Did Peter Visit Rome or Stay in Jerusalem? Debunking the Tradition

The assumption that Saint Peter visited Rome or returned there during his lifetime is a topic of ongoing debate in Christian history and archaeology. Traditional belief holds that he was the first pope and, therefore, must have been in Rome. However, several historical and scholarly evidences cast doubt on this theory, leading many to question the basis of this tradition.

Evidence Against Peter's Presence in Rome

Scholars point to various documents and translations that suggest Peter was not in Rome. For instance, the Bible passage in 1 Peter 5:13 mentions a church in "Babylon." This location is often interpreted as a coded name for Rome by early Christian writers, falsely credited with bolstering the fiction of Peter's presence there.

Traditionally, Catholics have claimed that the term "Babylon" in this verse is a metaphor for Rome. However, detailed analysis of translations and historical contexts reveal that this is a later interpretation. Leading translators like Monsignor R.A. Knox in his 1944 translation note that there is little doubt that "Babylon" means Rome, as symbolized in Revelation 17:5.

The Catholic View on Peter's Letter

The Catholic Church asserts that Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome around 15 years after the ascension of Jesus, circa 48 CE. However, scholarly debate challenges this timeline. The Catholic Encyclopedia from 1911 suggests a probable date around 63 to 64 CE, given that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome in 64-67 CE. This date is crucial as it comes after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, which would make it historically implausible for Peter to be referencing Babylon without implying a connection to Rome.

The Authorship of 1 Peter

Further complicating the issue is the potential anonymity of 1 Peter. Some scholars argue that the epistle was not actually written by Peter himself but by an anonymous Christian author who used Peter's name to add credibility. This argument is supported by the absence of unique personal details or specific references to Rome in the letter, which would be expected if it were genuinely written by Peter.

Conclusion

Despite traditions and religious teachings, thorough examination of historical and textual evidence casts significant doubt on the claim that Peter visited or wrote from Rome. The references to "Babylon" in 1 Peter may merely be a coded reference to Rome, rather than an explicit claim of Peter’s residency there. Without solid historical or archaeological evidence, the traditional narrative is challenged, inviting a deeper re-evaluation of the early Christian landscape.

Note: The information presented here is based on scholarly research and historical texts, and may not fully align with all religious or traditional views.