SIMON PETER
name used throughout the rest of the book, except in presence
of Cornelius or in the mouth of his messengers, when the style
always is 'Simon whose surname is Peter' (10 5 18 32 1113). It
hardly needs to be said that we cannot assume the author of
Acts to be here following a literally exact report ; we see rather
how ai a literary artist he is taking account of the situation he
is describing. Similarly it is plainly with conscious intention
that in the third tiospel he uses the name Simon (4 38 5 3-10)
down to t h e point at which in connection with the choice of the
apostles (ti 14) he mentions the giving of the name Peter. Only
in 5 8 does he let fall the double designatioii ' Simon Peter' ; we
, I .
mav nerhaos hazard the coiiiecture that the addition of ' Peter'
is due merely to the carelessness of a copyist (it is wanting in D,
in 2 MSS [13 and 691 of the F'errar group and in the old Lat.
codd. a, b, e). Throughout the whole of the rest of the gospel
'Simon' recurs only in the mouth of Jesus (223r) and of the
disciples (L'434). In the only other passage where Jesus
addrcsses the apostle (''2 34) we find ' Peter' (II&pe). "hi.
Iiowe-er, is probably introduced for the sake of the contrast
Jesus in effect says that Peter will be so far from showing him-
self a rock that he will actually deny his master. In the two
p"sages in Acts where Peter :i addressed (1013 117: in the
visioii at Joppa) we also find Peter' (II&pc). It would he
difficult to suggest any special reason for this here ; the author
will simply be following his prevailing cu~tnni.
(a
') In Alk. also we find the same principles operative in
determining the employment of the name Simon. Down to the
choice of the a ostles (8 16) we invariably find ' Simon ' (1 16 q J t :
36), but after ,Rat only once, in the single instance in which the
apostle is addressed by Jesus (1437). Mt. departs from this
only in so far as he adds the surname Peter to the name of Simon
not only when he records the choosing of the apostles (10 2) but
also at the point where he first has occasion to name its hearer
at all (4 la), aud thqs as early as 8 14 he is able to use the simple
designation 'Peter. In the laces where the apostleisaddrtssed
by Jesus hlt. also never uses 'Peter,' but always 'Simon ' (17 z5),
or with special solemnity, 'Simon son of onas' (1617).1
( e ) Similarly, it is in accord with the soleemnit of the moment
at which Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah txat we find Aft.
using here (16 16), though nowhere else, the combination ' Simon
Peter. In M k . it does not occur at all, in Lk. only in 5 8 (see
above, c); in 2 Pet. 1I it is found in B, the Ferrar MSS 13
and 69, and other cursives, but Symeon Peter (Pvpsirv IIiqmq)
is certainly to he preferred, as the form Symeon is rare and
thus cannot easily have k e n introduced into the text by copyist's
error merely.
V, On the other hand this combination 'Simon Peter,' which
as we have seen is so rare elsewhere is the usual designation in
the Fourth Gospel. ' Peter' alone 'is comparatively infrequent
and occurs only where ' Simon Peter has immediately preceded
(144 13837 181116-18~6$ 203f:217a17no4), inotherwords
only in order to avoid a quite excessive sti ness; yet even in
such cases there are several instances in which the more formal
' Simon Peter ' immediately recurs (13 9 206 21 7 6). Jn. agrees
u,ith Mt. in using ' Simon [son] of John' (1 42 21 15-17)in the two
instances where he represents the apostle as directly addressed
by Jesus, with Mk. and Lk. in using ' Simon ' without addition
when the bearer of the name& first mentioned (141).
(K) The Aramaic name Kephri (N?? ; in AT only in pl. Os??
&pat, Jer. 4 29 Job 306) is used only by Paul, who employs
its Grzcised form Kv+ (EV Cephas). Or rather, outside of
the Pauline writings it occurs hut once ; namely in Jn. 142 where
Jesus gives it as a surname to Sininn, with the addition, however,
'which is by interpretation Peter.' Since the name Simon serves
perfectly well as a Greek equivalent for Symeon we can all the
more readily believe that Peter (and Cephas) was not a name
assumed by the bearer himself that it was bestowed upon him
by Jesus. Moreover, Peter wis not at all a current name at
that time. In Josephus it occurs once (Ant. xviii. 6 3 , 0 156)
according to the testimony of the Epitome which in many
instances has alone preserved the true text ; all the MSS, how-
ever, read Protus ( n p i r o r ) which also was a proper name.
According to Pape-Renseler (WUrter6. d.grirck. Eigmnamen),
apart from Christian circles Peter would seem to have been first
brought into currency through Roman influence.
( R ) From what has been said it will be evident that
with NT writers the honorific name of the apostle was
the only one in general currency, and that they used
his proper name Simon (or Symeon) only when there
were literary reasons for doing so. This holds good
also for the author (not hitherto referred to) of I Pet.,
who calls himself (1I ) I I 4 ~ p o o . From the epistles of Paul
we can gather that the Aramaic form of this honorific
name was known even in Galatia (Gal. 1 x 8 29 I I 14) a n d
in Corinth ( I Cor. 1IZ 322 9s 1.55). And in fact this is
not to be accounted for by some such reason as a mere
personal habit of Paul's to call him so ; rather must we
infer from I Cor. 1 1 2 that Peter's own followers had
brought his name in its Aramaic form to Corinth ; for
we m a y be sure that Paul when he attributes the words
1 On the form of the name of Simon's father see J OHN , SON
OF.ZEBEDEE, 8 I, middle.
4561
SIMON PETER
' I [am] of Cephas ' t o the Petrine party a t Corinth is
reiidering their langnage with literal fidelity. Yet from
Paul's twice saying ' P e t e r ' (@l.27J) we must not
conclude that the verses in which the name occurs a r e
from another hand : for along with the Aramaic name
we mag be sure that the Galatians, precisely because it
was a n honorific name, not a proper name in the stricter
sense of the word, would be apprised, whether by Paul
or by some other, of its meaning also.
A . P A L E S T I N I A K PERIOD.
I. A C C O R D I N G TO PAVLAN D ACTS.
11 t h e question is asked uhiiher we ought t o turn for
our most secure data for the life of Peter, the answer
neither t o the Gospels nor
2. Pauline must b e :
notices. to Acts where there is so much that is
open to critical deduction, but t o the
epistles of Paul.
As to the genuineness of these see GALATIANS, $6 1-9; and
on I Cor. 16 1-11,in articular, see R E S U H ~ ~ E C T ~ O N - N A K R A T I V ~ S ,
8s IO,? As regar& Gal. 2 11-13 it niay be added that VBlter,
although holding Galatians to be entirely spurious, sees in t1ie.e
three verses a real historical record which was known to the
author of Acts and by him so made use of for 101-1118 as to
make it appear that not Paul hut precisely Peter, was the first
to make a stand for cable-felldwshiphetween Jewish and Gentile
Christians (iYo;o$os. d.$au!in. Haupt6riefe, ,890, pp. 149.154).
T h e following are the facts we learn from these
epistles.
( a ) Peter was the first to witness a n appearance of
the risen Jesus ( I Cor. 155). As t o the fundamental
importance of this event, see R E S U R R E C T I O N , 37.
(6) +I. three years after his conversion, found
Peter in Jerusalem along with James the brother of
Jesus in a prominent position (Gal. 118f. ) ; fourteen years
later he again found him along with James the brother
of Jesus a n d John the son of Zebedee occupying bhe
position of leaders of the church who had received from
their supporters the honorific title of the pillars' (or
OTOXOC ; Gal. 2 1-10 ; see COUNCIL, 6 ) .
(c) O n t h e occasion just mentioned, that of t h e
' council of Jerusalem,' Peter with James and John was,
at the outset, by no means on Paul's side, and in the
course of the discussions which took place suffered 6im-
self to be brought to concede Paul's contention that
heathen ought to he admitted t o Christian privileges
without circumcision, not o n grounds of principle but
only in view of the established fact of Paul's missionary
success, a fact in which h e was constrained t o recognise
t h e hand of God (Gal. 27-9 ; C O U N C I L , $§ 4, 8).
( d ) T h e fellowship ( K O W W V ~ with
) Paul and Barnabas
which, along with James and John, he then ratified by
joining hands (Gal. 29) was a restricted one. It u a s
based upon the arrangement that the mission to t h e
Gentiles should be undertaken by Paul and Barnabas
whilst the original apostles restricted themselves to tlie
Jewish field-a restriction which they took in a strictly
ethnographical sense, their purpose being t o proclaim
the gospel thenceforward t o circumcised persons only,
not also to Gentiles living in the midst of a Jcwish
population, a n d thus to be in a position in which they
could g o on observing the law of Moses which forbade
defilement by intercourse with the uncircumcised
( C OUNCIL, 9).
( e ) Peter took up a somewhat less rigid attitude when
after a certain interval h e came to Antioch and pnrtici-
pated in the common meals of the mixed community of
Jewish and Gentile Christians there. All the more
harmful was the effect when after the arrival of some
followers (or, it may be, direct emissaries) of James h e
withdrew from this participation, a n d by his example,
at least, if not by express utterances, led the other
Jewish Christians, a n d even Barnabas, t o take the same
step (Gal. 211-21). T h e charge of hypocrisy which
Paul brought against him on this account must in all
probability be regarded as unjust and be modified to
one of inconsistency. The freedom in relation t o t h e
Mosaic law which he asserted by his behaviour on his first
4562
 SIMON PETER
coming to Antioch will have been the result merely of a
genial temper called forth by the pleasant conditions of
that particular community, not the result of any firmly
established conviction. Peter was not so strictly legal
as James, but essentially he was still unemancipated
from the fetters of the law (see COUNCIL, 5 3).
(f)T h a t Peter suffered himself to be convinced by
Paul s argumentation (Gal. 2 14-21)must not be supposed ;
for the incident in Antioch was followed by the syste-
matic invasion of the Pauline Communities by Jewish
emissaries, with which we are made acquainted in
Galatians and Corinthians. H a d Peter recognised that
Paul had right on his side he needed only to assert his
authority and t o call to mind the arrangement indicated
in Gal. 29 and all attempts to undermine the influence of
Paul in the communities he had founded and to win
them back to Judaism would have ceased. T h e leaders
of the primitive church, and among these Peter so long
as he was in Palestine, must be held responsible for a
share in this action against Paul by the withholding of
their veto a t least, if not even by overt action-such as,
for example, perhaps the issue of recommendatory
letters ( z Cor. 3 I). See C OUNCIL , 5 3.
(9) It will be convenient to take up at this point also
the last notices of Peter that are found in Paul, even
though these should possibly lie outside the period of
Peter's activity in Palestine. I n Corinth there was,
according to I Cor. 1 1 2 322, a Cephas-party. That
Peter himself was ever in Corinth is utterly improbable.
No one earlier than Dionysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D. ; up.
Eus. HE ii. 25 8 ; see below, $ 25 a) knows anything of Peter's
ever having been at Corinth. Cp, as against this assumption
only such a passage as I Cor. 4 15. But further if Peter had
followed Paul in Corinth Paul who namis him dith respect in
iJ
I Cor. 9 5 15 5, and in 3 refrains from naming him also out
of respect when one saith, I a m of Paul, and another, I am
of Apollos : are ye not men ? ') would not have expressed him-
self so sharply as he does in 3 10-15 with regard to all those who
had come after him there.
Nevertheless the rise of a Cephas-party in Corinth is
readily explicable. Real disciples of Peter came to
Corinth and the followers whom they gained in the
community there took up from them their watchword :
' I a m of Cephas. ' Now, there was also at Corinth, as
we know, besides this party the Christ-party which was
strictly Judaistic (see C ORINTHIANS , 5 16). Inasmuch
as the Cephas-party remained apart from it, we see
here also another evidence that within Jewish Christen-
dom Peter represented the milder school. I n zCor.
it is only of the Christ-party that we continue t o hear
(107), no longer of that of Cephas.
(h) Finally, we learn incidentally that in his mission-
ary journeys, which in accordance with Gal. 29 we are
to think of as being made in regions having a Jewish
population, Peter was accompanied by his wife, and for
her as well as for himself asked and received sustenance
from the communities in which he laboured (I Cor.
9 4 5 ).
In the accounts in Acts relating to these same events
there is practically no agreement with what we learn
3. Parallels from Paul except on the quite general
in Acts. statement that Peter a t the time of the
council held along with James a prominent
position in the church at Jerusalem. All else is absent,
or otherwise reported.
( u ) As regards the silence of Acts, no one will find it
surprising that no express mention is made of the out-
standing importance of Peter at Paul's first visit to
Jerusalem ; the thing is presupposed (but cp c). It is
all the more remarkable, however, that the book has not
a word to say about the dispute of the two apostles a t
Antioch, about the Cephas-party in Corinth, or about
the Judaistic invasion of the Pauline communities and
the part taken by the original apostles in this ; a n d
that in fact it substitutes for the first-mentioned dispute
another which arose between Paul and one of those
engaged in the conflict, only in this case not Peter
b:it Barnabas, and on a question which, dogmatically
4563
SIMON PETER
considered, was wholly indifferent-viz., as to whether
John Mark should or should not be taken as a companion
on the second missionary journey (Acts 1636-40). Such
a notice is very well adapted, it is obvious, t o counter-
act any representation of the real state of the case that
might have been derived from (let us say) the,Epistle t o
the Galatians or from oral tradition, by its substitution
of another which deprives the affair of any considerable
importance. Furthermore, of any missionary journey of
Peter one learns nothing more than the little that is said
.
in Acts 932 43; for, in spiteof 8256 ( ' they . . preached
the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans '), 814-25
is to be taken less as a missionary journey than as a
tour of inspection (see below, 5 4 b). I n 12 17 we are
told merely that after his deliverance from prison Peter
went from Jerusalem to another place. Whither he
went or what he did there we are not informed. I n
1 5 7 we find him again in Jerusalem as if this were a
matter of course. T h e author of the book has- not
deemed it necessary in speaking of a person of Peter's
importance to give any connected account of his activity.
(6) T h e account of the council in Jerusalem in Acts is
in glaring contradiction with what we read in Paul.
In place of the arrangement with Peter, James, and John
for a division of the missionary field we have a decree of the
primitive Church which is directly excluded by Gal. 2 6 as well
as by I Cor. 8 1014-11I (532-14) and finds its only historical
foundation in a custom of the second century, not at all of the
first (see C OUNCIL. g IO$). In particular, Peter comes forward
at the very beginning of the discussions with a discourse the
dogmatic portion of which (15gh-11) would he appropriate only
in the mouth of Paul ; had Peter actually spoken it he would
have deserved in the fullest degree the reproach of hypocrisy for
his reversion to the Mosaic law at Antioch. The event, how-
ever, on which Peter relies in the narrative part of his discourse
(15 7.9,~). had it been really historical, would have made the
.
council an impossibility from the first for if a Gentile in the
full sense of the word, as Cornelius is rLpresented to have been
in 1028 113, had been received by Peter into the Christian com-
munity, and if the primitive church, by reason of the divine
command followed by Peter in doing so, had given its approval
(115-18), the question would already have been settled and
could not again be raised, or if it had.been raised must have
heen answered by a simple reference to this fact without recourse
being needed to any council (see CORNELIUS, 6 a$, 5).
(c) Finally, even what has been spoken of under (a)as not open
to antecedent objection-the absence of mention of Peter on
the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem-rests upon false
information ; for in Acts 926-30 Paul is represented not as in
Gal. 118f: zz as having visited Peter and ames only but as
having conveked in full publicity with the entire Christian
community of Jerusalem.
Thus, in so far as we are able to control Acts by
the Epistles of Paul, Acts is seen t o have little claim
t o our confidence in anything it has t o say about Peter.
W e can hardly expect to be able to repose more confi-
dence in it in those portions where it is our sole
informant.
T h e opinion is widely held that the trustworthiness of
Acts as regards Peter has been strengthened when it has
*. Other data been pointed out that the first half of
Acts has an older source behind i t
inActs*
T h a t we have to reckon with one o r
more sources becomes particularly plain in the discourses
of Peter (see ACTS, 5 14). in the Pentecost narrative
(S PIRITUAL G IFTS, 5 I O ) , and in that relating to
primitive communism (C OMMUNITY OF GOODS,5s 1-4).
I t can only be regarded, however, as indicative of the
extreme recklessness with which many theologians deal
with such questions if we find them taking for granted
that, once the existence of a source has been made out,
the trustworthiness of its contents has also been forth-
with established. If Acts was composed about 100-130
A. D. its sources may easily have been late enough to be
legendary in character, and even should many parts-
the discourses, let us say-be found worthy of credence,
this would not necessarily by any means apply. there-
fore, to all the other contents as well. T h e temptation
to idealise the primitive Church was only too easy, and.
moreover the general drift or tendency of the final coni-
poser has also to be taken into account as a very im-
portant factor (see ACTS, $5 3-6).
4564
 SIMON PETER
( a ) As for the conversion of Cornelius, it is only
necessary to recall what has been said already (above,
5 3 6) that, regarded as a Gentile conversion, it is an
impossibility unless we a* to take it as having happened
at a date subsequent to the Council of Jerusalem- a
supposition, however, which is also impossible (see
C ORNELIUS , 5 2).
The only possible way of saving some historical kernel for the
story would be by regarding Cornelius as a Jewish proselyte
who had already been circumcised. No such thing, however,
is anywhere said i n Acts (not even in 10 2 zz 25) and the idea is
diametrically opposed to the representation as a whole (see
CORNELIUS $ 3). The narrative is a conspicuous illustration of
the extent 6 which the author could be led away from historical
truth hy his tendency or rooted inclination to regard Peter, not
Paul, as the originator of every progressive movement in
Christianity, and particularly of the mission to the Gentiles.
Thus it is not at all necessary for us to dwell upon the special
difficulties that attach to the closely corresponding visions of
Cornelius and Peter (93.16) as integral parts of the far-reaching
parallelism between Peter and Paul which is to be observed in
Acts (see ACTS, p 4, end).
(6) That Peter and John should have visited Samaria
after Philip's missionary labours there (8 14-25) is very
conceivable. The main thing reported in this connec-
tion, however-namely, that it was by means of the
laying-on of hands of the two original apostles that the
Samaritans who had already been baptised received the
HolyGhost- cannot beregarded as historical (A CTS , $10,
end ; M INISTRY , 5 34c). T h e statement rests upon a
strongly hierarchical idea which, moreover, in virtue of
the parallelism jnst alluded to, is extended to Paul also
(196), and marks out this journey of Peter and John
as one of episcopal inspection. On the unhistorical
character of 818-24 see S IMON M AGUS , 55 I , 13J
( c ) T h e miracles of Peter- the healing of the man
lame from his birth (31-II), of B n e a s in Lydda who
had been lame for eight years (932-35), the raising of
Tabitha at Joppa (9 36-42), and the many works of healing
performed by the apostles which led to the belief that
they could be effected even byPeter's shadow (512 1 5 J )
-are all primarily to b y i e w e d in the light-of the
parallelism with Paul. ince the author of Acts had
at his command a larger supply of materials relating to
Paul than of materials relating to Peter, with the result
that he left out much in order to avoid making Paul
appear greater than Peter (see A CTS, 4, end), it is
natural to conjecture that he would be eager to lay hold
of any item regarding Peter which came to his hand
without subjecting it to any too severe a scrutiny.
The case of iEneas moreover plainly shows how little the
author of Acts felt it necessary to form to himself any concrete
image of what he was relating The course of events cannot in
reality he conceived as occurring in the manner described : Peter
came, looked upon the sick man, and without further preliminary
said, 'Jesus Christ heals thee; arise' and so forth. In this
form, devoid of any indication of a previous conversation with
the suffereror any enquiry a5 to his spiritual condition, the story
cannot possibly have come from the mouth of an eye-witness ;
it comes to us in the form of the most meagre extract where the
interest is merely in the hare fact of the miracle without any
regard to attendant circumstances or to any psychological
features. If, however, the story as we now have it does not
come from an eye-witness its historicity also becomes question.
able even if it he difficult to suppose that the name iEneas is
wholly imaginary. The healing of the lame man in the temple
is accomplished with almost equal abruptness. In the case of
the raising of Tabitha it is worth observing how widely it differs
from its counterpart, the raising of Eutychus (20 7-12). Eutychus
comes to life again not long after his accident and Paul expressly
says: 'his life is in him. But here Peter must first be
summoned from Lydda to Joppa. As regards the wholesale
miracles of healing in 5 1215f::, finally, apart from their astonish-
ing range it has to be observed that the text in this place is wholly
devoid of connection (see ACTS, # 11). Cp further,f; below.
( d ) T h e sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira
( 5 1 - 1 1 ) comes under a different category in so far as it
is capable of being explained, if one so choose, without
postulating any miracle. The naturalistic explanation,
however, will make it all the more probable that in the
course of transmission or at the time when it was fixed
in writing the occurrence acquired a more dramatic
character than originally and actually it possessed. It
can hardly be doubted that the composer of Acts regards
it as a miracle ; but the credibility of his narrative is
146 4565
SIMON PETER
just at this point rendered questionable by the circum-
stance that within the compass of a few verses he sets
forth two wholly irreconcilable views on the subject cf
community of goods in the primitive church (see COM-
M U N I T Y OF GOODS, 5 35).
( e ) With respect to the three imprisonments of Peter
(in 43 518 along with the other apostles, in 123-5 with-
out them) and his two miraculous deliverances (519
126-17), the conjecture has long been current that all
the accounts relate to but one occurrence which gradually
came to be told in different ways.
By separation of sources also it has in some quarters been
deemed possible to show that in the source of chaps. 4 and .'.
there was no word of an imprisonment of the apostles (so, for
example, Bern. Weiss). In 49f: the lame man who has been
healed stands by the side of the apostles before the synedriuin.
This is conceivable only if he had been cited as a witness before
that court or had been arrested along with the apostles. Neither
of these things however is said ; in fact, both are excluded, for
in u. 14 the members of the court take knowledge of his presence
as something new. What is apparently suggested is much rather
that the members of the court, immediately after the healing had
been wrought betook themselves to the apostles in the temple
and that the;r dealings with them took place hrre.
this Spitta finds himself compelled to regard themerit?:
man who has been healed, in 410 (end) and in 414, as an
addition to his sour!e made hy the composer himself-certainly
not an easy assumption. In 528 we should surely have expected
to read that the high priest had taken the accused to account not
only for their preaching of Jesus but also for their escape from
prison, if the source from which 5 28 is taken bad also contained
5 18,f
In chap. 12 on the other hand the picture is very
vivid and it would be difficult to believe that, for
example, the name Rhoda is a mere invention. I n
this case in point of fact there is no need to deny the
imprisonment and the liberation, or even that the
liberation appeared very wonderful alike to Peter and
to all the other persons mentioned ; and yet it admits
of a very intelligible explanation if with Hausrath we
suppose that the angel who brought Peter forth from
the prison will have been the death-angel of Herod
Agrippa (NTliche Zeigesch.(2), 2351 5 ) . With the
death of a ruler the prison doors often opened for those
whom he perchance had locked up more out of caprice
than in any slipposed interests of justice.
(f)There is yet another consideration which tells
against the historicity of the two imprisonments of the
apostles and the miracles wrought by them in Jernsalem.
If they had come forward at so early a date into publicity
so marked as to call for the intervention of the synedriuni,
that body would hardly have rested satisfied with merely
enjoining them not to preach Christ (41821) or with
scourging them (540).
The danger which Jesus by his recent ministry had lxonght
upon the ancestral religion was still fresh in men's niemories.
On the re-emergence of the same danger the synedrium would
assuredly have interposed with the utmost vigour and the per-
secution of the Christians first mentioned in Acts as occurring
after the death of Stephen (8I 3) would certainly have broken
out much sooner and threatened the well-being and even the
existence of the church jnst in proportion to its immaturity
and want of consolidation. In all probability the Christians
found themselves constrained to remain entirely in concealment
for a considerable time. That the original apostles whose homes
were in Galilee should have removed to Jerusalem at so early a
date as is represented in Acts is, moreover, qrite unlikely (see
MINISTRY $ 21 d). I t was only what was quite natural if the
npontaneoLs impulse to present the primitive church in the
most favourahle light led to the view that the original apostles,
and above all Peter, had faced the civil power undismayed and
plainly declared that they were determined to disregard the
prohibition to preach Jesus, and that they must obey God rather
than man (41gf: 529). It was forgotten that such conduct
would certainly have led to their destruction. As to the un-
$8 7-3.
trustworthiness of 5 3 6 3 see, further, THEIJDAS,
(9) T h e portion of Acts relating to Peter which seems
to possess the largest claim to be regarded as trustworthy
is that which records his speeches (with exception of
157-t1, on which see above, 5 3 6). I t must not, how-
ever, for a moment be imagined that they are verbally
or even throughout in substance accurate. What we
read in 116-22, and the coincidences of the other addresses
of Peter with those of Paul, show in the clearest possible
way that they all are compositions of the author of Acts
4566
 SIMON PETER
(see A CTS, 5 14). Observe, moreover, that a main
point in their contents, the proof of the resurrection of
Jesus drawn from Ps. 1610 (Acts 2a7), is possible only
when d (not M T ) is followed, and would thus have been
impossible in the mouth of Peter (see RESURRECTION-
N ARRATIVES , § 3 6 c ) . If these discourses assigned to
Peter agree, in their Christology especially, with what
seems to us to be in harmony with the oldest pre-Pauline
view, this does not admit of explanation as due simply
to the employment of a source of this character. T h e
most important factor is rather that the author of Acts
must himself personally have been attached to such a
view. As he puts it into the mouth of Paul also, it be-
comes possible indeed, but by no means provable, that
he drew it from an old and trustworthy source when he
was making the speeches of Peter.
( h ) Thus it appears that on the whole Acts adds
extraordinarily little of a trustworthy character to what
we already know about Peter from the Pauline Epistles.
RelativeLy speaking the most assured of its additions
would seem to be the fact of his imprisonment and
liberation about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa
(44 A.D.), but without the supernatural features in the
narrative. T h e other remaining facts which are not
open to question, as for example his stay for a time at
Joppa in the house of Simon the tanner (943 106), are
of but trifling importance. As regards Allanias and
Sapphira, E n e a s , Tabitha, Cornelius, it may perhaps
be safe to suppose that Peter had relations with these
persons of such sort as supplied some basis for what
we read about them in Acts ; but what these relations
precisely were remains obscure. Nor are we any better
off when we are told that he often came forward as
speaker for all the original apostles, for we cannot
regard as trustworthy records the reports of the speeches
attributed to him in Acts.
11. A CCORDING TO THE SYNOPTISTS.
Turning now to the earlier period of the life of Peter
there arises-
(u) First, the question of the credibility of what we
read i n m o p t i s t s in regard to this. T h a t the books
6. synoptists were not written without definite ‘ ten-
dencies’ may be taken as proved (see
sources
Bsfor life. GOSPELS, 5% 108-114). Moreover,
such tendencies could come into play
with peculiar readiness where the judgment as to Peter
was involved. T o a Jewish Christian he must have
seemed the leading figure of all ChristenBom, whereas
to a Paulinist he must just as inevitably have seemed
the opponent of the true apostle, an unreasonable
obstructionist, a narrow-minded resister of the real will
of God which required the mission to the Gentiles. Now
where tendencies influence the production of gospels their
natural effect is that judgments which the author per-
sonally holds about a given person or thing are put into
the mouth of Jesus himself in the naive persuasion that
he could not have held any other view than that which
the writer held to be true at the time of writing. If the
student is unwilling to go so far as to suppose that whole
narratives have been freely invented with no other basis
than a desire to exalt or to depreciate Peter, it still
remains easy to believe that an author whose disposition
towards Peter was friendly would be ready to omit or
tone down incidents which told against that apostle,
whilst another whose inclination was less favourable
would suppress or weaken things which told the other
Way.
(6) In its search for such tendencies, however,
criticism has often gone very far astray. To k g i n
with, because the representatives of tendency-criticism
have for the most part entirely dispensed with any
inquiry as to sources of the synoptics. or any attempt
to distinguish earlier from later portions in them. From
the standpoint of pure tendency-criticism it is very
tempting to suppose that the most honorific passage in
4567
SIMON PETER
Mt. about Peter (1617-19) was omitted by Lk. and h l k
because they both were-Mk. in a less degree than Lk.,
it is true- Paulinists. In reality, however, such a
supposition must be rejected-not only for Mk. inas-
much as Mk. was not acquainted with the gospel of
Mt., but also for Lk. inasmuch as the section in Mt.
is exceedingly probably a quite late interpolation (see
GOSPELS, §§ 136, 151 ; M INISTRY , 5 4f.).
(c) Nor is this all ; the gospels freqnently present us
with the opposite of what we should have expected from
the point of view of the tendency-critics.
It is tempting to suppose that it was out of reverence for
Peter that Mt. (174J)suppressed what Mk. (96)and Lk. (933)
report, that Peter at the transfiguration knew not (Mk.) what
to say or (Lk.) what he was saying ; hut where the same touch
recurs in Mk. (14 40) we find that it is suppressed not only by
Mt. hut also by Lk. Tempting, again, is it to suppose
that it is a result of tendency that Lk. (8 51-53) says, not of the
multitude in the house of Jairus, as Mk. (538-40) and Mt.
(9 233) do, but of Peter with James and John and the damsel’s
parents that they laughed Jesus to scorn when he said the
damsel was not dead hut sleeping (cp below, $ i a a ) . Yet
where, according to Mk. (8 33) and Mt. (16 23), Jesus calls Peter
Satan it is Lk. (922) who omits the whole passage. Once
more, it is tempting to suppose that a leading place among the
disciples is being given to Peter when according to Mt. 1724
the collectors of the temple tax approach him with their enquiry
why his master does not pay It, or when according to Mt.
(18 21) he addresses a question to Jesus whilst according to Lk.
(17 +the incident does not appear a t all in Mk.-Jesus gives
the answer unasked. But, on the other side, we find Lk. (12 41)
assigning to Peter an interpolated question which is wholly
wanting in Mt. (2444A); asaying which Mk. (531) assigns to
the disciples in general-the passage does not occur at all in
Mt.-is by Lk. (845) assigned to Peter alone (‘Master, the
multitudes press thee and crush thee’); and where Mt. (15 15)
does the same attributing to Peter and not as Mk. (TIT), to
the disciples t6e request for an explanation bf a parable-Lk.
omits the incident-the answer is recorded in terms not highly
complimentary ~o the speaker : ‘Are ye also even yet without
understanding? What, in fine, are we to say to such
facts as these-that only Lk. (2231 3) has the saying, the
latter half of which is exhibited along with Mt. 1618 3 in
letters of gold in the hasilica of St. Peter in Rome, and that it
is only Mt. (1428-31) who reports Peter’s little faith when he
endeavoured to walk on the water? Baur’s only resource here
(Krit. Untersuch. u6erriie kanon. Evangg., 1847, p. 471)was to
regard the event as involving a great personal distinction con-
ferred upon Peter by Jesus, for which reason it was omitted hy
Lk. As against this we have only to call to mind how high IS
the position accorded to Peter by the last-named writer in Acts
(see ACTS, $ 4).
( d ) From what has been said it will be seen that it
will not be safe to look for tendency in any remaining
differences that may be detected in the accounts of
Peter given by the synoptists.
I n Mt. (10 2 ) Peter is designated in the list of the names of
the twelve as ‘first’ (rrpSyos), in Mk. (3 16) and in Lk. (6.14) fhjs
numeration is absent. In the story of the transfiguration It is
only Lk. (932) who records that Peter and John and James
were heavy with sleep. According to Mt. 26 1 7 s Jesus sends
forward ‘the disciples to make the passover preparations ; in
Mk. (14 13) he sends two only, in Lk. (228) these are said to
have been Peter and John. I n Gethsemane according to Mk.
1433 and Mt. 2637 Jesus takes Peter, James and John to keep
watch along with him, in Lk. (2240) this featkre is absent. The
question as to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is in Ilk.
(133) attributed to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, in Mt.
(2.1 3) to the disciples generally, in Lk. (21 5-7) to ‘some’ (nu&).
Cp, further, 8 7c.
( e ) T h e trustworthiness of every statement in the
synoptists about Peter, even when not open to any
special objection, by no means necessarily follows.
Whether, for example, it was Peter or another who
propounded the question recorded in Mt. 1 8 2 1 or gave
the answer now to be read in Lk. 845 is for the writers
of the gospel narrative a matter of so little importance
that variations of statement could very easily arise out
of mere inattention. Before coming to a judgment,
therefore, regarding the share of Peter in any given
occurrence, it will be necessary previously to scrutinise
the credibility of the odcurrence itself, and over and
above this to remember that even when this has been
satisfactorily established, Peter’s share in it does not at
once follow, unless, indeed, his part in it be the very
essence of the occurrence. In particular, we must b e
specially on our guard against the view-widely spread
though it b d t h a t the second gospel presents in written
4568
 SIMON PETER
form oral communications received by the evangelist from
Peter (on this hypothesis see G OSPELS , 5 148).
W e begin with those accounts in the synoptists which
may at the outset be set aside as unhistorical.
( a ) With regard to the story, found only in Mt.
(14z8-31), that Peter went to meet Jesus on the Sea of
Galilee. but through failure of faith
6’ On began to sink and had to be rescued
the water‘ by Jesus, we find even so conservative
a writer as Bern. Weiss (Leben 2 2 9 ) declaring
that critical investigation imperatively demands that it
be given up as a statement of prosaic matter of
fact, whilst Beyschlag (Ledera /em, 1306) expresses
the opinion that the desire of Peter that Jesus
should bid him come to him on the water is, literally
taken, simply childish, and that the miraculous
power of Jesus was not bestowed upon him in order
that he might be able to respond to every childish
caprice. Both theologians are at one with the entire
critical school in regarding the narrative as having
originally been an allegorical-poetical setting forth of
an idea, and that it came to be regarded as literal fact
only by a misunderstanding on the part of the evangelist
or of the writer whom he followed.
At the same time, it is by no means certain that it was Peter’s
denial of his master that was originally intended to be figured in
the story. In that denial it was not his faith hut his fidelity
that failed the apostle. Had it been his faith, the underlying
presupposition of the story would be that if only Peter had
rankly confessed himself the disciple of Jesus he would have
come off wholly unharmed. As matters actually stood, however,
the worst consequences were really to be apprehended as results
of such a confession, though nevertheless it was his duty to
make it.
( 6 ) W e may be sure that the story of Jesus’ walking
upon the water was originally a parable intended to
exhibit in a graphic way the thought that if his
disciples have faith they will be able to walk with
safety on the troubled sea (of life) (see G OSPELS,
142 a). T h e addition relative to Peter then brings in
an illustration based on the opposite thesis; he who
has no faith necessarily goes down unless he calls upon
the Lord and receives help from him. This view itself,
however, in which Jesus appears as the Lord of succour,
shows by its very nature that it cannot have come from
Jesus himself. H e would not have designated himself,
but, as in his genuine parables, a person by whom God
is meant, as Him from whom help comes. Thus the
later origin of the narrative, already rendered probable
by its absence from Mk., is confirmed from another
point of view. If this be so, we may perhaps go on to
suppose that the reason why Peter came to be selected
as hero of the story was because he was regarded a s
head of the church, and what is related of him was in-
tended to be taken as applying to the entire church (so
Pfleidcrer, Uychrisfenthum, 517,(‘) 1582).
There are other narratives also which require no
,. Other un- detailed proof of their unhistorical
historical character.
( a ) T h e statement in Lk.2412 that
narratives’ Peter visited the sepulchre of Jesus and
found it empty is doubtful even text-critically, and
when its substance is considered cannot be accepted
(see R ESURRECTION -N ARRATIVES , 55 2 c and 21 ;
G OSPELS , 5 138 e, f).
