You skipped Clement of Rome in your second response; I'll address the matter anyway. Clement, of course, in speaking of great Spiritual heroes, says only that Peter and Paul were martyred (doesn't say where). Some Roman Catholics propose that because Clement, who was in Rome, mentioned Peter and Paul, that therefore both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but Clement doesn't say that. I'll grant Paul, given that the Bible has him sitting on death row in Rome when we see him last, but the Bible does not tell us where Peter was martyred -- neither does Clement. In fact, Clement simply mentioned the two greatest martyred Apostles who probably meant most to the Gentiles (James would be high on the list also, but not so much with Gentiles; whereas John was likely still alive for several years more at the probable date of Clement's Epistle), those being Peter and Paul.
This is doubly true in the case of Corinth -- to whom Clement was writing. Both Paul (certainly) and Peter (almost certainly) ministered in Corinth -- we know Paul for sure, and the Bible gives two strong (albeit indirect) references to Peter's ministry in Corinth. So of course Peter and Paul would be mentioned in an Epistle to their beloved Corinthians -- no matter where either of them were martyred.
In his "Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
No, it simply means that Peter and Paul were Apostles, whereas Ignatius was not. Paul directly commanded the Romans by Epistle (and also by personal residence), and Peter's general Epistles likewise were commandments unto the whole Church (including Rome).
Think about it -- the guy was writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was allegedly the Bishop of Rome for (nobody knows, apparently) so many years, he's alleged to be the first "Pope" of the entire church... and yet where are Peter's Epistles not accepted as canonically Scriptural? ROME!!
Pretty freaky...
As to the rest, Irenaeus does say that Peter preached in Rome (doesn't say he was martyred there), although he is writing 140 or so years after the fact, and the rest of your citations are at least 200 or more years after the fact... plenty of time for George Washington to have chopped down the cherry tree, or not (legends develop); and like I said, neither as early nor as concrete as the Jerusalem ossuary.
best, OP
You have used the concrete twice now. You get one more shot at it, so make it a really good one.
The fourth time, of course, will be driving it into the ground. :>)
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but Clement doesn't say that. I'll grant Paul, given that the Bible has him sitting on death row in Rome when we see him last, but the Bible does not tell us where Peter was martyred -- neither does Clement. In fact, Clement simply mentioned the two greatest martyred Apostles who probably meant most to the Gentiles (James would be high on the list also, but not so much with Gentiles; whereas John was likely still alive for several years more at the probable date of Clement's Epistle), those being Peter and Paul.
OP - the obvious known to all does not need to be stated. When someone mentions the assination of Kennedy, is it necessary to also name the city of Dallas as the location, or is that understood by the topic? St. Clement was writing around AD 80, so the events of Nero would be fresh in the minds of most. He mentions these two Apostles because they had died in his Rome. He could just as easily have mentioned the two James killed in Jerusalem, or any of the other Apostles, but he didn't. Not a coincidence.
Peter's general Epistles likewise were commandments unto the whole Church (including Rome).
St. Peter wrote Epistles to Churches in Asia Minor, not to the world at large. It says so right in their text (1 St. Peter 1.1, 2 St. Peter 3.1).
Although, while I am on the subject -- it is rather interesting that the earliest Canon of the New Testament Scriptures specifically in use at Rome (the Muratorian Canon, AD170?) includes practically the entire New Testament except for one of the epistles of John, James, and both Epistles of Peter.
The provenance of the Muratorian Canon must of necessity remain speculatory. It is incomplete (it also does not mention St. Matthew, and St. Mark is only mentioned indirectly), so there is no proof one way or another that it does not include the Epistles of St. Peter. It does include an apocalypse attributed to him.
Think about it -- the guy was writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was allegedly the Bishop of Rome for (nobody knows, apparently) so many years, he's alleged to be the first "Pope" of the entire church... and yet where are Peter's Epistles not accepted as canonically Scriptural? ROME!!
It doesn't say that. They aren't mentioned and the fragment is incomplete. Arguements from silence win no points. The Muratorian Canon does mention the martyrdom of St. Peter and strongly implies it was in Rome.
The Bible doesn't tell us the lineup for the '49 Yankees either, but we know it existed. I gave you the names, quotes, dates and sources of five early Church Fathers who placed Peter in Rome, Lactantius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Eusebius and others, including Augustine in his Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
No matter, for even if all these early Christian Bishops and historians are somehow wrong, Peter was head of the Apostles and the Church long before he ever left Jerusalem. The Bible is rich with examples of this irrefutable fact. So the "Peter in Rome" debate is really just smoke and mirrors anyway. But it is a curious thing for me, because most serious Protestant scholars and exegetes, faced with the writings of the early Fathers, now admit that Peter was most likely in Rome, died there, and was Bishop of Rome. I'm wondering why you still cling to this long defunct Protestant charge?