Read a little more widely about that inscription. The “Simon” part is well accepted but there are serious disagreements about Bagatti’s reading of the patronymic. Even Milik, the original editor of the study, said that different readings were possible:
http://www.uhl.ac/en/projects/talpiot-tomb/shimon-barzillai/
More recently scholars have said it is better read as “Simon Bar Zilla”, from a famous Jewish family of that name.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Many Assyrian Christians who live in Mesopotamia and trace their roots back to Apostolic times actually believe as you do that the Babylon of 1 Peter is in Mesopotamia. But guess what...they dont really regard him as a founder of their Church the way the Antiochenes and Romans do:
“The Assyrian Church of the East (hence forth ACE), whose official name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, was established in 33 A.D. by the apostles Thomas (Toma in Assyrian), Theodos (Addai in Assyrian), and Bartholomew (Bar Tulmay in Assyrian). The first Patriarch of ACE was Addai, although Thomas and Bartholomew are also officially listed as the first Patriarchs (see Table of Apostolic Succession below). “
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.This was written around the year 180.
I am aware of the various arguments, and I really don't need to defend it further. As it stands, there is more solid proof here than in Rome. And if this were finally disproved, it still would not point me back to a Roman grave in pagan profaned ground. Even if he was buried there, his family would not leave him there. The offense is too great, and they would want his bones at home.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Actually, the literal weight of the evidence IS there - It is where Peter ~says~ that he is, taking his words in context, at face value, and your appeals to tradition notwithstanding. And it makes sense for him to actually be in Babylon - The longstanding centers of Judaism having been Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria - With Babylonian tradition being second only to Jerusalem. Converting Babylon would have a tremendous impact, so it is not surprising at all that the Apostles would spend their resources there.
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
No, but there is still the insurmountable silence of Paul. And that Paul writes to Rome as though no one else has yet been there (that they might be established). IIRC, according to your tradition, Peter would have had to have been made pope some 15 years before Paul ever even arrived - So why then the need for establishment? It makes no sense.