( b ) Along with the historicity of the statements as to
the women at the empty sepulchre must also be given
up the historical character of the notice, found only in
Mli. ( l 6 7 ) , that they received from the angel the in-
junction to tell the disciples and Peter that they should
see the risen Jesus in Galilee. See G OSPELS , 3 138 n , e,A
R ESURRECTION -N ARRATIVES , 21,and, as regards an
allusion in Mk. 167 to a fact indirectly referred to in
this, ib. g 6.
(c) As the withering of the fig-tree cannot beregarded
as historical (see GOSPELS,5s 1376 p, 141,142a), the
statement in Mk. (1121)that Peter called attention to
the fact on the following day also disappears. In
4569
SIMON PETER
Mt. 2120 all the disciples together are already aware of
it, for the tree at the word of Jesus withers away
‘ immediately ’ ; the incident is not found at all in Lk.
I t is difficult to form a definite iudgment as to the
8. Trans- story of the transfig&aGon of Jesus in
Mk. 9z-10=Mt. 171-9=Lk. 928-36.
’mation’ (a)T h e form in which Jesus is here
seen is, on the one’hand. that of Moses when he came
down from the mountain of the law, according to Ex.
3429-35, on the other hand, that in which the exalted
Christ was conceived of, according to P Cor. 3 7-46,
where Paul cites precisely the passage just mentioned
regarding Moses, and that of the angel at the empty
tomb, according to Mt.283 (cp Lk.244 Mk. 165).
Looked at on this side, the scene is accordingly designed
to represent by anticipation the coming heavenly glory
of Jesus, and at the same time, by the presence of
Moses and Elijah, to exhibit it as a fulfilment of tile
OT. Viewed in this aspect, it can make no claim to
historicity.
This would be difficult even were one inclined to concede that
the ‘metamorphosis’ of Jesus did not happen as a physical reality
hut was seen only by the three disciples in a vision ; difficult
still even were there a disposition to reduce the number to one
say Peter, on the assumption that James and John were named
in error partly because in other places also they are mentioned
along with Peter on special occasions as being the disciples who
were on terms of special intimacy with the master (see below,
I I C , 12)) partly because, according to Ex. 249, three inti-
mate associates, Aaron, Nadah, and Ahihu (along with seventy
of the elders of Israel) are also represented as having gone up
with Moses to the mountain of the law. Even so the question
would still remain as to how it was that in the’midst of the
earthly life of Jesus Peter was visited hy the thought which
at once assumed for him the form of a vision. (On the
Kychological antecedents of a vision cp KESURRECTION-
ARRATIVES, 0 34 U . )
(6) T h e transfiguration scene, however, has yet
another main purpose. It contains the divine declara-
tion that Jesus is the Messiah, in the words ‘ T h i s
is my beloved son.’ This voice coincides almost
sxactly with that heard at the baptism of Jesus (Mk.
1I I = Mt. 317 = Lk. 322). If, however, Jesus had
plready, even a t that early date, been divinely pro-
Aaimed to be the Messiah, this second fact would
necessarily rob the other of its value.
To avoid this the following supposition has been made : just
1s the divine voice at the baptism, according to the most modest,
and therefore most trustworthy of the accounts (that of Mk.),
w a s heard only by Jesus the whole Dccurrence admitting of
being resolved into an inAer revelation communicated to him
without external physical accompaniments, so also in the vision in
which Jesus was transfigured only Peter (or Peter along with
James and John) heard that heavenly voice. So, for example,
Rkville (JE!SUSUSde Nazareth, 2204-206 [18971), who therefore
inclines to place the occurrence a t a date shortly before the confes-
+on of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 8 27-29 and 11s). Bacon
Anrcr. J o t r m . of Theol. 1902 pp. 236-265) goes a step further.
He also supposes that it i;a vision of Peter that is described, not,
however, a vision which be had actually had, but one which is
ittributed to him through a transformation of the account relatiiig
LO his confession that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk.8 27-31). The
:ransfiguration scene breaks the connection between Mk. 9 I and
2 1 1 , and comes from a source in which were contained this
md other modifications of gospel narratives that were taken by
.be evangelist to be accounts of new facts.
(c) At the same time, there is no indication in the
:ext that the divine voice was directed to Peter alone (or
Peter and James and John) ; it is indicated with at least
:qual clearness that it is heard by Jesus. If, then, we
lave reason for believing that in the first period of his
mblic life Jesus did not yet account himself to be the
Messiah. but only a prophet and a reformer, this will
ncline us to recognise in the divine voice at the Trans-
iguration a reminiscence of the fact that he only
-eceived his divine authorisation to come forward a s
.he Messiah at a particular point in the course of his
ninistry. The similar saying at his baptism will rest in
hat case upon a n anticipation on the part of the
iarrators, to whom it was inconceivable that the
iesignation by God of Jesus as the Messiah should
lave been postponed to any later date. On this
rssumption also, it becomes reasonable to assign the
mcident that lies at the basis of the transfiguration-story
4570
 SIMON PETER
to a time shortly anterior to the confession of Peter ; for
so long as Jesus was not himself certain by divine
revelation of the fact of his Messiahship he could not
accept the proclamation of it by Peter.
( d ) T h e occurrence itself admits very easily of being
regarded as having taken place in the inner conscious-
ness of Jesus. T h e participation of Peter, James, and
John becomes in that case much less active. T h a t they
were present need not be denied ; but their activity
would then be limited to this- that, after awaking from
sleep perhaps, they received a powerful impression of
the wondrous majesty with which Jesus came to meet
them after he had heard the heavenly voice. The
terms in which this had been expressed they would not
in that case hear directly for themselves, but would
afterwards learn from the mouth of Jesus. The
assertion in z Pet. 116-18 that Peter himself heard the
voice upon the ‘ holy’ mountain does not fall to be
taken account of in the present connection, in view of
the pseudonymous character of this epistle (see PETER,
EPISTLES OF, 9-12).
In the story of the stater in the fish’s mouth (only
Mt. 1724-q),it has above all to be observed that the
9. Stater miracle is only announced, not described as
in fish’s having happened. All the safer, therefore,
mouth. is the supposition that here we are in
presence of a symbolical saying of Jesus.
The section contains two separate thoughts, of which the one
would be quite sufficient without the other. ( I ) Properly speak.
ing, Jesus and his disciples do not require to pay the tax, but in
order to avoid offence they do so. The incident contains the
presupposition that Jesus is the Messiah alike whether the words
attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, or whether
they are erroneously put into his mouth ; along with this it con-
tains (=)also the exhortation to submit to existing institutions
and thus applies equally well alike to the temple tax which w&
exacted in the time of Jesus, and to the Roman state tax which
from 70 A . D . onwards was substituted for the temple tax in the
case of Jews (Jos. BJvii. 66, I 213) and, particularly under
Domitian, was rigorously exacted from Christians also (see
C HRISTIAN , 8 6,v i , end).
I t is in connection with the second of these main
ideas that Peter comes more directly into the story ; he
is to fish for the means of paying the tax. As he is a
fisherman by occupation, the meaning of this symbolical
saying at once suggests itself; by the exercise of his
craft he will easily be able to earn enough to meet this
call upon him. This feature in the story may point to
the authenticity of the saying as attributed to Jesus ; but
it may also quite well have been invented, as every one
in later times knew that Peter had been a fisherman.
After the death of Jesus it would have been less easy
to have invented that other feature- that the produce
of Peter’s industry was to serve to pay the tax both for
himself and f o r l e s z s ; for it is not easy to make out any
allegorical application to later conditions of this earning of
a double tax. Still, it must be admitted that this pericope
is one of the most obscure in the whole gospel history.
Passing from these unquestionably unhistorical ele-
ments, we come next to a series of others which cannot
Other be rejected at once, but, at the same time,
doubtful can just as little be regarded as certainly
To this category belong :
elements. authentic.
(u)all those cases in which Peter is repre-
sented as having said something which in some other
gospel is attributed to the disciples at large (Mt. 1515
Lk. 845 Mk. 133 : see ahove, 5 c , d) or is omitted
altogether although the narrative to which it belongs is
retained in that gospel (Mt. 1 8 2 1 as against Lk. 174,
and Lk. 1241 as against Mt. 2444f: ; see § s c ) .
( b ) To this class falls to be added one instance of a
subordinate action (the preparation for the passover)
which only Lk. (228) assigns to Peter (and John) ; see
S g d : and also-
( 6 ) T h e word which according to all three evangelists
(Mk.1028 Mt. 1927 Lk. 1828) Peter is reported to have
uttered: ‘we have left all and followed thee.’ If the
evangelists are in other places so little at one as to the
authorship of a given saying, agreement in this particular
457=
SIMON PETER
instance cannot here be taken as proving the accuracy
of the report, for their agreement comes only from
mutual borrowing. In any case, whether the word in
question was spoken by Peter or by another the circuni-
stance is too unimportant to allow us precisely here to
place unqualified confidence in the eldest of the three
who is followed by the other two. If Jesus blamed a
questioner this very fact still added to the importance of
the latter (cp below, J 17); but such is not the case
here. Moreover, the question must not be treated
apart from the answer of Jesus (‘ shall receive a hundred-
fold,’ etc.). If Jesus ever gave any such promise to his
disciples, we may be certain at least that it was not in
connection with a question so self-seeking as this. If,
however, the narrative is open to suspicion on this most
important point, it is impossible to feel confidence on
such a relatively subordinate matter as the person of the
questioner.
Other notices there are to which a historical kernel:
or even comolete historicitv cannot be denied : on the
one hand they were important enough to
ll.
notices with impress themselves on human memories
on the other hand they were not so
historical and important as to tempt to a departure from
kernel. historical accuracv ( C D the Drincinle laid
> \ I I
down in GOSPELS, I131, col. 1873, begin.). ( u )
Thus there is no difficulty in believing that Jesus on a
Sabbath day healed Peter’s mother-in-law and other
sick persons, but on the following day withdrew him-
self into solitude and was sought out by Peter and his
comrades with the view of bringing him back (Mk. 129-
38=Lk. 438-43 ; Mt. 814.17 has the healings only).
(6) T h a t the name Cephas (Peter) was bestowed upon
Simon by Jesus may in view of what has been said in
xg be regarded as wholly credible even if the date at
which it was bestowed remains uncertain. According
to Mk. (316)it was at the time when the apostles were
first chosen. A more appropriate occasion but not on
that account historically established would be that of
the confession at Caesarea Philippi with which Mt. (1618)
connects it (see M INISTRY , 4, end). If Mt. already
when Peter’s call is recorded ( 4 1 8 ) and again at the
choosing of the apostles (10 2 ) says : ‘ Simon, who is
called Peter,’ he is, of course, not to be taken as intend-
ing to indicate the time at which the name was given,
but simply as wishing to apprise his readers that this
Simon was the man whom they already knew as Peter.
Lk. (614)likewise has on the occasion of the choosing
of the apostles the words ‘ Simon, whom he also named
Peter.’ By this, however, he perhaps does not mean
to convey that the name was bestowed by Jesus then,
but only that it had been bestowed by him at one time
or another.
( c ) Equally natural is it to recognise faithful remi-
niscence in the statement that in Gethsemane Jesus took
Peter, James, and John to watch with him, and that
nevertheless they fell asleep (Mk. 1432-42=Mt.2636-46),
even although we cannot be certain that this last
happened three several times. This last doubt, how-
ever, is no reason for giving the preference to Lk.
(2240-46)who mentions the incident as having occurred
but once, and that in the case of all the disciples, for
as he unquestionably was acquainted with Mk. the
simplification here must be explained as due merely to
absence of interest in the details of the story.
In the case of the raising of Jairus’ daughter also-
( u ) No difficulty will be felt in recognising true remi-
niscence in the statement that Jesus suffered no one but
l a . Jairus, Peter, James, and John to go with him
daughter. to the house or (besides the parents of
the girl) to enter the room where she lay
(Mk. 5 37-40).
If Mt. (9 23-25) has nothing about this his silence is to be
connected with the fact that here in othe; particularsalso he is
notably much briefer than either Mk. or Lk., just as he is in
three other miracle narratives : that of the Gadarene and the
herd of swine which immediately precedes (Mk. 5 I-ZO= Mt. 8 28-
4572
 SIMON PETER
34= Lk. S 26-39), that of the healing of the man sick of the palsy
(Mk.2 I-rz=Mt.9I-S=Lk.5 17-26) and that Of the lunatic boy
(Mk.I) 14-29=Mt. 17 14-20),where'lk. also (9 37-43) is so short;
there is also the of the imprisonment and death of John
Lk.s divergence (J 51-j3) is presumably not so seriously intended
as it has been represented above (s j c ) in verbal strictness to be
-namely, that it was the parents and the three disciples who
laughed Jesus to scorn. Perhaps when he wrote the words
'and
('~:p), all were weeping and bewailing her,' Lk. was
thinking not of the five persons named immediately before, but,
like Mk., of the multitude assembled within the house, and has
only failed to bring this to clear expression. In any case he has
retained the separation of the three disciples from the rest.
( b ) As the occurrence is the only accredited one in
the Gospel history which must have presented itself to
those who witnessed it as a case of raising of the dead
it is very conceivable that the presence of only three
disciples should have impressed itself upon the memory.
Whilst the raising of the widow's son at Nain (Lk. 7 II-
1 7 ) and of Lazarus (Jn. l l r - 4 4 ; c p J OHN , SON OF
ZEBEDEE, $5 z o a , 356, 37u) cannot be regarded as
historical. no more exception need be taken to the
raising of the daughter of Jairus than to the resuscita-
tion of Eutychus (Acts 207-12), if only one take as
literally the words of Jesus, ' the child is not dead but
sleepeth,' as one does those of Paul, ' his life is in him.'
According to Mk. Jesus spoke these words before he had seen
the girl and it is very easily conceivable that information recelved
from tde father ma have enabled him f o form this judgment ;
but it is also possibye that this element in the story arises from
unconscious modification of the real fact and that it is Lk. who
is in the right here when he represents Jesus as uttering the
words in presence of the girl, even if this representation does not
rest upon the direct testimony of an eye-witness but upon altera-
tion of the text 6: Mk.
T h e account of Peter's call in Mk. 1r6-20= Mt. 4 18-22
is an excellent example of shortening and condensation
13. call. of a fuller narrative by tradition. It is un-
thinkable that in this scene no words but
these of Jesus should have been spoken: 'Come ye
after me and I will make you to become fishers of men.'
Peter and his comrades Andrew, James, and John must
assuredly have had previous opportunity of making the
acquaintance of Jesus and must on their side have
had some conversation with him. N o eye-witness could
possibly give so colourless an account as that in Mk.
and Mt. T h e later narrators, however, had no longer
any interest in dramatic details or in the psychological
processes which resulted in the decision of the four
fishermen. T h e central action, the call given by Jesus,
alone engaged their attention, and for the purpose of
edification which they had in view when they circulated
it, and as an example for the converts whom they wished
to incite by it, the narrative may have seemed
beautiful and precious just in proportion to the sndden-
ness with which the call of Jesus came to Peter and his
comrades, and the absolute promptitude of their obedi-
ence. Apart from this, however, Mk. and Mt. unques-
tionably present the most trustworthy account of the
undoubtedly historical call of Peter.
The story of Peter's draught (Lk. 51-11) falls to be
adduced here as a parallel although in so far as we are
14. Draught advancing from the less credible to the
more credible order of narratives its
of fishes. proper place in the discussion would
have been much earlier. It constitutes one of the few
examples we have in the Synoptists of a consciously-
framed allegory being put forward in the form of a
seemingly historical narrative in order to set forth a
particular idea ; this idea is in point of fact quite clear.
( u ) First of all it is certain that the scene is
intended as a substitute for what we read in Mk. and
Mt. about the call of Peter and his comrades ; for Lk.
nowhere narrates this last, and on the other hand intro-
duces its main point at the end of the passage before us
(v. I O ) : ' from henceforth thou shalt catch men.'
( b ) At its beginning Lk. places the scene in which Jesus
teaches the multitude standing on the shore from a boat
(53). Now, in Mk. (415)and Mt. (131-3) this is the
scene in which certain parables are delivered ; but Lk.
4573
SIMON PETER
avoids giving it in the parallel passage dealing with
these parables (g4), Thus we have ~ k6 ,an artificial
, composition fro111 various elements and it becomes
\ ,
the funciion of fisher of men'is'esercised by means of
teaching ; if then we find Jesus engaged in teaching at
the beginning of our pericope this indicates to us how
the draught of fishes that immediately follows ought to
be taken : namely, not as relating to takes of literal
fish but in the deeper sense as relating to the capture of
human souls. Thus the idea is precisely the same as
that in the parable of the net in Mt. 1347, only without
its reference to the subsequent separation of the good fish
from the bad. ( d ) T h e narrative before us, how-
ever, admits of still more definite interpretation in detail.
Simon with his comrades has toiled in vain the whole
night through; now, on receiving a special command
from Jesus, he makes a n unexpected haul. This has
already been rightly interpreted by the Tubingen school
as referring to the difference between the practically
fruitless mission to the Jews and the highly successful
mission to the Gentiles. In the latter, Peter received
a special Divine command and this was necessary in
order to overcome his original aversion to such an
undertaking (Acts 109-22). ( e ) T h e launching
forth into the deep also will admit of being in-
terpreted as referring to missions to heathen lands
as compared with the less venturesome putting o u t
a little from the shore, although it is not said that
the fruitlessness of the night's toil is caused by the
proximity to the shore. (f)T h e sin of which
Peter becomes suddenly conscious (n.8) is thus by no
means sinfulness in general- reference to this were but
little called for by the circumstances- but definitely the
sin of failure hitherto to recognise and practice the duty
of evangelising the Gentiles as befitting and in accord-
ance with the will of God. (g)W e are now
able to perceive the significance also of the place where
Lk. has brought in the calling of Peter.
He introduces it at a latex point than Mk. and Mt. In
particular it is preceded in Lk. by the rejection of Jesus at
Nazareth (416-30), which on a small scale foreshadows the
rejection of Jesus by the entire Jewish people (see GOSPELS
$ ~ o g b ) . It is appropriate that it should be followed by th;
command o f Jesus enjoining the mission to the Gentiles, and is
in harmony with the principle carried through by the same
author in Acts (see ACTS,5 4, middle), according to which Paul
reaches the gospel to the Gentiles in each city only after it has
gee, rejected by the Jews. In the gospel, by placing the calling
of Peter at a somewhat later period, the author has brought
about the awkwardness that Peter has to be brought into close
relations with Jesus even before his call, at the healing of his
mother-in-law (4 gsJ+even although his name is suppressed in
4 42, the parallel to Mk. 1gbwhilst the occasion of the draught
of fishes, in itself considered, appears to be the first meeting of
Peter with Jesus.
In this we may perhaps find a hint that Lk. saw
the significance of this pericope as referring to the mission
to the Gentiles (or perhaps even invented it? see below, i )
and in accordance with this gave it the place it now
occupies. ( A ) , The naming of James and John
as those who, according to n. 1.5,follow Jesus along
with Peter is still more noteworthy. W h y is it that
precisely Andrew, the brother of Peter, is absent-
Andrew whom nevertheless Mk. (116) and Mt. (418)
mention in immediate juxtaposition with him? I t can
hardly be by accident merely that by this omission the
names left are the names of the three who according to
Gal. 29 were the ' pillars' of the primitive church and
who at the Council of Jerusalem. though at first averse,
i n the end gave their sanction to the mission to the
Gentiles ; it can hardly be mere accident, even although
there the James intended is n o longer the son of Zebeder
but James the brother of Jesus. ( i )Further, be
it noticed at how late a point they are introduced.
The narrative so runs that almost down to its close Peter alone
figures in it along with Jesus. Helpers such as are necessary
where many nets are in use he certainly has, according to vz.
4.6 and u. 9 (on et. 7 see below, k) ; hut it is not thought worth
while to 4ve their names, and they must therefore be regarded
as subordrnate persons like the hired servantsin Mk. 1 20. After
4574
 SIMON PETER
all have been grouped together in a. g by the phrase ‘all who
were with him’ (rbvrac ro6r d v a h ; ) the addition ‘as also
James and John ’ @po&os 62 ai ’I&wpdv aai ’Ioivvqv) comes in
strangely ; but moreover, after they have been named Jesus
goes on to address the words ‘fear not for henceforth thdu shalt
catch men,’ to Peter alone, whilst yet ’according to v. I T James
and John appropriate it also.
All this would seem to indicate that the narrative
originally named Peter alone, and that the reference
t o James and John was only introduced into it after-
wards. T h e object of its introduction in that case
would have been to restore agreement with Mk. a n d
Mt. by the naming of several apostles who had been
simultaneously called and yet a t the same time t o
restrict their number to that of the three ‘ pillars.’ It
will hardly, however, be safe to attribute any such
intention to a n interpolator ; rather must it be put to the
account of the redactor who had the plan of the whole
book in his mind. If this be so, we shall have t o
suppose that Lk. did not himself invent the story of
Peter’s draught of fishes, but that he had met with it in
writing or in oral tradition and that its meaning as
denoting that the mission to the Gentiles was the institu-
tion of Jesus himself was fully manifest to him.
( 4 ) Now a t last we are in a position to form a judg-
ment regarding the second boat mentioned in v. 7 and
its occupants.
4 s they are spoken of as ‘fellows’O.&OXO~) of Peter and his
subordinates it might appear at first sight as if they ou-ht to :b
identified with James and John who are called ‘Gartners
( ~ L Y W Y O of~ Simon in 7,. IO. The inappropriateness, however,
which has already been pointed out in the naming of James and
John.in a. IO as additions to the ‘all’ (rLvTar) of o. 9 would by
no means he got over by this identification ; for the ‘fellows
( ~ C T O X O L ) also of v. 7 are included in the ‘all’ of v. 9. But as
the ‘fellows’ ( p 6 m p ~of ) a. 7 exercise a n independent activity
and have a boat of their own their names, had they really been
James and John, would certiinly have been mentioned already
in a. 7 and not held over till V . IO where no independent activity
is attributed to them.
Thus we must seek to ascertain their names from
their work. They are called in to help because Peter
a n d his comrades-in whose number James and John
are thus included-are unequal to tlieir task unaided.
This applies to no one but t o Paul and those with
him. In actuality he was the originator of the
mission t o the Gentiles, and not one who had merely
been called in to assist; but we must reflect that
here the dominating presupposition is that it was by
the original apostles that this mission was begun,
a t the direct command of Jesus, or of God. So
Acts 109-22 157, so Lk. 2447, so Mt. 2819; so, still,
Justin (A$&!. i. 393 455 5012, Dial 42, begin.). On
such a view of the matter, Paul and his comrades can
only figure as helpers subsequently called in. T h e two
boats by which the fish that had been caught were
brought to land thus signify, not the mission t o Jews
a n d to Gentiles respectively, but the mission of the
original apostles and that of Paul. That of the former
was to the Jews a t first but afterwards was extended t o
the Gentiles also, that of Paul was to the Gentiles only.
Jesus from the beginning makes use of Simon’s boat ;
but this eventually proves insufficient. (I) Whether
the touch in v. 6 that the nets threatened to break be
simply a graphic decoration of the situation, or whether
it too have an allegorical meaning-namely, that through
the mission to the Gentiles the.unity of the church both
before and a t the Council of Jerusalem, and in the dispute
between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal.21r-ar) was
threatened with disruption, as, for example, is suggested
by Carpenter (The First Three 1890, vi. 5 I,
pp. 206-208)-must remain undecided, as no such mean-
ing is unmistakably suggested by the words. So much
as this, however, is rightly emphasised by Carpenter-
that the author of J n . 2 1 found this reference in our
passage ; for his remark in n. IT that for all the multi-
tude of fishes the net remained nevertheless unbroken is
clearly intended to be set against that of Lk., and
indicates that the unity of the church had not come to
4575
SIMON PETER
harm. Already in Mt. 1 3 4 7 we find the net employed
as a figure for the kingdom of heaven.
Peter’s denial of Jesus is a fact as certain as his call.
Even a thorough-going Paulinist would not have in-
16. Denial vented it against him-quite apart from
the question whether in the absence of
ofJesus. any tradition he would have found any
credence had he done so. ( u ) On the other hand, it is
possible to question whether it happened exactly thrice,
or whether the number three belongs to a later develop-
ment. That the scene gained in dramatic character as
it was handed on by one narrator to another is shown
by Lk. 2260, according to which the eye of Jesus fell on
Peter after the third denial-a circumstance of which
Mk. and Mt. know nothing (as to the cause which
rendered this change possible see below, 5 1 9 r ) .
Doubtless, merely in order to be able to explain how the
whole night was passed, the interxral between the second
denial and the third is given in Lk. (2259) not as ( a
little while’ (so Mk. 1470 and Mt. 2673), but as ‘about
one hour.‘
(a) Still more insistent is the question as to whether,
and if so in what form, Jesus foretold the denial of
Peter. From the outset we must regard as later
additions the words of Jesus, found only in Lk. ( 2 2 y J ),
which foretell not only the temptation that is about t o
come upon Peter, but also the ultimqte stability of his
faith, with the added exhortation: ‘ D o thou, when
once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.’
Their principal theme already is that Peter is to he the first to
believe in the resurrection of Jesus (see RESURRECTION-NARRA-
TIVES, 5 37), and in presence of such a prediction relating to a
more distant future the passing denial of Peter seems like an
insignificant intermezzo. It is difficult to regard as probable
such gentleness of judgment on the part of Jesus in this so grave
a moment, even should one have no difficulty in attributing to
him such a foreknowledge of the future as is presupposed by Lk.
Besides, in Lk. the prophecy of the denial is placed in the
supper chamber, not as in Mk. and Mt. on the way to
Gethsemane.
(6) On the other hand, it is by no means improbable
that, on the last evening of his life, in conversing about
what lay before him, Jesus should have expressed a
doubt as to the constancy of his disciples, that Peter
should have declared his own with emphasis, and that
the doubt should thereupon have been expressed anew
and perhaps in very drastic form. If Jesus actually o n
this occasion uttered the prediction that Peter would in
a n exceedingly short time deny him, we still are not
compelled to suppose that the prediction was meant
otherwise than conditionally, t o some such effect as the
following : ’ should it so happen that thou fall into
grievous temptation t o deny me thou wilt not have
constancy enough to resist it.’ As for the threefold
repetition there is much reason to apprehend that the
prediction of Jesus as to this was afterwards made
much more explicit than it had been, in view of what was
known or believed to have actually happened.
( d ) T h e same holds good of the specification of time :
before the cock crows (Mt. 26 34 = Lk. 22 34) ; and in a n
intensified degree of that given in Mk. (1430) : before
the cock crows twice. Indeed, the additional state-
ment-found only in Mk. (14687z)-of the fact that
the cock actually was heard to crow twice, is a clear
sign of the secondary character of our canonical Mk. a s
compared with Mt. and Lk. (see G OSPELS, 5 I 19 c).
Even the textual criticism of the passage seems to show that
this datum is one which crept only gradually into the text of
Mk. In v. 68 the addition K& bhdrrop i+&jY?ueu is so weakly
attested that it is omitted by WH and does npt,appear even on
the margin ; still, there is certainly a hiatus If In a. 72 we read
‘and straightway the second time the cock crew’ wlthout any
previous mention made of the first time.
( e ) Lastly, the fact of the c o c k s having crowed at all
has been sometimes called in question by r e s o n of the
fact that, according to the Mishna (B&Z /iammd 7 7), it
was forbidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem.
It was expressly permitted, however, we read, to purchase
them to be killed, or to receive them as presents for the same pur-
pose (i6.109), and it is testified that on one occa5ion a cock was
stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being (a child)
4576
 SIMON PETER
CEduyydth, 6 I ; see all the passages given in Brandt, Evapzg.
Gesck., x & g , 32J). Thus, the fact of the cock crowing cannot
be shown to be unhistorical ; yet neither can it be shown with
certainty to be historical. Cockcrowing (dhc~mp+via) is,
according to Mk. 13 35. the third of the four night-watches into
which the night was divided by the Romans (see DAY,$ 4).
This division into four iscurrent in the NT (Mk. 648=Mt. 1425
Acts 12 4), although the lsraelites originally divided the night
into only three watches (Judg. 7 19, cp Lam. 2 19 Ex. 1424
I S. 11 TI, and, in all probability, also Lk. 12 38). As the second
Roman night-watch which ended at midnight is called 'mid-
night ' ( p o o v & s r o v ) , we must suppose that the cockcrowing
from which the third touk its name originally denoted the time
at which it came to an end, that is, about 3 A . M . The saying
of Jesus could thus very easily have run in this form: ' before
cockcrowing ' [i.e. before three o'clock to-morrow morning]
thou shalt have derhed me,' without any intention to predict that
directly after the denial a cock should literally crow ; and with
equal ease might the view have arisen through a misunderstand-
ing, that Jesus had actually foretold this detail, and that the
prediction had been fulfilled.
Amongst the most certainlv assured facts of the life
0 Messiahship of Jesus had to he kept secret.
of Peter must be ranked that of the confession he made
16. Confession at Czesarea Philippi (Mk. 8 27-30 = Mt.
at CIssarea 1613-20=Lk. 918-21). ( a )Even Wrede
(Das MessiaJgeheimniss in den Evan-
Philippi. gelien, 1901, pp. 115-124, 237-239)
does not venture- positively to pronounce it unhistorical
although he also says that one need not shrink from
such a view if it seem to be required.
According to Wrede, Mk. believed that Jesus had kept his
Messiahship a secret from the people throughout the whole of
his life, hut had communicated it to his disciples though without
producing understanding on their part. N i t till after the
resurrection of Jesus, according to Mk. did any real recogni-
tion of what Jesus was begin. Wrede bLlieves that this view of
Mk. is historically false, but nevertheless considers that it
dominates the whole of his gospel, and further, that Mk. is not
conscious of the frequency with which it is traversed by his
repeated statements, according to which the Messiahship of
e m s all the same did not remain a secret. It must be urged
{owever, that the confession of Peter is little in harmony wit;
either the secrecy observed about the Messiahship of Jesus or
the failure of the disciples to understand it.
( b ) Wrede endeavours, therefore, a t least to lessen
t h e importance of the confession as much as possible in
Mk.'s connection, pointing out that it is only in Mt.,
which was written later than Mk.,that Jesus put a high
value upon the confession. It is the fact that in Mt.
16 18f. only the designation of Peter as a rock can be
regarded as historical, and this, too, without our being
able to be certain that it was given to him just then (see
s§
5 116 ; MINISTRY, 4, sa, b). It has further to be
observed that by the form in which the question of Jesus
is put in Mt. the scene is made unintelligible.
Whilst, according to Mk. (and Lk.), Jesus asks 'Who do the
people say that 16.3 am?' he is represented in Mt. as having
asked 'Who do the people say that the son of man is?' Mt.
himself allows us to see that this is not the right form ; for in the
form of the second question of Jesus he coinSides with Mk. and
Lk. : 'but ye, who do ye say that I (pP) a m ? I n so far as 'son
of man' is a designation of the Messiah, according to the form
of the first question in Mt. the answer-vir. 'Thou art the
Christ,' would already have b'een given by Jesu;in the question.
Yet this form of the question presumably is due not
to unhistoricity onMt.'s part, but to intention. Already
in Mt. 1023 1240 1341, and especially in 1433 ( of a
truth thou art the Son of God '), all which passages are
wanting in Mk. and Lk., the Messiahship of Jesus has
been proclaimed. At this stage, therefore, the appro-
priate question in 16 13 is n o longer, Whom do the people
say that I a m ? but only, Whom, more exactly, do the
people say that he who is already known as the Son of
Man is? Accordingly, in M t . , the answer of Peter
does not run simply as in Mk. ( ' Thou art the Christ,'
ub €1 d Xprurlr ; similarly in Lk. ' the Christ of God,'
T ~ VXpwrLv TOG &OD), but there is added, as the most
important of all, the addition : ' t h e son of the living
G o d ' (6 uIbs roD 0 ~ 0 0TOG <&Tos). This last title
plainly must be regarded as expressing more than ' the
Christ ' (6 Xprurls) or than ' S o n of Man,' and therefore
denotes Jesus not as, let us say, in an ethical sense a
Son of God after the manner of the OT, that is, as
one who subordinates his will to the will of God as a
son does in presence of his father, hut in a metaphysical
sense as a being proceeding in a supernatural way from
4577
SIMON PETER
God, a meaning which is not necessarily connected
with either 'Messiah' or 'Son of Man.' Thus ne
have here a dogmatic development.
(c) Granted, however, that Mt. in the points just
mentioned goes beyond the original record, it does not
necessarily follow that he has also altered the situation
in an unhistorical sense by the words assigned to Jesus
in 16 17 which are not met with in Mk. or Lk. : ' flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my
Father,' etc.
Even should Wrede he correct in saying that Mk. attaches to
the confession of Peter just as little importance as to the words of
the demoniacs who. on his remesentation.more than once (1 24 5 7)
oyplied IO Jesus the Uinc p'redicatc a i ' h e r applie- h&,':d
that on t h i s aLcount Jesus tiow not pr&c Fctyr, I h t , ju,t ii? i n
the cz,e sf the drmoniac., merely bids him he s i l ~ n t ,11 i s \I.:#). of
looking at the matter would simply be in each instance only a
consequence of the view attributed by Wrede to Mk. that the
As a historical fact, however, apart from the repre-
sentation of Mk., the occurrence could in no case h a r e
elicited such a judgment on the part of Jesus. For
even in the representation of Mk. Jesus assuredly does
not act upon the plan of concealing his Messiahship ;
he studiously seeks to elicit an expression of it from the
disciples. It is presupposed in this that they have not
a s yet recognised him as Messiah. It is thus a moment
of the greatest possible importance when the words
' Thou art the Messiah ' are for the first time spoken by
them.
( d )T h e injunction to tell no man is also, even without
the theory of Mk. spoken of above, very readily intelligible
in the mouth of the historical Jesus, inasmuch as he
cannot have been without apprehensions lest the people
should misunderstand his Messiahship, and perhaps set
their hopes on. him as one who was to free them from
the yoke of Rome. Nevertheless, the scene retains its
importance as marking a turning-point in the conscious-
ness of the disciples, and can therefore quite appropri-
ately he spoken of as a divine revelation accorded to
Peter. I n view of the importance it thus possessed, it is
also easy to believe that it should have engraved itself
upon the memory of the disciples and taken a secure
place in tradition-unless one were to regard it as pure
fiction. Against this, however. as Wrede also has
perceived, there are various considerations, amongst
them this, that it is assigned to a definite locality in the
journey to C z s a r e a Philippi, which seems to point to
definite recollection. On the point that Mt. 1 1 2 7 gives
no ground for doubting the actuality of Peter's con-
fession, see J OHN , S O N OF ZEBEDEE, § 25b.
Immediately on Peter's confession follows in all the
synoptists the first prediction by Jesus of his passion,
death, and resurrection (Mk. 831f. =
l,. as Mt. 1621 = Lk. 922); and in hlk.
( 8 3 1 f i ) and Mt. (1622f . ) it is added
that Peter had reproved his master, b i t \+-asin turn
rebuked and addressed as Satan. Here it must be
again remarked that not only the predictions of Jesus
regarding his resurrection, but also the detailed predic-
tions of his passion and death are open to grave doubt,
and least probable of all is it that precisely at the
moment when Peter had uttered his confession for the
first time-a moment which must have been one of the
most joyful in all his life-Jesus should have expressed
himself as he did (see G OSPELS, 145e , f). This is
not equivalent to saying that Jesus on no occasion in
the later period of his public life ever had or expressed
the thought that suffering and death might be in store
for him. On some such occasion may very well have
happened the scene between Peter and his master
which now stands immediately after the great confession.
