On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
There's no evidence in the Bible that the Great Wall of China existed either. Nor does the Bible EVER mention the planet Jupiter...Big deal. The bible never makes the claim that it contains all human knowledge! There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
How many eyewitnesses do you know that witnesses the Civil War? I guess it must not have happened... Until you can disprove that the writers are inaccurate, the basic premise on historical documents is that the historian is relating truth. This concept goes back even to the Greeks.
After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law
Ma'am, St. Peter was killed, along with Paul, in Rome by Nero in the mid-60's. That would be BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem and 70 AD...
Regards
Mesopotamia is not a "city." I think that Josephus knew that...so I believe your quote is garbled at best or from a shaky source.
As for evidence from next generation sources: what's wrong with that? If "Babylon" was universal code among Christians for "Rome" by an extremely early date (and your own source, cited previously, admits this much), why should you, removed by 19.5 centuries from the time the Scriptural passages at issuw were written, have any more credibility? The problem with such thinking is that it gives NO weight to the concept of Divvine Providence protecting the Church, if, as you imply, erroneous and fabulous tales are already circulating among the followers of Christ at such an early date.
There is a lot of evidence that St. Peter was in Rome, inferrentially in the NT, and specifically in a number of 2nd to 4th Century Christian writings. If you take issue with their witness, why even bother being a Christian? If they "lied" about such things, or their collective memory was that shaky, how do we know their word about the canon of Scripture, for example, wasn't equally muddled or fabricated? You have no real answer without embracing the veracity of the early Church!
Indeed, VERY little of the life of Christ Himself is independently verifiable outside of the New Testament. Objectively, how do we know it isn't all a lie? Don't say "Because the Bible says so." The Bible is not self-authenticating, certainly not in that way. The text has much cross-referencing of prophecy and fulfillment, from OT to NT, but that's not the same thing as self-authentication. We believe primarily because of faith fed by grace. The words were transmitted by each and every Christian generation, including the second and third generations you seem to have trouble with concerning truth-telling.
Using Scripture as the *only* guide in historical matters where there is no concrete statement contained in it about them is sheer folly. It is a natural outgrowth of the extreme-wing of Sola Scriptura. Babylon was NOT a center of anything in the 1st Century! Christians at the time already knew that. They used "Babylon" as emblematic of a corrupt, decadent power. It took no genius at the time to ascertain that "Rome" was meant. And your own evidence suggests that, contemporaneous with the promulgation of the Book of Revelation, "Babylon" WAS understood by Christians as "Rome." Therefore, the allegorical understanding of the word "Babylon" is quite clear.
That is true. There is only some tradition to that effect.
On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
If we are to believe tradition, Peter was dead before the fall of Jerusalem. How far he traveled from Jerusalem during the time he served as "apostle to the circumcision" in unknown.
There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
And the same is certainly true of Peter with respect to Babylon in Mesopotamia. Nothing to place him there, except a "literal" reading of his letter.