Encyclopaedia Biblica/Simon Peter (B:Life Outside Palestine)-Sin

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



  • SOJOURN IN ROME (25-41)
    • I. IN NT AND CHURCH FATHERS (25-31).
      • Earliest and later witnesses (25-26).
      • Ascensio Jesaiae, 1 Clem. (27-28).
      • Martyrdom unlocated (29).
      • Silence on sojourn and martyrdom (30).
      • Provisional conclusions (31).
    • II. IN APOCRYPHAL ACTS (32-39).
      • Literary (32).
      • Pre-Catholic Acta Petri (33, 36).
      • Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli (34-35).
      • Arrival in Rome, day of death (37-38).
      • Conclusions from Apocr. Acts (39).
      • Inference from pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (40).
      • No counter testimony (41).
  • Babylonia as field of activity (42-43).
    • Babylon of 1 Pet. 5:13 = Rome? (42).
    • Babylonia and adjoining countries as Peter's mission-field (43).
  • Place of death : Conclusion (44-45).
    • Where did Peter die? (44).
    • Conclusion as to Peter's later life and death (45).
  • Importance for Roman Church (46).
  • Later Traditions (47).
  • Writings attributed to Peter (48).

24. Missionary fields.[edit]

In the preceding sections the NT data regarding Peter have been practically exhausted, yet a very important part of his life still remains to be discussed - that relating to his activities outside the limits of Palestine, and to his death. Our information under these heads must thus be drawn almost entirely from the Church fathers and from legendary works of very doubtful trustworthiness. The examination becomes much more complicated and the results much more hypothetical than those we have hitherto had in hand.

Let us first take a survey of the countries in which outside of Palestine he is represented as having laboured. 1

(a) Origen is the first who tells us that 'Peter seems (2oi.Kfi> [eoiken]) to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia [i.e. the western coast of Asia Minor]' (Comm. in Gen. tom. 3, ed. de la Rue, 2:24 A ; ap. Euseb. HE 3:1:2 ). The very form in which this sentence is cast shows us that the statement is not based on trustwoithy independent information, but is merely deduced from 1 Pet. 1:1.

Nor is this all ; the deduction is a very mistaken one, for in 1:14, 1:18, 1:21, 2:9-10, 4:2-3 it is clearly said that the readers of the epistle are Gentile Christians and in 1:12 with equal clearness that it was not the writer of the epistle who had brought the gospel to them. Not till we come to 2 Pet. 1:16 is it asserted that they had been preached to by Peter. On this showing we should have to suppose that he had come to them at some time after the composition of the first epistle ; for according to 2 Pet. 3:1 the second epistle is addressed to the same readers as the first. This, however, is inconsistent with the address, according to which 2 Pet. is directed to the whole of Christendom ; and Christendom is not here to be restricted, on account of (as it might at first sight appear) 3:1, to the five provinces named in 1 Pet. 1:1, which would be inconsistent with the manifest sense of the words, but contrariwise we must believe the author of 2 Pet. to have presupposed 1 Pet. to have been already addressed to the whole of Christendom. This presupposition comes before us in the Muratorian fragment where (ll. 54-59) it is asserted that from the number of the churches to which Paul addressed his nine letters - viz., seven - and from the number of the epistles in the Apocalypse - also seven - we are to perceive that both writers are addressing themselves in their letters to the entire church. There are other reasons also for assigning 2 Pet. to the same date as this fragment, say about 170 or 180 A.D.

(b) The other spheres of activity, in which Peter is represented as having laboured along with other apostles are equally questionable. Alongside of such traditions there is often a simpler form in which Peter is not mentioned. Thus there readily arises the suspicion that Peter has been given as a companion to other apostles by legend merely.

Peter is said to have laboured with Philip in Assakia (Phrygia), with his brother Andrew and Matthias or Matthew in the country of the Barbarians, that is to say, primarily, by the Black Sea, so that this legend coincides with a part of that already noticed under a. As, however, there is also a country of the barbarians by the Red Sea, we find Peter as the companion of Bartholomew in Egypt as well ; and finally what is said of this last apostle is transferred to Judas Thaddaeus, so that Peter is made to be the companion of this Judas in Syria.

(c) We are told further that from Egypt Peter also made journeys to North Africa and to Britain, but in these cases he was alone.

(d) In Syria Peter appears not only with Judas Thaddaeus, but also without any companion, particularly in Antioch. Indeed, according to Eusebius in his Chronicle, or in his source (26e ; Lipsius, 2:1:25-27), that church was founded by Peter in the second year of Claudius, that is, in 42 A.D. This is in absolute contradiction with Acts 11:19-26. Nor is there any plausible reason for accepting the activity of Peter in Antioch to be found in the consideration that he could easily touch at Antioch in the course of his journeys from Jerusalem to Asia Minor ; and just as little can we attach weight to the circumstance that it was precisely in Antioch that SIMON MAGUS (q.v. 11b), whom it was one of Peter's tasks continually to confute, made his appearance. Thus it is tempting to conjecture that the statement as to the appearance of Peter in Antioch rests upon Gal. 2:11-21. If this conjecture is correct we shall have here an admirable example of the manner in which in the making of ecclesiastical legend the hostile relations. of two apostles are ignored or even changed into a relation of friendly co-operation (cp 40b).

We learn even that Peter and Paul together in Antioch consecrated Marcianus as bishop of Syracuse, and Pancratius as bishop of Tauromenium in Sicily (Lipsius, 2:1:58-9). But it is only late authors who assign to Peter the bishopric of Antioch (Cod. Coislinianus, No. 120 [ed. Grosch, Jena, 1886] for two years, the Liber Pontificalis [6th and 7th cent.] for seven or ten years). Origen does not, even when he designates Ignatius (Hom. 6 in Luc., III. 938 b A, ed. de la Rue) 'episcopum Antiochiae post Petrum secundum', for these words are to be understood, in accordance with the expressions of ancient authors cited below (26g), in such a sense that Peter is not to be reckoned as included : so also Kus. HE 3:36:2. Euodius, who is represented as having been appointed by Peter himself (Const. Apost. 7:46), passes for the first bishop of Antioch.

(e) It accords with the dating of 1 Pet. (5:13) from Babylon that Peter should be represented as having laboured in Babylonia and Persia. Whilst many accounts have it that he subsequently journeyed to Rome, the Syrian historians assign to him the lands of the Euphrates exclusively as his missionary field (Lipsius 2:16:611-613, 2:2:145-146, 2:2:175). Cp section 43.

(f) The statement which has met with widest acceptance is that Peter laboured in Rome and suffered martyrdom there. As to this, see sections 25-31, 37-41, 45.

(g) The missionary journeys of Peter through Macedonia, Greece, Sicily, and Italy are open to the suspicion that they have been assumed merely in order to make more clear his migration from Asia Minor to Rome and that for their details the journeys of Paul served as a pattern (Lipsius 2:1:11).

(h) The representation that Peter laboured also in Gaul and in Spain appears to have arisen out of the desire of the Roman church to secure for itself the supremacy over these countries. Pope Innocent I. (402-417) expressly denies that in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa and Sicily, or any of the intermediate islands, churches were anywhere founded by any one except priests who had been instituted by Peter or by his successors ( Epist. 252, ap. Lipsius, 2:2:217, 2:2:307).

(i) We thus obtain as a preliminary result that apart from Rome only the claims of Antioch and Babylon or at most also of the shores of the Black Sea (Pontus) have some measure of plausible support in tradition ; but of these that of Antioch is definitely ruled out by the data of the XT ; for not only is the founding of the churcli there by Peter impossible, but also any lengthened stay there on his part, inasmuch as its Gentile Christian character was most marked and moreover it had been witness of his humiliation at the hands of Paul (Gal. 2:11-21). As for the claims of Babylon, see below, 30k, 43.

1 For details here and in what follows we refer once for all to Lipsius, Apokr. Apost.-Gesch. (1883-1890), and especially in the first instance to vol. 2i, and the Erganzungsheft, 226-227.

Sojourn in Rome.[edit]


25. Earliest witnesses.[edit]

Let us first inquire what are our earliest authorities for a sojourn of Peter in Rome and his ultimate martyrdom there,

(a) The first whom we can date with certainty is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (abou 170 A.D.). From a letter of his addressed to the Church of Rome in the time of the bishopric of Soter there (about 166-174), in which 1 he thanks the Romans for pecuniary help given to members of the Corinthian church, Eusebius (HE 2:258) has preserved the following passage :

raura Kal vfj.sis Sia. rr/s TOffavr-qs pon^ecrtas TT}v dwo \\frpov Kal Ilai Xoii (pvTeiav yevrjOelffav Pco,ua/a;i re Kal Kopivdiuir crvveKepdaarf. Kal yap aij.(pu) Kal eis TTJV f]fj.eT^pav \\.6piv0ov ipvTevtravTes Tjuds o^oiais fdida^av, buoiws 5 Kal i s TTT}v lra\iav o/J-offf didd^avres e/j.apTvpr}crav Kara TOP avrbv Kaipov.
'So also by this so weighty admonition 2 ye have brought together that planting made by Peter and Paul of the Romans and of the Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both planted us in our Corinth, and likewise taught us ; in like manner also after having taught together in Italy they suffered martyrdom about the same time'.

The meaning of these words is not perfectly clear [cp col. 4145] ; but so much can be made out - that Dionysius means to designate the Roman and Corinthian churches alike as foundations of Peter and Paul. This is involved in 'planting' (</>urf i a [phyteia]) even if we should prefer for ^yTeuVai/Tes [phyteusantes] the reading of Syncellus : <|>oiT>j<rai Tes [phoitesantes]. At the same time, the expression ei TTJI I [eis ten italian] stands in wide acceptance with a linguistic usage which at that date was widely spread (see Winer (7), 50, 4b), for ev tn lTaAia [en te italia], for the participle 'having taught' [didaxantes] belongs to it; and thus <t>oirri<7ai>Tfs [phoitesantes], even if it ought to be regarded as the right reading, would not furnish the requisite completion to the second member of the sentence. This being so, the suggestion becomes natural that ts . . . Kopirtfor [eis ... korinthon] stands for ey . . . KoptVCw [en ... korinthoo], and thus that <J>uTeuaai>Tes [phyteusantes] ought to be retained - all the more because it is in keeping with <f>uTeia [phyteia]. O/j.6<rc [homose] means properly 'towards one and the same place'; but as we may not bring in <f><HT>jcrai/Tes [phoitesantes], this will not at all suit the context. Here also then we must discern another instance of the same confusion as that between ets [eis] and iv [en], in other words 6/xou [homou] must be meant. Thus Dionysius, even if he does not expressly say that Peter and Paul came simultaneously to Corinth and simultaneously to Rome, nevertheless, as regards Rome at least, states that they taught there simultaneously ; in fact 'in like manner also' (6/oiotios 6 KaC [homoioos de kai]) indicates very distinctly that he assumes them to have taught together in Corinth also.

1 As Eusebius in his enumeration (HE 4:23:9) of the epistles of Dionysius known to him mentions only one to the Romans, we must suppose this to be the same as that which he had already made use of (2:25:8).

2 By this is doubtless intended the Epistle of the Roman church mentioned in 4:23:11, which Dionysius is answering.

This last assumption is quite irreconcilable with Acts 18:1-18, 20:2-3; and even were we to suppose that Dionysius thinks of Peter's visit to Corinth as having been at a different date from that of Paul, we should still be at hopeless variance with 1 Cor. 3:10-15, 4:15 (see section 2g). The statement of Dionysius accordingly can only rest on unwarranted inference from what Paul says regarding the Cephas party in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:21-22).

Thus it is of no avail when Harnack (ACL ii. [ = Chronol.] 1:242-243) seeks to defend Dionysius by arguing that even according to Acts (8:14-17) the founding of a church becomes 'perfect' only after apostolic labours, so that Dionysius does not by the language he uses exclude an activity of other missionaries in Rome before the arrival of Peter and Paul. In the first place, Harnack's exegesis of the passage in Acts is not exact. What can be effected by the apostles alone is the bestowal of the Holy Spirit ; that without this the founding of a church is not 'perfect' is not said, and does not at all suit the other case in which the same theory is found (19:1-7). This last passage has nothing at all to do with the founding of a church, but only with the spiritual gifts of speaking with 'tongues' and of prophecy. But, further, Harnack s defence of Dionysius. even were it valid, would apply only to what he says about Rome, not to what he says about Corinth ; for, if Dionysius has followed the theory of Acts as this is expounded by Harnack, in the present case at all events Paul has complied with it, inasmuch as he brought about the gift of the Holy Spirit at once in his first ministry there, and thus Peter would have found no field there for his function as a founder of churches unless his arrival had been synchronous with that of Paul.

Thus it is impossible to absolve Dionysius from the charge of having, in the interests of a theory as to the co-operation of Peter and Paul, grievously distorted the history of his own church in a point as to which he of all men must be presumed to have been accurately informed. How then are we to repose confidence in such a 'witness' when he tells us about Rome? Perhaps his whole knowledge regarding Rome rests upon misunderstanding of 1 Clem, (below, 28), of which he says (ap. Eus. HE 4:23:11) that it is regularly read at Corinth in public worship.

(b) In Irenaeus (about 185 A. D. ) the most important passages relating to our present inquiry are the following. According to Haer. 3:1:2 [3:1:1] Matthew wrote his gospel 'whilst Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church' (rov \\irpov Kai TOU ]lai \ovfv Pu/j.riei ayyf\io/Li:ev(ijt> Kal6e/j.e\i.ovi T<i)i> TTJV KK\-rjffiaf). In 3:3:1 [3:3:2] he speaks of the 'very great, very ancient, and universally known church founded and constituted at Rome by the two very glorious apostles Peter and Paul' (maxima et antiquissima et omnibus cognita a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romre fundata et constituta ecclesia). Here Irenaeus's interest is to prove the apostolical succession of bishops. As it would be too laborious a task to do this for all churches he contents himself with the case of Rome.

(c) The list of bishops of Rome which Irenaeus proceeds immediately afterwards to give (3:3:2-3) comes down to his own day (vvv [nyn]) and ends with Eleutherus (about 174-189). It may be presumed that it was not drawn up for the first time at the date of his writing.

It cannot indeed be maintained that Hegesippus - as his words in Eus. HE 4:22:3 seem to say - drew up, after his arrival in Rome, a list of the bishops there down to Anicetus (about 154-166) as Lightfoot (Apost. Fathers, i. [ = Clement of Rome] 1:63-64, 1:153-154, 1:202-203, 1:327-333) would have it (see MINISTRY, 58c, n. and Harnack, ACL 2:1:180-184); but on the other hand according to Harnack (pp. cit. 184-193) and Erbes (Z. f. Kirchengesch. 22:2-5 [1901]) it is probable that Epiphanius (Haer. 276) for his list of the bishops of Rome made use of the same Roman original source as Irenaeus, and that this, as in Epiphanius, ended with Anicetus, and thus perhaps was drawn up during his episcopate, or at any rate during that of his successor, Soter. Whatever its date, the form in which the list is now found gives no certainty as to what is the most important point in this connection the question, namely, as to when it was that the reference to Peter and Paul was first introduced. Irenaeus begins his rendering of it thus : 'The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, after founding and building up the church, committed the office of the episcopate into the hands of Linus. To him succeeds Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement is allotted the episcopate' (tfejueAiGJo-acTes ovv KOi OlKo5ofX))(7<I> TCS Ol jtiaKaplOl aTTOOToAoi Tt]V iKK\T)<ria.V At l Cj) TI\V Tijs 67ricrKOirr)S Aetroupyi ai ivt\tlf>l(Tav. StaSe ^eTat 6e O.VTOV \veyK\rfToy fieri TOVTOV 6e rpiYw TOTTO) anb rioc aTroerToAui/ TT/V eTTicncoTrrji (cArjpouTai KArjjurjs). Thus we find no mention either of Peter or of Paul as bishop of Rome. If Clement is designated as third 'from the apostles' (arb tiav ano<nd\u>v [apo toon apostoloon]) probably all that is intended is to accentuate the unbrokennessof the succession, not to imply that if one chose to include the two apostles in the reckoning he would be not the third but the fourth or fifth in the series. Epiphanius, however, says : 'In Rome the first were Peter and Paul, apostles and bishops, thereafter Linus, thereafter Cletus, thereafter Clement', etc. (ev Pco/ur; yeyopacri TTQGOTOI IleVpos Ka.1 IlaCAos aTrdoToAot KCU CTTIOXOTTOI. eira AiVos, etra KArjros, etra KArj,u.T)s, /c.r.A.). Aftera short interruption, he resumes : 'The series of bishops in Rome shows the following succession, Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement', etc. (17 rtav (V Pcufirj CTricncdirwi SiaSoxri ravrrjv e\ei TTJC O.K.O \ovBiav Herpes xal IlauAos, AtVos Kal KArJTOS, KA>j;u.7)s, /c.-r.A.). If, however, Epiphanius makes Peter and Paul bishops of Rome, 1 then Irenaeus also, or another shortly before him, can have prefixed their names to the whole list which at an earlier date had begun simply with Linus. The list of bishops can have been subjected to the same supplementing process after Irenaeus's time also, before it came into the hands of Epiphanius (died 403), or after that of Julius Africanus (about 220) or of Hippolytus (about 234), the two last mentioned of whom also made use of it, according to Harnack (188). A list of this kind, from the nature of the case, was not allowed to remain long unaltered, but could easily be completed in the course of transcription whenever a copyist believed he had found a gap in it. Moreover, neither Irenasus nor Epiphanius, whose editions of the list lie before us as they wrote them, makes any statement that he is using an external document, and feels himself under obligation to reproduce it scrupulously. Thus for us no exact determination of its date is necessary ; so far as Peter and Paul are concerned it does not with certainty take us back to a date before Irenaeus.

(d) In Clement of Alexandria, Peter's sojourn in Rome is, as with Irenaeus, mentioned in connection with the writing of a gospel - in this case, however, Mk. not Mt

From the Hypotyposes Eusebius (HE 6:14:6-7) has preserved a piece of information which Clement claims to have received from the presbyters of the olden time (riav aveKOL&tv TrpeovSu- re pwi/ [toon anekathen presbyteroon]). 'After that Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome, and, filled with the spirit, had set forth the gospel (TOU HeVpou Srifiocria ev Poi/irj xrjpiifai TOs rov Adyoi/ Kal irvev^ari. TO fva.yyfh.iov e^enrovros), Mark at the request of many hearers set down these discourses in writing'. Similarly in the Adumbrationes on 1 Pet. (ed. Potter, 1007) : Marcus Petri sectator palam praedicante Petro evangelium Romae', etc. In the other passage where Eusebius transcribes the same matter from the Hypotyposes of Clement, though somewhat differently (HE 2:15:1-2; with regard to which cp GOSPELS, 147, end), Rome is presupposed, through the connection with 2:14:5-6, to be the place. As the Gospel of Mark is alleged to have owed its origin to the evangelist's reports of the discourses of Peter, it is intelligible why Clement should not have mentioned Paul at the same time, even although he was convinced of the apostles having been together in Rome.

(e) Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebaptismate, 17 (Cypr. ed. Hartel, 3:90), read in Pauli Praedicatio as follows:

'et post tarita tempora Petrum et Paulum post conlationem evangelii in Hierusalem et mutuam cogitationem et altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem [the reference is to Gal. 2, Acts 15] postremo in urbe quasi tunc primum invicem sibi esse cognitos, et quaedam alia hujusce modi absurde ac turpiter conficta'
('and that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the gospel in Jerusalem and the mutual consideration and discussion and arrangement of things to be done, had at last in the city, in a certain way, then for the first time become known to one another ; and certain other things of this sort, absurdly and basely feigned').

