The first epistle of Peter contains at the close a general salutation
from the church in Babylon, to the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom it
was addressed. From this, the unquestioned inference is, that Peter was
in that city when he wrote. The only point mooted is, whether the place
meant by this name was Babylon on the Euphrates, or some other city
commonly designated by that name. The most irrational conjecture on the
subject, and yet the one which has found most supporters, is, that this
name is there used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense for Rome, whose
conquests, wide dominion, idolatries, and tyranny over the worshipers
of the true God, were considered as assimilating it to the ancient
capital of the eastern world. But, in reference to such an unparalleled
instance of useless allegory, in a sober message from one church
to a number of others, serving as a convenient date for a letter,
it should be remembered that at that time there were at least two
distinct, important places, bearing the name of Babylon,――so well known
throughout the east, that the simple mention of the name would at once
suggest to a common reader, one of these as the place seriously meant.
One of these was that which stood on the site of the ancient Chaldean
Babylon, a place of great resort to the Jews, finally becoming to them,
after the destruction of Jerusalem, a great city of refuge, and one of
the two great capitals of the Hebrew faith, sharing only with Tiberias
the honors of its literary and religious pre-eminence. Even before
that, however, as early as the time of Peter, it was a city of great
importance and interest in a religious point of view, offering a
most ample and desirable field for the labors of the chief apostle,
now advancing in years, and whose whole genius, feelings, religious
education and national peculiarities, qualified him as eminently for
this oriental scene of labor, as those of Paul fitted him for the
triumphant advancement of the Christian faith among the polished and
energetic races of the mighty west. Here, then, it seems reasonable and
pleasant to imagine, that in this glorious “clime of the east,”――away
from the bloody strife between tyranny and faction, that distracted and
desolated the once blessed land of Israel’s heritage, during the brief
delay of its awful doom,――among the scenes of that ancient captivity,
in which the mourning sons of Zion had drawn high consolation and
lasting support from the same word of prophecy, which the march of
time in its solemn fulfilments had since made the faithful history
of God’s believing people,――here the chief apostle calmly passed the
slow decline of his lengthened years. High associations of historical
and religious interest gave all around him a holy character. He sat
amid the ruins of empires, the scattered wrecks of ages,――still in
their dreary desolation attesting the surety of the word of God. From
the lonely waste, mounded with the dust of twenty-three centuries,
came the solemn witness of the truth of the Hebrew seers, who sung,
over the highest glories of that plain in its brightest days, the
long-foredoomed ruin that at last overswept it with such blighting
desolation. Here, mighty visions of the destiny of worlds, the rise and
fall of empire, rose on the view of Daniel and Ezekiel, whose prophetic
scope, on this vast stage of dominion, expanded far beyond the narrow
limits that bounded all the future in the eyes of the sublimest of
those prophets, whose whole ideas of what was great were taken from the
little world of Palestine. Like them, too, the apostolic chief lifted
his aged eyes above the paltry commotions and troubles of his own land
and times, and glanced far over all, to the scenes of distant ages,――to
the broad view of the spiritual consummation of events,――to the final
triumphs of a true and pure faith,――to the achievement of the world’s
destiny.
_Babylon._――The great Sir John David Michaelis enters with
the most satisfactory fullness into the discussion of this
locality;――with more fullness, indeed, than my crowded limits
will allow me to do justice to; so that I must refer my reader
to his Introduction to the New Testament, (chapter xxvii. § 4,
5,) where ample statements may be found by those who wish to
satisfy themselves of the justice of my conclusion about the
place from which this epistle was written. He very ably exposes
the extraordinary absurdity of the opinion that this date was
given in a mystical sense, at a time when the ancient Babylon,
on the Euphrates, was still in existence, as well as a city on
the Tigris, Seleucia, to which the name of modern Babylon was
given. And he might have added, that there was still another of
this name in Egypt, not far from the great Memphis, which has,
by Pearson and others, been earnestly defended as the Babylon
from which Peter wrote. Michaelis observes, that through some
mistake it has been supposed, that the ancient Babylon, in the
time of Peter, was no longer in being; and it is true that in
comparison with its original splendor, it might be called, even
in the first century, a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a
heap of ruins, nor destitute of inhabitants. This appears from
the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has
given of it. This great geographer compares Babylon to Seleucia,
saying, “At present Babylon is not so great as Seleucia,” which
was then the capital of the Parthian empire, and, according to
Pliny, contained six hundred thousand inhabitants. The acute
Michaelis humorously remarks, that “to conclude that Babylon,
whence Peter dates his epistle, could not have been the ancient
Babylon, because this city was in a state of decay, and thence
to argue that Peter used the word mystically, to denote Rome,
is about the same as if, on the receipt of a letter dated from
Ghent or Antwerp, in which mention was made of a Christian
community there, I concluded that because these cities are
no longer what they were in the sixteenth century, the writer
of the epistle meant a spiritual Ghent or Antwerp, and that
the epistle was really written from Amsterdam.” And in the
next section he gives a similar illustration of this amusing
absurdity, equally apt and happy, drawn in the same manner
from modern places about him, (for Goettingen was the residence
of the immortal professor.) “The plain language of epistolary
writing does not admit of figures of poetry; and though it would
be very allowable in a poem, written in honor of Goettingen, to
style it another Athens, yet if a professor of this university
should, in a letter written from Goettingen, date it Athens, it
would be a greater piece of pedantry than any learned man was
ever yet guilty of. In like manner, though a figurative use of
the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical
language of the Apocalypse, yet in a plain and unadorned epistle,
Peter would hardly have called the place whence he wrote, by
any other appellation than that which literally and properly
belonged to it.” (Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament,
Marsh’s translation, chapter xxvii. § 4, 5.)
