by Bobcat 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
Here is a Catholic based discussion of the subject. The writer tries to seperate the idea of papacy from the subject of whether Peter was ever in Rome and if Babylon was a code word for Rome in Peter's letter.
In a spirit of fair research, here is a link with arguments on the Babylon = Babylon side.
Interesting thread Bobcat, even when I was a practicing JW the arguments put forward by the WT, in an effort to oppose the Church's ideas on this, that Peter was in Babylon in Iraq, I found to be weak, and pointless to a degree.
Far more likely that "Peter" is using "Babylon" as a well known code word for Rome. Being written as it was in the late 1st Century, more than likely as late as 90 CE, I Peter's writer would probably not openly wish to identify his whereabouts should the letter fall in to the wrong hands.
Just an aside, and not highly relevant, but many when debating this sort of question like to quote Josephus if he seems to bear upon the matter.
Josephus is not a very reliable historian, writing as he does with an agenda and for a select audience.
In addition the texts we have for Josephus are known to have been redacted and edited, and the oldest text we have is (I forget which) either 10th or 11th Century. Far too late to be without error.
Interesting though he is, Josephus can never be quoted as the last word on anything.
edited to add : Just seen your latest post BC, and of course, the writer of 1 Peter may well have been in Rome, it doesn't prove that the Apostle Peter ever was, unless the Church can prove an early date for the Letter and definite Petrine authorship.
Phizzy:
Thanks for your comments. It also seems that the opposing sides of this argument often have an ulterior motive: Either to prove or disprove Peter's papacy. The WT definitely falls on the disprove side of that, the Catholics (for the most part) on the other. (See here for discussion of Peter being the "rock" of Matthew 16:19.) It is interesting that 'Protestant' commentaries that I have don't see any problem with Peter being in Rome. Such a thing would neither prove nor disprove Peter to be the first 'Pope.' The WT's argument against apostolic succession definitely includes the idea that Peter was never in Rome. So they need Peter to not have been there. But in reality it is a moot point. If Peter became the first "pope" at the time Matthew 16:19 describes, his later being in Rome is unimportant (IMO).
I'm more looking to sort out the possibilities outside of any papal implications, purely as a matter of research. And I don't necessarily need the WT to be wrong, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Or it might be one of those things that is presently unprovable.
Edited to add:
Just found this in the Jewish Encyclopedia here. If one searches for the word "Babylon" references can be found to Jewish "academies" in Babylon up to the 3rd century or so (covering the period in this thread).
Take Care
http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/Articles/AMysterySolvedPeterBabylon.html
Could it have been this Babylon from which Peter wrote?
Interesting stuff about Mark/Marcus in the article, also.
So much to learn ...
Thank you, Bobcat, for starting this thread.
Sylvia
Thanks for the reference Snowbird!
Take Care
Copied from above is the Insight reference involving Clement which the Insight uses as part of the evidence that Peter was not in the "West," including Rome.
*** it-2 p. 622 Peter, Letters of ***
Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W.
Here is the Clement reference copied with context from here. See if the Clement reference actually makes the point that the Insight gets out of it. (This point, to me, seems like a case of special pleading or grasping-for-straws on the part of the Insight book.)
CHAPTER 5
5:1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.
5:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.
5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:
5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;
5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.
They are grasping at straws ... text plainly states both in the East and in the West ...
Also, those "great academies of Babylon" referenced in the Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have been established after the destruction of Jerusalem, during the Diaspora, at which time Jewish scholars completed the Babylonian Talmud.
So, WT is being intellectually dishonest to use that time period as a basis for arguing that Peter was in Babylon of Mesopotamia.
Lord, have mercy!
Sylvia
Edited: Oops! I see now that East and West refers to the Apostle Paul. That's what I get for speed reading. Ok, special pleading on the part of WT.
I read in academic religious history literature that despite the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, there is no evidence that Peter was in Rome. Also, if Peter were Bishop of Rome, I find it curious that Rome did not dominate the early church councils. The early church councils and the important bishops are mostly Middle Eastern and Northern Africa. I saw some Vatican TV special a few months ago. The ordinary priests kept saying Peter's bones are here. The cardinals, however, some quite traditional would say tradition states these are the bones of St. Peter.
I don't know my geography or ancient timelines. Does it make any practical difference?
According to Pagels' recent book, John of Patmos wrote Revelation to counter Paul's gentile theology in the church. Revelation is a frantic plea by a Jewish Christian for Jewish Christians to remain under the law. I never would have guessed that theory. He writes very late and to a small segment of Christians. She points out the book might have seemed relevant during Roman persecution. When Constantine converted, though, all John's prophecies failed miserably and predictably. Most Christians had Pauline allegiances. It was Athanasius, the very powerful bishop of Egypt, who used Revelation against ascetic monks who ignored his orders. He repurposed it to make the rural monks heretics. Revelation had a very bad reputation in the church. Most bishops refused to use it. She said bishops were executed or exiled by Rome. Within a few months of the conversion, these men were princes, ruling from large palaces. The church had huge wealth.
Snowbird:
Is this referring to a dispersal after the Roman War? When I read it originally from the encyclopedia my first thought was the dispersal from the exile in the 6th century BCE.
