below ; (4) Gregory the Great, Ep. vii. 40 (Migne, Pat. Lat. \xxvii. 899), ‘ipse firmauit sedem [in Antio- chia] in qua septem annis, quamuis discessurus, sedit.’ The festival of ‘Cathedra Petriin Antiochia was on Feb. 22 (see below, ne 773). (3) Syriac. Doctr. Apost. (Cureton, Anc. Syr, Documents, p. 33).
To pass to the date and length of Peter’s sojourn at Antioch. The Lib. Pontificalis, both in the original form as restored by Duchesne (p. 51), and in the later recension (p. 118), gives seven years (so Greg.) as the length of Peter’s Antiochene episco- pate. This evidence probably represents the Roman tradition of the earlier years of the 6th century. The Felician abridgment (c. A.D. 530), however, has ‘annos x.’ (p. 50). It would not be difficult ina reconstruction of St. Peter’s life to find a place for an Antiochene ministry of seven or ten years’ duration. But the evidence is too late to claim serious atten- tion. The dates given in the two chief versions of Eusebius’ Chronicon are conflicting (ed. Schoene, p. 150 1). The Armenian version places the apostle’s departure for Rome, ‘when he had first founded the Church of Antioch,’ in the third year of Gaius (39-40), and the appointment of Euodius in the second year of Claudius (42-43). Jerome (so
also Syriac epitome, ed. Schoene p. 211) gives the departure for Rome in the second year of Claudius,
and the appointment of Euodius two years later. The arrangement in Jerome seems artificial, for he places in three consecutive years three important events connected with the three great Churches— Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Moreover, the Petrine dates in the Chronicon are connected with what appears to be the impossible assumption of a 25 yea episcopate at Rome. The simple tradition,
owever, which associates St. Peter with the earl period of the Church at Antioch, seems to go bac to the 2nd cent., and is intrinsically probable.
8. St. Peter in connexion with Pontus and the provinces of Asia Minor.—Origen (ap. Eus. HE III. 1) is the earliest authority—Ilérpos δὲ ἐν Πόντῳ καὶ Ταλατίᾳ καὶ Βιθυνίᾳ Καππαδοκίᾳ τε καὶ ᾿Ασίᾳ κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐκ διασπορᾶς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἔοικεν. The last word shows that the statement is an inference ; the enumeration of provinces and the reference to the διασπορά make it plain that the source of the inference is the salutation of 1 P. Epiphanius (Her. XXVIII. vi. p. 107 ed. Petay.) goes a wep further, and states that the apostle often visi Pontus and Bithynia. Jerome (de Virr. Jllustr. 1) places this ΤΩ ΒΟΙΌΠΕΣΤ, journey between the apostle’e epizeunets at Antioch and his journey to Rome in the second year of Claudius. The Syriac Doctrine of the Apostles (Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents
. 33) informs us that ‘Antioch and Syria and Bilicia and Galatia, even to Pontus, received the apostles’ hand of priesthood from Simon Cephas, ne himself laid the foundation of the Church there, and was priest and ministered there up to the time when τς went from thence to Rome.’ In this missionary journey Andrew was tradition- ally associated with Peter. Thus, in the catholic Acts of Andrew as given by Epiphanius (ed. Dressel pp. 45-82), a monk of Jerusalem of the 9th cent., the story is told how the two brothers journey from the Syrian Antioch to Tyana in Cappadocia, and from thence to Sinope in Pontus. Epiphanius himself visited Sinope, and found there traditions of the apostles’ visit. The inhabitants poinie out a spot on a desert island some six miles rom the city where the apostles dwelt, and the chairs on which they sat to teach (pp. 47, 50). There are, however, indications that in this tradi. tion there has been a confusion between the obscure Simon Zelotes and his well-known brother-apostle Simon Peter (Lipsius, 4 οἷν. Apostelg. τ. p. 612, Ul. i. p. 6). Photius (Cod. exiv. ; Migne, Pat. Gr. ciii. 389) among the Leucian Acts mentions Act&
PETER (SIMON)
763
PETER (SIMON)
ernel of the later Acts of Andrew was supplied this 2nd cent. romance. On the Acts of Andrew in their different forms see Lipsius, Apokr. Apos- telg. τ. 543-622; James, Apocr. Anecdota ii. p. ~xix ff. ; Bonnet, Passio Andree (Acta Ap. Apoc. 1i.). On the tradition as to St. Peter’s work in Pontus, etc., see Lipsius, Apokr. ἜΣΕΙ. IL i. p.4ff There is no reason to regard it as anything but an inference from the salutation of the Epistle.
ἃ, St. Peter in connexion with Babylon.—Lipsius adduces two pieces of evidence to show that St. Peter visited Babylon. (1) He refers to two Nes- torian writers (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii. 2, p. vi) who make this assertion. But, apart from the lateness of their date, their statement is avowed] based on a literal interpretation of 1 P 5'*. ree ea the earlier Syriac tradition as given in the
loctrine of Addai (p. 44 ed. Phillips) and in the Doctrine of Simon Cephas (Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents p. 35) knows nothing of Babylon, and makes the apostle visit Rome. (2) Lipsius argues that, when the Acts of Simon and Jude (Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. NT ii. p. 608ff.) make Simon the Cananean to Babylon, the obscure Simon has taken the place of his famous namesake, and that therefore these Acts supply an argument for Simon Peter’s visit to Babylon. It can only be said that such a conclusion rests on an inversion of proba- bility. In short, there is no evidence for the theory that St. Peter worked at Babylon (see Lipsius, Die Apokr. Apostelg. τι. ii. pp. 145f., 175, Ei ἜΞΕΙΣΙ p- 32; and, on the other side,