The expression ' Satan ' by its very strength is its own
guarantee that none of the later narrators could have
invented it ; in fact, the entire scene is wanting in the
evangelist t o whom tendency-criticism would have found
least difficulty in assigning it (see above, 5 b, c).
4578
 SIMON PETER
111. ACCORDING TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
I f we turn now to the utterances of the Fourth Gospel
18. Less regarding Peter, we shall find that some of
BtronglJl them rest upon those of the synoptists and
divergent have merely received a Johannine colouring ;
but that others, where they contain new
pointe. matter, cannot lay claim t o historicity.
( a ) The nearest approach to the synoptic account
(Mk. 14 26-31 and 11) is made by the Johannine i n describ-
mg the prediction of Peter’s denial (In. 1333-38) ; yet even
here we already see clearly the Johannine colouring.
It is not as in Mk. and Mt. the adjoining reference to the
dreaded scattering of the disciples that gives Peter the occasion
for making his promise never to leave Jesus ; it is a specifically
Johannine thought which in a quite similar manner has already
been brought forward in 7 33f: 8 PI, and which, moreover, as we
so often find in the Fourth Gospel, lends itself to misunder-
standing as possessing at once an obvious external meaning
and a hidden spiritual sense : ‘ Whither I go, ye cannot come.’
Peter, like all the interlocutors of esus in the Fourth Gospel,
takes it in the surface-meaning: ‘Lord, whither goest thou?
. .
. Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now?’ As regards
the time at which this was said, Ju. agrees with Lk. against
hlk. and Mt. (see above, $ 15i
b).
( b ) I n the account of the arrest of Jesus a legendary
development is apparent in t h e Fourth Gospel i n so far
as here (1810)the name of Malchus the servant of the
high priest is given; it is not mentioned in the synoptists.
Equally legendary perhaps, but perhaps also deliberately
followed, is the other development according t o which
Peter is named in the Fourth Gospel as the follower who
wielded the sword whilst the synoptists merely say : ‘ A
certain one of them that stood by’ (Mk. 1447), or words
to the same effect.
To this, moreover, it has to be added that it is only in the
syuoptists that any motive can be found for the stroke ; it is at
the moment when Jesus is being seized (so Mk. and Mt.) or
about to be seized (so Lk.) in consequence of the treachery of
Judas. In Jn., on the other hand, the entire cohort of 500 (or
1000) men has fallen to the ground ; Jesus voluntarily surrenders
himself and all that he asks of his captors is that his disciples may
be allowed to escape unharmed (184-9). Lastly, the word with
which Jesus rebukes the sword-stroke receives a Johannine form.
In Mk. it is not repqrted at all : Lk. (2251) has it quite briefly :
‘Suffer ye thus far. Thus what lies at the basis of Jn. is Mt.
52-54 ; but in Jn. 18 II this is compressed into the question i
%he cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
B y this question is set aside from the outset by the Johannine
Christ a thought which the Jesus of the synoptists earnestly
cherishes for a time-that involved in the prayer that ‘this cup
might pass from him-exactly as in 12 27, where the words are
to be taken as a question : ‘What shall I say? (Shall I say :)
Father save me from this hour?’ (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE,
0 26 a).
Jn. has left o n one side the statement of Lk. (2251)
that Jesus healed the ear of the servant of the high
priest. Perhaps the miracle seemed t o him purposeless
in such a situation, or hardly worthy of the dignity of
the Logos.
( c ) T h a t the parallel t o t h e confession of Peter (Mk.
827-30 and 11s) is t o be found in Jn. 666-71 is almost
universally conceded. I t is indeed the only scene in
which, as in the synoptists. i n answer t o a question
expressly addressed t o all the twelve disciples, Peter as
their spokesman makes a confession to Jesus ; moreover,
it follows soon after the miracle of the feeding of the
multitude (in Mk. a n d Mt. after the second miracle).
This makes the variations all the more remarkable.
The place is not in the neighbourhood of Czsarea Philippi
hut (according to 6 59) at Capernaum. Peter doesnot designate
Jesus as the Messiah, nor can he; for this has already been
done by Andrew (141), and indeed still higher predicates have
been already employed by the Baptist (115 2 34). by Nathanael
(1 49) and by Jesus himself (9 13 16 4 26, etc.7: The contents of
P e d s confession have thus lost, still more completely than in
Mt. (see 9 166), that character of novelty which gives it its his-
torical importance. The expression ‘the holy one of God’
(6 Zyms TO$ @EO$) also, employed by Peter, is new only in the
Fourth Gospel, but carries neither in the literal meaning of the
wolds nor by virtue of the application made of it in M k . 124=
Pk. 434, by the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (cp
the holy one,’ b 2ycoc, Rev. 3 7 I Jn. 2 1 0 ; ‘Aaron,“the holy
one of the Lord ’ ’AapAv T ~ +ou Y K U P ~ O V , Ps. 106 16 ; the holy
and just,’ bZy& rai SLarop Acts 3 14), apredicate transcending
those previously made use Af in the Fourth Gospel. Fnrther-
more, the words of Peter are entirely in the Johannine, didactic
style : ‘ words of eternal life ’ (cp 3 34-36 6 63 12 4 9 ~ ;3 we have
4579
SIMON PETER
believed and know’ (cp 1127 17 3 I Jn. 4 16). Finally, we note
the absence of any word of recognition on the part of Jesus such
as we find in at least Mt. 16 17.
( d )According t o Ju. 144, Hethsaida is t h e city of Peter
(and Andrew) ; according t o Mk. 121 ~ g = L k .431 38, as
also according t o Mt. 8 5 14, it is Capernaum.
In explanation of the discrepancy it is suggested that Peter
(and Andrew) originally belonged to Bethsaida ; or recourse is
even had to the wholly inadmissible exegesis that according to the
change of prepositions in Jn. 144 Philip was in virtue of his then
domicile ‘of’ Bethsaida (&ab BqOra&) but by birth he was ‘out
pf’ Capernaum the city of Andrew and Peter ( $ K n i s r6hcos
Av8pCou cai l l h p o v ) . In reality it is even uncertain whether
the naming of Bethsaida has claim or only makes claim to his-
torical accuracy. Cp PHILIP, col. 3700, n 2.
In the account of the denial of Peter (Jn. 18 15-27)-
( u ) T h e most important differences as compared with
the synoptists (Mk. 1454 66-72 a n d 11s) are that Peter gains
,access to the palace of the high priest
19.
through the intervention of an ‘other
disciple,’ and that his repentance is not recorded.
Upon both these points see 5 22, begin.
development is seen in the touch that he who gives
Legendary
occasion for Peter’s third denial is said to have been one
of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of
him whose ear Peter cut off. Furthermore, the series
of the three denials of Peter is broken, not, however, as
in Lk. (2259)between the second a n d the third, and not
b y the simple statement that an interval of about an
hour had elapsed, but between the first a n d t h e second,
and this b y the account of the whole proceedings i n t h e
palace of Annas and of Jesus’s being led away t o t h e
palace of Caiaphas.
(6) Spitta (ZUYGesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristenthums.
1158-168, 1893) conjectures the original order of t h e
verses t o have been : l a $ 19-24 14-18 256-27.
That is to say : Jesus was brought from Gethsemane to the
palace of Annas ; here Caiaphas (not Annas) investigated the
case then Annas sent him to Caiaphas’ thereupon arrived first
the )’other disciple’ and thereafter P e k in the courtyard of
Caiaphas (not Annas) and Peter denied his master three times
in unbroken succession. When, shortly after the publication of
the work of Spitta, the Syr. sin. became known, it was found that
in the main it followed the same order, viz. vu. IZ$ 24 r4f:
19-23 16-18 256-27. Thus here also the case is heard before
Caiaphas, but in his own palace not in that of Annas ; here also
Peter comes into the court of Caiaphas not of Annas ; here also
there is a threefold denial without intervening incident and
zr. 25a (‘now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself’)
which coincides with the close of D . 18 falls away, but the
entrance of the ‘other disciple’ into the court of Caiaphas does
not immediately precede, but happens some considerable time
before.
(c) Notwithstanding this very large measure of agree-
ment neither of these two rearrangements of the verses
can be regarded as the original. If it was, as Spitta
thinks, Caiaphas who dealt with the case of Jesus in
t h e house of Annas, the expression in v. 24 that it was
Annas who sent Jesus t o Caiaphas is as awkward as it
could possibly be. Syr. sin. has in point of fact avoided
this awkwardness b y reporting n o hearing at the house
of Annas a t all. In this way, however, the addition in
Syr. sin. of ‘ the chief priest ’ ( T ~ Yd p x i e p i a ) to Caiaphas
(Ka?d+au) i n v. 24 becomes all the more impossible if
this verse follows immediately upon v. 13 in which
Caiaphas is named as high priest of that year. Before
all others, however, this question will ohtrude itself:
In what way, if it be not the original, could the present
order of the verses have arisen I
Spitta’s answer is that the copyist’s eye wandered from 1’. 13
to v. 24 and wrote therefore its continuation (the present vu. 14-
18) by mistake immediately after v. 13. When he had reached
D . 18,that istosaythemiddleofPeter’s threefold denial, hebecame
aware that he had passed over the entire hearing of Jesus, along
with his removal to the palace of Caiaphas (19-q), and forthwith
introduced these verses into his text immediately after v. 18.
Only after he had done this did he proceed to finish the account
of Peter’s denial (25 6-27); but with a view to this, in order to
resume the thread that had been dropped, he had first, in the
exercise of his own discretion, to repeat the close of v. 18, and
that in the somewhat modified form which we now have in a 5 a .
It is indeed hard to say in what possible sense we can call a
man who goes to work thus a copyist. As if we did not know
from a hundred examples how it was that copyists proceeded
when they happened to have omitted anything : they placed it
on the margin and inserted merely a caret in the text. The
4580
 SIMON PETER
same observation holds good, of course, if it was the order of Syr.
sin. and not that of Spitta which the ‘ copylst’ altered into that
which we now have. All the more does it require to be borne
in mind that often the case is plainly the other way ; the author
of Syr. sin. has allowed himself the most arbitrary changes of
the text.1
of that of Syr. sin. or that conjectured by Spitta, no
reason can be imagined; a n d thus Spitta had n o
choice but to have recourse to his untenable hypothesis
of a copyist who yet was n o copyist nor yet a redactor
either.
( d ) Although Syr. sin. and Spitta have thought the
present order of the text capLble of improvement it
nevertheless remains intelligible enough even without
transposition. T h e new element in Jn. which neither
Syr. sin. nor Spitta could or would remove is the fact
that Jesus before being delivered over to Pilate was
taken to two separate places, to the house of Annas
and to that of Caiaphas.
According to Mk. and Mt. he is brought only to the ‘high
priest ’ (Mk. 14 53 ; Mt. 26 57 adds the name of Caiaphas) and
from there taken to Pilate (Mk. 15 I = Mt. 27 IX).Mk. and
Mt., however, record two sittings of the synedrium on the case;
the first during the night, the second in the morning. Lk. knows
only the second of these (22 66-23 I ) ; in his narrative it is not
till morning that the synedrium meets ; in the night Jesus losks
upon Peter after his third denial and thus be is still in the court-
yard, not in the court-room, and in accordance with this repre-
sentation is in the COIIISC of the night only mocked and buffeted
(Lk. 226165), which likewise is to be pictured as taking place in
the courtyard. On this view it remains a possibility that Lk.,
like Mk. and Mt., thinksof themorningmeeting ofthe synedrium
as being held in the same high-priestly palace into which Jesus
was brought from the first. The words (Lk. 22 66), ‘they led him
away into their council’(&$ ayov a h b v e k sb muC8prov ahGv),
in that case mean only that Ley led him away (out of the court-
yard) into the chamber of the same palace in which the synedrium
meanwhile had assembled. This interpretation is favoured by
’their’(a6rGv). Yet it is also possible that Lk. thinks of the
synedrium as assembling in another house-most easily in the
place of their solemn meetings. The ‘ led away’ (dmjyayov) in
22 66 will then mean that they led Jesus into another house ; and
the word actually is so used in Mt. 27 2, and still earlier in 26 57
~
1 Even in the pericope before us, for example, an instance
occurs in w. 16f: The portress is here called first ‘ the portress’
(i, Bvpwpic) simply, then afterwards ‘the maid, the portress’ (+
u a i 8 r u q 6 Bvpwpis). This is a noticeable circumstance and
finds its explanation only in this, that when she is mentioned
for the second time, it is said that she charged Peter with being
one of tl:e followers of Jesus. According to the synoptists this
was done by a maid (rradiuq, Mk. 1466 and Ils), and in remi-
niscence of this Jn. subsequently added this expression to his
‘portress’ (6 Bvpwpis). Syr. sin., however, has ‘porter’ for
‘ portress’ in v. 16 and makes ‘the maid, the portress ’ ($ 9rar8iuq
+ Bupwpic) in v. 17 into the porter’smaid. As other examples of
arbitrary alterations which (unless where otherwise stated) are
quite peculiar to Syr. sin. we may mention : (Mt. 16 13) ‘What
do men say concerning me? who tken is this son of man? (on
this, cp above $ 1 6 b ) ; or (Lk. 1666) ‘and he [i.e. the steward]
sat down guiclly and w o t e them’fifty ’ and (16 7 6), ‘he sat
down inrmediately [ a n 4 wrote them fourscore’; or (Jn. 8 57-
with u*sah), ‘thou art not fifty years old and l a t h Adrakam
seen thee?’ or Lk. 2 4, where as in D the last clause ‘because
he was of the house and family of David,’ is introdked after
rr. 5 , and, moreover, altered into ‘because they were 60th of the
house of David.’ Syr. sin. also knows how to make important
changes in the text by simple addition. Examples are : Jn. 663
(it is the spirit that quickeneth t k 60dy : 6utye say the body
profiteth nothing), or 12 3 (now Mary took an alabaster box of a
pound of ointment of pure good spikenard, of great price, and
j o y e d it on the head of /esus while he sat at meat, andske
anointed his feet), or Lk. 23 37 (addition : and t h y pkced also
on his heada c r m n of t h r m ) . Of additions arbitrarily made
for decoration or smoothing we may give such instances as
(Lk. 11 29), ‘ no signfio71z heaven shall be given unto them,’ or
(Jn. 36, at close), ‘6ecause God is a Zizning spirit’ [Tert. and
codd. of Itala, etc., have simply: quia deercs s/riritus est], or
(11 39), ‘ Martha said unto him, Lord, why are thzy Zytingaway
the stone? Behold, he stinketh ; or (11 41), ‘then those inerr
wko werq sfanding, came near and raised,’ or (20 16), ‘and she
understood him and answered saying nnto him : Rabhuli.
And she ran towards him that she might touch him’ [last
clause also in Nc.a the Ferrar codd. 13, 346, 543, 826, 828, syr.
pal., syr. hkl., Vg.’MSS mm, gat, armach, Cyril.
458 = 4582
SIMON PETER
= RIk. 1 ~as also
~ are~ 1 led’
, (+yo,,) in ~ k . 2 3I and led away’
6
(&,,jv,y,a,) Mk. 15 I,
(e) In any Jn’ t o understand
it a n d accordingly to take from Lk. the transference of
Jesus from one house to another.
house to which Jesus could appropriately be brought, only the
pa!ace of the high priest. The house however, to which Jesus
IS in the first instance brought is alsd called (Mk. 14 53 and 11s)
that of the high priest. At this point, therefore, came to the
assistance of Jn. the statement in Lk. 3 2 Acts 4 6, according to
which Annas also was high priest ; and that the evangelist was
following this isapparent (although he nowhere designates Annas
as high priest) in the fact that he calls Caiaphas ‘high priest of
that year’ (1149 51 18 13). In fact it has even been held that
Lk. regards Annas, whom, alike in 3 2 and in Acts 46, he places
before Caiaphas, as the real high priest in Jesus’ time, and thus
that he thinks with Jn., that Jesus was brought from Gethsemane
direct to the house of Annas.
Be this as it may, in any case Jn. seeks to remove
the discrepancies of the synoptists. H e follows Lk.,
as he understands him, in so far as h e represents Jesus
as having been brought from one house to another ; but
Mk. a n d Mt. in so far a s h e represents some hearing- of
the case to have taken place during the night, only with-
out the nocturnal meeting of the synedrium affirmed in
Mk. 1 4 5 3 = M t . 2657, a n d then before the high priest
alone-by whom Jn. understands Annas. In all prob-
ability therefore Jn. thinks of the meeting of the synedrium
as having been in the house of Caiaphas, but without
describing it.
(f) Thesepoints once cleared up, we are in a position t o
understand the story of Peter’s denial in Jn. In making
the denial begin directly after Jesus has been brought in
after his arrest, Jn. is simply following Lk., who in fact
knows of n o hearing of the case a t all by night ; in
representing the denial a s having been interrupted h e
also is following Lk. in so far as in this gospel (Lk.
2259) the series of the denials is broken by a n interval of
something like a n hour ; in Jn., however, the interruption
is caused by the account of the first hearing which Jn.,
departing from Lk., takes from Mk. a n d Mt. T h u s it
becomes perfectly intelligible, and not to be regarded as
a copyist’s error. that the statement about Peter’s
standing a t the fire and warming himself is repeated
from 1 8 1 8 in l825a when the story of the denial is
resumed. I n precisely the same way Mk. 1467 repeats
from v . 5 4 that Peter was warming himself, a n d Mt.
2669 from v . 5 8 that he was sitting in the courtyard.
T h a t Peter’s arrival in the courtyard and his denial
should a t all costs b e narrated without interruption
cannot in reason be demanded ; it is not so related even
in Mk. and Mt., a n d if Jn. allows the interruption to
come in a t a later point than they do, this is mainly
due, as has been shown, to the fact that he is here a t
first following 1.k.
T h e call of Peter is described in the Fourth Gospel
ao. Call. ( 1 35-42) in a manner entirely different from
that which we find in the synoptists
. - (see
above, $ 1 3 ) .
(a) I t occurs, not b y the lake of Galilee, but in the
neighbourhood of the Baptist, who has not yet been cast
into prison (as he has in Mk. 1 1 4 Mt. 4 12 Lk. 3 ~ g f ),: but
himself points his disciples to Jesus ; those whom Jesus
wins to his side do not appear as fishermen, but-at
least the first two (1 35-40) and probably Peter also-as
disciples of the Baptist. Peter is not called first, but
only after his brother Andrew a n d an unnamed person
by whom is almost universally understood the beloved
disciple ; of those who are represented in the synoptists
as then having been called, John (even if it be he that
is intended by the companion of Andrew) remains un-
named, and his brother James is left entirely unnoticed.
 SIMON PETER
( b ) I t would be perfectly useless to try to identify the
two accounts. Harmonistic efforts confine themselves
to the assertion that Jn. is describing an earlier
occurrence than that recorded in the synoptists. That
in Jn. is spoken of as the ‘call to friendship,’
that in the synoptists as the ‘call to disciple-
ship.’ Any such distinction, however, is quite
arbitrary. T h e ’ follow nie’ (&oko&9a p o i ) which
Jesus addresses in Jn. 1 4 3 to Philip, holds good sub-
stantially, it does not need to be said, also for those
called before Philip, for it is hard to see why we are to
regard them as entering into less intimate relations with
Jesus than he. The same verb, however ( ~ K o ~ o u ~ & ) , (f)
standsinMk.118 M t . 4 ~ 0 2 2L k . 5 1 1 , w h e r e i t i s t h e ‘call derived from Lk. (2429) ; ‘ i t is towards evening.’
to discipleship’ that is described. And even apart from
this it would be quite contrary to history that Jn. should
allow it to appear as if those disciples who had been
called osly to friendship remained henceforward con-
tinually in the company of Jesus (as in point of fact he
does in 2 2 12 17 22 3 2 2 42 8 27 31-38, etc.), if the actual
truth had been that they had again parted from Jesus
and thereafter received from him the new call of which
the synoptists speak. Similarly it would be quite con-
trary to history on the part of the synoptists to represent
the calling of the four disciples as made at first sight
without previous acquaintance on their part with the
master, if the truth really were that three of them had
already been called to friendship by Jesus.
This unhistorical distinction between the call to friendship ’
and the call to discipleship’ is carried to the farthest extreme
when the ‘call to apostleship’ is added as a third stage which is
seen for the first time in Mk. 3 14-19 and 11s in the choosing of the
twelve. If we find Jesus alxady saying to Peter and Andrew
in Mk. 1 18 ‘ I Will make yon to hecome fishers of men ’ (similarly
Mt. 4 19 Lk. 5 IO), how are we to describe this if not as a call to
apostleship? The choosin of the twelve is not to he understood
as if the four disciples who%ad already been chosen were now
chosen a second time, and that to a higher dignity, hut only in
the sense that the other eight were newly chosen, the four who
had been chosen already being now enumerated along with the
others merely in order to make up a complete list of twelve.
( c ) If then the accounts of Jn. on the one hand and
the synoptists on the other are mutually exclusive, it is
necessary to make our choice between them. The
precise specification of day and hour in Jn. (1zg 35 39 43
2 I ) might seem here to be conclusive evidence that the
Johannine account proceeds from an eyewitness : but
this becomes plainly impossible when it is considered
how here the Baptist and the first disciples are repre-
sented as possessing a knowledge regarding the Messiah-
ship, and indeed a150 regarding what goes far beyond
this, the divine nature of Jesus, such as in actual fact
they cannot have possessed at least at so early a period,
unless indeed we are prepared to reject as completely
unhistorical the whole picture of the synoptists and
especially the novelty of Peter’s confession at Czesarea
Philippi. T h e supernatural knowledge also regarding
Peter and Nathanael (Jn. 1 4 2 47f. ) which is attributed
to Jesus is quite inconsistent with the synoptic
representation.
( d ) T h e unhistorical character of the Johannine
account has therefore to be conceded even although we
find ourselves unable to explain in detail in every case
how it was that Jn. came to his far-reaching divergences
from the synoptists. So much is clear- that he takes
no trouble whatever to bring himself into line with them,
but seeks to give a representation that is based purely
on ideal considerations. Just as Jesus is already in the
prologue introduced as the Logos of God, and just as
the Baptist straightway proclaims his Godhead, so also
must the disciples be brought to him from the beginning
through their recognition of this truth, and arrive at this
recognition through the agency of the Baptist, whereby
the latter brings to its most effective fulfilment his
function as forerunner of Jesus. ‘ H e must increase,
but I must decrease’ (330) ; this is the motto of the
whole history of the call: in this a150 lies the reason
why the first disciples of Jesus must previously have
been disciples of John.
4583
SIMON PETER
(e) A further object Jn. has in view is the relegation
of Peter to a subordinale place. Elsewhere (see 0 22)
this happens only so far as the beloved disciple is con-
cerned ; but here we see it also in operation with
reference to Andrew who elsewhere comes forward but
little in the Fourth Gospel.
The cause of this feature lies perhaps in sympathy with the
story of the walk to Emmaus, with regard t o which story Thoma
(Genesis d. /oh.-Evang., 406.408 [1882])supposes that it served
Jn. as model. Two disciples come to know Jesus as Messiah ;
the one is afterwards mentioned by name, the other not ;on their
return to Jerusalem it is found that Jesns has appeared also
to Peter. Thus the last-named takes the third place.
T h e tenth hour also (Jn. 139) Thoma thinks to be
Such combinations, however, are from the nature of the case
uncertain. What is certain is that Jn. reckons the hours of the
day in Jewish fashion (19 14) and thus means here 4 P.M. Others
consider, in view of I Jn.218 ( ‘ i t is the last hour’), that the
author intends to divide the whole development of the world
into twelve periods, which he allegorically calls hours, and that
what be means to say is that the entire development was already
nearing its end when Jesus appeared, whence the pressing
necessity for accepting Christianity. Or it is pointed out that
according to Philo (1 347 532-536 2 183-18g. ed. Mangeyf ten is
the number of perfection, with which accordingly Christianity
as the age of perfection hegins.
Such a way of interpreting the ‘hour,’ however, does
not harmonise very well with the specification of
individual days in 129 35 43 2 I. I n this specification one
may have much greater confidence in discerning the pro-
gress of the narrative from one step in the revelation of
Jesus to another. In any case neither it nor the speci-
fication of the tenth hour, even if no quite satisfactory
explanation of the latter has yet been found, can be
urged as evidence that the author was an eyewitness of
what he describes.
As with the call of the disciples, so also in the case of
the footwashing. the Fourth Evanaelist has not supple-
21. Foot- meyited a synoptic n c m t i v e but has sup-
__
planted it.
washing. ( a i Tn.’s silence as to the institution of
the sacrament o i t 6 e supper would otherwise be inexplic-
able. Equallyinexplicable, however, would be the silence
of the synoptists about the footwashing had this event
actually happened. Even Lk.,to whom appeal is
made. in 2224-27 records only the thought which under-
lies the footwashing, not the fact. One may as well
deny the historicity of the synoptists altogether if one is
determined to maintain that they had heard nothing of
so important a n action of Jesus which must have ini-
pressed itself so indelibly upon the recollection of those
who witnessed it. On the other hand the rise of the
narrative of the footwashing out of the passage just
cited from Lk. (2224-27) is very readily intelligible, and
that too even Without our supposing any deliberate
fiction on the part of the evangelist (see J OHN , SON OF
Z EBEDEE , 35 [f]). T h e transaction taken as a
whole is the highest activity of ministering love (13115
34f: ) ; in so far as it occurs at a meal, it stands on a
level with a love-feast (dydrrq : Jude 12)and thus is a
substitute for the sacramental supper which J n , , by
reason of the data on which he was working, could not
report as having been held on the last evening of the
lifetime of Jesus (see J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE, 23).
(6) T h e person of Peter comes into consideration in
connection with a subordinate point only. H e hesitates,
out of reverence, about suffering his feet to be washed
by Jesus, but is met with the answer : if I wash thee
not thou hast no part with m e ‘ (138). Whereupon
Peter would have hands and head washed also, but is
told : ‘ he that is bathed needeth not save to wash his
feet but is clean every whit : and ye are clean,’ etc.
(13x0). From v. 8 it follows that the footwashing is
intended to be not a manifestation of love merely, but
also at the same time in some sort a means of grace ;
from n. I O it follows that this means of grace Has been
preceded by another of a completer character-by which,
especially in view of the expression ‘ he that is bathed ’
(6 X~hou&os), one can only understand baptism. T h e
4584
 SIMON PETER
meaning would then he : H e that is baptised needs only
a psrtial rerie\val of the effrct of baptism.
Ift!ir cffeit of baptism i, hcld to be the forgiveness of sins,
the four wadling IYUIIIJ repre5eiit a niuan, .,fgr3ce which likewise
L r i t w > a forLivenesa thuugli nut so coniprclirnaive JS that of
bapttrm 1x11only ut'p.wti~u1araiii,iuniinitreJ after Imptism. I t
i. quite in,pd,>iblt. t l u t L y this Inran. of grace aliuuld he meant
For neither doe, it- action set in
it ndinit of being cmceivell uf a i
pr:ial d i l y : :ind mxbover, in the circle of ideas of the b'uurih
Clu.1~1 it,plays nu f u r t h e r ynrt (wee j u l i v , >ut d~ % E H ~ L ~ ~ri . E ,
62 , l j e ~ i n . ) . H u t a k o tiie th~,ugIit a i a bccund rcpentuuc
following upi~iithat sc.~ledi n baptiwi, a,, :uygcstecl i i i Hermx,
( I .,'A. 11. 2 4 , .Ifuuak 4 j), is quite remote. I he forgivcnes., of sins
tliar ~uiir\tnntlyneed, rcnewal after baptism id better heen in the
sncrainr:it uf thc supper, i n :i.:rord:tnce with l l t . 262s: 'uiito
rc.riria,ioii uf <ill,.' \\'ith ttii.. i t a:rces that the eusharirt, i i
t ~ p ~ n t Iupri+n ~d, ,101, and thxt the foutrvn~hing n i rcpresrnting
the a,<ape i, intriiderl t u bc a substitute for the euiharist.
( c ) Tlirre IS rieverthcles:, the ol)jection that forgiveness
of sins (Ioes not figure i n the Johanninc conception of
the ruchnrist ( 6 2 6 - 6 3 ) and just as little i n the express
interpretation of the footwashing, which according to
1 3 8 is regnrtlcd rather ns a means of con~munion with
lejus. 'This is the effect of the ruchnrist in like rn;inner
;iccording to J n . , and tlius ive are led by this consi11er;l-
tion also to the conclusion that by tlie footwashing the
eucharist is intended. I t c:tnnot bedenierl, however, that
hcre the figire of clcansing which is involved in the idca
uf wnslting has disappeared, and the picture t h u s loses
its vividness.
id, I t hccomts all the more necessary therefore to
note that i i i Jn. 1 5 3 u e have in all probability an
authentic interpretation of the footw;isliing. As in 13 10
so also hcre we rcnd: # y e are clean,' only not ' b y
baptism,' or by the supper,' but. ' txcause of the word
which I have spokcti unto you.'
Thi, declaration i5 very like that made i n 6 63. After very
grrat wcight has becn laid in 6 j3-58upon pliy~icalparticipation
i i tile sz:lcmmentalmeal, we find i t nevcrtlieles, s n n depreciated
a,-.tin i n favour of :I purely spiritual view which thinks of
fcll.>w4iipwith C1iri.t as reali5ell .ulely by means of his word : idea would be perfectly transparent if the precedence of
'tlie llrrh prufiteth nothing; the worda that I have spukcn unto
you are iyirit :tnd are life' J~istSO i n 13 3 also the mere recrp-
tion of t h e wurdq of jesu5is given n3the n i e i l n ~of piirification in
p h - e u f i n y wcratnenral act what.ocvcr. And this reception cf
the tvord, a. c x t . i n g 13t I 1 c c u n n r ~ t ~ oof
n Jn. 13, conhizts specially
in filtilmciit of the comninnd d Iuw. O n this \iea, 13 10
uould me:,>. he who In. !)<enImptised is i n need of nu further
sacramental RCI. : all h a t in needed i q t h t he should folluu~tlie
commandmvnt uf love. At the snnie time this doe> not perfectly
stiir either the words or the thought. If it is t u fit the words
tlicse uught t u run ioniewhat thus : ' he t i n t is bathed needed
not +are i o Unih the feet o / o / h w s ': nncl nz fix the tliouyht--
tli:,t !\ hich Zeprccistes the \,slue ~f sncrmrcntnl a c f -me ~ iiiib.es it is included in this that Peter has not a b yet come to do so.
t h v c\tenciun u f i t which one would expert to bsptiim nlao.
( t , ) 'I'hc v i c v i1i~Iic3t~:d b y 1 5 3 is thus better suited by
the renfling u i M c , sewral Vg. 11SS Orig. and Tcrt.
according to which 'exccpt the fcct' IC: p i robs ~ 6 6 ~ s )historical. If, nevertheless, a deeper truth is to he sought in it,
is !%anting. In this CJLC ' hc th:it is bathed ' t b XrXo~r- the
p v o s i will no lonqt~rrefrr to bxiptism hut t o font\r-:isliing ;
he v h o hits rewivtxl the foot\r;ishiiig. tlixt is to say wlio
has txkcn to Iiiitisrlf the co~nniantlof love, nerds no
saeramcntiil act ~,r m y other extf'rnal institution 1x11is
quite ~ I ~ ~ I I .
Yet thi. view , S t h e pa-snge aI.0 is nut wholly i t i C t tothe ten,r
of the w d * . b'ur this U:IC would r p c c t .t,nie wLh text as ' h e
who>e fret are washed need, n d t u wa-h I i n n d ~ o r hencl.' And
f i i r t l i c r , etun if I W I C tii:ds it posnible t o urderit;md how the
longer renclina cun11d h:ive arix-i o u t uf the shorter as . ~ m i3~
' h e tlint i, linrlictl ' ( b h ~ A o v p i v o 5 )had Lome t o he t.iken as
referring t o 1,npti.m :ml the foutws4iing t u t h e supper, 3t the
s3mc time the c~~iivcrsc 3150 is concriv:ihle --t h $1on a('roiint of
the w mli '(IICJi i clean every w h i t ' it seemed i : u p xopriatethat
the \v:tdiiE: uf the feet \lmul~! -till tit. reqtiircdl, 3 r d i t
thouslit nece.inry to restore the meaning t h a t nahing of 3
wholly clean pcr.<rn i. no l<>!igcrxtall needful, by deletion of the
wurds 'excelit itie fc.cts <ci r i ~ o b rrrd8a5).
.\t nil cvvntq. whntcvcr niny he thc proper interpreta-
ti011of tlie iootwnshing, it is plain that in it Peter plays
n o hvtter part t h m other persons in the Foiirth tiospel.
as fore.xnntple Thonins ( 1 4 5 ) . or Philip (1481, or Judas
the Cmanzwn ( 1 4 2 ~ ) , or Sicodenius ( 3 4 ) . into whosc
mouth 3 n unintelligent saying is p t which is aftcrwnrds
set right liv Jesus (see J o i i x , SON OF Z E H m K E , 5 250.
T h e snnie thing has already been remarked in con-
4585
SIMON PETER
nection with the prediction of Peter's denial (1336-38),
29. peter and nhere Peter is corrected for a mis-
understanding by Jesus ; we have found
the beloved him also shown in a n unfavourable
disciple. light in so far as the sword-stroke is
attributed to him- ( l 8 ~ 0 )and , neither his repentance
after his denial, nor any acknowledgement of Jesus after
his confession, is recorded (1827 670).
( a ) It is to the beloved disciple, however, in particular,
that Peter is subordinated; to him he owes his intro-
duction into the high priest's palace (1816), and only
after him (and Andrew) dues he receive his call to the
discipleship (141f.), and, further, Peter mnst avail him-
self of his aid ( 1 3 24) in order to learn who the betrayer
is. If, following the figure of speech which we see in
Rev. 121-6 13-17, it is the Christian church that is to be
understood by the mother of Jesus as she stands at the
foot of the cross (Jn. 19zs)-a view which is rendered
more difficult, it is true, than it would otherwise be by
the presence of other women at the crucifixion-we
should here find evidence of a very great depreciation
of Peter, in the fact that she is committed to the charge,
not of Peter, hut of the beloved disciple. So also the
conferring upon all the apostles of the power to remit
sins or to retain them ( 2 O Z 3 ) ,if we are to suppose it to
have been already known to the Fourth Evangelist that
this power according to Mt. 16x9 had been conferred
upon Peter alone (on the age of this passage see
GOSPELS, §§ 136, 151).
(6)It is to the account of their visit to the sepulchre,
however (202-IO),that we must specially turn, for
elucidation of the mutual relations of Peter and the
beloved disciple. On the unhistorical character of this
incident see G OSPELS, 138, a, e,$ Being, as it is,
unhistorical, we may all the more safely assume that
here it is intended to give expression to an idea. This
the one apostle over the other had been recognised
without qualification. I n point of fact a certain
measure of precedence is assigned to each in turn.
O r rather t o Peter in one respect, namely that he is
the first to enter the sepulchre, hut to the beloved
disciple in the twofold respect that he is the first to
arrive a t the sepulchre, and the first to believe in the
resurrection.
Let us begin with what is clearest. When it is said of the
beloved disciple that he believed in the resurrection of Jesus(208),
Now, in view of I Cor. 15 5 (and Lk.24 34) it is quite impossible
to assert that any one arrived earlier than Peter at the con-
viction that Jesus was arisen-unless it had been at the empty
sepulchre ; but the account of this is, as has been shown, un-
solution must he found in the conception of faith. Not in
the holding the resurrection of Jesus to be a fact, but only in a
right apprehension of the nature o f the resurrection and of the
risen one, can any one have taken precedence of Peter, a
precedence represented as a precedence in time, because the
truth has been clothed in the form of a narrative of a visit to the
grave.
