St. Mark 10.35 "James and John, the sons of Zebedee"
St. Luke 5.10 "James and John, the sons of Zebedee"
St. Matthew 20.20, 26.37, 27.56, St. John 21.2 "the sons of Zebedee" (no names).
Every verse Andrew is mentioned in, he is noted simply as the brother of Peter, or it is a reference to something he did alone or with some other Apostle. Andrew is never called "son of Jonah", despite being introduced first in St. John 1.40-42.
St. Peter is only called "son of Jonah" or "son of the Dove" (depending on whether or not one translates the name) in the verses mentioned previosuly.
I never disputed that Peter unlocked the gate for the Gentiles, but this doesn’t make him the “Apostle to the Gentiles” in anything like the sense of Paul. That said, I do agree that Peter preached to all men; albeit there may have been a difference in focus between his ministry and Paul’s, as Scripture suggests.
Granted, that St. Paul has a special ministry to the Greeks (what really seems meant by the term "Gentiles" given his areas of preaching). It seems St. Paul's methodology, if there was one, was to first preach to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. We see this pattern over and over again (i.e. Acts 13, Acts 28, etc.). It would seem to me that St. Paul's special apostleship (with St. Barnabas) to the Gentiles is based upon the success of his results during the period from around AD 37 to AD 48 when he was in Syria, especially Antioch, and Cilicia, since his mission is said to stem from meeting with Sts. Peter, James, and John at that time. Essentially, it would appear that St. Peter and St. James sent St. Paul north to test him on his home territory, he being from Tarsus in Cilicia (Galatians 1.18-24, Acts 9.27-30, Acts 13-14). Upon his success, he was given charge of greater missions (Galatians 2.1-10, Acts 15.1-36) by Sts. Peter and James and John at the Council of Jerusalem (the others not being mentioned in Galatians, it is unlikely they were in town).
On the other hand, granted that St. Peter had a special ministry to the uncircumcised, it seems that he also give primary focus to the north of Asia Minor, to parts of Greece, and to Rome.
Well, sure. Even if Peter had his primary focus as the “Apostle to the Circumcision”, I never denied his General Epistles were not written to the Church… in general.
St. Peter's First Epistle is not general - it is specifically addressed to the Churches of the Roman civil dioceses of Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, places where St. Paul, for the most part, did not visit. There is good reason for him to visit there as Apostle to the circumcised, since there was a fairly large Jewish settlement area in that region. The dominant population was, of course, non-Jewish, and it is unknown how many Jews there accepted Christ. Since he was writing to those Churches, it is of course obvious that he was elsewhere, specifically Rome (Babylon). His stating that St. John Mark is with him narrows down the period he might have written this. Acts 15.39 notes that Sts. Paul and Mark parted company at that time (around AD 50). Colosians 4.10 and Philemon 1.24 find St. Mark in Rome with St. Paul during his first captivity around AD 62. Since St. Paul is shortly to depart on his 4th missionary journey (after the period covered in Acts, when he went to Crete, Ephesus, Spain, Corinth, Miletus, etc.), we can surmise that St. Mark stayed on in Rome to help the perhaps newly re-arrived St. Peter to write his Epistle, before departing for Laodicea/Colossae, from which St. Paul later asks St. Timothy at Ephesus to go and fetch him 2 Timothy 4.11. No persecution of Nero yet begin mentioned, it is likely that 1 St. Peter was written in AD 63.
To reason from “another place” all the way to Rome is quite a leap -- Especially considering that Biblical accounts list several places Peter journeyed during his ministry, including Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and (indirectly but likely) Corinth, but never Rome….
1 St. Peter 5.13. Peter is in Rome, AD 63, at which time it would seem St. Mark wrote his Gospel.
WHY NOT ROME? This is hardly a matter of Paul’s (only once-mentioned) side-trip to Crete; leaving out mention of Peter’s alleged preaching in Rome is quite a biggie.
St. Paul's trip to Crete occurred after his Roman imprisonment AD 60-62 during his fourth missionary journey, in which he also went to Spain (Romans 15.28).
