.
The fact that the Scriptures
are otherwise silent about Peter’s evangelistic work in the Parthian Kingdom
proves nothing. In Titus 1:5,
Paul mentions that he made an otherwise unrecorded visit to Crete, but we do
not assume for a moment that because it is the only reference we have of that
visit, that Paul really never was at Crete, that Crete ceased to exist, or that
he meant spiritual, allegorical, or mystical Crete. Let us be equally willing to believe that when Peter said he was
with the Church “at Babylon,” that he was indeed in that Parthian center of
dispersed Jews, where he had every reason to be fulfilling his God-given
commission, and not at Rome.