And if it is to the beloved disciple-that is to say,
the ostensible author or guarantor of the Fourth
Gospel (see J O H N , S O N OF ZEREDEE, 41d)-that
this precedence is assigned, we also know wherein it
i
consists; namely, in the spiritual view of the resur-
rection, according to which the risen one is identical
with the holy spirit (see R ESURRECTION -N ARRATIVES ,
16 c, 29 6). Only by way of antithesis tu this is it
possible to gain a good sense for the statement that
Peter was the first to enter the grave, and the first
to olxerve all the clothes and their orderly arrange-
ment. I n other words, it is nut to he denied to him
(see I Cor. 1 5 5 Lk. 2434) that he was the first to
ascertain the outward tokens of the resurrection ; herein
he takes a relative precedence.
What has just been said still leaves unexplained the state-
ment that the beloved disciple was the first to reach the
sepulchre. And it would be difficult to say what precedence
over Peter is intended to he expressed by this; for when it it
stated that he was the first who in the deeper sense ' believed,
4586
 SIMON PETER
all has been said which could secure him a precedence over
Peter in the matter itself. It appears, therefore, that in the
question as to who arrived first at the sepulchre it is only a
precedence in point of time that is thought of-no;, however, as
If the beloved disciple actually had taken precedence of Peter in
any matter of importance, hut only in so far as he was at first
held in higher estimation in the church than Peter. The most
si-nificant thing in the narrative is certainly this, that the
bzoved disciple in the beginning has precedence over Peter, but
that afterwards Peter takes this precedence from him, and only
in the end does the beloved disciple receive a higher valuation.
N o w , it assuredly was not throughout the whole
church that Peter in the first period w a s held in less
esteem than the beloved disciple, that is to say, than
the John of Asia Minor. We must reflect, however,
that in the Fourth Gospel it is not the entire church,
but only the following of the John of Asia Minor that
is speaking. For the latter it really is true that the
beloved disciple was looked on a s the first witness of
Christ, the risen one ; but if it is added that Peter took
his precedence from him, this can only mean that the
estimate, according to which Peter was held to be the
most eminent of all the apostles, had gradually found
acceptance even in those circles which in the first period
had given the first place to John. T h e purpose
of the passage before us. then, is to restrict this high
estimate of Peter, and to restore to John the place of pre-
eminence.
(c) T h e last mention in the series of passages which
seek to settle the relation between Peter and the beloved
disciple, is found in chap. 21. Here, however, the
tendency is in the other direction.
Along with other circumstances this also supplies a reason
why we should attribute this chapter to a differentauthorship
from that of Jn. 1-20 (see J OHN , S ON OF ZEBEDEE, S 40;
RESURRECTION-NARKATIVES, $0 5 4 gc, zy). The history of
the external evidence shows that for several decades after its
appearance the Fourth Gospel found no recognition (JOHN, 55
42-49). In chap. 21 vv. 24J clearly reveal the purpose to
remove the mistrust’with which it was regarded. This heing
so, the remainder of the chapter deserves to be scrutinised, with
the view of finding whether it also subserves the same tendency.
In point of fact this is actually seen to be the case, as soon as
we suppose its depreciation of Peter to have been one of the
causes that militated against the general recognition of the
Gospel.
Therefore we find Peter now rehabilitated to a con-
siderable extent. It is still the beloved disciple, it is true,
who first recognises the risen one in the figure standing in
the morning on the shore ( 2 1 7 ) ; but once he has
learned who it is, Peter is the first to hasten towards
him. Further, it is Peter who first goes a-fishing a n d
who draws the net with its great take unbroken to the
shore (213 1 1 ) . Since this net signifies missions in
general, and particularly the mission to the Gentiles,
and its remaining unbroken symbolises the continued
unity of the church (see above, 5 14c, d. e . Z), it is
hereby recognised that Peter was the originator and
the most important actor in the missionary activity of
the church, including the mission to the Gentiles, and
the guardian of the unity of the church. T h e leading
position in the church is still more clearly assigned t o
him in the words ‘ feed my lambs’ . . . ‘ tend my
sheep’ (2115-17),which are a further development of
Lk. 2232, ‘ stablish thy brethren.’ Finally, martyrdom
is predicted for him, and this as an honour (2118f ).
For the beloved disciple there is left a much more
modest part than he has in chaps. 1-20 ; he too, not
only Peter, may follow Jesus, if in another manner than
by death ; a longer life is allotted to him than to Peter,
and he has the advantage of bearing written testimony
to the life of Jesus (2120-24).
Let us now seek to gather together the results of the
foregoing discussions of details, and attempt to form
a3. Character some estimate of the character of
Of
I t is evident, in the first place,
that we must refuse to avail ourselves of very much of
the material that is usually employed for this purpose.
What value are we to attach to such inferences as that which
deduces from his proposal at the transfiguration to build taber-
nacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, or from the precipitancy
4587
SIMON PETER
yith which in Jn. 21 7 he throws himself into the water the
impulsiveness ‘ of Peter ; or from his noticing the withering of
the fig tree (Mk. 1121) his powers of observation : or from his
confession in Lk. 5 8 ‘ I am a sinful man ’ his humility ; or from
his hesitation about h n g unclean animals (Acts 10 74) his little
preparedness to follow a divine leading; or from his action
connected with the draught of fishes in Lk. 5 5 the opposite ;
or from his sinking in the attempt to walk on the water his
little faith ; or from the opposite wishes he expressed at the
footwashing (Jn. 13 6-9)his rapid changes of mood ; or from his
conduct at the sepulchre his ‘practicaland impetuous’character,
or more particularly from his being second in the race, yet first
to enter the sepulchre, his greater age as compared with the
beloved disciple, and his greater boldness-if the incidents
never really happened? What validity is there in the inference
of the liveliness of his interest from the frequency of his ques-
tions, of his self-seeking nature from his question as to the
future reward for having followed Jesus, of his recklessness
from his use of the sword in Gethsemene, if there can be no
certainty whether it was Peter at all who said or did the things
in question? Or what ground is there for discerning the
rapidity of his decisions and the sanguineness of his tempera-
ment from his following Jesus without previous acquaintance,
if this inference rests not upon actual fact, but merely upoil the
excessively abbreviated manner in which the matter has been
handed down to us? It is not at all impossible that many of
these characteristics really did belong to Peter ; but it is not
permissible to deduce them from the NT data just referred to.
( j ) Even when we restrict ourselves to those accounts
which may with confidence be accepted, caution is still
necessary lest we should take more out of them than we
are entitled to do.
The emphatic remonstrance made by Peter against the idea
of Jesus’passion is simply a n evidence of a praiseworthy love
and solicitude, such as assuredly every devoted disciple bas in
his heart ; the reproachful ‘ Satan, thou mindest not the things
of God, but the things of men’ (Mk. 8 33) is spoken from quite
another point of view, to appreciation of which Peter could not
be expected to have at that time attained. As regards the
contrast between his promise not to be offended by what was to
befall Jesus and his denial so soon afterwards, it will be best for
us to say, Let him who is confident that in a like position he
would show himself stronger than Peter cast the first stone.
Let us refrain, too, from drawing- any inference as to character
from his sleep in Gethsemane. Nor can we venture to deduce
from his confession at Czsarea Philippi an inclination to sudden
inspirations, rapid apprehension, and bold expression of new
thoughts; for we do not know how far the confession was
prepared for by previous hints of Jesus (see JOHN, S ON OF
ZEBEDEE, $3 25 d), or whether it could not have been uttered by
the other disciples also.
(c) We can best arrive a t the kernel of Peter’s
personality by contemplating the greatest fact of his
whole life.-his faith in Jesus which, in the extra-
ordinary circnmstances in which he found himself, led by
psychological laws to his vision of the risen Jesus. As t o
this see, more especially, R E S U R R E C T I O N - N A R R A T I V E S ,
5 37. I n this one fact is concentrated the whole
result of his conviction of the imperishable value of
that which Jesus had been to him, of the gratitude
and reverence which he owed him, and of the un-
conditional trust which he had learned to repose in
him and in his heavenly father. It is true that the
triumphant struggle of his faith against the over-
powering impression left by the death of Jesus was
helped by something that cannot be reckoned to the
character of Peter- by the vision he had, by his
illusion ; and his denial had a share in the production
of this vision. T h e value of his faith, however, is not
lessened by this; for had it not possessed this super-
eminent strength, the vision could not by the laws of
psychology have arisen.
( d ) T h e stage preliminary to Peter’s resurrection-
faith was the confession at Czesarea Philippi. If his
obedience to Jesus’ call at first bears witness merely t o
the depth of the impression which the words a n d
person of Jesus had made upon him, and thus shows
his soul to have had the religious hunger and the
religious receptivity which found their satisfaction in
Jesus, the confession carries us still further. It shows
that under the influence of Jesus Peter was capable of
purifying, elevating, and spiritualising those national
and political ideas which as a Jew he, as matter of
course, had entertained regarding the Messiah. to such
an extent that he was able to discern in Jesus the true
Messiah. T h a t he also, in other.ways, showed himself
4588
 SIMON PETER
strxdast and trustworthy, is shown by the surname
Ccphas which Jesus gave him ; and the leading place
among the apostles which he received even during the
lifetime of Jesus, and maintained in a still greater
degree after his death, is evidence enough that in more
than one direction he must have been a very remarkable
personality. This does not preclude us from observing
that his pre-eminence was also associated with much
weakness. It is, nevertheless, certain that he did and
suffered far more than we now know.
( e ) Both sides, the favourable and the unfavomable,
are seen also in his relation to Paul and the mission to
the Gentiles. His original line of conduct during his
visit to Antioch proves that he was no such bigoted
upholder of the Mosaic law as were James the brother
of Jesus and the Judaists who made their way into the
churches founded by Paul in Galatia (see G ALATIANS ,
5 13). I t must therefore be noted to his credit that he
had grasped the true inwardness of the religion of Jesus
better than they.
Even if, as regards outward conduct, Jesus must generally
speaking and apart from questions of Pharisaic stiictness, be
regarded as an observer of the law of the fathers-for otherwise
the Judaising zealots for the law could not have claimed to he
called his disciples at all-in his fundamental principles he was
far beyond the position which would have made salvation in
any way dependent on conformity with that law. The poverty
of spirit, the purity of heart, the love to God and one's neighhour
which he required are all of them things for which no observance
of any particular precepts is necessary, and moreover he asserted
with an emphasis that increased the non-obligatory character of
many ceremonial commands (see GOSPEIS,8 14jg). . When
accordingly Paul preached the admission of Gentiles within the
pale of Christianity and the ending of the Mosaic law, he showed
a better understanding of the inner meaning of Jesus than the
apostles who actually ate and drank with him.
(f)In some measure this understanding had reached
Peter also. Hut, unfortunately, not in sufficient
measure. Thus it came to pass that he was outstripped
by Paul, and the later development of the church
depended only upon Paul not upon Peter. Indeed,
instead of following Paul, if perhaps with slower steps,
on the new path of freedom from the law, Peter allow-ed
himself to be held back by the power of ancient custom
of which James was the embodiment, and to be forced
into the ranks of those who were opposed to Paul. In
this connection are seen the most serious limitations of
his spiritual activities, the absence of consistency in
dealing with the new situation, and want of energy in
ompening up the new path. If it had depended on Peter,
he would have preserved Christianity as a Jewish sect
and condemned it to a maimed life. T h e elasticity of
soul which was required for drawing and pursuing the
consequences resulting from the entrance of Christianity
into the Gentile world was certainly not easy of attain-
ment to one in Peter's situation ; but for a true leader
it was nevertheless indispensable. T h e conflict
with Paul into which Peter was brought by his con-
servative attitude also unfortunately brought with it the
result that, quite apart from the judgment we are called
upon to pronounce as to his intellectual endowments, a
deep shadow falls upon the character of Peter- deeper
than upon that of Paul. Of Paul we know only that in
his manner of expressing himself as against his Judaistic
opponents he exercised little restraint upon himself
( 2 Cor. 1113-15 Gal. 512,etc) ; Peter, on the other hand,
can hardly be cleared of the charge of-even by actions,
or at the very least by failures to act- having worked
against the activity of Paul (see above, 5 2 VI).
B. L I F E O U T S I D E P A L E S T I N E ; A N D DE.4TH
In the preceding sections the N T data regarding
Peter have been practically exhausted, yet a very impor-
24. Missionary tant part of his life still remains to be
discussed-that relating to his activities
fields. outside the limits of Palestine, and to
his death. Our information under these heads must
thus be drawn almost entirely from the Church fathers
and from legendary works of very doubtful trustworthi-
4589
SIMON PETER
ness. The examination becomes much more compli-
cated and the results much more hypothetical than
those u-e have hitherto had in hand.
Let us first take a survey of the countries in wrhich
outside of Palestine he is represented as having laboured.
( a ) Origen is the first who tells us that ' Peter seems
( t o r x w ) to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion
in Pontus, Galatia. Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia
[;.e. the western coast of Asia Minor]' (Comm. in Gen.
tom. 3, ed. de la Rue, 224.4 ; up. Euseb. H E iii.12).
T h e very form in which this sentence is cast shows us
that the statement is not based on trustworthy inde-
pendent information, but is merely deduced from
I Pet. 11.
Nor is this all ; the deduction is a very mistaken one, for in
1 7 4 18 2 1 2 9 3 , 42 I; it is clearly said that the readers of the
epistle are Gentile Christia~isand in 1 12 with equal clearness
that it was not the writer of the epistle who had brought the
gospel to them. Not till we come to 2 Pet. 116 is it asserted
that they had been preached to by Peter. On this showing we
should have to suppose that he had come to them at some time
after the composition of the first epistle ; for according to 2 Pet.
3 I the second epistle is addressed to the same readers as the
first. This, however, is inconsistent with the address, according
to which 2 Pet. is directed to the whole of Christendom ; and
Christendom is not here to be restricted, on account of (as it
might a t first sight appear) 3 I , to the five provinces named in
r Pet. 1I , which would he inconsistent with the manifest sense
of the words, hut contrariwise we must believe the author of
2 Pet. to have presupposed I Pet. to have been already addressed
to the whole of Christendom. This presupposition comes before
us in the Muratorian fragment where (If. 54-59) it is asserted
that from the number of the churches to which Paul addressed
his nine letters-viz., seven-and from the numher of the epistles
in the Apocalypse-also seven-we are to perceive that both
writers are addressing themselves in their letters to the entire
church. There are other reasons also for assigning z Pet. to the
same date as this fragment, say about 170 or 180 A.D.
(6) The other spheres of activity, in which Peter is
represented as having laboured along with other apostles
are equally questionable. Alongside of such traditions
there is often a simpler form in which Peter is not
mentioned. Thus there readily arises the suspicion that
Peter has been given as a companion to other apostles
by legend mereG.
Peter is said to have laboured with Philip in Assakia
(Phrygia), with his brother Andrew and Matthias or Matthew
in the country of the Barbarians, that is to say. primarily, by
the Black Sea, so that this legend coincides with a part of that
already noticed under a. As however there is alsoa country of
the barbarians by the Red Sa; we find Peter as the companion
of Bartholomew in Egypt as &ell ; and finally what is said of
this last apostle is transferred to Judas Thaddxils so that
Peter is made to he the companion of this Judas in Syiia.
(c) W e are told further that from Egypt Peter also
made journeys to North Africa and to Britain, but in
these eases he was alone.
( d ) I n Syria Peter appears not only with Judas
Thaddaeus, hut also without any companion, particularly
in Antioch. Indeed, according to Eusebius in his
Chvonicle, or in his source (5 26 e ; Lipsius, ii.l25-27),
that church was founded by Peter in the second year of
Claudius, that is, in 42 A.D. This is in absolute con-
tradiction with Acts 1119-26. Nor is there any plausible
reason for accepting the activity of Peter in Antioch to
be found in the consideration that he could easily touch
at Antioch in the course of his journeys from Jerusalem
to Asia Minor ; and just as little can we attach weight
to the circumstance that it was precisely in Antioch
that SIMON M AGUS (4.". I T 6). whom it was one
of Peter's tasks continually to confute, made his
appearance. Thus it is tempting to conjecture that the
statement as to the appearance of Peter in Antioch rests
upon Gal. 2x1-zr. If this conjecture is correct we shall
have here an admirable example of the manner in
which in the making of ecclesiastical legend the hostile
relations of two apostles are ignored or even changed
into a relation of friendly co-operation (cp 5 4 0 b).
We learn even that Peter and Paul together in Antioch
consecrated Marcianus as bishop of Syracuse and Pancratius as
bishop of Tauromenium in Sicily (Lipsius, ii. 1j 8s). But it
1 For details here and in what follows we refer once for all to
Lipsius, Agofir. Apost.-Gcsch. (1883-1890),and especially in the
first instance to vol. 2 1 , and the ErpZinzunphef, 2
26s
4590
 SIMON PETER
is onlylate authors who assign to Peter the bishopric of Antioch
(Cod. Coislinianus No. 120 [ed. Grosch, Jena, 18861 for two
years, the Liher P&tificalis [6th and 7th cent.] for seven or ten
years). Origen does not even when he designates Ignatius
(Horn. 6 in Luc., 111. 9;s b A, ed. de la Rue) ‘episcopum
Antiochire post Petrum secundum,’ for these words are to be
understood, in accordance with the expressions of ancient
authors cited below ($ 26 K), in such a sense that Peter is not to
he reckoned as included : so also US. HE iii. 36 2. Euodius,
who is represented as having been appointed by Peter himself
(Const.Ajost. vii. 46), passes for the first bishop of Antioch.
( e ) I t accords with the dating of I Pet. (513) from
Babylon that Peter should be represented as having
laboured in Babylonia and Persia. Whilst many accounts
have it that he subsequently journeyed to Rome, the
Syrian historians assign to him the lands of the Euphrates
exclusively as his hissionary field (Lipsius ii. 1 6 611-613,
ii. 2145J 175). C p 43.
(f)T h e statement which has met with widest accept-
ance is that Peter laboured in Rome and suffeied
martyrdom there. As to this, see $5 25-31,37-41,45.
(g)T h e missionary journeys of Peter through
Macedonia, Greece, Sicily, and Italy are open to the
suspicion that they have been assumed merely in order
to make more clear his migration from Asia Minor to
Rome and that for their details the journeys of Paul
served as a pattern (Lipsius ii. In).
( h ) T h e representation that Peter laboured also in
Gaul and in Spain appears to have arisen out of the
desire of the Roman church to secure for itself the
supremacy over these countries. Pope Innocent I.
(402-417)expressly denies that in Italy, Gaul, Spain,
Africa and Sicily, or any of the intermediate islands,
churches were anywhere founded by any one except
priests who had been instituted by Peter or by his
successors (Episf.252, up. Lipsius, ii. 2217 307).
(i) W e thus obtain as a preliminary result that apart
from Rome only the claims of Antioch and Babylon or
at most also of the shores of the Black Sea (Pontus)
have some measure of plausible support in tradition;
but of these that of Antioch is definitely ruled out by
the data of the N T ; for not only is the founding of
the church thkre by Peter impossible, but also any
lengthened stay there on his part, inasmuch as its
Gentile Christian character was most marked and more-
over it had been witness of his humiliation at the hands
of Paul (Gal.211-21). As for the claimsof Babylon,
see below, § 30k9 43.
Let us first inquire what are our earliest authorities
for a sojourn of Peter in Rome and his ultimate
as. in martyrdom there. (u)T h e first whom
some: earliest we can date with certainty is Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth (about 170 A . D . ) .
witnesses. From a letter of his addressed to the
Church of Rome in the time of the bishopric of Soter
there (about 166-174). in which1 he thanks the Romans
for pecuniary help given to members of the Corinthian
church, Eusebius ( H E ii. 258) has preserved the follow-
ing passage : saO7a Kal hpeis arb r?jr r o u a h v s vou8euias
T ~ dV r b IIhrpou K a t IIalihou $urdav yev@&av ‘Pwpalwv
TE Kal Hoprv6iwv UuveKEppdUarE. Kal y a p &p$w Kal €IS rqv
+wCpav Kbprveov +ureciuavres ljp8r 6poiws &iaa(a’av,
dpolwr6&Kal ~lsrjv’IraXiavdpbae~ ~ ( L ~ ~ Y+.taprlipp?laav
T E E
Karb ~ b va d r b Kaip6v. So also by this so w.eighty
admonition ye have brought together that planting
made by Peter and Paul of the Romans and of the
Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both planted us
in our Corinth, and likewise taught us ; in like manner
also after having taught together in Italy they suffered
martyrdom about the same time.’
The meaning of these words is not perfectly clear [cp col.
41451’ but so much can be made out-that Dionysius means to
desigAate the Roman and Corinthian churches alike as founda-
tions of Peter and Paul. This is involved in ‘planting’ (+vreia)
1 As Eusebius in his enumeration (HE iv. 239) of the epistles
of Dionysius known to him mentions only one to the Romans
we must suppose this to be the same as that which he had
already made use of (ii. 258).
2 By this is doubtless intended the Epistle of the Roman
church mentioned in iv. 2311, which Dionysius is answering.
4.591
SIMON PETER
even if we should prefer for +u.reJuavrss the reading of Syncellus i
+ O L T ~ U ~ V T W . .4t the same time, the expression cis .;lv ’Irahiav
stands, in accordance with a lin uistic usage which at that date
8
was widely spread (see Winer $ 50 46), for dv qj ’IrdLp for
the participle ‘having taughr” (GrSd&zvmc) belongs to it ;’and
thus QoLnjuavTcs, even if it ought to be regarded as the right
reading would not furnish the requisite completion to the second
membe; of the sentence. This being so, the suggestion becomes
natural that s i p ... .
K6pprvBov stands for & . . KopM?, and
thus that +vrduavms ought to be retained-all the more because
it is in keeping with QuscLa. ‘Op6uc means properly ‘towards
one and the same place’. but as we may not bring in
+ocnjuauxs, this will not at dl suit the context. Here also then
we must discern another instance of the same confusion as that
between rip and i v , in other words bpoj must be meant. Thus
Dionysius, even if he does not expressly say that Peter and
Paul came simultaneously to Corinth and simultaneously t o
Rome, nevertheless as regards Rome at least, states that
they tau,& there ;imultaneously: in fact ‘in like manner
also’ (irpoios 6 i ra9 indicates very distinctly that he assumes
them to have taught together in Corinth also.
This last assumption is quite irreconcilable with Acts
181-18 20zf.; and even were we to suppose that
Dionysius thinks of Peter’s visit to Corinth as having
been at a different date from that of Paul, we should
still be at hopeless variance with I Cor. 310-15 4 1 5 (see
5 2 9). T h e statement of Dionysius accordingly can
only rest on unwarranted inference from what Paul says
regarding the Cephas party in Corinth ( I Cor. 112
32If.).
Thus it is of no avail when Harnack (ACL ii. [=ChronoZ.]
1z 4 z x ) seeks to defend Dionysius by ar.guing that even accord;
ing to Acts (8 14-17) the founding of a church becomes ‘perfect
only after apostolic labours so that Dionysius does not by the
language he uses exclude a’n activity of other missionaries in
Rome before the arrival of Peter and Paul. In the first place,
Harnack‘s exegesis of the passage in Acts is not exact. What
can he effected by the apostles alone is the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit ; that without this the founding of a church is not
‘ erfect ’ is not said, and does not at all suit the other case in
wiich thesame theory is found (19 1-7). This last passage has
nothing at all to do with the founding of a church, but only
with the spiritual gifts of speaking with ‘tongues’ and of
prophecy. But, further, Harnack‘s defence of Dionysius. even
were it valid, would apply only to what he says about Rome,
not to what he says about Corinth; for, if Dionysius has
followed the theory of Acts as this is expounded by Harnack,
in the present case at all events Paul has complied with it
inasmuch as he brought ahout the gift of the Holy Spirit a i
once in his first ministry there and thus Peter would have
found no field there for his fundtion as a founder of churches
unless his arrival had been synchronous with that of Paul.
Thus it is impossible to absolve Dionysius from the
charge of having, in the interests of a theory as to the
co-operation of Peter and Paul, grievously distorted the
history of his own church in a point as to which he of
all men must be presumed to have been accurately
informed. H o w then are we to repose confidence in
such a [witness’ when he tells us about Rome?
Perhaps his whole knowledge regarding Rome rests
upon misunderstanding of I Clem. (below, 5 28), of
which he says (up. Eus. HE iv. 23 11) that it is regularly
read at Corinth in public worship.
(6) In Irenaeus (about 185 A . D . ) the most important
passages relating to our present inquiry are the
following. According to H e y . iii. 1 2 [I] Matthew wrote
his gospel ‘whilst Peter and Paul were preaching the
gospel at Rome and founding the church ’ (roc IIQrpou
Kal T O O IIadhouev‘P~pL?IebayyEkr~o~vov KalBepEXtociV~wv
rqv bKKkgUiaV). I n iii. 3 1 [ z ] he speaks of the ‘ very
great, very ancient, and universally known church
founded and constituted at Rome by the two very
glorious apostles Peter and Paul’ (maxima et antiquissima
et omnibus cognita a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis
Petro et Paul0 Romae fundata et constituta ecclesia).
Here Irenaeus’s interest is to prove the apostolical
succession of bishops. As it would be too laborious a
task to do this for all churches he contents himself
with the case of Rome.
( c ) T h e list of bishops of Rome which I r e n z u s
proceeds immediately afterwards to give (iii. 32 8 )
comes down to his own day ( Y O Y ) and ends with
Eleutherus (about 174-189). I t may be presumed that
it was not drawn u p for the first time a t the date of his
writing.
459=
 SIMON PETER
It cannot indeed be maintained that Hegesippus-as his words
in Eus. HE iv. 22 3 seem to say-drew up, after his arrival in
Rome, a list of the bishops there down to Anicetus (about 154-
166)as Lightfoot (Aposf.ti'athcrs, i. [=Clement of Rome] 163f:
I53f: zozf: 327.333) would have it (see MINISTRY, 8 58 c, n. and
Harnack, A C L ii. 1 180.184); but on the other hand according
to Harnack (op. L i t . 184-193) and Erbes (Z.J Kirchengesch.
222-5 [ ~ p r ] ) it is probable that Epiphanius (HEY.2 7 6 ) for his
list of the bishops of Rome made use of the same Roman
original source as Ircnreus, and that this, as in Epiphanius,
ended with Anicetus, and thus perhaps was drawn up during his
episcopate, or at any rate during that of his successor, Soter.
Whatever its date, the form in which the list is now found gives
no certainty as to what is the most important point in this con-
nection-the question, namely, as to when it was that the
reference to Peter and Paul was first introduced. Irenaxs begins
his rendering of it thus : ' The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul],
then after founding and building up the church, committed the
offic; of the episcopate into the hands of Linusa To him
succeeds Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement is allotted the episcopate ' (0q.cfAhrwoaurrr05v
.ai olro8apiravTcs o l pclripior hw6mohar r;rv drxhqoiav ALvy
r i v 6 s dnroronljs hr~roupiav ;vq&prrrav. GraG6Xerai 82 a h b v
s . TOGTOY
' h v i y ~ h q r ~per& b vpLr r6wo dwrb T ~ dVw o o d h o v 7jlv
i r r m o & p KhqpoGiar Khjpqs). Thus b e find no mention either
of Peter or of Paul as bishop of Rome. IfClement isdesignated
as third 'from the apostles' (dwb &v Inoor6hov) probably all
that is intended is to accentuate the unbrokennessof the succes-
sion, not to imply that if one chose to include the two apostles
in the reckoning he would be not the third but the fourth or
fifth in the series. Epiphanius, however, says : ' In Rome the
first were Peter and Paul, apostlesand bishops, thereafter Linus,
thereafter Cletus thereafter Clement ' etc. (2" 'P+v yfy6varrr
TP;,,, ~ ~ i i p o.hs nairhor iT6rnOhorlKai inluKowoi: a r a ~ i v o s ,
cbra KAGror, d r a KAGpqs, K.T.A.). Aftera short interruption, he
resumes : 'The series of bishops in Rome shows the following suc-
cession,-Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement,'etc. (;Irbv
;v 'Pipg ~ I T L U K ~ I T OGraSoXt
V 7 n h p ;,e' 7jlv bKohov8iav. nCTp
.ai IlaGhor, Aivas rrai Khljior, Khqpqr, K . T . ~ . ) . If, however,
Epiphanius makes Peter and Paul bishops of Rorne,l then
Irenrrus also, or another shortly before him, can have prefixed
their names to the whole list which at an earlier date had begun
simply with Linus. The list of bishopscan have been subjected
to the same supplementing prmess after Irenasus's time also,
before it came into the hands of Epiphanius (died 403)~or after
that of Julius Africanus (about 220)or of Hippolytus (about 234),
the two last mentioned of whom also made use of it, according
to Harnack (188). A list of this kind, from the nature of the
case, was not allowed to remain long unaltered, but could easily
be ' completed ' in the course of transcription whenever a copyist
believed he had found a gap in it. Moreover, neither Irenrrus
nor Epiphanius, whose editions of the list lie before us as they
wrote them, makes any statement that he is using an external
document, and feels himself under obligation to reproduce it
scrupulously. Thus for ns no exact determination of its date is
necessary ; so far as Peter and Paul are concerned it does not
with certainty take us back t o a date before Irenaeus.
( d ) I n Clement of Alexandria Peter's sojourn in
Rome is, as with I r e n z u s , mentioned in connection
with the writing of a gospel-in this case, however, Mk.
not M t
From the HypofyposesEusehius (HE vi.,l46J) has preserved
a piece of information which Clement claims to have received
from the presbyters of the olden time (r&v bvd*aBrv wpeo@u-
TCPOV). ' After that Peter had publicly preached the word in
Rome, and, filled with the spirit, had set forth the gospel (703
IIirpou Gqpooip du 'Plpg xqp+tamw &v k6yov x a i nvniparr r b
.;ayy&hrov ;&ra6mr), Mark at the, request of many hearers
set dowii these discourses in writing. Similarly in the Adurn-
bratiows on I Pet. (ed. Potter 1 0 0 7 ) : ' Marcus Petri sectator
palam praedicante Petro evanghum Romae,' etc. In the other
passage where Eusehius transcribes the same matter from the
Hy#otypOses of Clement, though somewhat differently ( H E
ii. 15 I$; with regard to which cp GOSPELS, 5 147, end), Rome
is presupposed, through the connection with ii. 145J, to be
the place. As the Gospel of Mark is alleged to have owed its
origin to the evangelist's reports of the discourses of Peter, it is
intelligible why Clement should not have mentioned Paul at the
same time, even although he was convinced of the apostles
having been together in Rome.
( e ) Pseudo-Cyprian. De Re6uptismafe, 17 (Cypr. ed.
Hartel, 390), read in PuuZi Predicafio as follows : ' et
post tanta tenipora Petrum et Paulum post conlationem
evangelii in Hierusalem et mutuam cogitationem et
altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem [the
reference is to Gal. 2 Acts 151 postremo in urbe quasi
tunc primum invicem sibi esse cognitos, et q u z d a m
1 For this very reason if for no other we see that Epiphanius
cannot have preserved the original form of the list. It also
indicates hut little accuracy when he says at one time 'Linus,
then Cletus' (Aivoc 6ra KAGTos), at another ' Linus and Cletus '
(Alvor =a; KhGmr), for the latter form of expression denotes, as
we see in ' Peter and Paul' (II&pos i d II&Aoc), contempor-
aneous tenure of office.
4593
SIMON PETER
alia hujuscemodi absurde a c turpiter conficta ' ( #a n d
th& after such long time, Peter a n d Paul, after the
collation of the gospel i n Jerusalem and the mutual
consideration and discussion and arrangement of things
to be done, had a t last i n the city, in a certain way,
then for the first time become known to one another :
a n d certain other things of this sort, absurdly a n d
basely feigned '
In spite of the title Pauli PrEdicatio this quotation is often
regarded as coming from the hook known by the title of
K$pvy,+a II&pou, in the belief that the title sometimes ran also :
rreaching of Peter and Paul. Were this correct, we should
have here the oldest testimony to the Roman sojourn of Peter,
it being presupposed that the book was used not only by
Clement of Alexandria but also as early as in the AtoO'ogy of
Anstides (see Harris, Ajology of Aristides,.in T S f i. 186-99;
Harnack, A C L ii. 147zf: ; cp OLD-CHRISTIAN LLTERATUKE,
$$ 11, 16). But the question of the derivation of the quotation
from k is so uncertain (it is answered negatibely hy von
Dobschiitz, for example, in T U xi. 113-15 127.131) that we need
not pursue the matter further.
(I, The apocryphal Acta Petri, which relates the
activity and death of Peter at Rome with detail, may
be mentioned at this point as being possibly a witness
of equal age, but must not be taken account of until
after it has been carefully discussed (see IS 32-39).
So also with the I I p d f e i s IIaliXou from which Origen
(lorn. in Jn. 2012,ed. de la Rue, 4322, C) quotes : 'a5
was said by the Saviour, '' I a m going t o be crucified
anew '' ' (As h b 706 uws+jpos eip~pkvov dvweev pkxXw
uraupobuear) (see $5 33g, 34g, 39u, c).
We proceed now to the testimonies which come from
a somewhat later date.
( u ) Tertullian supplies new data, if not indeed in
.-
udv. Murc. ( 4 s beein. ) where he says : ' Romani . . .
q i b u s evangelium kt Petrus et Paulus
a6.
sojourn:Roman later sanguine quoque suo signatum reli-
querunt,' or in Bupdzsm, 4, where he
witnesses. ascribes the oossession of the s a m e
salvation to those 'quos Joannes in Jordane et quos
Petrus in Tiberi tinxit,' etc., yet mrtainly in Praxr.
Rneret. 36 : ' habes Romam .. . ubi Petrus passioni
dominicz adaequatur [by crucifixion], ubi Paulus Joannis
[the Baptist's] exitu coronatur ' [by beheading], and i n
Jcorpiuce. 15 : ' orientem fidem R o m z primus Nero
cruentavit. T u n c Petrus ab altero cingitur [Jn. 21 18J]
cum cruci adstringitur : tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae
consequitur nativitatem cum illic martyrii renascitur
generositate,' ' Paul acquires the Roman citizenship by
right of birth when he is born again in the nobility of
martyrdom.'
(d) Gaius of Rome (under Zephyrinus, about 198-
217) says in his writing against the Montanist Proculus
(up. Eus. H E ii.266f.): ' B u t I a m able to show the
'' trophies of the apostles. For if you will come t o
"
the Vatican or to the Ostean Way, you will find the
" trophies " of those who foundid this church ' (bcb6B
7 t x w &i(ar. (Bv yhp 0eh.iluys
L r p k a r a 7Gv d a o u ~ 6 X w v
2
dmXBeiv h l T C ~ VBarrKavbv +) $ai7ily 66bv *V ' D u d a v .
ehp.ilueis T& rpbrara r&v 7 a 6 q v iSpvuapdvwv T;Jv CK-
KXt)uiav). By rpbaara we are to understand here not
' places of burial,' as Eusebius does, but 'places of
death.'
Even the literal meaning of the word ('sign of victory ') admits
this meaning only ; for a martyr gained his victory only at the
place of his death, not at the place of his hurial. To under-
stand the meaning ' sign of victory ' we have only to make the
further supposition that those who honoured the martyrs were
able to show, at the place of death some object or other that
marked it out for those who risited'the spot, and with which
was associated some reminiscence, whether real or supposed, of
what happened at the martyr's death. Thus in the Vatican was
shown a terebinth, on the road to Ostia a pine tree, beside which
Peter and Paul respectively breathed their last (Lipsius ii. 1391).
