THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome, the place evidently implied by Clement, as the context shows. It would also seem that Papias of Hierapolis knew of Peter's residence at Rome (cf. Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxxix. 15). There are, however, a number of direct statements that Peter lived at Rome. Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) states that Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth and then taught in Italy, both suffering martyrdom at Rome (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., II., xxv. 8) ; and like declarations are made by Irenaeus (Host., iii. 1, cf. iii. 3), Tertullian (De prcescriptione, xxxvi.; cf. Scorpiace, xv.; Adv. Marcionem, iv. 5), Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., VI., xiv., II., xv.), and the Roman presbyter Caius (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., II., xxv. 7). A similar story is told both by the late second-century Acts of Peter (perhaps Gnostic in origin) and by the almost contemporary Acts of Peter and Paul. Reference must also be made to a tradition, evolved in the small pseudo-Clementine circle and devoid of historicity, that Peter carried on a conflict at Rome with Paul, here represented as a false apostle masked as Simon Magus. There is no evidence that Simon Magus was ever at Rome, the alleged proof being an erroneous interpretation of an inscription to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus as being in honor of the sorcerer (NPNF, 2 ser., i. 114, note 11). The residence of Peter in Rome is first brought into connection with the alleged presence of Simon Magus there by the Acts of Peter (chap, cxc.) . The attempt has also been made to prove that Peter really suffered martyrdom by crucifixion at Jerusalem as a result of the Neronian persecution, evidence being drawn from a combination of the Romans Albinus and Agrippa, mentioned by the Acts of Peter as the persecutor and judge of the apostle, with Albinus, the successor of Festus as procurator of Judea, and Agrippa II., tetrarch of Galilee; but the argument is inadequate, as is another theory that Peter suffered at some unknown place in the East.
Of the other patristic traditions concerning Peter's residence at Rome probably the only one which may be regarded as certain is that which makes Mark his companion at Rome, where 8. Confused the second Gospel was written after and False Peter's death on the basis of his oral Traditions communications. When, however, Concerning Jerome declares (De vir. ill., i.) that Peter. Peter, after being bishop at Antioch and laboring in Pontus, Galacia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of the church there for twenty-five years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign and buried on the Vatican, his statements rest on a combination of fugitive allusions. The Antiochian episcopate is based on Gal. ii. 11 sqq., his activity in Asia Minor on I Pet. i. 1, his crucifixion is perhaps drawn from a literal interpretation of John xxi. 18, while the manner of it (cf. Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., i.) savors of post-apostolic rather than of apostolic taste, and his burial on the Vatican is deduced from the statement of Caius (see above) that
there was a monument on that hill to commemorate the martyrdom of the apostle. The twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome (see above), combined with the tradition of Peter's residence in the same city, especially as it would seem that the Roman Church had actually been formed early in the reign of Claudius through the indirect influence of the Petrine Christianity of Palestine. All this giving rise to the belief that Peter himself came to Rome early in the reign of Claudius, the combination of it with the tradition of his martyrdom toward the close of Nero's reign evidently gave rise to the legend of his twenty-five years' residence in Rome. A further element of confusion was added by the increasing parallelism of Peter and Paul, leading not only to the unhistoric tradition of their joint founding of the church at Corinth, but also to their simultaneous labors in Rome; and a similar idea may have given rise to the belief that the death of Peter, almost coincident with that of Paul, took place in 64, the year of the general persecution of the Christians instigated by the burning of Rome. Still later the death of both apostles was put on the same day, June 29, although the persecution actually took place in July or August. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist, eccl., III., ii., xxi.), like Irenseus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Rufinus, seems to have regarded Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome; and it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Epist., Iv. 8, lix. 14). The reckoning of the twenty-five years in Rome varies irreconcilably in different sources, and the whole is rendered impossible by the data of the New Testament, which shows that he was living in Jerusalem at the time of the council of the apostles in 53 (Acts xv.), whence he later visited Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.), while Paul's failure to mention him either in his epistle to the Romans (written in 59) or in his letters from Rome (in the seventh decade of the first century) would imply that Peter was not in the city even then. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome toward the close of Nero's reign, some time after the cessation of the general persecution. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable.
II. Writings: The authenticity of the two epistles canonically ascribed to the Apostle Peter has been severely attacked by modern criticism, although the problems connected with each are essentially different in character. The first epistle purports (I Pet. i. 1) to be addressed to readers in Pontus, Galatia (doubtless including, as in official Roman parlance, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and part of Lycaonia), Cappadocia, Asia (Caria, i. Occasion Lydia, Mysia, and probably Phrygia),
and Cir- and Bithynia. There is no reason to cumstances suppose, as has long been maintained, of I Peter, that the Petrine epistles were intended solely, or even primarily, for Jewish Christians, especially as the only known churches in Asia Minor were the gentile congregations established by Paul and his associates (cf. Gal. iv. 8, 19;