PETER IN ROME?
In tracing the history of the
Church and its writers, one can hardly move from the first century and the
Apostolic era into the earliest records of the second century without
comment. It was no less an historian than
Gibbon who was forced to write, “The scanty and suspicious materials of
ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs
over the first age of the Church.” [Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire (New York: The Modern Library, n. ed., Vol. I, p.
382.] And Hurlbut complains:
For fifty years after St.
Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the Church, through which we strive vainly to
look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D., with the writings of the
earliest church-father, we find a church in many aspects very different from
that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.
[Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1954), p. 41.]
It is for this reason
that some have termed the period from 70 to 170 A.D., “The Lost Century,” for
we indeed know very little about this period except, as Hurlbut noted, that
many changes took place which greatly modified the Apostolic Church of the
first century. We will see these
changes reflected in the literature of those who wrote after the curtain once
again ascended revealing the church and the beliefs of that later period.
Irenaeus
Among the
earliest of the second century writers who mentions Peter and Rome is Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyon, whose writing are dated about 170 A.D.
Writing Against Heresies, he
states:
Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as
this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion
all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, or
vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized
meetings; [we do this, I say, ed. note]
by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great,
the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by
the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [(by pointing out),
ed. note] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of
the successions of the bishops. For it
is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on
account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch
as the Apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
[(faithful men), ed. note] who exist everywhere. [Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,”
American ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe (Vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950; pp. 415-416), 3, 3, 2.]
Here we see the beginning of
attempts to establish the authority and importance of the Roman church by the
claim that it was “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles.” We have already covered in detail
not only the complete absence of Biblical proof, but the clear denial from the
Scriptures that Peter founded or established the Roman congregation. When Paul first wrote to it in 55 A.D., it
was not yet “established” (Rom. 1:11), and we have his claim that
he “strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should
build upon another man’s foundation” (Rom. 15:20). So throughout the entire record until Paul’s
death at Rome, there is nothing to confirm Irenaeus’ bald assertion that
the church at Rome was “founded and organized” by Peter and Paul.
But let us observe again,
that we still have no mention of Peter’s death at Rome under Nero — only for
the first time in our study the suggestion that Peter helped found the church
at Rome.
Dionysius of Corinth
At this same time
(circa 170), we have recorded by Eusebius (and only preserved by him) the
testimony of Dionysius of Corinth in these words:
You have thus by such an
admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and
Corinth. For both of them planted and
likewise taught us in our Corinth. And
they taught together in like manner in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same
time. [Eusebius, Church History, trans. by Arthur C. McGiffert (Vol. I, The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1952; p. 130) 2, 25,
8.]
So to Irenaeus’ claim that
Peter founded the Roman church, Dionysius adds that he likewise “planted” and “taught”
the Corinthians! How is it that Luke
entirely overlooks that noteworthy fact in the Book of The Acts of the
Apostles?
And what are we to make of
Paul’s claim to the Corinthians, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase” (I Cor. 3:6)? Are
we to conclude that Paul deliberately ignores the work of his fellow Apostle at
Corinth? He adds in the fourth chapter
and fifteenth verse, “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers: for in
Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” Again no mention of Peter at Corinth — unless one wishes to
relegate him to the role of a mere instructor of the Corinthians.
And here we learn for the
first time that Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time after teaching together in Italy.
Note that not a shred of proof is given to back these impressive claims
that we are asked to accept only on the word of an obscure Corinthian bishop
long after a stormy and spiritually degenerative history of that same
church. Strangely, these passages are
cited as proof, but they go completely unproved. No attempt is made by
Eusebius, or any ecclesiastical historian since, to reconcile these claims with
the New Testament record, for that would be an impossibility. Are the book of Acts and The Epistles to the
Corinthians to be used as proof that Peter assisted Paul in planting
Corinth? And are the Prison Epistles
and the Pastoral Letters to be cited as substantiation that Peter and Paul
“taught together in like manner in Italy”?
And if these appear as the
preposterous claims they are, then why should we feel obliged to accept that
Peter and Paul “suffered martyrdom at the same time”?
These are not the words of
men speaking the truth according to the inspired word of God, but men of the
same mind who wrote the spurious and apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Peter and
Paul and the many other apocryphal legends about Peter and Simon Magus that
began to be circulated widely after about 150 A.D.
