The assumption that Peter's imprisonment and angelic deliverance occurred in the same year as Herod's death is unjustified and unsupported.
he never mentions the name of Peter
It is likely that Paul knew that Peter was traveling away from Rome at that time. Given Peter's authority, only upon Peter's absence would Paul have written such an apostolic letter. Ray's timeline (mentioned earlier in this thread) shows Peter traveling in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia during this time (i.e. the time when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans).
Not once is Peter mentioned in this epistle and since Paul is asking for the presence of Mark only we can assume that Peter is already dead.
There are other alternatives to which you are not giving sufficient consideration. One is that Mark the nephew of Barnabas is not the "John Mark" of Acts 12 who wrote the Gospel of Mark and became the first bishop of Alexandria. Another is that since Timothy is in Ephesus, and Peter was in Rome, we shouldn't expect Paul to saying anything to Timothy about Peter. It is possible that Peter and Paul were both imprisoned at the same time, though in different cells. (I've actually visited the traditional cell in Rome where Paul is said to have been chained. It is utterly dark and dank, small, and not joined to other cells like in an American prison.) So we have to be careful not to put weight on arguments from silence when there are so other equally plausible explanations for Paul's not mentioning Peter. Peter himself refers to "our beloved brother Paul" in 2 Peter 3:15, and this epistle is thought to have been written shortly before Peter's death, since he says that the "laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent". (2 Peter 1:14). There is no good reason therefore, to reject the testimony of the patristic tradition that Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time under Nero in Rome, probably in 67 AD.
For those who think Peter was in Iraq (and not Rome), if you know anything about ancient geography, you will see that it would be very odd for him to be have been writing letters to "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" from present-day Iraq. (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1) Since he was writing letters to those places, he most likely had traveled there and in his two epistles was writing follow-up letters to strengthen the churches there in the faith. The only place relatively near to those locations, that would make sense to be referred to as 'Babylon', is Rome.
-A8
We have historical information from Josephus (a reputable source) stipulating that Herod Agrippa died in A.D.45. As pointed out in post # 1438 Peter was in and about Jerusalem from Pentecost to A.D. 54. We know for a fact he was there at the Council in A.D. 51. I never said Peter was delivered from prison the same year Herod died.....but obviously Herod died thereafter....and we know when it was (45 A.D.).
It is likely that Paul knew that Peter was traveling away from Rome at that time. Given Peter's authority, only upon Peter's absence would Paul have written such an apostolic letter.
Why would this be likely? Paul was given the authority, not Peter. To presuppose that Peter was anywhere in or about Rome at any time is speculation.
There are other alternatives to which you are not giving sufficient consideration. One is that Mark the nephew of Barnabas is not the "John Mark" of Acts 12 who wrote the Gospel of Mark and became the first bishop of Alexandria.
The reason we know that this Mark is the companion of Peter is that Paul is asking for Timothy to also stop and get his "scrolls and parchments" at Troas. He had evidently left them there when he had been arrested the final time and wanted to make sure these "Scriptures" [2 Peter 3:15-16] would be placed in safe hands....probably having Mark and Timothy take them to the Apostle John. Mark, of course, would be bringing along with him all of Peter's writings as well as the Book of Mark. Paul was already in possession of the works of Luke....as Luke was with him. Jude and the Book of Hebrews, I'm certain, would also have been among Paul's possessions at that time.
I believe you see the initial canonizing of the New Testament here. Certainly by that time the Book of Matthew had been copied countless times and as soon as John received the "Parchments, Scrolls, Peter's writings and Luke's" he would have added his own books and we would then have had all of New testament scripture present for the early churches. We do know that John and the Greeks safe guarded the original writings.
There is no Biblical record of Peter ever having been in or about Rome and much evidence points to the contrary. It makes no sense that scripture would be completely silent about his presence there if he was that instrumental in the development of the Roman Church.
List for us all the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their exact words right here for us. We want you to show us. Post the precise words so we can check them out for ourselves. Maybe the complete list of Ante-Nicene fathers testifying to this Petrine Bishopric in Rome will bring this matter to an end. Come on, adaire, adaire ya. Let's see documented facts, from the earliest through the AnteNicene period. No more rhetoric. Post your "Fathers'" words, so that we can all see what you choose to trust rather than the Scriptures themselves.