| St. Peter and Rome |
 |
| 11/15/04 |
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
| St. Peter and Rome |
|
| 11/15/04 |
In my post #239 I think I've narrowed it down a bit (Peter's Imprisonment). What's your take on the dates?
Let's get rid of this straw man. No one, Catholics included, claims that Peter spent 25 years in Rome. The claim in question is whether his *bishopric* in Rome was 25 years in length. The length of a bishopric is not necessarily identical to the length of the bishop's remaining in the city wherein lies the seat of that see.
-A8
"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established".
Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans circa 57 AD. It doesn't sound like there has been an Apostolic visit there yet from Paul or Peter or any other Apostle as late as 57AD.
New Advent does a good job explaining this
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not -- "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Ad. Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them" (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In "De Praescriptione", xxxv, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat", ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, 80 also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter's activity in that capital (thus in Baur, "Paulus", 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially Lipsius, "Die quellen der römischen Petrussage", Kiel, 1872). But this hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely local importance of Ebionitism, and is directly refuted by the above genuine and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant historians (cf., e.g., Harnack's remarks in "Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur", II, i, 244, n. 2). A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence conciudes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter's death in Rome far antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of Christian antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn. The narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the second century concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned statements regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark we may conclude that Peter laboured for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the founder of the Roman Church. It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital.
The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, "Sopra l'anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli", Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the "Chronograph of 354" (ed. Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter's arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the "Chronograph" were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years' pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner ("Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte", Ratisbon, 1908; "Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters", Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the "Liber Pontilicalis" in P. L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, "De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu", Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter's death ("Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius", pt. II, "Die Chronologie", I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter's death to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul's to 64 ("Texte u. Untersuchungen", new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, "Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler"). The date of Peter's death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below).
Concerning the manner of Peter's death, we possess a tradition--attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second century (see above) and by Origen (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, i)--that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer". As the place of execution may be accepted with great probability the Neronian Gardens on the Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the vicinity of the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, the Prince of the Apostles found his burial place. Of this grave (since the word tropaion was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the tomb) Caius already speaks in the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of Paul in a vault on the Appian Way at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church of St. Sebastian (which on its erection in the fourth century was dedicated to the two Apostles) now stands. The remains had probably been brought thither at the beginning of the Valerian persecution in 258, to protect them from the threatened desecration when the Christian burial-places were confiscated. They were later restored to their former resting-place, and Constantine the Great had a magnificent basilica erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of the Vatican Hill. This basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter's in the sixteenth century. The vault with the altar built above it (confessio) has been since the fourth century the most highly venerated martyr's shrine in the West. In the substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the sarcophagus with the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed by a small door in front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could enjoy the great privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the Apostle. Keys of this door were given as previous souvenirs (cf. Gregory of Tours, "De gloria martyrum", I, xxviii).
The memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St. Priscilla on the Via Salaria. According to a tradition, current in later Christian antiquity, St. Peter here instructed the faithful and administered baptism. This tradition seems to have been based on still earlier monumental testimonies. The catacomb is situated under the garden of a villa of the ancient Christian and senatorial family, the Acilii Glabriones, and its foundation extends back to the end of the first century; and since Acilius Glabrio, consul in 91, was condemned to death under Domitian as a Christian, it is quite possible that the Christian faith of the family extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Prince of the Apostles had been given hospitable reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The relations between Peter and Pudens whose house stood on the site of the present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather on a legend.
Concerning the Epistles of St. Peter, see EPISTLES OF SAINT PETER; concerning the various apocrypha bearing the name of Peter, especially the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. Peter, see APOCRYPHA. The apocryphal sermon of Peter (kerygma), dating from the second half of the second century, was probably a collection of supposed sermons by the Apostle; several fragments are preserved by Clement of Alexandria (cf. Dobschuts, "Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht" in "Texte u. Untersuchungen", XI, i, Leipzig, 1893).
Here is a site with many of early writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
Notre Dame and Marquette university has the bests lists and commentaries, but you have to pay for it.
Good luck and have a great day.
Got to run,busy week for me.
Thank you, I will read that. Is there anything in there from Tacitus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, or any other early Ante-Nicene Father or author? We're still concentrating on the nearest witnesses to that era. Our examination of the earliest credible authors thus far has come up empty-handed, except for Ignatius.
Then are you claiming Peter spent a few days in Rome and the rest of the 24.363 years in Jerusalem controling Rome? Rome was only under the control of the Church which exsisted in Jerusalem? Isn't that problematic?
