Sion, in the nt

The three periods of the growth of the Church, treated of in the Acts,> are clearly To one who hesitates to accept Hort’s ag ἦα Western non-interpolations’ (#ee the writer's Syro-Latin Text p. 180n.) the external evidence against the authenticity of Lk 24!2 must seem of very little weight. On the other hand, the linguistic similarity to Jn is curious, and cannot be accidental.

It would be rash to assert that we have not here a sign of cross currents of apostolic tradition, which the available evidence will perhaps never enable us to follow out. ¢ On the subtle variation of words in Jn 212517 see Westoott's notes. l $ The ΡΟΣ of Blass, that the common and the ‘ Western’ Ὃν can Kooks represent two editions by St. Luke, is well known. The present writer has criticised it In The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels p. 1830.

In that book and in The Old Syriac Blement in Cod, Bez he has given reasons for his belief that the ‘Western’ text is langely due to (1) assimilation to scriptural passages; (2) the influence of Old Syriac texta. ‘ Western’ readings of exceptional Interest in parte of the Acts dealing with St.

Peter are to be found In | mosaic of phrases used in Ac and Epletics about St texts of the 10% 119 (a Paul) 1248 PETER (SIMON) desctibed in 18—the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Palestine, the Church of the World. 1, The Church of Jerusalem (1'-8').—During this period St. Peter stands alone as the leader and spokesman of the disiiee (a) In the days which passed between the Ascen- sion and the day of Pentecost, St.

Peter in the first apostolic eae urged the papain of a disciple to fill the apostolate of Judas. Into the problems suggested by Lk’s record of the speech (including the insertion, ν. 184) it is unnecessary to enter. It is sufficient to notice (i.) that St. Peter bases his argument on an appeal to the OT, ie. τὸ two passages of the Psalms (68 (69) ** 108 (109) ® LXX), prefiguring respectively the vacancy of the traitor’s pastoral office and the duty of appointin a successor ; (ii.) that St.

Peter defines the essentia function of an apostle as being ‘a witness of the Resurrection [of the Lord Jesus].’ : (δ) On the early morning of Pentecost the dis- ciples were all gathered together in one of the many chambers (οἶκοι) of the temple (v.?; for this sense of οἶκος cf. e.g. Jer 42 (36) 4 43 (36) 10. 13, Jos. Ant. Vu. iii. 2). The chambers and courts of the temple were crowded with worshippers from amon ‘the dwellers at Jerusalem’ (v.° τὸ πλῆθος ; οἵ.

21°, Lk 119), to whom ‘immediately after midnight the Temple gates [had been] thrown open’ (Edersheim, The Temple p. 228). Such in all probability was the place* and such the audience of St. Peter’s speech, after the Spirit had been given and His presence attested by the gift of tongues. A strong case can be made out for the opinion that St. Peter spoke in Greek (T. K. Abbott, Essays p. 129ff. ; Salmon, Introduction® p. 172 ἴ. ; on the other side see Neubauer in Studia Biblica i. p. 62ff.)

+ The speech begins as an ἀρθϊοσια (v.15); it ends with a proclamation of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth as the Sovereign Messiah (v.*), Ac 21436, Jesus, the enthroned Messiah. (1) Vv.1#21, The charge of drunkenness is disproved (a) by the circumstances, ‘ the third hour of the day’; (b) by the fact that the phenomena correspond to Joel’s prophecy (J1 278-82 (31-5), ἢ Vv.

2204, Jesus of Nazareth was accredited as God’s mes- senger to Israel by Divine miracles; according to God’s eternal counsel He was surrendered to the Jews, murdered by them through the instrumentality of Gentiles, raised from death by God Himself—the necessary issue. The Divine purpose and action are throughout emphasized. (8) Vv.2%-82, This necessity was foreshadowed in David’s pro- hecy (Ps 15(16)5). His words could not apply to himself.

erefore, as a prophet, in view of the promised dynasty (Ps 131 aera 28 712), he foresaw and spoke of ‘the raising up of the anointed one’—a prophecy finally fulfilled in the Resurrection. (4) Vv.33-35, The Resurrection involved the exaltation through the Divine action. The exalted Messiah receives from the Father, and gives, the promised Spirit. It is impossible that the exaltation should be interpreted of David ; for David spoke of ‘his lord,’ seated at God's right hand (Ps 109 (110) 1), (5) V.

°6, The duty, therefore, of all Israel (the ‘Dispersion’ and the dwellers at Jerusalem alike) is to acknowledge God’s action in constituting the victim of their malice the Anointed One and the Sovereign King—Képios "Incovs Χριστός. _ The result of St. Peter’s speech was the convic- tion of his hearers. In answer to their question, ‘What shall we do?’ (cf. Lk 3! 8), he urges—(1) the ‘seven steps’ due to assimilation to Ezk 40822), See also Western’ readings in 811. 14 414 24 529 824 1018. 15.

19. 26. 39. 41 1117 125. 7. 17 157. 12, * The supposition that the events described in Ac 2 took place in the temple is in itself natural ; it explains several details of the history ; and it is in complete harmony, it is believed, with Lk’s language.

t The internal evidence of the speeches in the Acts (see below, ΡΒ 766) appears to the present writer a complete refutation of he theory which rega\ them as the simple invention of the author of the book, and a ES that with varying accuracy they represent what was said on the several occasions, That the author of the Acts, however, is responsible for their present literary form and for much of their language is a view = ahs consistent with a belief in their substantial fidelity.

Ὁ is quite possible that St. Peter and St. Luke met at Rome a important point for the criticism of the Gospel and the PETER (SIMON) that they should repent, i.e. of the great national sin of rejecting the Messiah ; (2) that each should be baptized in the name of Jesus Messiah; (3) such baptism having as its result forgiveness, (4) and leading on to the bestowal of the special gift of the Spirit.

With the day of Pentecost the life of the Church as a society, quickened and endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, began. (c) How long a time elapsed between the day of Pentecost and the evening when St. Peter worked the ‘notable sign’ on the cripple at the Beautiful Gate there is no evidence. The miracle was wrought ‘in the name of Jesus Messiah, the Nazarene.

’ The man healed was a well-known object of pity, and his restoration at once drew ‘all the people’ round him and Peter and John in the great eastern portico of the temple. To them St. Peter proclaims Jesus as the Restorer. Ac 812-28, Jesus, the glorified Servant, the Restorer. (1) Vv.1216, The miracle was not the work of the apostles; it wasan incident in the unbroken history of Redemption.

For the name of Jesus, the Servant of the God of the Fathers, rejected and slain by Israel, raised and glorified by God, was the source of restoration. (2) Vy.17-26, Israel’s present position, duty, and hope. (a) The ‘sufferings of the Messiah’ were due, on the human side, to the crime of Israel’s ignorance, on the Divine side to the action of God in fulfilment of His utterances through the prophets.

(6) Consequently (οὖν) there is a present call to natio: repent- ance, such repentance issuing in (1) forgiveness ; (2) the advent of ‘seasons of refreshing’ ; (3) the final mission of the Messiah as the Restorer of all things. (c) Israel’s present opportunity was foretold by Moses and all the prophets. Of this prophetic line and of the first covenant those present are the heirs.

To them belongs a priority in the blessings which spring from God’s act in raising up and sending His Servant, whose work reaches to the conversion of each Israelite. The action and the words of St. Peter were a double challenge. The officials in charge of the temple resented the assumption of the position of ‘teachers’ on the part of men whom they despised as ‘am hd-drez. The Sadducees were provoked by the proclamation of the Resurrection.

The two apostles were therefore put in prison, and the next morning brought before the Sanhedrin. In answer to the formal question as to their authority or commission, St. Peter answered that the cripple was healed ‘by the name of Jesus Messiah, the Nazarene,’ whom the rulers to whom he speaks had crucified, whom God had raised.

He then brings together the three thoughts — Messiah’s rejection, the apparent triumph of the rulers, the reversal of their judgment and the exaltation of the rejected One—in the words of Ps 117 (118)*, and declares that in this Name only is there salvation. It is to be noticed that, the first time that St.

Peter appears before the high priests, he appeals to that verse of the Psalms by a reference to which (after the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen) our Lord a few weeks before had roused their vain resentment (Mt 214: || Mk, Lk). It was this, doubtless, which led them to recognize the apostles as the companions of Jesus. At length, in spite of their refusal to be silent as to the facts of their experience (439 ; ef. 1 Jn 115), the apostles are set at liberty by the chief priests.

(d) In the next subsection (433, 516) the Acts turns from the external dangers and triumphs to the inner life of the Church. Two contrasted cases of the action of the members of the brotherhood in regard to property are narrated—the case of Bar- nabas, and the case of Ananias and Sapphira. In dealing with Ananias, St. Peter exercises the χάρισμα of ‘discernment of spirits.’ When the nilt of Ananias has been proved by his fate, and apphira comes before him, St.

Peter is repre- sented as foretelling her doom. The apostle is the Joshua of the new Israel (Jos 718 ; ef. 2 K 525), With this history the words of St. Paul (1 Co 5°. 1 Ti 1”) should be compared. PETER (SIMON) Shortly afterwards there ensued among the apostles a fresh activity of the ‘gift of healing.’ In particular, St. Peter became an object of almost superstitious regard to the populace at Jerusalem. And the fame of these miracles spread through the neighbouring districts.

(e) This outburst of popular feeling awoke the envy of the Sadduczan faction (5'"-*). They now, in order to ensure the destruction of this new insurrection aparece their materializing views, imprison all the apostles. The latter, neler from prison, resume in the temple their work of public paehing: sr a by the chief officer of the temple before the Sanhedrin, the apostles by the mouth of St.

Peter (1) affirm that they are acting according to a Divine command, which they have no choice but to obey. (2) They affirm the continuity of national redemption. God, who had ‘raised up’ judges (cf. ¢.g. Jg 2! 1% 3°), had ‘raised up Jesus.’ The action of the rulers in putting im to a cruel death, which seemed to mark Him out as cursed of God (cf.

Dt 21%), had been reversed by God’s action in exalting Him both to mle and to delivér, in order that Israel might receive the gifts of national ἐπα κα and national forgive- ness. (3) They rm that their witness to this message was inspired by the Spirit, a Divine gift bestowed, not on Israel’s worldly rulers, but on faithful Israelites who obeyed God’s revelation. By these words the Sadducwan party was kindled to a frenzy of murderous hatred.

But in a private conference the Pharisee Gamaliel persuaded them to follow a more prudent policy. They recall the apostles, scourge them, and dismiss them with a command that they should no more ‘speak in the name of Jesus.’ St. Peter’s name does not occur in the history either of the appointment of the Seven or of the trial of Stephen. When, after the murder of the latter, ‘a great persecution ’ arose and the brethren “were scattered,’ St. Peter, with the other apostles, remained in Jerusalem.

Thus, during the earliest period of the Church’s life at Jerusalem, St. Peter vindicates the primacy with which the Lord entrusted him. He is never, indeed, represented as independent of the other apostles. But he is throughout the history the leader and spokesman of the rest—within the society of the brethren (1155: 615.) itself, before the crowds of listening and inquiring Jews (2'* 257 312. ; cf. 55), before the Sanhedrin (455: 5%). 2. The urch of Palestine (8'-9!)

—(a) After the outbreak of the persecution, the new, like the old, Israel became a διασπορά (διεσπάρησαν, διασπαρ- éres, 8411), The story of what seems to have been the most important of these enforced evan- gelistic journeys is given in detail. Philip, one of the Seven, instructs and baptizes many converts in ‘the city of Samaria.’ The step was an important one. It involved the admission that pure Israel- itish blood was not a necessary qualification for admission to the Christian society.

The apostles, acting together (813), sent the two most prominent members of their body, Peter and John, to review and to confirm the work of the evangelist. An outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this second stage of the Church’s history answers to the day of Pentecost in the first eae But the gift is not spontaneous. It is the Divine response to the prayer of the two apostles, and it is bestowed through their act of ministry. In the sequel St. Peter appears as the sole actor.

Simon Magus regards the whole transaction as an exhibition of magical dexterity, and offers to poy liberally for the impartment to himself of the apostles’ secret power. He stands out thus early in the history of the Church as the type of the de- grading in‘uence on Christianity of paganizing PETER (SIMON) associations, Peter pronounces him to be at poeent an alien from the gospel, but holds ont ope of the purifying influence of repentance and payer for forgiveness.

The apostles, after some her work, returned to Jerusalem, and on their way ‘evangelized many villages of the Samaritans.’ Thus, in this first effort to extend the gospel beyond its earliest limits, the initiation does not rest with St. Peter.

The function which belongs to him, as one of the delegates of the apostolic college, is to set upon the work the seal of authoritative approval, and to deal decisively with a new danger inseparable from the contact of the Church with outside habits of thought and life. In the earlier chapters of the Acta there is not one clear indication of date. But itis possible to ascertain approximately the time which elapsed between the Ascension and the visit of Peter and John to Samaria.

It appears tolerably certain that Damascus was not included in the kingdom of Aretas before the beginning of the reign of Gaius (Schurer, HJP τ. ii p. 8571. ; Turner, art. ΟἩΒΟΝΟΙΟΘΥ or NT in vol. i. pp. 416, 424), and that therefore St. Paul's flight from Damascus (2Co 1153) cannot have been earlier than a.pD. 37, nor his conversion earlier than 35 (Gal 115; cf. Ac 923). Some weeks, perhaps months, must have elapsed between the conversion of St. Paul and the martyr- dom of St.

Stephen (Ac 83 915 2246 26100 εἰς τὰς ife σόλως, Gal 113), Hence the pearl visit to Samaria must have taken place about five years after the Ascension (4.D. 29). 3. The Church of the World (9*-end).—After his return from Samaria, it seems that St. Peter con- tinued at Jerusalem during the remainder of the persecution. But the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the consequent peace of the Church were the ΡῈ for an important change in the apostolic policy. St.

Peter starts alone on a journey of visitation and evangelization—vaguely described in Ac 953 by the words διερχόμενον διὰ πάντων. It is followed by a more or less protracted sojourn at Lydda and Joppa, where Christian communities had already been founded, and later at Cwsarea. The significance of this notice is appreciated only when it is observed that throughout the earlier period of the history Luke has been at pains to oupan the solidarity of the apostolic body at Jerusalem (8! 6? 5").

