Previously, we considered the first part of 1 Peter 5.13, arriving at the tentative conclusion that ‘she’ or ‘the one’ (ἡ) likely refers to the church. Let’s remind ourselves of the Greek:
ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου.
1 Peter 5.13
Why not Babylon?
At first glance, the latter half of the verse is not troubling at all. ‘Βαβυλῶνι‘ is not at all ambiguous: it means ‘Babylon’.((Well, technically, it’s in the dative. The nominative form is Βαβυλών.)) Peter and Mark are working with Christians in Babylon and writing a letter to provinces in Asia Minor.
Where exactly was Babylon? Babylon was the capital of Babylonia, lying on the River Euphrates (and right in the center of modern day Iraq). Babylon was the seat of the Babylonian Empire of Old Testament fame, and renowned particular for the destruction of Jerusalem and bringing back the local elite –including Daniel and his friends — for resettlement in Babylon (586 BC). Only with the Persian conquest of Babylon under Cyrus the Great do we have the return of the exiles under Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the rebuilding of the Temple.
There were likely Christians already in the Mesopotamia (of which Babylon was a region). We know that Jews from these regions and beyond heard Peter’s message in Acts 2((See Acts 2.9)); we know that most early converts to Christianity were Jewish (it was a Jewish sect) and Mesopotamia had numerous Jewish communities; the earliest we hear of Christians explicitly is around 200 (about 130 years after the writing of 1 Peter), but the community is already fully-formed.
Also, we don’t know Peter’s movements well-enough to know with certainty that he was somewhere else at this time.
Nevertheless, Peter’s use of ‘Babylon’ is usually interpreted as a veiled reference to an enemy as awful as Babylon was for his people in previous generations. A name which was intended as an adjective for corruption and godlessness((In the Jewish sense of the term — the Babylonians and Romans alike thought the Jewish godless…)). This usage becomes quite clear in Revelation where the city of Babylon is portrayed as a city of evil((see Revelation 16.19f, 17.5f, 18.10f)) — giving a Jewish reader a feeling akin to how a reader of the Lord of the Rings might imagine Mordor.
Could this be how Peter is using it? Especially since there is no known tradition of his presence in Babylon. Further, there is some evidence that Babylon itself was quite depopulated.((See Diodorus Siculus’ History, 2.9.9: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/2A*.html)) The Asia Minor audience would likely not have expected a letter from Babylon, nor have interpreted it in this manner.
Is there a better option? There are three: Jerusalem, Egypt, and Rome. Let’s take them in that order.
‘She in Jerusalem’?
While 1 Peter gives no other hints (at least, as far as I can tell) as to the possible referent, the Revelation of John contains plenty of references, and many can be interpreted as referring to Jerusalem. And, further, Jerusalem is the only of the three in which we know with absolutely certainty that Peter active with the Christian community.
Unfortunately, I don’t want to invest too much time sorting out the details in Revelation — perhaps a future series might permit greater expansion. For now, we can summarize a few key points.
First, the Jerusalem argument as the Babylon of Revelation (and 1 Peter) hinges on a pre-70 date. What happened in 70? Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. A pre-70 date for Revelation (and 1 Peter) allows Jerusalem to be a city which rivaled and opposed Christians. (Think of Saul arresting Christians, and later Paul being held as a Christian in that great city.)
Second, the references to the ‘great city’/’Babylon’ also (or sometimes better) fit Jerusalem. E.g., ‘the great city…where also our Lord was crucified’ (11.8) and ‘in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints’ (18.25).
Third, the reason for the later associations with Rome were that after 70 (when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed), no one could imagine as a threat, as a ‘Babylon’. Instead, Rome, a rising symbol of persecution, climaxing in the many martyr stories from Ignatius, to Polycarp, to Cyprian.
‘She in Egypt’
There was a fortress city in Egypt called Babylon, just north of modern day Cairo. It is, e.g., mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities 2.315. Peter is not known to have gone to Egypt, but John Mark (the likely ‘Mark, my son’ of 1 Peter 3.15) is attributed with the founding of the Christian community in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria. And, further, John Mark is usually attributed writing the Gospel of Mark, compiling and organizing the memoires of Peter. It is thus not inconceivable that Peter could have been in that region and written a letter.
This takes us back to the use of ‘Babylon’ as a place name and so it would not be in any way tied to the hypothetical ‘Babylon’ of Revelation.
‘She in Rome’
By far the most popular interpretation of ‘Babylon’ has been the populous capital of the Roman Empire, and the seat of Roman military and gubernatorial power. From Nero’s persecutions until the rise of Constantine, Rome was the enemy.
This is the traditional interpretation of the Babylon in Revelation, perhaps due in part to Tertullian and Irenaeus who made that identification explicit who lived in the post-70 world. If Revelation was written after 70 (as most have dated it), then Rome is certainly the referent. A handful of later, perhaps 10th century, manuscripts replace ‘Babylon’ with ‘Rome’ as some scribe thought to make the association explicit.((cf. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary))
Tradition gives Peter a firm foundation in Rome, notably as its first bishop. And, if John Mark did record Peter’s memoires as the Gospel of Mark, it may have made more sense for John Mark to join an apostle, Peter in Rome rather than the other way around.
Why the cryptic reference to Rome? Why not just say ‘Rome’? Well, as alluded to earlier, this might be a means of using describing Rome — the enemy of God’s chosen people. Or, perhaps, persecution or fear of persecution (the letter is about comfort and hope in persecution and suffering after all) provided sufficient motivation for such a circumlocution.