• See F. J. A. Hort, Notes Introductory to the Study 0/ the Clementine Recognitions, London, 1901.
t For a typical statement see Janvier, Uistoire de Saint Pierre prince des apOtres et premier pape. Tours, 1902. J. Schiiitzer, Hat Jesus das Papsttum gestiftet ?3, Augsburg, 1910, is more critical. Cf. also V. Styger, * Neue lintersuchungen liber die altchristlichen I'etrusdarstellungen,' in iimnische Quartalschrift fur christtiche Aitertmnskundeundfilr Kirchen- geschichte, xxvii. [1913] 17-74.
L,.
200
PETEi;
PETKK
Dionj'sius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170) also states that Peter worked ia Italy, doubtless ineanin}; Rome (Eusebius, HE n. xxv. 8). Toward tlie close of the 2nd cent. Irena^us (III. i. 1, iii. 1), and at the end of the cent. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, HE VI. xiv. 6) and Tertullian (c.fj. tie Ilaj/t. 4 ; de Prtescript. adv. hcer. ;i"2), all bear witness to a so- journ of Peter in Rome. In the course of time .tratlition lixes more specitically the date of his arrival, the details of his work, and the circum- stances of his death. He was said to have laboured there for twenty-live years (Jerome, de Vir. ill. 1), having lirst completed his twelve required years of residence among the Jews. If we assume that Jesus died in the year 30, this reckoning would bring Peter to Rome in the year 42 and place his niartyrdora in 67 ; yet Nero's persecution, as a matter of fact, occurred in 64. But this fact was easily overlooked, since the ideal numbers (12 and 25) had to be preserved. After sifting the his- torical kernel from these legends, several modern interpreters conclude that Peter perished at Rome during the Neronian persecution in the summer of 64, but that his stay there had been of compara- tively short duration.*
Another school of interpretation rejects alto- gether any notion of Peter's presence in Rome, making all the affirmative tradition merely a pro- duct of the early polemic against St. Paul as exhibited, in its later forms, in the 'Clementine' writings and the apocryphal Acts. The first stage in this evolution is seen in the Homilies, which portrays the sharp antagonism between Simon Magus and Peter in Syria. Simon impersonates St. Paul, and so becomes the arch-heretic of early tradition ; and, since St. Paul's Roman residence was too well attested to be ignored, his antagonists were compelled to take Peter to Rome in order to refute Simon (i.e. St. Paul) in the centre of the Christian world. Similarly in the 'Gnostic' .(4 c<j St. Paul vanishes and Simon takes his place in Rome in the encounter with Peter. But in the 'Catholic' Acts, representing a later stage of historical development, there is a disposition to sj'nthesize the factions, and so St. Paul is kept in Rome to join Peter in resisting Simon. While this entire Simonian literature, in its present form, belongs to the 3rd or subsequent centuries, the main tradition is thought to have been current at a much earlier date, signs of it already appearing in Ac S^*"'-. On this hypothesis the Patristic testi- mony to Peter's Roman residence is easily set aside. Since the statements of Clement of Rome and Ignatius are not explicit, they are given another interpretation. Thus Dionysius of Corinth becomes the earliest witness, and he is said to be under the influence of the Simonian legend, or even to be deliberately aiming at giving it currency. This interpretation, needless to say, is the result of a rigid application of Tiibingen principles to this period of apostolic history ; t but the funda- mental premise of the argument — namely, the supposition of a wide breach between Peter and St. Paul in the earlier period — we have already found to be quite untenable. It is true that ade- quately attested information about Peter's Roman connexions is still exceedingly scanty, but the Simonian hypothesis surely does not furnish the key to the problem.
There remain to be mentioned a few Patristic notices regarding Peter's activities in other regions.
• For detailed defence of this general position see J. B. Lighttoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. [London, 1890] vol. i. pp. 201-345 and vol. ii. .pp. 481-502 ; A. Harnack, op. cit. pp. 240 ff., 703 £f. ; F. H. Chase, op. cit. ; C. Schmidt, op. cit.
t The view has been supported vigrorously by Schmiedel in his above-mentioned article in the EBi, where he follows in the main Lipsiiis, op. cit. See also C. Erbes, ' Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus,' in TU x\\. 1 [Leipzig, 1S99J.
The salutation of 1 Pet. prompted Origen to remark that Peter 'seems' to have preached to tlie Jews of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia (Eusebius, HE III. i. 2). This opinion became quite common, but probably 1 Pet. was its only ultimate source. Peter's name was also connected closely with Antioch, where, according to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Lipsius, op. cit. p. 2511'.), he founded the church in the second year of Claudius [i.e. 42) — certainly an impossible tradition. The mention of ' Babylon ' in 1 P 5" also suggested that general territory as a held of the Apostle's labours — a view wliich Lipsius and Schmiedel, for example, are inclined to adopt in preference to the tradition of his Roman residence. It is improbable that any of these legends has in- dependent historical value, though undoubtedly Peter's missionary travels extended much more widely than the NT data might, at first sight, seem to imply.