Even apart, however, from its lexical meaning we may learn
that rp6sara cannot here mean graves. For the hones of the
two apostles were not deposited in the places he mentions till
long after the time of Gaius ; those of Peter after 354 in the
Church of St. Peter, which was built at that date : 6ose of
Paul, according to the list of the dcjosifio martyrurn in the
famous chronicle of the year 354 as early as 258 A.D.' by the
road to Ostia (and before 354 in tde basilica newly huil; there).
In the same year, however (258 ; June 29), the relics of Peter,
4594
 SIMON PETER
according to the same list, were transferred in cafanrm6as, that
is to say, into the catacombs of the piece of ground beside the
Appian Way, half-an-hour outside of the Porta Appia, in other
words hard by the present church of San Sebastiano, which
piece bf ground was originally the only one that bore the name
‘ad Catacumbas,’ a name which has never as yet been quite
satisfactorilyexplained. Here an inscription of bishop Damasus
(366-384) ran :-
hie habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes
nomina quisque 1 Petri pariter Paulique requiris.
So far as Peter is concerned, this agrees with the fact that his
relics had been removed to the church of St. Peter before this
inscription was composed’ as regards Paul the statement of
Damasus is not easily recinciled with that of the list referred
to above. Still even if the list be correct it is certain that the
relics of Paul Lad not yet, in the time of Gaius, their resting-
lace by the road to Ostia and that those of Peter should have
feen removed to the catacdmbs would he very unlikely, if already
in Gaius’s time they had their resting-place at the place of his
death, namely the Vatican. On the whole question see Lipsius
ii. 1391-404 ; Erbes, Z. f: Kirchengesch. ’i (1885) 1-49,and, as
regards the special point, otherwise in ‘ Todestage der Apostel
Paulus u. Petrus’ in TU xix. (=Neue Folge, iv.), 1 (1699)
67-133. Ficker (Z.J Kirchengesch. 22, 1901,.333-342) utterly
denies that the inscription relates to the burial of Peter and
Paul. His opinion is that in the view of Damasus they had
during their lifetime resided at the spot where the inscription
was found (cp habitasse,’ and ‘nomina’ not ‘corpora’). The
inscription, he holds, was directed against the refusal of the
Eastern Chmch, from 325 A.D. onwards, to accept any decisions
from Rome, and against the argument urged in support of this
refusal that Peter and Paul came from the East (the inscription
in fact says, towards the end : Roma suos potius meruit
defenderecives). Only, as the locality where the inscription was
found was a place of burial, it is very improbable that Damasus
can have believed that Peter and Paul when alive lived here at
half-an-hour’s distance from the city.
( c ) I n immediate continuation of the passage relating
to Peter cited above ( 5 2 4 u), Origen proceeds : ‘ W h o
also i n the end, being in Rome, was crucified head
downwards, having himself desired t o suffer in this
way’ (8s K a l &ri T&L 6v ‘ P h p y yevbpevos dveuKoXodu8q
K ~ T & m$aXijs, o i h s a d d s (i[Lhuas ?ra&?v). The
Acta Petri (see 33g) deals fully with the reasons why
Peter chose this particular manner of death. As regards
Paul, Origen goes on to say that he suffered martyrdom
i n Rome under Nero.
(+) The PhiZos@humena (dating from about 235 and
ascribed t o Hippolytus), as well as other later writings,
mentions the poleinic with Simon, carried on at Rome
b y Peter (and Paul), with which we are acquainted
through the apocryphal Acta Petri (and Acta Petri et
Pauli). For details see 5 39 d.
( e ) Of later writers we at once mention Eusebius. He
brings together all that has been hitherto mentioned,
and will have it that Peter was bishop of Rome for
twenty-five years, namely from 42-67 A.D. He thus
places the Neronian persecution, in which according
t o him also Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom ( H E
ii. 255),three years too late. I t is of a piece with this
that hz supports t h e theory, which he himself ( H E
v. 18 14) takes from the Anti-Montanist Apollonius (about
zoo A.D. )-a theory which already finds expression in
the Predicatio Petri (above, 5 25 e ; up. Clem.Al.
Stronz. vi. 5 43, p. 7 6 2 , ed. Potter ; for other supporters
of it see Harnack, A C L ii. lqg)-that the apostles had
been commanded by Jesus not to go abroad from
Jerusalem till twelve years after his death. These
twelve years Eusebius reckons as from 30 t o 4 2 A. D. T h e
variations met with in the different translations of his
Chronicle, no longer extant i n Greek, need not troubleus
here. T h e only point of importance for our inquiry is
that the reckoning of twenty-five Roman years was
found, not invented, by Eusebius. According t o
Harnack ( A C L ii. 1116-129) he used the Chronography
of Julius Africanus, which closed with the reign of
Elagabalus ( 2 1 8 - 2 2 2 A. D. ).
(f)Thus, according t o Harnack (201, 7 0 3 J ) . the
‘tendency legend,’ that Peter sojourned in Rome for
twenty-five years, arose a n d ‘ became official ’ between
the time of Irenaeus, who as yet knew nothing whatever
of Peter’s twenty-five Roman years, a n d that of Julius
Africanus, that is t o say in the episcopate of Victor
1 Quisque here=quicunque=whosoever.
4595
SIMON PETER
(about 189-198),or in that of Zephyrinus (about 198-
217).
(9) T h e consequence of this is that Peter becomes no
longer the founder merely, or joint founder, but the
bishop also of the church of Rome, a n d that Paul,
whom we still find even in Irenaeus, etc. ( c j 26 a-d), at
his side and on a level with him, is eliminated. This
consequence, however, was developed only gradually.
The Roman bishop Calixtus (about 217.222) claimed, as
appears from Tertullian’s refutation (Pudic. 21)) the power to
remit or retain siiis, on the ground that he was the successor of
Peter who, according to Mt. 1618J, had been invested with
this power. So also his successors afirmed in Cyprian’s time :
‘ Se successionem Petri tenere’ or ‘per successionem cathedram
Petri habere’; nnd this is presupposed by Cyprian himself
(&list. 7517 558 5914 713). According to the Epistle of
Clement to James (2) that now stands prefixed to the Pseudo-
Clementine Homilies, Peter, in appointing Clement bishop of
Rome, hands over to him his ra8Spa r i ) ~ h6ywv, and confers
on him the power of binding and loosing. The author
(Hippolytus?) of the ‘Little Labyrinth’ against the sect of
Artemon (up. Eus. HE 5 28) in # 3 styles Victor as rprurar-
84~arosb r b IICspou ;v ‘P&q ;riuKoros-thus no longer, as
Irenaeus phrases it, bwb ri)v >rom&hwv-(i.e., from Peter and
Paul ; see above, 5 25 c). Yet he continues to call Victor the
thirteenth as Irenreus had called Eleutherus, Victor’s prede-
cessor, the twelfth ; thus he does not yet reckon Peter as the
first member of the series. Similarly, Eusehius still counts
Linus 3s the first bishop of Rome, and in accordance with this,
gives the succeeding bishops the same numeration as 1ren;eus
does. While doing so he nevertheless adds (HEiii. 4 8), pera
I I h r p o v , yet along with this not only pe&. T+Y IIat5hou rrai I I h ~ p o u
p a p w p i a v (iii. Z), but also pen+ IIaShiv r e rat IIh~prpov (iii. Z l ) ,
brb I I h p o u rai IIa6hou (iv. 1) and, precisely as Irenreus has it,
a r b &Y drour6hwv (iv. 5 5 and v. prooem. I). For more precise
details from Eusebius see Kneller, 2. f: k a f h l . Theoi. 1902,
P. 229f:
( h ) It is in the CataZops Lidm’anus ( L e . , the list
of Roman bishops brought down t o Liberius, A.D.
3 5 2 8 ) . forming part of the famous ChronicZe of 354.
that Peter is first spoken of unreservedly a s first bishop
of Rome : ’ post ascensum ejus [Jesu] beatissimus Petrus
episcopatum suscepit ’ ( b u t here from 30-55 A. D. ).
The Ascensio Jesaicz would seem to be a still older
witness than any of those we have hitherto discussed,
t o the fact of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome.
( a ) Clemen ( Z W T , 1 8 9 6 , 388-415 ; 1 8 9 7 , 4 5 5 - 4 6 5 )
-
held it Dossible t o distinguish and isolate in 321-lor
3 z1)-4zz an apocalypse put into writing
“ I
27.
the death of Nero ( 4 z Y 13-16).
Jesaire. before which related to Nero’s Dersecution of
the Christians ; a n d in 436, which a t that date he
knew only through Dillmann’s Latin translation from
the Ethiopic ( e duodecim in manus eius tradetur ’), he
found a n allusion to the death of Peter in that reign.
Harnack ( A C L ii. 1714-716) disputed this hypothesis, in-
cluding that relating to Peter ; Zeller (ZWT, 1896, p. 558:558)
accepted the latter but like Harnack put the date ofcomposition
much later than klemen had done, and therefore denied its
trustworthiness as regarded Peter. Clemen at a later date was
able to report (TheoL Rundschau 1901, p. 75) that Vernon
Bartlet (ApostolicAge 1900, p. 524jalso had assigned Asc./es.
3 13-421 to the last yiars of Nero, hut at the same time took
the opportunity to add without further discussion that he him-
self no longer regardid that dating as probable in view of the
Greek text recently published by Grenfell and Hunt (Amherst
Papy?.i,1,1gw,1-22). Charles, who makes use ofthis Greek text
in his edition of Asc. JCS. ( I ~ M ) ,holds that a hiatus in 4 3d ought
to he filled by the insertion of els and the clause interpreted as
referring to Peter : ‘of the Twelve one will be delivered intb
his hands ’ ([TI& S&Gera [&] r a h xepuiv aero0 [rla a8o6uarac).
Harnack also gives his adhesion to this (SBA H( 19w. p. 985
f:),but adds that the value of the statement regarding Peter will
depend upon its date, and this he prefers to assign rather to the
first half of the third century, than to any time within the
second ( A C L ii. 1574-577).
(6) Charles, however, holds that Asc. Yes. 3 136-4 16,
‘ the testament of Hezekiah,’ ought to be dated between
88 and 100 A.D., not, a s in APOCALYPTIC (above, col.
230), between 50 a n d 80 A . D . According to him t h e
question turns upon 413 !p.,3of:))
Charles renders the Ethiopic venion, here the only text
available for us as follows : ‘ And many believers and saints,
having seen Hi; for whom theywere hoping, who was crucified,
Jesus the Lord Christ [after that I, Isaiah, had seen Him who
was crucified and ascended], and those also who were believers
in Him-of these few in those days will be left as His servants,
while they flee from deser: to desert, awaiting the coming of the
Beloved.’ Charles adds : we see that two classes of the faithful
4596
 SIMON PETER
. .
are discriminated . believers who had seen Christ personally,
and believers who had not. ... 01. the two classes our text
declares that few will be left.’ As, however, the first class can-
not well have survived into the second century, this assage
must have been written before 100 A.D. On the other tand, it
has to be remembered that this distinction of two classes could,
if really intended, hardly be called a good one. The second
class is spoken pf as consisting simply of ‘fhose who were
believers in Him . but the first class also consists of ‘ believers
(and saints).’ T h k it would hardly seem to have been the
writer’s intention to distinguish two classes.
( c ) In a private communication Charles now prefers
to read : ’ and many believers and saints who hud seen
.
Him . . and who uZso kept believing in Him,’ etc. By
this conjectural substitution of oi‘for the 6 r ~ which the
Ethiopic translation presupposes ‘allreference to a second
ciass disappears.’ Charles continues to maintain, how-
ever, that the reference is to Jewish Christians who have
personally known Jesus. But in this case we are
compelled to ask : Is the persecution of the last days
really to be confined to these alone, and are they alone
to look for the Messiah, and other Christians n o t ?
Besides, the text even as restored by Charles still contains
a very disturbing tautology, ‘ many believers and
saints ... who also kept believing in Him.’
Bousset (Antichrist, 1895, p. 87J) regards our passage as
more largelyinterpolated than Charles does. But neither is his
conjecture at all satisfying. As long as we hold by Charles’
text Zeller’s interpretation remains the most probable one, that
‘ sedng ’ means a knowledge of Christ possessed by all Christians
and not merely by those who were eye-witnesses of his earthly
life (cp Jn. 147 I Jn. 3 6 3 Jn. 11). On this interpretation
however all necessity disappears for dating the passage before
100 A.D. There are signs of a later origin, such as, for
example, the distinction of bishops from presbyters (M INISTRY ,
$$ 46, 47, 54 6, c), which as matter of fact is clear in the rpeu-
p h q m rdr m+&& of 3 24 (and also 3 29 according to the
Ethiopic version), or the representation of the circumstances of
the resurrection of Jesus (315-17), which, a t least in so far as
it names Michael (and Gabriel), goes beyond that of the gospel
of Peter even (see RESURRECT~~N-NARRAT~VES, S ?e).
( d ) Finally, it does not seem to have occnrred to any
one to ask whether or no the most important clause of
all in the passage before us really belongs to the
original text (436 : ‘of the Twelve one will be delivered
into his hands.’ Charles (pp. lxix-lxxiii) has rightly
perceived that it is not the living Nero who is regarded
as Antichrist, bnt the dead one : in the form of Nero,
we read in 42 4, Beliar ( = S a t a n ; 2 Cor. 615, and c p
BELIAL) will appear and will rule for 34 years,
immediately after which will be the end of the world
(45-re). Of this Nero it cannot be intended to say that
Peter is to fall into his hands in the year 64 A.D.
Except in this one clause-if indeed it is to be referred
to Peter-the whole of the rest of the description is
purely apocalyptic ; Christians will become godless
(321-31), Beliar will come in the form of Nero (42) and
will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of
the Beloved have planted (Gk. ‘will plant’ : +weduouutv,
43n ; as to this clause, cp below, e ) ; he will work
miracles, will cause himself to be worshipped as God,
and will be cast into hell by the Lord (Christ?), who
will come down from the seventh heaven (44-14). If
in the middle of all this it is said of one of the twelve
that he will fall into the hands of this Beliar (436),
the one intended must, if the clause is to fit the context,
be one who has survived the death of Nero.
The only notorious instance which the readers could have
found referred to in these purely allusive words would be that
of John with his cup of poison and his bath of boiling oil (see
J O HN , SON O F ZEBEDEE,S 86). Yet it is not easy to see why
this atrocity should be referred precisely to Beliar coming in the
form of Nero. This Beliar is a purely apocalyptic form, whose
deeds are with good reason described in quite general and
indefinite terms. As real prophecy a piediction of any such
detail would be not only hold hut also out of keeping with the
apocalyptic character of the representation of the time of the
end ; as z~aaiicinitrme x mentu it is equally out of keeping ; and,
besides, the martyrdom of John is not a historical fact hut first
came to he believed at so late a date after the time of the
emperor under whom it is alleged to have occurred (Domitian is
usually named) as to make it absolutely impossible that at the
time of the writer this emperor should be spoken of as the last
to reign before the end of the world or that a reign of no more
than 3+ years should he assigned to him.
Thus it becomes in fact probable that it is Peter
lli 4597
SIMON PETER
rather than John who is intended. In that case, how-
ever, the clause must be regarded as a gloss. It is so
regarded, it will be seen, not with the object of getting
rid of a text that is inconvenient for the view of Peter’s
life taken in the present article, but purely for reasons
affecting a right understanding of Arc. Jes. The
deletion of the clause would be necessary even if it
related not to Peter but to some other of the apostles
\\ ho had suffered martyrdom under Nero.
( e ) There are two ways by which the extent of the
gloss can be determined.
If in the entire text the Antichrist is the subject, then it consists
only of the above cited words in 4 3 b. If, on the other hand,
we should find ourselves constrained to understand the living
Nero as being the subject of v.,3 (the subject according to v. 2,
end, is ‘Who himself (even) thls king,’ 6 u r i s a h b s d paurAr3r
ofmos), then the immediately following expression, v. 3a (‘w~ll
persecute the plant which the twelve apostle: of the Beloved have
planted ’) must also be reckoned as belonging to the interpola-
tion ; for it is quite improbable that between two utterances
regarding Antichrist there should stand one relating to the living
Nero who must nevertheless be dead before Antichrist comes
forward in Nero’s form.
Why the clause should have been added by some
ancient reader will become very intelligible if only we
suppose such reader to have understood by Beliar the
actual Nero- as was done at first by Clemen in 1896f:
It thus appears that Asc. Jes. cannot be adduced as an
earlier witness for the belief of the martyrdom of Peter
under Nero than the documents dealt with in preceding
sections.
Contrariwise all the writings of an older date are
profoundly silent on the subject of Peter’s Roman
as. Clem. sojourn. A detailed examination of
I Clem. is at this point called for, partly
on account of its fundamental importance, and partly
because it is often taken in the other sense.
(a)After having pointed to the instances in the
O T in which jealousy and envy are seen to have led
to the most direful results, Clement proceeds : V. I.
‘AXX’ Iva 7 0 v dpxaiwv bxo8erypdrov rauuh-
poOa, PhOwpev Psl robs tyycura yevophvous &OAT-
.
rds A ~ . P w ~ L B v EVE& $p0v 7& yevvaia 6so8eiy-
rljs
para. 2 . 4th {ijiixov Kal @O6vov oi phytu~or Kai
8 t ~ a r b r a ~ UTDXOC
ot P8tdX8Taav Kal 8wr Oavdrou +j$Xquav.
3. A @ W ~ E~V p dqV3ahpGv b $ p 0 v ~ 0 3 sbyaOoljs dnourb-
AOUS. 4. n&TpOv,(IS6tb. { $ x O V &6lKOV 06x ( v a 066k 660
dXXb sXdovar ~ W - ~ ) V E ~s Kb Eo u s , Kai oiirw paprupSuas
&sopeMq cis rbv d@etXbpevov rlxov 7 i j s 86fqs. 5. At&
(ijXov Kal tptv ITaFXos hropovijs PpaPeiov E6et&v. 6.
E ~ T ~ K L &upb
S CopCuas, @wya6euOeis, ArOauOcls, ~ i j p ~ f
yev6pevos Cv T E 76 dvaroXjj Kai 6v ri Gduei, rb yw-
vaiov res aiurews abrov^ K X ~ PXaPcv. S 7 . GtKaroudvqv
&&ifas tihov rbv Kbupov, Kai &rl 7 b r i p p a rijs 8doews
PXOhv Kal paprup4uas P r l rDv $youphvwv, o h w s &-A-
Xdyq 700 K ~ U ~ O Kal U elr 7bv llytov rbsov P a o p e d O ~ ,
hropovijs yevbpvos piytu~os bsoypappbs. VI. I.
Tohots 70:s dv8pdurv dolus soAr7euua~votss u v $ p o i d ~
roXb uXGOos PKXEKTGV, oi‘rrrvrs soXAab alKiats Kai
paucivors 6rd f+os IraObvrcs 6 a b k t y p a ~dhXtu70~
P y i v o v ~ odv $pa. z. At& fijijxos 6twXOeiuat yuvakss
Aavai8rs Kal Aiph-at, a l ~ f u p a ~Gervb a ral bvbuca
xaOoGuar, P i d rbv r?js sicrrews PiPatov 6pbpov ~ a r 4 v -
rquav Kal #?,aPov +pas ycvvaiov ai &uOevveis r4 6 h p a r t .
(51) ‘But, not to dwell on the ancient examples, let us come
to those champions who lived nearest ourselves. Let us take the
noble exam les of our own generation. (2) By reason of
jealousy a n t e n v y the greatest and most righteous pillars were
persecuted, and contended even unto death. (3) Let us set before
our eyes the good apostles; (4) Peter, who by reason of un-
righteous jealousy endured not one nor two hut many labours,
and thus having borne his testimony went to his due place of
glory. ( 5 ) By reason of jealousy and strife Paul showed the
reward of patient endurance. (6) After that he had been seven
times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned,
had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble
renown of his faith: (7) having taught righteousness to the
whole world and having come to the limit of the West and
having borne his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed
from the world and went unto the holy place, having become
a very great example of patient endurance. (61) Unto these
men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of elect ones
who, suffering by reason of jealousy many indignities and
4598
 SIMON PETER
tortures, became a most admirable example among us. (2) By
reason of jealousy women being persecuted as Danaids and
Dircze after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults
safelykeached the goal in the race of faith and received a nohl;
reward, feeble though they were in body.'
( a ) T h e word pap.rup?fuas applied to Paul ( 5 7 ) will
be most fittingly interpreted as meaning, not ' having
suffered martyrdom' (his death is indicated rather by
the words cia$ddyq TO? K 6 U f i O U ) but rather 'having
borne (oral) testimony ' or, at most, ' having suffered
tortures.' In the case of Peter, however ( 5 4 ) , the first
of these two renderings does not fit well : for OOTW
fiaprupfiuas seems intended to convey 'after that he
had borne testimony' by the 'labours' ( r 6 u o i ) just
mentioned. These, however, extend over his whole
life as an apostle. That precisely his death was
occasioned by some such 'labour' and thus was a
martyrdom is not expressly said and therefore might
be disputed. Still, since Peter is here cited as a n
instance of how the greatest ' pillars ' contended even
unto death ' we refrain from doing so.
(c) In like manner it will be well to concede that
' among us ' (E% +p?u) in 6 I does not mean ' among us
Christians '-which would be tolerably vague- but
' among us Romans.' T h e reference is to the victims of
the Neronian persecution (6.) who were made use of for
the presentation of mythological pieces. Still when it is
said of the Neronian martyrs in Rome that they were
gathered together with Peter and Paul, we are by no
means to draw it as a necessary inference that Peter
and Paul also died in Rome. To ' was gathered'
(uuvqOpoIu8q) in 6 1 what we ought rather to supply
will be ' to the due place of glory' (cis r b dqhX6pcvov
rbaov res SJ.$vs) or ' to the holy place' (€is r b u ffyrov
r h o u ) of 5 4 7. Thus the common meeting-place
referred to is not Rome but heaven, and accordingly the
present passage says nothing as to the place of death.
( d ) Neither in 51 does the author give any reason to
suppose that he is thinking of all a s having one and the
same place of death. T h e oneness that unites those
about to be mentioned and separates them from those
who have been mentioned already is characterised as a
oneness of time only : ' who lived nearest ... our own
generation' ( ~ 0 3 s ~ ~ i u . r a y ~ v o p 6.~.or+jsyeue%+p&u).
us.
( e ) As the writer is at Rome, by the 'limit of the
west' ( d p p a r $ s G ~ U E W S , 5 7 ) to which Paul came it
would seem as if Spain must be meant. T h e fact,
however, of a journey of Paul to Spain is, if the present
passage be left out of account, nowhere asserted before
the fourth century except in the Muratorian fragment
(ZZ. 38, 39) and in the pre-Catholic Acta Petri (see
below, 5 3 3 a ) . and in view of the silence of the other
witnesses is very much exposed to, the suspicion of
being merely a n inference from Rom. 1524 28, where
Paul expresses the intention of extending his journey
from Rome to Spain. Eusebius ( H E ii. 222) speaks of
a missionary activity of Paul after the captivity spoken
of in Acts283of., but does not say where, and adds
that thereafter Paul came once more to Rome and
suffered martyrdom there. In the immediately follow-
ing context (223-8) he refers the 'first hearing' ( a p d ~ q
drohoyia) of z Tim. 416 to the first Roman captivity.
Here too, in view of the silence of other witnesses,
there arises inevitably a strong suspicion that the dis-
crimination of two captivities may have been suggested
by this passage merely, whilst nevertheless appbrq
ciaohoyla in the nature of things ought to mean merely
a first a appearance' or ' hearing' as distinct from a
second in the course of the same captivity, since the
whole passage 49-18 is speaking of the details of a
single captivity. For this inference not Eusebius but
some one who preceded him must be held responsible ;
he himself introduces the whole story with a hbyos Exei
('the story goes'). If, however, Eusebius, who elsewhere
puts forthso much that is falsewith the greatestassnrance,
here uses so cautious a n expression as this, the matter,
we may rest assured, is questionable in the highest degree.
4599
SIMON PETER
Harnack (A CL ii. 1 z39A) cbaracterises the liberation of Paul
from his first Roman captivity (and the journey to Spain) as an
'assured fact ' (gesichertc Thatsache). His reasons are-apart
from ~b r i p F a 6 s G d m o s here-certain genuine fragments of
Paul preserved in the Pastoral Epistles ( 2 Tim. 115-184 9-21
Tit. 3 l a x ) , for which one can find no room in the earlier life of
Paul (2. very precarious hypothesis, to say the least) and also
chronologicalconsiderations according to which the first captivity
came to an end in 59 A.D. whilst the martyrdom of Paul in th?
Neronian persecution (July, 64 A.D.) is an 'ascertained fact.
This last fact has no other 'secure' basis on which to rest than
v) ,The expression ' the limit of the west ' (.rb rdppa
~ 1 j sG u m w s ) itself would necessarily denote Spain only
on the assumption that it cannot be taken otherwise
than in a purely geographical sense. Since Paul,
however, is the subject of the sentence, the writer can
very possibly have meant a point that was for him the
westward liniit of his activities. in which case there is
no longer any necessity to hold that S p a i n 4 t h e r w i s e
so poorly attested as a field of Paul's activities- is
meant. T h e writer, indeed, had he been very anxious
to make it quite clear that Rome and Rome alone was
intended, could have added his' (atroc) to ' limit'
(.rippa) ; but it so happens that it is good Greek
precisely t o refrain from doing so. T h e passage is a s
every one sees highly rhetorical in character.
This being so it could surprise no one if the author, although
himself a Roman, with Paul's starting-point in mind, calls
Rome 'the limit of the west,' just as in Acts13 7 it is called
'the uttermost part of the earth' (Euxarou nis y$), and just as
in Ps. Sal. (17 14 [rz]) Pompeius sends his captive Jews 'as far
as the west' (&OS Z& b u p S u ) or as Ignatins (ad Kom.2~)is
transported 'to west from east' (eis Gduw Imb avaroA<s). In I
Clem. itself ' east and west ' (bvaroh? 8 t h ~ are
) used shortly
before ( 5 6 ) as geographical indications of the ran%eof Paul's
activities, but from this it by no means follows that the limit of
the west must here be taken in an absolute sense and without
any reference to the apostle's point of departure. In I Clem. 5 7
' having taught righteousness unto the whole world ' (brKarooliyv
S d d ( a s BAov 76" K ~ U ~ O Vonly
) repeats what was expressed in the
preceding clause by 'having preached in the east and in the
west ' (K+v( ycu6(rsvos I v r e rjj AvamAjj iu .i,&h~) and
similarly the phrase immediately following this last 'won the
noble renown which was the reward of his faith ' (76 yrvvaLov 6 r
T~UTBOF a h 6 KA& M a p e v ) gives already ahint of his martyrdom
which is more fully described in the succeeding section. Thus
it is entirely in accordance with the structure of the whole
writing if by 'having come to the limit of the west ' nothing
new is intended but only a renewed reference to the apostle's
sojourn in Rome. Another important point is that none of the
church fathers has found S ain in OUT present passage ; other-
wise Eusebius at least woupd not have left unnamed the place
where Paul was believed to have laboured between his first and
his second captivity, and the others would not have kept
complete silence as to his liberation from the first.
(g)If on the other hand Spain were meant it would
in that case become almost necessary to understand by
the rulers ( + y o L j p ~ u o ~before
) whom Paul bore his
testimony the Spanish civil authorities. There is not a
single tradition, however, in favour of Spain as the
place of Paul's martyrdom. T h a t Rome was the place
is nowhere doubted. T h e rulers (+yodpevor) can,
4600
 SIMON PETER
according to the usage of I Clem. (see M INISTRY ,
$ 47 6, middle), mean any high political authority : but
if Rome is referred to, the emperor and his advisers will
be meant.
(h) now come to the most important point-
which IS, that the entire passage before us is designed
to set forth a parallel between Peter and Paul. Thus
it becomes necessary to pay special attention to the
points in which the parallel is not carried out. Now,
3t the very outset, we notice that the sufferings of
Paul in the service of the gospel are much more fully
particularised than those of Peter. W e may he certain
that the author would have been equally detailed in
the case of Peter had this been in his power. Is it
possible that in Roine so little that is definite should
have been known if he had actually died there? In
the case of Peter, further, no parallel at all to Paul’s
‘coming to the limit of the west’ and his ’bearing
testimony before the rulers’ is offered. Had it been
Spain that was in question, we should not have wondered
to find that the same things could not be said of Peter as
of Paul ; but from what has been said in the foregoing
paragraphs of this section, it will be seen that it is with
Rome that we are dealing, and in this case it naturally
becomes a point of great importance to notice that
what is said is said of Paul alone. Yet, even if ‘ the
limit of the west ’ were to he taken as meaning Spain,
we should still have to reckon with the fact that the
author of the epistle was not in a position to say of
Peter that he had borne testimony ‘ before the rulers.’
Even should ‘ the rulers ’ denote, not the emperor and
his advisers but some other high anthority, it is clear
that the author knew nothing of any ‘witnessing’
( p a p r u p C v ) of Peter before such an authority. How
willingly would he not have adduced it had any such
tradition been within his reach ! For he names Peter
even before Paul. T h e phrase ‘ rulers,’ however,
makes it still more clear than does ‘limit of the west,’
that as regards Paul both must be sought in Rome.
This being so, the fact that only of Paul is it said that
he was a preacher in the east and in the west ‘ ( @ p u t
Ev T E 75 dua~ohZjKat hv T$ ~ ~ U E acquires
L ) a new signifi-
cance. In short, this writer was ignorant, not only of
any ‘ witnessing’ (fiaprupeiv) before the authorities (in
Rome) on Peter’s part, but also of any missionary
activity of his at all in the west ; yet he wrote in Rome
about 93-97 A.D. (at latest, but not probably, about
1 2 0 A.D. See G ALATIANS , 5 g [but cp also O L D -
C HRISTIAN L ITERATURE , § 261).
(i) This conclusion, however clear in itself, is often
resisted on the ground that no other place than Rome
is ever mentioned in tradition as the scene of Peter’s
martydom, and that it would be too extraordinary if
Clement, while knowing the fact of Peter‘s martyrdom,
should be ignorant of the place of it. But neither
objection is conclusive.
If let us suppose, Peter had perished while travelling in a
disdnt land, at some obscure place not as the result of ordinary
process of law, hut perhaps in somk popular tumult and if also
such companions as he may have had perished alo& with him
then information of his death could reach his fellow-Christian;
only by report ; and if, even a t a later date, no Christian church
arose at the place where it occurred, no local tradition as to his
end had any chance of surviving. Let us only suppose for
example, that Paul had died of the stoning at Lystra (Acts
14 19) or of that with which he was threatened at Iconium(l4 s),
and either was unaccompanied or was accompanied even in
death-what should we what could Clement-have known as
to the place of his deaih? Yet, indeed, there is no need for
supposing such an extreme case as this. I t is very conceivable
that Clement actually did know the place of Peter’s death and
yet did not name it because this was not required fo; his
purpose. In the case of Paul he does not judge it in the least
important to name the place; all he thinks worth corn;
memorating is that his appearance was made before the ‘rulers
( i l y o < w v o ~ ) , and in this way only indirectly do we learn the
locality. That of Peter’s death he could pass over all the more
easily because he could take it for granted that his readers a t
Corinth knew it just as well as himself. It must not be for-
that his object is not to tell them anything new, but to
w profitable exhortation for them from known facts.
( R ) It is therefore quite useless to conjecture that Peter
4601
SIMON PETER
and Paul alone are selected out of the number of the
apostles (notwithstanding that James the son of Zehedee
might also have been mentioned : Acts 122), only
because they were specially well known in Rome.
Even if this were the reason, it still would be no proof
of Peter’s having ever been in Rome: even without
this he was famous enough. What is more to the
point is that both apostles were known in Corinth-in
a general way as well known as at Ronie-and over
and above this in a special manner, because the church
there had been founded by the one, whilst the other
had been chosen by a party there as its head (I Cor.
1 I2 322).
( I ) If Peter’s death was not at Rome, then neither
was it during the Neronian persecution, which so far as
we know did not extend beyond that city. Even if it
had so extended, however, Peter could not be regarded
as one of its victims, according to the passage now
under discussion, for in the provinces the persecution
would naturally break @ut later than in Rome. whilst
Peter and Paul, according to the order followed, and
the gathering ’ ( u u v ~ O p o i u 8of
~ ) 6 I , preceded the great
multitude of Nero‘s martyrs. If they died in Rome we
should have to think of this as happening immediately
on the outbreak of the persecution. This, however, as
we have seen, does not apply to Peter ; and even in the
case of Paul we have no right to assume it, although he
did die in Rome.
The prevailing opinion, that if it was in 64 A . D ., it was in
consequence of the Neronian persecution that Paul w a ~ con-
demned to death, is veryrash. The judicial procedure of Rome
was not so utterly arbitrary as would be im lied were it true
that a prisoner who was kept day and night cfained to a soldier
should be found guilty of fire-raising, or of incitation thereto.
The process against Paul followed its own course. That in the
general hostility to Christians it was hurried on is likely enough,
hut hardly so rapidly that Paul should have preceded the great
bulk of the Neronian martyrs.
At a date subsequent also to that of I Clem. we
find allusions to the martyrdom of Peter, but without
mention of- the place. (a) It is not
29. Other certain, it is true, whether Jn. 1336
mentions of belongs to this category. When Jesus
martyrdom says: ‘Whither I go thou canst not
with place follow me now’ he means his going to
unspecified. heaven, as is clear from 734 821 (to
both of which passages express reference ii ‘made ‘in
1 3 3 3 ) ; and that it is into heaven that- Peter is to follow
him has its parallel in 1 7 2 4 . Nevertheless, it is open
to us to understand also that the manner of the enter-
ing into heaven, that is, the manner of death, is to be
the same for Peter as for Jesus. 1337 may contain a n
allusion to this when Peter says ‘ I will lay down my
life for thee.’ It would be qdite in keeping were we to
understand the words of Jesus as meaning : ’ Thou canst
not follow me in this manner now, but later thou shalt
be able.’ T h e question, therefore, comes to be whether
the writer already knew of the martyrdom of Peter.
On the assumption that the martyrdom is historical, it
is very probable that he did. But even if it was
legendary, the author, who wrote about 132-140 A . D . .
could very easily have heard about it. T h e question,
however, whether he thought of the death of Peter
as having happened in Rome, will depend for its answer
on our determination of the date at which this opinion
arose. H e himself gives no indication.
(6). Jn.21, the addition of a later hand (5 2zc).
certainly speaks of the martyrdom ; whether at Rome
or no is a question to be decided in the same manner
as in a.
(c) 2 Pet. 1 1 4 refers back t o Jn.2118f: Nowhere
else, so far as we know, did Jesus say to Peter that
‘ the putting off of his tabernacle cometh swiftly,’ and
in view of the late date of z Pet. (see 5 2 4 a ) its author’s
acquaintance with Jn. 21 is very possible, as also his
acquaintance with the tradition that Peter had suffered
martyrdom in Rome.
( d ) In the Muratorian fragment the passio Petri
4602
 SIMON PETER
is referred to in 1. 37, and that, according to the almost
universally accepted restoration of the text ( <semota
passione Petri evidenter declarat '), as one of the events
by his silence as to which the writer of Acts makes
it clear that he has incorporated in his book only such
occurrences as had happened in his presence. Thus
here also the martyrdom of Peter is regarded a s a known
event, and can very easily have been conceived of by
the author (who wrote between 170 and zoo A . D . ) as
having happened in Rome. Only, as he says nothing
as to this, the passage before us is not any more decisive
on the question in hand, than the other three which
have been already considered.
( e ) In Rev. 1820 ('rejoice over her, thou heaven, and
ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets ') the apostles
seem to be thought of as in heaven, and must therefore,
according to 69-11,have been thought of as martyrs.
