(2) That there was a large Jewish colony in Egypt.

(3) That tradition does connect St Mark, the companion of St Peter, with Egypt.

But against this view it may be urged:

(1) That in the first century Babylon in Egypt seems to have been only a fortress and military station and therefore a most unlikely place for the work of St Peter and his companions.

(2) That no tradition connects St Peter's name with Egypt. C. Rome.

This seems to have been the generally accepted view until the Reformation, when opposition to Papal claims caused some Protestant writers to set aside as far as possible all connexion between St Peter and Rome. But there is early, wide-spread and unanimous tradition that St Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome, and fairly ample evidence for his previous work in Rome. His companion St Mark was certainly in Rome towards the end of St Paul's imprisonment, and was again invited to come to Rome shortly before St Paul's death. Tradition also describes him as having been St Peter's interpreter in Rome and as writing his record of St Peter's Preaching primarily for the Romans.

Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15) in the passage referred to above (p. xxviii) mentions the tradition that 1 Peter was composed in Rome and that Rome is intended by the metaphorical name Babylon-and it is not improbable that he found this tradition in the writings either of Papias or of Clement of Alexandria to whom he had just referred. In the fragment of Papias on St Mark's Gospel (Eus. H. E. iii. 39) Papias refers back to some previous statement of his own about St Mark's connexion with St Peter, and Eusebius tells us that Papias made use of 1 Peter. There is no passage in the extant writings of Clement of Alexandria which explains Babylon as meaning Rome in 1 Peter, but he does describe the Second Epistle of St John as being addressed "ad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine, significat autem electionem Ecclesiae Sanctae." The Rev. J. Chapman, O.S.B. (Journal of Theological Studies, July 1904), suggests that 2 John was addressed to the Church in Rome. The words of Clement do not however state that he regarded 2 John as addressed to the Church in Rome and therefore do not prove that he interpreted Babylon in 1 Peter to mean

Rome. They certainly shew that he treated the name Babylon as metaphorical, but if he regarded 2 John as addressed to some Asiatic Church he may have regarded any church in the heathen surroundings of some great city or of the Roman Empire as being "in Babylon."

In Jewish apocalyptic literature Babylon seems certainly to mean Rome-e.g. the Sibylline Oracles v. 158, the Apocalypse of Baruch xi. 1. The dates of these are however somewhat uncertain and may refer to a period after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which would give additional force to the name Babylon as applied to Rome. In the Apocalypse of St John however there is no clear reference to the Fall of Jerusalem, but Rome is described as Babylon because she is "the harlot" as contrasted with the Church the Bride of Christ; the centre and ruler of the nations; the source of iniquity and impurity; a great trading centre; enervated by luxury; the arch-persecutor of the saints, with whose blood she is drunken. This last feature would hardly be true of Rome before the Neronian persecution, but it is only one of many reasons for comparing Rome with Babylon. We have no right to assume therefore that the name of Babylon was first used for Rome in the Apocalypse of St John. The language of Old Testament prophecy about the relations of the successive World-powers to the Kingdom of Messiah may well have prompted a comparison between Rome and Babylon even before the outbreak of organized persecution. It is therefore by no means incredible that St Peter might describe Rome as Babylon, despite his other language about the Emperor and Magistrates, as early as the reign of Nero and possibly before the great persecution of 64 A.D.

The arguments in favour of Rome may be summarized as follows:

(1) The widespread tradition that St Peter did work in Rome. (2) The presence of St Mark, who is connected with Rome in St Paul's Epistles, and with St Peter in Rome in early tradition. (3) The objections to interpreting the name Babylon literally, either of Babylon on the Euphrates or of Babylon in Egypt, force us to adopt some metaphorical meaning for the name. (4) Such metaphorical use is suggested: (a) by the immediate context ovverλektý, (b) by the general tenour of the

Epistle in which the titles and experiences of Israel are applied to the Christian Church. (5) If the name is metaphorical it would naturally be understood to mean Rome, and its appropriateness would be easily recognizable to St Peter's readers even before the Apocalypse of St John. (6) No other interpretation except Rome seems to have been known to early writers. (7) The general tone of the Epistle, especially in regard to persecution, duty towards the state, and the universality of St Peter's teaching would suggest that he was writing from Rome.

5. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.

Evidence for the date of the Epistle may be deduced from the following considerations.

A. The apparent traces which it shews of other N.T. books.

(1) The Epistle of St James (see p. liii ff.). The most probable date of St James' death is 62 A.D. but his Epistle may have been written earlier.