When you ask why doesn't the Bible address this, it seems you are totally misunderstanding what the Bible is. The Bible is a set of letters and writings about the revelation of God in Christ. It never pretends to give a complete story of everything Christ did, or everything the Apostles did. The focus of the book of Acts is clearly upon the foundation of Christianity in Jerusalem, and then the missionary work of St. Paul. There is no reason to suppose that it must of necessity tell what St. Peter did. That isn't the purpose of the book. The testimony of tradition is more than sufficient to tell about the other Apostles.
An “existing Christian community” is not necessarily indicative of Apostolic formal establishment as a properly-organized church. Considering that 3,000 from all over the Roman world converted during Peter’s first big sermon, it’s not at all unlikely that quite a few ended up in Rome – and were then expelled by Claudius, many came back to Rome in time (presumably), and finally enjoyed formal organization by Paul.
It is incredible to suppose that such a "target rich environment" was not exploited at the earliest possible opportunity. The work of St. Paul has more to do with taking care of the after effects of the Claudian exile than anything else and strengthening them with a spiritual gift - the clear exposition of his theology. The first bishops and priests of Rome were Jewish (not surprisingly, since they could best preach the Gospel, knowing the Old Testament as they would). Therefore, the expulsion of AD 49 would have left a hole in the leadership of the community, with its most knowledgeable members stripped away. St. Paul does not let on anywhere that he feels a need to come to Rome to ordain anyone or to teach the basics of the faith. As noted in Romans 1.8, their faith was already "proclaimed all over the world."
This doesn’t disprove the possibility that Peter preached in Rome, but it is curious that the Bible nowhere mentions Peter’s alleged trip to Rome.
The Bible does not mention St. Thomas' journey to India, but there are all those Christians in South India and the monument of his martyrdom. Why is this any less curious?
”Somebody” could simply have been those Converted during Peter’s ministry in the Holy Land who journeyed (or just returned home) to Rome. But again, they apparently had not been “firmly placed” and “set fast” as a properly-organized church when Paul wrote.
Unlikely, since none of them were noted as being ordained as ministers, and because this was a primary Apostolic work as seen in the Pastoral Epistles, and also Acts 14.22, 20.28, etc. It was necessary for the Apsotles to go out and establish Churches by ordaining them Presbyters (Priests), so that the individual believes might have a shepherd. It seems highly unlilkely they would be left for just shy of 30 years without pastors.
As you note, to “make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix” is the primary translation. Ergo, if the Church at Rome had not yet been firmly placed, what was Peter doing during his alleged sojourn there?
But this definition does not work in the context. "For I long to see you that I may impart some spiritual grace unto you to strengthen you." What spiritual grace could St. Paul be imparting to "establish them"? How ould their faith be reknowned across the world, and yet he need to set their faith stable?
However, if you don’t assume your own conclusion, Paul’s use of the past tense to describe his previous policy may just as well describe his continuing policy.
Context, context, context! "This is why I was hindered these many times coming to you." (Romans 15.22) - in other words, it was necessary that I preach the Gospel in Greece and Asia where none other had yet worked. "But now, having no more work in these parts, and having had for many years a great desire to come to you, when I set out for Spain I hope to see you as I pass through ... having first enjoyed being with you for a while." (Romans 15.23-24) Rome was to be a pitstop on the way to fresh fields in Spain. He had not come to Rome yet because (1) they were already evangelized and (2) Asia and Greece were not. There is a perfectly plausible explanation of your question.
Peter working in areas where Paul also worked would not impinge on Paul’s policy of getting to new destinations “the firstest with the mostest”. So, all we’ve got here is some strong Biblical evidence that Peter did some preaching in Corinth… and still no Biblical evidence of Peter’s preaching in Rome, not to say it’s impossible that he ever did.
On the contrary, we have the First Epistle of St. Peter written from Rome, we have St. Mark's Gospel replete with Latinisms based on the preaching of St. Peter, we have St. Peter disappearing for seven years AD 42-49, simultaneous with the introduction of Christianity in Rome, and we have St. Paul wanting to go to Rome, but never going because his policy was to evangelize untouched areas.
