In terms of its human actors, as a story, “Acts” reads not as a “history,” but a commentary on events. On the issue of Peter, of course, the reformers felt the need to “debunk” the story of his death in Rome. The Reformation began as a repudiation of Roman authority, and so claimed that there being nothing written in the New Testament about his presence in Rome, and the Bible being a complete substitute for Church authority, the claim that Peter was buried in Rome was false. With Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims, Rome had become the greatest of pilgrimage sites, St, Peter’s basilica being the grandest. That was one source of the pope’s power.
Why did the 12 not flee Jerusalem when the persecution began at Jerusalem? (Acts 8:1). Why were they still in Jerusalem when Paul went by revelation of Jesus Christ 17 years AFTER the Ascension? And one more question: Why were the 12 COMMANDED by Christ to begin their ministry in Jerusalem and Paul COMMANDED by Christ to FLEE Jerusalem (Acts 22:18)? At what point would the 12 have left Jerusalem and gotten on with their “great commission”?
Strange; I've always read that it was over papal excesses and blatently unscriptural practices.
I guess I find out next that the COUNTER reformation never took place.