PETER (SIMON)
workers. The Simonian legend answers to the Jewish conception, according to which St. Paul is ‘the enemy.’ Now the latter view is historically sae to the former. It follows, therefore, that the Simonian legend is the earlier, and that it is the arent of the Petro-Pauline tradition. The one historical basis of the whole structure of romance is the visit of St. Paul to Rome. On this is built up the fabric of St. Peter’s visit to Rome; and, since the first builders were Ebionites, St. Paul becomes Simon Magus. This anti-Pauline legend is alone responsible for the tradition that Simon Magus taught in Rome, and further fixed the date of his arrival there under Claudius. For St. Peter went there after the twelve years’ of preach- ing at Jerusalem were over, and with his arrival that of his opponent was made to coincide. Such is the theory. It is open to attack from many quarters. It is blind to the many-sidedness and unanimity of early testimony, and in particular it is driven to explain away the evidence of Clement, while it rejects the authenticity of 1 Peter. On the other fate it accounts for this general concurrence of witnesses by the hypothesis of a romance whose Sgn was a complex and highly artificial process.
ut, in fact, Lipsius’ theory is really an offshoot of the Tiibingen theory of the apostolic age. The main trunk is now seen to be lifeless. The branch cannot but share its decay.
The strength of the case for St. Peter’s visit to, and martyrdom at, Rome lies not only in the absence of any rival tradition, but also in the fact that many streams of evidence converge to this result. We have the evidence of official lists and documents of the Roman Church, which prove the strength of the tradition in later times, and which, at least in some cases, must rest on earlier docu- ments. The notice of the transference of the spores body to a new resting-place in 258, and the words of Caius, show that the tradition was definite and unquestioned at Rome in the first half of the 3rd cent. The fact that Caius in the passage referred to is arguing with an Asiatic opponent, the evidence of the (Gnostic) Acts of
eter, the passages quoted from Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, show that at the same period the tradition was accepted in the Churches of Asia, of Alexandria, and of Carthage. The passage of Ireneus carries the evidence backward well within the 2nd cent., and is of special importance as coming from one who had visited Rome, whose list of Roman bishops suggests that he had had access to official documents, and who, through Polycarp, was in contact with the personal know- ledge of St. John and his companions. The testi- mony of Clement of Rome seems clear when his words are examined, while at the same time it is not definite and circumstantial enough to have created a legendary history. This concurrence of apparently independent testimony becomes much more impressive when it is remembered that the NT supplies nothing which could give rise to a legend that St. Peter visited Rome. On the con- trary, the narrative of the Acts and the notices in St. Paul’s later Epistles seem to make such a visit improbable. Moreover, the one clear statement as to place in 1 P literally interpreted becomes a conclusive argument that the apostle’s work in his later years lay in a region far from Rome. It is only when the words of 1 P 5" receive the less obvious, but in reality more natural, inverpretation that they are seen to be a strong confirmation of the evidence of early writers. Thus the main
nieces of evidence are independent and consistent.
Vhen combined they form a solid body of proof which is practically irresistible.
But if St. Peter was martyred at Rome (apart
from the indications of date in 1 P, on which see
778
PETER (SIMON)
following art.), there is no reason to question the belief that he suffered during the Neronian ep cution. This is distinctly asserted a Tertullian ; it is presup in all forms of the Petrine Acts ; it is implied in Caius’ notice of the tomb on the Vatican ; it is the almost necessary inference from Clement’s words.
Again, what was the — of his sojourn at Rome? The tradition of a 25 years’ episcopate is unhistorical. But that legend crystallized, while it exaggerated, the widespread belief that the apostle spent time enough at Rome to leave his mark upon the Church there. Such a tradition finds early expression in the language of Irenzus, of Dionysius of Corinth, probably also in the words of Ignatius. It is implied in the early accounts of the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel.
To what reconstruction of the history does the evidence point? It seems impossible to suppose that St. Peter had already worked in Rome when St. Paul wrote the Ep. to the Romans (1" 15%), or when at a later time he expressed his desire ‘ to see Rome’ (Ac 19”). Moreover, the account of St. Paul's arrival in Rome (Ac 28") seems to exclude the possibility of St. Peter’s having been in the city at that time. Thus it seems certain St. Peter
not visited Rome when St. Paul’s captivit;