W e may be certain, however, that not all the twelve
apostles became martyrs, not to speak of the saints and
Christian prophets of whom this would equally hold
good. T h e passage is thus too exaggerated to justify
us in inferring the martyrdom of Peter with certainty.
(f)In Macarius Magnes (Apocrit. 322 ; about 400
A D . ) the heathen with whom h e is in controversy says
that Peter made a disgraceful escape from prison in
Jerusalem (Acts 12 5-19), and was afterwards crucified
after having been able to carry out the command of
Jesus, 'feed my lambs' (Jn. 2115), for only a few
months. Harnack ( T L Z , 1902,604) will have it that
this heathen was Porphyry, the learned opponent of the
Christians in Rome (06. A.D. 304) and that what he
says regarding the few months and the death by
crucifixion has reference to Rome (in 4 4 the same
opponent of Macarius mentions the beheading of Paul
in Rome, and thereafter, without specifying the place,
the crucifixion of Peter) and is drawn from satisfactory
Roman tradition. Carl Schmidt (below 5 49), 167-171,
observes, however, and with justice, that in Porphyry's
time Peter's twenty-five years' sojourn in Rome had long
been a recognised belief (so also Harnack himself; above,
$ 26 [f]), and on this ground supposes that Porphyry
is drawing from the Acta Petri, according to which Peter
arrives in Rome and dies in the interval between Paul's
departure from Rome and his return ; and in fact the
divine prediction of the death of Paul in Rome (below,
$ 33 u ) is the answer to the request of his followers that
h e (Paul) should not absent himself from Rome for
more than a year.
All the more important in our present investigation
a r e those writings which are silent upon the sojourn in
Rome, and, so far as they were written
30. after 64 A.,D., also upon the martyrdom
on Roman
sojourn (ana of Peter, although some such reference
martyrdom). might have been expected in them. At
the same time, this does not hold good of
all of them in an equal degree.
( a ) T h e Epistle to the Romans excludes with the
utmost decisiveness the idea that at the time of its
composition Peter was in Rome, or even without
staying in Rome was exercising any sort of super-
vision over the church there. Had it been otherwise,
Paul would most certainly have referred to the fact.
H e is at very great pains to indicate his right to labour
i n Rome. W e may not here refer to his arrangement
with the three ' pillar' apostles at the council of Jeru-
salem (Gal. 2 9 : ' you to the Jews, we to the Gentiles ' ) ;
for this arrangement not only was capable of various
interpretations, but had also shown itself to be un-
workable ( C O U N C I L , 9). T h e practice of the Judaists,
however, who forced their way into the churches founded
by Paul and sought to turn them against him, had led
him to formulate another principle by which division of
labour in the mission field might be regulated- this,
namely, that no missionary ought to invade the field
once taken possession of by another ( ' not to glory in
other men's labours' ; 2 Cor. 1 O q J ) . When, how-
4603
SIMON PETER
ever, he excuses and justifies his intention of visiting
Rome, notwithstanding this principle, he always does so,
15-15 1520-29, as towards the church, whilst if Peter had
been its head he ought to have done so in the first
instance as towards him.
On the assumption that 1520-24,along with the whole, or
parts, of chap. 15 (and 16) comes from a later time, it has
sometimes been thought possible that here already the opinion
of Peter's hishopric of .Rome is presupposed. The expressions
however, are worded so generally that any such conjecture doe4
not admit of verification,even when the late date of the section
is assumed.
(6) T h e Epistle to the Philippians, which according
to 1 1 3 422 was very probably written in Rome, makes
no mention of Peter. True, Paul had not exactly any
urgent occasion to mention him in this particular epistle.
Nevertheless, one may hazard a conjecture that 115-18
would have been somewhat less sharply worded had
Peter been then at the head of the church in Rome
(the still sharper passage 32-6 does not come into
account here, as in all probability it is directed, not
against Jewish Christians as 115-18 is. but against non-
Christian Jews, and, in fact, against Jews of this class
in Philippi).
(c) If the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians
were written during the captivity in Czsarea, they do
not need to be referred to here. On the assumption of
their genuineness, however, it is equally possible that
they may have been written from Rome. In that case,
however, the apostle had no more pressing occasion, so
far as his correspondents were concerned, for mentioning
Peter (on the supposition that he also was at Rome)
than he had in writing to the Philippians (the Epistle
to the Ephesians, if we are to maintain its genuineness,
we must necessarily regard as a circular writing). If,
on the other hand, these epistles are not genuine but
really date from the period of Gnosticism between IOO
and 130 (see M I N I S T R Y , z s a , n.), it has to be noticed
that in Col. 410 there is a greeting from Mark who is
held to have been the interpreter of Peter, yet none
from Peter himself. W e cannot, nevertheless, securely
infer from this that the Roman sojourn of Peter was
unknown to this writer.
Not only does he not say that the epistle which he is writing
under Paul's name is meant to be taken as having been written
from Rome (the place of composition remains obscure); the
absence of mention of Peter can also have its explanation in the
fact that the writer cared only for Paul, not for Peter, and that
he therefore introduced into his letter greetings only from such
persons a ~ ,like Mark, bad been fellow-labourers with Paul
(unless, indeed, the list of greetings in 410-15 he a genuine
fragment of Paul, for the details of which we must not hold the
post-apostolic author of the whole epistle responsible).
T h e case of the Epistle to the Ephesians is similar.
I t too says nothing regarding its place of composition.
In presence of the great interest it expresses in the unity
of the church, and especially in the complete fusion of
Jewish and Gentile Christians (Izzf. 43-6 211-22, etc.),
there was, in point of fact, an opportunity for allusion
to the common activities of Paul and Peter. But as it
avoids personal matters almost entirely, and designates
the apostles and NT prophets in general as the founda-
tion of the church and as holy (220 35), we cannot
venture on any far-reaching inferences from the absence
of any mention of Peter, and in particular must not
infer with confidence that the author knew nothing of
Peter's Roman sojourn.
( d )T h e second Epistle to Timothy is expressly dated
from the captivity in Rome (18 16f: 2 9 ) , and names Mark
d o n g with other missionary companions of Paul ( ~ I J ) ,
although perhaps (just as with Colossians) in a genuine
fragment of Paul. Some mention of Peter (if his
Roman sojourn was already known) would have been
appropriate alike in the case of the genuineness of the
Epistle and in that of its spuriousness, but cannot be
expected with certainty even on the latter alternative-
whichiscertainlytheoneto b e c h o s e n ( s e e M I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ , § 5 4
[cp also T IMOTHY, ii. 161)-since z Tim. unreservedly
declares itself to be a ' Pauline' writing and an instruction
4604
 SIMON PETER
addressed to a disciple of the apostle, and sees the
unity of the church in its doctrine and organisation,
not in what can be said about the persons of its
founders.
( e ) I n Acts one of the main objects is to draw a
parallel between Peter and Paul (see ACTS, § 4). A
joint activity of the two in Rome would have been the
best crown which the author could possibly have given
t o this work. Indeed, even without the contempor-
aneous presence of Paul, the arrival in the metropolis
of the world of Peter, who with Paul passes as the real
originator of missions to theGentiles (101-1118 157-11),
must have seemed equally important with that of Paul,
which is even made the subject of repeated predictions
(1921 2311). If Peter is to be held to have come t o
Rome nevertheless, this is conceivable only as having
happened after Paul’s death, which the author did not
wish t o refer to for political reasons (see ACTS, 5 5 i.),
or on the supposition that the meeting of the two was a
hostile one, and therefore will have been passed over by
the author in the same silence with which he passed
over the encounter a t Antioch (Gal. 211-21). As for
this latter supposition, however, it is surely a n odd
procedure to excogitate a possibility, in order, thereby,
to support a tradition which declares precisely the
opposite of the possibility supposed-namely, a har-
monious co-operation between the two apostles. If
we disregard this attempt, we must infer that in the
author’s time, that is to say, somewhere between 105
( 1 1 0 ) and 130 (see ACTS, § 16), nothing was known of
a contemporary activity of the two apostles in Rome.
On the other hand, there remains the possibility that
Peter arrrived in Rome after the death of Paul ; only,
neither is this vouched for by any tradition.
v) T h e Shepherd of Hermas, which was written in
Rome about 140 A . D . , makes no mention of Peter.
Nor yet, it must be added, of Paul. A book of so
apocalyptic a character is, in fact, not to be supposed to
concern itself with personal details from a past time.
It is worthy of note that the rock (and the doors) of
the tower which represents the church, are interpreted
as meaning the Son of God (Sim. ix. 121,in agreement
with I Cor. .IO4 and Jn. 1079). This, however, proves
only that the author was still unacquainted with Mt.
1618-or that he has not allowed himself to be influ-
enced by it.
(9) All the more eloquent is the silence of Justin
Martyr, who wrote in Rome about 152,as to the Roman
sojourn .of Peter. H e has much t o say regarding the
sojourn there of Simon Magus, but nothing of Peter’s
polemic against him, of which we are to hear so much
by and by (IS 33, 34) 40 a ) .,,,
( h ) Papias (up. Eus. HE 111.3915) reports, as one of
the communications of the presbyter,’ that Mark accom-
panied Peter as interpreter ; but it is very rash t o assume
that in making this statement Papias had Rome in his
mind (see M A R K , col. 2939, n. I ) . If Papias wrote late
enough he could have heard of the presence of Peter
there ; but of this he in point of fact says nothing. I n
particular, the agreement of Papias with the statement
about Mark which Eusebius ( H E ii. 1 5 2 ; cp GOSPELS,
3 806) records has to be taken merely in accordance
with the words cited in the other passage and by no
means to be extended to everything which Eusebius
introduces here with a ’ they say ’ ( + a h ) ,and which, by
the connection with ii. 145f., must in fact be interpreted
as referring to Rome ( 5 25 d). Still more certainly wrong
would it be to extend the agreement of Papias also to
what follows in ii. 152 after the mention of his name,
where we read ‘ it is said ’ (@auiv)that Peter in his First
Epistle means Rome by ‘ Babylon.’
(i) Ignatius writes to the Romans ( 4 3 ) : ‘ I do not
enjoin you, as Peter and Paul d i d ’ (odx &s IGTPOS K U ~
IIaOXos &arduuopar 6pTv). If this was in 170-180A. D .
(see M INISTRY , 0 53, &i), we might suppose the phrase
quoted to rest on the assumption that Peter and Paul
4%
SIMON PETER
had personally laid their oral injunctions upon the
Roman church, since, so far as written precepts are
concerned, this could be said only of Paul, not of Peter.
When Ignatius is addressing other churches he expresses
the same thought without mention of Peter and Paul
(ad Eph. 3 I, ad T ~ a l l33). . Nevertheless we cannot
positively affirm that the expression in the Epistle of
Ignatius t o the Romans inherently, and thus even if
written at an earlier date, contains the presupposition
that Peter had once personally visited Rome. As what
he means to say is simply, ‘ I do not address myself t o
you as one having authority,’ it was very natural t o
mention by way of example two famous names that did
carry authority, even if they had not personally quite
equal importance for the readers.
( K ) I Pet. may here be noticed by way of appendix.
Whether it is relevant to the discussion will depend on
our interpretation of it, a n d this we are not yet able to
settle (cp 42). Babylon is in the Apocalypse ‘ t h e
great city’ (Rev. 18 IO zx), ‘ the mother of the harlots and
of the abominations of theearth, drunken with the blood
of the saints, ruling over the kings of the earth, sitting
upon seven hills ’ ( I f 5f. 18 9)-in other words, Ronie.
It is certain, however, that no such mysterious name
could have been bestowed upon the world-metropolis
before the beginning of the Xeronian persecution, and
we may conjecture that it first owed its currency aniong
Christians to the Apocalypse itself. Should I Pet., there-
fore, have been written before, or a t the beginning of, the
Neronian persecution, we may conclude either that the
writer could not possibly have intended Rome by Babylon
or at least that in referring to it by this name he could
not count upon being understood. This he could do, if
he wrote a t a later date. But this possibility by no means
excludes the other, that he may have meant the literal
Babylon on the Euphrates.
That this city was at that date wholly uninhabited rests upon
a too literal understandin of Pausanias (viii. 33 3 [cp i. 1G 31):
o W v T L f v e l p l TE;XOS ‘nothing is left but the wall5’) and
PIiny (”vi. 124:
26 [301 ‘ad solitudinem rediit.’ Cp Lucian
Charon, 23 : ‘Yonder IS Babylon, the city with the nobl;
towers, the city of vast compass : but soon it too, like Nineveh
will be sought for in vain. According to Strabo (xvi. 15, p:
738 or 1073) the city was only ‘desert for the most part
(cpqyos 4 rohbj) ; according to Diodorus (ii. 99) a small portion
was inhabited. To understand rightly what is meant one must
bear in mind the enormous compass (360-385 stadia, some 40 m.)
of the city according to Diodorus (ii. 73) and Strabo (/.c.).
Under Claudius the hatred of the Babylonians compelled the
Jews in Babylon to take refuge in Seleucia; but therealso their
arrival stirred up fresh hatred and they were put to death to the
number of more than 50,000 (Jos. Ant. xvrii. #SA,88 371.376).
Before entering upon the difficult field of the apocryphal
literature it will be convenient to sum up the results of
31, provisional the preceding discussions of passages
in the N T and the fathers.
conc~~usions. l a ) A twenty-five years’ soiourn of
Peter in Rome is out of the quesiion. k o m a n s i n d Acts
are decisive against it (I 30 a , e ) . Further, the manner
in which Peter’s presence in Jerusalem as a resident is
taken for granted in Acts 15 and Gal. 21-10in connection
with the Council of Jerusalem, as also in Gal. 211-21 in
connection with his subsequent visit to Antioch, cannot
be satisfactorily explained by the favourite theory of pro-
longed interruptions of his Roman sojourn.
( 6 ) AsRom., Acts (and Phil.) show (5 30 a. 6, e ) , Peter
had never been at Rome at all at any date before or dnring
Paul’s sojourn there.
(c) Peter’s bishopric in Rome (5 26g, I ) is excluded
by the fact that throughout the first century and indeed
even down to the time of Hermas (about 140 A . D . ) , and
particularly in Rome, no such thing as monarchical
episcopacy existed a t all (see M INISTRY , $8 46 6, 47). as
also by this, that according to Gal. 29 Peter’s wish was
to associate only with Jews and Jewish Christians, and
according to zw. 11-21 he was not in a position to take
any tenable place in a mixed community. A s bishop
of the mixed community in Rome he would have been
exposed to the same difficulties as in Antioch, and would
4606
 SIMON PETER
soon have made himself as impossible in the one place
as in the other.
( d ) T h e theory also, that along with the other original
apostles Peter remained for twelve years in Jerusalem
and thereafter set out on missionary journeys is false,
not only because it leads chronologically to a displace-
ment of the Neronian persecution (bringing it down to
67 A . D. ; see 5 26 e)-an error which would admit of
rectification by a curtailment of the twenty-five Roman
years-but also because it presupposes that the original
apostles, contrary to Gal. 29, had carried on missions t o
the Gentiles. T h e twelve years, however, are themselves
open to suspicion, not merely because twelve is a sacred
number, but also because it could be easily arrived a t
by computation from Acts 1 2 3 17-24. Herod Agrippa I.
died in 44 A.D. ; shortly before, after his liberation from
prison, Peter left Jerusalem. T h u s it was possible t o
arrive at a sojourn of twelve years in Jerusalem for Peter
in the first instance, and then, schematically, to extend
the same determination of time to all the rest of the
original apostles.
( e ) Of all the spheres of activity assigned by tradition
to Peter outside of Palestine, the only one that deserves
serious consideration along with Rome is Babylonia
(3 24). I n virtue of its large Jewish population Baby-
lonia was very well suited to be a mission field for the
apostle, and in a certain view of the passage is also pre-
supposed to have been so in I Pet. 5 1 3 ($5 30 k , 42, 43).
(f)Clement of Rome, incomparably the most im-
portant witness (5 28). is decisively against a Roman
sojourn of Peter. All that can be deduced from him is-
not indeed as anything certainly attested but yet as some-
thing which need not be gainsaid-only Peter’s martry-
dom, but outside of Rome and away from the western
world altogether. Nor are we carried any further by
the notices of his martyrdom enumerated in 5 29 where
no place is specified.
(g)If Peter suffered martyrdom it by no means follows
from this mere fact, as Harnack represents the matter
( A C L ii. 1710). that the martyrdom was in Rome.
We cannot even %sent to Harnack‘s first sentence as certain,
‘if the fact of the martyrdom was at that time notorious, the
lace of it was also known ‘(see B 28 2’) ; and his second sentence
’hut never has any other church than the Roman laid claim :t
the martyrdom of Peter,’ loses its demonstrative force as soon
as the event is for a moment supposed to have happened at a
place where, during, say, the next hundred years, no Christian
church existed. The assumption is often made that for the
martyrdom of any apostle a Christian persecution, or at least
some formal process against the individual martyr, was requisite.
Surely it would be well to remember z Cor. 11 2 5 3 , ‘once I was
stoned . .. in perils from my countrymen in perils from the
Gentiles.’ At a place where a n apostle had’died in this manner
memory of the occurrence would naturally be less vivid and
tenacious than it would be in a place where there was a
Christian church, and could easily drop into the background
and finally fall into complete oblivion when the opinion became
widely diffused that Peter had died in Rome. See, further,
under @), and 5 406.
( h ) Justin (about 152 A.D.) knows nothing of the
Roman sojourn of Peter (5 30g). This circumstance
ought also to induce caution in finding a testimony for
such a sojourn in Clement of Rome.
(i) Of the authors dealt with up to this point Dio-
nysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D.) is the first t o assert
a Roman sojourn. Only, he does it in connection with
so much matter that is fabulous that his ’ distinct state-
ment’ (so Harnack, 710) must thereby be held to lose
all credibility ( 5 25a). The other statement, in all
respects parallel to the assertion of Dionysius, that Peter
founded the church of Antioch (5 24d), is characterised
by Harnack himself ( 7 0 5 3 ) as ‘ a gross falsification of
history.’
( k ) T h e list of Roman bishops seems to have the
advantage over Dionysius that it rests on local tradition.
Yet we have no certainty that it bore the names of Peter
a n d Paul a t its head before the time of Irenaeus (525 6).
( I ) No value can be attached to the statements of
Gaius as to the places of death of Peter and Paul (5 26 6 )
because in his time, or even ten years before his time,
469
SIMON PETER
the second stage of the Roman Peter-tradition, the
‘ tendency legend ’ of the twenty-five years’ duration of
his sojourn, hadalready, according to Harnack, ‘ become
official ‘ (5 26 e, f).
( m )I t is not of Peter alone, but almost without ex-
ception, of Peter and Paul together, that the exponents
of the above tradition affirm a sojourn (eventually even,
in fact, a n arrival together) and a martyrdom in Rome
( 5 25f. ). If Clement ofAlexandria mentions only Peter,
there is a special reason for this ( 5 2s d ) , and also in
Origen ( 5 2 6 c ) we have n o reason to doubt that h e
thought of Peter a s having died at Rome under Nero just
as he expressly asserts that Paul did. If one decide
in favour of Rome as the place of Peter’s death (but see
above,f-h), there is no longer any direct possibility of
disproving that this event was practically contempor-
aneous with the death of Paul. This circumstance,
however, is of no significance ; for the presence together
of Peter and Paul in Rome during the period described
in Acts (and Philippians ; see 1 30 e, b ) is practically
excluded, and thus can continue to be affirmed only
when the hypothesis of a second captivity of Paul is
called in-a hypothesis which is quite unhistorical (5 28
e, f). See further, under p , and 5 41 6.
(e)Our decision must therefore decidedly be that
Peter never was in Rome a t all.
We read in Harnack ( ~ o g ~ ?‘)it, is here presupposed [that is
to say, throughout the whole of ACLI and never once has it
been sought to rove that Peter really bid come to Rome and
suffered martyraom there. This fact, so far as I am aware is
not disputed save by those who give credence to a certkiii
ancient Simon-romance, and in accordance with this afirm that
Peter was brought to Rome by ‘ tendency-legend’ in order to
controvert, in the world-metropolis also Simon-Paul who had
taken his journey thither’ (see below, $ i o n , 6). This assertion
must now so far at any rate, he qualified by the fact that at
least one profane)historianof repute, namely, Soltau (below, o),
has come forward in support of the condemned thesis. Also,
the preceding discussion shows thus much at least, that our
conclusion has been arrived at without a n y resort at all to the
Simon-romance.
I t rests essentially upon a particular view of I Clem.
and Ignatius (85 28, 30 i) whom Harnack himself calls
‘ two very strong, though not absolutely secure, supports
of the martyrdom, or of the sojourn of Peter in Rome,’
upon a distrust of the ‘testimony’ of Dionysius of Corinth
a n d his companions which was formerly shared (see
above, 5 28 e ) by Harnack himself, and upon a due re-
gard t o Justin’s evidence, upon which Harnack is quite
silent. Just as, according to Harnack, the ‘ tendency-
legend’ of Peter’s twenty-five years’ sojourn in Rome
became official between 189 and 217 A . D . , so also in
our view the fable of the simultaneous presence of Peter
and Paul in Roms and the martyrdom of Peter there
became official between 152 and 170 A.D.
( 0 ) A point upon which the foregoing discussions have
shed but little light is the question a s to bow this result
came about, and as t o whether this fable also deserves
the name of tendency-legend. Soltau, who uses the
above sources only, points out (pp. 26f. 41 =494f: 509 ;
below, 5 49) how strong was the effort on the part of
individual churches to be in a position to claim a n apostle
as their founder (see J O H N , SON OF ZEBEDEE, 6).
Now, the Jewish Christians in Rome, in their lively struggle
against the Paulinists there, had chosen Peter after his death as
their spiritual head, and thus the belief was nourished that he
had really once heen in Rome at least as a martyr. According
to the theory of Acts (814-17)upheld also by Harnack he
thereby came at the same time’to appear to be the found& of
that church. Towards this belief another element, Soltau
thinks, may have co-operated, namely, that Mark the interpreter
of Peter lived subsequently in Rome, and thus through him the
Romans possessed the pure doctrine of Peter. Mark, however,
figures in Rome in tradition only in his quality of interpreter of
Peter. The historian who like Soltau denies a sojourn in
Rome to Peter cannot maiitain it for Mark. That the Use of
Acts S 14-r7 in this connection is illegitimate has been already
arsued above ($ z j a).
Soltau’s other conjectures of a special kind have
also but little probability, and in the interests of his
point of view it would perhaps be better to rest
satisfied with the general contention that churches were
4608
eager to have apostles as their founders, and in the case
of Rome, the world-metropolis, there was a special
reason for wishing to b e able to claim the two most
prominent names of all, especially as these represented
the two main currents of doctrine and practice within
the church (see M IN ISTRY, 136). T o this Erbes (2.J
Kirchengesch. 22 [1901] 215-224) adds, besides fuller
elaborations of this fundamental thought, the easy mis-
understanding of I Clem. 5 and of ' Babylon ' in I Pet.
5 1 3 (see $5 28, 30 R ; but also $139 e, 44 u). I n fact even
in the absence of still more special reasons for the rise of
the fable of the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter
it would be necessary to maintain its fabulous character ;
(9)T h e poi& on whichfurther li&t would be specially
welcome are these : Did the belief in Peter's Roman
sojourn and martyrdom exist earlier than 170) Did it
exist, outside of Rome, even before Justin? I n fine,
did it exist so early that it can already lie a t the founda-
tion of I Pet. 5 1 3 1 Is it possible to account for its
origin in spite of its erroneousness more completely than
has up to this point been d o n e ; and, particularly, to
explain also why hitherto we have met with Peter in
Rome almost always only in association with Paul, and
why his martyrdom is reported from no other locality
than Rome (see above, y , g)?
Of the aD0CrVDhd wntlnes relatine to Peter the first
_ _ _. id be considured are-those which admit
of being grouped under the general
Bets on designation of Acta Petri, in other
words, as accounts of the missionary
Peter: activities of Peter and of the close of
literary' his life. Of these, three groups are to
b e distinguished.
( a ) T h e first group is pronounced Gnostic by Lipsius
(ii. 184-284, and particularly 258-270)~ and Zahn (Gesch.
d. NTZichen Kunons, 2 832-855 [1892]), but Catholic by
Harnack ( A C L ii. 1549-560), Erbes ( Z . f: Kirciun-
g e s d . , 1901. 22 163-171), and Carl Schmidt (below,
5 49), 111-151. T h a t they are wholly Catholic,
however, the three last-named scholars are unable
to affirm. As the settlement of the question is not
indispensable for our present purpose, let us call
them- to choose a neutral designation- the pre-
Catholic Acta Petri. T h e employment of this designa-
tion must not be taken as meaning that the Acts in
question are actually of earlier date than the Catholic
ones-a question which in point of fact is doubtful (see
5s 35-37, 39 6)-but only that their standpoint is less in
correspondence with the Catholic than that of the
Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli. Another widely spread,
though not completely prevalent, name for them is
IIepiofior IIQT~ou. A characteristic story from them-
that of a talking dog (I 33 6)-is known to Commodian
(about 250 A . D . ; Curm. ApoL 617-620 [623-626]).
T h e date is assigned concurrently by Lipsius (175) and
Zahn (841)to 160-170 A.D.,whilst Erbes gives it as
190. Carl Schmidt (pp. 99-109) as zoo-210, i.e., shortly
before the PhiLosophzimena (above, 5 26d), and Harnack
places it as late as the middle of the third century.' At
the same time, it has to be noted that, in assigning
the date he does, Lipsius means only that of the
origin of the writing that lies at the foundation of our
Acta Petri, the date of their present form being in his
1 Apart from other indications, Hamack relies upon the
argument that the end of Simon Magus is told in a different
way in the PhiZosu#humena (6 20 ; about 235 A.D.) from that in
which it is told in the Acta Petri (he caused himself to be buried
by his disciples, promising that he would rise again on the third
day; hut he did not rise after all; cp below, 8 34g S IM O N
hfAcus 5 5 w). All that this proves however, is )that the
author 1s following another tradition, nbt that the Acta Petri
were not yet in existence. The author of the PhiZosojhumma
as a zealous confuter of heretics had even strong reason for mis-
trusting the information of the Acta.
4609
opinion later : for example the Acts of the so-called
Pseudo-Linus (see below, no. 7 ) he places (172 $)
between 400 and 450 A.D. Zahn (833) as against this
disputes the contention that the Acta at a n earlier date
had a different form from their present, and Harnack
holds that there is no reason at all for assuming a
Gnostic basis for them ; it is merely a n abstract possi-
bility (559). Now, Eusebius ( H E iii. 32) includes the
Acts of Peter (Dpd&s I I ~ T ~ o uamong ) those writings
which were never handed down in Catholic circles, and
with this agrees his general survey of the N T literature
in iii. 2 5 4 6, according to which the Acts of Paul (IIpdE~is
IIadXov) belong to the Antilegomena, in other words to
his last cl& that of books written by heretics in-the
name of apostles, and never cited by any Catholic
w-riter, but ' altogether strange and impious ' ( ~ T O T U
?rdvrv Kal Suuuq3fi). In accordance with this is the
very close relationship, if not identity of authorship
which Lipsius (265f:, 272f:) and Zahn ( 8 6 0 $ ) , again
in agreement, find between our Acta and the Gnostic
Acts (IIpd&is), or Circuits (IIcppioSoi) of John and other
apostles, attributed to Leucius (Charinus). James
(Apocr. -4necd. 2 pp. xxiv-xxviii ; in TcxZs and Studies,
51,1897) positively affirms the identity of the author
of the Leucian Acta Johannis with the author of the
Acta Petri, whilst Carl Schmidt, 90-99, explains the
agreement from use of the Acta Johannis by the author
of the Acta Petri. Franko (ZNTLV, 1902, 315-335)
seeks to support the Gnostic character of the original
form of the Acta Petri by means of a pronouucedly
Gnostic fragment which he translates from the Ecclesi-
astical Slavonic. Thus for every one who does not hold
the present form of the Acta Petri to be Gnostic, there is
very urgent occasion for finding. if possible, a Gnostic
primary form of it. So far as our present purpose is
concerned, however, we may dispense with further
detailed inquiry as to this point.
The principal writings in which those pre-Catholic Acta Petri
have been preserved for us are as follows : (I) Actus Petri cum
Simone, from Paul's departure from Rome for Spain, and the
arrival of Peter in Rome until the death of Peter; in
Latin, in a MS at Vercelli, &erefore known also as Actus Petri
Vercellenses. (2) The conclusion of these Acta, namely the end
of Peter's contention with Simon, and the entire martyrdom of
Peter, exists in Greek in a Codex at Mount Athos. (3) The
martyrdom alone, also in Greek, is found in a Codex a t Patmos.
To the same family belong further (4) an Ecclesiastical
Slavonic, ( 5 ) a Coptic and (6) an Ethiopic translation. All six
have been edited (or'collated) in d c f a AjusZ. d j o c r . 1,PJ ed.
Lipsius (and Bonnet), 1891,45.103 ; no. 3 for the first time in
/PT,1886, pp. 86.106 !75$ Of the other family, which, apart
from its divergences, is distinrished by its more copious style
of narration we possess (7) t e martyrdom of Peter which is
ascribed to iinus the first bishop of Rome (see ahove, 1 25 c) (in
Acta Aposf. A j o c ~ .1-22). Last1 there is-closely related as
regards details of the text-@) d e Passio Apostolorunr Petri
et Pauli which is incorporated with the Latin recension of
Josephus'JmisjE War, datingfrom 367-375 (or about 3 9 5 ? ) ~ . ~ . ,
and which also includes certain events before the martyrdom of
Peter.1 As for the contents, everythin of a non-Catholic nature
has been so carefully removed that t f e text belongs rather to
the next following class. The mutual dependence of the texts
just mentioned has been determined by Zahn (834-832, 895,
n. 2) followed by Harnack, otherwise than it is by ipsius
(1og-;73, 194-200)-200)thjs,
1 however, may be left out of account in
our present investigation.
(6) T h e Catholic Acta (see Lipsius, 284-366) are, as
already seen in Pseudo-Hegesippus (see ahove, a [8]).
not Acts of Peter only, but Acts of Peter and Paul.
Both contend conjointly with Simon Magus in Rome
and there suffer martyrdom.
(I) The Latin form, in which this writing is wrongly attributed
to a certain Marcellus who is named in it, dates from the
sixth cen!ury (Lips. i. 169). I t begins : ' Cum venisset Paulus
Romam. The parallel is (2) the Greek text in a codex of the
1 This Latin recension is entitled ' Hegesippns [a diitortion
of Josephusl de excidio Hieromlym.' edd. Weber et Czsar 1864.
The section forms hk. iii., chap. 2, and is to he found ado in a
lllarhurg Universitatspro amm (20th Aug. 1860 ; cp Lipsius,
Ig4-ZOO ; Schiirer, GJV 1873J).
4610
 SIMON PETER
Fbrary of St. Mark in Venice beginning : 2hO6usos r k +v
P&pqvroii .iyYiov lladhov. Botdare met with injuxtaposition in
Acfa A Q S ~ . Apocr. lire-177. 16id. 178-222 is found (3) a
6
longer reek text in which, in particular, at the beginning
occurs a description of Paul’s journey through Italy, beginning :
;Y+WO pes& s b &Ukiu rbv llyrov IIaChov dlrb I’av80psAhbqc
(this name is obtained by combination of Ka0Sa or KhaGGa and
MeAYiq, Acts 27 16 28 I). No. 2 exhibits, according to Lipsius
(284-296), the relatively original form, which, however, isnot older accordingly bends over the dead.man’s head and shows the
than about 450 A . D . (310-313). On the other hand he supposes
that there had been a Catholic original form of this account of
Peter and Paul, which arose soon after the middle of the second
century, and thus approximately at the same time with the re
Catholic Acta Petri and may have been known, of the Fatferi
citeding26 to at le&t Tertullian Origen, and Eusebius(pp. 331-
358). Erhe)s (2.J Kirckngesih. 22, 1901, 174-182) tries even
to make it out to be older than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri
which he assigns to about 190A.D, and would fain find traces of
its employment as early as in the PrrePicatio Pauli in Pseudo-
Cyprian (above 8 25e), whilst according to Lipsius (325-327
337-339) it has bnly in isolated points preserved traditions o?
older date than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri.
( c ) T h e third main group is made up of the following
three compilations.
( I ) A Latin Passio Petri et Pauli in a MS of the Laurentian
Library at Florence relating to the conflicts with Simon, and
the martyrdom of th; two apostles, beginning with the words ‘ jn
diebus illis, cum introissent Romam heatus Petruset Paulus : in
Acfa Aposf. Apocr. 1223.234 ; ( 2 ) a ‘ Passion of the holy and
chief apostles Peter and Paul,’ which forms a special section of
the Ecclesiastical Slavonic translation mentioned above (under
a q ) ;(3) the ‘VirtutesPetri’and the ‘VirtutesPauli’inthecollec-
tion of apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, wrongly attributed to
the alleged disciple of the apostles Abdias and entitled ‘ Historia be fastened to it with his head downwards, and, his request
certaminis apostolici,’ or Historia apostolica,’ hks. I and 2,
printed, e.g., in Fabricius, CQdeX afiomy#Avs NT,2, begin. All
these pieces are, according to Lipsius ($6-39), too recent to be
of importance for our present investigation.
Of the abundant contents of this literature only the
most important points can here be noted.
(a)According to the pre-Catholic Acta Petri, Paul journeys
a t the divine command from Rome into h a i n . after it has been
proclaimed by a &ice from heaven that
33. contents of he ... will afterwards be Dut to death in
~ ~~ ~
pre-Catholic Konie by Sero (ch. I). ‘After some days the
it becomes known in Rome that a wonrlcr-
Acta petri. worker named Simon, uho calls himself
the great power of God (magxam virtutern &z) is a t Aricia.
On the following evening be appears before the pate of Rome,
over which he has promised to fly, disappears and then appears
once more on the other side of the gate. Shortly after, he gains
so great repute that even almost all the Christians go over to
him (4).
(6) Simultaneously God lays his cpmmand on Peter, on the
expiry of the twelve years during which he had been ordered to
stay in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus (above, €426e, 31g, shorter Greek text ;from Gaudomelete according to the longer.
to journey to Rome by wa of Caesarea in order to contend wnh
Simon ( 5 ) . Here Peter, wxo bas been eagerly awaited by those
who have remained faithful, an& is joyhlly welcomed, goes to
the house of Marcellus a former disciple of Paul and present
follower of Simon and by means of a dog that speaks with
human voice, c&es Simon to be summqned forth ($ 32u).
Marcellus comes out and acknowledges his sin that he has
been devoted to Simo: and has even set up to’ him a statue
with the inscription Simoni juveni deo’ (gJ). The dog,
which Simon within the house has asked to deny his
presence, foretells to Simon the inimicus et c o r n r p t o ~vie
verizatis the impending curse, but outside the house promises
Peter a hard struggle with Simon, and dies (12). Challenge!
to a further miracle, Peter takes from a window a ‘sarda
(pickled sardine), throws it into a pool and makes it swim
(12f:; something very similar is related of Jesus when he was
three years of age in the Latin Gospel of Thomas [I 4 ; see
Ewangc. ujocr. ed. Tischendorf (2) 164x1).
(c) Peter tells that while hew& still in Jerusalem, Simon had
stayed with a rich woman in Judza, named Eubola and by
means of two of his companions whom he had made h s i b l e
had robbed her of all her gold, and soon afterwards bad offered
a portion of it, a golden Satyriscus, to a goldsmith named
Agnp inus for sale. Peter, warned beforehand in a vision,
had tiem Lrrested ; Simon thereupon disappeared altogether
from Judaea (17).
