[Uncle Chip]

Thank you for the quote from Ignatius. If it is true that Peter was in Rome at some time, it would have been when Paul was there and between Paul's imprisonments. Is there any way to determine the dates of that period between imprisonments?

[HarleyD]

If it is true that Peter was in Rome at some time, it would have been when Paul was there and between Paul's imprisonments. Is there any way to determine the dates of that period between imprisonments?

That's a good question. I don't know. But here is an interesting calendar. Some points to note:

1) 36-39AD - The stoning of Stephen took place between 36-39AD around the conversion of Paul.
2) 42AD - Paul didn't meet Peter and rest for three years after his conversion to that places the start point on the timeline at around 42AD.
3) 42AD - 49AD Paul first trip
4) 49AD - The Jerusalem Council and the expulsion of Jews from Rome took place around 49AD.

WARNING-GUESS WORK BELOW

My GUESS is between 42 and 49 AD Paul and Peter were in Rome setting up a church. This would make a lot of sense in that Paul undoubtedly would have a desire to go back to the Gentiles. Also scripture talks about Paul meeting the leaders and one has to wonder who would have funded Paul's first trip. I wondered if the council didn't give Paul some money to go on his first trip and they paid a visit to see how the money was being spent. The problem with my speculation is that, if memory serves me correctly, there is no record of Paul traveling to Rome on his first trip.

I think it’s interesting the Jerusalem Council took place the same year as the expulsion from Rome. I wondered if the false doctrine the Jerusalem Council was faced with wasn’t perhaps a reaction to the increased persecution and eventual expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Jewish Christians might have desired Gentile Christians to become more "liked them" through acts of the Law hoping problems would lessen. Given that Peter had a difficult time preaching and undoubtedly felt himself isolated in the Roman culture, it wouldn't have taken much for Peter, James, etc to start thinking like this (especially if he had to leave Rome); whereas Paul had a more worldview of things.

It is only if Paul and, later, Peter traveled to Rome during the first missionary journey that Ignatius statement could be plausible. Personally, I happen to believe Ignatius statement. It doesn't contradict the scripture but simply shows that Paul didn't spend 7 years in Cyprus and Galatia (Paul liked to travel). Also, Ignatius does say they traveled together or who arrived first. OTOH, one has to remember Ignatius was writing 80 years (?) after the fact so that is like me saying where Aunt Viola traveled to in 1930. It is built on hearsay. But no where do I find a time for Peter to spend 25 years in Rome.