(2) The Epistle to the Romans (see p. lx ff.), which was probably written in the spring of 58 A.D. (though some would date it 56 or 57 A.D.).

(3) The Epistle to the Ephesians (see p. lxiv ff.), which was probably written towards the close of St Paul's imprisonment in Rome 61 or 62 A.D.

(4) The Epistle to the Hebrews, which Westcott dates 64-67 A.D., but the coincidences with Hebrews are too uncertain to form a serious argument.

It is not necessary to assume that these Epistles were already familiar to St Peter's readers, but only that St Peter himself knew them. He had been closely connected with James, the Lord's brother, in Jerusalem, and if he wrote from Rome would certainly have access to Romans, and a copy of Ephesians which was written from Rome would probably be preserved there. Moreover St Mark, who was St Peter's companion at the time of writing, was certainly with St Paul when he wrote to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10) and was probably therefore present when Ephesians was written, as Colossians and Ephesians were both despatched by the same messenger Tychicus, and Ephesians is

almost certainly referred to in Col. iv. 16 as the letter which the Colossians are to exchange with the Church in Laodicea. Possibly, as Dr Chase suggests (Hastings' D. of B. iii. 778), St Paul may have himself been still in Rome when St Peter reached the city.

If then a knowledge of the Epistle to the Ephesians is implied in 1 Peter the date cannot be earlier than 61 or 62 but need not necessarily be much later.

B. The Spread of Christianity which it implies in so many of the provinces of Asia Minor.

Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 285) says "they that make St Peter write to the congregations of Pontus during Nero's reign remove the story of early Christianity from the sphere of history into that of the marvellous and supernatural.”

"If Christianity," he says, "was extending along the main line of intercourse across the Empire between 50 and 60, it is inconceivable that, before A.D. 64, (1) it had spread away from that line across the country into the northern provinces; (2) so much organization and intercommunication had grown up as is implied in 1 Peter."

In answer to this sweeping criticism it may be urged:

(a) That the story of the spread of Christianity recorded in Acts or implied in St Paul's Epistles is confessedly incomplete and is practically limited to St Paul's own work or influence, and parts of this even are only incidentally alluded to, e.g. the evangelization of the province of Asia (Acts xix. 10) and the spread of Christianity in Rome before St Paul's visit.

(b) That we have not the slightest warrant for supposing that during all this time other Apostles or Missionaries were doing nothing to fulfil their Master's commission "to go into all the world."

(c) That the spread of Christianity in the provinces of Asia and Galatia is described in Acts and St Paul's Epistles. Therefore only Pontus, Bithynia and Cappadocia remain to be accounted for.

(d) That Ramsay himself (p. 10) says that one great line by which the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome was by

the road from the Cilician gates through Tyana and Caesarea of Cappadocia to Amisos, the great harbour of the Black Sea in Pontus. Therefore this would be a natural line for the spread of the Gospel.

(e) That Jews from Pontus and Cappadocia were present on the day of Pentecost, and presumably therefore visited Jerusalem on other later occasions. Therefore some of them or other traders may have helped to introduce Christianity in those districts.

(f) That St Paul himself on his second journey contemplated a missionary journey in Bithynia (Acts xvi. 7), evidently regarding it as a suitable sphere for work. It is not, therefore, incredible that Silas, who was his companion on that journey, may have afterwards carried out the plan which was then abandoned.

The description of Silas in 1 Pet. v. 12 as iμîv Tоû TưσTOÛ ådeλpoû would naturally suggest that he had already worked among the readers of the Epistle.

(g) That Aquila, who was certainly an ardent missionary in Ephesus and Rome and was evidently widely known in "all the Churches of the Gentiles" (see Rom. xvi. 4), was himself a Jew of Pontus and may not improbably have visited his native country during his sojourn in Asia.

(h) That the Epistle does not necessarily imply that all the districts named were fully Christianized or that all the Churches in them were as yet organized. Possibly some of them had not yet regular presbyters.

Therefore, while we may admit that a late date would leave more time for the spread of Christianity over so wide an area of which we are told so little in the N.T., there appears to be nothing either "marvellous" or "supernatural" involved in the supposition that the Epistle was written in the reign of Nero.

C. The relation of the State towards Christianity implied in the Epistle, and the language used about the Emperor and Magis

trates.

In order to form a fair estimate of this question it is necessary to compare the notices of persecution contained in 1 Peter with the evidence afforded (a) by other Books of the N.T., (b) by other accounts of the imperial policy towards Christianity.