by Bobcat 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
For any looking over the WT Study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to Peter spending time in Babylon. The paragraph speaks of Peter living in Babylon as if it were a well established fact. In fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 Peter 5:13.
See here for a writeup that analyzes 1 Peter 5:13 and whether "Babylon" really means the city of Babylon. Or whether it could refer to Rome.
I think he's cryptically speaking of Rome.
This would have been about the time of that crazy Nero who viewed Christians as his worst enemies, so of course Peter would have been wise not to reveal their actual location.
Also, Josephus reports that all the Jews had left Babylon by the time Peter wrote his letters to the Jewish Christians.
The WT doesn't want Peter in Rome because this weakens their argument that Peter wasn't the Rock to whom Jesus referred in Matthew 16.
Doesn't it feel great to be able to research for ourselves?
Blessings.
Sylvia
The fact that the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. taking many Jews captive also mirrors the action of Babylon centuries earlier, making the term Babylon a fitting symbolic term for Rome.
Yep.
And, Revelation may just have been written before this event occurred.
Sylvia
Or perhaps Revelation isn't as prophetic as we think. Perhaps it was written after the fact. If it was written before, then it certainly seems strange that the opening chapters of Revelation does not address any counsel to the congregation in Jerusalem.
This may have been due to the fact that the person (Priscilla?) who wrote the book of Hebrews had already done a masterful job of counseling and encouraging the Christians in Jerusalem.
Sylvia
LOL, the JWs can't accept that 'Babylon' means Rome, as that would point to the 'Babylon The Great' of Revelation being either Rome or the Roman Empire, and there being no greater significance beyond the 1st or 2nd centuries; whereas the beast with seven heads that the harlot rides can only be Rome. (Revelation 17:9) ...seven heads... seven hills... how hard can it be to work that out?
What a mess!
I culled through the WT Library to see what evidence holds up the WT view of things. Here is what I came up with. (I've underlined references that I want to track down to see if they are honest and in-context quotes. If any have access to them and can post them here it would be much appreciated.):
*** g04 5/8 p. 14 Demographics, the Bible, and the Future ***
Reading on in the Christian Greek Scriptures, we learn that the apostle Peter visited distant Babylon to preach the good news there. (1 Peter 5:13) Why Babylon? A comment in The New Encyclopædia Britannica is enlightening: “The chief centres of Jewish population outside Palestine were in Syria, Asia Minor, Babylonia, and Egypt, each of which is estimated to have had at least 1,000,000 Jews.”Since Peter was assigned to preach particularly to the Jews, it was reasonable for him to travel to an enclave of Judaism—Babylon. (Galatians 2:9) And given the Jewish population there, it is not likely that he ran out of territory!
*** si pp. 251-252 par. 4 Bible Book Number 60—1 Peter ***
Where was First Peter written? Whereas Bible commentators agree on the authenticity, canonicity, writership, and approximate date of writing, they differ as to the place of writing. According to Peter’s own testimony, he wrote his first letter while at Babylon. (1 Pet. 5:13) But some claim that he wrote from Rome, saying that “Babylon” was a cryptic name for Rome. The evidence, however, does not support such a view. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome. Since Peter addressed his letter to those in literal Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, it logically follows that his reference to Babylon was to the literal place of that name. (1:1) There was good reason for Peter to be in Babylon. He was entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ and there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. (Gal. 2:7-9) The Encyclopaedia Judaica, when discussing the production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.
*** rs p. 41 Apostolic Succession ***
Was Peter in Rome?
Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Holy Scriptures; none of these say that Peter was there. First Peter 5:13 shows that he was in Babylon. Was this a cryptic reference to Rome? His being in Babylon was consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews (as indicated at Galatians 2:9), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.
*** it-1 pp. 775-776 Exile ***
In the First Century C.E. In the first century C.E. there were settlements of Jews in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, and Babylon, as well as in other cities. (Ac 17:1, 16, 17; 18:1, 4, 19) Many Jews lived in Babylon, where Peter preached. (1Pe 5:13) Josephus records that “a great number” of Jews were in Babylonia in the first century B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XV, 14 [ii, 2]) In 49 or early 50 C.E. the Roman emperor Claudius banished all the Jews from Rome. This also affected Jews who had become Christians, among them Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca), whom Paul met in Corinth about 50 C.E., shortly after the edict by Claudius. (Ac 18:2) They accompanied Paul to Ephesus, and at the time he wrote from Corinth to fellow Christians in Rome (c. 56 C.E.), they were evidently back in Rome, for Claudius had died and Nero was then ruling. Many of the other Jews had also moved back to Rome.—Ac 18:18, 19; Ro 16:3, 7, 11.
*** it-2 p. 622 Peter, Letters of ***
The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, 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. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.
Take Care
In connection with the Josephus reference above, the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol III, p. 809) says:
Alternative locations [i.e. other than Rome] have been proposed, however. (1) A literal Babylon was championed by R. G. Heard (Intro. to the NT, 1950, p.171), who called attention to Josephus's remarks on the large number of Jewish communities there (Ant. xv.2.2 [14]). But Josephus's evidence is doubtful, and there is no positive confirmation that Babylon did not fall into disrepair and ruin (see D. J. Wiseman, NBD, p. 118)