We are therefore led to the conclusion that this is the time when the apostolic college at Jerusalem, with St. Peter as its natural leader and spokesman, separated, and when James became the acknowledged head of the Church there. Luke sketches the history only of St. Peter at this important crisis, partly because of his primacy among the apostles, partly because his divinely guided action had an important bearing on the extension of the Church to the Gentiles.

The apostle’s journey ended at Lydda, where the miraculous restoration of the cripple A2neas had a wide influence through Lydda and ‘the Sharon.’ From Lydda St. Peter is summoned to Joppa, and there restores Tabitha to life. Lk in his account of the miracle seems desirous of suggesting that with one significant exception—‘ he kneeled down and prayed’—St. Peter in action and in words imitated the example of the Lord in the house of Jairus.

The miracle was the means of the con- version of many in Joppa. There Peter prolonged his sojourn, in the house of a certain Simon, a tanner, near the shore (105. The place was doubly significant. On the one hand, since the trade of a tanner was considered among the Jews as almost unclean (see Schoettgen and Wetstein on Ac 9%), the choice of this house as a lodging may indicate that the apostle’s Jewish prejudices were becoming weaker.

On the other hand, Joppa, looking out over the waters of the Mediterranean, was to a Jew ‘an entrance for the isles of the sea’ (1 Mac 14°), and by its very position suggested the problem of those ‘afar off.

’ Thus the apostle’s mind was in a sense prepared for the thrice- repeated vision, and for the divinely given inter- pretation of it—‘ What God hath cleansed, make 764 PETER (SIMON) not thou common’ — grenelae scruples which held him back from ‘ killing an eating’ what to him as a Jew was ‘common and unclean’* ; and in turn this ‘voice from heaven’ prepared him to receive the monition of the Spirit that he should go with the messengers of the Roman centurion, ‘nothing doubting.

’ Tn re rard, then, to the evangelization of a Gentile, distinct supernatural direction was given to the Hebrew apostle as it had earlier been vouchsafed to the Hellenistic evangelist (8). St. Peter at once with six brethren (11), whose devotion to Judaism was beyond sus- icion (10%), went with Cornelius’ messengers to Jesarea.

The entrance of the leader of the apostles into the Roman capital of Judea, the noted seaport, predominantly Gentile in charac- ter, was in itself a crisis in the progress of the gospel. The sequel increased the significance of the visit.

On his first meeting with Cornelius the apostle refuses the Roman’s unexpected act of reverence, and entering the house begins with an emphatic statement as to the position of a religious Jew towards Gentiles, and as to the way in which God had Himself taught him to regard no human being as ‘common or unclean.’ This was the only explanation of his ready response to Cornelius’ invitation. Then, in answer to Cornelius’ story of the Divine direction granted to him, St.

Peter begins his solemn address to his Gentile hearers. Ivis clear that in 10443 we have a summary of a speech which was early interrupted (1115 ; cf. 41 754 2222), (1) V.46, The apostle declares that now he s the truth that God is the moral ruler (not of Israel only, but) of men belonging to every nation. (2) Vy.

8841, There follows a historical statement as to the Divine message through Christ, the sovereign of all men, rimarily addressed to Israel, His unction by the Holy Spirit, Fis ministry of miracles attested by witnesses, His shameful death, His Resurrection and manifestation through God’s direct action to witnesses chosen by God, who by clear proofs were convinced that He was alive. (3) Vv.42. #8.

He Himself commanded the apostles to proclaim to Israel His appointment by God as Judge of living and dead. The prophets’ universal witness to Him implies the truth that every man (Gentile as well as Jew) may have through faith in Him the gift of forgiveness. Doubtless, the prophets’ witness was meant to be the preface to a statement of our Lord’s commands as to ‘all the nations.

’ Throughout the speech we notice two contrasted lines of thought—{1) the wider scope of revelation: ἐν σαντὶ ἔθνει: v.35, παντῶν κύριος V.%8, φσάντα τὸν πιστεύοντα v.43 ; (2) the insistence on Israel's being the primary destination of the gospel (vv.36- 39. 42), It is significant that in regard to the universality of the Divine ee an appeal is made to the witness of the prophets (v.

48), ne reference to Israel's priority in blessing and to the prophets is very natural in the Jewish apostle, to whom the reconciliation of the old revelation and this new manifestation of God's pur- poses wasa fresh problem. It probably had also an apologetic meaning in reference to the Jewish companions of St. Peter (v.49), As the apostle was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon his hearers, His presence being attested by the gift of tongues.

The apostle at once inter- prets this miraculous endowment as a Divine sign of their admission within the Christian body, and directs their baptism. Thus the Spirit at Cesarea, as at Jerusalem at the first, was bestowed apart from any act of human ministry. The occasion is marked as the Gentile Pentecost.

+ It will be noticed that the three outpourings of the Spirit signalize the com- mencement of the three stages of the progress of the gospel—Jerusalem, Samaria, the Gentile world —and that with each of them St. Peter is intimately connected. News of the events at Caesarea soon reached Jerusalem, and the circumcised Christians com- * The apostle’s remonstrance is Probably & conscious remini- scence of Ezk 414; cf. also Dn 18, 1 Mac 162f, 2 Mac 6186.

71, The description of the animals in the ‘ vessel’ is taken from Gn 124.28, and carries the mind back to the Divine act of creation yet) ef. Mk 719), The command θῦσον x φάγε is an echo of t 1215, + Note the use of the Pentecostal keyword ἐχχέχυτα, (ν. 45), εἴ. ἰχχιῶ 217, ἐξίχειν 233 (Tit 36); and the Phrase ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ενιύματοι τοῦ ἁγίου, οἵ. 235 (1117, He 64), PETER (SIMON) plained of St. Peter’s conduct in eating witn uncircumcised Gentiles.

Apparently a formal assembly of those in authority was held, and the apostle answered the charge aA against him by a simple narrative of what had taken lace. The gainsayers were convinced. They con- eal that ‘God had granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life’ (11'8)—a confession clearly falling very far short of an acknowledgment of the equal standing of Jew and Gentile in the Christian society. These events took place in the months succeed- ing St. Paul’sconversion.

At the end of three years (i.e. A.D. 37 or 38 probably), St. Paul went up to Jerusalem (Gal 118, ef. Ac 9% 92917 9620) His special object was ‘to visit Cephas,’ whose guest he was for fifteen days. His reference to this visit seems to show that St. Peter alone of the Twelve was at Jerusalem at this time. Of St. Peter’s life during the next six or seven ears no notice is preserved.

Shortly, however, efore the death of Herod Agrippa, in the spring of 44, that king, whose policy it was to conciliate the Pharisaic party (Jos. Ant. XIX. vii. 3), made an attack on the Church. It would appear that the growth of the Christian body had excited the ue of the Jews (12° 1"), and the enthusiasm with whic they welcomed the execution of one of the apostles encouraged the king to throw St. Peter into prison.

On the night before the great popular spectacle of which the apostle’s trial was to be the occasion, he was miraculously freed from his chains and led by an angel out of the prison. At length, roused com- pletely from sleep and conscious of the situation, e goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark.

With difficulty gaining admission, he tells those who had gathered there to intercede for him of his wonderful escape, and bidding them inform ‘ James and the brethren of these things’ ‘ he went to another place.’ In this narrative three points call for a brief notice. (1) The fact that St.

Peter so immedi- ately and naturally hastens to ‘the house of Mary,’ coupled with the fact that he was obvi- ously well known there, and that it was the place where many met together to pray for him, suggests that this house was his home when he was in Jerusalem.

The guest had become in a sense the head of the household, and hence his expression of fatherly regard towards John Mark (1 P 5%), (2) The reference to James confirms the conjecture (see above) that he was already in a position of official leadership. (3) There is no word added to define the ἕτερος τόπος to which the apostle retired. Conjecture has been bee Antioch, Cesarea, Rome have all been named. With the last guess we may connect the belief that St.

Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius (e.g. Eus. HE τι. xiv. 6; see below). About two years later St. Paul, with Barnabas, visited Jerusalem in connexion with the famine. His stay there was, from the nature of his mission, a short one. The historian’s mention simply of ‘the elders’ (Ac 11”) at Jerusalem and St. Paul’s silence as to this visit in Gal 1. 2 appear to show that neither St. Peter nor any other of the Twelve was then at Jerusalem. At the end of the decade—probably A.D.

49— Paul and Barnabas, as the envoys of the Antio chene Church, went up to Jerusalem about the question of the circumcision of Gentile converts (Ac 1515), James, the President of the Church there, and (of the Twelve) Peter and John were at Jerusalem. Whether the two latter had been speci- ally summoned, or whether they were for a time living in the Holy City, there is no evidence to show.

Even in the calm narrative of the Acts, much more in the broken sentences of the Epistle to the PETER (SIMON) PETER (SIMON) 768 Galatians, there are signs that the controversy was not without its bitter and painful side. St. Paul appears to imply, though he does not state, that the older apostles favoured some kind of com- promise (cf. Ac 21”*-)—the circumcision, perhaps, of Titus, as a qualification for his position as teacher and as the companion of an apostle.

In a private conference between the three ‘Apostles of the Circumcision’ and St. Paul, it was agreed that they should all follow the general lines of their earlier work, the latter aiming primarily at the evangelization of the Gentiles, the three former continuing to work among those of the circumcision. The subsequent history of St. Paul shows how far he was from zegardings this understanding as laying down rigid and cramping limits for his activity.

As he felt free to teach the Jews at Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus, so, we may be sure, St. Peter would not consider that he was precluded from teaching Gentiles, whether by word or by letter. Neither side could alter or could wish to alter the terms in which the commission from the Lord had severally come to them. St. Paul had been sent to Israel as well as to the Gentiles (Ac 9” 2617), the older apostles to the Gentiles as well as to Israel (Mt 28! [Mk] 1615. Lk 2447, Ac 18).

At the same time, St. Paul’s language in Gal 2°, drawing a com- parison between his own activity in the Gentile world and St. Peter’s among the Jews, implies that the years of St. Peter’s life, of which the Acts preserves no record, were marked by successful work among his own people. The private con- ference prepared the way for the assembly of ‘the apostles and the elders,’ of which the Acts gives an account. After long discussion, St. Peter addressed those gathered together. (1) Vv.7-9.

(a) Those present remembered that, in the early Gays of the gospel, Peter, a staunch Jew, was fixed upon, not by any human arrangement, but by a Divine choice, as the means whereby the Gentiles should hear and believe.

(Ὁ) And, further, God confirmed the step itself, taken under His guid- ance, by giving His Spirit to these Gentiles as He had given it at Pentecost to Jews; and, purifying (not their flesh by circum- cision but) their hearts by the gift of faith, He put Jew and Gentile on a level. (2) Vv.10-1, The history of the past points to the duty of the present (νῦν οὖν).

Those present had no right to tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of Gentile dis- ciples, the hopeless weight of which was proved by the ag oa ence of generations of Jews. On the contrary, so far from bearing this burden, and so having any justification for im- pe it on others, Jewish disciples had put themselves on a evel with Gentile disciples by their belief that (not circum- cision but) the ‘grace of the Lord Jesus’ was the means of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. St.

Peter’s words, it appears, calmed the excite- ment of the whole assembly (ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος), which had been aroused in the ‘long dis- cussion,’ so that they listened Beealy to the state- ment of ‘ Barnabas and Paul.’ The reference of St. James’ speech to ‘Symeon’s’ narrative, and to the agreement of its drift with the words of the prophets, is the last mention of St. Peter in the Acts. The Church at Jerusalem decided to send to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul two delegates, viz.

Judas Barsabbas and Silas. They in due time returned to Jerusalem, while Paul and Barnabas remained behind. It was natural that the official messengers of the mother Church should in time be followed by the chief of the apostles. St. Paul, under the stress of a later controversy, raises for a moment the veil which hid the history of St. | Peter’s sojourn at Antioch (Gal 2"),. At first, he On St.

Paul's journeys to Jerusalem as given in the Acts and in Galatians see art, on CunoxoLoay or NT in vol, Lp. 4538, The present writer, however, is quite unable to accept the inter- pretation of Gal guid. suggested on p. 424, viz, that that oe Ὁ precedes in time Gal 910, In plain narrative the simple era δὲ (with aor.) must surely express sequence ; cf.

Gal 1521944, The parephrase given to justify the interpretation alters the setting of 211 and supplies just the word which must have been ex- pressed in Greek h the Ὁ borne the suggested meaning —'‘ So far from ἘΠῊΝ submitting to them, I once (sic) publicly rebuked their chief.” tells us, St. Peter ate with the Gentile disciples, treating them as on an equality with their Jewish brethren.

Afterwards certain members of the Church at Jerusalem came from James, These men had been for the moment silenced by the decision of the conference, but they had not been satisfied with its spirit. Perhaps in Jerusalem under the strong rule of St. James they had hidden their discontent. Perhaps also in’ Jern- salem it was not necessary for them to be often brought into contact with Gentile Christians. At Antioch they saw what a predominantly Gentile Church was.

How far they went in practical disloyalty to the decision of the ‘ Council’ we are not told. But the spirit of these malcontents had a disastrous effect on the conduct of St. Peter.* Under their influence he withdrew from the society of, Loads even from full fellowship in worship with, the Gentile Christians, not probably receding from his former doctrinal position, but practically treating these Gentiles as on a lower Noel than Jewish believers.

He was guilty, not of false doctrine, but (as once before) of moral cowardice. But the effect of his example was disastrous. All the Jewish Christians at Antioch acted the same part as he did (see art. MARK). St. Paul saw that no less an issue was at stake than the real unity of the Church. He felt it his duty publicly to rebuke St. Peter. St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians (prob. A.D. 55), mentions the existence at Corinth of a ee who called themselves by the name of ephas (1 Co 1 335.

There is not the least reason, however, why St. Peter should be made responsible for their ‘heresy’ any more than St. Paul for the folly of those who assumed his name. Nor does the existence of a Cephas party at Corinth imply that St. Peter ever visited Corinth. The statement of Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170, op Eus. HE τι. xxv. 8), that St. Peter and St. ‘aul together planted the Church at Corinth and taught there, seems to be simply a mistaken infer- ence from St.

Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians. There does not appear to be any other trace of a tradition that St. Peter worked in Greece. The evidence supplies by 1 Peter as to the history of the apostle will be examined in the art. on that Epistle. The invitation in Rev 18* to ‘ the saints and the apostles and the prophets’ to rejoice over the judg- ment of Babylon, i.e. Rome, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς (cf. 195), may not unreasonably be considered as an allusion to the martyrdom of St.

Peter and St. Paul under Nero. If it is urged that the juxtaposition of ‘the apostles’ and ‘the prophets’ points to a wider use of the former term, i as we find in the Didaché, it may be answered that the word ‘ apostle’ is used in its strictest sense in Rev 21". * Hort, Judaistic Christianity p. 80f., supposes that ‘ James may have thought it most prudent to send cautions to Peter’ (i.e.

as to the offending of Jewish susceptibilities), and that the persons mentioned in Gal 212 were the bearers of this message. The present writer would hazard the conjecture that those messengers of James were the bearers of his Epistle. We have in this supposition an adequate explanation their mission. The date of St. James’ Epistle is commonly placed about this time (Mayor, p. cxxiv, gives a.p. 40-60; Zahn, Hind, i. p, ΟΣ gives c. a.D, 60).

It would be very natural that, after the ( council at Jerusalem, the President of the Church there should ad- dress a letter to the Jewish converts in the Dispersion, to whom recent events must have been a trial of faith; not less natural that he should not directly allude to those events.

But at least in two points the Epistle may be thought to have an indirect bearing on the temptations and anxictios of the time, (1) It deals expecially with sins of temper and of speech—sins which would inevitably characterize a crisis of keen controversy. 2) It condemns a perversion of St. Paul's doctrine of fait ft might be well for St. James (without touching on personal matters) to reassure Jowish converts by showing them that the acceptance of St.

Paul's position in regard to the Gentiles did not involve the acceptance of doctrines which ther, however | mistakenly, were accustomed to associate with St Paul's name 766 PETER (SIMON) 4. The doctrinal position of the Petrine speeches in the Acts.—(i.) The historical witness.—(a) The Lord’s ministry fills only a little space in St. Peter’s speeches at Jerusalem (23). It was well known to his hearers, and it was overshadowed by more recent events. Its ες ape however, is briefly indicated.

The Lord’s miracles were works of God wrought through Him (e.g. Jn 14"). They therefore not only answered to the general Messi- anic expectation (cf. Jn 7), but were proofs of His mission as God’s messenger to Israel (ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ els duds). At Jerusalem, St. Peter appeals to the knowledge of his hearers; at Ceesarea, speaking before Gentiles, to the witness of himself and his Jewish companions (10°). (δ) The crucifixion had its assured place in the Divine counsels (233 3'8; of.

4%), and was not therefore the chance triumph of the Lord’s foes. But on the human side it was the act of Israel (233. 86 317 41 δ᾽), though done in ignorance (3). It involved absolute humiliation (e.g. 2% ἔκδοτον. . προσπή- favres), scornful rejection by Israel (e.g. 3:5 4"), and to Jewish eyes the curse of God (5% κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου ; cf. Dt 21%). The last point is important.

It suggests that in the earliest as in later times the Jews urged the words of Dt as a final proof of the Divine rejection of Jesus the Nazarene (hence probably the blasphemous creed ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς, 1Co 12%), and that St. Peter directly met the Jewish position. (c) The Resurrection was the immediate act of God the Father (2: 33 315 410 531 10”). It was the Divine refutation of Israel’s blasphemy, because it was the Divine reversal of Israel’s act of rejection.

But a revelation of the risen Messiah had not been given to all (10%). It was therefore the primary duty of the apostles to bear witness to the things which ‘they saw and heard’ (4” 10"; cf. 1 Jn 118:) as proof of the fact of the Resurrection (22 316 430 582 1041) Further, the Resurrection involved the Exaltation—the session of ‘Jesus Messiah’ at God’s right hand as κύριος (233. 86 318-21 581), Thus the confession Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (2%; cf.

1 Co 128, Ro 10%, Ph 2") is the direct antithesis of the Jewish blasphemy ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς, and an appeal to Israel to make it their own is the solemn conclusion of St. Peter’s first address to the Jews. The activity of the ex- alted Jesus is manifested in the gift of the Holy Bi (25) and in miracles of healing (315 410. cf. 45). (ii.) The continuity of revelation and redemp- tion.

—The doctrine of a Messiah who had suffered, and who by definite acts of God had been raised from the dead and exalted to supreme sovereignty, was new. But in various ways St. Peter insists that these facts of redemption were the develop- ment of the whole history of the people. He who thus worked out His purpose is ‘the God of our fathers’ (3'°5% ; cf. Shemoneh Esreh 1,* ‘ Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, our God and the God of our fathers . . our shield and the shield of our fathers’).

This consummation of the Divine action was the burden of all prophecy (31% * 10%; cf. 4 Es 94, and see Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud p. 355). Those to whom St. Peter spoke were ‘the sons of the prophets and of the covenant’ (3%; cf. υἱοὶ τῆς διαθήκης, Ps-Sol 17” ; ‘a son of the law,’ Apoc. Bar 46‘; and see Wetstein in loc.) It should be noticed that Lk, who records St. Peter’s applica- tions of propiieey, tells us the source whence he learned them (Lk 24“; ef. v.”). (111.)

The doctrine of the Messiah.—‘ Jesus the Nazarene’ was declared by God to be Messiah (2%). The person of the Lord is here presented * The Benedictions (in the original) are given in the Palestinian and Babylonian recensions in man, Die Worte Jesu Ὁ. 290 ff. An English rendering will be found in Schirer, HJP u. ii. p. 83 ff. ; see also Westcott, Hebrews p. 206 ff. PETER (SIMON) from the point of view of His Messiahship. (a) Messianic titles.—(a) The Messiah (ὁ χριστός, Χριστός).

The anointing is specially referred to in 477 10"; ef. Is 61) (Lk 48), Ps 44 (45). With 10% (ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς rv. ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει) cf. Ps-Sol 17 (ὁ θεὸς κατηργάσατο αὐτὸν δυνατὸν ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ). (8) The Servant (παῖε), 31:8: 35, comp. (the prayer of the apostles) 4%. The phrase is derived trom a series of passages in Deutero-Isaiah. Its current Messianic application is certified by Apoe. Bar 70 ‘My servant Messiah.

’ On the Rabbinic interpre- tation of the passages in Isaiah see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah ii. p. 726. When, through the influence of the ΠΟ ΙΚΌΥΟΣΕΥ with the Ebionites, the meaning of Christologica hrases was more keenly analyzed by the Church, it became customary, when the ancient phrase was used of our Lord, to indicate, e.g., ἐν the addition of ἠγαπημένος, that παῖς was to be taken as an equivalent of υἱός (e.g. Clem. "59 (thrice), Hp. ad Diog. 8, Mart. Polyc.

"14, Acta Thecle 24; οἵ, Wis 2)8- 18), The phrase, however, is used in its original meaning in Did. ix. 2 (εὐχαριστοῦμεν. . ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Aaveld τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνωρίσας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου), ix. 3, x. 2. The simple use, therefore, of this pre- Christian Messianic title, which in sub-apostolic times was avoided or guarded, is very primitive.

It should further be noticed that most of the earliest Christian passages where the phrase occurs (marked above with *) are liturgical, and that it twice occurs in the apostles’ prayer (Ac 4). Hence it seems probable that it was characteristic of Jewish prayers, that thence it passed into the primitive vocabulary of the Church, and that, having litur- ical associations, it long maintained its place in hristian prayers, though now it received a higher doctrinal connotation. Comp.

Lock in Expositor, series iv. vol. iv. p. 178ff.; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu Ὁ. 226 ff. (vy) ὁ ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος, 31} ; οἵ, 457. 80 752 224 Righteousness and holiness are the char- acteristics of Messiah’s time; see e.g. Ps-Sol 17%, Enoch 38? ‘when the righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the elect righteous,’ where, as in 538 (cf. 46°), ‘the righteous One’ is a designation of the Messiah (cf. Weber, Die Lehren d. T. Ρ 344). For the holiness of Messiah οἵ. e.g. Ps-Sol 17%.

(δ) There is a group of expression which may be called archaic, being derived from the record of the earliest period of Tsrael’s history. Such expres- sions are ἀναστήσας (3°; ef. v.72) and ἤγειρεν (539) in the sense of ‘God raised up, brought upon the scene,’ ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσεν (5°; cf. 1353), comp. 6.5. Jg 35:15 But Pease eet of this kind was not simply archaic. It had been adopted into the devotional and liturgical language of the Messianic hope; ef. e.g. Ps-Sol 17%:*, Apoc.

Bar 397 408, Shemoneh Esreh 11. (δ) The issues of Messiah’s advent.—The horizon is bounded by the limits of the national hope. ‘The promise’ (2%, οἵ. Ps-Sol 12°) is primarily for Israel. There are in the speeches at Jeru- salem but three hints of a wider blessing — ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα (27, from J] 238), καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς els μακρὰν ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν (939, from Ts 5715, J] 953), ὑμῖν πρῶτον (335, cf. Mk 777).

But how through the agency of a restored Israel this ex- tension of Messianic redemption is to be brought about is in no way dative Thus the forecast, while it insists upon, does not go beyond, the more generous Jewish expectation as to the nations, such as finds expression in, e.g., Ps-Sol 17% (ἐλεήσει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν φόβῳ). It will be t It should be remembered that the LXX often represents 13) in Isaiah and elsewhere by δοῦλος (e.g. 18 4219 4820 498.

5), It is therefore not improbable that St. Paul’s words μορφὴν δούλον λαβών in Ph 27 allude to the prophecies in Deutero-Isaiah. But in Ph 2 the preceding and the succeeding context alike guard against any misconception PETER (SIMON) noted that in these speeches the phrase τὰ ἔθνη is conspicuously absent. To Israel three blessings are offered through the work of Jesus Messiah: (1) national repentance and forgiveness (255 319 5%! ; cf.

3% 13%, Lk 1”), chiefly in reference to the great national sin of rejectin ‘the Lord’s Anointed’; cf. e.g. Ps-Sol 18%, She Esreh 5, 6 (especially in the Babylonian recension, which must be of Palestinian origin, Dalman, Die Worte p. 301 π.) ; (2) national rest and peace (καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως, 3); cf. e.g. Enoch 50!, Ps-Sol 10% ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ ᾿Ισραήλ, 14° 17% 187; (3) the mission of essiah from heaven, and the coming of ‘ times οἱ the restoration of all things (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων, 3*')’; ct.

the Rabbinic passages quoted in Weber (p. 333 f.) as to the necessity of repentance for the coming of Messiah and its attendant bless- ings ; for ‘the restoration’ see, ¢.g., Enoch 45*-, Are Bar 73 f. t must be observed that in 4? the Sadducees are represented as ‘sore troubled’ because the apostles ‘proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from among 6 dead’ (τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν), i.e. a resurrection of the righteous.

The reference may be to some words of the apostles unrecorded in Lk’s brief summary, or to an interpretation which the Sadducees put on their teaching about the Resurrection of Jesus. On the Jewish doctrine of the Resurrection see eg. Ps-Sol 3%, Shemoneh Esreh 2; see also Charles, Eschatology iP 302 f. In reviewing the doctrine of St.

Peter’s early speeches we note that the new facts of the ministry of Jesus, His death, His Resurrection and Exaltation, are stated with absolute precision and emphasis. But the theological interpretation of these facts is inchoate. The predestination of the Messiah is spoken of (2% 31%, ef. 4%), but His pre-existence is not affirmed, nor is anything said of His unique relation to the Father.

The death of Christ is not contemplated in a sacrificial aspect, nor is it brought into connexion with the problem of justification. There is no allusion to the moral and spiritual power of the Resurrection through the union of the believer with the Risen Lord, nor to the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. The convictions and hopes created or quickened in the apostle’s mind are expressed in terms of the religion of a devout Israelite. If we compare St.

Peter’s speeches with any one of the apostolic Epistles (except that of St. James, which deals almost wholly with questions of conduct), we see the difference between an immediate interpre- tation of the Christian facts in their bearing on Israel, and a matured apprehension and exposition of these facts in their universal and absolute signi- ficance. III. St. PETER IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION.—1. St. Peter's early life.—Epiphanius, a monk of Jern- salem of the 9th cent., in his ‘Acts and end of . .

Andrew,’ relates (ed. Dressel p. 45 f.) that ‘in the days of Hyreanus, the priest and king of the Hebrews, there was a certain Jonas of the tribe of Symeon. He was a poor man, and at his death left his two sons, Simon and Andrew, in great verty. They hired themselves out. Andrew Navotel himself to a life of absolute continence. Simon married the daughter of Aristobulus, brother of the Apostle Barnabas, and, as it is said, hada son and a daughter. .

After the death of his Dalman (Die Worte Jesu ἐν LSE) wie wise ae ‘schatolog agrees, a e@ Wo aTexa- eae Bae rita to do with the renewal of the world,’ but refer to the fulfilment of the predictions of the Propheta. He bases his opinion pit the Peshitta—‘ until the completion of the times of those things which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets.’ But this is merely a para- hrastic abbreviation characteristic of the Peshitta.

ὁ word ἀσοκατάστασις cannot refer to the fulfilment of prophecy (cf. ¢.g. Mt 1213171), Ao 15), and when taken in ita natural sense is fo harmony with Jewish ideas. PETER (SIMON) 767 mother-in-law he committed his wife to the Theotokos’ (cf. for other authorities Lipsius * p. 7). In the Book of the Bee of Solomon, a writer of the first half of the 13th cent., who, according to Lipsius (Die Apokr. Ap., Ergiénzungsheft p.

19), constantly depends on older sources, the apostle belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (Ozford Semitic Series, 1. pt. ii. p. 104). Clement (Strom. iii. 6, Ρ. 535 ed. Potter, quoted in Eus. HE Il. xxx.) says that the apostles Peter and Philip had children: and Jerome (adv. Jovinian. i. 26) states that the περίοδοι mentions a son and a daughter of St.

Peter; while he himself, arguing apparently from the silence of Scripture (Mk 1*), supposes that his wife had died before his call to follow Christ. Clement in the passage just quoted asserts that the apostles travelled with their wives οὐχ ὡς γαμ- ετὰς ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀδελφάς, and employed them in mini- strations to women (cf. Clem. eae ii. 1, vii. 25, 36; Hom. xiii. 1, 11). Clement further preserves a tradition (Strom. vii. 11, p. 868 ed. Potter, quoted in Eus. HZ m1. xxx.)

, to which, it seems, no independent writer alludes, that St. Peter's wife suflered a martyr’s death, and that the apostle, when he saw her led away, encouraged her with the words μέμνησο, ὦ αὕτη, τοῦ κυρίου (as Eus. gives the phrase),—words which may imply that she too had known the Lord. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that she was one of the women who suffered in the Neronian persecution (Clem. Rom. vi.) The story of Petronilla, the supposed daughter of St.

Peter, is given in Acta Nerei et Achillei 15 (ed. Achelis p. 14 f.), and in Acta Philippi, in Tischendorf, "ἘΞ Apocr. pp. 149, 155. Augustine (contr. Adimant. 17; Migne, Pat. Lat. 42, 161) also mentions the fact that the story had a place in the apocryphal books in use among the Manichwans. The beauty of the daughter, so the story runs, was a trouble to the apostle, who therefore prayed that she might be paralyzed.

He afterwards, in answer to the challenge of Titus, bade her rise and minister to them. After her restoration she was sought in marriage by ‘Flaccus the Count.’ She puts him off for three days, and on the third day dies after receiving the Eucharist. The Encratite element in the story connects it with the Gnostic Πράξεις Πέτρου (see below), from which it was doubtless originally derived (see Lipsius pp. 81, 203 ff.) The saint’s memorial day is May 31.

Over her tomb in the Ardeatine Way pope Siricius, about 390, erected a basilica. The inscription on the tomb was AVR, PETRONILL4, FILL, DVLCISSIM4. The name Petronilla is to be connected, not with Peter but with Petronius. The founder of the Flavian house bore the name of Petro. The catacomb in which Petronilla was buried was closely connected with the Flavian gens, being the ‘Cemetery of Domitilla,’ the wife of Flavius Clemens. Doubt- less the story arose from a mistaken etymology.

Petronilla, an early convert to Christianity and a member of the Flavian family, was in later days assumed to be a daughter of the Apostle Peter (see Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 37 ff., who gives references to de Rossi’s articles; Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome p. 340 ff.) As to (late) traditions respecting the personal appearance of the apostle, it must suflice to refer to Lipsius p. 213. As the tonsure was supposed to be due to St.

Peter's example, it is of interest to notice that Jerome (Comm. in Gal. i. 18) refers to a statement of the Periods that he was bald. For information in regard to early pictures and representations of the apostle, see art. in Diet. Chr. 9 References to Lipsius (unless it ls otherwise stated) are to Die Apokryphen A postelgeschichten und A postellegenden, ni. 1 ἡ Cf. Origen in Beang. Matth. xvi. 21 (Lomm. iil. p 871); Epiph. Harr, xxx. 22 (ed. Petay. p. 147) PETER (SIMON) 768 PETER (SIMON) Ant.

ii. Ρ 1621; Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome p. 210 ff. Among the sayings of our Lord preserved in extra-canonical authorities a few are addressed to St. Peter. (1) Ignatius, Smyr. 3, ‘When {after the Resurrection] He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle Me, and see that I am not a demon without body.’ Cf. Lk 24%, On the question whether this saying had a place in ‘the Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ see Lightfoot in loco. (2) ‘2 Clem.

’ 5, ‘The Lord saith, Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered and said unto Him, What then if the wolves should tear the lambs? Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are dead,’ ete. Cf. Mt 10%, Lk 12+, See Lightfoot’s note. (3) ‘The Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (ap. Jerome, adv. Pelag. iii. 2), ‘Si peccauerit, inquit, fra- ter tuus in uerbo et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die suscipe eum.

Dixit illi Simon discipulus eius, Septies in die? Respondit Dominus et dixit ei, Etiam ego dico tibi, Usque septuagies septies.’ Cf. Mt 18", Lk 174. See Westeott, Introduction p. 456; Hilgenfeld, NT extra Canon. iv. ῬΡ. 16, 23. (4) ‘The Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (ap. Origen in Matth. tom. xv. 14), ‘Conuersus dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se, Simon fili Johanne, facilius est camelum intrare per fora- men acus, quam diuitem in regnum celorum.’ Cf. Mt 19'%. See Westcott p.

463; Hilgenfeld p. 16. (5) ‘The Gospel of the Ebionites’ (ap. Epiph. Her. xxx. 13), ‘ And when He came to Capernaum, He entered into the house of Simon, surnamed Peter ; and He opened His mouth and said, As I passed along the Lake of Tiberias I chose John and James, sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew . . you then I wish to be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.’ See Westcott p. 466; Hilgenfeld pp. 33, 36. On the Gospel and the Apocalypse of Peter see below, p. 776 f. 2. St.

Peter in connexion with the Syrian Antioch.—According to a very widespread tradi- tion, St. Peter was the founder and organizer of the Church in Antioch. The Clementine Romance, which must date back at least to the beginning of the 3rd cent., makes the apostle’s entry into An- tioch and his success there the happy conclusion of the story (Hom, xx. 23; Recog. x. 68 ff.)

Baseless as most of its details are, in such a matter as this it would be likely to reflect current tradition, especially as it probably originated in Syria (see below). Origen (Hom. vi. in Luc., ed. Lomm. v. Ῥ. 104) calls Ignatius ‘the second Bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter.’ This statement was not improbably derived from an earlier list of Antio- chene bishops. Such a list Lipsius (p. 25, ef. Lightfoot, Clementi. p. 333f.) thinks can be assigned to the time of Victor of Rome.

Other important notices of St. Peter’s connexion with the Church of aintioch preserved in Christian literature are: (1) Greek: (a) Apost. Const. vii. 46 ; (b) Euseb. HE 11. xxxvi. 2, Chron. (see below); (c) Chrys. Hom. in Ign. Mart. (Migne, Pat. Gr. |. 591); (α) Theodoret, Dial. Immut. (Migne, Pat. Gr. \xxxiii. 81); (e) Chron. Paschale (Migne, Pat. Gr. xcii. 557).

Inthe last document we are told that in the fourth year after the Ascension Peter went to Antioch, that at the request of the Jewish Christians he enthroned himself as bishop, that he did not receive or regard any Gentile Christians, and that so leaving them to themselves he departed thence—a story which must be derived from some early Ebionite romance cognate to the Letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Clem. Homilies. (2) Latin: (a) Jerome, de Virr. Illustr. 1 ; (Ὁ) Leo, Epp.

106, 119 (Migne, Pat. Lat. liv. 1007, 1042) ; (c) Tiber Pontificalis (in all the several forms, ed. Duchesne pp. 50 f., 118), see 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, n, Ein. ii. p. 21). 5. St.

Peter in connexion with Rome. —The chief points at issue are, whether St. Peter visited Rome; if he did, how long he worked there; whether he suffered martyrdom there; and if so, at what date. It will most con- venient to arrange the evidence under the several Churches. (1) Rome.—(a) Clement (c. A.D. 96) v. vi. In the previous chapters Clement has spoken of the evils which have sprung from ‘jealousy and envy.’ He has taker examples from Scripture in chronological order, ending with David.

‘Let us,’ he continues, ‘eome to the athletes who lived but lately (rods ἔγγιστα γενομένους, t.e. as compared with the OT heroes), the noble examples of our own generation. Because of envy the great and eeu pillars (of the Church) were persecuted and contended unto death.

Let us set before our er the good apostles —Peter, who endured many labours and, havin borne his witness (μαρτυρήσας), went to the appoin place of glory ; Paul (whe suffered much and jour- neyed far and), hav-ng borne his witness before the rulers, departed thus from the world and went 4o the holy place. To thesemen... there was thered a great company of the elect, who, being the victims of jealousy, by reason of many outrages and tortures Sane a noble example among us.

’ The main points are these : (i.) The most reasonable explanation of the fact that the examples of the ἘΠΕ apostles are passed over and Peter and Paul alone mentioned, is that Clement points to those two apostles whose examples of heroism were best known to the Church in whose name he writes (cf. Ignatius, below). (ii.) That St. Paul suffered at Rome is universally allowed. The language is carefully chosen to emphasize the likeness between the experiences of the two apostles. (iii.)

If the passage, when naturally interpreted, discloses the lace of St. Peter’s martyrdom, what of the time? We have seen that in the preceding context Clement followed the order of time. Itis unlikely that he would desert that order in regard to events within his own knowledge and that of his readers. Since, then, ‘the great company of the VOL. 111.—49 z Andrew.

We may infer, therefore, that the by elect’ who suffered were plainly Nero’s victims, it seems to follow that the two apostles perished either before or during the Neronian persecu- tion. The former alternative may be put aside as unsupported by any evidence. Further, a close association of the apostles and ‘the great com- pany’ seems ma τὸ in the phrase τούτοις... συνη- θροίσθη. Indeed, & strict interpretation of these words appears to justify us in going astep further.

They mean ‘to these” rather than ‘with these’ ‘there was gathered,’* and thus seem to imply that the apostles were among those ‘who were seized first ’ (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), the first-fruits of a too abundant harvest. Thus the obvious interpre- tation of Clement’s words is that St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred in the Neronian persecution ; while the language is not explicit enough to have created the tradition. (ὁ) Caius, a Roman pres- byter, a contemporary of Zephyrinus and Hippoly- tus.

Eus. H/ τι. xxv. quotes the following a from the treatise of Caius against Proclus the Montanist: ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι" ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὥστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. The words of Caius are an explicit statement (1) that both the apostles worked for some time at Rome; (2) that they died a martyr’s death at Rome.

But the question remains—Did τὰ τρόπαια mark the place of execution (so Lipsius) or of burial (so Zahn)? There are strong reasons for choosing the latter alternative. The ἐγὼ δέ of Caius suggests that he at Rome claims to eclipse what Proclus appealed to in Asia Minor, i.e. the tombs of Philip and his daughters at Hierapolis (Eus. HE 1. xxxi. 4). This clearly was the meaning which Eusebius himself put upon the words (cf. 11. xxxi. 1). Thus we can draw another inference from Caius’ words, viz.

that at the beginning of the 3rd cent. the Roman Church thought that it possessed the bodies of the two apostles. No certain answer can given to the further question—Of what did these τρόπαια consist? The word may imply the erection on the spot of a building of some kind, a memoria such as the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne pp. 55, 125) says that Anencletus built. Or it may point to some natural or other object which identified the spot, such as the catholic Acts ἡ see of (see below, p. 772).

(ὁ) Hippolytus, In the Refutatio (vi. 20) this writer s of the conflict between Simon Magus and ‘the apostles’ at Rome, and in particular of Peter’s opposition to him. It appears, however, that Hippolytus used the apocryphal Acts (Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Komm. Hippolyts p. 27), and we cannot be sure, therefore, that his statement is independent evi- dence. Yet the end of Simon as described by hira differs from his end according to the extant Acts. (d) The Muratorian Canon.

The fragment speaks of the ‘ ion of Peter’ in close connexion with St. Paul’s journey to Spain. As these two events are mentioned together in the Acts of Peter, it is orobable that the wearer probably Hippolytus) has these Acts in his mind (James, Apoer. A necdots ii. p. xf.), and we are not entitled to infer more than that he does not question the truthfulness of the Acts in these matters. (¢) The notice in the Depositio Martyrum (see below, p.

772) as to the translation of the apostles’ bodies in 258 confirms the evidence of Caius. (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 ome: (7) North Africa.—(a) Tertullian (c. 200). The ges in Tertullian’s writings are—Scorp.

15: ‘Orientem fidem Rome primus Nero cruentauit. Tune Petrus ab altero cingitur, cum cruci adstrin- itur’; de Bapt. 4: ‘quos P. in Tiberi tinxit’; de rescr. Heret. 32: ‘Romanorum [ecclesia refert] Clementem a Petro ordinatum’; ib. 36: ‘Ista quam felix ecclesia [sc. Rome]... ubi Petrus passioni dominice adequatur.’ Thus Tertullian is the earliest writer who (1) speaks of the manner of St. Peter’s death—by crucifixion ; (2) and explleid states that it took place in Nero’s reign. (6) Commodian.

This earliest Christian poet, prob- ably of African extraction, writing about A.D. 250 (see Dict. Chr. Biog. i. p. 610), speaks in the Car- men Apologeticum 820f. of Peter and Paul suffer- ing in Rome under Nero. (8) This Catena will best be ended with a reference to the two historians of the first part of the 4th cent., Lactantius and Eusebius. toe tantius in Jnstit. Div. iv. 21 speaks of Peter and Paul preaching in Rome, adding, ‘ ea preedicatio in memoriam scripta permansit’—which Zahn (Ges.

Kan. ii. p. 884) considers to be a reference to the Pauli predicatio (cf. Beendo-Cypriay, de Rebapt. 17); and in de Mort. Persec. 2 he says of Nero: ‘Petrum cruci affixit et Paulum interfecit.’ The following passages from Eusebius are to the oe —HE τι. xiv. (Peter’s conflict at Rome with Simon Magus in Claudius’ reign), xv. (Peter and the com- position of Mark’s cope at Rome), xvii. (in the reign of Claudius, Philo became acquainted with Peter at Rome; cf. Jerome, de Virr. Illustr. xi.

; Photius, Cod. 105), xxv. (Paul beheaded, Peter cruci- fied at Rome), mI. xxi. (Clement third in succession ‘after Peter and Paul’), xxxi. 1; Demons. Evang. iii. 5. 65 (St. Peter crucified at Rome head down- wards); Theophania iv. 7 (ed. Lee p. 221; Peter’s ‘honourable sepulchre in the very front of their city,’ t.e. Rome), v. 31 (ed. Lee p. 315; Peter crucified at Rome). See just below on the Chronicon. Passages from later writers are col- lected by Lipsius p. 236 ff.

For a summing up of this evidence see below, p. 777. 6. Chronological notices in the Chronicon of Eusebius and in the Liber Pontificalis.—(i.) The Chronicon.—(a) St. Peter’s arrival in Rome. The Armenian version assigns St. Peter’s arrival at Rome, after founding the Church at Antioch, to the 3rd year of Caius, i.e. 39-40, adding, ‘ commoratur illie antistes ecclesiz annis viginti.’ The appoint- ment of Euodius as bishop of Antioch is placed in the 2nd year of Claudius, t.e. 42-43.

Jerome puts the appointment of Euodius in the 4th year of Claudius, i.e. 44-45, and the arrival of St. Peter at Rome, after founding the Antiochene Church, in the 2nd year of Claudius, i.e. 42-43. He adds PETER (SIMON) PETER (SIMON) 771 ‘xxv annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseuerat.’* (δ) St. Peter’s death. The yee version puts the Neronian persecution, ‘when the apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome,’ in the 13th year of Nero, i.e.

67-68, and perhaps by & pure mistake the beginning of Linus’ episcopate pax Petrum’ is assigned to the previous year.+ erome places the persecution, the martyrdom of the two apostles, and the accession of Linus to the episcopate in the last—the l4th—year of Nero. It may be noticed that the date in the Armenian version for Peter’s arrival at Rome seems to be a revision of the Eusebian date, and was perhaps attained thus.

It is said in this version that Peter continued at Rome 20 years: this brings us to 59-60—an absurd date for the apostle’s death. But if we suppose that in the processes of translation and revision ‘twenty’ was substi- tuted for ‘twenty-five,’ then we get a date assigned to Peter's death very shortly after the fire in July 64.

It seems likely, then, that the Armenian version, assuming 25 years’ episcopate, worked back from the summer or autumn of 64, and so — the early date for Peter’s arrival in Rome. this be so, we have here indirect evi- dence of the survival of the tradition that Peter’s martyrdom took place in 64. The date, however, of the apostle’s death is unrevised, and retains its Eusebian position at the end of Nero’s rei Two other es dealing with the date of St.

Peter’s arrival at Rome must be quoted: (1) Eus. HE π. xiv., where, after an account of Simon’s mischievous oe at Rome, Eusebius adds that t Providence brought Peter also thither ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας. (2) Jerome (de Virr. Illustr. 1): *Romam pergit ibique viginti quingue annis cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit usque ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est, qguartum decimum’ (cf. v.) Harnack (Die Chronol. p. 124 n.)

points out that Eusebius in the History does not refer to a 25 years’ epeupete, and puts Peter’s arrival at Rome simply in the reign of Claudius, and that it is therefore ible that the reference to the 25 and the location of the commencement of that period in the 2nd year of Claudius may be due to Jerome. This may be so; but the fact that both the versions of the Chronicon, the Armenian and Jerome, mention the length of Peter’s stay at Rome (the original number of years in the Arm.

asin Jerome having probably been 25), and that they both place his martyrdom there near the end of Nero’s reign, points to the dates and the 25 years’ episcopate having been derived from the original statement of the Eusebian Chronicon. It is probable (Lightfoot, Clement i. ue 339 ; Harnack, OMeual p- 123) that Eusebius derived his early pal chronology from Julius Africanus; and the tter may in his turn have used earlier documents, ¢.g. the lists of Hegesippus.

But (assuming that it hada place in the Chronicon of Eusebius) there is no evidence to show whether the 25 years’ episcopate was the invention of Eusebius or whether he inherited it from one of his predecessors. It will appear in a moment that it is | erie the result of an artificial arrangement of dates. We turn to the date of the martyrdom, which is put in the last year of Nero’s reign. It is to be noticed that the catholic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius p. 172 f.)

connect with the apostle’s death a prophecy that ‘Nero should be destroyed not many days hence’ * The Syriac Epitome (Schoene Ξ 211) puts the foundation of the Church at Antioch and St. Peter’s arrival at Rome (‘et refuit ecclesim ili annos xxv")in Anno Abr, 2058 (= a.p. 42- HN the appointment of Euodius two years later; but under An. Abr. Boa (=A.D. 48-49) it has the entry, ‘ Petrus apostolus moderator eccl. Romani factus est.

’ + It ls, however, ible that we should connect this appoint- ment of Linus with what there are some reasons for thinking be the fact that Peter left Rome for a time about a year before his martyrdom there (see below, p. 778). and relate its speedy fulfilment. Eusebius’ words, preserved by Syncellus, are: ἐπὶ πᾶσι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῖν ἀδικήμασι [ἀτυχήμασι Codd.] καὶ τὸν πρῶτον κατὰ Χριστιανῶν ἐνεδείξατο διωγμόν, ἡνίκα Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλον «.7.X.

It does not appear that Eusebius was acquainted with Tacitus, and, if he did not con- nect the persecution with the great fire, it was very natural that, whether he followed the catho- lic Acts or no, he should regard the attack on the Church as the filling up of Nero’s iniquities (cf. Ac 12)3), On the other hand, the evidence of Tacitus is decisive that the persecution followed immediately upon the fire ; and the Chronicon re- cords under the year 63-64 ‘many conflagrations at Rome.

’ We have still to account for the legend of the 25 years episcopate at Rome. If the terminus ad quem of Peter’s sojourn at Rome was determined as suggested above, we may con- jecture that (the ministry at Antioch being re- garded as a mere offshoot of the ministry at Jern- salem) Peter’s departure for Rome was placed at the expiration of the 12 years, after which, according to the tradition which hada place in the Κήρυγμα Πέτρου (ap. Clement, Strom. vi. 5) and the Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed.

Lipsius p. 49; for other refer- ences see Harnack, Die Chronol. p. 243), the Lord commanded the apostles to go forth into the world (cf. Α΄ 1217), If the Passion was placed in the year 30, then the sojourn of Peter at Rome sear be considered to commence about the year 42, and just about a quarter of a century would elapse tween that date and the martyrdom at the end of Nero’s reign.* (ii.) The ‘Liber Pontificalis.—We turn now to the later catalogues of Roman bishops.

(1) The Liberian catalogue (Duchesne p. 2) has the notice, ‘Petrus ann. xxv mens. uno a viiii.t Fuit tem- ae Tiberii Cesaris et Gai et Tiberi Claudi et eronis, a cons. Minuci Vege Vinici] et Longini usque Nerine et Vero [/ege Vetere]. Passus autem cum Paulo die iii kl. iulias, cons. &., imperante Nerone.’ The date of this catalogue is 354. It gives the date of Peter’s 25 years’ Roman episco- pate as A.D. 30-55. The notice immediately pre- ceding puts the date of the crucifixion as A.D.

29 (‘duobus Geminis cons.’), and then adds: ‘ et post ascensum eius beatissimus Petrus episcopatum suscepit.’ The singular date of Peter’s rig therefore, seems based on the assumption that Christ made the apostle a bishop, and that his see must have been Rome. (2) The Lider Pontificalis in the earlier form (as restored from the Felician and Cononian abridgments) puts side by side the follow- ing statements :—(a) ‘ Primum it cathedra epis- copatus in Antiochia ann, vii.

’ (δ) ‘ Ingressus in urbe Roma Nerone Cesare ibique sedit cathedra episcopatus ann. xxv mens. ii dies iii.’ (6) ‘ Fuit temporibus Tiberii Cesaris et Gaii et Tiberii Claudi et Neronis.’ To these statements (Duchesne Ρ. 50f.) the later recension (Duchesne p. 118) adds another, ‘martyrio cum Paulo coronatur, post pas- sionem Domini anno xxxviii.’ According to this statement the date of the martyrdom is 67 (cf. Jer. de Virr. Illustr.) It is unnec to examine the different parts of the above mosaic.

But how- ever the chronological context varies, the xxv years’ episcopate is preserved. 1. The burial-places of St. Peter. —The Am- brosian hymn connects the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul with three spots in Rome—' Trinis celebratur uiis Festum sacrorum martyrum’ (Daniel, Thes. Hymn. 1. xc.) These vie are the *In the Eastern and Oriental lists Ponti. $4 7., there are variations Short ἃ, αρὴμ of 853 gives 22 years; (i. 2 years; ({Π|.} Syncellus leaves a blank; (iv) years ; (v.)

Elias of Nisibis 28 years. t For a possible explanation of the variations of the number of months and days see Duchesne, Lid. Ponty. p. xx a. ven In Duchesne, Lid rom 25 years—(i.) The Nicephorus τ u 2 PETER (SIMON) Ostian, the place of St. Paul’s death and burial ; the Aurelian, the resting-place of St. Peter; and the Appian, where the bodies of both apostles were laid fer atime. The facts are briefly these : (1) \he Vatican.

—The belief that the apostle was buried on the Vatican goes back to the time of Caius (see above); so Jerome, de Virr. Jilustr. 1: ‘Sepultus Rome in Vaticano iuxta uiam trium- halem’ (this via runs N.E. of the Vatican); Acta δὶ et Pauli, 84 (ed. Lipsius p. 216, cf. p. 172), ἔθηκαν αὐτὸ ὑπὸ τὴν τερέβινθον δ liny, Hist. Nat. xvi. 44] πλησίον τοῦ ναυμαχίου (cf. Martyr. a Lino conser. x., ed. Lipsius p. 11; see above] εἰς τόπον καλούμενον Barixavéy; Lib. Pontif. (ed. Duchesne pp. 52f., 118 ff.)

: ‘Sepultus est uia Aurelia, in templum Apollonis, iuxta locum ubi crucifixus est, iuxta ᾿ tium Neronianum in Vaticanum, in territurium riumphale, uia Aurelia, iii K. iul.’ In the last notice the temple of erat probably refers to a temple of Cybele (Duchesne p. 120; Lipsius p. 401) on this site; by the palatiwm Neronianum is meant either Nero’s gardens or the Circus (prob- ably to be identified with the Nawmachia).

It was apparently on this spot that Anencletus, accord- ing to the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne pp. 55, 125), built a memoria beati Petri, where tradi- tion said that all the Roman bishops till the time of co a (except Clement and Alexander) were buried.

The Church of San Pietro in Mon- torio is the outcome of another and later tradition that the apostle suffered on the Janiculum—a tradi- tion which possibly arose from a confusion between the via Aurelia on the Vatican and the older via Aurelia with the porta Aurelia on the Janiculum.* (2) The Ad Catacumbas.

—In the Depositio Mar- tyrum, one of the tracts which form the collection called by the general name of the Liberian Cata- logue, and which were possibly edited in 354 by Furius Filocalus, who certainly illuminated them and who executed the inscriptions of Damasus in the catacombs (Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 249), we find the notice: ‘iii Kal. iul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso cons.

’ There can be no doubt that this is a blundering revision of an original notice running thus: ‘iii Kal. iul. Petri et Pauli in Catacumbas Tusco et Basso cons.,’ the reviser, whoever he may have been, interpreting the statement as referring to the martyrdom of the apostles. This misinterpretation of the original notice is still more flagrant in the Martyr. Hierony- mianum: ‘iii KI. iul.

Rome natale apostolorum Petri et Pauli: Petri in Vaticano uia Aurelia: Pauli uero in uia Ostensi : utrumque in Catacumbas; passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus.’ In reality the year indicated is A.D. 258, and the re- ference is to the transference of the apostles’ remains from their respective resting-places on the Ostian and Aurelian roads to the Catacumbas on the Appian road, i.e. the Church of St.

Sebastian, during the Valerian persecution, a few weeks before the martyrdom of pope Xystus in August. Da- masus, as we learn from the Lib. Pontif. (ed. Duch- esne pp. 84f., 212; cf. p. civ), decorated the chamber, and placed over the locus bisomus the inscription— * Hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes, Nomina quisque Petri pariter Paulique requiris, Discipulos oriens misit, quod sponte fatemur. . Roma suos potius meruit defendere ciues.

’ A misunderstanding of the common memorial day of the two apostles, which finds definite expression in the blundering notice of the Depositio, gave rise, it appears, to the legend that the two apostles suffered on the same a statement which first occurs in Jerome, de Virr. Illustr. 5: [Paulus] (Pagan and Christian Rome £ 127 f.) supposes an! * Lanciani that the erection of this church on the iculum to com- memorate the martyrdom is due to a misinterpretation of the tradition tha‘ St.

Peter suffered inter duas metas. PETER (SIMON) —_— ‘quarto decimo Neronis anno eodem die quo Petrus Rome pro Christo capite truncatur, sepultusque est in uia Ostiensi.’ The historical fact that the apostles’ remains were supposed to have lain at one time near the place of their death and again in the Catacumbas, and then (see below) to have been re- stored to their original resting-places, gave rise to two stories.

(a) The reference to the East in the verses of Damasus suggested the legend found in the Acta Petri et Pauli (ed. Lipsius p. 220) of Eastern Christians attempting to steal the bodies. These Acts assert that the bodies rested in the Catacum- bas a year and seven months; a later tradition, found in the Salzburg age makes the period 40 years (Duchesne p. ev; Benson, Cyprian He 482f.) (δ) According to the Liber Pontijicalis ( Duchesne pp. 65 ff., 150 ff.)

, Cornelius, bishop of Rome 251-253, at the request of a certain matron named Lucina, removed the bodies of the apostles by night from the Catacumbas. The body of Paul Lucina buried in her own grounds on the Ostian road. ‘Beati Petri accepit corpus beatus Cornelius episcopus et posuit iuxta locum ubi crucifixus est, inter corpora sanctorum episcoporum, in templum Apollonis, in monte Aureo, in Vaticanum palatii Neroniani, iii Kal. iul.

’ The epithet awreus has probably arisen from the word Aurelius. (3) The Vatican.—The Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne pp. 78 f., 176; ef. the addition in one MS of the Passio Sanctorum App., ed. Lipsius p. 176) ives the legend, derived originally from the Acta ilvestri, extant only in later recensions, that Con- stantine was baptized by Silvester, and thereby cured of leprosy; that at the request of the bishop he built a dasilica in honour of St.

Peter on the site of a temple of Apollo; that he placed the apostle’s body there in a tomb of bronze sur- mounted by a golden cross. It is likely enough that the basilica was begun at the end of Con- stantine’s reign. But the body of the apostle cannot have been removed there before 354, since that is the date of the Liberian Depositio, where it is implied that the body still rested ad Cata- cumbas.

The translation therefore must have taken place between 354 and the time when Da- masus (366-384) placed in the Catacuwmbas the inscription quoted above. On the whole subject see Duchesne, Lid. Pontificalis PP. civ ff., 119f., 125, 152, 193 ff., 214; Lipsius, Die Apokr. Apostelg. Il. i. p. 391 ff. (with reff. to his earlier works) ; Lightfoo , Clement ii. p. 499f.; Benson, Cyprian . 481 ff. ; Erbes, ‘Das Alter der Griber ἃ. Kirchen es Paulus ἃ. Petrus in Rom,’ in Brieger’s Zeitschr. JS.

Kirchengesch. vii. p. 1ff. (1885); Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome pp. 122 ff., 345 ff. (1892); de Waal, Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas (1894); Erbes, ‘Die Todestage der A postal Paulus ἃ. Petrus,’ 1899 (Texte u. Untersuch. NF iv. 1). There are five memorial days which claim notice. (i.) June 29. The origin of the observance of this day as a festival of St. Peter and St. Paul has been pointed out above, and it has been shown that robably as early as Jerome, certainly before the Mart.

Hieronymianum, compiled early in the 7th cent., the day was regarded as the anniversary of the death of the apostles. In the Gelasian Sacra- mentary there are three sets of ‘Orationes et Preces’ for the festival: ‘In natali 5. Petri pro- prie,’ ‘In natali apostolorum Petri et Pauli,’ ‘In natali S. Pauli proprie.’ When in the Gregorian Sacramentary a further step was taken, and the ‘natalis S. Pauli’ was transferred to the next day, June 29 became the memorial day of St. Peter alone.

This common festival of the two apostles passed into the Greek Church, though it is un- certain at what date, and has a place also in the Coptic, Ethiopic, Syrian, and Armenian calendars. A Syriac Martyrology of the year 412, published PETER (SIMON) by Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct. 1865, Jan. 1866, places this festival on Dec. 28. (ii.) Feb. 22. In the Liberian Depositio Martyrum there is the entry: ‘viii Kal. Mart. natale Petri de catedra.’ In the Martyr.

Hierony- mianum the corresponding notice is ‘ viii K]. Mart. cathedra Petri in Antiochia.’ (iii.) Jan. 18. In the same Martyrologium we have ‘xv Kal. Feb. dedicatio cathedre S. Petri apostoli qui [qua] mo Rome sedit.’ (iv.) Aug. 1. The Roman artyrologium has ‘Kal. Aug. Rome ad uincula catenas S. Petri osculandas,’ or, according to some MSS, ‘Kal. Aug. Rome dedicatio prime ecclesiz ab. Petro constructz [et consecrate)].’ Since the church S. Petri ad uincula was probably built under Sixtus m1.

(432-440), the origin of the festi- val may be as early as the time of this pope. The original reference of the festival was to the miracle recorded in Ac 127, The corresponding festival in the Greek Church was on Jan. 16, in the Armenian Church on Jan. 29, For further information see Sinker’s article in Dict. Chr. Antig. ii. p. 1623 ff.; Lipsius, Die. Apokr. Apostelg. τι. i. p. 404 ff. The Acts of Peter.—These Acts are collected and edited by Lipsius (1891) in the first vol. of the Acta Apost.

Apocrypha, edited by himself and Bonnet. (1) The Gnostic Acts. —(i.) The documents. These are: (a) Martyrium b. Petri Ap. a Lino ep. conscriptum. This martyrium is contained in several S. The name of Linus is found only in the title. (δ) Actus Petri cum Simone. The sole authority for this text is the Codex Vercel- lensis, a 7th cent. MS. (c) μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποσ- τόλου Πέτρου. This document corresponds with the closing portion of the Actus (xxx-end).

The authorities for this text are a 9th cent. MS at Patmos, and a MS of later date at Mt. Athos. There exist also a Slavonic and an A®thiopic ver- sion (the latter is translated in Malan’s Con/licts of the Holy Apostles), and some fragments of a ahidic version. It appears certain that the two first-named Latin texts are independent, and rest ultimately on a common Greek text. The Sie cates xe lem of the relation of these texts is dis by Lipsius, eer Apostely: IL. i. p. 109 ff. ; Zahn, Ges. Kan.

ii. i : (ii.) Substance. The following is a brief sum- mary of the story. (a) Paul in obedience to a vision de m Rome on his journey to Spain. (δ) Simon Magus arrives in Rome and [ΒΕ sadherents. The brethren are distressed that ‘aul has left them, and that they have no leader to help them against Simon. Just at this time, however, the twelve years after the Ascension being past, Christ appears to Peter in a vision and bids him go to Rome. (c) Peter arrives in Rome.

After preaching to the brethren, at their request he goes from the synagogue to the ome of Maroellus (formerly a disciple of St. Paul), where Simon is. At this point there ensues the episode of the speaking dog which takes Peter's message to Simon. Marcellus, who had been so much under Simon’s influence that he had erected in his honour a statue with the inscription Simoni suueni deo, repents.

In course of time it is arranged that there should be a public encounter between Peter and Simon in the Forum. Peter’s power of truly raising the dead proves him to be superior to Simon. [At this stage in the story the Athos MS begins]. Simon undertakes to fly to heaven. This he attempts to do before a great crowd in the Via Sacra.* Under the influence, however, of Peter’s prayers he falls and breaks his thigh. He is pein by the crowd, leaves Rome, and shortly afterwards dies at Terracina.

(d) [At this point * The origin of this tradition is probably to be found in the Rory told by Suetonius (Nero 12). PETER (SIMON) 773 the Linus-Martyrium and the Patmos MS begin]. The prefect Agrippa [note that the minister of Augustus is transferred to Nero’s reign) has four concubines, who are persuaded by Peter to refuse Agrippa any further intercourse. Xanthippe simi- larly withdraws from her husband Albinus, a friend of the emperor's [in the Acta Xanthippe (James, Apocr. Anecdota p. 58 ff.)

the husband’s name is Probus]. Albinus, therefore, and Agrippa make common cause against Peter. (e) At the request of Xanthippe and the brethren, Peter consents to leave Rome. As he is passing through the gate of the city he sees Christ entering. The well-known conversation between the Lord and the apostle takes place (see below), and he returns to the city knowing that the Lord would suffer in him. St. Peter is brought before Agrippa, who con- demns him to be crucified.

When te is brought near the cross he addresses it in mystic language —6 ὄνομα σταυροῦ, μυστήριον ἀπόκρυφον K.7.d. 8 asks that he may be fixed to it head down- wards, and in mystical language he explains the significance of that position.* At the burial, Marcellus acts the part of Joseph of Arimathza. Peter, however, appears to him in a vision and reminds him of the Lord’s saying, ‘ Let the dead be buried by their own dead.’ So Marcellus awaits Paul’s return to Rome.

The romance ends with a notice of Nero first determining to persecute the converts of Peter and afterwards being restrained by a vision (one text says ‘of Peter,’ another ‘of an angel,’ another of ‘a certain one’) of one who chastised him, and warned him to ‘ refrain his hands from the servants of Christ.’ (iii.) History and date. At the end of the 4th cent. and onwards apocryphal Acts of Peter are spoken of as being in authoritative use among heretics, especially the Manichwans; cf.

Augustine, c. Faust. xxx. 4, adv. Adimant. Manich. 17; and (somewhat earlier) Philaster, Her. 88. At the same time these Acts were not infrequently alluded to without note of suspicion, and occasionally even definitely cited, by catholic writers. Thus ἔπος of Pelusium (Zp. ii. 99; Migne, Pat. Gr. xxviii. 544) adduces a saying taken from the discourse of Peter in the house of Marcellus (Actus Petri cum Simone xx., ed. Lipsius Ρ.

θ7), -καθὼς Πέτρος ὁ κορυφαῖος τοῦ χόρου ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πράξεσι σαφῶς ἀπε- φήνατο “A ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐγράψαμεν. The earliest writer who refers to these Acts by name is Eusebius, HE ΠΙ. iii. 2. ery them with the Gospel, the Preaching, and the Apocalypse of Peter, he says ‘we do not own these writings as handed down among the catholic (books), because no Church writer, either among the ancients or among our own con- temporaries, has ever used the testimonies to be derived from them’ (cf.

Jerome, de Virr. Jllustr. i.) The earliest writer who certainly refers to these Acts—he does not quote them by name—is the African poet Commodian, about A.D. 250, who, in Carmen Apologeticum 615 ff., writes: ‘Et canem arses ut Simoni diceret: clamaris a Petro... nfantem fecit quinto mense proloqui uolgo.’ Commodian, then, supplies a terminus ad quem for the composition of these Petrine Acts. Harnack, in- deed (Chronologie p. 552 ff.)

, argues that they were actually written about the middle of the Sri century. He lays special stress on the fact that ie fa Hi rpc s (Refut. Hor. vi. 20) gives an account of ᾿ eter’s triumph over Simon, and of the latter's death, quite different from that contained in the Acts, and he concludes that Hippolytus did not know our Acts, and that therefore they could not have been then written.

To this line of argument it © ep) Σν ὁ πίρινε iy μυστανν λίγω 'Ἕλν ed σωεέσετι σὰ Dele ὧς ce ἀμετινὼ wal τὼ ἀμετιρὼ ὠἐΤὺλ τὸ διδὰ wel τὰ ὅν ὲ ἃ whee καὶ τὰ ὑκίσω ὧε τὰ Laporte, οὖ μὲ ἐσνγνῶει σὺν Bard er 114 PETER (SIMON) PETER (SIMON) may be replied: (a) that Hippolytus’ ignorance of them would not prove their non-existence ; (δ) that ignorance of them on his part cannot be deduced from the fact that he follows quite another story ; for Hippolytus, a malleus eticorum, would naturally avoid a story which he found in a heretical book.

Harnack further insists that allusions in these Acts to, ¢.g., the emperor and to details of Church life point to the 3rd cent., while, in opposition to Lipsius and Zahn, he alto- gether denies that the Acts bear a Gnostic char- acter. Itis quite possible that some of the allusions to which Harnack appeals as proving the later date of the Acts as a whole point to interpolations on the part of an editor or a translator.

But there are strong reasons for assigning the Grund- schrift to the 2nd cent. Lipsius (p. 266) and Zahn (Ges. Kan. ii. p. 861) have both noted the re- semblance in ideas and modes of expression be- tween the Acts of Peter and the Leucian Acts of John. The fragment of the last-named Acts printed for the first time in James’ Apocr. Anec- dota ii. brings to light still further points of like- ness. James (p. xxiv ff.)

has collected a number of parallels between the fragment of the Johannine Acts and the Actus Petri cum Simone, and is justified in concluding ‘that they show as clearly as any evidence of this kind could, that whoever wrote the Acts of John wrote the Acts of Peter’ (p. xxiv). ‘ Acts of Peter’ were among ‘the Acts’ which, according to Photius (Biblioth. Cod. exiv.), were contained in al λεγόμεναι τῶν ἀποστόλων περίοδοι —the work of Leucius Charinus, This Leucius (see ere Apokr. Apostelg. i. p.

83 1f.), a some- what shadowy personage, seems to have belonged to Asia Minor, and to have written during the 2nd cent., about 160 as Zahn thinks (ib. p. 864). Thus the original Gnostic Acts were a 2nd cent. romance, and had their origin in Asia Minor. (2) From the Gnostic we turn to the catholic Acts. These are often distinguished by the name Marcellus, who in some Latin MSS appears (in a superscription) as the author. (i.) Documents.

These Acts are found in two chief forms, which Tischendorf (Acta Apost. Apocr. pp. 1-39) has somewhat disastrously endeavoured to weave into a single whole. The one, which may be designated as A, is found in Latin MSS, and in one Vente Greek MS (which UE ΕΙΩΝ represents by the symbol E); the other, which may designated as B, is found in the majority of Greek MSS.

The most important difference between the two forms is that B begins with a long account (§§ 1-21) of the fear caused by Paul’s appeal to Cesar among the Jews at Rome (who had already had rouble enough through Peter’s presence there), and of the closing stages of Paul’s journey to the city. This section seems to be quite late, and is attributed b Lipsius (Prolegom. p. 1χὶ) ‘insipido cuidam seculi ix monacho qui Siciliw# uel Magne Grecie nescio αὐϑὰ monasterium incolebat.?

Of the common reek text there exists a Slavonic version. (ii.) Substance. The outline of the story is as follows : (a) Paul arrives in Rome (Cod. E alone adds ἀπὸ τῶν Σπανιῶν). The two apostles meet with great joy. Paul stills a dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christians.

The preaching of the apostles converts multitudes, and in particular ‘Livia the wife of Nero and Agrippina the wife of Agrippa’ [note the confusion] leave their husbands, while not a few soldiers withdraw from military service. (6) Simon Magus now begins to traduce Peter, and rforms magical tricks. He is summoned before ero, and claims to be the Son of God. The two great we pels and Simon hold a disputation and a trial of strength in miracles before Nero.

At length Simon requests that a wooden tower may 4e erected, from which he undertakes to throw him- self, that his angels may bear him to heave. When the day arrives, Simon begins to fly, to tae great distress of Paul. Peter, however, ailjures the angels of Satan to help him no longer. Simon falls in the Via Sacra and dies. (c) Nero there- upon commands that the apostles should be thrown into prison. At Agrippa’s suggestion Paul is be- headed in the Via Ostiensis.

Peter, when he is brought to the cross, asks that, being unworthy to hang as his Lord hung, he may be crucified head downwards. He then relates to the people the Quo vadis story, and, after having prayed to the Good Shepherd, he gives up the spirit. (d) Three legends follow: (a) The legend of Perpetua, the three executioners, and Potentiana—in part closely akin to the Veronica legend—is rather Pauline than Petrine (comp. the Plautilla story in the Passio S. Pauli, ed. Lipsius 8 38 ff.)

(8) Certain holy men appear, saying that they have come from Jerusalem; they, with Marcellus, bury the apostle’s body ‘under the terebinth near the aumachia, at the place called the Vatican.’ (y) Certain men from the East carried off the bodies of the two apostles. They were overtaken at a place called Catacumbas at the third mile- stone along the Appian Way. There the saints’ bodies were kept for a year anda half.

Then the body of Peter was transferred to a tomb on the Vatican near the Naumachia, that of Paul to the Ostian Way. At their tombs great benefits were frames to the faithful through their prayers. he day of their martyrdom was June 29. (iii.) History and date. The story of the men from the East who endeavoured to carry off the apostles’ bodies arose, as is now generally agreed (see, 6.9. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelg. p. 312; Light foot, Clement ii. p.

500), from a misunderstanding of the inscription of pope Damasus (366-384) ; see above, p. 772. Thus we must allow time for the circumstances which Damasus commemorates to have been forgotten, and for the meaning of his lines to have chananye obscure. The Acts, there- fore, in their present oe can hardly be much earlier than the middle of the 5th cent. On the other hand, many indications (e.g. the relics of early confessions of faith embedded in the Acts, chs. 58.

69) point to the conclusion that the Grundschrift, on which interpolations from other sources have been engrafted, was a document similar to the Predicatio Petri, and, with it, is to be assigned to the middle of the 2nd cent. (Lipsius p. 333 ff.) The further problem as to the relation of the Grundschrift of the catholic Acts to the Grundschrift of the Gnostic Acts appears to elude criticism. A Latin Passio Apostolorwm Petri et Pauli (Lipsius, Acta PP.

223-234) need not be discussed at any length. It gives an account of the conflict between the apostles and Simon Magus, dealing rather with miracles than with theology. Clement (not Agrippa) appears as the prefectus urbis. The date, according to Lipsius, is the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century. The Quo vadis legend. The story is found in the Gnostic Acts—in the Linus-text (vi) and in the μαρτύριον (vi); there is a lacuna here in the Cod. Vercellensis.

It runs thus in the Linus-text, the important words in the Greek text bese, added ; ‘Ut autem portam ciuitatis uoluit egredi, uidit sibi Ohristum oceurrere. Et adorans eum ait: Domine quo uadis? (Kipu, ποῦ ὧδε). Respondit ei Christus: Romam uenio iterum cruc’ (εἰσίρχομαι εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην σταυρωθῆναι). Et ait ad eum Petrus: Domine, iterum crucifigeris? (Κύριε, πάλιν σταυρὸῦσαι 3). Et dixit ad eum dominus: Etiam iterum crucifigar. Petrus autem dixit: Domine, reuertar et sequar te.

Et his dictis dominus ascendit in cwlum.’ In the catholic Acts Peter relates the story after he has been nailed to the cross. The Latin (61) is: ‘Dixi: Domine, quo uadis? Et dixit mihi: Sequere me, quia uado Romam iterum crucifigi. Et dum sequerer eum, redif Romam. Et dixit mihi: Noli timere, quia ego tecum sum, quousque introducam te in domum patris mei.’ In pseudo- Ambrose (Serm. contr. Auz. ii. 867, ed. Bened.) the words are : ‘Domine, quo uadis?’ ‘Venio iterum crucifigi.

’ Tt seems PETER (SIMON) probable that the story had its origin in a reminiscence of the conversation recorded in Jn1 (Kipu, τοῦ ὑπάγειε, Latt. Domine, quo uadis?) and an agraphon preserved by Origen (in Joan xx. 12, ed. Brooke ii. p. 61)—‘If any one will accept the saying recorded in the Acts of Paul as spoken by the Saviour, ἄνωθιν μέλλω σταυροῦσθα,." The Acts of Paul is apparently an early 2nd cent.

document of orthodox origin, and belongs toa different group of writings from the Gnostic Acts of Peter Zahn, Ges. Kan. τι. ii, p. 865 ff.) 10 is plain from the context in ἢ that in the Acts of Paul the saying had no application to St. Peter. Origen quotes in the context He 6°, Gal 219, Possibly the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul alike derived the saying from ‘an earlier document, probably the Preaching of Peter’ (Zahn, Find. ji. p. 25).

It seems probable, then, that the conversation of our Lord and St. Peter in Jn 13 suggested @ scene in which this saying was dramatized. Further, Zahn e) is inclined to think that the ambiguous word ἄνωθεν = , desuper) Gn a the story that Peter was crucified ead downwards. e@ explanation does not seem a natural one. It is far more likely that the mode of death was one of the ‘addita ludibria’ of which Tacitus speaks. 9. The Clementine Literature.—(i.) Documents. These are three in number.

(a) The Homilies in Greek. Two MSS only are known to exist—the one at Paris, the other at the Vatican. (5) The Recognitions. The Greek original has perished. The Latin rendering by Rufinus, preserved in a large number of MSS, a Syriac translation of part of the work, and an Arabic abridgment printed in Studia Sinaitica v., form the extant authorities for the text. Rufinus, in the preface to his transla- tion, notes incidentally that the Greek original was extant in two forms.

He further tells us that, while he had restated omitted some pas- sages as obscure, he had aimed at a close, if bald, pondering. It may be added that a comparison between his version and the Syriac version gener- ally confirms his statement. (c) Of far less import- ance than the two documents just mentioned is the Epitome—a late abridgment of the Homilies. The three Clementine works may be conveniently studied in Migne’s Patrologia Greca, vols. i., ii. (1. Substance.

The romance of Clement’s life, his early separation from his family and his ultimate discovery of them—need not detain us. Peter is the great opponent of Simon Magus, and long discourses aires to his own disciples or to inquirers, or directed against Simon, are put intohis mouth. The story in regard to Peter is, in outline, as follows.

In the seventh year after the Passion, Clement finds Peter at Cxesarea, where the latter, having been sent thither by James, is about to hold a disputation with Simon Magus. After three days’ discussion Simon is driven away by the populace. Peter follows Simon to Tripolis, accord- ing to the Recognitions ; according to the Homilies, to , and thence to Sidon, Berytus, Byblus, and so to Tripolis.

At Antioch Simon meets with great success, but is at length driven thence by a report that Cornelius the centurion had arrived armed with an imperial commission to destroy all sorcerers. Simon flies to the neighbouring town of Laodicea, where in the Homilies the scene of the great disputation between Peter and Simon is laid. In the Homilies the story ends with Peter's departure for Antioch; in the Recognitions, with his enthusiastic reception by the people there after the expulsion of Simon.

(iii.) Date and character. The documents which we possess exhibit different forms of a religious romance, written in the interests of a_philo- sophical Ebionitism. The anti-Pauline element is strong in the Homilies. Under the character of Simon Magus, St. Paul is attacked (e.g. xvii. 19). The same tone of hostility to the work and teach- ing of St. Paul dominates the letter of Peter to James, § 2, which is prefixed to the Homilies.

In the Recognitions this controversial element is omitted or softened down, the invective dealing only with St. Paul’s action before his conversion The doctrine of the Homilies is akin to the Elchasaite sect, which, according to (i. 70f.) that o PETER (SIMON) 775 Hippolytus (Ref. Her. ix. 13), established itself at Rome during the episcopate of Callistus. The Recognitions is quoted by Origen (Comm. in Genesim ap. Philoc. xxiii. 21, and Comm. in Matth. xxvi. 6f., ed. Lommatzsch iv. p. 401).

The evi- dence, though slight, points to the first quarter of the 3rd cent. as the period to which the Clemen- tine literature as we possess it should probably be assigned. From what place did it emanate? The claim of Rome is negatived by the almost entire absence of any reference to a visit of Simon to the city, and his conflict with the apostle there. The allusions to Rome as the final scene of the controversy (Ztecog. i. 13, 74, iii. 64; Hom. i.

16) are so incidental in character that they may well be the interpolation of a later editor, the writer, for example, who composed the Epistle of Clement to James, préfixed to the Homilies, in which an account of Clement’s ordination at Rome as bishop by Peter is given. The scene of the story is confined within the boundaries of Syria, and it is therefore antecedently probable that Syria was the region in which the Ἐπ Ὁ literature had its first home.

This conclusion is confirmed by the character of the NT quotations, which appear to be derived from a Semitic document, whether an Aramaic Gospel or a Syriac version of the Gospels. One point, however, seems clear, viz. that the Recog- nitions and the Homilies are independent recastings of a common original, or of (closely related) common original documents. The relation of thisdocument or these documents to the Periodi Clementis, to which Jerome (adv. Jovin. i. 26; in Gal.

i, 18) refers for details about Peter which are not found in our Clementines, and to the κήρυγμα Πέτρου (see below), must remain with our present evidence an unsolved problem. The question of primary interest is: What did the original story or document on which the Clementines are based include? Was its subject the conflict between Peter and Simon in Syria only? Or did it relate an earlier conflict in Syria and a final conflict at Rome?

In other words, do the Clementines and the Petrine Acts respectively depend on independent documents, the one narrating the conflict between Peter and Simon in the East, the other dealing with their final meeting in the West! or do they severally elaborate two parts of one common history! The former is the opinion of Salmon (Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. p. 685), the latter that to which Lipsius in- clines (Apokr. Apostelg. τι. i. p. 38f.)

It may be noticed that, while there are in the Clementines (see above) a few references to the Roman episode, on the other hand allusions are to be found in the Petrine Acts (Actus Petr. cum Simone v., Martyr. Petri et Pauli 17) to the Syrian conflict; but all these allusions are too slight to bear the weight of any conclusions. The Apostolic Constitutions (vi.

8, 9) contains the whole story of Peter and Simon, —the story of a conflict in Syria with points of contact with the Clementine history, and the pond of a conflict in Rome with points of contact with that of the Acts. It seems less unlikely that here we come upon a relic of a complete story than that we have here a piecing together of two stories, which were originally independent. Of the precise doctrinal position of the original document it is vain to speculate.

If the original story did follow St. Peter to Rome, there is a doctrinal reason why the Ebionite Clementine writers should refuse to acquiesce in the tradition that St. Paul and St. Peter worked at Rome together. That the original romance was early, there can be no doubt. Bishop Lightfoot held (Clement i. 361) that it ‘cannot well be placed later than the middle of the 2nd century.’ 10. Non-Canonical writings ascribed to St. Peter. — Eusebius (EZ 011. iii.)

, after mentioning the two Epistles which have a place in tke Canon (see 776 PETER (SIMON) separate articles), proceeds to speak of other writings connected with Peters name—the Acts 4 Peter (see above), the Gospel according to eter, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse. These, he adds, ‘ we do not acknowledge as handed down to us among the Catholic writings, for no Church writer, either in ancient times or in our own, ever made use of the testimonies they supply (cf. 11. xxv.)

To this list Jerome (de Virr. Iilustr. 1) adds the Judicium. (1) The Gospel of Peter.—A portion of what is aniversally agreed to have been the Petrine Gospel mentioned by Eusebius was found among the Akhmim fragments, and published by M. Bouriant in Novy. 1892. The fragment begins with a reference to our Lord’s trial before Pilate and Herod, and then gives an account of the mockery, the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection. The author writes in the first person (cc. vii. xii.)

, and identi- fies himself with Peter: ‘But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother’ (c. xiv.) The Gospel is the subject of a letter written by Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch during the last decade of the 2nd cent., and preserved by Eusebius (HE vi. 12). Serapion had found the Gospel at Rhosus on the Bay of Issus, and had at first approved it.

Further knowledge, however, led him to condemn it on the double ground that it owed its origin to the Docetz, and that it contained additions to ‘the true teaching about the Saviour.’ The fact that Serapion, a man of literary and controversial activity, did not know of the Gospel before his accidental discovery of it, that no other 2nd cent.

writer is proved to have used it, and that few later writers were acquainted with it, and these only men in some way connected with Syria, shows that its circulation and influence were confined within narrow limits. As to its date, Harnack holds that in the fragment the four Gospels are not placed on the same level, Mt proba ly not being used at all, and that the Petrine Gospel was used by Justin. These considerations seem to him to point to the beginning of the 2nd cent. (cf.

Sanday, Inspiration (1893) p. 310, ‘hardly later than the end of the first quarter of the 2nd cent.’). On the other hand, it is by no means certain that Justin used the Gospel; their un- doubted connexion can be explained in other ways.

And, further, the text of the Gospels had already had a history before it was used by the author of the Petrine Gospel; indeed there is strong reason to think that he used a harmony of the Gospels, that of Tatian or some earlier harmony, at least for the portion of the history covered by the ex- tant fragment.

* The implied text, then, of the Gospels suggests that the date can hardly be much before 150 (so Swete: Zahn 130), while a limit in the other direction is supplied by the fact that the Gospel had been in existence some time before Serapion discovered it. See the editions of Bouriant, Lods, Robinson (1892), Har- nack, Zahn, Swete (1893); also von Schubert, Die Composition des peter a stag ait Evangelien- fragments, 1893; Salmon, Introduction, Appendix (1894) pe 581 ff.

_ (2) The Preaching of Peter (κήρυγμα TWérpov).—It is probable that this document is quoted by Origen (de Prine. Pref. 8) under the title ‘Petri doc- trina’+; it is possible that it is to be identified with the ‘Predicatio Petri et Pauli,’ quoted by Lact. Instit. Div. iv. 21, comp. pseudo-Cyprian __* The present writer has elsewhere (The Old Syriac Element in the Tezt of Cod. Beze p. 121 ff.)

given reasons for thinking that ‘behind those parts of the fragment which are based on the Canonical Gospels there lie the corresponding sentences of the Syriac Diatessaron.’ t This is to be distinguished from the διδασχαλία Πέτρου re- ferred to by later Greek Fathers. Von Dobschiitz (p. 107) identi- fies this Peter with Peter of Alexandria. PETER (SIMON) —— The extant fragments of the de Rebapt. 17. Preaching are collected in Hilgenfeld’s NT extra Canonem (1884) iv. p. 51 ff.

, and in von Dobschiitz, ‘Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht’ (1893 ; Texte u. Unters. xi. 1).* It is clear from what has come down to us that the book gave—not a single discourse, but—the substance of discourses by one speaking in the name of the apostles (the first person plural is always used 6).

It deals with the rplrov yévos among Jews and Gentiles, insistin on a pure monotheism as opposed to the errors o Judaism and of heathenism alike, and incorporat- ing directions of our Lord in reference to the evangelization of the Gentiles. Clement of Alex- andria (cf. Heracleon ap. Origen, in Lv. Joh. Tom, xiii. 17) regards the spokesman of the apostles throughout as Peter; and further, having the whole book before him, he implies that it claimed to be written by Peter—6 Πέτρος γράφει (Strom.

vi. 7, p. 769 ed. Potter; comp. Origen’s question in the passage just referred to—rérepév ποτε γνήσιόν ἐστιν ἢ νόθον ἢ μικτόν). The Preaching exercised a wide influence. It was apparently used amon others by Apollonius of Asia Minor (ap. Eus. H. y. xviii. 14) at the end of the 2nd cent., Heracleon, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin, Aristides (Robinson in Texts and Studies i. 1, p. 86ff.) Its date must therefore be very early.