Readers familiar with the
Clementine literature, and the apocryphal Gospels, and Acts, will recall that
there we find the elaborate and fanciful fables of Peter and Simon Magus at
Rome complete with lengthy, detailed conversations between the two arch-rivals,
building up to the inevitable climax and display of miracle-working power in
which the Magician loses his life. Paul
is often present in the scenarios, but always upstaged by Peter. Even Nero is assigned impressive lines and
is seen as a seeker of truth. (See
especially The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.)
Such literature flourished in
the latter half of the second century, and was later noted and disclaimed by
Eusebius. [ibid., (Vol. I, pp.
133-134), 3, 3, 2.] One wonders what
were the motives of those who devised such spurious legends. Were they intent on inventing such fables to
find Peter in Rome at any cost?
Was it necessary to confuse the whole issue thoroughly in order to
prevent the discovery of only one pseudo-Peter at Rome? These are searching questions that probably
cannot be answered at the present time, but the elaborate lengths to which the
apocryphal literature goes — all the same direction — cannot help but raise the
question of motive.
Another question concerns the
degree to which such legends influenced later writers. Peter and Paul before Nero at Rome — that is
the stuff the apocryphal legends were made of.
Certainly the church historians could not claim they were inspired or to
be regarded as canon, but how much of their content did they absorb and put
stock in? We know that the
Peter-in-Rome theories did not get their start in the Bible. Did they allow, indeed, were some quite willing
to let the apocryphal works color their thinking? It is certainly worth noting that it is after
their circulation in the latter half of the second century, that the ideas
contained therein began to appear.
Clement of Alexandria
From fragments of Adumbrations
or Comments by Clement of Alexandria on the General Epistles, we
have preserved through a Latin translation by Cassiodorus a brief record of
Peter at Rome by the Alexandrian Clement.
We should assign this writing to late in the second century or just
after the turn of the third century.
Commenting on I Peter 5:13,
Clement writes:
“Marcus, my son, saluteth
you.” Mark, the follower of Peter,
while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s
equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they
might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter,
wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. [Clement of
Alexandria, Fragments, trans. by William Wilson (Vol. II. The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951; p. 573), Chap. 1.]
Unlike the statements of
Irenaeus and Dionysius, Clement of Alexandria makes no unusual claims, only
suggesting that at some time Peter preached publicly at Rome before
high-ranking Roman citizens. This
statement need present no difficulty unless one is determined to prove that
Peter was never at Rome. But it
certainly could not be used to prove that Peter had a long episcopate there,
that he died there under Nero, on the same day as Paul, etc.
The Development of
Tradition
It seems very
fitting to conclude this chapter with advice and counsel from no less a scholar
than Oscar Cullmann on the subject of these later texts, namely those after the
middle of the second century:
On the other hand, the chief
value for historical study of these late texts, which now in increasing number
assert that Peter was in Rome and became a martyr there, concerns only the
history of dogma; they attest the development of the tradition. In theory the possibility cannot be excluded
that perhaps here and there the basis of the tradition is a good earlier source
which we no longer possess. Yet even if
this is so, we must be fundamentally skeptical toward these later texts, when
we see how in this very period the development of Christian legend
flourishes and how it seeks to fill out the gaps in the New Testament
narrative. Where, in addition,
contradictions between these texts and the early sources appear, their
trustworthiness must be challenged from the start. With this reserve, however, it is interesting to get
acquainted with at least the earliest of these witnesses, those of the second
and third centuries. [Oscar Cullmann, Peter — Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans.
Floyd V. Filson (London: SCM Press
Ltd., 1953), p. 115.]
It is this development of
tradition and Christian legend at the expense of Biblical truth and historical
accuracy, that this author seeks to call special attention to in this
thesis. We cannot now reconstruct with
certainty the events of the first century removed as we are from them by nearly
two millenniums, but we can be, as he suggests, “fundamentally skeptical” in
our approach, especially when we see contradictions of revealed truths and
conflicting versions of the same story.
Further, we must bear in mind
that authors then as now did not write without motives. Fabulous tales of the Apostles were not
written as children’s bedtime stories, nor simply with a warm, nostalgic glow
of earlier, cherished events. They were
written, we can be sure, with the intent of advancing a line of thought or
doctrine, of establishing authority and historicity, of persuading and
convincing the readers of their writing to their conclusions. Truly, “their
trustworthiness must be challenged from the start” if we are not to follow the
development of so-called Christian tradition into error.