Why be good?

[Randy Carson]

Wait, Randy... Babylon is the other way... South-East from Israel.

There's not much in the post for all your typing. If you would like to see a full-on refutation of the "Peter was never in Rome" nonsense, it's available here.

But we can be sure of this: "Babylon" in 1 Peter is code for Rome.

I'll provide you with some Protestant scholarship on the subject, and let me say that while I understand that you are an atheist with little interest in what Protestants or Catholics think, you have to keep in mind that Protestants generally have NO interest whatsoever in supporting anything that Catholics might have to say regarding the primacy of Rome - the seat of the Papacy. Consequently, what I'm presenting now is the testimony of hostile witnesses:

Protestant Scholars Admit Babylon is a Code-Word for Rome

J.N.D. Kelly

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome" (THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POPES [Oxford Univ Press, 1988], p. 6).

Shotwell and Loomis

"The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....

"Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on" (THE SEE OF PETER [NY: Octagon Books, 1965] by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59).

New Bible Commentary

"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.

"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome."

"The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)" (NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY [Intervarsity Press, 1994], p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham).