- sand 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 Int. N. T., 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, (Hist. of Apost. & Evang. chap. 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 búll, and G strongly aspirated) may here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense view. (Introd. 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." (Joseph. Antiq. 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.