Harnack, holding that Egypt was the birthplace of the book, gives its date as. 110-130 (140); Zahn as 90-100. Von Dobschiitz suggests that in the first decade of the 2nd cent. a Christian at Alexandria felt that St. Mark’s Gospel (ending at 16%) needed a supplement, and wrote the Preaching as a δεύτερος λόγος, and further that from it the ‘shorter ending’ of Cod. L (Swete, St. Mark p. xevii ff.) is derive For further information see von Dobschiitz, ‘Das Kerygma Petri’ (Texte u. Untersuch. xi.

1, 1893) ; Harnack, Die Chronologie, 1897, pp. 472-474; Zahn, Geschichte des NT Kanons, 1892, 11. ii. pp. 820-832 ; Salmon, art. ‘Preaching of Peter,’ in Dict. Chr. Biog. (vol. iv. 1887); Hilgenfeld, NT extra Can. Rec., ed. altera, 1884, iv. pp. 50-65. (3) The Apocalypse of Peter.—A considerable fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter was dis- covered and published with the fragment of the Gospel. Before 1892only some half dozen small frag- ments were known to exist (see, e.g., Zahn, Ges. Kan. IL.

ii. Ἔ 818). The Akhmim fragment begins in the middle of a sentence containing apocalyptic words put into our Lord’s mouth. The apostles—‘ we, the twelve disciples’—then go into the ‘mountain’ with the Lord to pray, and ask to see one of the righteous who had ‘departed from the world,’ ‘in order that . . being encouraged we may encourage also the men who hear us.

’ In answer to Peter’s questions the Lord reveals the place of happiness and the place of torment, in which punishments are meted out to various classes of sinners. It appears from the reference to the apostles’ hearers that they had received a com- mand to teach; but a time during the Lord’s ministry is perhaps less in harmony with the sup- osed situation than a time after the resurrection. he Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned in the Mura- torian fragment (unless the passage is corrupt; see p.

780). Clement of Alexandria quotes it three or four times, once as Scripture (cl. ex Scrip. Proph. xli.); and, according to Eusebius, he com- mented on it. Thus there is good ground for regarding the Apocalypse as a 2nd cent. document, especially if it is allowed that it was used in the “The ‘Preaching of Peter’ in an Arabic MS, published by Mrs. Gibson in Studia Sinaitica ΝΟ. y., has no connexion with the Preaching under discussion.

| The first person singular is used in one fragment (Hilgen feld p. 57, 1, 28); but this fragment is derived ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίαμ Πέτρου (von Dobschiitz p. 118; cf. Holl, Fragmente vornican Kirchenviter (1899) p. 234). PETER (SIMON) Acts of Thomas (ed. Bonnet, p. 39) and in the Passion ae Perpetua (James, p. 60f.)

Zahn, writing before the publication of the Akhmim fragment, piacere on the fact that Origen shows no sign of having known the Apocalypse, that Clement may have derived his knowledge of it from his Hebrew teacher, that several notices of it seem to connect it with Palestine, and he there- fore thinks that Palestine was its birthplace. On the other hand, the coincidences with the Pistis Sophia, both in vocabulary and matter, seem to make an Egyptian origin more probable.

The text has been edited by Bouriant, James, Lods (1892), Harnack (1893); see Zahn, Ges. Kan. τι. ii. S10fF. ; Salmon, Introduction to NT, Appendix Fiso4) . 589 f. (4) Jerome in de Virr. Illustr. i. 5 mentions the Judicium among the apocryphal books which bear St. Peter’s name. Rufinus, in Symb. Apost. 38, gives the Libri Ecclesiastici which ee to the NT as ‘libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sine Hermes, gel appellatur Vie uel Judicium Petri.

’ t seems probable that Jerome and Rufinus have the same document in mind. Further, the whole list of books in “pcre J to be based upon the list given in the Fes pistle of Athanasius, who couples together ‘the so-called Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd.’ It is probable that the Judicium Petri was a Latin document, in which Peter alone was represented as the speaker, corresponding to the Greek document al διαταγαὶ al διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων.

See Hilgenfeld, NT extra Can. Rec. iv. p. 111ff.; Salmon, Introduction p. 654 i k, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel p. 193 (5) An ‘Epistle of Peter to James’ is prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, and is thoroughly Ebionite in its teaching. IV. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LATER HISTORY OF St. PETER.—Except the testimony of 1 Peter, we have in the NT no clear evidence as to the apostle’s movements after St. Paul’s notice in Gal 2. What evidence the NT supplies as to later times is negative.

But the tradition of the Church and the statements of early writers, together with the evidence of 1 Peter, ae a basis for conclusions which reach a very high degree of probability. An endeavour will abs made to interpret the evidence as to the three following points—(1) St. Peter’s visit to Rome; (2) the Simonian legend ; (8 the period which succeeded the ‘Council’ at erusalem. 1. St. Peter’s visit to Rome.—Of those who deny that St.

Peter visited Rome, Lipsius may be taken as the His interpretation of the evidence is given in his great work, Die Apokr. Apostelges- chichten τι. ii. pp. 1-69 (1887), where he embodies the results of his previous investigations—Quellen der rimischen Petrussage, arts. in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, arts. in Jarhrb. f. protest. Theologie (1876). His theory is briefly as follows. The tradition of St. Peter's presence at Rome takes two forms. The one brings St. Peter and St.

Paul together at Rome; together they found the Church there, and together they suffer. The other represents St. Peter as the opponent of the false apostle, Simon Magus, who is St. Paul under a thin disguise ; as pursuing him from land to land and finally in Rome triumphing over him, and then dying a martyr’s death. The first form of the legend may be called the Petro-Pauline legend, the second the Simonian.

Since the two agree in bringing the apostle to Rome, they cannot be in- dependent; and the question at once arises—Which is the original form? The Petro-Pauline legend corresponds to the Gentile view of the relation of the two apostles: they are friends and fellow- 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; there be The evidence of the Epistles of bot the Pauline captivities is also negative. If St. Peter had been in the city when St.

Paul wrote to the Philippians, and again to the Colossians and Philemon, his description in the one case of the fortunes of the gospel at Rome, and in the other of his own environment, could hardly have been un- influenced by the fact. We turn to the one Epistle of the second captivity. If we accept the constant tradition of the Church that St. Paul suffered in the Neronian persecution (t.e.

shortly after July 64),2Ti can hardly be placed in the year 64; for the apostle seems to iene orward to a winter not far distant (ταχέως, πρὸ χειμῶνος, 4°21), It appears, therefore, that 2 Ti was written some two or three nionths before the winter of 63 closed the seas. The lan- guage of this Epistle (41°*-) shows that St. Peter was not in Rome when it was written.

The supposition that he arrived in Rome for the first time after 2 Ti was written hardly allows the time which the early patristic notices of his work there (see above) postulate. We are led, therefore, to the conclu- sion that St. Peter’s arrival at Rome must in all probability be placed after the last of the Epistles of St. Paul’s first captivity, and long enough before 2 Ti to allow St.

Peter to have left the city when that Epistle was written, after having worked there some considerable time. Early tradition, however, gives us one further clue to the time. The two apostles worked together. Now it is almost impossible to suppose that, after St. Paul had once taken the apostolic oversight of the Church’s work in Rome, St. Peter could, apart from St. Paul, have planned to visit there. But did the suggestion that he should come to Rome reach St. Peter from St. Paul himself?

It is abundantly clear (1) that St. Paul’s mind was set on avert- ing any rupture between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and on welding them together in the one Church (Hort, Ecclesia p. 281 ff.)

; (2) that in his view Rome was the key to the evangelization of the empire; (3) that he was keenly alive in his own case to the importance of one who was the cea ea representative of one side of the Church’s work visiting now the Mother Church at Jern- salem, now the Church in the capital of the empire ; (4) that the problem of reconciling the two great elements in the Church presented itself in a concrete form in Rome (Ph 1"**-), and that in Rome he grasped, as even he had never done before, the greatness of the issues involved (Eph PETER (SIMON) 9...

416, His evangelistic policy could find no truer or more practical expression than a request to St. Peter to visit Rome while he himself was still there. Such an invitation would be a fitting corollary of the Ep. to the Ephesians. If the Churches saw the Apoule of the Gentiles and the leader of the Apostles of the Circumcision taking counsel together and working together at Rome, they would learn the lesson of the unity of the Church as they could learn it in no other way. Moreover, St.

Paul looked forward to his cap- tivity soon ending. Even if he were set at liberty, he was pledged to undertake distant journeys. Whatever, therefore, the issue might be, the Church in Rome would be deprived of his im- mediate guidance ; and as the far-reaching needs and opportunities of that Church pressed on him, he might well realize how manifold would be the gain resulting from the presence there of St. Peter.

It is therefore a conjecture, but a con- jecture supported by no inconsiderable amount of indirect evidence, that St. Paul summoned St. Peter to Rome. It is possible that St. Mark, whom we know to have been the companion of St. Peter, was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Colossians as the messenger and the forerunner of St. Peter. If this account of St. Peter’svisit to Rome is correct, it will follow that he arrived there towards the end of St.

Paul’s first captivity, per- haps in the spring of 61. His absence from Rome when St. Paul wrote 2 Ti we may perhaps explain on the supposition that he had been summoned to Jerusalem in connexion with the death of St. James and the appointment of his successor.* He must have returned to Rome before July 64. 2. The Simonian legend. —The most probable account of its genesis is that it grew out of a mistaken identity (Salmon, art. ‘Simon Magus,’ in Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. p. 682 ff.)

With the Simon of Ac 8 another Simon of Samaria was confused. This latter Simon was a Gnostic teacher, who prob- ably lived at the end of the Ist cent. The confusion meets us as early as Justin Martyr, who, express- ing probably a general opinion, gave the latter Simon a kind of primacy among heretics. He either himself visited Rome or gained a reputation there through his followers.

‘The strange blunder about the statue can hardly have been a private aberration of Justin’s, since it is found in the Gnostic Acts of Petert—a document which seems to be quite independent of Justin’s influence.

But when once Simon Magus had been promoted to the first place among heretics, it was natural that the conflict between him and the chief of the apostles, related in the Acts, should be prolonged into a drama of controversy, the earlier scenes of which were laid in the towns of Syria, while the final denouement was reserved for Rome, which both combatants were believed to have visited. In the development of the story considerations of time were boldly disregarded.

On the one hand, the last scenes of the drama had to be enacted in the reign of Nero in order to connect them with the fact that St. Peter suffered under that emperor. On the other hand, it was natural to bring Simon to Rome not so very long after the events recorded in the Acts—in the reign of Claudius (Justin, Apol. i. 26); and it seemed fitting that St. Peter * Eus. HE πι. xi.: μετὰ τὴν ᾿Ιαχώβου μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτίκα. γινομίνην ἅλωσιν τῆς ᾿Ἰερουσαλὴμ λόγος κατέχει τῶν ἀπόστόλων κα.

τῶν τοῦ χυρίου μαθητῶν τοὺς εἰσέτι τῷ βίω λειπομένους ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ πανταχόθιν συνιλθεῖν χιτιλ. Eusebius places the death of St. James immediately before the siege of Jerusalem, according to the statement of Hegesippus (ap. HH τι. xxiii. 18). Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1), however, puts it between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus. It seems that the latest date which can be assigned to Albinus’ entrance on his office is the summer of 62 (Schurer, HJP τ. ii. p. 188 n.) t Actus Petri x.

: [Simon] me tantum suasit ut statuam Ul ponerem, suscribtioni tali; ‘Simoni iuueni deo.’ PRIER, FIRST EPISTLE should go to Rome when the expiration of the twelve appointed years set him free to leave Jeru- salem (Actus Petri v. ed. Lipsius Pp. 49). Some- what thus does it seem probable that the legend ew, and, as was natural, assumed somewhat ifferent forms—e.g. Simon in the Clementines is rather the heretic, in the Petrine Acts the magi- cian.

The final stage in the evolution of the story was reached when Simon was utilized by the Ebionites for a covert attack on St. Paul. The iod which succeeded the Council at Jerusalem.—Setting aside, then, the Simonian legend as historically worthless, we are brought to the question—What is the probable account of St. Peter’s life after the events at Antioch related by St. Paul in Gal 2 (i.e. probably A.D. 50) and St. Peter’s arrival in Rome (i.e. probably A.D. 61).

The absence of any trace of personal knowledge of the Churches in Asia Minor in the letter which the apostle addressed to them is a strong argu- ment that he had not visited those districts. Though the tradition which connects St. Peter with the Syri Antioch, and makes him the organizer of the Church there, does not (a from the Clementine literature) meet us before the time of Origen, yet in itself it is probable. St. Paul’s narrative in Gal 2 is too incidental and too little to St.

Peter’s credit to have originated a legend. On the other hand, it is natural to sup- pose that the Clementine literature, especially if its Bizthplece was Syria, located the xpostie’s con- flict with Simon in towns in which a still living tradition γτεβεσυθα the memory of St. Peter’s activity.

e are most faithful to the suggestions of the somewhat scanty evidence if we suppose that, after he ceased to make Jerusalem his home, St Peter laboured in the towns of Syria, and not improbably made the Syrian Antioch the centre of his work. It may be useful to state probable results in a tabular form— A.

D, 29-35 Ministry at Jerusalem : towards the close of the period a visit to Samaria (Ac 8), 35-44 Close of the ministry at Jerusalem: a mis- sionary journey in which periods of some- what protracted residence at Lydda, Joppa, Cesarea, and probably other Syrian towns, had a place: somewhat frequent visits to Je em (Ac 113, Gal 1.5, Ac 125%), 44-61 Work in Syrian towns with Antioch as its centre: at least one visit to Jerusalem in 49 (Ac 157), but such visits few.

$1-64 Work at Rome, interrupted probably by a visit to Jerusalem (Eus. HZ Ul. xi.): martyrdom shortly after the fire at Rome in July 64. : Lyrranatuns.—See at the end of the article on 2 Peter. F, H. CHASE.