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
The Apostles were not stationary Bishops in one place, but Apostles with Episcopal powers. They went about establishing the stationary Bishops with a fixed territory of a city, town or village (every place had a Bishop, if it was large, there would be seperate priests and multiple congregations - little villages in Asia Minor had Bishops for centuries, even down to the time of the Second Council of Nicea - they were called chorepiscopi). If we grant that the care of the Church was given to St. Peter (and I don't see how else you will explain St. John 21.15-17), St. Peter was given care of not just Rome, but the coordination of the Apostolic work in the whole world. Undoubtedly, he was a busy man, travelling about setting things aright like many reform Popes did later, such as St. Leo IX in AD 1049-1054 or John Paul II in our own day.
These aren’t just “some jews from elsewhere”, these are the CHIEFS of the Jewish eldership whom Paul calls upon. Peter preached in Rome for seven years (allegedly), and these guys hadn’t heard even the basics about Christian teachings?
Again, recall that Claudius had expelled the Jews in AD 49. All that would then remain would be the faithful Romans. In AD 60-61, the Jews would have been back (and not necessarily the same individuals as before) possibly at most for five years, and it would be around 12 years since the time of St. Peter actively preaching. The events of AD 49 being fresh, it is unlikely the gentile Christians remaining in Rome went to share the Gospel with the newly returned Jews in the period AD 54-61. Their ignorance of Christ is easily explained.
Well, the author of Proof Ten was referencing Jerome’s tradition that Peter held the bishopric of Peter for 25 years, AD 42/43 – AD 67/68 or so. If your contention is that Peter was either dead or out of town (always out of town, it seems) in AD 64-65, then Proof Ten concerning Peter’s absence from Paul’s side wouldn’t apply.
I'm not particularly familiar with St. Jerome's view, nor do I feel it highly relevant to the historical record. St. Peter was in charge from AD 33. The succession at Rome, with its multitude of witnesses does not commence with a fixed date or with St. Peter's first evangelization in AD 42. The absence of St. Peter in 2 Timothy, and the mention of St. Linus seems to indicate to me that St. Peter was already dead and had handed on the government of the Church to St. Linus.
Alternatively, if Peter were dead by this point, it’s interesting that the “Pope” (Linus) gets only passing mention, certainly not first on the list, of important Christians in Rome.
You seem to be confusing wordly pomp, prestige, and the like with the humility of the successors of the fisherman. Aren't you familiar with St. Luke 12.41-48? Some of the Popes were forced into seeming situations of great pride mostly to teach the powerful of the earth the spiritual lesson that the Church rules their souls too. This attitude of dominance towards and Otto or a Napoleon shouldn't be confused with the proper government of the Church. Why does the Pope need to be first on the list? Could St. Paul not simply have listed those mentioned by his own feelings of friendship, for example, a perfectly natural and human trait?
Gosh, John specifically tells us that the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) IS Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8).
Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills (Revelation 17.9)? No!
Rome does (Aventinus, Caelius, Esquilinus, Viminalis, Quirinalis, Pincius, Palatinus), and it was such a famous characteristic that Constantinople New Rome was purposefulyl founded on a site with seven hills.
"The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits" (Revelation 17.9). The focus is all upon the woman, not the beast, sitting on the seven hills.
Tsk, tsk, Hermann – merely repeating yourself won’t serve to answer the point that I have made. Let’s deal with this one specifically before I respond to the rest of your post.
As I already pointed out to you, we are not discussing a literal prostitute, a literal beast, or a literal sitting. The whore is described as sitting upon the Beast (Rev. 17:3) and sitting upon the Seven Hills (Rev 17:9), therefore the Beast and the Seven Hills are the same entity – Rome, upon whom the Whore is seated.
The whore Babylon, who is the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) whom John tells us specifically is Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), is “sitting upon” (that is, foundationalizing herself upon) the Beast of Seven Hills (Rome, Rev. 17:3,9), having declared "We have no king but Caesar". The Beast of the Seven Hills, whose number is 666 (Nero Caesar, the numerical value in Hebrew, Rev. 13:18), who will come to despise the Whore and ruin her (Revelation 17:16).
As long as you remember that John told us specifically in Revelation 11:8 that the Great City is Jerusalem, this stuff really isn’t that hard to figure out.