cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON PETER
Even if nabvlonin war Peter's most im~artant field
of iabour, it dder not by any means immediate^^ follow
44, Where did that he died there. If it is certain
that he did not die in Rome, there ir.
all the more reason for asking whether
any other place cnn be named with any probai,ility.
(a) Erks (Zl~ihr f. iiiishcngriih. 22, igor, 180-
2.9) names Jerusalem.
In the *re-Catholic lctr it ir not Nero who rentcncer Peter
to dcrth but the city-prcferf Agiipps. By Asrippa, if irarguep.
crnnor be intended the hl. Yiprrniur A rlppa who died in
IZ a.c, Along wiih Asrippa il rncntionef, a? il qer~ecutor of
Peter the emperor's fnend Alblnui whore wrfc wlrhdrew her.
self hir rociety from motives chastity (ahhove, g )j )
1. this Alhinvr Erber dirccrnr the procurator Albinur
ruccecdrd Ferrui in Jud- in 6% AD., and who had a fairhfui
high-toned uiie: while Agxipph on the other h="d he idenlifier
wlrh King AgrippnI1. whowarmastcr ofnorrh-zarreinPnlcsrinc
from 13 to ru A,". (see HERO", 8 13). King Agrippa ir net
known to have been nlarried and Erk prcsumer hlrdomerrlc
cir".,".r."c.s I0 have been :imitsr to those of the Agrippa oi
the ore-Cmholic ~ cts. It is in Palcrrine onlr. not in ~ome.
SIMON PETER
the time of the Srronirn persecution, though it u,ar
not in Rome, the date is by no means to be accepted.
Rut n~irher have we my other mean. of learning the dale of
Peter's death. in particular, re may not ray with Krellkcl
(/osrjhur u. Lircnr, iBg+, p. 183, n. j) thnr he murt have died
before Prul'r last journey to Jcrurrlem hecmse I'nuI, accordini:
10 Aclr 21 ,s. at that datefollndno one bur James at the hen,, of
ths Church ,here.
That Peter never war in Rome has already Lecn
inferred from the NT and the Church fathers (5 31).
of the apocryphal Acts
46, COnChsiOnL)i.~~~~io"
as to Petar,B !huwe& further, that Peter's presence
1" Kome was prrsuppored in Church
aotipity c~rcles not merely after 170 A.D. bur
death
perhaps even from ni early a date as
Of
160 A.D., fhat the purposc oi his
orerence there is to be soueht entiielv in the conflict
~~,
Paul that was controverted, and thnt nothinz but the
-
writing^, moreover, that first point the way clearly to a
recognition of the fact that in the apocryphal Acts alro
the figure of Simon has an anti-Pauline basis (SIMON
hfncus. 3 5). At the sanle time it war also fhrotigh
the Hmilirs end Rerofniiiozr fhat we first became
aware that the harmonious co~operation of Paul with
Peter in Rome was a fundm~entally altered form of
their hostile meeting in Rome reported in the romance
-an alteration made in the interests of the Catholic
church. Lastly, they rhoired us that this romance
had already arisen and begun to take shape in the
lifetime of Paul and the period immediately foilow-
ins In church circles, however, it did not find acceptance
unlil Gnostic features alro had been given to
Simon and thereby the Pauline features had been so
greatly obscured that it became possible to assume a
harmonious instead of a hostile conjunction of Paul with
Peter in Rome. Thus we see thnt the key to the whole
riddle ir found only in the Homilicr and h'enpanion, so that no tradition
recnrdir~s " it survived which could have asserted itself
against the steadily advancing beliei that he had died
in Rome. Here accordingly we must rest, as we have
no more detailed accounts, in particular none from
Clement of Rome, from whom r e should most naturally
have expected them. When Soltau lays it down (pp.
13 25) that no one disputer the martyrdom of Peter in
4625
In truth the interest of the Catholic church succeeded
very well, thanks to great skill, persistence, and un-
Import- scrupulosity, in obscuring the actual
facts of the care (cp the suppression of
the Snee Roman for the tradition according to which Bwnabas
was the first preacher of the gospel in
ChUZCh,
Rome: Bx~ras~s, 6
"
n., l: . vet , it is not
wholly imporrible for us to bring them again to light.
Still, the whole question, after all, is a purely historical
me. A claim on the Dart of the birhoo oi Rome to
iupreme authority over the world would not be
stahlished even if it were a fact that Peter had been in
Rome or that Mt. 1618 f as well as Lk.22;z or Jn.
21x5-17 were genuine. In g 26s. i, it has been shown
1 0 late ~ was the date at which Peter camp to be
4626