Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome.
The real question is: "Why didn't Jerome and Eusebius check with Scriptures that they were supposed to be cannonizing. Perhaps instead of cannonizing, and retranslating it, they should have just read it and believed it, and thrown those myths from the apocryphal literature and debatable sources into the Tiber.
This is why it is fallacious to put the writings of the patriarchs on the same level as Scripture. They can't always be trusted ---- not so with Scripture. When they disagree, it is wise to go with Scripture. When they disagree, too often the Magisterium of the RCC have chosen to go with the patriarchal writings and misled themselves and others.
Since Jerome is and was one of the greatest Scripture scholars who ever lived, and you most certainly aren't, the hubris of this statement is just truly incredible.
It makes about as much sense as accusing Einstein of ignoring basic mechanics in formulating his theory of relativity.
But the question becomes, do they actually disagree with scripture. Remember that none of the Pauline epistles was "written for posterity," it was written to a specific group and there would be no reason to explain facts that they already knew to be true. And even a century or two later they would be known fact (if I wrote you a letter today about the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, you would know that I meant Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.).
The notion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude just sat down one day and decided to write the New Testament is wrong, we all know and agree on that. However, the theory of "sola scriptura" would necessitate just such an arrangement. They didn't sit down afterwards and make sure everything was in there, in fact John specifically states at the end of the Gospel that things were omitted.
The simple fact remains that tradition has ALWAYS had Peter in Rome, this was NEVER questioned for well over fifteen centuries. It became important when Protestants needed everything possible to discredit the Pope.
Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome. Uncle Chip
In Acts 8 we read of another "Simon"....Simon Magus who was a counterfeit.....perverted the gospel....was a descendant of Babylonians [II Kings 17:24].....spent most of his latter years in Rome known as Father Simon or Simon Pater.
I think there is probably some historical confusion about Simon Magus and Simon Peter.