But the Bible doesn't.
2. Salutations, from Babylon St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
Well, isn't that interesting now. Here we have it on Catholic authority that Babylon in Scripture DOES after all, mean Rome.
I'll keep that in mind next time I read the book of Revelation.
Outside of the questionable interpretation of this guy that Babylon = Rome, therefore Peter was in Rome, there is not one scrap of evidence from Scripture that Peter was ever there.
It's all the *church fathers*, historical record of which there is no way of verifying any of it, and *tradition*.
Circumstantial evidence outside of Scripture is simply circumstantial evidence and proves nothing.
The Babylon Peter referenced had to be Jerusalem, which is also revealed as “The Great City” in Revelation 11.
“And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”
Peter never entered Rome.