No. I have no idea where you got the idea that I was claiming Peter spent 24.363 years of his Roman bishopric in Jerusalem. I posted Stephen Ray's timeline here, which I think best incorporates all the evidence.
-A8
Hmmmm....that's a good point. Thinking about what I have written, I would argue that this verse confirms rather than argues against Paul being there before 57 AD. If he was writing to the church never having been there, who established it? Did it just pop up? And why would Paul longed to impart some spiritual gifts not knowing who started the church? It sounds a bit bombastic and it would have been uncharacteristic of Paul who did not like to build upon another man's foundation. He is, after all, writing to Gentile believers in Rome. Where did they come from?
The more I think about this the more plausible it seems that Paul might have made a quick trip to Rome, got the church started, Peter came to visit, and they left. If my timetable is correct, then it means that about 5-7 years would have went by when Paul would have established the Roman church and when he wrote Romans. In Romans Paul is stating how he longs to see them (again) so that they might become an established church. This would make sense. It is his foundation and Romans is a foundational book.
Keep in mind that I am not a historical expert by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply trying to find a way in which Ignatius' writings would be consistent to historical events. What I'm saying is conjecture and could be nothing more than horse hooey. However, I'll tentatively stand by this analysis (at least for the next 1/2 hour). :O)
As Uncle Chip rightfully pointed out, there really is no solid concrete evidences for any of this. We have a snippet from Ignatius but the farther one goes out from the time line, one has to wonder how did they really know? It's not recorded. Father So-N-So knew Peter was here 300 years ago because he was told so by some other father. To me it's nothing more than someone started a rumor and it went from there.
I find fathers quoting fathers quoting other fathers not to be very useful.
"Oh, my people, my people" 
Good golly,no;I am saying:"My way IS the highway".
Obviously,you have forgotten my penchant for adjectives and my delicate,modified Socratic techniques,so more precisely,I would have said:
Why would you not take my highway which is straight,well lighted,clean and well paved and leads to heaven instead of a crooked,littered,winding,meandering,foggy,dung cluttered cow path that abruptly ends at the cliff that stands at the brink of the abyss?
Reggie,Reggie,how soon you forgot my delicate lumberings into establishing dialog in the marketplace and my technique of offering choices in a manner that requires thoughtful consideration before responding.
it is good seeing you back.
This verse is evidence that no apostle had been to Rome prior to 57 AD, otherwise they would have a spiritual gift.
Apparently the Apostles imparted spiritual gifts not authority.
The gift of the Holy Spirit was apparently what "established" the church. There were clearly believers already there, the Gospel having been already brought there, perhaps by Roman soldiers, but no apostle has been there yet because it has no gift from the Holy Spirit as yet.
And Paul says: "I" not "We": He was going there alone. It was his calling and no one else's.
If he met Peter there, it would have been between Paul's two imprisonments in Rome when Peter visited there from Asia Minor, after which he returned to Asia Minor and on to Parthian Babylon where he wrote his 2 epistles.
Given the evidence before us, the time between Paul's two imprisonments would be the only time when Paul and Peter could have been preaching together in Italy. There is no other time, given Romans 1:11.
I have a question. Would you agree with me that in the year of our Lord, 2006, we are even farther out from the time line? Having said that, why is someone in 2006 more credible than someone in 300? I mean, Harley D so-n-so and Uncle Chip so-n-so know that Peter wasn't there 2000 years ago because you were told by some other person. Some of these arguements are becoming quite silly. And I really don't understand why some of you even care what Catholics think in the first place.
As far as "I" not "we"; if Peter and Paul had already been there and Paul was planning on making a return trip, why would he need to include Peter or "we"?
Where is the testimony from your early Ante-Nicene fathers or historians for that myth that you believe in?. Post it if you have it.
Furthermore in our search for the truth of that 25 year Petrine Bishopric, one of your own sacred fathers Irenaeus tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, not Paul or Peter. So now you are questioning your own sacred "Tradition", the sacred words of Irenaeus. Is he lying? Please explain.
Meanwhile our examination of the early Ante-Nicene Fathers and historians continues with no testimony of Peter in Rome at all from any of them.
My claim is no more or less than some Church father claiming he was there. I'm simply trying to look at the historical records. And certainly I think we would all agree that we have far more access to information today for analysis than they had back in 300AD.
It is important to verify what the church fathers stated is accurate. I'm sure many of the fathers would be the first to agree.
If Paul had already been there, wouldn't they already have a "spiritual gift"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.