cheenc03a.pdf

~ ~
.
SIMON PETER
Peter, \riihout fixing the ).cni, that 'he came to Rome
in that same reign of Clnudius' in which Simon came.
According to ii. I;,, Peter in the reign of Claudius must
there have met Philo, who, according to ii. 188, had
come to Rome in the reign of Gaiur Caiigula.
(d) On this point the most important views ore as
fallows :-
(e) For our present main purpose, that of determining
the question of priority as betwen the pre-
Catholic and the Catholic Acts, it results anew from
,vh3t has been raid that we are under no necessity to
ascribe with Ludemann a 'tendency'-change of dater
to the pre-Catholic Actr, or with Harnack even to
regard the stntement of Dionysius of Corinth (above,
§ 2511) 8s to the (approximately) confempoialicous
arrival and martyrdom of Peter and Paui in Rome as
fitting in with history and as supported by earlier
testimony. Even from the side of the Catholic Acts
no objection can be raised against the date 42 A.D..
aa hai,ing been assigned without 'tendency,' for Peter's
srrirsl in Rome. According to the Catholic Acts
Peter is in Rome before Paul; for how long befere
is not stated. This can be taken as an after-effect
of the statement that he wls there from 42 nn..
and the subsequent arrival of Paul can be explained
bv means of the 'rendencv.' which w e shall discuss
2.
ii n inl'er section (see 5 40 b), to make him appear
in Rome along with Peter, just as the statement of
Dionyrius of Corinth is capable of being understood as
a further development of the same tendency, to the
extent of making the arrival of the two (nearly) rimu1-
taneour. Justin alone constitutes a serious objection
against Lipaluds derivation of the date 42 A.D. : for
all that he doer is to place Simon in Rome in the time
of Claudius without raying a word about his conflict
with Peter. Upon this mint, however, we shall hest
be able to forma judgm;nt in another connection (see
!% 39 [f 1, 40 d).
The statements as to the day of death of Peter and
Paui also promise light on the
Day Of death question as to the relative priority
SIMON PETER
only fits in exceedingly ill with the Neronian persecution
to which the murt).rdomr are so readily referred-it
arose out of the burning of Rome in July 64-but also
rests upon a confusion. For 29th June is theduy of the
removal of the relics of the two apostles which took place
in 258 A.D. (above, 9 26 6). The confusion is found hrrt
in the iMartyroiogy of Jerome. Another comnlenloration
is on ~ 2nd February. So far as Peter ir concerned,
the dav on which he assumed the eniscona1 ~, ~. ofice. in
~~
Rome or in Antiuch, is said to be intended (cp Lipsius.
ii. 1 +aq308). .according to Erhez (TU 19 I), it ir the
true anniversary of Paul's dmrh (a rather bold assumptionl,
whilst for Peter its historical character cannot be
at ail established.
(b) if would be naturnl to suppose, if the same day
of the sanre month is eiven for the death of the two
ap0st1es. that the year must, of course, he also the
same. A whole series of ecclesiastical writers from
Prudentiur onwards (last half of 4th cent.), however,
place the death of Paul eraclly a year later than that
of Peter, others only a day later, namely on 30th June
(see Lipriur, ii. lq6-244).
1I~:t:a k (A,~
~nknlxr, to us, 3n.l r..l
.,..y 1- .,,~,l~c,.~~lly ,viz,rno eodcmylle die g1arioSa
morre cum peiro in ",he Roma sub Caesre xerone rgoniwns
COrOnhlUs e3t.
Haying reached this point, let us now endeavour to
rum uo the orovisional conclusions that seen, to
Conclnsion be deducible from our study of the
Apocryphal Acts, in the same manner
from the data of the A-T and Church
~ ~ ~
fathers. (a) In the most important
~ of the ~ pre-Catholic a ~ and d Catholic ~ B ~oints , we have seen that the contents of the ore-
Acts. (a) 29th June, which is given tatholic Acts are the more original as compared kth
at the close of the Catholic Acts for both apostles, not those of the Catholic ; namely, that Peter wtthout Paul
4618