(d) A disputation between Simon and Peter in the presence
of senators, officers of state and the whole people, is arranged
for in the forum. Peter beiins to the effect that Simon is con-
demned (reprehensum: cp SIMON MAG US,^ 4“). He reproaches
him with concealing the fact that for his tvft from Eubol?
(above c) he has been driven from Judzea. Didst thou not
he coitinues, ‘in Jeiusalem (sic)fall at my feet and a t those of
Paul (sic) when thou heheldest the healings wrought by us, and
sly : I heseech you accept from me a price, as much as you will,
that I may be able to lay on my hands and do like deeds of
power’ (viriutes: cp SIMON M AGUS, $ IC). Simon makes
answer by disputing the divinity of Jesus inasmuch as one who
is born and crucified and has a Lord, cannot be God (23).
(e) Peter now aghn challenges Simon to work a miracle,
saying that he himself will then counterwork it (24). The
4611
SIMON PETER
refect Agrippa causes one of his people to come forward and
{ids Simon put him to death, but Peter to bring him to life
again. Simon whispers into the ear of the youth, who there-
upon dies. Peter bids Agrippa take the hand of the dead man
who again returns to life (25A). Peter also raises from the dead
the son of a widow (a5 27), but when requested by the mother
of the dead Senator kicostratus to do the liky for her son,
suggests that this should he undertaken by Simon. Simon
people how be raises himself up, lifts his head and moves, and
opens his eyes. Peter further demands however, that Simon
shall cause him to speak and walk. After himon bas been driven
away from the corpse by the prefect, it lies lifeless as before.
Peter brings Nicostratus back to life after having begged the
people not to burn Simon as they were proposing to do (28).
V, After some days Simon promises to fly to God in presence
of all the people. Next day he actually does fly aloft above all
the temples and hills of the city. Peter prays to Christ to make
him fall, but allow only one leg to be broken. And this is what
actually happens. Simon dies of his injury at Terracina (p).
(g)Induced by Peter’s preaching, the four concubines of the
r f e c t Agrippa-namely Agrippina, Nicaria (Linus : Eucharia)
uphemia Doris (Linus : Dionistbreak off their relations wit;
him (33=iinus 2, where, however, Peter has previously been
thrown into prison by Nero, because the time of his heavenly
reward drew nigh In like manner Xantippe the wife of
Alhinus, a friend olthe emperor, withdraws from the society of
her husband. The two men accordingly resolve upon the ruin
of Peter (34=Linus 3). Xantippe causes him to he informed of
this, and Peter agrees to flee. Outside the city gate Jesus
meets him. Peter asks : Domine, quo vadis? Jesus answers:
Romam vmio iterum mcz&i. Peter changes his mind ana
oyfully tums back (35=Linus 3-6). Agrippa sentences him to
$e crucified (36=Linus 8). Arrived a t the cross, Peter begs to
having been carried out, expounds at some length the mystery
of the cross, especially that of crucifixion with head downward
(37&=.Ljnos IZ), and dies. Marcellus carries off the body and
buries it in his own (Marcellus’s) tomb (4o=Linur 16).
(A) Nero is wroth with Agrippa for acting on his own respon-
sibility he himself baving meditated still worse things for Peter
(according to Linus, on account of the loss of his friend Simon),
and for a time refuses to speak to him (according to Linus,
Agrippa loses his office and dies under the torments of the
divine judgment). Nero’s rage flames forth against the
Christians who remain; whereupon there appears to him in
night an angel who severely chastises him (according to
Linus, a t the instance of Peter who likewise appears to him),
so that he ceases from his persecution of the Christians (41=
Linus 17).
In the case of the Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli we
shall pass over, along with many other things, the
additions of the longer Greek text.’ Of the common
points the most important are the following.
(a)When Paul comes to Rome (from Spain, according to the
see $ 32 6) :he Jews’beg him to vindicate hi;
34’ contents ancestral faith and to controvert Peter, who
O f Catholic is doing away with the whole Mosaic law
Acta petri (ch. I). Paul declares himself a true Jew
who holds by the Sabbath and the true
et pas. circumcision (below $ 3gc) and promises to
bring Peter’s doctrine to the test (2). ’ The iwo have a joyful
meeting (3J). Next day Paul reconciles the Jewish and Gentile
Christians, who have been disputing about the pre-eminence in
the Kingdom of God, by ointing to the promise to Abraham
which applie: to both (5-7f To the same effect Peter preaches
(65) and with great results, so that the Jewish rulers of the
synaiogue and the pagan priesthood stir up the people against
them and seek to bring Simon the magician into honour.
(6) I n consequence of the reaching of Peter Livia (Octavia
perhaps is meant) the wife o f Nero, and Agrippina the wife of
the prefect Agrippa (in $ 33 [ E ] she is his concubine) withdraw
themselves from the society of their husbands (IO).
(c) Simon performs feats of witchaaft, also before Nero (he
flies for example, through the air); Peter works miracles of
heahng, casting out of devils and raising of the dead (11.15).
Nero causes both, along with Paul, to be brought before him
and hears them. As Peter appeals (16-18)to the written repor;
of Pilate to the emperor Claudius (sic), Nero causes it to be
read aloud (19.21). Peter asks that Simon shall read his
thoughts, but this Simon is unable to do ( z z - z ~ ) complaining
, also
that Peter had already treated him thus in Judaea and all
Palestine and Cresarea (28). Simon reminds the emperor that
he (Simon) had caused himself to be beheaded and had risen
from the dead, thus proving himself to be Son of God. The
fact, however, was that in the dark place where the beheading
happened he brought it about that a ram was beheaded in his
stead (3rJ).
(d) At two separate points in these proceedings Nero asks
Paul why he is saying nothing. On the first of these occasions
Paul simply warns the Emperor against Simon (29); on the
1 The account, with which it hegins, of Paul’sjourney through
Italy ($ 326 3), extends over twenty-one chapters. Therefore the
numbering of the chapters of this text will always he higher by
twenty-one than that given in our citations here.
4612
 SIMON PETER
second, in answer to Nero's express question, he gives informa-
tion as to hi, doctrine which consists in inculcation of all the
virtues and of monotheism (33-38). Peter confirms all this (39)
and Paul again in turn confirms the words of Peter (41).
(e) Simon continually brings forward new charges, amongst
others the charge that Peter and Paul are circumcised (40.42).
Peter propounds the counter-question, why then is Simon also
circumcised and himself answers it to the effect that he had to
deceive the beople in order to succeed with them and that he had
to give himself out to be a Jew (423). Simon declares that he
was circumcised because such was at that time God's command
(44). Paul asks why, if, according to this, circumcision is a good
thing, Simon has given over circumcised persons to judgment
and to death (45). When Peter describes the Christian doctrine
as being faith in God the Father in Christ along with the Holy
Ghost, and the creator of all things, Simon declares that he
himself is this God (48).
ct)Simon pledges himself on the following day to fly into
heaven (LO f: and also 70). At Simon's wish Nero for this
purpose 'dagses a woodek iower to he erected on the Campus
Mqrtius and on the following day the whole people and all the
official persons, with Peter and Paul, come together (51). Paul
says to Peter that his own task is to pray but that Peter is to
carry out all that is needful since he has been first chosen by
the Lord to be an apostle (52). Simon promises, when he shall
have flown into heaven, to came Nero also to be carried thither
by his angels, and begins to fly (53~3. Paul says to Peter :
Why delayest thou? Do that which thou hast in mind (55).
Peter adjures the angels of Satan who are bearing up Simon, to
let him fall. Simon falls upon the Via Sacra and breaks into
four ieces (56 ; the Latin and the longer Greek text add that
therefy [by his blood, is doubtless meant] he joined together
four flint stones which can still he seen to the present day in
proof of the triumph of the apostles).
(g)Nero causes Peter and Paul to be put in irons, and
Simons body in the expectation of his nsing again to be
carefully attended to for three days (57). He orders Peter and
Paul to he chastised with iron rods and then to be put to death
in the ' naumachia' (or circus in which also naval displays were
given), hut finds the advice o i the prefect Agrip a very reason-
able, that Peter as the author of the death of &non ought to
he crucified, but Paul as comparatively innocent to be beheaded.
In Paul's case this sentence is carried out on the road to Ostia
(58J); Peter at his own request is crucified head downwards
(63). From his cross he reproves the people, who are wishing
to kill Nero and relates how a few days before, in his flight
from the devices of Agrippa, he himself had been met by Jesus
who had said he wished to be crucified in place of Peter (61):
Peter then dies (62).
(h! Forthwith come on the scene prominent men who had
journeyed from Jerusalem on the apostles' account. these along
with Marcellus, the former follower of Simon, bur; the body of
Peter under the terebinth hard by the Naumachia on the
Vatican (63). These Jerusalemites foretold the soon approach-
ing death of Nero. In point of fact, in consequence of a
popular tumult, Nero had to fly into the wilderness, whe;e he
died of hunger and cold; his body was devoured by wild
beasts (643).
(i) Certain pious men from the East sought to carry off the
relics of the martyrs; with the result that an earthquake
immediately ensued in Rome, and the inhabitants attacked the
Orientals, who at once took flight. The Romans deposited the
relics 3 R. m. outside the city (the Latin and longer Greek texts
add : at a place named Catacumbas on the Appian Way) and
watched over them for one year and seven months ; at the expiry
of which time they brought them to the final resting-place which
had meanwhile been in preparation (66). The death-day of
both apostles was June zg (67).
Many points in these interesting compositions invite
inquiry ; but we must here confine ourselves t o the one
36. Conclusion fundamental question, that, namely,
a s to the relative priority of the pre-
from the
Catholic Acts. Catholic a n d the Catholic Acts. If we
are to settle the point as to whether
Peter ever was in Rome, it is of the utmost importance
t o know which of the two assertions, that he was there
along with Paul, and that he was not, was the original
one. ( u ) N o w here it would be quite useless to
put the question as if it were whether the priority
belongs altogether t o the pre-Catholic Acts or altogether
t o the Catholic. I n a literature which exhibits so little
inward unity almost every indication of posteriority
admits of being regarded a s a later interpolation, a n d
so can be deprived of its evidential value.
In the pre-Catholic Acts Agrippa and Marcellus are two
leading- figures, in the Catholic their appearance is quite
incidehtal; at the same time, however, in the Catholic Acts
the machinations of Agrippa against Peter, and. the fact of the
earlier attachment of Marcellus to Simon are mentioned
although it is only in the pre-Catholic Acts that they are reall;
described (8% 34 6, K,h, 33 6). Peter's flight and his meeting with
Jews are in the Catholic Acts introduced in an awkward way
as told by Peter himself while on the cross ; in the pre-Catholic
4613
SIMON PETER
Acts they are related by the author himself in their proper
place. But all these and similar tinevemesses in the Catholic
Acts can be traced hack to later interpolation.
(6) O n e such interpolation is plainly seen i n t h e
episode of the men who come from Jerusalem ' o n
the apostles' accoifnt ' a n d bury Peter (5 34h, i).
According to the representation as it stands at present, the
pious men from the East who wish to carry off the relics appear
to be distinct from these, Piety it must he said, shows itself
much less in robbing than in burying ; but on the other hand the
coming from the East suggests much less the motive of burial
than that of plunder. If this he so, not two classes of persons
from the East were intended, but only one and the story is an
indication that the body of Peter had not driginally its resting.
place in Rome but in the East. I t is only from the Roman
point of view that the proposed removal is thought of as a
robbery; in reality it is aveiled reminiscence ofthe fact that the
apostle died in the East. But as the whole story is an appendix
merely, and moreover has been distorted by redactions it is
impossible to build anything on it. It would seem to be keant
to explain either why for a while it was impossible to show any
burial- lace of Peter in Rome or why it was shown not at the
spot ,{ere he died but outside the city in the piece of ground
adCatacum6as (see further, Erbes, 2.JK.-G.22 [1901], 196-200).
(c) T h e difference between Peter and Paul i n the
manner of their death a n d in the place of it (also
according t o Gaius, see 2 6 b ) is noticeable, especially
as for t h e beheading of Paul his Roman citizenship
which could have been adduced, is not. After S e r o
has ordered ( K E X E ~ W the
) same manner of death for the
two apostles, the opposite advice of Agrippa and its
success cannot but seem strange. It seems intended to
explain the fact that two separate places of death of the
apostles were known. This fact raises doubts as to the
simultaneity of their deaths a n d thus tells against the
priority of the contents of t h e Catholic as compared
with the pre-Catholic Acts. Against t h e priority of the
whole book it cannot, however, have this effect, as this
feature can easily have been introduced later,
( d ) Let us therefore fix our attention in the first
instance upon one point that is really central, namely
the tendency of the Catholic Acts. It is quite
manifestly Petro-Pauline. The appearance a s if Paul
will have to come forward against the preaching of
Peter we may be sure has been deliberately produced a t
the outset, in order that the complete agreement
between the two m a y afterwards become all the more
conspicuous. Peter confirms all that is said by Paul,
a n d conversely. The controversies between Jewish and
Gentile Christians are set t o rest by both. Both carry
on a joint polemic against Simon, a n d both are on this
account together condemned to death.
( e ) Although, however, Paul in t h e doctrinal dis-
cussions is represented as completely on a level with
Peter, it cannot at all be denied that i n the conflicts
with Simon t h e part he plays is quite subordinate. In
these everything of importance is said a n d done by
Peter. I n order t o have any part at all, Paul has to be
twice asked by Nero why he says nothing, and even
then he does not intervene i n the action with Simon,
but merely expatiates upon his own doctrine. T h e few
words which are put into his mouth in the further
dealings with Simon cannot alter our judgment that his
figure came only at a later stage into the picture which
originally brought Peter alone face t o face with Simon.
This conclusion is confirmed i n the h s t possible way
by what Agrippa says in arguing for a different sentence,
that Paul is relatively innocent and therefore deserves a
milder punishment, as it is also b y the facts that only
eleven words, neither more nor fewer, are devoted t o
the account of his beheading, a n d that it is nowhere
said that he was buried. Here accordingly we have
one point a t any rate in which the posteriority of the
main contents of the Catholic Acts as compared with
the pre-Catholic is clearly discernible. C p further S IMON
M AGUS, 5 5 c .
Or are we to suppose, nevertheless, that the pre-
Catholic Acts, on this principal point at least-that of
Peter's presence in Rome without that of Paul-are the
more recent? The circumstance that, in their begin-
4614
 SIMON PETER
ning as it has come down to us, Paul travels from
Rome to SDain shortly before Simon. and after him
I
Peter: come to Rome, and that Peter
36’ Conclusions dies before the return of Paul to Rome,
~ t which has~ already been o predicted ~
, . . .16 , can be taken a s showinn that
”> ??a\. I
the author deliberately wished to set aside the con-
temporaneous presence of the two in Rome as that was
reported in the Catholic Acts. At the same time,
should one choose to take it so, it would be necessary
to be able to show some reason which could have led
him to wish this.
( u ) No such reason is to be found in the dogmatic
sphere, as if Peter and Paul were not at one in their
doctrine and the author therefore did not wish to make
them come upon the scene together. Of any in-
compatibility in their doctrine this author knows as
little as does the writer of the Catholic Acts; on the
contrary, Peter is anxiously expected in Rome by Paul’s
disciples (S 338).
(6) On the other hand there is much that is attractive,
a t first sight, in the view of Erbes ( Z . f: Kiuchengesch.
22 [xgo~],176-179) that Paul was in the pre-Catholic
Acts taken away from Rome from the same motive as
we have already (above, 5 26g) seen to be operative
in the time after Irenaeus. Peter had to be the sole
head of the church of Rome, in order to be able to
figure as the first bishop there. If, however, the
author really had this interest at heart, we shall have
to pronounce his mode of giving effect to it to be
very unskilful; for in the account he gives Paul is in
Rome both before and after Peter, and after a n explicit
prediction suffers the death of a martyr there (5 3 3 u ) .
(c) On the assumption of so specifically Roman a n
interest as this we should further expect to find that the
pre-Catholic Acts would in other respects also betray
the same interest. But of anything of the sort there is
surprisingly little. T h e burial-place of Peter is here
the private tomb of Marcellus (5 3 3 g ) , not, as in the
Catholic Acts (see 5 34 h ) , a famous site like the tere-
binth on the Vatican, where he is said to have died.
Further, we find nothing about any functions of Peter
which could be regarded as episcopal.
( d ) I t is clear, on the contrary, that the author’s
interest is in his stories as such, without reference to the
scene where they were enacted. H e takes manifest
delight in the grotesque miracles of his hero, of which
only a limited selection has been given above (S 33,
6, e , f ) ; but these could just as well have been trans-
ferred to any other place without diminution of the
author’s interest in them. Moreover the detailed parts
of his narrative are but little united by any common
idea.
The death of Peter is strictly speaking, traced to his con-
version of Agrippa’s corkbines and Albinus’s wife to sexual
abstinence ; his action against Simon is added as a motive for it
only in Pseudo-Linus ($ 33 h ) ; indeed, the imprisonment of
Peter, related only by Pseudo-Linus, before the conversion of
those ladies is simplv traced back to the consideration that the
time has now dra& near in which his faith and his labours
claim their reward (( 3 3 ~ ) .
( e ) T h e author’s interest really attaches itself to
Rome in two points only. T h e final issue of the whole
is that Nero desists from persecution of the Christians
( 5 3 3 h ) , and the controversy with Simon brings Peter to
Rome for the reason that Simon is presupposed as
active there before him. Yet even here it is hard to
discover anything which might answer to the episcopal
position of Peter in Rome. T h e cessation of the
persecution is not brought about by the living Peter,
but only after his death (and only according to Pseudo-
Linus through the appearance of Peter in Nero’s
vision by night) ; the bringing of Peter to Rome is
connected with the person of Simon, and Simon is
controverted by Peter everywhere, not in Rome merely ;
he is expressly stated (5 33c, d ) to have been already
controverted by him in Judaea
4615
SIMON PETER
(f)Further it has to be remembered, that the
contents, in respect alike of doctrine and of pre-
wppositions, though by some designated as Catholic,
are nevertheless by others regarded as Gnostic ( 5 3 2 u )
and thus cannot
~ easily ~ be brought ~into connection ~
with the main Catholic ‘tendency ’ a l k a d y alluded
to, to establish for Rome some sort of episcopal
dignity of Peter. Elements to be taken into account in
this connection are such as these : the mystery of the
cross, the docetic Christology, the background of
miracle, the use of apocryphal citations, and the like,
of but little of which were we able to take account in
5 33. See in Lipsius, ii. 1258-270.
( u ) There is a further point, in connection with which
one might be inclined to suppose that a simultaneous
3,. srrivsl presence of Paul along with Peter in
Rome had been deliberately suppressed
in Rometo by the author of the pre-Catholic Acts in
according
apocryphal the interests of his theory about Peter as
Acts.
the head of the church of R o m e ; the
point, namely, that Peter is represented
as having come to Rome as early as in the second year
of Claudius, in other words, in 42 A.D.
So Ludemann, Prof. Kirchcneeifung,1887, p. 1 5 9 3 . similarly
also Harnack RCL ii. 1705 with the difference t at hdmentions
no definite iame (least of’all the author of the pre-Catholic
Acts, which he assigns to about 250 A.u.), but only a drift of
things that began t o set in about zca A.D., and that he seems to
assume with less definiteness than Liidemann a conscious
purpose in the alteration of the history. This view is worthy
of attention, if only because by nieans of this dating the twenty-
five years of Peter’s Roman sojourn are made possible (g 26 e),
yet also because such an artificial separation of two persons
would find an analogy in the procedure, which in all proba-
bility the writer of the canonical book of Acts has followed in
antedating the appearance of Simon (89-4,and the collection
brought by Paul to Jerusalem (1127-30 1225). See SIMON
MAGUS,0 14 a,e.
Only, here also we must call attention, as before
(5 36 6), to the unskilfulness with which in that case the
author of the pre-Catholic Acts has carried out this
purpose, supposing he had it. Not only, according
to him, is Paul by express prophecy to come to Rome
after Peter’s death and ‘suffer martyrdom there, but he
is represented as having also been in Rome before Peter,
in other words, before 42 A.D. (5 33 u). What, therefore,
can be clearly made out here is not any tendency but only
gross ignorance or indifference regarding chronology ;
for before 42 A.D. Paul had at best only entered upon
his first missionary journey, and not even the Council
of Jerusalem had yet taken place.
(6) Therefore, also, no value can be attached to the
conjecture of Erbes (above, 5 3 6 8 ) , that the author
betrays his knowledge of the conjoint activity of Peter
and Paul against Simon at Rome and his purpose to deny
it, by the statement that it was in Jerusalem that the two
together encountered Simon (S 33 d ) .
If Jerusalem can be a sli of memory for Samaria, equally
well can Paul be a sli oPmemory for John. If any such
tendency as is supposed g y Liidemann and Erbes was operative,
it must have led not merely to the obliteration of traces of Paul‘s
presence in the conflictwith Simon in Rome, but to the oblitera-
tion of his presence in Rome alto ether, or-if this was no
longer possible, in view of the too t r m l y established tradition
of his death there-at least of his presence in Rome before
Peter.
(c) As for the real origin of the fundamentally
erroneous dating of Peter’s arrival in Rome in 42 A . D . ,
it has, in the first instance, to be noted that we first
hear of such a date in the Chronicle of Eusebius, but
must carry this hack to its source (a
2 6 e ) . From a n
earlier period we have the datum established, that for
twelve years after the death of Jesus, in other words,
from 30 to 42 A. D . , Peter remained along with the
other apostles in Jerusalem (5s 26 e , 31 d). About
the same time, sr perhaps still earlier, Justin informs
us, but without specification of any definite year, that
Simon the Magician came to Rome in the reign of
Claudius ; this is repeated by Irenaeus (i. 16[23]1), and,
indirectly, by Eusebius when ( H E i i . 146) he says of
4616
 SIMON PETER
Peter, without fixing the year, that ' h e came to Rome
in that same reign of Claudius ' in which Simon came.
According to ii. 17 I , Peter in the reign of Claudius must
there have met Philo, u-ho. according to ii. 1 8 8 , had
already come to Rome in the reign of Gaius Caligula.
( d ) On this point the most important views are as
follows :-
Investigation would he superfluous if Kreyenhiihl (ErJang.
d. Wnhrkeit, 1[igoo] zoo) were right in his conjecture that by
Claudius it was Claudius Nero who was originally meant
(Nero was adopted by his redecessor Claudius). This, how-
ever, is surely too bold. Rarnack ( A C L ii.1242) thinks the
definite date of 42 A.D. for the arrival of Peter in Rome
cannot come from the date given for Simon Magus, since
for the latter no definite year was assigned; hut that it
can only be derived from the tradition of the twelve years'
sojourn in Jerusalem (30-42 A.u.). On p. 705 he says that
the twenty-five years' sojourn in Rome 'is derived from the
admittedly questionable Simon-Magus-Peter-Clement tradition
which brings Simon to Rome in the reign of Claudius.
Legend brought Peter as his opponent to Rome in like manner
...
under Claudius and then left him there. If this latter view is
not in contradi)ction with that quoted immediately before, the
reference back to the tradition concerning Simon Magus cannnt
a ply to the exact period of 4267 A.D., and therefore neither
afso to the precise year of 42 as the date of Peter's arrival, but
only to the vaguer statement that his arrival fell in the reign of
Claudius ; the precise year, as we have seen, must, according to
Harnack, he computed merely from the twelve years in Jeru-
salem. Lipsius (ii. 168) had merely stated this last view, adding
that with this datum for Peter the approximately similar date
of Simon Magus was also given. Ludemann (above, a),starting
from the view shared hy him with Lipsius, that Simon's appear-
auce in Rome was unhistorical, and that all that is said regarding
this had been derived from statements regarding Paul (see S IMON
MAGUS 08 4 3 12, end), insists that the Simon legend must have
assiwe6 the ippearance of Simon Magus in Rome, like that
of Paul, to some date under Nero, and finds just for this reason
a 'tendency '-change in the dating under the reign of Claudius.
Only, when it is the meeting of Peter with Simon that is in
question, there come into competition, on Liidemann's presup
positions also, two conflicting dates, as soon as that of Paul,
which determines that of Simon, and that of Peter do not
from the first coincide. In shaping the tradition, therefore, a
choice had to he made, and this in the present instance can
easily have fallen in favour of that of Peter, should the author
have judged this view the more trustworthy.
( e ) For our present main purpose, that of deter-
mining the question of priority as between the pre-
Catholic and the Catholic Acts, it results anew from
what has been said that we are under no necessity to
ascribe with Liidernann a ' tendency'-change of dates
to the pre-Catholic Acts, or with Harnack even to
regard the statement of Dionysius of Corinth (above,
3 25 u ) as to the (approximately) contemporaneous
arrival and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome as
fitting in with history and as supported by earlier
testimony. Even from the side of the Catholic Acts
no objection can he raised against the date 42 A.D.,
as having been assigned without ' tendency,' for Peter's
arrival in Rome. According to the Catholic Acts
Peter is in Rome before P a u l ; for how long hefcre
is not stated. This can be taken as an after-effect
of the statement that he was there from 42 A . D . ,
and the subsequent arrival of Paul can be explained
by means of the 'tendency,' which we shall discuss
in a later section (see 5 40d), to make him appear
in Rome along with Peter, just as the statement of
Dionysius 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) simul-
taneous. Justin alone constitutes a serious objection
against Lipsius's derivation of the date 42 A.D. ; for
all that he does is to place Simon in Rome in the time
of Claudius without saying a word about his conflict
with Peter. Upon this point, however, we shall best
b e able to form a judgment in another connection (see
(§I 39 [fir 40 d ) .
The statements as to the day of death of Peter and
38. Day of death Paul also promise light on the
according to the question as to the relative priority
of the pre-Catholic and Catholic
Apocryphal Acts. (a)29th Tune, which is rriven
a t the close of the Catholic Acts f& both apostle; not
4617
SIMON PETER
only fits in exceedingly ill with the Neronian persecution
to which the martyrdoms 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 the day of the
removal of the relics of the two apostles which took place
in 258 A . D . (above, 5 26 a). T h e confusion is found first
in the MariyroZogy of Jerome. Another commemora-
tion is on zond February. So far as Peter is concerned,
the day on which he assumed the episcopal office, in
Rome or in Antioch, is said to be intended (cp Lipsius,
ii. 1404-408). According to Erhes ( T U 19 I), it is the
true anniversary of Paul's death ( a rather bold assump-
tion), whilst for Peter its historical character cannot be
at all established.
(6) I t would be natural to suppose, if the same day
of the same month is given for the death of the two
apostles, that the year must, of course, be also the
same. A whole series of ecclesiastical writers from
Prudentius onwards (last half of 4th cent. ), however,
place the death of Paul exactly a year later than that
of Peter, others only a day later, namely on 30th June
(see Lipsius, ii. 1236-244).
Harnack (ACL ii. 17083) leaves the last-mentioned date (a
day later) unnoticed, and argues from the identity of the month-
date that the difference of the year-date is incredible. He there-
fore sunooses that the death vear of the one auostle was from the
fourth 'dentury onwards fop some unknown' reason separated
from that of the other. H e himself sees that this is a very
difficult hypothesis, and would be inclined rather to hold the
identification of the two years to he the secondary stage, 'were
it not 'ha,' the legend has as a constant element the identity of
the days. In making this remark then, he has simply left out
of account not only the dating, which separates the two events
by only a single day, but also the pre-Catholic Acts altogether
for these not only presuppose quite different years for the death;
of Peter and of Paul, but also quite different days, since they do
not name any day at all. In order to suggest something or
other which could possibly have led to a later separation of the
years originally regarded as identical, Harnack refers to 'various
sorts of legends about the death of the a ostles which are
unknown to us ' and adds : ' Lipsius thinfs of old Gnostic
aepiosor IILrpo: rdr IIadAov, but none such ever existed.'
Whether they existed we do not need to inquire here, for it is
hy no means the case that Lipcius relies upon writings that can
only he hypothetically inferred; he builds upon our pre-
Catholic Acts, which even for Harnack himself exist, if not from a
date earlier than about 2 5 0 A.D., yet at all events from more
than IW years before Prudentius.
(c) As soon as due heed is paid to this, it becomes
clear that the separation of the deaths of the two
apostles by a year or a day is nothing but a compromise
between the church's assertion of the simultaneousness
of the two events, and the opposite tradition set down
in the pre-Catholic Acts. On Harnack's own principle,
accordingly, we must regard the coalescence of the days
as the secondary stage, and on this point also the pre-
Catholic Acts have preserved the older stage as com-
pared with the Catholic Acts.
Whoever regards the simultaneousness of the two apostles'
appearances in Rome and their conjoint conflict with Simon as
the secondary form of the tradition (k37e) is all the less in a
position to doubt that this form of the tradition must necessarily
have carried with it that of the coincidence of their deaths.
That the difference of the days goes hack to non-Catholic
sources (to which our pre-Catholic Acts are to he reckoned
according to 8 36 VI) is expressly stated in the decree of Pope
Gelasius.(Zz up. Credner, Zur Gexk. d. Kanons 1847, pp.
19of: = 198,f) dating from the year 494, yet perhap; even from
the time of Damasus, 382 A.D.: [Paulusl qui non diverso, ut
haeretici garriunt, sed uno tempore, uno eodemque die gloriosa
morte cum Petro in urhe Roma sub Ccesare Nerone agonizans
coronatus est.
Having reached this point, let us now endeavour to
sum U P the arovisional conclusions that seem to
be deducible from our study of the
39' cg:y Apocryphal Acts, in the same manner
Apocryphal as has already been done in § 31
from the data of the N T and Church
Acts. fathers. (ul In the most imoortant
% ,
points we have seen that the contents of the pre-
Catholic Acts are the more original as compared with
those of the Catholic : namely, that Peter without Paul
4618
 SIMON PETER
engaged in controversy with Simon in Rome and
suffered martyrdom. This, however, is confirmed by
the Catholic Acts also, inasmuch as we can see that in
them Paul has been introduced into the picture as the
fellow combatant of Peter against Simon only by a n
after-thought (§ 35e). In view of this fact, one would
have to postulate the existence of some such representa-
tion as that of the pre-Catholic Acts as a foundation for
that of the Catholic, even if it were not actually extant.
All the less is there any reason for trying to discover in
the pre-Catholic Acts ' tendencies ' by which they would
be shown to be secondary as compared with the
Catholic Acts.
Let it he added that the Acta Pauli do not alter our judgment
upon the t w o Acta now under discussion. They tell us (in Acta
a j o s f . nbocr. 1104-1r7) that Paul, awaited by Luke and Titus,
came (returned?)to Rome, revived from the dead Patroclus the
cup-hearer of Nero, preached Christ to Nero himself and was
for this sentenced by him to death ; all this without an; mention
at all of Peter and Simon.
(6) Even if we refrain from trying to frame a hypo-
thesis as to the relative priority of the several Acts (or
their sources) regarded as literary monuments (§ 3 5 a ) , the
priority of the most important points in the contents
of the pre-Catholic Acts is, nevertheless, a result of
very great importance. In spite of this priority it
remains open to us to hold that the oldest forms of pre-
Catholic and Catholic Acts alike arose approximately
at the same date, but in different Christian circles
(S 3 2 b ) , and both of them in the time before the rise of
the idea of the Roman bishopric of Peter, and thus
before about 1 8 9 - 2 1 7 A.D. (I 26 [f]). This last idea is
discountenanced, not only by the pre- Catholic Acts
(5 36b-f), but also quite as much by the Catholic with
their co-ordination of Peter and Paul (§ 3 5 4 .
(c) T h e theological views and presuppositions also
alike of the pre-Catholic Acts (8 36 If]) and of the
Catholic, fit into the same period (from about 160 A.D.
onwards). T h e essence of Christianity is in the Catholic
Acts summed u p in belief in one God and his son Jesus
Christ, and in an earnest morality, and salvation is sought,
quite as in DidachP, 93 1023,in recognition of the truth
and in the life eternal ; Peter, precisely as in the canonical
book of Acts (see ACTS, $5 4, 7 ) , does away with the
Mosaic law, and Paul appears as a true Jew, with the
sole difference that he substitutes for the fleshly circum-
cision the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2283: 4 I I ~ :
against Gal. 5 z / ) , etc. (3I 4 a , d, e , and more fully in
Iipsius, ii. 1350-358). T h e interest also in composing
the differences of view between Jewish and Gentile
Christians (<bid. 340-349) was no longer a lively one in
the later time. T h e Acta PauZi (above, u ) likewise
belongs to this same period.
( d ) Thus it is in itself a possible thing that many,
even of the older of the Church fathers mentioned in
25f::. 29, may have drawn upon our apocryphal
Acts : e.g., Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaxs, Tertullian,
Gaius from the Catholic ; the Muratorian fragmentist
and Clement of Alexandria, who do not name Paul
along with Peter, from the pre-Catholic Acts (as for
Clem.Alex., however, cp 5s 25 d, 41 a), the PhiZo-
sophumena from both, since in a very significant way
we find it following both traditions within the com-
pass of a single line (6 2 0 ) : Simon 'journeying as far
also as Rome, fell in with the apostles, whom Peter
opposed in many ways (8ws K C L ~r?js 'Pdpqs &?rdqp$uas
dvr&reae TOTS d?rou~6Xocsr p b s 8v nohXdL TIt+pos d v n -
KCLTPUT~).' At the same time in no single case can one
be sure that the fathers named had really come by their
information by reading and not by oral communication,
and thus it becomes impossible to fix the date of com-
position of the Acts by that of any of these Fathers.
1 The Didmcalia a$ostoZorum (6 9), the Ajosfolic Constifu-
fions (69), Eusebius (HEii. 14 6-15 I), and others (see Lipsius,
ii. 1321, n. 5) i lso mention Peter alone as the controverter of
Simon.
4619
SIMON PETER
(e) I t has already been stated in § 31 n as one of our
results that, so f a r as the evidence of the N T and the
Church Fathers goes, Peter never was in Rome at all.
T h e question now emerges anew, whether our examina-
tion of the apocryphal Acts supplies any fresh material
which might help us to understand how i t , nevertheless.
came about that tradition carried him there. T h e new
element we find in these Acts is the importance which is
attached in them to the conflict with Simon. On this
account, Erbes ( Z . f: Kirchengesch. 22, 1901, pp. IZ-
16, 1 7 7 - 1 7 9 ) makes the following combination :-Since
Simon was, according to Acts 89-24. confuted by Peter
in Samaria and, according to Justin (see S IMON M AGUS ,
2 a), attained to divine honours in Rome, in the con-
viction that these could not have continued for any
time, it was assumed for Rome also that Simon was
confuted by Peter there. As further. according to the
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, which together with
the (apocryphal) third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
belonging to it, has been shown to be a constituent part
of the Acta PauZi,' Simon made his appearance in
Corinth also, and led astray members of the church
there, on which account Stephanus (so here for Stephanas:
c p I Cor. 116 161517) and his fellow-writers beg the
speedy return of Paul, it was found fitting to represent
Paul as the opponent, not here only, but also in Rome.
Such motives can, indeed, have been operative, and
must be added to those mentioned in 31 0.
(f), Nevertheless, these motives do not solve every
question. According to Erbes, they can have become
operative only when, through Justin, there had become
widely spread the mistaken notion that a statue had
been erected to Simon in Rome. The question whether
the formation of a legend of this kind was possible at a
still earlier date is thus wholly foreclosed. Rightly, it
would seem, since Justin mentions only Simon in Rome,
but neither Peter nor Paul as his opponents (§ 3 7 e ,
end). I t will be shown, however, later (5 40 a,6) that
there are conditions which point to a much earlier date
for the origin of the legend. Their investigation is only
hindered by the position of Erbes.
