The letter of 1 Peter concludes with a rather cryptic circumlocution:
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου.
Roughly translated: “She/the [feminine] one in Babylon greets you, and also my son Mark.”
Does this verse in any way impact our understanding of the message of 1 Peter? Does it add or detract from the encouragement to the Christians of Asia Minor that they ought to expect and graciously endure persecution as did Christ? Well, not really. However, it does provide a fascinating glimpse into the lives of the apostles and allows us to ask interesting questions and, perhaps, better understand 1 Peter and its context.
Okay, so to the questions:
1. Who is ‘she’ or ‘the one’ (with an implied noun)?
2. Where is ‘Babylon’?
‘She’ is Peter’s Wife
One option is that the ‘she’ is a simple circumlocution for Peter’s wife. Peter’s wife as a traveling companion is alluded to be Paul in his first letter to Corinth:
"Do we not have the right to bring along a believing wife, as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"((1 Corinthians 9.5))
A lot of interesting background is alluded to in this verse, but let’s stick to our subject: Peter (Kephas in Aramaic) had a wife and traveled with her.
But why would we assume that this “she” (or “the one”) would be his wife? The only hint is the reference to a son named ‘Mark’. If there is a son, then we might reasonably look for other family members. Peter and his unnamed wife had a child who had grown up traveling on his parents’ missionary journies.
Problems
Unfortunately, the reference to ‘son’ is not necessarily a reference to one’s offspring. The reference, in fact, seems more appropriate to the well-known John Mark. While John Mark and Paul had a bit of a falling out on the mission field, Barnabas continued with Mark where they (according to tradition) made their way to Egypt.
According to Acts, John Mark’s home (or that of his mother?) was a place Peter was known and likely frequented. This is mentioned in Acts 12 where an angel releases him from prison, he knocks on the door of John Mark’s mother, and a servant girl named Rhoda, rather than letting Peter in, excitedly announced to the entire house that Peter was alive. They questioned her testimony, all the while Peter was knocking at the gate.
The reference to ‘Mark’ is thus likely not to any supposed son of Peter, which further frustrates any reason to suppose the ‘she’ a reference to Peter’s wife.
Also, if it were Peter’s wife, why not go out and say it? ‘My wife and son Mark greet you.’ Especially since this letter was being addressed to five distinct Roman provinces (or regions) across Asia Minor. Peter expected them all to immediately understand who or what he was referring to.
‘She’ is the Church
The phrase “ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι” can mean ‘she in Babylon’ where ‘ἡ‘ is a pronoun standing in for, e.g., Peter’s wife. It can also mean ‘the one in Babylon’ with the ‘ἡ‘ referring to a feminine noun. When discussing language, ‘feminine’ does not relate to ‘femininity’, but rather to a type of noun. It is only by accident that a type (or class) of noun can also refer to actual ‘female’ or ‘male’ things — and there are always exceptions. So, the article ‘ἡ‘ can expect a noun of the appropriate class. For example, ‘wife’ is a feminine noun, so ‘the wife’ is a possible translation. As are the admittedly unlikely host of other feminine nouns (abridged here): ‘the book’, ‘the kingdom’, ‘the Galilee’, ‘the ruler’, ‘the rock’, etc.
One of these options which would make sense in this context is ‘church’. The work for ‘church’ in Greek is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), a feminine noun. But why would we think that the meaning is ‘the church’. Why should it be interpreted as: ‘The church in Babylon greets you, and also my son Mark’?
One need only browse the first and last chapter of just about any Pauline letter. These letters can open with a greeting to individuals as well as ‘to the church that meets in your home’ ((Philemon 2)), ‘to the church of the Thessalonians’ ((1 Thessalonians 1.1, 2 Thessalonians 1.1)), etc. At their close, they might send greetings from a church: ‘the churches of Asia greet you; Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the lord together with the church in their house’,((1 Corinthians 16.19)) ‘the churches of Christ greet you'((Romans 16.5)), etc. And, here, we have ‘the [blank] in Babylon greets you.’ ‘church’ thus seems a rather reasonable explanation.
One of the challenges of being so far away (time and culture-wise) from these events is that it can be difficult to interpret what regular Christian 2000 years ago would comprehend without an issue. The letter is directed to a number of churches across a multiple provinces, would they have understood the circumlocution to refer to ‘the church in Babylon’?
One of the ways we can see early interpretations of these passages is the emendations of various scribes who are copying or translating these texts across time. They can add interpretative glosses to help the reader understand difficult passages. These are not always right (2 Peter 3.10 is probably a good example of this).
1 Peter was translated into Syriac along with the most of the rest of the Greek New Testament (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not) and the Hebrew Bible in the second century. This is within 150 years of the writing of Peter. In the Syriac version, the word for church or congregation, “ܥܺܕ̱݁ܬܴ݁ܐ” is included, such that it reads ‘The church in Babylon sends you greeting’.((You can see the textual variants in, e.g., Novum Testamentum Graece, Critical Apparatus))
In addition, Codex Sinaiticus (dated between 330-360), the ‘oldest Bible’ and housed at the British Museum, has ‘ekklesia’ (‘church’).((The Codex Sinaiticus can be accessed online, so you can actually see ἐκκληϲία here (note that the verse straddles the page): https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=next&folioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=89&side=v&zoomSlider=0))
ἐκκληϲία highlighted in Codex Sinaiticus with the word ‘Babylon’ before. It reads literally, ‘the in-Babylon church’. See the oldest Bible for yourself: https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=next&folioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=89&side=v&zoomSlider=0#53-5-13-7.
Problems
While the interpretation of ‘the church in Babylon greets you’ has much to commend itself, there are still some open questions.
First, the letter is addressed to ‘the elect ones in [Asia Minor]’, so we might expect that ‘elect ones’ (masculine plural, not feminine) would be similarly used here. Further, ‘church’ appears nowhere else in 1 Peter (which is, admittedly, a very short letter), and nowhere in 2 Peter either (which is even shorter).
Second, why the circumlocution? Why not just say ‘the church in Babylon greets you?’ Or, ‘the elect ones in Babylon greet you’? Perhaps Peter is emphasizing the secrecy or potential danger either ‘church’ might be in, thereby avoiding naming the term. If some Roman official were to read the letter, no one would get in trouble. My mind wanders to Pliny the Younger in Pontus-Bithynia, where ‘gatherings’ — the literal meaning of ‘ekklesia’/ἐκκλησία — were banned. Perhaps they were banned earlier? Perhaps the Christians were not allowed to gather in large groups? 1 Peter does not exclude this as a possible form of persecution.
Conclusion
It seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation is that ‘she’ or ‘the one’ refers to the church where Peter is staying and sending his letter from — namely, the church in ‘Babylon’. The primary reasons for this conclusion are that:
- There aren’t better options. (E.g., Peter’s wife seems too implausible.)
- Two early manuscript traditions added the word ‘church’ to clarify how that/those scribes understood the term. Peter needed to be clear enough that churches in five Roman regions would need to appropriately interpret his circumlocution. These emendations suggest the most obvious one.
- Parallel usage in letters of Paul (and other writers at the time).
The reference, however, to a church ‘in Babylon’ presents a further quandary. While Peter may certainly have traveled to Mesopotamia, to the region of Babylonia, there are no traditions of any such journey. To where does Babylon refer? Rome? Egypt? Elsewhere? We can explore that next.