Replies

Then explain how Peter could be the Bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 AD and still appear before Herod in 44 AD according to those Acts of the Apostles that Jerome had in his hands at the time. Did he not trust Luke? Who did he consider more trustworthy: Luke or Eusebius or his own imagination?

This is an example of being an uncharitable interpreter. Luke does not use the term "44 AD". Nor does Luke say anything that requires us to think that Peter appeared before Herod in 44 AD. Peter's imprisonment under Herod (and release by the angel) is thought to have occurred in 42 AD.

Thought by whom? --- Jerome. Historians put the reign of Herod Agrippa at 39 to 44 AD. The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

But let's go forward to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where Peter was a major player. When was that? 49 AD? 50 AD? some put it 51 or 52. How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel. They resided in one place with their flock. So what was Peter at that point: an Apostle or a Bishop? He couldn't be both. One or the other.

And was Peter in two places at one time? or did he have a clone?

Or was Peter simply in Jerusalem as Luke records traveling between Jerusalem and Asia Minor and Parthian Babylon, and not in Rome as Eusebius and Jerome erroneously pontificate.

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.

The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

That's unjustified speculation on your part. You are using another argument from silence to claim that events that occurred in 42 AD must have occurred in 44 AD, since the two narratives don't say that two years elapsed between them.

How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel.

Where did you get the notion that "bishops did not travel"? How would they ever get to ecumenical councils if they did not travel??

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.

The very notion that one has to choose between Jerome and Luke is a construct of your own making.

Here'e a timeline of Peter's life, from Stephen Ray's Upon This Rock:

c. 30   Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus; Pentecost

30-37   Peter head of the Church in Jerusalem

38-39   Peter's missionary journeys in Samaria and on the coast of Palestine

40-41   Peter in Antioch

42      Imprisonment in Jerusalem, escape, and departure to "another place".

42-49   First sojourn in Rome

49      Expulsion from Rome by the edict of Claudius against its Jews

49-50   In Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council

50-54   In Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia (or some of them)

54-57   Second sojourn in Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter's direction

57-62   In Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (or some of them); Mark in Alexandria, Egypt

62-67   Third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome

67      Martyrdom in Rome and burial near the Necropolis at the Vatican.

-A8