I have more evidence showing that Peter was never in or about Rome to add to your exhaustive research!
1. Mentioned before (posts 1438 & 1450)....Peter commissioned to be Apostle to the Circumcised [Matthew 10:5-6][Galatians 2:7-9].
2. Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans He had been chosen to bring them the "Good News"....not Peter. [Romans 15:16]. If Peter had already been in Rome.....can you see Paul writing this????
3. Paul himself told the Romans it would be He....not Peter who would found their church [Romans 1:11]. The letter to the Romans is thought by scholars to be written in about 55/56 A.D. and here Paul is saying that he wishes to establish a harvest among them. Does this sound strange to you if Peter had been shepherding the Roman Church for 15 or 20 years at this point?
4. In addition, Paul explains, He does not want to build upon another man's foundation [Romans 15:20]. Again, would he be saying this to the Romans if Peter was already there.....and in charge?
5. Already mentioned (posts 1438 & 1450) in Romans 16 Paul salutes many folks in Rome....Peter not included. Where is Peter?
6. When Paul was taken prisoner to Rome....some four years later, the brethren of Rome came to meet him [Acts 28:15]. Where is Peter?????
7. When Paul got to Rome He summoned the Jews [Acts 28:17] and they had heard little about this new sect and wanted to hear more [verses 21-22]. Don't you think that by 60 A.D. that the Apostle Peter, being a Jew himself as well as their designated Apostle, would have mentioned something about Our Saviour......if he had been in and about Rome?
8. Paul remained in Rome in his own house for 2 years [Acts 28:30] writing four more books (mentioned earlier in 1438 & 1450) never once mentioning Peter.
9. He was released but back again as a prisoner about four years later(A.D. 65). At his trial it is noted in [II Timothy 4:16] that no man stood with me....all men in Rome forsook me and he prayed to God that they be forgiven. Well, I guess that Peter must have forsaken Paul.....if he had been in and about Rome.....at that time!
10. Paul says in II Timothy 4:11 that at this time only Luke is with him. Where is Peter?????
Paul wrote to Rome, was in Rome, wrote at least four.... maybe six epistles from Rome, and at the end not only has he ever mentioned Peter, but says, "Only Luke is with me!"
What I have posted here is Biblical.....not tradition and the Bible says that Peter was ministering to "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6][John 21:15-17][Matthew 15:24]
What a great post! Especially the points made above.
The summary should say "never mentioned....not ever mentioned.
Great work.
Thanks.
Excellent research. Apparently there's a diploma in this for some lucky guy, and so far, you're ahead by a couple of lengths. 8~)
What you have there is a competing dissertation, and, I must confess, I am a little jealous because your list of EVIDENCE is longer than ours at this point. I almost wish that we could change the topic of our dissertation to the AGAINST side because there is such slim pickens at this point on the FOR side. But the future "Dr A8" can attest to the fact that the Magisterium does not like to change, to change its mind, and for its doctoral candidates to change their theses just because they can't find any information to go on. They like creative candidates --- those who can pull things out thin air if they have to, rhetorically speaking, of course.
You have 10 points already for your thesis, and we have, uhhhh none --- but it's early in the process and we're only in the Book of Acts. And anyway I have great confidence in my research partner. Mine is only the first half. Wait until you see what he comes up with for his half of the project. He is a great finisher and his part of the thesis should prove to be quite substantial, because he knows the writings of "the Fathers" like few others, and that is where our thesis will begin to take off [I hope]. I appreciate you posting that information "AGAINST" Peter in Rome because it now helps me narrow our search "FOR" evidence of Peter in Rome even further.
Perhaps we should have dueling theses --- ours FOR and yours AGAINST --- and we will see whose thesis is the longest and most substantial.
What you have there is a competing dissertation, and, I must confess, I am a little jealous because your list of EVIDENCE is longer than ours at this point. I almost wish that we could change the topic of our dissertation to the AGAINST side because there is such slim pickens at this point on the FOR side. But the future "Dr A8" can attest to the fact that the Magisterium does not like to change, to change its mind, and for its doctoral candidates to change their theses just because they can't find any information to go on. They like creative candidates --- those who can pull things out thin air if they have to, rhetorically speaking, of course.
You have 10 points already for your thesis, and we have, uhhhh none --- but it's early in the process and we're only in the Book of Acts. And anyway I have great confidence in my research partner. Mine is only the first half. Wait until you see what he comes up with for his half of the project. He is a great finisher and his part of the thesis should prove to be quite substantial, because he knows the writings of "the Fathers" like few others, and that is where our thesis will begin to take off [I hope]. I appreciate you posting that information "AGAINST" Peter in Rome because it now helps me narrow our search "FOR" evidence of Peter in Rome even further.
Perhaps we should have dueling theses --- ours FOR and yours AGAINST --- and we will see whose thesis is the longest and most substantial.
Post 1619 ended this debate.