In spite of the title Pauli Praedicatio this quotation is often regarded as coming from the book known by the title of KrjpvyfAa IleVpov [kerygma petrou], in the belief that the title sometimes ran also : Preaching of Peter and Paul. Were this correct, we should have here the oldest testimony to the Roman sojourn of Peter, it being presupposed that the book was used not only by Clement of Alexandria but also as early as in the Afology pf Aristides (see Harris, Apology of Aristides, in TSt. 1:1:86-99; Harnack, ACL 2:1:472-473; cp OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 11, 16). But the question of the derivation of the quotation from it is so uncertain (it is answered negatively by von Dobschutz, for example, in TU 11:1:13-15, 11:1:127-131) that we need not pursue the matter further.

(f) The apocryphal Acta Petri, which relates the activity and death of Peter at Rome with detail, may be mentioned at this point as being possibly a witness of equal age, but must not be taken account of until after it has been carefully discussed (see 32-39). So also with the Hpd^eis Ilav\ov [praxeis paulou] from which Origen (tom. in Jn. 20:12, ed. de la Rue, 4:322, c) quotes: 'as was said by the Saviour, I am going to be crucified anew' (ws virb rov <rwr?5pos eipri^vov &vu9ev fj.t\\u aravpovffdai) (see 33g, 34g, 39a, 39c}.

1 For this very reason if for no other we see that Epiphanius cannot have preserved the original form of the list. It also indicates but little accuracy when he says at one time 'Linus, then Cletus' (AiVos f Ira KArji-os [linos eita kletos]), at another 'Linus and Cletus' (AiVos Kal KATJTOS [linos kai kletos]), for the latter form of expression denotes, as we see in 'Peter and Paul' (Ile Tpos Kal IlavAos [petros kai paulos]), simultaneous tenure of office.

26. Later witnesses.[edit]

We proceed now to the testimonies which come from a somewhat later date.

(a) Tertullian supplies new data, if not indeed in adv. Marc. ( 4:5 begin. ) where he says : 'Romani . . . quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt' - or in Baptism, 4, where he ascribes the possession of the same salvation to those 'quos Joannes in Jordane et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit', etc., yet certainly in Praescr. haeret. 36 : 'habes Romani . . . ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur [by crucifixion], ubi Paulus Joannis [the Baptist's] exitu coronatur [by beheading]', and in Scorpiace, 15 : 'orientem fidem Romoe primus Nero cruentavit. Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur [Jn. 21:18-19] cum cruci adstringitur ; tune Paulus civitatis Romanaeconsequitur nativitatem cum illic martyrii renascitur generositate', 1 Paul acquires the Roman citizenship by right of birth when he is born again in the nobility of martyrdom.

(b) Gaius of Rome (under Zephyrinus, about 198-217) says in his writing against the Montanist Proculus (ap. Eus. HE 2:25:6-7) : 'But I am able to show the "trophies" of the apostles. For if you will come to the Vatican or to the Ostean Way, you will find the " trophies" of those who founded this church' (t"-yw 5 TO, TpoTraLa r&v dirocrToXwi ^%oj 5eicu. eav yap 6e\r)aris cnreXOeii firl TQV ISaTiKavbv ?} tirl T^V odbv rr\v Qarlav, evprfffets TO. rpoiraia T&V ravrriv ISpvaa/ufvuv TTJV tK- K\riaiav). By rporraia [tropaia] we are to understand here not 'places of burial', as Eusebius does, but 'places of death'.

Even the literal meaning of the word ('sign of victory') admits this meaning only; for a martyr gained his victory only at the place of his death, not at the place of his burial. To understand the meaning 'sign of victory' we have only to make the further supposition that those who honoured the martyrs were able to show, at the place of death, some object or other that marked it out for those who visited the spot, and with which was associated some reminiscence, whether real or supposed, of what happened at the martyr's death. Thus in the Vatican was shown a terebinth, on the road to Ostia a pine tree, beside which Peter and Paul respectively breathed their last (Lipsius 2:1:391).

Even apart, however, from its lexical meaning we may learn that rpoTrata [tropaia] cannot here mean graves. For the bones of the two apostles were not deposited in the places he mentions till long after the time of Gaius ; those of Peter after 354, in the Church of St. Peter, which was built at that date ; those of Paul, according to the list of the depositio martyrum, in the famous chronicle of the year 354, as early as 258 A.D., by the road to Ostia (and before 354 in the basilica newly built there). In the same year, however (258 ; June 29), the relics of Peter, according to the same list, were transferred in catacumbas, that is to say, into the catacombs of the piece of ground beside the Appian Way, half-an-hour outside of the Porta Appia, in other words, hard by the present church of San Sebastiano, which piece of ground was originally the only one that bore the name 'ad Catacumbas', a name which has never as yet been quite satisfactorily explained. Here an inscription of bishop Damasus (366-384) ran:-

hie habitasse priiis sanctos cognoscere debes
nomina quisque l Petri pariter Paulique requiris.

So far as Peter is concerned, this agrees with the fact that his relics had been removed to the church of St. Peter before this inscription was composed ; as regards Paul the statement of Damasus is not easily reconciled with that of the list referred to above. Still, even if the list be correct it is certain that the relics of Paul had not yet, in the time of Gaius, their resting-place by the road to Ostia, and that those of Peter should have been removed to the catacombs would be very unlikely, if already in Gaius's time they had their resting-place at the place of his death, namely the Vatican. On the whole question see Lipsius 2:1:391-404; Erbes, Z. f. Kirchengesch. (1885) 7:1-49, and, as regards the special point, otherwise in Todestage der Apostel Paulus u. Petrus in TU 19 (=Neue Folge, 4), 1 (1899) 67-133. Ficker (Z. f. Kirchengesch. 1901, 22:333-342) utterly denies that the inscription relates to the burial of Peter and Paul. His opinion is that in the view of Damasus they had during their lifetime resided at the spot where the inscription was found (cp 'habitasse', and 'nomina' not 'corpora'). The inscription, he holds, was directed against the refusal of the Eastern Chirch, from 325 A.D. onwards, to accept any decisions from Rome, and against the argument urged in support of this refusal that Peter and Paul came from the East (the inscription in fact says, towards the end : 'Roma suos polius meruit defendere cives'). Only, as the locality where the inscription was found was a place of burial, it is very improbable that Damasus can have believed that Peter and Paul when alive lived here at half-an-hour s distance from the city.

(c) In immediate continuation of the passage relating to Peter cited above (24a), Origen proceeds : 'Who also in the end, being in Rome, was crucified head downwards, having himself desired to suffer in this way' (6s KO.I etrl r^Xet ev Pu/J.ri yevo/j.fi>os avtaKoXoiriffOri Kara Ke(pa\rj^, oirrws aiV6s d^iwcras iraQelv}. The Acta Petri (see 33^) deals fully with the reasons why Peter chose this particular manner of death. As regards Paul, Origen goes on to say that he suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero.

(d) The Philosophumena (dating from about 235 and ascribed to Hippolytus), as well as other later writings, mentions the polemic with Simon, carried on at Rome by Peter (and Paul), with which we are acquainted through the apocryphal Acta Petri (and Acta Petri et Pauli). For details see 39d.

(e} Of later writers we at once mention Eusebius. He brings together all that has been hitherto mentioned, and will have it that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, namely from 42-67 A.D. He thus places the Neronian persecution, in which according to him also Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom (HE 2:25:5), three years too late. It is of a piece with this that he supports the theory, which he himself (HE 5:18:14) takes from the Anti-Montanist Apollonius (about 200 A.D.) - a theory which already finds expression in the Praedicatio Petri (above, 25e ; ap. Clem. Al. Strom, 6:5:43, p. 762, ed. Potter ; for other supporters of it see Harnack, ACL 2:1:243) - that the apostles had been commanded by Jesus not to go abroad from Jerusalem till twelve years after his death. These twelve years Eusebius reckons as from 30 to 42 A. D. The variations met with in the different translations of his Chronicle, no longer extant in Greek, need not trouble us here. The only point of importance for our inquiry is that the reckoning of twenty -five Roman years was found, not invented, by Eusebius. According to Harnack (ACL 2:1:116-129) he used the Chronography of Julius Africanus, which closed with the reign of Elagabalus (218-222 A.D. ).

(f) Thus, according to Harnack (201, 703-704), the tendency legend, that Peter sojourned in Rome for twenty-five years, arose and 'became official' between the time of Irenaeus, who as yet knew nothing whatever of Peter's twenty-five Roman years, and that of Julius Africanus, that is to say in the episcopate of Victor (about 189-198), or in that of Zephyrinus (about 198- 217).

1 Quisque here = quicunque = whosoever.

(g) The consequence of this is that Peter becomes no longer the founder merely, or joint founder, but the bishop also of the church of Rome, and that Paul, whom we still find even in Irenaeus, etc. (26 a-d), at his side and on a level with him, is eliminated. This consequence, however, was developed only gradually.

The Roman bishop Calixtus (about 217-222) claimed, as appears from Tertullian's refutation (Pudic. 21), the power to remit or retain sins, on the ground that he was the successor of Peter who, according to Mt. l6:18-19, had been invested with this power. So also his successors affirmed in Cyprian s time : 'Se successionem Petri tenere' or 'per successionem cathedram Petri habere'; and this is presupposed by Cyprian himself (Epist. 75 17 558 59 14 713). According to the Epistle of Clement to James (2) that now stands prefixed to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Peter, in appointing Clement bishop of Rome, hands over to him his Ka0f&pa riav \6ytav [kathedra toon logoon], and confers on him the power of binding and loosing. The author (Hippolytus?) of the 'Little Labyrinth' against the sect of Artemon (ap. Eus. HE 5:28) in 3 styles Victor as rpitTKat- Sexa.TO ; ajrb IleVpou er PCOJU.IJ CTricricoiros [triskaidekatos apo petrou en rome episkopos] - thus no longer, as Irenaeus phrases it, curb riov cuTToa-Tob.tav [apo toon apostoloon] - (i.e., from Peter and Paul ; see above, 25c). Yet he continues to call Victor the thirteenth as Irenaeus had called Eleutherus, Victor's predecessor, the twelfth ; thus he does not yet reckon Peter as the first member of the series. Similarly, Eusebius still counts Linus as the first bishop of Rome, and in accordance with this, gives the succeeding bishops the same numeration as Irenaeus does. While doing so he nevertheless adds (HE 3:4:8), ^erd HeTpoi [meta petron], yet along with this not only juera TTJC IlauAou icai Ile rpow fiapTvpiW [meta ton paulou kai petrou martyrian] (3:2:), but also /u.era IlaOAdi/ re a! IleYpoi [meta paulon te kai petron] (3:21:), aTrb Ile rpou xal IlaiiAou [apo petrou kai paulou] (4:1:) and, precisely as Irenaeus has it, airb nil an-ooToAaji [apo toon apostoloon] (4:5:5 and 5 prooem. 1). For more precise details from Eusebius see Kneller, Z. f. kathol. Theol. 1902, p. 229-230.

(h) It is in the Catalogus Liberianus (i.e., the list of Roman bishops brought down to Liberius, A. D. 352+), forming part of the famous Chronicle of 354, that Peter is first spoken of unreservedly as first bishop of Rome : 'post ascensum ejus [Jesu] beatissimus Petrus episcopatum suscepit' (but here from 30-55 A.D. ).

27. Ascensio Jesaiae.[edit]

The Ascensio Jesaiae would seem to be a still older witness than any of those we have hitherto discussed, to the fact of Peter's martyrdom at Rome.

(a) Clemen (ZWT, 1896, 388-415; 1897, 455-465) held it possible to distinguish and isolate in 3:31-4:22 (or 3:21-4:22) an apocalypse put into writing before the death of Nero (4:2-3, 13-16), which related to Nero's persecution of the Christians ; and in 43b, which at that date he knew only through Dillmann's Latin translation from the Ethiopic ('e duodecim in manus eius tradetur'), he found an allusion to the death of Peter in that reign.

Harnack (ACL 2:1:714-716) disputed this hypothesis, including that relating to Peter; Zeller (ZWT, 1896, p. 558-568) accepted the latter, but like Harnack put the date of composition much later than Clemen had done, and therefore denied its trustworthiness as regarded Peter. Clemen at a later date was able to report (Theol. Rundschau, 1901, p. 75) that Vernon Hartlet (Apostolic Age, 1900, p. 524) also had assigned Asc. Jes. 3:13-4:21 to the last years of Nero, but at the same time took the opportunity to add, without further discussion, that he himself no longer regarded that dating as probable in view of the Greek text recently published by Grenfell and Hunt (Ainherst Papyri, 1, 1900, 1-22). Charles, who makes use of this Greek text in his edition of Asc. Jes. (1900), holds that a hiatus in 4:3b ought to be filled by the insertion of ets [eis] and the clause interpreted as referring to Peter : 'of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands' ([T]iav SiaStKa [ets] rals x f po - " / . a " TO " MapaSoerjo-eTai). Harnack also gives his adhesion to this (SBAW, 1900. p. 985-986), but adds that the value of the statement regarding Peter will depend upon its date, and this he prefers to assign rather to the first half of the third century, than to any time within the second (ACL 2:1:574-577).

(b) Charles, however, holds that Asc. Jes. 3:13b-4:18, 'the testament of Hezekiah', ought to be dated between 88 and 100 A.D. , not, as in APOCALYPTIC, between 50 and 80 A.D. According to him the question turns upon 4:13 (p. 30-31)

Charles renders the Ethiopic version, here the only text available for us, as follows:

'And many believers and saints, having seen Him for whom they were hoping, who was crucified, Jesus the Lord Christ fafter that I, Isaiah, had seen Him who was crucified and ascended], and those also who were believers in Him of these few in those days will be left as His servants, while they flee from desert to desert, awaiting the coming of the Beloved'.

Charles adds: 'we see that two classes of the faithful are discriminated . . . believers who had seen Christ personally, and believers who had not. . . . Of the two classes our text declares that few will be left'. As, however, the first class can not well have survived into the second century, this passage must have been written before 100 A.D. On the other hand, it has to be remembered that this distinction of two classes could, if really intended, hardly be called a good one. The second class is spoken of as consisting simply of 'those who were believers in Him' ; but the first class also consists of 'believers (and saints)'. Thus it would hardly seem to have been the writer's intention to distinguish two classes.

(c) In a private communication Charles now prefers to read : 'and many believers and saints who had seen Him . . . and who also kept believing in Him', etc. By this conjectural substitution of ot [oi] for the 6re [ote] which the Ethiopic translation presupposes 'all reference to a second class' disappears. Charles continues to maintain, however, that the reference is to Jewish Christians who have personally known Jesus. But in this case we are compelled to ask : Is the persecution of the last days really to be confined to these alone, and are they alone to look for the Messiah, and other Christians not? Besides, the text even as restored by Charles still contains a very disturbing tautology, 'many believers and saints . . . who also kept believing in Him'.

Bousset (Antichrist, 1895, p. 87-88) regards our passage as more largely interpolated than Charles does. But neither is his conjecture at all satisfying. As long as we hold by Charles' text, Zeller's interpretation remains the most probable one, that seeing means a knowledge of Christ possessed by all Christians and not merely by those who were eye-witnesses of his earthly life (cp Jn. 14:7, 1 Jn. 3:6, 3 Jn. 11). On this interpretation however all necessity disappears for dating the passage before 100 A.D. There are signs of a later origin, such as, for example, the distinction of bishops from presbyters (MINISTRY, 46, 47, 54b, 54c), which as matter of fact is clear in the irpeafSvTepoi (cat Troi/xe res [presbyteroi kai poimenes] of 3:24 (and also 3:29 according to the Ethiopic version), or the representation of the circumstances of the resurrection of Jesus (3:15-17), which, at least in so far as it names Michael (and Gabriel), goes beyond that of the gospel of Peter even (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 7c)

(d) Finally, it does not seem to have occurred to any one to ask whether or no the most important clause of all in the passage before us really belongs to the original text (4:3b : 'of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands'. Charles (pp. 69-73) has rightly perceived that it is not the living Nero who is regarded as Antichrist, but the dead one : in the form of Nero, we read in 4:24, Beliar (= Satan ; 2 Cor. 6:15, and cp BELIAL) will appear and will rule for 3.5 years, immediately after which will be the end of the world (4:5-18). Of this Nero it cannot be intended to say that Peter is to fall into his hands in the year 64 A. D. Except in this one clause - if indeed it is to be referred to Peter - the whole of the rest of the description is purely apocalyptic ; Christians will become godless (3:21-31), Beliar will come in the form of Nero (4:2) and will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the Beloved have planted (Gk. 'will plant' : <pvrev<Tov(nv [phyteusousin], 4:3 ; as to this clause, cp below, e) ; he will work miracles, will cause himself to be worshipped as God, and will be cast into hell by the Lord (Christ?), who will come down from the seventh heaven (4:4-14). If in the middle of all this it is said of one of the twelve that he will fall into the hands of this Beliar (4:3b), the one intended must, if the clause is to fit the context, be one who has survived the death of Nero.

The only notorious instance which the readers could have found referred to in these purely allusive words would be that of John with his cup of poison and his bath of boiling oil (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 8b). Yet it is not easy to see why this atrocity should be referred precisely to Beliar coming in the form of Nero. This Beliar is a purely apocalyptic form, whose deeds are with good reason described in quite general and indefinite terms. As real prophecy a piediction of any such detail would be not only bold but also out of keeping with the apocalyptic character of the representation of the time of the end ; as vaticinimn ex eventu it is equally out of keeping ; and, besides, the martyrdom of John is not a historical fact but first came to be believed at so late a date after the time of the emperor under whom it is alleged to have occurred (Domitian is usually named) as to make it absolutely impossible that at the time of the writer this emperor should be spoken of as the last to reign before the end of the world or that a reign of no more than 3i years should be assigned to him.

Thus it becomes in fact probable that it is Peter rather than John who is intended. In that case, however, the clause must be regarded as a gloss. It is so regarded, it will be seen, not with the object of getting rid of a text that is inconvenient for the view of Peter s life taken in the present article, but purely for reasons affecting a right understanding of Asc. Jes. The deletion of the clause would be necessary even if it related not to Peter but to some other of the apostles who had suffered martyrdom under Nero.

(e) There are two ways by which the extent of the gloss can be determined.

If in the entire text the Antichrist is the subject, then it consists only of the above cited words in 4:3b. If, on the other hand, we should find ourselves constrained to understand the living Nero as being the subject of v. 3 (the subject according to v. 2, end, is 'Who himself (even) this king', OCTTIS avrbs 6 /3a<riAevs oJ-ros), then the immediately following expression, v. 3a ('will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the Beloved have planted') must also be reckoned as belonging to the interpolation; for it is quite improbable that between two utterances regarding Antichrist there should stand one relating to the living Nero who must nevertheless be dead before Antichrist comes forward in Nero's form.

Why the clause should have been added by some ancient reader will become very intelligible if only we suppose such reader to have understood by Beliar the actual Nero - as was done at first by Clemen in 1896-1897 It thus appears that Asc. Jes. cannot be adduced as an earlier witness for the belief of the martyrdom of Peter under Nero than the documents dealt with in preceding sections.

28. 1 Clem.[edit]

Contrariwise all the writings of an older date are profoundly silent on the subject of Peter's Roman sojourn. A detailed examination of 1 Clem. is at this poim called for, partly on account of its fundamental importance, and partly because it is often taken in the other sense.