(g)All that has hitherto been said still leaves unex-
plained one matter which, nevertheless, is plainly one
of primary importance in the Catholic Acts : the Petro-
Pauline interest. W h y was it so urgently necessary to
accentuate the harmonious agreement of Peter and
Paul? Who was there to dispute this after the middle
of the second century had been passed ? With this, in
turn, is connected the further question : W h y was it so
urgently necessary to controvert Simon? Why is it
that we learn from the N T so little concerning him if
he had been in the East, and in Rome, even from pre
Pauline times, so formidable an enemy of Christianity?
Are the two questions perhaps so intimately connected
that one and the same cause rendered necessary the
confuting of Simon, and the bringing into prominence of
the harmony between Peter aud Paul? For further
light upon this, we must try to find new material. Thus,
our examination of the apocryphal Acts ends not so
much in solution of our main problem, as in the raising
of new questions regarding Peter's Roman sojourn.
The body of literature still remaining for our con-
sideration with reference to the question whether Peter
was ever in Rome, consists of the
40. Inference
from ps.-Clem. pseudo-Clementine HomiZies and Re-
(a)W e begin with
"Om' and Recog. : % ? % y g results derived from a
careful examination elsewhere (see SIMON MAGUS,
1 Carl Schmidt has obtained this result from a Coptic transla-
tion not yet published. See his communication in the Neuen
HeideZhe6ergerJahrhh. 1897, pp. 117-124,and Harnack's review
of it in TLZ, 1897,pd. 625-629. For the Corinthiancorrespond-
ence, see, for example, Carriere et Berger, La c o w e s # o d m c e
a j o c v j h de S f . Paul et des Con'ntlriens, Paris, 189r (reprint
from Revue de Tlr!oZogiiC e t de Plrilosoplrie, 1891, pp. 333-351).
Cp Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons- 2 592-611 ro16-101g
[18921.
4620
 SIMON PETER
3 8 , . 9-11). 'The Simon who is opposed in these
writings by Peter was originally the apostle Paul, yet
in a form which has been distorted by the hostility of
the authors. Only later were Gnostic features added
to him, and thus in his figure the Gnosticism of the
second century was controverted. This does not con-
cern us here. T h e fundamental idea was that Peter
must everywhere follow ' Simon ' (who seeks in his travels
to win adherents for himself everywhere) in order to
refute his pernicious doctrines by disputations, and to
outdo his magical arts by still greater wonders. If not
in writing, yet at all events orally, there was current a
coherent, comprehensive form of this romance in
which Peter followed ' Simon ' to Rome also.
(6) T h e thesis which has been based on this founda.
tion since the days of Baur is the following. Peter
was never in Rome. It was merely the idea of the
romance- that he had to follow ' Simon ' everywhere-
that led to the assertion of his having come to Rome
also. This was, in the end, accepted for a fact in
churchly circles also, and this all the n o r e readily
because it subserved churchly interests. For, since
Paul had notoriously been in Rome, it now became
possible to appeal to the activity of both these leading
apostles in the metropolis. Their mutual relation was,
of course, represented as one of the most absolute
agreement. Thus, to the assertion that Peter had
withstoodSimon, it ceased to be possible to attach the
original meaning, according to which Simon stood for
Paul ; Simon must figure as a third person, and Paul
could range himself on the side of Peter. So the
Catholic Acts and the Church fathers from Dionysius
of Corinth (about 170 A . D . ) onwards. Some of them
name only Peter as the opponent of Simon in Rome
( 5 39 d ) , just as the pre-Catholic Acts do. This stage
in the development of the legend is now definitely per-
ceived to be the earlier.
(c) T h e whole development, however, is seen to
present a perversion of historical truth such as it would
be almost impossible to surpass. and which throws a
lurid light upon the hostility to history, as well as upon
the power, of the idea of a Catholic church. For some-
thing analogous see § 24 d. Even although we are not
at this distance of time able to say with certainty how
far the churchmen who had a hand in this transforma-
tion were conscious of the falsification of history which
was being brought about by their action, the effect of
it, at all events, was that the Catholic church, while
gratefully accepting from sources so questionable as
in its view the Clementines were, the statement of the
presence of Peter contemporaneously with Paul in
Rome, at the same time changed the mutually hostile
attitude of the two apostles into a friendly one, and
gained from a very hostile and embittered exaggeration
of the real antagonism between Peter and Paul the best
foundation it could show for its claim to world-wide
dominion.
( d ) T o many students this combination appears from
the very outset inadmissible, because they are unable
to believe in the possibility of a falsification so gross
and audacious as that of representing Peter as having
been in Rome if this was really not the fact. As
against this, however, it must be borne in mind that
the statement in question was not at first put forward as
the assertion of a fact, but merely as an incident in a
romance the authors of which had not the remotest
notion that strict adherence to historical fact could be
reasonably demanded of them and whose only thought
was as to how they could give fullest utterance to their
hatred of Paul.
It is Justin in particular who shows how this romance came
to he regardeh as actual history only by slow degrees. Justin
took from it the datum that Simon had actually appeared in
Rome and in fact he was able to credit it because it seemed to
him td be attested by the statue which he found in Rome. The
other datum, that Peter also had been in Rome and come into
conflict with Simon, he did not accept-in all probability because
4621
SIMON PETER
it did not seem to him to be supported by the traditions with
which he had become acquainted in Rome itself (cp 0s 30g,
31 It, 37 e, 39 Lfl, S IM O N M A GUS , 5 IT e , f ) .
How this feature in the romances should on the
other hand afterwards have come to be accepted as
history is not difficult to understand, when we reflect
how admirably it subserved the idea of the Catholic
church and remember, further, that the Pauline features
of the figure of Simon had already been greatly dis-
guised by the Gnostic touches that had been added to
them.
(e) Soltau, who does not accept this whole combination never-
theless concedes (p. 35) that the Simon-legend if it did not give
rise to that of Peter's Roman sojourn, at all events favoured its
spread ; and Harnack (above, $374, who accepts Peter's Roman
sojourn as historically true, declares nevertheless that the Simon
legend had the effect of causing Peter's arrival in Rome to be
assigned along with that of Simon himself to about 42 A . D .
That mere ideas, though historically unfounded, were enough
to produce a false representation that Peter had come to Rome
is assumed by Soltau and Erbes (above, $S 310, 3y)in a process
of reasoning which is not nearly so simple or cogent as that by
inference from the HomiCies and Rerognitiom which is now
under discussion. Thus we need not shrink from it. Soltau
(p. IO) says further that the Roman sojourn of Peter is incredible
also because according to the apocryphal Acts it is full of the
wildest fables about the conflict with Simon. The combination
we are now contending for goes only a single ste farther and
finds in these fables the foundation and not merepy the adorn-
ments of the unhistorical statement that Peter had been in
Rome.
T h e only assertion calling for serious attention here
is that which claims for the tradition as to Peter's
Roman sojourn that it arose independ-
41i2izg;.er F t l y of the Simon legend.
~ ~ ~
(a)
irst of all. it is Dointed out that no
~~.
~~~ ~~~ ~
Church father affirms that Peter and' Paul came to Rome
simultaneously. W e shall not insist, in reply, that
Dionysius of Corinth (above, 5 2 5 a ) is not very far from
making this affirmation. What is more to the point is
that neither also does the Simon-legend say, or need to
say. that Peter's arrival at all places was simultaneous
with that of Simon. In fact it rather gives to Simon in
each case some space of time within which he may win
the people over to his side, and only after this has
happened does it bring Peter upon the scene (cp, for the
pre-Catholic Acts, above, 5 33a,6). Moreover, as soon
as it is Peter and Paul who have to be dealt with. there
come into consideration a variety of historical data
which cannot be brought together at one point of time
so easily as would he the case with incidents in a mere
romance (above, 5 374. Besides, for the Catholic use
that is made of this romance, it is no longer a siniul-
taneous arrival but merely some sort of contemporane-
ous activity of the two apostles that is of interest. Thus
even considerable intervals between the arrivals of the
two apostles would not of themselves be any evidence
that the allegation of their having been in Rome together
does not rest upon the Simon romance.
(6) What would be more important would be the
existence of a tradition which spoke only of the presence
of Peter in Rome, without mentioning that of Panl.
Such a tradition seems to be found in Clement of
Alexandria; but, as has already been shown (above,
5 25d;i, since Clement in the connection in which he
was writing had no occasion to mention Paul, it does
not follow that he was not aware of his activity con-
temporaneously with Peter. In the pre-Catholic Acts
(above, 5 33 a ) Paul sets out from Rome before Peter's
arrival there, and is represented as returning only after
the death of the latter. Here accordingly is a case
where we actually find Peter without Paul in Rome.
Not, however, without Simon: and this is the ini-
portant thing. In one form or another Paul i n Rome
is always by his side, as a foe or as a friend. There
exists no tradition regarding Peter in Rome, which
rested content with bringing him personally to Rome ;
every such tradition connects with his presence there
some declaration as to his relations with Paul. It is
4622
 SIMON PETER
this circumstance that gives so great inherent probability
to the supposition that the allegation of his peaceful co-
operation with Paul in Rome (which, even irrespective
of the pseudo-Clementine HorniZies and Recognitions,
we have already found to be inadmissible : see 5 31 n )
arises from a transformation of the tradition as to his
conflict with Paul in the same place.
The transformation cannot possibly have taken place in the
opposite direction. I n such a case the conflict with Simon
would have first begun to he alleged a t a date so late as would
render it impossible that Simon could be Paul, Paul having by
this time come to be held in general reverence. If therefore
the transformation in this direction were to be inskted on, i;
would be necessary first of all to set aside everything that has
heen brought forward ih SIMONMAGUS (5 4A)with a view to
showing that Simon is a caricature of Paul.
(c) Thus we are precluded also from attaching value,
as evidences .for a tradition independent of the Simon
legend, to those passages of the Church fathers which
mention the contemporaneous activity of Peter and Paul
in Rome without at the same time mentioning Simon
Magus.
In those passages it is already the transformed Simon legend
which we have. It can take the form of representing Peter and
Paul as making common cause against Simon (so the Catholic
Acts, the Philosopkrmcna, etc. ; above, $s
34, 26d,e); but it
does not need to do so. Inasniuch as on this presupposition
Simon a t once appears as a Gnostic merely, he loses for the
Church fathers all that independent interest which he possesses
in the Simonromance. Moreover, in man cases the connection
does not admit of his being mentioned. &;ch passages accord-
ingly prove still less than do the converse cases in which Simon
is spoken of as being in Rome without Peter (see SIMON M AGUS,
5 11, e,A.
(43 T,he only kind of evidence that would be con-
clusive in the matter, would be the production of a
statement relating to the presence of Peter in Rome,
which could be shown to belong to a time when the
Simon-legend could not yet have exercised a n influence
on the shaping of the history. Such a statement, how-
ever, is to be found neither in Clement of Rome (above,
5 2 8 ) . nor in any of the other writers named in § z g f :
At the same time, if one reflects that the Simon legend
could have begun to eGert its influence even in its oral
form (s2e SIMON MAGUS, 5 Ioe), and thus during
and shortly after the lifetime of Paul, it will be seen
that the attempt to find a testimony to the presence of
Peter in Rome which shall be wholly independent of it
must be regarded as hopeless from the outset.
Only I Pet. offers any inducements to any such
attempt (cp above, 5 30R). ( a ) I n fact, however,
Babylon this epistle cannot supply us with a
Pet.5r3 decisive answer that Rome is meant by
of=Rome? Babylon. Neither, indeed, it is true,
with a secure negative answer. Stress
has often been laid upon the consideration that the
order of the provinces to which it is addressed-
Pontus. Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia ( i . e . the W. coast
of Asia Minor) and Bithynia-is not a suitable one if
the epistle was written from Rome. But neither is it
suitable if Babylon was the place of origin ; it is not
arranged in such a way that the five provinces can be
brought into line on any hypothesis as to the writer’s
view-point. Yet neither does the mention of Babylon
(513) contain the slightest hint that the name is to be
taken in any secondary sense.
The case is quite different when in 4 Ezra 11-that is to say,
in an apocalypse-Babylon on the Euphrates, where Salathiel
the father of Zerubbabel, is living in the thirtieth year after th;
destruction of Jerusalem, i e . , in 557 B.c., is named with some
sort of suggestion that the statement is to be taken as a veiled
one, and that in reality, the book having been written towards
the end of the first Christian century, Rome ought to he under-
stood. In like manner the case is different from that of I Pet.,
if, according to a Sibylline prophecy (5 137.742 158f: [138-143
Bahylon’ (r<s pey6h75 ‘P6pqp B a u d s $ ! p+as
.....
159f.I) Nero, ‘the great king of great Rome . shall flee from
+N’ferar
(I( Ba,%h&os)), and a great star shall fall into these?, ‘and shal!
burn up the deep sea and Babylon itself and the land of Italy
( x a i +X& d v r o v BaODv a h j v ~e BaBvWva ’Irahirc ai6v m).
Here care is taken by the naming of Rome and Italctzwarn the
reader that he is not to suppose Babylon on the Euphrates to be
meant, just as in Rev. 1715 by the note that the many waters on
4623
SIMON PETER
which the great whore-i.e. according to 17 5, Babylon-sits
(17 I) are nations, and not Iithral waters.
(6) In the case of I Pet. the position of matters is
that a decision as to the presence of Peter in Rome
cannot be gained by interpreting Babylon one way or
other, but contrariwise our interpretation of what is
intended by Babylon will be determined by our inde-
pendent conclusion on the other point. If now we bear
in mind that in Rome itself, as late as 152 A.u., Justin
knew nothing of Peter’s having been there (above, 30g),
and thus that the Simon-romance which brought Peter
to Rome was not yet at that date in church circles taken
for history, it becomes extremely improbable that this
romance should have been accepted in 112 A.D. by the
author of I Pet. (on the date see C HRISTIAN , 0 8) a n d
made the basis of his designation of the place of writing,
although it had been in circulation in strict Jewish
Christian circles from a time when Pan1 was still alive,
or at any rate shortly after his death. If this be so,
then the dating from Babylon tells us at once where
it was that about 112 A.D. Peter’s chief activity was
supposed to have been exercised between his departure
from Jerusalem and his death ; and it tells us so even
if it should so happen that the Epistle was really after
all composed in Rome.
Thus we are thrown back upon the scattered notices
referred to above (§ 24) regarding the various fields of
activity, apart from Rome, which
43. Babylonia tradition has assigned to Peter.
and adjoining ( a )Among all these, only Babyloniaand
countries perhaps also the Black Sea coast can
as Peter’s be considered seriously. According
mission-field. to Lipsius (1611613) the tradition that
Peter laboured along-with his brother Andrew on the
shores of the Black Sea goes as far back as to the second
century. I Pet., however, in its allusion to Babylon as
a mission-field of Peter takes us still farther back than
a n y of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles made use
of by Lipsius.
( b ) I t is specially interesting to observe that according
to late redactions (for example, in Epiphanius Monachus
in the 9th cent.) Peter takes leave of Andrew in order
to travel westward, and that thereafter the other apostle
called Simon, surnamed Zelotes or the Canaanite,
suddenly appears as Andrew’s companion. T h e journey
into the West plainly originates in the wish to bring the
tradition of Peter’s activity in Asia into connection with
that regarding his labours in Rome. T h e appearance
of the second Simon on the other hand, points to a
substitution for Simon Peter. Whilst at first there was
no idea that any other than Simon Peter was intended,
it was inevitable, as soon as the later idea of his de-
parture for the West had come to be accepted, that the
Simon who was named in the subsequent course of
these tales of the apostles should be taken to be Simon
the Canaanite.
( c ) T h e same vacillation between the names of Peter
and the Canaanite recurs also in what is said about
Babylonia. -4ccording to the Acts of Judas Thaddzus,
Peter laboured with Judas in (Syria a n d ) Mesopotamia ;
according to other accounts (chiefly western), Simon
the Canaanite laboured along with Judas in Babylonia
as well as in Persia, and they suffer martyrdom together
in Suanir in Colchis. By this last statement the ti-adi-
tion as to Babylonia and Persia is thus brought i n t o
combination with that as to the coast lands of the Black
Sea (abovd, a). Lipsius conjectures that here also Simon
the Canaanite was erroneously taken for Simon Peter
after the triumph of the tradition that Peter had laboured
in’Rome (i. 27 30 611-613, ii. 2145J 175-177).
(d),Seufert (ZrVT, 1885, 150A)urges against this, that the
combination would be convincing only if evidence for the
Babylonian sojourn of Peter earlier than the date of I Pet. could
be adduced. otherwise it remains possible that in I Pet. Rome
is meant h; Babylon, i n 3 thus that Peter’s sojourn in Rome
was at that time presupposed, but that afterwards in conse-
quence of a literal interpretation of I Pet. 513 his place of
sojourn was removed to Babylon, while a t a still later date, with
4624
 SIMON PETER
a view to harmony with the tradition of his Roman sojourn
Simon the Canaanite W ~ Fput in his place as sojourning id
Babylon. We shall not here urge how difficult must at any
time have been a literal interpretation of ‘ Babylon ’ in I Pet.
5 13, if Rome had already come to he so generally accepted as
the scene of Peter’s labours, that the author could have counted
on being understood, although he chose to designate it by the
word Babylon. The essential point is this: on the view which
is being here upheld, Babylon must have been meant literally
by the author of I Pet., because at that early date he had not
as yet any idea of Peter as having ever been in Rome; in
harmony with this view are those apocryphal Acts which repre-
sent him as labouring in Babylonia, so that the substitution of
Simon the Canaanite in his place is found to be due to a subse-
quent alteration.
Even if Babylonia was Peter’s most important field
of labour, it does not by any means immediately follow
44. Where did that he died there. If it is certain
that he did not die in Rome, there is
Peter die all the more reas0.n for asking whether
a n y other place can be named with any probability.
( 1 2 ) Erbes (Ztschr. f: Z~~ii-chengesch. 22, 1901, 180-
219) names Jerusalem.
In the pre-Catholic Acts it is not Nero who sentences Peter
to death but the city-prefect Agrippa. By Asrippa it is argued,
cannot he intended the IN. Vipsanius Agrippa &ho died in
I Z B.C. Along with Agrippa is mentioned, as a persecutor of
Peter, the emperor’s friend Albinus, whose wife withdrew her-
s
self from his society from motives of chastity (above, 33g).
In this Albinus Erhes discerns the procurator Albinus who
succeeded Festus in Judrea in 62 A . D ., and who had a faithful
high-toned wife ; while Agrippa on the other hand he identifies
with King Agrippa 11. who was master of north-eastern Palestine
from 53 to 100 A . D . (see HEROD,# 13). King Agrippa is not
known to have been married and Erbes presumes hisdomestic
circumstances to have been Similar to those of the Agrippa of
the pre-Catholic Acts. It is in Palestine only, not in Rome,
that the two men can be shown to have been contemporaries ;
the city-prefect of Rome in a Latin recension of the Passio
Petri et Pauli (chap. 13, in Acta Apost. Ajocr. 1233 ; also, we
add, in cod. hf of the principal form of this Passio Petri et Pauli
[chap. 551 discussed above, 8 326 I) is named not Agrippa but
Clement. But further, King Agrippa 11. has been confused
with Herod Agrippa I. who, according to Acts 12 3, cast Peter
into prison in Jerucalem. It is his liberation from this captivity,
Erbes thinks, which constitutes the basis of what is related in
the Catholic and pre-Catholic Acts as to Peter’s flight from
Rome (above, $5 34g, 33s). ,As to his death, on the other hand,
Erhes conjectures that in reality Peter suffered crucifixion under
Alhinus towards the end of 64 A . D ., and that Mt. 2334 contains
an allusion to this fact. Among the messengers of Jesus of
whom he says to the Jews, ‘some of them shall ye kill ’ allusion
is made to James the elder(Acts 122): it is Paul who is alluded
to in the words ‘some of them shall ye scourge in your syna-
gogues and persecute from city to city,’ and he whom the Jews
Erhes, that is to say, accepts as historical the statement which
Eusebius ( H E 3 IT) introduces with a A 6 p s mTdp-on the
force of which formula see above, $ zEe)-that after the death
of James the Just in 62 A.D., all the surviving apostles met in
Jerusalem in order to choose a successor to James--namely the
Simeon referred to ahove. Peter after this continued in Jeru-
salem until the outbreak of Nero’s persecution of the Christians
in Rome, and in Jerusalem as a result of the activity aroused
in zealous procurators by this persecution, he was crucified by
Albinus. It was in this manner, it is urged, that it became
ossihle for Peter to he regarded as one of Nero’s victims, and
tis death to he at the same time transferred erroneously to
Rome. The twofold destruction of Jerusalem, first by Titus
and afterwards by Hadrian, explains how it was possihle t5at
the fact of its having been the scene of Peter’s death should
pass out of memory. The whole combination, however, not-
withstanding other arguments, brought by Erhes to its support
which cannot be recapitulated here, is much too hold for aci
ceptance.
( b ) O n the other hand, there is no difficulty in t h e
sqposition already set forth ($5 28 i, 31g), that Peter
met his death in a n unknown and obscure place,
perhaps without legal process, perhaps o n a journey,
perhaps without any companion, so that no tradition
regarding it survived which could have asserted itself
against the steadily advancing belief that he had died
in Rome. Here accordingly we must rest, a s we have
n o more detailed accounts, in particular none from
Clement of Rome, from whom we should most naturally
have expected them. W h e n Soltau lays it down (pp.
23 2 5 ) that no one disputes the martyrdom o f Peter in
4625
SIMON PETER
the time of the Neronian persecution, though it was
not in Rome, the date is by n o means to be accepted.
But neither have we any other means of learning the date of
Peter’s death. I n particular, we may not say with Kreirkel
(/oseplIus u. Lucas, 1894, p. 183, n. 3) that he niust have died
before Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem because Paul, according
to Acts 21 18, at that date found no one but James at the head of
the Church there.
That Peter never was in Rome has already been
inferred from the N T a n d the Church fathers ($ 31).
Discussion of the apocryphal Acts
46. Conclusion
showed, further, that Peter’s presence
as to Peter’s in Rome was presupposed in Church
activity and circles not merely after 170 A . D . but
death outside perhaps even from as early a date as
of Palestine. 160 A . D ., that the purpose of his
presence there is t o be sought entirelf ill- the conflict
with Simon Magus (and in the martyrdom), a n d also,
so far as the Catholic Acts are concerned, in the desire
t o bring into prominence his harmonious accord with
Paul (5 39). Kot till we came t o the pseudo-Clenientine
HoiniZies a n d Recognitions, however, were we able to
perceive that under t h e name of Simon it was originally
Paul that was controverted, a n d that nothing but t h e
fundamental idea of the Simon-romance that Peter must
necessarily follow ‘ Simon ’ everywhere gave rise t o the
allegation that he had come t o Rome also. It is these
writings, moreover, that first point the way clearly to a
recognition of the fact that in the apocryphal Acts also
the figure of Simon has a n anti-Pauline basis (SIMON
MAGUS, 5 5). At the same time it was also throngh
t h e HnmiZies and Recognifions that we first became
aware that the harmonious co-operation of Paul with
Peter in Rome was a fundamentally altered form of
their hostile meeting in Rome reported in the romance
-an alteration made in the interests of the Catholic
church. Lastly, they show-ed us that this romance
had already arisen a n d begun to take shape in the
lifetime of Paul a n d the period immediately follow-
ing. In church circles, however, it did not find ac-
ceptance until Gnostic features also had been given to
Simon a n d thereby the Pauline features had been so
greatly obscured that it became possible t o assume a
harmonious instead of a hostile conjunction of Paul with
Peter in Rome. T h u s we see that the key t o the whole
riddle is found only in the Homilies a n d Recognitions,
a n d how great is the injustice done t o themselves in
the complete neglect of these by those scholars, like
Erbes a n d Soltau, who seek t o reach the right con-
clusion that Peter never was in Rome by other and much
less conclusive arguments, or who like Harnack accept
t h e tradition of t h e presence of Peter in Rome as true
history.
But also the anti-Pauline basis of the Acta Petri is com-
pletely misknown when Carl Schmidt (below, D 49), 88-90, arguing
correctlyfrom the view of Harnack, declares it to he an ‘assured
result’ that the whole legend contained in it about the meeting
between Simon Magiis and Peter has been derived by the author
from combination of what Justin says about Simon with the fact of
the Roman martyrdom of Peter, adding that Simon is exclusively
the magician, and that the author remains without any idea
that Paul is concealed under this mask, hecause the Pseudo-
Clementines were not yet in existence.
I n truth the interest of the Catholic church succeeded
very well, thanks to great skill, persistence, a n d un-
46. scrupulosity, in obscuring the actual
facts of the case (cp the suppression of
ante for
the Roman the tradition according to which Barnabas
Church. was t h e first preacher of the gospel i n
Rome ; BAKNABAS, $ 4) ; yet it is not
wholly impossible for us t o bring then1 again to light.
Still, the whole question, after all, is a purely historical
one. A claim on the part of the bishop of Rome to
supreme authority over t h e world would not be
established even if it were a fact that Peter had been i n
Rome or that Mt.1618f: as well as Lk.2232 or Jn.
2115-17 were genuine. I n 26g,h it has been shown
how late was the date at which Peter came t o b e
4626
 SIMON PETER
regarded as bishop of Rome in spite of this pre-
supposition. I n Peter’s lifetime there were n o
monarchical bishops a t all (M INISTRY , $5 466,47). and
even if there had been, his office was that of an apostle,
never that of bishop. And even if he had been bishop,
his special dignity would not have passed over to his
successor ; for apart from the fact that the apostolical
succession was not believed in till a date long after the
lifetime of Peter (M INISTRY , 5 37). it is in itself an
empty doctrine. Tertullian has well expressed this a s
against Calixtus of Rome (Pudic. 21, middle) : ‘ qualis
es, evertens atque commutans manifestam domini
intentionem personaliter hoc [Mt. 1 6 1 8 J ] Petro con-
ferentem ?’
Only a brief account of later traditions can be given. The
wife of Peter ( I Cor. 9 4 3 ) is said to have been a daughter of
Aristobulus, brother of Barnabas. Peter by
47. Later prayer inflicts gout on his own daughter Petro-
traditions. nilla in order to preserve her from danger with
which she is threatened on account ofher beauty.
To show that he hac the power to do so he heals her but
forthwith permits the malady to return. This is related’in a
Coptic fragment with the subscription ap+rrs II&pou (discussed
by Carl Schmidt [below f 491 1-25 and alreadyin SBA W 1896,
p. 841s) Thus the mnjectdre of Lipsius (ii. 1zoy206) is con-
firmed that the Acts of Nereus and Achilles and the Acts of
Philip from which he adduces the Same story derived it from
the old mp&rs I I k p o v . Yet the Coptic fragment gives the
beginning to the effect that a heathen, Ptolematus, had carried
~ f thef daughter of Peter (here she does not yet bear the name
Petronilla ’), but brought her back when she had lost her health.
Clement of Alexandria clearlv knew the stom. as he says (Strom.
36, F, 52, p. 53j, ed. Potter: also a#. EuG.’,HL iii.‘301), ‘for
Peter indeed and l’h,ili\hoth became fathers, and only with re:
gnrd to Philip nddq, 1 ilip also gave his daughters IO husbniids
(see P HILIP , S 4 c, col. -3690),)-. According to Strom. 7 11,
f 63, p. 869 (a& Eus. H E 111. 302) Peter’s wife suffered
martyrdom before his eyes. He himself is said to have been
bald (CD the ‘ tonsura Petri’). For a detailed descrintion of his
ap&rkce, from John Malalas after older authbrities, see
Lipsius, ii. 1213, n. I. Of the miracles of Peter reference ma7
be made here to that mentioned in the ‘Acta Petri et Andreae
according to which, in order to convince a certain rich man
named Onesiphorus of the truth of Christianity, he causes a
camel to go twice through the eye of a needle, and afterwards,
again twice, another camel with a woman of loose character on
its back.
We possess no genuine writings of Peter ; nor can the speeches
attributed to him in Acts lay any claim to authenticity notwith-
48. writings itanding their archaic colouring (f 4g, ACTS,
14). On the Canonical Epistles see P ETER
attributed (EPISTLES), and CHRISTIAN, $3 8 ; also on
to peter. 2 Pet above 9 2 4 8 . As apocryphal wrihngs
of Pezer, a bdok of Acts (not, however, claiming
to be by him) a Gospel, a ‘Preaching’ (K$ uy+a) and an
Apocalypse a d enumerated by Eusebius (HI$ iii. 32). Cp
A POCRYPHA, $9 2 6 4 301 312; Zahn, Gesch. d. Nrficken
Kamns, 2 742-751, 810-832; Harnack, ACL, ii. 1470-475,
6 2 2 - 6 2 - . On the ‘Preaching’ of Peter see also above, 5 25 e.
Of thdgospel of Peter the second half is fully considered under
R ESURRECTION-N ARRATIVES, f j e t passim. Lastly, mention
must be made of the Epistle of Peter to James prefixed to the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies, on which see SIMON MAGUS.
f 15.
On the life of Peter generally see the Bible Dictionaries ; also
Harnack in E N ) and the literature relating to the life of
Jesus and the apostolic age. Of Catholic
49. Literature.acconnts may be named (the very title is
characteristic) that of Janvier, Histoire de
Sf. P i m e , wince des af8t~eset premier jape (Tours, igoz).
Against the Roman sojourn of Peter : Baur, Tub. Ztschr. f:
Tkeol 1831 d, pp. 136-206 and Paulus, 1845, pp. zrz-a43=
(2)1, ;)866, pp. 243-272; Libsius, Ckronol. der ram. BisckG,
1869, especially pp. 162-167, Quellen der r5m. Petncrsagc, 1872,
JPT, r876, pp. 561.645, and Apokr. A$.-Gesck. ii. 1,1887;
Hausrath, NTfiche Zt.-gesck. 3, 1874, pp. 326-346=(2),1877,
137-153 ’ Zeller Z W T 1876, pp. 31-56. Erbes TU 19 I ,
‘$odestage h. Paulus u. PGtrus,’ 1899, and 2.f:Kihengesck.
22, 1901, pp. 1-47. 161-224; Soltau, Petrus in Rom, in ‘Samm-
lung gemeinverstiindl. wissensch. Vortrage’ edd. Virchow and
Holtzendorff, Hft. 34g=Neue Folge, Serie 15, 1900,pp. 469-509.
In support of the Roman sojourn of Peter see Hilgenfeld, ZWT,
1872, pp. 349.372’ 1876, pp. 57-80; 1877, pp. 486-508; Joh.
Delitzsch, Sf.Kr.’r874, pp. 213.260; Schmid (Roman Cath.),
Petrus in R m , Lucerne, 1879 ; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers
i. ( S . Clement of Rome), 2 48r-502 (‘ S. Peter in Rome ’) and
also 1 zor-3 5 (‘Early Roman Succession’); Harnack, A C L ii.
(=Ckronol$ 1240-243, 703-710 et passim; Clemen, Preuss.
IaLrhb. 106 (0ct.-Dec. 1901)405.417 ; Kneller, Z . f: katkol.
Theof. 1902, pp. 39-69, 225-246, and (agFinst Erbes) 351-36: ;
Carl Schmidt ‘Die alten Petrusakten, in TU 24 (=Neue
Folge ix) I , I& (a work which did not appear until the present
article was already in print). Cp also S IM O N MAGUS, 9 15.
P. w. s.
4627
’ SIMRI
), I Ch. 2610 AV, RV S HIMRI (9.n.).
SIN (i’p ; for 65‘s readings see below) an Egyptian
city, Ez. 30 15 : ‘ and I will pour my fury upon Sin
(AVmg., Pelusium), the strength of Egypt.’ It stands
parallel to Noph-Memphis ( w . 13), Pathros, Zoan-Tanis
and No-Thebes ( D . I.+), in direct parallelism to No
(Cornill : Noph-Memphis after a). Verse 16 groups
together Sin (but @-except Q which has 20,;s as in
D . 15-Syene, and thus with great pmbability Cornill,
i’o; see S YENE ), No, and N o p h ; in vn. 1 7 f : less
important cities are enumerated. As in D . 16 6 seems
to be right, only n. 15 remains for Sin. Nothing can
be concluded from the parallelisms, especially because
the text ( N o occurs 3 times in the present Hebrew text)
has been corrupted in several places, except that Sin
must have been a very important city ; in view of the
parallelism with Memphis (a, see above), it would seem
to belong to northern Egypt. More important is the
designation ‘ strength ( R V stronghold, iiy?) of Egypt,‘
which seems to point to the eastern frontier of the Delta.
6”renders Zarv (accusative of Sais o r transliteration ?),
6“Tavrv (of conrse incorrectly, as Tanis is ZOAN. 4.~1.),
Vg. PeZusium. Modern scholars have always adhered
t o the Vulgate’s identification with Pelusinm, because
Pelusium would meet the requirements best and because
of the Aramaic word @ i n , Syriac sCydnd ’ mud,’ which
seemed to furnish the Semitic equivalent for the Greek
II$wdmov-i.e., mud-city (cp Lutetia). This identi-
fication has been often repeated by Egyptologists (still
by Steindorff, Beidruge sur Assyr. 1599 as late as 1890),
but on the basis of erroneous conclusions Brugsch (Dict.
Geogr. 1091; cp Diimichen, Gesch. Aeg. 263) had
assumed that Coptic ome, ‘dirt, m u d , ’ furnished the
etymology for the great fortified frontier-city A m e ( t ) ,
and that the latter, consequently, was Pelusinm. T h e
city in question-Ame(t)’--had its official etymology
rather from a word meaning prince of Lower Egypt ’ ;
but this might have been artificial. T h e city itself
was, however, discovered by the excavations and investi-
gations of Petrie and Griffith, a t the modern Nebisheh,
8 miles SE of Tanis ; cp Petrie, Tunis 11. (On the
proposed identification with Tahpanhes, see TAH-
P A N HE S . ) For the identification Pelusium-Sin there
remains only the fact that Pelusinm (or a fort near
i t ? ) is called by some Arabic sources (et)- r f n e h (;.e-
piece of clay, lump of m u d ) ; but this seems to be
only a translation of the Greek name or a popular
etymology of Pelusium which also Strabo (803) derives
from the muddy surroundings.2 At any rate, a com-
parison of the words Sin or the Aramaic flyin with
Arabic p z is inadmissible for the Semitist. Pelusium,
besides, does not seem to have had any importance
before Greek times ; Herodotus (2141, etc.) knows
it as the entrance to Egypt, and in this capacity it
appears in many Greek writers ; but no hieroglyphic
name for it has been found so far, and it is not unlikely
that cities more to the East (see above on Amet-
Nebisheh) had formerly the strategic position of Pelu-
sium. According to Strabo ( 8 0 3 ) , Pelusium was 20 m.
distant from the sea ; in his time it was much decayed,
although later it was still the seat of a Coptic bishop.
T h e Coptic name was r r e p e ~ o y Arabic ~, Fur(a)mu.
T h e easternmost branch of the Nile was known as
the Pelusiac ; the Pelusiac mouth is now dried up com-
pletely, and the insignificant ruins of the ancient city are
situated in the d e ~ e r t . ~
I t will be seen, therefore, that the popular identifica-
tion with Pelusium rests on very feeble grounds. Jerome
(see above) was most likely guided by the Aramaic
1 The ambiguous letter
9 had here the value of Aleph, to
judge from demotic transcriptions.
2 Other classical writers think of mythical persons such as
Peleus, Pelusius, etc. See Wiedemann’s excellent commentary
on Herodotus ( p. 89).
a On these and the history of the city see Wiedemann, u fsupr.
4618