the work of Peter. He appears as the recognized leader of the
Apostles in their choice of a new member of the Twelve to take
the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 sqq.); on the day of
Pentecost he seems to have played a prominent part in explaining
the meaning of the scene to the people (Acts ii. 14 sqq), and soon
afterwards was arrested by the Jews on the charge of being a ringleader
in the disorders caused by the healing of the lame man at
the “Beautiful” gate of the temple, but was released. After
this he appears as the leader of the apostles in the story of
Ananias and Sapphira, Who perished at his rebuke for their
duplicity (Acts v. 1–11). The last episode of this period is
another arrest by the priests, which ended in his being scourged
and released (Acts v. 17 sqq).
After this Peter’s attention was directed to the growth of Christianity in Samaria, and he and John made a journey of inspection through that district, laying hands on those who had been baptized in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Here Simon Magus (q.v.) was encountered. He was a magician who had been converted by Philip and baptized; he desired to obtain the power of conferring the Spirit, and offered Peter money for this purpose, but was indignantly repulsed. After this Peter and John returned to Jerusalem.
During the following stay in Jerusalem, the duration of which is not defined, Peter was visited by Paul (Acts ix. 26–29, Gal. i. 18), and a comparison of the chronological date afforded by Gal. i. and points to a year not earlier than 33 (Harnack) or later than 38 (C. H. Turner) for this meeting. According to Galatians, Paul saw none of the apostles on this occasion except Peter and James: it is therefore probable that none of the others were then in Jerusalem.
After this Peter made another journey, visiting especially Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea. His stay at Lydda was marked by the healing of Aeneas (Acts ix. 32–4) and at Joppa by the resuscitation of Tabitha or Dorcas. While at Joppa he stayed with Simon the tanner, and thence was summoned to Caesarea to Cornelius the centurion. He hesitated whether to go, but was persuaded by a vision and the injunction to call nothing unclean which God had cleansed. Cornelius was accordingly baptized. This is an important incident, as being the first admission of a Gentile into the church: but he was already “God-fearing,” φοβούμενος τον θεόν (Acts x. 1), which probably denotes some sort of connexion with the Jewish synagogue, though it is difficult to say exactly what it was. After this incident Peter returned to Jerusalem. The members of the Church were somewhat shocked at the reception of a Gentile: their view apparently was that the only road to Christianity was through Judaism. They were, however, persuaded by Peter’s speech (Acts xi. 4–17); but it is uncertain how far their concession went, and in the light of subsequent events it is probable that they still regarded circumcision as a necessary rite for all Christians.
After the return of Peter to Jerusalem the most important events were the famine at Jerusalem, and the persecution of the Church by Herod. During the latter Peter was put in prison (Acts xii. 3 sqq.), but was released by an angel; he first went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, and afterwards went to “another place.” This expression has been interpreted to mean another town, and even to be an implied reference to Rome. This last suggestion, improbable though it be, is historically important. The persecution of Herod seems to have been in his last year, which was probably A.D. 43–44. There was a marked tendency to make the duration of Peter’s episcopate at Rome twenty-five years: and a combination of this tendency with the explanation that the ἔτερος τόπος was Rome probably is the origin of the traditional dating of the martyrdom of Peter in A.D. 67–68. There is, however, no justification for this view, and ἔτερος τόπος need not mean more than another house in Jerusalem.
The famine referred to in Acts xi. 27 sqq. probably began before the death of Herod, but it continued after his death, and the relief sent by the church at Antioch to Jerusalem through Paul and Barnabas probably arrived about the year 45. It is not stated in the Acts that Peter was present, and it is therefore usually assumed that he was absent, but Sir W. M. Ramsay has argued in his St Paul the Traveller that the visit of Paul to Jerusalem with the famine relief is the meeting between Paul and Peter referred to in Gal. ii as the occasion of an agreement between them as to the preaching of the gospel to Jews and Gentiles. This view is not generally accepted, but it has the great advantage of avoiding the difficulty that otherwise Paul in Gal. ii 1 sqq. must describe as his second visit to Jerusalem what was really his third. According to Ramsay, then, Peter was present during the famine, and made a private agreement with Paul that the latter should preach to the Gentiles, and so far Gentile Christianity was recognized, but the conditions of the intercourse between Gentile and Jewish Christians were not defined, and the question of circumcision was perhaps not finally settled. According to the more popular view the description in Gal ii. applies to Acts xv. the so-called council of Jerusalem. This council met after the first missionary journey (c. A.D.. 49) of Paul to discuss the question of the Gentiles. Peter, who was present, adopted the view that Gentile Christians were free from the obligation of the law, and this view was put into the form of the so-called Apostolic decrees by James (Acts xv. 23 sqq). The next information which we have about Peter is given in Gal. ii. 11 sqq. According to this he went to Antioch and at first accepted the Gentile Christians, but afterwards drew back and was rebuked by Paul. On the ordinary interpretation this must have taken place after the council, and it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with the attitude of Peter described in Acts xv., so that Mr C. H. Turner thinks that in this respect the account in Gal. ii. is not chronological, and places the visit of Peter to Antioch before the council. If, however, we take the theory of Sir W. M. Ramsay the matter is simpler. We thus get the compact between Paul and Peter during the famine, then a visit of Peter to Antioch, during which Peter first adopted and afterwards drew back from the position which he had agreed to privately.
This vacillation may then have been one of the causes which
led up to the council, which may have been held before, not, as is
usually thought, after the sending of the Epistle
to the Galatians. For this we have no knowledge
of details for which the same certainty can be claimed.
History after
the Council
of Jerusalem.
There are, however, various traditions of importance.
The following points are noteworthy. 1 Cor. i. 12 suggests the
possibility that Peter went to Corinth, as there was a party
there which used his name. It is, however, possible that this
party had merely adopted the principles which, as they had been
told, perhaps falsely, were supported by the leader of the
Twelve. Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) states that Peter was in
Corinth. This may represent local tradition or may be an
inference from 1 Cor. i. 12. 1 Peter suggests a ministry in the
provinces of Asia Minor. There is, of course, nothing improbable
in this, and even if 1 Peter be not authentic, it is early
evidence for such a tradition, but it is also possible that Peter
wrote to converts whom he had not personally made. This
tradition is found in Origen (Eus. H.E. iii. 1), Epiphanius
(Haer. xxvii., vi.), Jerome (De Vir. ill. 1) and other later writers;
but it is possible that it is merely an inference from the epistle.
Early tradition connects Peter with Antioch, of which he is said
to have been the first bishop. The first writer to mention it is
Origen (Hom. vi. in Lucam), but it is also found in the Clementine
Homilies and Recognitions (Hom. 20, 23, Recog. 10, 68) and
probably goes back to the lists of bishops which were drawn up
in the 2nd century. Other important references to this tradition
are found in Eus. H.E. iii. 26, 2; Apost. Const. vii. 46, Jerome,
De Vir. ill. 1; Chronicon paschale; and Liber pontificalis. The
tradition of work in Antioch may well be historical. Otherwise
it is a rather wild elaboration of Gal. ii. 11. The most important
and widespread tradition is that Peter came to Rome; and
though this tradition has often been bitterly attacked, it seems
to be probable that it is at least in outline quite historical. The
evidence for it is earlier and better than that for any other
tradition, though it is not quite convincing.
The earliest witness to a residence of Peter in Rome is probably
