(2) Syria.—(a) Ignatius of Antioch (c. 115). He writes to the Romans (c. iv.) thus: οὐχ ὧς Πέτροι καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν. Contrast the similar but studiously general language addressed to the
*Compare Eur. λει 613, 2° ἐγγὺς “αἱ σννόδρωστω στρατῷ, and (στ Zahn, Sind. |. p. 447}1 Καὶ ἹῚΜ (Cod. A) alt αὐτόν, 1 Mac 153 σρὸς αὐτοίε, τοὶ ν
ἡ Ed. Lipsius pp- 172, 216: Weer [οὖ σῶμα αὐτοῦ) ὑσὺ σὸν
rep SivBer σλῳσίεν τὸν νανμαχ νο εἰς τόσον σαλεύμενεν Βα εἰκανόν.
770
PETER (SIMON)
Trallians (6. iii.): ἵνα ὧν κατάκριτος ὡς ἀπόστολος ὑμῖν διατάσσωμαι. In the letter to the Romans St. Peter and St. Paul are mentioned—such is the natural explanation—because they had actually riven commandments to the Roman Church (see ightfoot in/oc.). (δ) Clementine literature (fecog., Hom.). The Grundschrift had its origin prob- ably in Syria before the close of the 2nd cent. In the documents now extant there are a few allusions to Peter’s visit to Rome. But it is not certain that they are not due to later editing (see below, p. 775). (c) Documents of the Syriac- speaking Church: The Doctrine of Addai, ‘in its present shape a work of the latter half of the 4th cent.’ (Wright, Short Hist. of Syriac Literature . 9), speaks of ‘the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome’ (ed. Phillips 3 44); so Doctr. of the Apostles (Cureton, Ancient yriac Documents p. 33). :
(3) Corinth. — Dionysius, mea of Corinth (c. 170), addressed a letter to Soter, bishop of Rome, a fragment of which is preserved in Eus. HZ τι. xxv. 8. After speaking of the common work of St. Peter and St. Paul at Corinth, he continues: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ els τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. The reference to the common work of the two apostles in Corinth is probably a mere inference from 1 Co. But there is nothing in the NT which can account for the assertion of their common activity in Italy. Dionysius must there- fore here refer to a tradition, which may have come to him through the medium of the Petrine Acts, but which, however it reached him, he accepted. It matters little whether ὁμόσε is taken loosely to mean ‘ together,’ or more strictly ‘(going to) the same place,’ i.e. in Italy. Dionysius can nave only Rome in his mind. The last words of the extract imply that the apostles suffered, not necessarily on the same day, but during the same persecution.
(4) Asia Minor.—(a) Papias (c. 130). It is a reasonable inference from the language of Eusebius (HE τι. xy. 2, τπ. xxxix. 15, 16) that Papias inter- preted Babylon in 1 P δ᾽ of Rome, and is therefore & witness for the Roman visit. (δ) The Gnostic Acts of Peter were probably the work of Leucius Charinus in the second halt of the 2nd cent. As Leucius lived in Asia Minor, it is clear that he did not place the scene of Peter’s conflict with Simon Magus at Rome from motives of ecclesiastical patriotism. It is natural to suppose that he built up the romance on a current tradition of Peter’s visit to Rome (see below, p. 774).
(5) South Gaul. —Ireneus (c. 190) gained his knowledge of earlier times from many sources. As the pupil of Polycarp in Asia, he was acquainted with the traditions of ‘the school of St. John.’ He himself visited Rome, mobebly on more than one occasion, and, it would appear, he resided there for some time (Lightfoot, Essays on ‘ Supernatural Religion’ p. 267). His list of Roman bishops makes it probable that he had had access to the records
reserved in the Roman Church. He writes thus ΠΙ. i. 1): ‘Matthew... published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the Church there. And after their departure (ἔξοδον) Mark, the disciple and inter- preter of Peter, he too handed on to us in writ- ing what Peter preached.’ Ireneus, it will be noticed, speaks of the joint work of the apostles at Rome as belonging to a period so well known that it supplies a means of dating another event. Further, lt is natural to take the word ἔξοδος as referring to the apostles’ death; for (inde-
ndently of other notices) this interpretation is avoured by 4) the use of the word, cf. Wis 3? 78, Lk 9", 2 ΡΝ - Clem. Alex. pp. 570, 882, ed. Potter, and the frequent use of exitus in Tertullian (Oehler
PETER (SIMON)
on Scorp. 9); (2) the context—to say that Mark recorded the substance of Peter’s preaching after his death defines not only the date but the reason of the composition of the Gospel.
(6) Alexandria.—(a) Clement (c. 200), in a frag- ment of the Hypotyposeis, preserved by Eusebius (HE vi. xiv.), and in the commentary on 1 Peter contained in the same treatise and now extant in a Latin translation (ed. Potter p. 997), in connexion with the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel speaks of St. Peter’s preaching at Rome. (6) Origen (c. 250). In the passage quoted above (p. 768), Origen, after speaking of St. Peter’s journeys in Asia Minor, adds that ‘at last, having arrived in Rome, he was crucified head downwards, having himself requested that he might so suffer.’ (c) Peter of Alexandria. The date of the Epistola Canonica is apparently A.D. 306 (Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. p. 331). In it (Can. 9, Routh, Rel. Saer. iv. ᾿ 34) mention is made of St. Peter’s crucifixion at