The most zealous defender of this mere popish notion of a
mystical Babylon, is, alas! a Protestant. The best argument ever
made out in its defense, is that by Lardner, who in his account
of Peter’s epistles, (History of the Apostles and Evangelists,
chapter xix. § 3,) does his utmost to maintain the mystical
sense, and may be well referred to as giving the best possible
defense of this view. But the course of Lardner’s great work
having led him, on all occasions, to make the most of the
testimonies of the fathers, in connection with the establishment
of the credibility of the gospel history, he seems to have been
unable to shake off this reverence of every thing which came on
authority as old as Augustin; and his critical judgment on the
traditionary history of Christianity is therefore worth very
little. Any one who wishes to see all his truly elaborate and
learned arguments fairly met, may find this done by a mind
of far greater originality, critical acuteness and biblical
knowledge, (if not equal in acquaintance with the fathers,)
and by a far sounder judgment, in Michaelis, as above quoted,
who has put an end to all dispute on these points, by his
presentation of the truth. So well settled is this ground now,
that we find in the theology of Romish writers most satisfactory
refutations of an error, so convenient for the support of
Romish supremacy. The learned Hug (pronounced very nearly like
“_Hookh_;” U sounded as in b_u_ll, and G strongly aspirated) may
here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense
view. (Introduction vol. II. § 165.) In answer to the notion
of an Egyptian Babylon, he gives us help not to be found in
Michaelis, who makes no mention of this view. Lardner also
quotes from Strabo what sufficiently shows, that this Babylon
was no town of importance, but a mere military station for one
of the three Roman legions which guarded Egypt.
The only other place that could in any way be proposed as the
Babylon of Peter, is Seleucia on the Tigris; but Michaelis has
abundantly shown that though in poetical usage in that age, and
in common usage afterwards, this city was called Babylon, yet
in Peter’s time, grave prose statements would imply the ancient
city and not this. He also quotes a highly illustrative passage
from Josephus, in defense of his views; and which is of so much
the more importance because Josephus was a historian who lived
in the same age with Peter, and the passage itself relates to an
event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era;
namely, “the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from
imprisonment, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there
was a considerable number of Jews.” (Josephus, Antiquities, XV.
ii. 2.) Josephus adds, that “both the Jews in Babylon and all
who dwelt in that country, respected Hyrcanus as high priest
and king.” That this was the ancient Babylon and not Seleucia,
appears from the fact, that wherever else he mentions the latter
city, he calls it Seleucia.
Wetstein’s supposition that Peter meant the province of Babylon,
being suggested only by the belief that the ancient Babylon did
not then exist, is, of course, rendered entirely unnecessary by
the proof of its existence.
Besides the great names mentioned above, as authorities for the
view which I have taken, I may refer also to Beza, Lightfoot,
Basnage, Beausobre, and even Cave, in spite of his love of
Romish fables.
To give a complete account of all the views of the passage
referring to Babylon, (1 Peter v. 13,) I should also mention
that of Pott, (on the cath. epist.,) mentioned by Hug. This is
that by the phrase in the Greek, ἡ εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη, is
meant “the woman chosen with him in Babylon,” that is, Peter’s
wife; as if he wished to say, “my wife, who is in Babylon,
salutes you;” and Pott concludes that the apostle himself was
somewhere else at the time. For the answer to this notion, I
refer the critical to Hug. This same notion had been before
advanced by Mill, Wall, and Heumann, and refuted by Lardner.
(Supp. xix. 5.)