(a) After having pointed to the instances in the OT in which jealousy and envy are seen to have led to the most direful results, Clement proceeds:

V. 1. AXV iVa rijov apx.a.iuv vTrodfiy/uidTwv travawfj.e0a, \6co[j,fv eirt TOVS eyyiara yfvop.ei oi S dflXr?rds \d(3tofj.ev rrjs yevtas Tjfj.wi TO. yevveua. vvoody/Kara.
V. 2. Ata fi/Xoi /ecu (frOovov ol /j-^yiaToi. Kal 5iKa.iOTa.TOi ffTvXoi toiu-%6 n ffa - v KCLI a;s 6a.va.Tov fj6\r](Ta.i>.
V. 3. Adpiiifj.ev irpb 6(pOa\fj.^iv i]p.Civ TOVS dyadovs diroffTb\ovs
V. 4. IleTpov, 5s did ^f/\ov adiKov oi>x %va ovo ovo d\\d ir\eiovas virrjveyKe Tr6vovs, /cat OVTW /j.apTvpriffas tiropevOT] eis TOV 6(pei\biJ.tvov T^TTOV Trjs do^rjs.
V. 5. Ata /)\ov Kal epiv Ilai Xos virofj.ovrjs fipaflf iov ^dei^ev
V. 6. eTrrd/cis defffj-d <f>opo-a. S, <pvya8ev8ds, \iOacr6eis, KTJpvjyevvuevos Zv re Trj dva.TO\rj /cat fi> TTJ ovaei, TO ytvvaiov TI)S TriffTeus avTov /cX^os Xa/3ec
V. 7. diKaioffvvrjv di5das 6\ov TOV KOff^ov, /cat eirl TO r^a TTJS 5i <crewj tXOuv /cat /j.apTvpr]ffas tVi T&V fiyov/itvwv, OVTWS dinj\\dyr; TOV Koff/J.ov /cat eis TOV ayiov TOTTOV (iropevQ-q, virofj.oi fjs yevjfjt.evo s /j.^yiffTos viroypa.fj.n6s.
VI. 1. To( >Tots rot s dvSpdaiv ocrtws TroXtrei cra/afJ otj avvyOpoiffBti TroXi) 7rX?)6>os ef/cXe/cru;; , oiVtJ es TroXXals ai/ctats Kal (laffdvois did f??Xos Trafljcres i>ir68fiy/J.a Kd\\urrov fytvovTO iv rjfuv.
VI. 2. Ata fijXos 5ia>x0etcrat yvvcUKCS Aavat Sej /cat A/p/cat, ai /ctV/xara dfivd /cat ai^crta Tra^oOcrat, e?rt Tbv Trjs iriffTeus pefiaiov dp6/j.ov Karf^vTTjcrav /cat gXafiov yitpas yevvalov at dffdevels T<^ crto^tart.
(5:1) But, not to dwell on the ancient examples, let us come to those champions who lived nearest ourselves. Let us take the noble examples of our own generation.
(5:2) By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
(5:3) Let us set before our eyes the good apostles;
(5:4) Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his due place of glory.
(5:5) By reason of jealousy and strife Paul showed the reward of patient endurance.
(5:6) After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown of his faith;
(5:7) having taught righteousness to the whole world and having come to the limit of the West and having borne his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having become a very great example of patient endurance.
(6:1) Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of elect ones who, suffering by reason of jealousy many indignities and tortures, became a most admirable example among us.
(6:2) By reason of jealousy women being persecuted as Danaids and Dircae, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults, safely reached the goal in the race of faith and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body.

(b) The word (j.aprvp /iffa.s [martyresas] applied to Paul (5:7) will be most fittingly interpreted as meaning, not 'having suffered martyrdom' (his death is indicated rather by the words d.wr)\\d.yr] TOV KOCT/JLOV) [apellage tou kosmou] but rather 'having borne (oral) testimony' or, at most,' having suffered tortures'. In the case of Peter, however (5:4), the first of these two renderings does not fit well : for oi rw /uapTtip77<rcts [outoo martyresas] seems intended to convey 'after that he had borne testimony' by the 'labours' (TTOVOL [ponoi]) just mentioned. These, however, extend over his whole life as an apostle. That precisely his death was occasioned by some such 'labour' and thus was a martyrdom is not expressly said and therefore might be disputed. Still, since Peter is here cited as an instance of how the greatest 'pillars' 'contended even unto death' we refrain from doing so.

(c) In like manner it will be well to concede that 'among us' (ev ijfj.iv [en emin]) in 61 does not mean 'among us Christians' - which would be tolerably vague - but 'among us Romans'. The reference is to the victims of the Neronian persecution (6:2) who were made use of for the presentation of mythological pieces. Still when it is said of the Xeronian martyrs in Rome that they were gathered together with Peter and Paul, we are by no means to draw it as a necessary inference that Peter and Paul also died in Rome. To 'was gathered' (irvfTj^pMcrOr] [synethroisthe]) in 6:1 what we ought rather to supply will be 'to the due place of glory' (eis TOV 6<pei.\b[j.evoi> TOTTOV rrjs 5Jr/j [eis ton opheilomenon topon tes doxes]) or 'to the holy place' (eh TOV &yiov TOWOV [eis ton hagion topon]) of 5:4, 5:7. Thus the common meeting-place referred to is not Rome but heaven, and accordingly the present passage says nothing as to the place of death.

(d) Neither in 5:1 does the author give any reason to suppose that he is thinking of all as having one and the same place of death. The oneness that unites those about to be mentioned and separates them from those who have been mentioned already is characterised as a oneness of time only : 'who lived nearest . . . our own generation' (Tovsyyi<TTa,yevo/j.fvovs . . . T-qsyevfasijiJ.^).

(e) As the writer is at Rome, by 'the limit of the west' (rtp.u.0. rrii ovfffu? [terma tes dyseoos], 5:7) to which Paul came it would seem as if Spain must be meant. The fact, however, of a journey of Paul to Spain is, if the present passage be left out of account, nowhere asserted before the fourth century except in the Muratorian fragment (ll. 38, 39) and in the pre-Catholic Acta Petri (see below, 33 a), and in view of the silence of the other witnesses is very much exposed to the suspicion of being merely an inference from Rom. 15:24, 15:28, where Paul expresses the intention of extending his journey from Rome to Spain. Eusebius (HE 2:22:2) speaks of a missionary activity of Paul after the captivity spoken of in Acts 28:30-31, but does not say where, and adds that thereafter Paul came once more to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. In the immediately following context (2:23-8) he refers the 'first hearing' (irpwrr) d.Tro\oyia [proote apologia]) of 2 Tim. 4:16 to the first Roman captivity. Here too, in view of the silence of other witnesses, there arises inevitably a strong suspicion that the discrimination of two captivities may have been suggested by this passage merely, whilst nevertheless Trpdirrj airo\oyia [proote apologia] in the nature of things ought to mean merely a first 'appearance' or 'hearing' as distinct from a second in the course of the same captivity, since the whole passage 4:9-18 is speaking of the details of a single captivity. For this inference not Eusebius but some one who preceded him must be held responsible ; he himself introduces the whole story with a \6yos tx fl ('the story goes'). If, however, Eusebius, who elsewhere puts forth so much that is false with the greatest assurance, here uses so cautious an expression as this, the matter, we may rest assured, is questionable in the highest degree.

Harnack (ACL 2:1:239-240) characterises the liberation of Paul from his first Roman captivity (and the journey to Spain) as an 'assured fact' (gesichcrte Thatsache). His reasons are - apart from TO rippa. TTJS 6u<7u> [to terma tes doseoos] here - certain genuine fragments of Paul preserved in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. 1:15-18, 4:9-21, Tit. 3:12-13), for which one can find no room in the earlier life of Paul (P. very precarious hypothesis, to say the least) and also chronological considerations according to which the tirst captivity came to an end in 59 A.D. whilst the martyrdom of Paul in the Neronian persecution (July, 64 A.D.) is an 'ascertained fact'. This last fact has no other 'secure' basis on which to rest than Harnack's interpretation of our present passage in 1 Clem, and the 'definite pieces of information' (ACL 2:1:710) referred to above (25-26) of which Harnack himself wrote not so very long ago (on 1 Clem. 5:4 : 1876): 'posteriore tempore auctores martyrii Petri vel itineris Romani, quorum testimonium nullius fere pretii est, sunt Dionysius Corinthius, Gajus Rumanus, . . . Irenaeus', etc. If these testimonies are of hardly any value with reference to Peter it is difficult to see that they are entitled to much confidence in what they say about Paul, - so far at least as the persons of the witnesses are concerned. The reckoning, however, which is suggested alternatively for adoption under CHRONOLOGY, 64-80, according to which the first Roman captivity ends in 59 A.D., Harnack is able to maintain (238) only at the cost of assuming that Tacitus is wrong by a year as to the age of the imperial prince Britannicus. Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristcnth. [1893] 1:1-108, 3:1 [1900]) postulates the liberation of Paul from his two-years Roman captivity in the interests of a very bold division of the Epistle to the Romans into two separate epistles, the first of which was written by Paul before, and the second (12:1-15:7, 16:1-20) after, his first sojourn in Rome. Conservative theology with almost complete unanimity postulates this liberation in the interests of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles. In that case, however, the journey into Spain is only an embarrassment, as the Epistles in question presuppose rather fresh journeys of the apostle in the East (1 Tim. 1:3, 3:14-15, 4:13, Tit. 1:5, 3:12) : but these in turn are excluded by Acts 20:25 ('I know that ye all ... shall see my face no more'), a saying which the author, even if it had reached him by tradition as a genuine utterance of Paul, would certainly have altered or omitted if it had not come true.

(f) The expression 'the limit of the west' (rb T^p/j.a T??? Swrews [to terma tes dyseoos]) itself would necessarily denote Spain only on the assumption that it cannot be taken otherwise than in a purely geographical sense. Since Paul, however, is the subject of the sentence, the writer can very possibly have meant a point that was for him the westward limit of his activities, in which case there is no longer any necessity to hold that Spain - otherwise so poorly attested as a field of Paul's activities - is meant. The writer, indeed, had he been very anxious to make it quite clear that Rome and Rome alone was intended, could have added 'his' (ai roO [autou]) to 'limit' (T{/>/J.O. [terma]) ; but it so happens that it is good Greek precisely to refrain from doing so. The passage is as every one sees highly rhetorical in character.

This being so it could surprise no one if the author, although himself a Roman, with Paul's starting-point in mind, calls Rome 'the limit of the west', just as in Acts 13:47 it is called 'the uttermost part of the earth' (e<r\a.rov TTJS vis [eschaton tes ges]), and just as in Ps. Sal. (17:14 [17:12]) Pompeius sends his captive Jews 'as far as the west' (os etri Sv<Tfi.ioi [eoos epi dysmoon]) or as Ignatius (ad Rom. 2:2) is transported 'to west from east' (fis tv<ji.v Into draroATj? [eis dysin apo anatoles]). In 1 Clem, itself 'east and west' (araroArj Kai 6u(ris [anatole kai dysis]) are used shortly before (5:6) as geographical indications of the range of Paul's activities, but from this it by no means follows that 'the limit of the west' must here be taken in an absolute sense and without any reference to the apostle s point of departure. In 1 Clem. 5:7 'having taught righteousness unto the whole world' (8iicaio<Tvi T)c 6t8aa? o\ov TOV Ko<Tfj.ov [dikaiosynen didaxas olon ton kosmon]) only repeats what was expressed in the preceding clause by 'having preached in the east and in the west' (icrjpvf yevo^evoi ev re Tf} dvaroAfl (tal ev TJJ Svcrei) and similarly the phrase immediately following this last 'won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith' (TO yevvaiov TTJ? mo-Tews auToO (tAf os eAa/3ei ) gives already a hint of his martyrdom which is more fully described in the succeeding section. Thus it is entirely in accordance with the structure of the whole writing if by having come to the limit of the west nothing new is intended but only a renewed reference to the apostle's sojourn in Rome. Another important point is that none of the church fathers has found Spain in our present passage ; otherwise Eusebius at least would not have left unnamed the place where Paul was believed to have laboured between his first and his second captivity, and the others would not have kept complete silence as to his liberation from the first.

(g) If on the other hand Spain were meant it would in that case become almost necessary to understand by the rulers (r/yoi /mfvoi [egoumoi]) before whom Paul bore his testimony the Spanish civil authorities. There is not a single tradition, however, in favour of Spain as the place of Paul's martyrdom. That Rome was the place is nowhere doubted. The rulers (riyov^fvoi [egoumenoi]) can, according to the usage of 1 Clem, (see MINISTRY, 47b, middle), mean any high political authority ; but if Rome is referred to, the emperor and his advisers will be meant.

(h) We now come to the most important point - which is, that the entire passage before us is designed to set forth a parallel between Peter and Paul. Thus it becomes necessary to pay special attention to the points in which the parallel is not carried out. Now, at the very outset, we notice that the sufferings of Paul in the service of the gospel are much more fully particularised than those of Peter. We may be certain that the author would have been equally detailed in the case of Peter had this been in his power. Is it possible that in Rome so little that is definite should have been known if he had actually died there? In the case of Peter, further, no parallel at all to Paul's 'coming to the limit of the west' and his 'bearing testimony before the rulers' is offered. Had it been Spain that was in question, we should not have wondered to find that the same things could not be said of Peter as of Paul ; but from what has been said in the foregoing paragraphs of this section, it will be seen that it is with Rome that we are dealing, and in this case it naturally becomes a point of great importance to notice that what is said is said of Paul alone. Yet, even if 'the limit of the west' were to be taken as meaning Spain, we should still have to reckon with the fact that the author of the epistle was not in a position to say of Peter that he had borne testimony 'before the rulers'. Even should 'the rulers' denote, not the emperor and his advisers but some other high authority, it is clear that the author knew nothing of any 'witnessing' (/uLaprvpetv [marytyrein]) of Peter before such an authority. How willingly would he not have adduced it had any such tradition been within his reach ! For he names Peter even before Paul. The phrase 'rulers', however, makes it still more clear than does 'limit of the west', that as regards Paul both must be sought in Rome. This being so, the fact that only of Paul is it said that he was 'a preacher in the east and in the west' (K^pi f Zv re rrj di>aTo\ri /ecu ev rrj dvaei [keryx en te te anatole kai en te dysei]) acquires a new significance. In short, this writer was ignorant, not only of any 'witnessing' (/j.apTVpeii> [martyrein]) before the authorities (in Rome) on Peter's part, but also of any missionary activity of his at all in the west ; yet he wrote in Rome about 93-97 A.D. (at latest, but not probably, about 120 A.D. See GALATIANS, 9 [but cp also OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 26]).

(i) This conclusion, however clear in itself, is often resisted on the ground that no other place than Rome is ever mentioned in tradition as the scene of Peter's martydom, and that it would be too extraordinary if Clement, while knowing the fact of Peter s martyrdom, should be ignorant of the place of it. But neither objection is conclusive.

If, let us suppose, Peter had perished while travelling in a distant land, at some obscure place, not as the result of ordinary process of law, but perhaps in some popular tumult, and if also such companions as he may have had perished along with him, then information of his death could reach his fellow-Christians only by report ; and if, even at a later date, no Christian church arose at the place where it occurred, no local tradition as to his end had any chance of surviving. Let us only suppose, for example, that Paul had died of the stoning at Lystra (Acts 14:19) or of that with which he was threatened at Iconium (14:5), and either was unaccompanied, or was accompanied even in death - what should we, what could Clement - have known as to the place of his death? Yet, indeed, there is no need for supposing such an extreme case as this. It is very conceivable that Clement actually did know the place of Peter s death, and yet did not name it because this was not required for his purpose. In the case of Paul he does not judge it in the least important to name the place ; all he thinks worth commemorating is that his appearance was made before the 'rulers' (r/yovjueroi [hegoumenoi]), and in this w 7 ay only indirectly do we learn the locality. That of Peter s death he could pass over all the more easily because he could take it for granted that his readers at Corinth knew it just as well as himself. It must not be forgotten that his object is not to tell them anything new, but to draw profitable exhortation for them from known facts.

(k) It is therefore quite useless to conjecture that Peter and Paul alone are selected out of the number of the apostles (notwithstanding that James the son of Zebedee might also have been mentioned: Acts 12:2), only because they were specially well known in Rome. Even if this were the reason, it still would be no proof of Peter s having ever been in Rome : even without this he was famous enough. What is more to the point is that both apostles were known in Corinth - in a general way as well known as at Rome - and over and above this in a special manner, because the church there had been founded by the one, whilst the other had been chosen by a party there as its head (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22).

(l) If Peter's death was not at Rome, then neither was it during the Neronian persecution, which so far as we know did not extend beyond that city. Even if it had so extended, however, Peter could not be regarded as one of its victims, according to the passage now under discussion, for in the provinces the persecution would naturally break out later than in Rome, whilst Peter and Paul, according to the order followed, and the 'gathering' (avvridpoiffOij [synethroisthe]) of 61, preceded the great multitude of Nero's martyrs. If they died in Rome we should have to think of this as happening immediately on the outbreak of the persecution. This, however, as we have seen, does not apply to Peter ; and even in the case of Paul we have no right to assume it, although he did die in Rome.

The prevailing opinion, that if it was in 64 A.D., it was in consequence of the Neronian persecution that Paul was condemned to death, is very rash. The judicial procedure of Rome was not so utterly arbitrary as would be implied were it true that a prisoner who was kept day and night chained to a soldier should be found guilty of fire-raising, or of incitation thereto. The process against Paul followed its own course. That in the general hostility to Christians it was hurried on is likely enough, but hardly so rapidly that Paul should have preceded the great bulk of the Neronian martyrs.

29. Other mentions of martyrdom with place unspecified.[edit]

At a date subsequent also to that of 1 Clem, we find allusions to the martyrdom of Peter, but without mention of the place.

(a) It is not certain, it is true, whether Jn. 13:36 belongs to this category. When Jesus says : 'Whither I go thou canst not follow me now' he means his going to heaven, as is clear from 7:34, 8:21 (to both of which passages express reference is made in 13:33) ; and that it is into heaven that Peter is to follow him has its parallel in 17:24. Nevertheless, it is open to us to understand also that the manner of the entering into heaven, that is, the manner of death, is to be the same for Peter as for Jesus. 13:37 may contain an allusion to this when Peter says 'I will lay down my life for thee'. It would be quite in keeping were we to understand the words of Jesus as meaning : 'Thou canst not follow me in this manner now, but later thou shall be able'. The question, therefore, comes to be whether the writer already knew of the martyrdom of Peter. On the assumption that the martyrdom is historical, it is very probable that he did. But even if it was legendary, the author, who wrote about 132-140 A.D., could very easily have heard about it. The question, however, whether he thought of the death of Peter as haying happened in Rome, will depend for its answer on our determination of the date at which this opinion arose. He himself gives no indication.

(b) Jn. 21, the addition of a later hand (section 22c), certainly speaks of the martyrdom ; whether at Rome or no is a question to be decided in the same manner as in a.

(c) 2 Pet. 1:14 refers back to Jn. 21:18-19. Nowhere else, so far as we know, did Jesus say to Peter that 'the putting off of his tabernacle cometh swiftly', and in view of the late date of 2 Pet. (see section 24a) its author's acquaintance with Jn. 21 is very possible, as also his acquaintance with the tradition that Peter had suffered martyrdom in Rome.

(d) In the Muratorian fragment the passio Petri is referred to in l. 37, and that, according to the almost universally accepted restoration of the text ('semota passione Petri evidenter declarat'), as one of the events by his silence as to which the writer of Acts makes it clear that he has incorporated in his book only such occurrences as had happened in his presence. Thus here also the martyrdom of Peter is regarded as a known event, and can very easily have been conceived of by the author (who wrote between 170 and 200 A.L>. ) as having happened in Rome. Only, as he says nothing as to this, the passage before us is not any more decisive on the question in hand, than the other three which have been already considered.

(e) In Rev. 18:20 ('rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets') the apostles seem to be thought of as in heaven, and must therefore, according to 6:9-11, have been thought of as martyrs. We may be certain, however, that not all the twelve apostles became martyrs, not to speak of the saints and Christian prophets of whom this would equally hold good. The passage is thus too exaggerated to justify us in inferring the martyrdom of Peter with certainty.

(f) In Macarius Magnes (Apocrit. 822 ; about 400 A. D. ) the heathen with whom he is in controversy says that Peter made a disgraceful escape from prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12:5-19), and was afterwards crucified after having been able to carry out the command of Jesus, 'feed my lambs' (Jn. 21 :15), for only a few months. Harnack ( TLZ, 1902, 604) will have it that this heathen was Porphyry, the learned opponent of the Christians in Rome (ob. A. D. 304) and that what he says regarding the few months and the death by crucifixion has reference to Rome (in 44 the same opponent of Macarius mentions the beheading of Paul in Rome, and thereafter, without specifying the place, the crucifixion of Peter) and is drawn from satisfactory Roman tradition. Carl Schmidt (below 49), 167-171, observes, however, and with justice, that in Porphyry's time Peter s twenty-five years sojourn in Rome had long been a recognised belief (so also Harnack himself; above, 26 [-27]), and on this ground supposes that Porphyry is drawing from the Acta Petri, according to which Peter arrives in Rome and dies in the interval between Paul s departure from Rome and his return ; and in fact the divine prediction of the death of Paul in Rome (below, 33a) is the answer to the request of his followers that he (Paul) should not absent himself from Rome for more than a year.

30. Silence on Roman sojourn (and martyrdom).[edit]

All the more important in our present investigation are those writings which are silent upon the sojourn in Rome, and, so far as they were written after 64 A.D., also upon the martyrdom of Peter, although some such reference might have been expected in them. At the same time, this does not hold good of all of them in an equal degree.

(a) The Epistle to the Romans excludes with the utmost decisiveness the idea that at the time of its composition Peter was in Rome, or even without staying in Rome was exercising any sort of super vision over the church there. Had it been otherwise, Paul would most certainly have referred to the fact. He is at very great pains to indicate his right to labour in Rome. We may not here refer to his arrangement with the three 'pillar' apostles at the council of Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9 : 'you to the Jews, we to the Gentiles') ; for this arrangement not only was capable of various interpretations, but had also shown itself to be un workable (COUNCIL, 9). The practice of the Judaists, however, who forced their way into the churches founded by Paul and sought to turn them against him, had led him to formulate another principle by which division of labour in the mission field might be regulated - this, namely, that no missionary ought to invade the field once taken possession of by another ('not to glory in other men's labours'; 2 Cor. 10:15-16). When, however, he excuses and justifies his intention of visiting Rome, notwithstanding this principle, he always does so, 1:5-15, 15:20-29, as towards the church, whilst if Peter had been its head he ought to have done so in the first instance as towards him.

On the assumption that 15:20-24, along with the whole, or parts, of chap. 15 (and 16) comes from a later time, it has sometimes been thought possible that here already the opinion of Peter's bishopric of Rome is presupposed. The expressions, however, are worded so generally that any such conjecture does not admit of verification, even when the late date of the section is assumed.

(b) The Epistle to the Philippians, which according to 1:13, 4:22 was very probably written in Rome, makes no mention of Peter. True, Paul had not exactly any urgent occasion to mention him in this particular epistle. Nevertheless, one may hazard a conjecture that 1:15-18 would have been somewhat less sharply worded had Peter been then at the head of the church in Rome (the still sharper passage 3:2-6 does not come into account here, as in all probability it is directed, not against Jewish Christians as 1:15-18 is, but against non-Christian Jews, and, in fact, against Jews of this class in Philippi).

(c) If the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were written during the captivity in Caesarea, they do not need to be referred to here. On the assumption of their genuineness, however, it is equally possible that they may have been written from Rome. In that case, however, the apostle had no more pressing occasion, so far as his correspondents were concerned, for mentioning Peter (on the supposition that he also was at Rome) than he had in writing to the Philippians (the Epistle to the Ephesians, if we are to maintain its genuineness, we must necessarily regard as a circular writing). If, on the other hand, these epistles are not genuine but really date from the period of Gnosticism between 100 and 130 (see MINISTRY, 25a, n. ), it has to be noticed that in Col. 4:10 there is a greeting from Mark who is held to have been the interpreter of Peter, yet none from Peter himself. We cannot, nevertheless, securely infer from this that the Roman sojourn of Peter was unknown to this writer.

Not only does he not say that the epistle which he is writing under Paul's name is meant to be taken as having been written from Rome (the place of composition remains obscure); the absence of mention of Peter can also have its explanation in the fact that the writer cared only for Paul, not for Peter, and that he therefore introduced into his letter greetings only from such persons as, like Mark, had been fellow-labourers with Paul (unless, indeed, the list of greetings in 4:10-15 be a genuine fragment of Paul, for the details of which we must not hold the post-apostolic author of the whole epistle responsible).

The case of the Epistle to the Ephesians is similar. It too says nothing regarding its place of composition. In presence of the great interest it expresses in the unity of the church, and especially in the complete fusion of Jewish and Gentile Christians (1:22-23, 1:43-46, 2:11-22, etc.), there was, in point of fact, an opportunity for allusion to the common activities of Paul and Peter. But as it avoids personal matters almost entirely, and designates the apostles and NT prophets in general as the foundation of the church and as holy (2:20, 3:5), we cannot venture on any far-reaching inferences from the absence of any mention of Peter, and in particular must not infer with confidence that the author knew nothing of Peter s Roman sojourn.

(d) The second Epistle to Timothy is expressly dated from the captivity in Rome (1:8, 1:16-17, 2:9), and names Mark along with other missionary companions of Paul (4:11), although perhaps (just as with Colossians) in a genuine fragment of Paul. Some mention of Peter (if his Roman sojourn was already known) would have been appropriate alike in the case of the genuineness of the epistle and in that of its spuriousness, but cannot be expected with certainty even on the latter alternative - which is certainly the one to be chosen (see MINISTRY, 54 [cp also TIMOTHY, ii. 16]) - since 2 Tim. unreservedly declares itself to be a Pauline writing and an instruction addressed to a disciple of the apostle, and sees the unity of the church in its doctrine and organisation, not in what can be said about the persons of its founders.

(e) In Acts one of the main objects is to draw a parallel between Peter and Paul (see ACTS, 4). A joint activity of the two in Rome would have been the best crown which the author could possibly have given to this work. Indeed, even without the contempor aneous presence of Paul, the arrival in the metropolis of the world of Peter, who with Paul passes as the real originator of missions to the Gentiles (l0:1-ll:18, 15:7-11), must have seemed equally important with that of Paul, which is even made the subject of repeated predictions (19:21, 23:11). If Peter is to be held to have come to Rome nevertheless, this is conceivable only as having happened after Paul's death, which the author did not wish to refer to for political reasons (see ACTS, 5, i), or on the supposition that the meeting of the two was a hostile one, and therefore will have been passed over by the author in the same silence with which he passed over the encounter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21). As for this latter supposition, however, it is surely an odd procedure to excogitate a possibility, in order, thereby, to support a tradition which declares precisely the opposite of the possibility supposed - namely, a harmonious co-operation between the two apostles. If we disregard this attempt, we must infer that in the author's time, that is to say, somewhere between 105 (110) and 130 (see ACTS, 16), nothing was known of a contemporary activity of the two apostles in Rome. On the other hand, there remains the possibility that Peter arrrived in Rome after the death of Paul ; only, neither is this vouched for by any tradition.

(f) The Shepherd of Hennas, which was written in Rome about 140 A.D. , makes no mention of Peter. Nor yet, it must be added, of Paul. A book of so apocalyptic a character is, in fact, not to be supposed to concern itself with personal details from a past time. It is worthy of note that the rock (and the doors) of the tower which represents the church, are interpreted as meaning the Son of God (Sim. 9:12:1, in agreement with 1 Cor. 10:4 and Jn. 10:7, 10:9). This, however, proves only that the author was still unacquainted with Mt. 16:18 - or that he has not allowed himself to be influenced by it.

(g) All the more eloquent is the silence of Justin Martyr, who wrote in Rome about 152, as to the Roman sojourn of Peter. He has much to say regarding the sojourn there of Simon Magus, but nothing of Peter's polemic against him, of which we are to hear so much by and by (33, 34, 40a).

(h) Papias (ap. Eus. HE 3:39:15) reports, as one of the communications of 'the presbyter', that Mark accompanied Peter as interpreter ; but it is very rash to assume that in making this statement Papias had Rome in his mind (see MARK). If Papias wrote late enough he could have heard of the presence of Peter there ; but of this he in point of fact says nothing. In particular, the agreement of Papias with the statement about Mark which Eusebius (HE 2:15:2 ; cp GOSPELS, 80b) records has to be taken merely in accordance with the words cited in the other passage and by no means to be extended to everything which Eusebius introduces here with a 'they say' (<fta<rlv [phasin]), and which, by the connection with 2:14:5-6, must in fact be interpreted as referring to Rome (section 25d). Still more certainly wrong would it be to extend the agreement of Papias also to what follows in 2:15:2 after the mention of his name, where we read 'it is said' (<paffiv [phasin]) that Peter in his First Epistle means Rome by 'Babylon'.

(i) Ignatius writes to the Romans (4:3) : 'I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did' (oi>x cos IT^rpos Kal HauXos 5tard(T<ro,u.cu V/MV). If this was in 170-180 A.D. (see MINISTRY, 53, b-i), we might suppose the phrase quoted to rest on the assumption that Peter and Paul had personally laid their oral injunctions upon the Roman church, since, so far as written precepts are concerned, this could be said only of Paul, not of Peter. When Ignatius is addressing other churches he expresses the same thought without mention of Peter and Paul (ad Eph. 3:1, ad Trall. 33). Nevertheless we cannot positively affirm that the expression in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans inherently, and thus even if written at an earlier date, contains the presupposition that Peter had once personally visited Rome. As what he means to say is simply, 'I do not address myself to you as one having authority', it was very natural to mention by way of example two famous names that did carry authority, even if they had not personally quite equal importance for the readers.

(k) 1 Pet. may here be noticed by way of appendix. Whether it is relevant to the discussion will depend on our interpretation of it, and this we are not yet able to settle (cp 42). Babylon is in the Apocalypse 'the great city' (Rev. 18:10, 18:21), 'the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood of the saints, ruling over the kings cf the earth, sitting upon seven hills' (17:5-6, 18:9) - in other words, Rome. It is certain, however, that no such mysterious name could have been bestowed upon the world-metropolis before the beginning of the Neronian persecution, and we may conjecture that it first owed its currency among Christians to the Apocalypse itself. Should 1 Pet. , therefore, have been written before, or at the beginning of, the Neronian persecution, we may conclude either that the writer could not possibly have intended Rome by Babylon or at least that in referring to it by this name he could not count upon being understood. This he could do, if he wrote at a later date. But this possibility by no means excludes the other, that he may have meant the literal Babylon on the Euphrates.

That this city was at that date wholly uninhabited rests upon a too literal understanding of Pausanias (8:33:3 [cp 1:16:3]): ovSeV rt fjv ei JATJ TCI^OS, 'nothing is left but the walls') and Pliny (HN 6:26:122 [6:30:122]): 'ad solitudinem rediit'. Cp Lucian, Charon, 23 : 'Yonder is Babylon, the city with the noble towers, the city of vast compass ; but soon it too, like Nineveh, will be sought for in vain'. According to Strabo (16:1:5, p. 738 or 1073) the city was only 'desert for the most part' (cprj/xo? T; TroAArj [eremos e polle]) ; according to Diodorus (2:9:9) a small portion was inhabited. To understand rightly what is meant one must bear in mind the enormous compass (360-385 stadia, some 40 mi.) of the city according to Diodorus (2:7:3) and Strabo (l.c.). Under Claudius the hatred of the Babylonians compelled the Jews in Babylon to take refuge in Seleucia ; but there also their arrival stirred up fresh hatred and they were put to death to the number of more than 50,000 (Jos. Ant. 18:9:8-9, 371-376).

31. Provisional conclusions.[edit]

Before entering upon the difficult field of the apocryphal literature it will be convenient to sum up the results of the preceding discussions of passages in the NT and the fathers.

(a) A twenty-five years sojourn of Peter in Rome is out of the question. Romans and Acts are decisive against it ( 30 a, e}. Further, the manner in which Peter's presence in Jerusalem as a resident is taken for granted in Acts 15 and Gal. 2:1-10 in connection with the Council of Jerusalem, as also in Gal. 2:11-21 in connection with his subsequent visit to Antioch, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the favourite theory of prolonged interruptions of his Roman sojourn.

(b) As Rom. , Acts (and Phil. ) show ( 30a-b, 30e), Peter had never been at Rome at all at any date before or during Paul's sojourn there.

(c) Peter's bishopric in Rome (26g-h) is excluded by the fact that throughout the first century and indeed even down to the time of Hermas (about 140 A. D. ), and particularly in Rome, no such thing as monarchical episcopacy existed at all (see MINISTRY, 46b, 47), as also by this, that according to Gal. 2:9 Peter's wish was to associate only with Jews and Jewish Christians, and according to vv. 11-21 he was not in a position to take any tenable place in a mixed community. As bishop of the mixed community in Rome he would have been exposed to the same difficulties as in Antioch, and would soon have made himself as impossible in the one place as in the other.

(d) The theory also, that along with the other original apostles Peter remained for twelve years in Jerusalem and thereafter set out on missionary journeys is false, not only because it leads chronologically to a displace ment of the N eronian persecution (bringing it down to 67 A. D. ; see 26e) - an error which would admit of rectification by a curtailment of the twenty-five Roman years - but also because it presupposes that the original apostles, contrary to Gal. 2:9, had carried on missions to the Gentiles. The twelve years, however, are themselves open to suspicion, not merely because twelve is a sacred number, but also because it could be easily arrived at by computation from Acts 12:3, 12:17-24. Herod Agrippa I. died in 44 A. D. ; shortly before, after his liberation from prison, Peter left Jerusalem. Thus it was possible to arrive at a sojourn of twelve years in Jerusalem for Peter in the first instance, and then, schematically, to extend the same determination of time to all the rest of the original apostles.

(e) Of all the spheres of activity assigned by tradition to Peter outside of Palestine, the only one that deserves serious consideration along with Rome is Babylonia (24). In virtue of its large Jewish population Babylonia was very well suited to be a mission field for the apostle, and in a certain view of the passage is also presupposed to have been so in 1 Pet. 5:13 (30k, 42-43).

(f) Clement of Rome, incomparably the most important witness (28), is decisively against a Roman sojourn of Peter. All that can be deduced from him is not indeed as anything certainly attested but yet as some thing which need not be gainsaid - only Peter's martrydom, but outside of Rome and away from the western world altogether. Nor are we carried any further by the notices of his martyrdom enumerated in 29 where no place is specified.

(g) If Peter suffered martyrdom it by no means follows from this mere fact, as Harnack represents the matter (ACL 2:1710), that the martyrdom was in Rome.

We cannot even assent to Harnack's first sentence as certain, 'if the fact of the martyrdom was at that time notorious, the place of it was also known' (see 28i) ; and his second sentence, 'but never has any other church than the Roman laid claim to the martyrdom of Peter', loses its demonstrative force as soon as the event is for a moment supposed to have happened at a place where, during, say, the next hundred years, no Christian church existed. The assumption is often made that for the martyrdom of any apostle a Christian persecution, or at least some formal process against the individual martyr, was requisite. Surely it would be well to remember 2 Cor. 11:25-26, 'once I was stoned ... in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles'. At a place where an apostle had died in this manner memory of the occurrence would naturally be less vivid and tenacious than it would be in a place where there was a Christian church, and could easily drop into the background and finally fall into complete oblivion when the opinion became widely diffused that Peter had died in Rome. See, further, under (p), and 40b.

(h) Justin (about 152 A.D.) knows nothing of the Roman sojourn of Peter (section 30h). This circumstance ought also to induce caution in finding a testimony for such a sojourn in Clement of Rome.

(i) Of the authors dealt with up to this point Dionysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D. ) is the first to assert a Roman sojourn. Only, he does it in connection with so much matter that is fabulous that his distinct statement (so Harnack, 710) must thereby be held to lose all credibility (section 25a). The other statement, in all respects parallel to the assertion of Dionysius, that Peter founded the church of Antioch (section 24d), is characterised by Harnack himself (705-706) as a gross falsification of history.

(k) The list of Roman bishops seems to have the advantage over Dionysius that it rests on local tradition. Yet we have no certainty that it bore the names of Peter and Paul at its head before the time of Irenaeus (25c).

(l) No value can be attached to the statements of Gaius as to the places of death of Peter and Paul (26b) because in his time, or even ten years before his time, the second stage of the Roman Peter-tradition, the 'tendency legend' of the twenty-five years duration of his sojourn, had already, according to Harnack, 'become official' ( 26e-f).

(m) It is not of Peter alone, but almost without exception, of Peter and Paul together, that the exponents of the above tradition aflinn a sojourn (eventually even, in fact, an arrival together) and a martyrdom in Rome (25-26) If Clement of Alexandria mentions only Peter, there is a special reason for this (25d), and also in Origen (26c) we have no reason to doubt that he thought of Peter as having died at Rome under Nero just as he expressly asserts that Paul did. If one decide in favour of Rome as the place of Peter s death (but see above, f-h), there is no longer any direct possibility of disproving that this event was practically contempor aneous with the death of Paul. This circumstance, however, is of no significance ; for the presence together of Peter and Paul in Rome during the period described in Acts (and Philippians ; see 30e, b) is practically excluded, and thus can continue to be affirmed only when the hypothesis of a second captivity of Paul is called in - a hypothesis which is quite unhistorical (28e-f). See further, under p, and 41b.

(n) Our decision must therefore decidedly be that Peter never was in Rome at all.

We read in Harnack (709-710), 'it is here presupposed [that is to say, throughout the whole of ACL,}, and never once has it been sought to prove that Peter really did come to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. This fact, so far as I am aware, is not disputed save by those who give credence to a certain ancient Simon-romance, and in accordance with this affirm that Peter was brought to Rome by "tendency-legend" in order to controvert, in the world-metropolis also, Simon-Paul who had taken his journey thither' (see below, 40a-b). This assertion must now so far, at any rate, be qualified by the fact that at least one profane historian of repute, namely, Soltau (below, o), has come forward in support of the condemned thesis. Also, the preceding discussion shows thus much at least, that our conclusion has been arrived at without any resort at all to the Simon-romance.

It rests essentially upon a particular view of 1 Clem, and Ignatius (28, 30i) whom Harnack himself calls 'two very strong, though not absolutely secure, supports of the martyrdom, or of the sojourn of Peter in Rome', upon a distrust of the 'testimony' of Dionysius of Corinth and his companions which was formerly shared (see above, 28e) by Harnack himself, and upon a due regard to Justin's evidence, upon which Harnack is quite silent. Just as, according to Harnack, the 'tendency-legend' of Peter's twenty-five years sojourn in Rome became official between 189 and 217 A. D. , so also in our view the fable of the simultaneous presence of Peter and Paul in Rome and the martyrdom of Peter there became official between 152 and 170 A.D.

(o) A point upon which the foregoing discussions have shed but little light is the question as to how this result came about, and as to whether this fable also deserves the name of tendency-legend. Soltau, who uses the above sources only, points out (pp. 26-27, 41 = 494-495, 509; below, section 49) how strong was the effort on the part of individual churches to be in a position to claim an apostle as their founder (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 6).

Now, the Jewish Christians in Rome, in their lively struggle against the Paulinists there, had chosen Peter after his death as their spiritual head, and thus the belief was nourished that he had really once been in Rome at least as a martyr. According to the theory of Acts (8:14-17), upheld also by Harnack, he thereby came at the same time to appear to be the founder of that church. Towards this belief another element, Soltau thinks, may have co-operated, namely, that Mark the interpreter of Peter lived subsequently in Rome, and thus through him the Romans possessed the pure doctrine of Peter. Mark, however, figures in Rome in tradition only in his quality of interpreter of Peter. The historian who, like Soltau, denies a sojourn in Rome to Peter cannot maintain it for Mark. That the use of Acts 8:14-17 in this connection is illegitimate has been already argued above (23a).

Soltau's other conjectures of a special kind have also but little probability, and in the interests of his point of view it would perhaps be better to rest satisfied with the general contention that churches were eager to have apostles as their founders, and in the case of Rome, the world-metropolis, there was a special reason for wishing to be able to claim the two most prominent names of all, especially as these represented the two main currents of doctrine and practice within the church (see MINISTRY, 36). To this Erbes (Z. /. Kirchengesch. [1901] 22:215-224) adds, besides fuller elaborations of this fundamental thought, the easy mis understanding of 1 Clem. 5 and of 'Babylon' in 1 Pet. 5:13 (see 28, 30k; but also 39e, 44a). In fact even in the absence of still more special reasons for the rise of the fable of the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter it would be necessary to maintain its fabulous character ; for, rightly understood, all the witnesses testify with overpowering weight against it. The apocryphal literature, however, regarding Peter, with which we have not yet dealt, will yield perhaps more light.

(p) The points on which further light would be specially welcome are these : Did the belief in Peter s Roman sojourn and martyrdom exist earlier than 170? Did it exist, outside of Rome, even before Justin ? Indeed, did it exist so early that it can already lie at the foundation of 1 Pet. 5:13? Is it possible to account for its origin in spite of its erroneousness more completely than has up to this point been done ; and, particularly, to explain also why hitherto we have met with Peter in Rome almost always only in association with Paul, and why his martyrdom is reported from no other locality than Rome (see above, m, g}?

The Apocryphal Acts on Peter[edit]

32. Literary.[edit]

Of the apocryphal writings relating to Peter the first to be considered are those which admit being grouped under the general designation of Acta Petri, in other words, as accounts of the missionary activities of Peter and of the close of his life. Of these, three groups are to be distinguished.

(a) The first group is pronounced Gnostic by Lipsius (2:184-284, and particularly 2:258-270), and Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, 2:832-855 [1892]), but Catholic by Harnack (ACL 2:1:549-560), Erbes (Z. f. Kirchengesch., 1901, 22:163-171), and Carl Schmidt (below, section 49), 111-151. That they are wholly Catholic, however, the three last-named scholars are unable to affirm. As the settlement of the question is not indispensable for our present purpose, let us call them - to choose a neutral designation - the pre-Catholic Acta Petri. The employment of this designation must not be taken as meaning that the Acts in question are actually of earlier date than the Catholic ones - a question which in point of fact is doubtful (see 35-37, 39b) - but only that their standpoint is less in correspondence with the Catholic than that of the Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli. Another widely spread, though not completely prevalent, name for them is llepioSoi Ilerpov [periodoi petrou]. A characteristic story from them - that of a talking dog (33b) is known to Commodian (about 250 A.D.; Carm. Apol. 617-620 [623-626]). The date is assigned concurrently by Lipsius (275) and Zahn (841) to 160-170 A.D. , whilst Erbes gives it as 190, Carl Schmidt (pp. 99-109) as 200-210, i.e. , shortly before the Philosophnmena (above, 26d), and Harnack places it as late as the middle of the third century. 1 At the same time, it has to be noted that, in assigning the date he does, Lipsius means only that of the origin of the writing that lies at the foundation of our Acta Petri, the date of their present form being in his opinion later : for example the Acts of the so-called Pseudo-Linus (see below, no. 7) he places (172-173) between 400 and 450 A.D. Zahn (833) as against this disputes the contention that the Acta at an earlier date had a different form from their present, and Harnack holds that there is no reason at all for assuming a Gnostic basis for them ; it is merely an abstract possibility (559). Now, Eusebius (HE 3:3:2) includes the Acts of Peter (IIpds Ittrpov [praxeis petrou]) among those writings which were never handed down in Catholic circles, and with this agrees his general survey of the NT literature in 3:25:4, 3:25:6. according to which the Acts of Paul (llpd^en Hai Xof [praxeis paulou) belong to the Antilegomena, in other words to his middle class (so also 3:3:5 [or 3:8:5]), whilst on the other hand the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles (II/)ciets Avdptov KCU ludvvov /ecu rdv &\\uv d.TrocTToXiiJi) those of Peter thus included belong to his last class, that of books written by heretics in the name of apostles, and never cited by any Catholic writer, but 'altogether strange and impious' (d roTra irdfT-rj Kal dvcrffe/Sf} [atopa kante kai dyssebe]). In accordance with this is the very close relationship, if not identity of authorship which Lipsius (265-266, 272-273) and Zahn (860-861), again in agreement, find between our Acta and the Gnostic Acts (llpd&is [praxeis]), or Circuits (HepioSoi [periodoi]) of John and other apostles, attributed to Leucius (Charinus). James (Apocr. Anecd. 2 pp. 24-28 ; in Texts and Studies, 5:1, 1897) positively affirms the identity of the author of the Leucian Acta Johannis with the author of the Acta Petri, whilst Carl Schmidt, 90-99, explains the agreement from use of the Acta Johannis by the author of the Acta Petri. Franko (ZNTW, 1902, 315-335) seeks to support the Gnostic character of the original form of the Acta Petri by means of a pronouncedly Gnostic fragment which he translates from the Ecclesi astical Slavonic. Thus for every one who does not hold the present form of the Acta Petri to be Gnostic, there is very urgent occasion for finding, if possible, a Gnostic primary form of it. So far as our present purpose is concerned, however, we may dispense with further detailed inquiry as to this point.

1 Apart from other indications, Harnack relies upon the argument that the end of Simon Magus is told in a different way in the Philosophumena (6:20 ; about 235 A.D.) from that in which it is told in the Acta Petri (he caused himself to be buried by his disciples, promising that he would rise again on the third day ; but he did not rise after all ; cp below, 34g, SIMON MAGUS, 5 [-6]). All that this proves, however, is that the author is following another tradition, not that the Acta Petri were not yet in existence. The author of the Philosophumena as a zealous confuter of heretics had even strong reason for mistrusting the information of the Acta.

The principal writings in which those pre-Catholic Acta Petri have been preserved for us are as follows :

  • (1) Actus Petri cum Simone, from Paul's departure from Rome for Spain, and the arrival of Peter in Rome, until the death of Peter ; in Latin, in a MS at Vercelli, therefore known also as Actus Petri Vercellenses.
  • (2) The conclusion of these Acta, namely the end of Peter's contention with Simon, and the entire martyrdom of Peter, exists in Greek in a Codex at Mount Athos.
  • (3) The martyrdom alone, also in Greek, is found in a Codex at Patmos.

To the same family belong further

  • (4) an Ecclesiastical Slavonic translation,
  • (5) a Coptic translation, and
  • (6) an Ethiopic translation.

All six have been edited (or collated) in Acta Apost. Apocr. 1 (2) ed. Lipsius (and Bonnet), 1891, 45-103; no. 3 for the first time in JPT, 1886, pp. 86-106, 175-176.

Of the other family, which, apart from its divergences, is distinguished by its more copious style of narration, we possess

  • (7) the martyrdom of Peter which is ascribed to Linus the first bishop of Rome (see above, 25c) (in Acta Apost. Apocr. 1-22).

Lastly there is - closely related as regards details of the text -

  • (8) the Passio Appstolorum Petri et Pauli which is incorporated with the Latin recension of Josephus Jewish War, dating from 367-375 (or about 395 ?) A.D., and which also includes certain events before the martyrdom of Peter. 1

As for the contents, everything of a non-Catholic nature has been so carefully removed that the text belongs rather to the next following class. The mutual dependence of the texts just mentioned has been determined by Zahn (834-839, 845, n. 2), followed by Harnack, otherwise than it is by Lipsius (109-173, 194-200) ; this, however, may be left out of account in our present investigation.

(b) The Catholic Acta (see Lipsius, 284-366) are, as already seen in Pseudo-Hegesippus (see above, a [8]), not Acts of Peter only, but Acts of Peter and Paul. Both contend conjointly with Simon Magus in Rome and there suffer martyrdom.

  • (1) The Latin form, in which this writing is wrongly attributed to a certain Marcellus who is named in it, dates from the

sixth century (Lips. 1:169). It begins : 'Cum venisset Paulus Romam'. The parallel is

  • (2) the Greek text in a codex of the library of St. Mark in Venice, beginning : A0di/TO <i TTJV "Pui;un]i TOW ayiou IlaiiAou [elthontos eis ten roomen tou hagion paulon]. Both are met with in juxtaposition in Acta. Apost. Apocr. 1:118-177.

Ibid. 178-222 is found

  • (3) a longer Greek text in which, in particular, at the beginning occurs a description of Paul's journey through Italy, beginning: yeVTO fieri TO fe\9(lv T OV iiyiov IlauAof airb I auSojueAeTrjs [eganeto meta to axelthein ton hagion paulou apo gaudomeletes] (this name is obtained by combination of Ka06a [kauda] or KAaGSa [klauda] and MeAi rr [melite]), Acts 27:16, 28:1).

No. 2 exhibits, according to Lipsius (284-296), the relatively original form, which, however, is not older than about 450 A.D. (310-313). On the other hand he supposes that there had been a Catholic original form of this account of Peter and Paul, which arose soon after the middle of the second century, and thus approximately at the same time with the pre-Catholic Acta Petri, and may have been known, of the Fathers cited in section 26, to at least Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius (pp. 331-358). Erbes (Z. f. Kirchengesch. 1901, 22:174-182) tries even to make it out to be older than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri which he assigns to about 190 A.D, and would fain find traces of its employment as early as in the Praedicatio Pauli in Pseudo-Cyprian (above, 25 e), whilst according to Lipsius (325-327, 337-333) it nas only in isolated points preserved traditions of older date than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri.

(c) The third main group is made up of the following three compilations.

(i) A Latin Passio Petri et Pauli in a MS of the Laurentian Library at Florence, relating to the conflicts with Simon, and the martyrdom of the two apostles, beginning with the words 'in diebus illis, cum introissent Romam beatus Petruset Paulus' : in Acta Apost. Apocr. 1:223-234;

(2) a Passion of the holy and chief apostles Peter and Paul, which forms a special section of the Ecclesiastical Slavonic translation mentioned above (under a, 4);

(3) the 'Virtutes Petri' and the 'Virtutes Pauli' in the collection of apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, wrongly attributed to the alleged disciple of the apostles Abdias and entitled 'Historia certaminis apostolici', or 'Historia apostolica', bks. 1 and 2, printed, e.g., in Fabricius, Codex apooyphus NT, 2, begin. All these pieces are, according to Lipsius (366-390), too recent to be of importance for our present investigation.

1 This Latin recension is entitled 'Hegesippus [a distortion of Josephus] de excidio Hierosolym'. edd. Weber et Caesar, 1864. The section forms bk. 3, chap. 2, and is to he found also in a Marburg Universitatsprogramm (20th Aug. 1860 ; cp Lipsius, 194-200; Schurer, GJV 1 (2) 73-74).

33. Contents of pre-Catholic Acta Petri.[edit]

Of the abundant contents of this literature only the most important points can here be noted.

(a) According to the pre-Catholic Acta Petri, Paul journeys at the divine command from Rome into Spain, after it has been proclaimed by a voice from heaven that he will afterwards be put to death in Rome by Nero (ch. 1). After some days it becomes known in Rome that a wonder-worker named Simon, who calls himself the great power of God (magnum virtutent del) is at Aricia. On the following evening he appears before the gate of Rome, over which he has promised to fly, disappears and then appears once more on the other side of the gate. Shortly after, he gains so great repute that even almost all the Christians go over to him (4).

(b) Simultaneously God lays his command on Peter, on the expiry of the twelve years during which he had been ordered to stay in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus (above, 26e, 31d), to journey to Rome by way of Caesarea in order to contend with Simon (5). Here Peter, who has been eagerly awaited by those who have remained faithful, and is joyfully welcomed, goes to the house of Marcellus a former disciple of Paul and present follower of Simon, and by means of a dog that speaks with human voice, causes Simon to be summoned forth (32a). Marcellus comes out and acknowledges his sin, that he has been devoted to Simon and has even set up to him a statue with the inscription, 'Simoni juveni deo' (9-10). The dog, which Simon within the house has asked to deny his presence, foretells to Simon the inimicus et corruptor via veritatis the impending curse, but outside the house promises Peter a hard struggle with Simon, and dies (12). Challenged to a further miracle, Peter takes from a window a 'sarda' (pickled sardine), throws it into a pool and makes it swim (12-13; something very similar is related of Jesus when he was three years of age in the Latin Gospel of Thomas [1:4 ; see Evang. apocr. ed. Tischendoif, (2) 164-165]).

(c) Peter tells that while he was still in Jerusalem, Simon had stayed with a rich woman in Judaea, named Eubola, and by means of two of his companions whom he had made invisible, had robbed her of all her gold, and soon afterwards had offered a portion of it, a golden Satyiiscus, to a goldsmith named Agrippinus, for sale. Peter, warned beforehand in a vision, had them arrested; Simon thereupon disappeared altogether from Judaea (17).

(d) A disputation between Simon and Peter in the presence of senators, officers of state, and the whole people, is arranged for in the forum. Peter begins to the effect that Simon is condemned (reprehensum: cp SIMON MAGUS, 4). He reproaches him with concealing the fact that for his theft from Eubola (above, c) he has been driven from Judaea. 'Didst thou not' he continues, 'in Jerusalem (sic) fall at my feet and at those of Paul (sic) when thou beheldest the healings wrought by us, and say : I beseech you accept from me a price, as much as you will, that I may be able to lay on my hands and do like deeds of power' (virtutes: cp SIMON MAGUS, 1-2). Simon makes answer by disputing the divinity of Jesus inasmuch as one who is born and crucified, and has a Lord, cannot be God (23).

(e) Peter now again challenges Simon to work a miracle, saying that he himself will then counterwork it (24). The prefect Agrippa causes one of his people to come forward and bids Simon put him to death, but Peter to bring him to life again. Simon whispers into the ear of the youth, who thereupon dies. Peter bids Agrippa take the hand of the dead man who again returns to life (25-26). Peter also raises from the dead the son of a widow (27), but when requested by the mother of the dead Senator Nicostratus to do the like for her son, suggests that this should he undertaken by Simon. Simon accordingly bends over the dead man's head and shows the people how be raises himself up, lifts his head and moves, and opens his eyes. Peter further demands however, that Simon shall cause him to speak and walk. After Simon bas been driven away from the corpse by the prefect, it lies lifeless as before. Peter brings Nicostratus back to life after having begged the people not to burn Simon as they were proposing to do (28).

(f) After some days Simon promises to fly to God in presence of all the people. Next day he actually does fly aloft above all the temples and hills of the city. Peter prays to Christ to make him fall, but allow only one leg to be broken. And this is what actually happens. Simon dies of his injury at Terracina (32).

(g) Induced by Peter's preaching, the four concubines of the prefect Agrippa - namely Agrippina, Nicaria (Linus : Eucharia) Euphemia, Doris (Linus : Dionis) - break off their relations with him (33 = Linus 2, where, however, Peter has previously been thrown into prison by Nero, because the time of his heavenly reward drew nigh In like manner Xantippe the wife of Alhinus, a friend of the emperor, withdraws from the society of her husband. The two men accordingly resolve upon the ruin of Peter (34 = Linus 3). Xantippe causes him to he informed of this, and Peter agrees to flee. Outside the city gate Jesus meets him. Peter asks : Domine, quo vadis? Jesus answers: Romam venio iterum crucifigi. Peter changes his mind and joyfully tums back (35 = Linus 3-6). Agrippa sentences him to be crucified (36 = Linus 8). Arrived at the cross, Peter begs to be fastened to it with his head downwards, and, his request having been carried out, expounds at some length the mystery of the cross, especially that of crucifixion with head downward (37-38 = Linus 12), and dies. Marcellus carries off the body and buries it in his own (Marcellus's) tomb (40 = Linus 16).

(h) Nero is wroth with Agrippa for acting on his own responsibility he himself baving meditated still worse things for Peter (according to Linus, on account of the loss of his friend Simon), and for a time refuses to speak to him (according to Linus, Agrippa loses his office and dies under the torments of the divine judgment). Nero’s rage flames forth against the Christians who remain; whereupon there appears to him in the night an angel who severely chastises him (according to Linus, at the instance of Peter who likewise appears to him), so that he ceases from his persecution of the Christians (41 = Linus 17).

34. Contents of Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli.[edit]

In the case of the Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli weshall pass over, along with many other things, the additions of the longer Greek text. Of the common points the most important are the following.

(a) When Paul comes to Rome (from Spain, according to the shorter Greek text ; from Gaudomelete according to the longer. see section 32b) the Jews beg him to vindicate his ancestral faith and to controvert Peter, whois doing away with the whole Mosaic law (ch. I). Paul declares himself a true Jew who holds by the Sabbath and the true circumcision (below section 39c) and promises to bring Peter's doctrine to the test (2). The two have a joyful meeting (3-4). Next day Paul reconciles the Jewish and Gentile Christians, who have been disputing about the pre-eminence in the Kingdom of God, by pointing to the promise to Abraham which applies to both (5-7). To the same effect Peter preaches (8-9) and with great results, so that the Jewish rulers of the synagogue and the pagan priesthood stir up the people against them and seek to bring Simon the magician into honour.

(b) In consequence of the preaching of Peter, Livia (Octavia perhaps is meant) the wife of Nero, and Agrippina the wife of the prefect Agrippa (in section 33 [g] she is his concubine) withdraw themselves from the society of their husbands (10).

(c) Simon performs feats of witchaaft, also before Nero (he flies for example, through the air); Peter works miracles of healing, casting out of devils and raising of the dead (11-15). Nero causes both, along with Paul, to be brought before him and hears them. As Peter appeals (16-18) to the written report of Pilate to the emperor Claudius (sic), Nero causes it to be read aloud (19-21). Peter asks that Simon shall read his thoughts, but this Simon is unable to do (22-27) , complaining also that Peter had already treated him thus in Judaea and all Palestine and Caesarea (28). Simon reminds the emperor thathe (Simon) had caused himself to be beheaded and had risen from the dead, thus proving himself to be Son of God. The fact, however, was that in the dark place where the beheading happened he brought it about that a ram was beheaded in his stead (31-32).

(d) At two separate points in these proceedings Nero asks Paul why he is saying nothing. On the first of these occasions Paul simply warns the Emperor against Simon (29); on the second, in answer to Nero s express question, he gives tion as to his doctrine which consists in inculcation of all the virtues and of monotheism (33-38). Peter confirms all this (39) and Paul again in turn confirms the words of Peter (41).

(e) Simon continually brings forward new charges, amongst others the charge that Peter and Paul are circumcised (40-42). Peter propounds the counter-question, why then is Simon also circumcised, and himself answers it to the effect that he had to deceive the people in order to succeed with them and that he had to give himself out to be a Jew (42-43). Simon declares that he was circumcised because such was at that time God's command (44). Paul asks why, if, according to this, circumcision is a good thing, Simon has given over circumcised persons to judgment and to death (45). When Peter describes the Christian doctrine as being faith in God the Father in Christ along with the Holy Ghost, and the creator of all things, Simon declares that he himself is this God (48).

(f) Simon pledges himself on the following day to fly into heaven (49-50 and also 30). At Simon s wish Nero for this purpose causes a wooden tower to be erected on the Campus Martius and on the following day the whole people and all the official persons, with Peter and Paul, come together (51). Paul says to Peter that his own task is to pray but that Peter is to carry out all that is needful since he has been first chosen by the Lord to be an apostle (52). Simon promises, when he shall have flown into heaven, to cause Nero also to be carried thither by his angels, and begins to fly (53-54). Paul says to Peter : Why delayest thou? Do that which thou hast in mind (55). Peter adjures the angels of Satan who are bearing up Simon, to let him fall. Simon falls upon the Via Sacra and breaks into four pieces (56 ; the Latin and the longer Greek text add that thereby [by his blood, is doubtless meant] he joined together four flint stones which can still be seen to the present day in proof of the triumph of the apostles).

(g) Nero causes Peter and Paul to be put in irons, and Simon's body in the expectation of his rising again to be carefully attended to for three days (57). He orders Peter and Paul to be chastised with iron rods and then to be put to death in the 'naumachia' (or circus, in which also naval displays were given), but finds the advice of the prefect Agrippa very reasonable, that Peter as the author of the death of Simon ought to be crucified, but Paul as comparatively innocent to be beheaded. In Paul's case this sentence is carried out on the road to Ostia (58-59) ; Peter at his own request is crucified head downwards (60). From his cross he reproves the people, who are wishing to kill Nero and relates how a few days before, in his flight from the devices of Agrippa, he himself had been met by Jesus, who had said he wished to be crucified in place of Peter (61). Peter then dies (62).

(h) Forthwith come on the scene prominent men who had journeyed from Jerusalem on the apostles account ; these along with Marcellus, the former follower of Simon, bury the body of Peter under the terebinth hard by the Naumachia on the Vatican (63). These Jerusalemites foretold the soon approaching death of Nero. In point of fact, in consequence of a popular tumult, Nero had to fly into the wilderness, where he died of hunger and cold ; his body was devoured by wild beasts (64-65).

(i) Certain pious men from the East sought to carry off the relics of the martyrs ; with the result that an earthquake immediately ensued in Rome, and the inhabitants attacked the Orientals, who at once took flight. The Romans deposited the relics 3 R. mi. outside the city (the Latin and longer Greek texts add: at a place named Catacumbas on the Appian Way) and watched over them for one year and seven months ; at the expiry of which time they brought them to the final resting-place which had meanwhile been in preparation (66). The death-day of both apostles was June 29 (67).

1 The account, with which it begins, of Paul's journey through Italy (section 326 3), extends over twenty-one chapters. Therefore the numbering of the chapters of this text will always be higher by twenty-one than that given in our citations here.

35. Conclusion from the Catholic Acts.[edit]

Many points in these interesting compositions invite inquiry ; but we must here confine ourselves to the one fundamental question, that, namely, as to the relative priority of the pre-Catholic and the Catholic Acts. If we are to settle the point as to whether Peter ever was in Rome, it is of the utmost importance to know which of the two assertions, that he was there along with Paul, and that he was not, was the original one.

(a) Now here it would be quite useless to put the question as if it were whether the priority belongs altogether to the pre-Catholic Acts or altogether to the Catholic. In a literature which exhibits so little inward unity almost every indication of posteriority admits of being regarded as a later interpolation, and so can be deprived of its evidential value.

In the pre-Catholic Acts Agrippa and Marcellus are two leading figures, in the Catholic their appearance is quite incidental ; at the same time, however, in the Catholic Acts the machinations of Agrippa against Peter, and the fact of the earlier attachment of Marcellus to Simon are mentioned, although it is only in the pre-Catholic Acts that they are really described (34b, 34g-h, 33b). Peter's flight and his meeting with Jesus are in the Catholic Acts introduced in an awkward way as told by Peter himself while on the cross ; in the pre-Catholic Acts they are related by the author himself in their proper place. But all these and similar unevennesses in the Catholic Acts can be traced back to later interpolation.

(b) One such interpolation is plainly seen in the episode of the men who come from Jerusalem 'on the apostles' account' and bury Peter (34h, i).

According to the representation as it stands at present, the pious men from the East who wish to carry off the relics appear to be distinct from these. Piety, it must be said, shows itself much less in robbing than in burying ; but on the other hand the coming from the East suggests much less the motive of burial than that of plunder. If this be so, not two classes of persons from the East were intended, but only one, and the story is an indication that the body of Peter had not originally its resting-place in Rome but in the East. It is only from the Roman point of view that the proposed removal is thought of as a robbery ; in reality it is a veiled reminiscence of the fact that the apostle died in the East. But as the whole story is an appendix merely, and moreover has been distorted by redactions, it is impossible to build anything on it. It would seem to be meant to explain either why for a while it was impossible to show any burial-place of Peter in Rome or why it was shown not at the spot where he died but outside the city in the piece of ground ad Catacumbas (see further, Erbes, Z. f. K.-G. 22 [1901], 196-200).

(c) The difference between Peter and Paul in the manner of their death and in the place of it (also according to Gaius, see 26b) is noticeable, especially as for the beheading of Paul his Roman citizenship which could have been adduced, is not. After Nero has ordered (-e\e(5o; [keleuoo]) the same manner of death for the two apostles, the opposite advice of Agrippa and its success cannot but seem strange. It seems intended to explain the fact that two separate places of death of the apostles were known. This fact raises doubts as to the simultaneity of their deaths and thus tells against the priority of the contents of the Catholic as compared with the pre-Catholic Acts. Against the priority of the whole book it cannot, however, have this effect, as this feature can easily have been introduced later.

(d) Let us therefore fix our attention in the first instance upon one point that is really central, namely the tendency of the Catholic Acts. It is quite manifestly Petro-Pauline. The appearance as if Paul will have to come forward against the preaching of Peter we may be sure has been deliberately produced at the outset, in order that the complete agreement between the two may afterwards become all the more conspicuous. Peter confirms all that is said by Paul, and conversely. The controversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians are set to rest by both. Both carry on a joint polemic against Simon, and both are on this account together condemned to death.

(e) Although, however, Paul in the doctrinal discussions is represented as completely on a level with Peter, it cannot at all be denied that in the conflicts with Simon the part he plays is quite subordinate. In these everything of importance is said and done by Peter. In order to have any part at all, Paul has to be twice asked by Nero why he says nothing, and even then he does not intervene in the action with Simon, but merely expatiates upon his own doctrine. The few words which are put into his mouth in the further dealings with Simon cannot alter our judgment that his figure came only at a later stage into the picture which originally brought Peter alone face to face with Simon. This conclusion is confirmed in the best possible way by what Agrippa says in arguing for a different sentence, that Paul is relatively innocent and therefore deserves a milder punishment, as it is also by the facts that only eleven words, neither more nor fesver, are devoted to the account of his beheading, and that it is nowhere said that he was buried. Here accordingly we have one point at any rate in which the posteriority of the main contents of the Catholic Acts as compared with the pre-Catholic is clearly discernible. Cp further SIMON MAGUS, 5c.

36. Conclusions from the pre-Catholic Acts.[edit]

Or are we to suppose, nevertheless, that the pre-Catholic Acts, on this principal point at least - that of Peter's presence in Rome without that of Paul - are the more recent? The circumstance that, in their beginning as it has come down to us, Paul travels from Rome to Spain shortly before Simon, and after him Peter, come to Rome, and that Peter dies before the return of Paul to Rome, which has already been predicted (section 33a), can be taken as showing that the author deliberately wished to set aside the contemporaneous presence of the two in Rome as that was reported in the Catholic Acts. At the same time, should one choose to take it so, it would be necessary to be able to show some reason which could have led him to wish this.

(a) No such reason is to be found in the dogmatic sphere, as if Peter and Paul were not at one in their doctrine and the author therefore did not wish to make them come upon the scene together. Of any incompatibility in their doctrine this author knows as little as does the writer of the Catholic Acts ; on the contrary, Peter is anxiously expected in Rome by Paul's disciples (33:8).

(b) On the other hand there is much that is attractive, at first sight, in the view of Erbes (Z. f. Kirchengesch. [1901], 22 :176-179) that Paul was in the pre-Catholic Acts taken away from Rome from the same motive as we have already (above, 26g) seen to be operative in the time after Irenaeus. Peter had to be the sole head of the church of Rome, in order to be able to figure as the first bishop there. If, however, the author really had this interest at heart, we shall have to pronounce his mode of giving effect to it to be very unskilful ; for in the account he gives Paul is in Rome both before and after Peter, and after an explicit prediction suffers the death of a martyr there (section 33a}.

(c) On the assumption of so specifically Roman an interest as this we should further expect to find that the pre-Catholic Acts would in other respects also betray the same interest. But of anything of the sort there is surprisingly little. The burial-place of Peter is here the private tomb of Marcellus (section 33g), not, as in the Catholic Acts (see 34h), a famous site like the terebinth on the Vatican, where he is said to have died. Further, we find nothing about any functions of Peter which could be regarded as episcopal.

(d) It is clear, on the contrary, that the author's interest is in his stories as such, without reference to the scene where they were enacted. He takes manifest delight in the grotesque miracles of his hero, of which only a limited selection has been given above (section 33b, 33e-f); but these could just as well have been transferred to any other place without diminution of the author s interest in them. Moreover the detailed parts of his narrative are but little united by any common idea.

The death of Peter is, strictly speaking, traced to his conversion of Agrippa's concubines and Alhinus s wife to sexual abstinence; his action against Simon is added as a motive for it only in Pseudo-Linus (section 33h) ; indeed, the imprisonment of Peter, related only by Pseudo-Linus, before the conversion of those ladies is simply traced back to the consideration that the time has now drawn near in which his faith and his labours claim their reward (33g).

(e) The author's interest really attaches itself to Rome in two points only. The final issue of the whole is that Nero desists from persecution of the Christians (section 33h). and the controversy with Simon brings Peter to Rome for the reason that Simon is presupposed as active there before him. Yet even here it is hard to discover anything which might answer to the episcopal position of Peter in Rome. The cessation of the persecution is not brought about by the living Peter, but only after his death (and only according to Pseudo-Linus through the appearance of Peter in Nero's vision by night) ; the bringing of Peter to Rome is connected with the person of Simon, and Simon is controverted by Peter everywhere, not in Rome merely ; he is expressly stated (33c-d) to have been already controverted by him in Judaea.

(f) Further it has to be remembered, that the contents, in respect alike of doctrine and of presuppositions, though by some designated as Catholic, are nevertheless by others regarded as Gnostic (section 32a) and thus cannot easily be brought into connection with the main Catholic tendency already alluded to, to establish for Rome some sort of episcopal dignity of Peter. Elements to be taken into account in this connection are such as these : the mystery of the cross, the docetic Christology, the background of miracle, the use of apocryphal citations, and the like, of but little of which were we able to take account in section 33. See in Lipsius, 2:1:258-270.

37. Arrival in Rome according to Apocryphal Acts.[edit]

(a) There is a further point, in connection with which one might be inclined to suppose that a simultaneous presence of Paul along with Peter in Rome had been deliberately suppressed by the author of the pre-Catholic Acts in the interests of his theory about Peter as the head of the church of Rome; the point, namely, that Peter is represented as having come to Rome as early as in the second year of Claudius, in other words, in 42 A.D.

So Ludemann, Prof. Kirchenzeitung, 1887, p. 959-960; similarly also Harnack, ACL 2:1:705, with the difference that he mentions no definite name (least of all the author of the pre-Catholic Acts, which he assigns to about 250 A.D.), hut only a drift of things that began to set in about 200 A.D., and that he seems to assume with less detiniteness than Ludemann a conscious purpose in the alteration of the history. This view is worthy of attention, if only because by means of this dating the twenty-five years of Peter s Roman sojourn are made possible (section 26e), yet also because such an artificial separation of two persons would find an analogy in the procedure, which in all probability the writer of the canonical book of Acts has followed in antedating the appearance of Simon (8:9-24), and the collection brought by Paul to Jerusalem (11:27-30, 12:25). See SIMON MAGUS, 14a, 14e.

Only, here also we must call attention, as before (section 36b). to the unskilfulness with which in that case the author of the pre-Catholic Acts has carried out this purpose, supposing he had it. Not only, according to him, is Paul by express prophecy to come to Rome after Peter's death and suffer martyrdom there, but he is represented as having also been in Rome before Peter, in other words, before 42 A. D. (section 33a}. What, therefore, can be clearly made out here is not any tendency but only gross ignorance or indifference regarding chronology ; for before 42 A. D. Paul had at best only entered upon his first missionary journey, and not even the Council of Jerusalem had yet taken place.

(b) Therefore, also, no value can be attached to the conjecture of Erbes (above, 36b), that the author betrays his knowledge of the conjoint activity of Peter and Paul against Simon at Rome and his purpose to deny it, by the statement that it was in Jerusalem that the two together encountered Simon (33d).

If Jerusalem can be a slip of memory for Samaria, equally well can Paul be a slip of memory for John. If any such tendency as is supposed by Ludemann and Erbes was operative, it must have led notjnerely to the obliteration of traces of Paul's presence in the conflict with Simon in Rome, but to the obliteration of his presence in Rome altogether, or - if this was no longer possible, in view of the too firmly established tradition of his death there - at least of his presence in Rome before Peter.

(c) As for the real origin of the fundamentally erroneous dating of Peter's arrival in Rome in 42 A. D. , it has, in the first instance, to be noted that we first hear of such a date in the Chronicle of Eusebius, but must carry this back to its source (26e). From an earlier period we have the datum established, that for twelve years after the death of Jesus, in other words, from 30 to 42 A. D. , Peter remained along with the other apostles in Jerusalem (26e, 31d}. About the same time, or perhaps still earlier, Justin informs us, but without specification of any definite year, that Simon the Magician came to Rome in the reign of Claudius ; this is repeated by Irenaeus (1:16:1 [1:23:1]), and, indirectly, by Eusebius when (HE 2:146) he says of Peter, without fixing the year, that 'he came to Rome in that same reign of Claudius in which Simon came'. According to 2:17:1, Peter in the reign of Claudius must there have met Philo, who, according to 2:188, had already come to Rome in the reign of Gaius Caligula.

(d) On this point the most important views are as follows :

Investigation would be superfluous, if Kreyenbuhl (Evang. d. Wahrheit, [1900] 1:200) were right in his conjecture that by Claudius it was Claudius Nero who was originally meant (Nero was adopted by his predecessor Claudius). This, however, is surely too bold. Harnack (ACL 2:1:242) thinks the definite date of 42 A.D. for the arrival of Peter in Rome cannot come from the date given for Simon Magus, since for the latter no definite year was assigned ; but that it can only be derived from the tradition of the twelve years sojourn in Jerusalem (30-42 A.D.). On p. 705 he says that the twenty-five years sojourn in Rome 'is derived from the admittedly questionable Simon-Magus-Peter-Clement tradition which brings Simon to Rome in the reign of Claudius. . . . Legend brought Peter as his opponent to Rome in like manner under Claudius, and then left him there'. If this latter view is not in contradiction with that quoted immediately before, the reference back to the tradition concerning Simon Magus cannot apply to the exact period of 42-67 A.D., and therefore neither also to the precise year of 42 as the date of Peter s arrival, but only to the vaguer statement that his arrival fell in the reign of Claudius ; the precise year, as we have seen, must, according to Harnack, be computed merely from the twelve years in Jerusalem. Lipsius (21:68) had merely stated this last view, adding that with this datum for Peter the approximately similar date of Simon Magus was also given. Ludemann (above, a), starting from the view shared by him with Lipsius. that Simon's appear ance in Rome was unhistorical, and that all that is said regarding this had been derived from statements regarding Paul (see SIMON MAGUS, 4-5, 12, end), insists that the Simon legend must have assigned the appearance of Simon Magus in Rome, like that of Paul, to some date under Nero, and finds just for this reason a tendency -change in the dating under the reign of Claudius. Only, when it is the meeting of Peter with Simon that is in question, there come into competition, on Ludemann's presuppositions also, two conflicting dates, as soon as that of Paul, which determines that of Simon, and that of Peter do not from the first coincide. In shaping the tradition, therefore, a choice had to be made, and this in the present instance can easily have fallen in favour of that of Peter, should the author have judged this view the more trustworthy.

(e) For our present main purpose, that of determining the question of priority as between the pre-Catholic and the Catholic Acts, it results anew from what has been said that we are under no necessity to ascribe with Ludemann a 'tendency'-change of dates to the pre-Catholic Acts, or with Harnack even to regard the statement of Dionysius of Corinth (above, 25a) as to the (approximately) contemporaneous arrival and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome as fitting in with history and as supported by earlier testimony. Even from the side of the Catholic Acts no objection can be raised against the date 42 A. D. , as having been assigned without 'tendency', for Peter's arrival in Rome. According to the Catholic Acts Peter is in Rome before Paul ; for how long before is not stated. This can be taken as an after-effect of the statement that he was there from 42 A.D. , and the subsequent arrival of Paul can be explained by means of the 'tendency', which we shall discuss in a later section (see 40b), to make him appear in Rome along with Peter, just as the statement of Dionysius of Corinth is capable of being understood as a further development of the same tendency, to the extent of making the arrival of the two (nearly) simultaneous. Justin alone constitutes a serious objection against Lipsius's derivation of the date 42 A.D.; for all that he does is to place Simon in Rome in the time of Claudius without saying a word about his conflict with Peter. Upon this point, however, we shall best be able to form a judgment in another connection (see (sections 39[-40], 40d).

38. Day of death according to the Apocryphal Acts.[edit]

The statements as to the day of death of Peter and Paul also promise light on the question as to the relative priority of the Pre-Catholic and Catholic Acts,

(a) 29th June, which is given at the close of the Catholic Acts for both apostles, not only fits in exceedingly ill with the Neronian persecution to which the martyrdoms are so readily referred - it arose out of the burning of Rome in July 64 but also rests upon a confusion. For 29th June is the day of the removal of the relics of the two apostles which took place in 258 A. D. (above, 26b). The confusion is found first in the Martyrology of Jerome. Another commemoration is on 22nd February. So far as Peter is concerned, the day on which he assumed the episcopal office, in Rome or in Antioch, is said to be intended (cp Lipsius, 2:1:404-408). According to Erbes (TU 19:1), it is the true anniversary of Paul's death (a rather bold assumption), whilst for Peter its historical character cannot be at all established.

(b) It would be natural to suppose, if the same day of the same month is given for the death of the two apostles, that the year must, of course, be also the same. A whole series of ecclesiastical writers from Prudentius onwards (last half of 4th cent.), however, place the death of Paul exactly a year later than that of Peter, others only a day later, namely on 30th June (see Lipsius, 2;1:236-244).

Harnack (ACL 2:1:708-709) leaves the last-mentioned date (a day later) unnoticed, and argues from the identity of the month-date that the difference of the year-date is incredible. He therefore supposes that the death year of the one apostle was from the fourth century onwards for some unknown reason separated from that of the other. He himself sees that this is a very difficult hypothesis, and would be inclined rather to hold the identification of the two years to be the secondary stage, 'were it not that the legend has as a constant element the identity of the days'. In making this remark, then, he has simply left out of account not only the dating, which separates the two events by only a single day, but also the pre-Catholic Acts altogether, for these not only presuppose quite different years for the deaths of Peter and of Paul, but also quite different days, since they do not name any day at all. In order to suggest something or other which could possibly have led to a later separation of the years originally regarded as identical, Harnack refers to 'various sorts of legends about the death of the apostles which are unknown to us', and adds: 'Lipsius thinks of old Gnostic Trepiofiot lleVpou KOL IlaiiAou [periodoi petrou kai paulou], but none such ever existed'. Whether they existed we do not need to inquire here, fur it is by no means the case that Lipsius relies upon writings that can only be hypothetically inferred ; he builds upon our pre-Catholic Acts, which even for Harnack himself exist, if not from a date earlier than about 250 A.D., yet at all events from more than 100 years before Prudentius.

(c) As soon as due heed is paid to this, it becomes clear that the separation of the deaths of the two apostles by a year or a clay is nothing but a compromise between the church s assertion of the simultaneousness of the two events, and the opposite tradition set down in the pre-Catholic Acts. On Harnack s own principle, accordingly, we must regard the coalescence of the days as the secondary stage, and on this point also the pre-Catholic Acts have preserved the older stage as compared with the Catholic Acts.

Whoever regards the simultaneousness of the two apostles' appearances in Rome and their conjoint conflict with Simon as the secondary form of the tradition (section 37e) is all the less in a position to doubt that this form of the tradition must necessarily have carried with it that of the coincidence of their deaths. That the difference of the days goes back to non-Catholic sources (to which our pre-Catholic Acts are to be reckoned according to section 36[-37]) is expressly stated in the decree of Pope Gelasius (2:2, ap. Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Kanons, 1847, pp. 190-191 = 198-199) dating from the year 494, yet perhaps even from the time of Damasus, 382 A.D.: [Paulus] qui non diverse, ut haeretici garriunt, sed uno tempore, uno eodemque die gloriosa morte cum Petro in urbe Roma sub Caesare Nerone agonizans coronatus est.

39. Conclusion from Apocryphal Acts.[edit]

Having reached this point, let us now endeavour to sum up the provisional conclusions that seem to be deducible from our study of the Apocryphal Acts, in the same manner as has already been done in section 31 from the data of the NT and Church fathers.

(a) In the most important points we have seen that the contents of the pre-Catholic Acts are the more original as compared with those of the Catholic ; namely, that Peter without Paul engaged in controversy with Simon in Rome and suffered martyrdom. This, however, is confirmed by the Catholic Acts also, inasmuch as we can see that in them Paul has been introduced into the picture as the fellow combatant of Peter against Simon only by an after-thought (35e). In view of this fact, one would have to postulate the existence of some such representation as that of the pre-Catholic Acts as a foundation for that of the Catholic, even if it were not actually extant. All the less is there any reason for trying to discover in the pre-Catholic Acts 'tendencies' by which they would be shown to be secondary as compared with the Catholic Acts.

Let it be added that the Acta Pauli do not alter our judgment upon the two Acta now under discussion. They tell us (in Acta, apost. apocr. 1:104-117) that Paul, awaited by Luke and Titus, came (returned?) to Rome, revived from the dead Patroclus the cup-bearer of Nero, preached Christ to Nero himself, and was for this sentenced by him to death ; all this without any mention at all of Peter and Simon.

(b) Even if we refrain from trying to frame a hypothesis as to the relative priority of the several Acts (or their sources) regarded as literary monuments (section 35a), the priority of the most important points in the contents of the pre-Catholic Acts is, nevertheless, a result of very great importance. In spite of this priority it remains open to us to hold that the oldest forms of pre-Catholic and Catholic Acts alike arose approximately at the same date, but in different Christian circles (section 32b), and both of them in the time before the rise of the idea of the Roman bishopric of Peter, and thus before about 189-217 A. D. (section 26 [-27]). This last idea is discountenanced, not only by the pre-Catholic Acts (section 36b-f), but also quite as much by the Catholic with their co-ordination of Peter and Paul (35d).

(c) The theological views and presuppositions also alike of the pre-Catholic Acts (section 36 [-37]) and of the Catholic, fit into the same period (from about 160 A. D. onwards). The essence of Christianity is in the Catholic Acts summed up in belief in one God and his son Jesus Christ, and in an earnest morality, and salvation is sought, quite as in Didache, 9:3, 10:2-3, in recognition of the truth and in the life eternal ; Peter, precisely as in the canonical book of Acts (see ACTS, 4, 7), does away with the Mosaic law, and Paul appears as a true Jew, with the sole difference that he substitutes for the fleshly circumcision the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 22:83, 4:11-12 against Gal. 5:2-3), etc. (section 34a, 34de, and more fully in Lipsius, 2:1:350-358). The interest also in composing the differences of view between Jewish and Gentile Christians (ibid. 340-349) was no longer a lively one in the later time. The Acta Pauli (above, a) likewise belongs to this same period.

(d) Thus it is in itself a possible thing that many, even of the older of the Church fathers mentioned in sections 25-26, 29, may have drawn upon our apocryphal Acts: e.g. , Dionysius of Corinth, Irenneus, Tertullian, Gaius from the Catholic ; the Muratorian fragmentist and Clement of Alexandria, who do not name Paul along with Peter, from the pre-Catholic Acts (as for Clem. Alex., however, cp sections 25d, 41b), the Philosophumena from both, since in a very significant way we find it following both traditions within the compass of a single line (62:0): Simon 'journeying as far also as Rome, fell in with the apostles, whom Peter opposed in many ways' (?wj KO.\ TT?S PtJ^T/s eTTiS^yU^cras avrfirefff roil dTrooToXots Trpbs 6v TroXXa Herpos dvri- KaT^ffTT)). 1 At the same time in no single case can one be sure that the fathers named had really come by their information by reading and not by oral communication, and thus it becomes impossible to fix the date of composition of the Acts by that of any of these Fathers.

1 The Didascalia apostolorum (6:9). the Apostolic Constitutions (6:9), Eusebius (HE 2:14:6-2:15:1), and others (see Lipsius, 2:1:321, n. 5) also mention Peter alone as the controverter of Simon.

(e) It has already been stated in section 31n as one of our results that, so far as the evidence of the NT and the Church Fathers goes, Peter never was in Rome at all. The question now emerges anew, whether our examination of the apocryphal Acts supplies any fresh material which might help us to understand how it, nevertheless, came about that tradition carried him there. The new element we find in these Acts is the importance which is attached in them to the conflict with Simon. On this account, Erbes (Z. f. Kirchengesch. 22, 1901, pp. 12-16, 177-179) makes the following combination:- Since Simon was, according to Acts 8:9-24, confuted by Peter in Samaria and, according to Justin (see SIMON MAGUS, 2a), attained to divine honours in Rome, in the conviction that these could not have continued for any time, it was assumed for Rome also that Simon was confuted by Peter there. As further, according to the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, which together with the (apocryphal) third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians belonging to it, has been shown to be a constituent part of the Acta Pauli, 1 Simon made his appearance in Corinth also, and led astray members of the church there, on which account Stephanus (so here for Stephanas: cp 1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15, 16:17) and his fellow-writers beg the speedy return of Paul, it was found fitting to represent Paul as the opponent, not here only, but also in Rome. Such motives can, indeed, have been operative, and must be added to those mentioned in section 31o.

(f) Nevertheless, these motives do not solve every question. According to Erbes, they can have become operative only when, through Justin, there had become widely spread the mistaken notion that a statue had been erected to Simon in Rome. The question whether the formation of a legend of this kind was possible at a still earlier date is thus wholly foreclosed. Rightly, it would seem, since Justin mentions only Simon in Rome, but neither Peter nor Paul as his opponents (section 37e, end). It will be shown, however, later (40a-b) that there are conditions which point to a much earlier date for the origin of the legend. Their investigation is only hindered by the position of Erbes.

(g) All that has hitherto been said still leaves unex plained one matter which, nevertheless, is plainly one of primary importance in the Catholic Acts: the Petro-Pauline interest. Why was it so urgently necessary to accentuate the harmonious agreement of Peter and Paul ? Who was there to dispute this after the middle of the second century had been passed ? With this, in turn, is connected the further question : Why was it so urgently necessary to controvert Simon ? Why is it that we learn from the NT so little concerning him if he had been in the East, and in Rome, even from pre-Pauline times, so formidable an enemy of Christianity? Are the two questions perhaps so intimately connected that one and the same cause rendered necessary the confuting of Simon, and the bringing into prominence of the harmony between Peter aud Paul ? For further light upon this, we must try to find new material. Thus, our examination of the apocryphal Acts ends not so much in solution of our main problem, as in the raising of new questions regarding Peter's Roman sojourn.

1 Carl Schmidt has obtained this result from a Coptic translation not yet published. See his communication in the Neuen Heidelberger Jahrbb. , 1897, pp. 117-124, and Harnack's review of it in TLZ, 1897, pp. 625-629. For the Corinthian correspondence, see, for example, Carriere et Berger, La correspondence apocryphe de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891 (reprint from Revue de Thiologie et de Pkilosophie, 1891, pp. 333-351). Cp Zahn, Gcsch. d. NTlichen Kanons, 2:592-611, 2:1016-1019 [1892].

40. Inferences from ps.-Clem. Hom. and Recog.[edit]

The body of literature still remaining for our consideration with reference to the question whether Peter was ever in Rome, consists of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions

(a) We begin with the following results derived from a careful examination elsewhere (see SIMON MAGUS, 3-4, 9-11). The Simon who is opposed in these writings by Peter was originally the apostle Paul, yet in a form which has been distorted by the hostility of the authors. Only later were Gnostic features added to him, and thus in his figure the Gnosticism of the second century was controverted. This does not concern us here. The fundamental idea was that Peter must everywhere follow 'Simon' (who seeks in his travels to win adherents for himself everywhere) in order to refute his pernicious doctrines by disputations, and to outdo his magical arts by still greater wonders. If not in writing, yet at all events orally, there was current a coherent, comprehensive form of this romance in which Peter followed 'Simon' to Rome also.

(b) The thesis which has been based on this foundation since the days of Baur is the following. Peter was never in Rome. It was merely the idea of the romance - that he had to follow 'Simon' everywhere - that led to the assertion of his having come to Rome also. This was, in the end, accepted for a fact in churchly circles also, and this all the more readily because it subserved churchly interests. For, since Paul had notoriously been in Rome, it now became possible to appeal to the activity of both these leading apostles in the metropolis. Their mutual relation was, of course, represented as one of the most absolute agreement. Thus, to the assertion that Peter had withstood Simon, it ceased to be possible to attach the original meaning, according to which Simon stood for Paul ; Simon must figure as a third person, and Paul could range himself on the side of Peter. So the Catholic Acts and the Church fathers from Dionysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D. ) onwards. Some of them name only Peter as the opponent of Simon in Rome (39d), just as the pre-Catholic Acts do. This stage in the development of the legend is now definitely perceived to be the earlier.

(c) The whole development, however, is seen to present a perversion of historical truth such as it would be almost impossible to surpass, and which throws a lurid light upon the hostility to history, as well as upon the power, of the idea of a Catholic church. For something analogous see 24d. Even although we are not at this distance of time able to say with certainty how far the churchmen who had a hand in this transformation were conscious of the falsification of history which was being brought about by their action, the effect of it, at all events, was that the Catholic church, while gratefully accepting from sources so questionable as in its view the Clementines were, the statement of the presence of Peter contemporaneously with Paul in Rome, at the same time changed the mutually hostile attitude of the two apostles into a friendly one, and gained from a very hostile and embittered exaggeration of the real antagonism between Peter and Paul the best foundation it could show for its claim to world-wide dominion.

(d) To many students this combination appears from the very outset inadmissible, because they are unable to believe in the possibility of a falsification so gross and audacious as that of representing Peter as having been in Rome if this was really not the fact. As against this, however, it must be borne in mind that the statement in question was not at first put forward as the assertion of a fact, but merely as an incident in a romance the authors of which had not the remotest notion that strict adherence to historical fact could be reasonably demanded of them and whose only thought was as to how they could give fullest utterance to their hatred of Paul.

It is Justin, in particular, who shows how this romance came to he regarded as actual history only by slow degrees. Justin took from it the datum that Simon had actually appeared in Rome, and in fact he was able to credit it because it seemed to him to be attested by the statue which he found in Rome. The other datum, that Peter also had been in Rome and come into conflict with Simon, he did not accept - in all probability because it did not seem to him to be supported by the traditions with which he had become acquainted in Rome itself (cp sections 30g, 31, 37e, 39[-40], SIMON MAGUS, 11e-f).

How this feature in the romances should on the other hand afterwards have come to be accepted as history is not difficult to understand, when we reflect how admirably it subserved the idea of the Catholic church and remember, further, that the Pauline features of the figure of Simon had already been greatly disguised by the Gnostic touches that had been added to them.

(e) Soltau, who does not accept this whole combination nevertheless concedes (p. 35) that the Simon-legend if it did not give rise to that of Peter's Roman sojourn, at all events favoured its spread ; and Harnack (above, 37d), who accepts Peter's Roman sojourn as historically true, declares nevertheless that the Simon legend had the effect of causing Peter s arrival in Rome to be assigned along with that of Simon himself to about 42 A.D. That mere ideas, though historically unfounded, were enough to produce a false representation that Peter had come to Rome is assumed by Soltau and Erbes (above, 31o, 39e) in a process of reasoning which is not nearly so simple or cogent as that by inference from the Homilies and Recognitions which is now under discussion. Thus we need not shrink from it. Soltau (p. 10) says further that the Roman sojourn of Peter is incredible also because according to the apocryphal Acts it is full of the wildest fables about the conflict with Simon. The combination we are now contending for goes only a single step farther and finds in these fables the foundation and not merely the adornments of the unhistorical statement that Peter had been in Rome.

41. No counter testimony.[edit]

The only assertion calling for serious attention here is that which claims for the tradition as to Peter's Roman sojourn that arose independently of the Simon legend.

(a) First of all, it is pointed out that no Church father affirms that Peter and Paul came to Rome simultaneously. We shall not insist, in reply, that Dionysius of Corinth (above, 25a) is not very far from making this affirmation. What is more to the point is that neither also does the Simon-legend say, or need to say, that Peter s arrival at all places was simultaneous with that of Simon. In fact it rather gives to Simon in each case some space of time within which he may win the people over to his side, and only after this has happened does it bring Peter upon the scene (cp, for the pre-Catholic Acts, above, 33a-b)- Moreover, as soon as it is Peter and Paul who have to be dealt with, there come into consideration a variety of historical data which cannot be brought together at one point of time so easily as would be the case with incidents in a mere romance (above, 37d). Besides, for the Catholic use that is made of this romance, it is no longer a simultaneous arrival but merely some sort of contemporaneous activity of the two apostles that is of interest. Thus even considerable intervals between the arrivals of the two apostles would not of themselves be any evidence that the allegation of their having been in Rome together does not rest upon the Simon romance.

(b) What would be more important would be the existence of a tradition which spoke only of the presence of Peter in Rome, without mentioning that of Paul. Such a tradition seems to be found in Clement of Alexandria ; but, as has already been shown (above, 25d), since Clement in the connection in which he was writing had no occasion to mention Paul, it does not follow that he was not aware of his activity contemporaneously with Peter. In the pre-Catholic Acts (above, 33a) Paul sets out from Rome before Peter s arrival there, and is represented as returning only after the death of the latter. Here accordingly is a case where we actually find Peter without Paul in Rome. Not, however, without Simon ; and this is the important thing. In one form or another Paul in Rome is always by his side, as a foe or as a friend. There exists no tradition regarding Peter in Rome, which rested content with bringing him personally to Rome ; every such tradition connects with his presence there some declaration as to his relations with Paul. It is this circumstance that gives so great inherent probability to the supposition that the allegation of his peaceful co-operation with Paul in Rome (which, even irrespective of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, we have already found to be inadmissible : see section 31n) arises from a transformation of the tradition as to his conflict with Paul in the same place.

The transformation cannot possibly have taken place in the opposite direction. In such a case the conflict with Simon would have first begun to be alleged at a date so late as would render it impossible that Simon could be Paul, Paul having by this time come to be held in general reverence. If, therefore, the transformation in this direction were to be insisted on, it would be necessary fir>t of all to set aside everything that has been brought forward in SIMON MAGUS (4-5) with a view to showing that Simon is a caricature of Paul.

(c) Thus we are precluded also from attaching value, as evidences for a tradition independent of the Simon legend, to those passages of the Church fathers which mention the contemporaneous activity of Peter and Paul in Rome without at the same time mentioning Simon Magus.

In those passages it is already the transformed Simon legend which we have. It can take the form of representing Peter and Paul as making common cause against Simon (so the Catholic Acts, the Philosophumena, etc. ; above, 34, 26d-e); but it does not need to do so. Inasmuch as on this presupposition Simon at once appears as a Gnostic merely, he loses for the Church fathers all that independent interest which he possesses in the Simon romance. Moreover, in many cases the connection does not admit of his being mentioned. Such passages accordingly prove still less than do the converse cases in which Simon is spoken of as being in Rome without Peter (see SIMON MAGUS, 11e-f).

(d) The only kind of evidence that would be conclusive in the matter, would be the production of a statement relating to the presence of Peter in Rome, which could be shown to belong to a time when the Simon-legend could not yet have exercised an influence on the shaping of the history. Such a statement, however, is to be found neither in Clement of Rome (above, 28), nor in any of the other writers named in sections 29-30. At the same time, if one reflects that the Simon legend could have begun to exert its influence even in its oral form (see SIMON MAGUS, 10e), and thus during and shortly after the lifetime of Paul, it will be seen that the attempt to find a testimony to the presence of Peter in Rome which shall be \\ holly independent of it must be regarded as hopeless from the outset.

Babylonia as field of activity.[edit]

42. Babylon of 1 Pet. 5:13 = Rome?[edit]

Only 1 Pet. offers any inducements to any such attempt (cp above, 30k).

(a) In fact, however, this epistle cannot supply us with a decisive answer that Rome is meant by Babylon. Neither, indeed, it is true, with a secure negative answer. Stress has often been laid upon the consideration that the order of the provinces to which it is addressed - Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (i.e. the W. coast of Asia Minor) and Bithynia - is not a suitable one if the epistle was written from Rome. But neither is it suitable if Babylon was the place of origin; it is not arranged in such a way that the five provinces can be brought into line on any hypothesis as to the writer's view-point. Yet neither does the mention of Babylon (5:13) contain the slightest hint that the name is to be taken in any secondary sense.

The case is quite different when in 4 Ezra 1:1 - that is to say, in an apocalypse - Babylon on the Euphrates, where Salathiel, the father of Zerubbabel, is living in the thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., in 557 B.C., is named with some sort of suggestion that the statement is to be taken as a veiled one, and that in reality, the book having been written towards the end of the first Christian century, Rome ought to be understood. In like manner the case is different from that of 1 Pet., if, according to a Sibylline prophecy (5:137-142, 5:158-159 [138-143, 159-160]) Nero, 'the great king of great Rome ... shall flee from Babylon' (T^? /oieyoiAiji Pui^rfs /SacriAevs /ae ya? . . . <evferai fK Baj3uAu>i>o), and a great star shall fall into the sea, 'and shall burn up the deep sea and Babylon itself and the land of Italy' (Kai OAe fci novroi^ ftaOvv avTrjV re Baj3uAu>i>a IraAi ^c yalav re). Here care is taken by the naming of Rome and Italy to warn the reader that he is not to suppose Babylon on the Euphrates to be meant, just as in Rev. 17:15 by the note that the many waters on which the great whore - i.e., according to 17:5, Babylon - sits (17:1) are nations, and not literal waters.

(b) In the case of i Pet. the position of matters is that a decision as to the presence of Peter in Rome cannot be gained by interpreting Babylon one way or other, but contrariwise our interpretation of what is intended by Babylon will be determined by our independent conclusion on the other point. If now we bear in mind that in Rome itself, as late as 152 A.D. , Justin knew nothing of Peter's having been there (above, section 30g), and thus that the Simon-romance which brought Peter to Rome was not yet at that date in church circles taken for history, it becomes extremely improbable that this romance should have been accepted in 112 A.D. by the author of 1 Pet. (on the date see CHRISTIAN, 8) and made the basis of his designation of the place of writing, although it had been in circulation in strict Jewish Christian circles from a time when Paul was still alive, or at any rate shortly after his death. If this be so, then the dating from Babylon tells us at once where it was that about 112 A.D. Peter s chief activity was supposed to have been exercised between his departure from Jerusalem and his death ; and it tells us so even if it should so happen that the Epistle was really after all composed in Rome.

43. Babylonia and adjoining countries as Peter's mission-field.[edit]

Thus we are thrown back upon the scattered notices referred to above (section 24) regarding the various fields of activity, apart from Rome, which tradition has assigned to Peter.

(a) Among all these, only Babylonia and perhaps also the Black Sea coast can be considered seriously. According to Lipsius (1:611, 1:613) the tradition that Peter laboured along with his brother Andrew on the shores of the Black Sea goes as far back as to the second century. 1 Pet., however, in its allusion to Babylon as a mission-field of Peter takes us still farther back than any of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles made use of by Lipsius.

(b) It is specially interesting to observe that according to late redactions (for example, in Epiphanius Monachus in the 9th cent.) Peter takes leave of Andrew in order to travel westward, and that thereafter the other apostle called Simon, surnamed Zelotes or the Canaanite, suddenly appears as Andrew s companion. The journey into the West plainly originates in the wish to bring the tradition of Peter s activity in Asia into connection with that regarding his labours in Rome. The appearance of the second Simon on the other hand, points to a substitution for Simon Peter. Whilst at first there was no idea that any other than Simon Peter was intended, it was inevitable, as soon as the later idea of his departure for the West had come to be accepted, that the Simon who was named in the subsequent course of these tales of the apostles should be taken to be Simon the Canaanite.

(c) The same vacillation between the names of Peter and the Canaanite recurs also in what is said about Babylonia. According to the Acts of Judas Thaddaeus, Peter laboured with Judas in (Syria and) Mesopotamia ; according to other accounts (chiefly western), Simon the Canaanite laboured along with Judas in Babylonia as well as in Persia, and they suffer martyrdom together in Suanir in Colchis. By this last statement the tradition as to Babylonia and Persia is thus brought into combination with that as to the coast lands of the Black Sea (above, a ). Lipsius conjectures that here also Simon the Canaanite was erroneously taken for Simon Peter after the triumph of the tradition that Peter had laboured in Rome (1:27, 1:30, 1:611-613, 2:2:145-146, 2:2:175-177).

(d) Seufert (ZWT, 1885, 150-160) urges against this, that the combination would be convincing only if evidence for the Babylonian sojourn of Peter earlier than the date of 1 Pet. be adduced ; otherwise, it remains possible that in 1 Pet. Rome is meant by Babylon, and thus that Peter's sojourn in Rome was at that time presupposed, but that afterwards in consequence of a literal interpretation of 1 Pet. 5:13 his place of sojourn was removed to Babylon, while at a still later date, with a view to harmony with the tradition of his Roman sojourn, Simon the Canaanite was put in his place as sojourning in Babylon. We shall not here urge how difficult must at any time have been a literal interpretation of 'Babylon' in 1 Pet. 5:13, if Rome had already come to be so generally accepted as the scene of Peter s labours, that the author could have counted on being understood, although he chose to designate it by the word Babylon. The essential point is this : on the view which is being here upheld, Babylon must have been meant literally by the author of 1 Pet., because at that early date he had not as yet any idea of Peter as having ever been in Rome ; in harmony with this view are those apocryphal Acts which repre sent him as labouring in Babylonia, so that the substitution of Simon the Canaanite in his place is found to be due to a subse quent alteration.

44. Where did Peter die.[edit]

Even if Babylonia was Peter s most important field of labour, it does not by any means immediately follow that he died there. If it is certain that he did not die in Rome, there is all the more reason for asking whether any other place can be named with any probability.

(a) Erbes (Ztsckr. f. Kirchcngesch. 22, 1901, 180-219) names Jerusalem.

In the pre-Catholic Acts it is not Nero who sentences Peter to death but the city-prefect Agrippa. By Agrippa, it is argued, cannot be intended the M. Vipsanius Agrippa who died in 12 B.C. Along with Agrippa is mentioned, as a persecutor of Peter, the emperor's friend Albinus, whose wife withdrew herself from his society from motives of chastity (above, 33g). In this Albinus Erbes discerns the procurator Albinus who succeeded Festus in Judaea in 62 A.D., and who had a faithful high-toned wife ; while Agrippa on the other hand he identifies with King Agrippa II. who was master of north-eastern Palestine from 53 to 100 A.D. (see HEROD, 13). King Agrippa is not known to have been married, and Erbes presumes his domestic circumstances to have been similar to those of the Agrippa of the pre-Catholic Acts. It is in Palestine only, not in Rome, that the two men can be shown to have been contemporaries; the city-prefect of Rome in a Latin recension of the Passio Petri et Pauli (chap. 13, in Acta Apost. Apocr. 1:233 ; also, we add, in cod. M of the principal form of this Passio Petri et Pauli [chap. 58] discussed above, 32b, n.) is named not Agrippa but Clement. But further, King Agrippa II. has been confused with Herod Agrippa I. who, according to Acts 12:3, cast Peter into prison in Jerusalem. It is his liberation from this captivity, Krbes thinks, which constitutes the basis of what is related in the Catholic and pre-Catholic Acts as to Peter s flight from Rome (above, 34g, 33g). As to his death, on the other hand, Krbes conjectures that in reality Peter suffered crucifixion under Albinus towards the end of 64 A.D., and that Mt. 23:34 contains an allusion to this fact. Among the messengers of Jesus of whom he says to the Jews, 'some of them shall ye kill', allusion is made to James the elder (Acts 12:2) : it is Paul who is alluded to in the words 'some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city', and he whom the Jews 'shall crucify' is not the second bishop of Jerusalem, Simeon the son of Clopas, whose crucifixion (under Trajan, according to Hegesippus in Euseb., HE 3:32:2) falls too late to allow the possibility of its being referred to in Mt., but Simon Peter. Erbes, that is to say, accepts as historical the statement which Eusebius (HE 3:3:11) introduces with a Adyos (care ^et [logos katechei] - on the force of which formula see above, 28c) - that after the death of James the Just in 62 A.D., all the surviving apostles met in Jerusalem in order to choose a successor to James - namely the Simeon referred to above. Peter after this continued in Jerusalem until the outbreak of Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome, and in Jerusalem as a result of the activity aroused in zealous procurators by this persecution, he was crucified by Albinus. It was in this manner, it is urged, that it became possible for Peter to be regarded as one of Nero s victims, and his death to be at the same time transferred erroneously to Rome. The twofold destruction of Jerusalem, first by Titus and afterwards by Hadrian, explains how it was possible that the fact of its having been the scene of Peter's death should pass out of memory. The whole combination, however, notwithstanding other arguments, brought by Erbes to its support, which cannot be recapitulated here, is much too bold for acceptance.

(b) On the other hand, there is no difficulty in the supposition already set forth (28i, 31g), that Peter met his death in an unknown and obscure place, perhaps without legal process, perhaps on a journey, perhaps without any companion, so that no tradition regarding it survived which could have asserted itself against the steadily advancing belief that he had died in Rome. Here accordingly we must rest, as we have no more detailed accounts, in particular none from Clement of Rome, from whom we should most naturally have expected them. When Soltau lays it down (pp. 23, 25) that no one disputes the martyrdom of Peter in the time of the Neronian persecution, though it was not in Rome, the date is by no means to "be accepted.

But neither have we any other means of learning the date of Peter's death. in particular, we may not say with Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, p. 183, n. 3) that he must have died before Paul's last journey to Jerusalem because Paul, according to Acts 21:18, at that date found no one but James at the head of the Church there.

45. Conclusion as to Peter's activity and death outside of Palestine.[edit]

That Peter never was in Rome has already been inferred from the NT and the Church fathers (31). Discussion of the apocryphal Acts showed, further, that Peters' presence in Rome was presupposed in Church circles not merely after 170 A.D. but perhaps even from as early a date as 160 A.D. , that the purpose of his presence there is to be sought entirely in the conflict with Simon Magus (and in the martyrdom), and also, so far as the Catholic Acts are concerned, in the desire to bring into prominence his harmonious accord with Paul (39). Not till we came to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, however, were we able to perceive that under the name of Simon it was originally Paul that was controverted, and that nothing but the fundamental idea of the Simon-romance that Peter must necessarily follow 'Simon' every where gave rise to the allegation that he had come to Rome also. It is these writings, moreover, that first point the way clearly to a recognition of the fact that in the apocryphal Acts also the figure of Simon has an anti-Pauline basis (SiMox MAGUS, 5). At the same time it was also through the Homilies and Recognitions that we first became aware that the harmonious co-operation of Paul with Peter in Rome was a fundamentally altered form of their hostile meeting in Rome reported in the romance - an alteration made in the interests of the Catholic church. Lastly, they showed us that this romance had already arisen and begun to take shape in the lifetime of Paul and the period immediately following. In church circles, however, it did not find acceptance until Gnostic features also had been given to Simon and thereby the Pauline features had been so greatly obscured that it became possible to assume a harmonious instead of a hostile conjunction of Paul with Peter in Rome. Thus we see that the key to the whole riddle is found only in the Homilies and Recognitions, and how great is the injustice done to themselves in the complete neglect of these by those scholars, like Erbes and Soltau, who seek to reach the right conclusion that Peter never was in Rome by other and much less conclusive arguments, or who like Harnack accept the tradition of the presence of Peter in Rome as true history.

But also the anti-Pauline basis of the Acta Petri is completely misknown when Carl Schmidt (below, section 49), 88-90, arguing correctly from the view of Harnack, declares it to be an assured result that the whole legend contained in it about the meeting between Simon Magus and Peter has been derived by the author from combination of what Justin says about Simon with the fact of the Roman martyrdom of Peter, adding that Simon is exclusively the magician, and that the author remains without any idea that Paul is concealed under this mask, because the Pseudo-Clementines were not yet in existence.

46. Importance for the Roman Church.[edit]

In truth the interest of the Catholic church succeeded very well, thanks to great skill, persistence, and unscrupulosity, in obscuring the actual facts of the case (cp the suppression of the tradition according to which Barnabas was the first preacher of the gospel in Rome; BARNABAS, 4); yet it is not wholly impossible for us to bring them again to light.

Still, the whole question, after all, is a purely historical one. A claim on the part of the bishop of Rome to supreme authority over the world would not be established even if it were a fact that Peter had been in Rome or that Mt. 16:18-19, as well as Lk. 22:32 or Jn. 21:15-17 were genuine. In section 26g-h it has been shown how late was the date at which Peter came to be regarded as bishop of Rome in spite of this presupposition. In Peter's lifetime there were no monarchical bishops at all (MINISTRY, 46b, 47), and even if there had been, his office was that of an apostle, never that of bishop. And even if he had been bishop, his special dignity would not have passed over to his successor ; for apart from the fact that the apostolical succession was not believed in till a date long after the lifetime of Peter (MINISTRY, 37), it is in itself an empty doctrine. Tertullian has well expressed this as against Calixtus of Rome (Pudic. 21, middle) : 'qualis es, evertens atque commutans manifestam domini intentionem personaliter hoc [Mt. 16:18-19] Petro conferentem ?'

47. Later traditions.[edit]

Only a brief account of later traditions can be given. The wife of Peter (1 Cor. 9:4-5) is said to have been a daughter of Aristobulus, brother of Barnabas. Peter by prayer inflicts gout on his own daughter Petronilla in order to preserve her from danger with which she is threatened on account of her beauty. To show that he has the power to do so he heals her, but forthwith permits the malady to return. This is related in a Coptic fragment with the subscription 7rpats IleVpov [praxeis petrou] (discussed by Carl Schmidt [below, 49], 1-25 and already in SBAW, 1896, p. 841 f.) Thus the conjecture of Lipsius (2:1:203-206) is confirmed that the Acts of Nereus and Achilles and the Acts of Philip from which he adduces the same story derived it from the old Trpafei? llerpov [praxeis petrou]. Yet the Coptic fragment gives the beginning to the effect that a heathen, Ptolemaeus, had carried off the daughter of Peter (here she does not yet bear the name 'Petronilla'), but brought her back when she had lost her health. Clement of Alexandria clearly knew the story, as he says (Strom. 36, 52, p. 535, ed. Potter; also ap. Eus. HE 3:30:1), 'for Peter indeed and Philip both became fathers', and only with regard to Philip adds, 'Philip also gave his daughters to husbands' (see PHILIP, 4c, col. 3699). According to Strom. 7:1, 63, p. 869 (ap. Eus. HE 3:30:2) Peter's wife suffered martyrdom before his eyes. He himself is said to have been bald (cp the 'tonsura Petri'). For a detailed description of his appearance, from John Malalas after older authorities, see Lipsius, 2:1:213, n. i. Of the miracles of Peter reference may be made here to that mentioned in the 'Acta Petri et Andreae' according to which, in order to convince a certain rich man named Onesiphorus of the truth of Christianity, he causes a camel to go twice through the eye of a needle, and afterwards, again twice, another camel with a woman of loose character on its back.

48. Writings attributed to Peter.[edit]

We possess no genuine writings of Peter ; nor can the speeches attributed to him in Acts lay any claim to authenticity notwithstanding their archaic colouring (section 4g, ACTS, 14). On the Canonical Epistles see PETER (EPISTLES), and CHRISTIAN, 8 ; also, on 2 Pet, above section 24a. As apocryphal writings of Peter, a book of Acts (not, however, claiming to be by him), a Gospel, a 'Preaching' (KrjpvyMc] [kerygma]) and an Apocalypse are enumerated by Eusebius (HE 3:3:2). Cp APOCRYPHA, 26:4, 30:1, 31:2 ; Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, 2:742-751, 2:810-832; Harnack, ACL, 2:1:470-475, 2:1:622-625. On the Preaching of Peter see also above, section 25e. Of the gospel of Peter the second half is fully considered under RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 5 et passim. Lastly, mention must be made of the Epistle of Peter to James prefixed to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, on which see SIMON MAGUS, 15.

P. W. S.


POP ), 1 Ch. 26:10 AV, RV SHIMRI (q.v.).


("D; for (S s readings see below) an Egyptian city, Ez. 30:15: 'and I will pour my fury upon Sin' (AV mg, Pelusium), the strength of Egypt. It stands parallel to Noph-Memphis (v. 13), Pathros, Zoan-Tanis and No-Thebes (v. 14), in direct parallelism to NO (Cornill : Noph-Memphis after LXX). Verse 16 groups together Sin (but LXX - except Q which has Zai s [sais] as in v. 15 - Syene, and thus with great probability Cornill, pa [SYN]; see SYENE), No, and Noph ; in vv. 17-18. less important cities are enumerated. As in v. 16 LXX seems to be right, only v. 15 remains for Sin. Nothing can be concluded from the parallelisms, especially because the text (NO occurs 3 times in the present Hebrew text) has been corrupted in several places, except that Sin must have been a very important city ; in view of the parallelism with Memphis (LXX, see above), it would seem to belong to northern Egypt. More important is the designation 'strength (RV stronghold, T IJ;C) of Egypt', which seems to point to the eastern frontier of the Delta. LXX{B} renders Zatv [sain] (accusative of Sais or transliteration ?), LXX{A] favii [tanin] (of course incorrectly, as Tanis is ZOAN, q.v. ), Vg. Pelusium. Modern scholars have always adhered to the Vulgate's identification with Pelusium, because Pelusium would meet the requirements best and because of the Aramaic word seyan, Syriac seyana 'mud', which seemed to furnish the Semitic equivalent for the Greek IlrjXovffiov [pelousion] - i.e., mud-city (cp Lutetia). This identification has been often repeated by Egyptologists (still by Steindorff, Beitrage zur Assyr. 1:599 as late as 1890), but on the basis of erroneous conclusions Brugsch (Dict. Geogr. 1091 ; cp Dumichen, Gesch. Aeg. 263) had assumed that Coptic ome, 'dirt, mud', furnished the etymology for the great fortified frontier-city Ame(t), and that the latter, consequently, was Pelusium. The city in question - Ame(t) 1 - had its official etymology rather from a word meaning 'prince of Lower Egypt'; but this might have been artificial. The city itself was, however, discovered by the excavations and investigations of Petrie and Griffith, at the modern Nebisheh, 8 miles SE of Tanis; cp Petrie, Tunis II. (On the proposed identification with Tahpanhes, see TAHPANHES. ) For the identification Pelusium-Sin there remains only the fact that Pelusium (or a fort near it?) is called by some Arabic sources (et)-Tineh (i.e., piece of clay, lump of mud); but this seems to be only a translation of the Greek name or a popular etymology of Pelusium which also Strabo (803) derives from the muddy surroundings.2 At any rate, a comparison of the words Sin or the Aramaic seyan with Arabic tin is inadmissible for the Semitist. Pelusium, besides, does not seem to have had any importance before Greek times; Herodotus (2:141, etc.) knows it as the entrance to Egypt, and in this capacity it appears in many Greek writers ; but no hieroglyphic name for it has been found so far, and it is not unlikely that cities more to the East (see above on Amet-Nebisheh) had formerly the strategic position of Pelusium. According to Strabo (803), Pelusium was 20 mi. distant from the sea ; in his time it was much decayed, although later it was still the seat of a Coptic bishop. The Coptic name was nepe/woyN [peremoun] Arabic Far(a)ma. The easternmost branch of the Nile was known as the Pelusiac ; the Pelusiac mouth is now dried up completely, and the insignificant ruins of the ancient city are situated in the desert. 3

It will be seen, therefore, that the popular identification with Pelusium rests on very feeble grounds. Jerome (see above) was most likely guided by the Aramaic etymology given in his time to the old name by Jewish scholars. It seems quite plausible that Ezekiel's Sin was a fortress similar to (perhaps not very far from) Pelusium, but of a somewhat ephemeral importance. In the critical sixth century B.C. , fortifications and garrisons along the entrance to Egypt between the sea and the modern Ballah-lakes seem to have changed consider ably, and even before the great revolution caused by the Persian conquest in 525 B.C., the withdrawal of the large garrison to a better location may have reduced a populous city to the position of an obscure village. This must have been the case with Ezekiel s Sin, as LXX could no longer identify it. 1 W. M. M.

[Cp Crit. Bib. on Ezek. 29:10, 30:14-16, where an underlying &N <y is supposed. That Ezekiel's prophecies have been worked over by a redactor who changed the geographical setting, is pointed out in PROPHET, 27. The Shunem supposed to be referred to would be that in the Negeb. See SHUNEM.]

1 The ambiguous letter [hieroglyphic ostrich feather goes here] had here the value of Aleph, to judge from demotic transcriptions.

2 Other classical writers think of mythical persons such as Peleus, Pelusius, etc. See Wiedemann s excellent commentary on Herodotus ( p. 89).

3 On these and the history of the city see Wiedemann, u supr.