Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00561)

In message <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br
writes
>But Rome, was also referred as Babylon by ancient
>christians, for instance at Revelatinos 18:2 and 14:8. So Babilony here
>means Rome. Enc. Brittanica writes: (vol9 p332 <Peter>) <the absence of any
>reference in Acts or Romans to residence of Peter in Rome gives pause BUT
>is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of babylon in
>5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the
>capital city.

.. and Babylon was the capital city of the Persian Empire!  However,
whether there is any substance to the much beloved and totally unproven
hypothesis that 1 Peter uses "Babylon" as a substitute for Rome is
possibly of no importance whatever. Indeed there is a greeting from
Babylon at the end of the Greek received text of 1 Peter, but it very
possibly was an *added greeting* by a later scribe who forwarded the
epistle (probably from the real Babylon).

In the very ancient Aramaic "Peshitta" text of 1 Peter (The Aramean
churches have never recogised 2 Peter) the verses mentioning Babylon are
not present, and the letter thus appears as a General Epistle which
could have been written from anywhere.  The same churches do not receive
the Book of Revelation, which is the only other place where any
meaningful substitution of "Babylon" for "Rome" appears.  In other
words, whenever Jesus and the apostles lived, one of the earliest and,
in its day, largest churches in Christendom, was concerned with neither
place in any distinctive sense.  Jerusalem was their "HQ" until after
135 a.d. (c.e.).

Alan
---------
Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW)