No evidence for Peter in Rome

Radagast said:

On numbers, Mark Avrum Ehrlich's Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora suggests "In the first century of the common era, there were an estimated 4 or 5 million Jews in all the principal cities of the Greco-Roman world and along the main trade routes." Reviewing the literature, this seems to be a generally accepted estimate.

Click to expand...

I tried to check Ehrlich's source, and found that chapter you quoted was written by Marianne Dacy - who did not supply her source nor show her method for the estimation.

Trying to find a more clear answer, I see vast different estimates for the total Jewish population: Condor has 6 million, Mommsen 5 million, Socin 2 million, Derwaghter 1 million or less, etc. Mommsen is quite respected, so I assume that is why many opt for 5, but the numbers are highly dodgy. People are estimating based on modern reconstructions of cities and their presumed populations, and then taking the ancient authors' numbers with a grain of salt.

Anyway, Josephus states that the area with the largest population of Jews in the Diaspora was Antioch, seeing that the Jews were allowed their own Politeia there. Mrs Dacy estimates that population at 20 000 - 40 000, so she is not being very consistent with her high numbers. Regardless, the Jews in Antioch and so probably spoke Aramaic more than they did Greek, as the subsequent Jewish populations there did.

It seems more to me as if we are seeing inflation of Jewish numbers here due to their subsequent importance, as I would think such a sizeable minority would make more of an impact in Roman writings otherwise (seeing that we in general assume about a 100 millionish population for the Mediterranean basin in the first century).

Quid est Veritas? said:

It seems more to me as if we are seeing inflation of Jewish numbers here due to their subsequent importance, as I would think such a sizeable minority would make more of an impact in Roman writings otherwise

Click to expand...

More likely, we are imposing a somewhat anachronistic view on the past. Had you asked a Roman of the time, they would have told you that Paul was not a Jew. He was a Roman citizen, born in Tarsus. It's true, he followed some kind of Eastern Mediterranean religion, but the same was true of all the Romans that had adopted the trendy worship of Isis.

It's also a fact that:

• there were substantial Jewish colonies in Alexandria and other places
• Jewish literature we have from the time is mostly in Greek
• synagogue inscriptions of the time in the Holy Land are almost half Greek

I can't see any way of juggling the figures to not have a substantial majority of Jews be Greek-speaking.

For example, taking the population of the Holy Land as a million (I don't think it could have fed much more than that), conservatively estimating a third of Jews in the Holy Land as Greek-speaking (this is less than synagogue inscriptions would suggest), and estimating another million Greek-Speaking Jews elsewhere in the Empire (which seems to me an underestimate) -- this would already make the overall Jewish population 66% Greek-speaking.

Cold Case for Peter as author. 8 sources for peter being the author of Mark and Mark being in attendance @ Rome for the introduction of the Gospel of Luke. David Allen Black details this in his book "Why four Gospels" He states that Peter was in Rome to introduce the Gospel of Luke, because the Gentiles would not accept it with out an eyewittness. Where Mark in in agreement with Matthew & Luke it is Peter is reading off the scrolls of Matthew and Luke and where Peter differs from these it is his own eyewitness accounts.
Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity

philadelphos said:

Shalom,

I've been thinking about this for years, and this explains so much... Many Protestants idealise Peter and turn towards the RCC, quoting the pope, become ecumenical, boasting of having visiting Rome and the Vatican 'in awe', having seen the pope, etc. What I've noticed is that and it's almost always founded on a claim (a dogged insistance) that Peter was the first pope, bishop of Rome, 'the rock' (petra), the foundation of the church, etc... Even the most ardent Reformed scholars and ministers I know do this in one way or another...

Yet, "There is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome"...

See William Marrion Branham (2005), An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages,
http://download.branham.org/pdf/ENG/BK-AGES An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages VGR.pdf

Quote: "They claim that Peter was their first pope, and that he resided in Rome when there is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACT FOR IT" (Branham, p. 121)

See Nicola Denzey Lewis (8 May 2019), The Apostle Peter in Rome: Jesus’ chief disciple examined, The Apostle Peter in Rome

Quote: "There is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome... it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there. Not only is it a very long way, according to the New Testament, Peter was a fisherman who was not very educated and who spoke only Aramaic; he was not the type of person that might travel widely across the Roman Empire to a large city where Latin and Greek were the dominant languages. The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome. ...There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome."

Anyone with more info and detail to shed light on this would be much appreciated. Please, comment with academic resources and references, books, articles, etc, and of course Scripture, manuscript evidence etc. Especially in the area of Early Church History, the (in-) validity of the Apostolic (Roman Catholic) Church, the execution of Early Church martyrs like Polycarp etc by Romans, Jews, and others. - No belligerent quips or ad hominem, thank you.

Thank you and blessings

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Jn. 8:32)

Click to expand...

This one is too easy,

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.
CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

philadelphos said:

Thank you, except that's selection bias. - Eusebius is flawed and untrustworthy, not 'despite his flaws'. His flaws undermine his credibility. Taking a quote from Eusebius would be like quoting Mad Magazine, or Mao's Little Red Book.

For example, "The bishop (Eusebius) probably "met and conversed with the emperor" on no more than four occassions." (See, Drake, H.A. “What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the 'Vita Constantini'.” Classical Philology 8, no. 1 (1988). What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the "Vita Constantini" on JSTOR)

Click to expand...

clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

Dave-W said:

There is no textual evidence that Peter wrote in Greek. It is entirely possible he wrote in Aramaic and it was translated into Greek shortly afterwards.

Click to expand...

Prove your theory that he wrote his letters in Aramaic to Greeks, thanks

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

philadelphos said:

No 'we' don't.

What poppycock, and fallacious argumentation. -- There are many inscriptions in LATIN across the Western world, on school buildings, hospitals, churches, universities, and government buildings, yet NO ONE SPEAKS LATIN. Why is that ?

The same principle was true in the Ancient World, there was a lingua franca (language of trade, common tongue; plus regional dialects etc) and there was the official language of the oppressor, for formal public and official use like 'inscriptions on synagogues', names of elders, and first born children, etc.

In fact, in Rome there are CHRISTIAN Churches with Hebrew Inscriptions to EVANGELISE to Jews... Similarly, in China, thousands of buildings have English inscriptions, yet no one speaks English...

Click to expand...

how many greek inscriptions are in the holy city?

Quid est Veritas? said:

Where on earth are you getting your numbers from? That 600 000 in Jerusalem, I assume is lifted from Tacitus, and that million in Egypt from Josephus, but the latter is notoriously inaccurate on numbers - saying more than a million died when Jerusalem fell, for instance. Based on the size of Jerusalem, modern historians estimate it was about 60 000 maybe, and the Jewish population in Egypt is also greatly inflated. Regardless, you can't lift numbers from two contradictory sources and treat both as accurate, as Josephus gives implausible numbers for Jerusalem.

Anyway, certainly the Diaspora had a higher percentage Greek speakers, but I see no reason to think there were more Jews outside Judaea than in it. Jews were expelled from Rome multiple times, and Herod was made King of the Jews, not Judaea. Why would such extra-territoriality be given someone if the numbers weren't marginal outside his client kingdom? Don't confuse the later Jewish diaspora with the 1st century - this was prior to the First Revolt, the Trajanic ones, and Bar Kohba, which certainly helped depopulate Judaea somewhat. So more Jews probably kept speaking Aramaic, and there wasa constant movement 'back home' as you note. We are looking at populations in flux, not discrete areas - that is the whole point of the strife I mentioned, which culminated in Rabbinical Judaism eventually repudiating the Greek texts entirely.

Click to expand...

Google Dead Sea Scrolls inscriptions Greek
The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Hellenistic Context on JSTOR
Archaeologists Discover Additional Dead Sea Scroll Fragments In Desert Caves
All of the Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in koine, the common dialect of the post-classical Hellenistic and Roman worlds and the New Testament language. A total of 27 Greek manuscripts have been identified from the Qumran caves.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US

Was just a curiosity.

mmksparbud said:

There weren't many Jews in Rome from the time of |Claudius---
Act_18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

It was Paul, not Peter that was sent to Rome.

Act_19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
Act_23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Rom_1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Gal_6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. To the Galatians written from Rome.
Eph_6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. To the Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.
Php_4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.
Col_4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. Written from Rome to Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.
2Ti_1:17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
2Ti_4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.
Phm_1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.

Click to expand...

The Church Fathers and Peter's Presence in Rome by Joe Gallegos
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194



Some non-Catholic historians

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New Yorkoubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36



This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos � 1997 All Rights Reserved.
Read more: The Church Fathers and Peter's Presence in Rome by Joe Gallegos ::

philadelphos said:

Thank you, except 'Church Tradition' and 'early' timing would be a fallacious argument.

"Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition)... that some policy, behaviour, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy. ...But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected."(Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate)



Source credibility is everything in textual criticism, history, archaeology, and Judeo-Christianity and scholarship in general, being the pursuit of truth, not wading in a pool of in lies. We're instead warned to be alert to lies, deception, and falsehood: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (Jn. 8:44)

The works of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, are unfortunately as credible as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts, i.e. textually fraudulent. Clement accepted Greek philosophy and Apocrypha, believed that faith could be obtained by human means. Origen denied the Bible's historicity and later allegorised it. And Eusebius was a propagandist, a blatant liar... At best, he was a formal panegyrist and rhetorician, not a historian.

See Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica reprint, 1990, ISBN 0-85229-531-6. Volume I, chapter 16, p.232.

See Smith, Christine. “Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre.” Vigiliae Christianae 43, no. 3 (Sep 1989). Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre on JSTOR.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;" (Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324) PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel, The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.)

See, PRF Brown, The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea, www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_007.htm

Photius: "The man (Eusebius) is indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief" (Photius, Bibliotheca, ch. 13; see
Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.v.html)

"Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood." (Ps. 144:8)

Click to expand...

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

mmksparbud said:

I already posted this, but will repost---Peter was not sent to Rome by the Holy Spirit--Paul was.

Click to expand...

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

mmksparbud said:

Why would Peter go where he was not sent?!

Click to expand...

Why do you go to the store when God did not send you?

1. Acts 7:43
   You carried with you the tent for worshiping Moloch and the image of the star of your god Rephan. These were the idols you made to worship. So I will send you away beyond Babylon.’
   
2. 1 Peter 5:13
   The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.
   
3. Revelation 14:8
   Then the second angel followed the first angel and said, “She is destroyed! The great city of Babylon is destroyed! She made all the nations drink the wine of her sexual sin and of God’s anger.”
   
4. Revelation 16:19
   The great city split into three parts. The cities of the nations were destroyed. And God did not forget to punish Babylon the Great. He gave that city the cup filled with the wine of his terrible anger.
   
5. Revelation 17:5
   She had a title written on her forehead. This title has a hidden meaning. This is what was written: the great babylon mother of prostitutes and the evil things of the earth
   
6. Revelation 18:1
   Babylon Is Destroyed
   Then I saw another angel coming down from heaven. This angel had great power. The angel’s glory made the earth bright.
   
7. Revelation 18:2
   The angel shouted with a powerful voice, “She is destroyed! The great city of Babylon is destroyed! She has become a home for demons. That city has become a place for every unclean spirit to live. She is a city filled with all kinds of unclean birds. She is a place where every unclean and hated animal lives.
   
8. Revelation 18:10
   The rulers will be afraid of her suffering and stand far away. They will say, ‘Terrible! How terrible, O great city, O powerful city of Babylon! Your punishment came in one hour!’
   
9. Revelation 18:14
   ‘O Babylon, the good things you wanted have left you. All your rich and fancy things have disappeared. You will never have them again.’
   
10. Revelation 18:17
    All these riches have been destroyed in one hour!’ “Every sea captain, all those who travel on ships, the sailors, and all those who earn money from the sea stood far away from Babylon.
    
11. Revelation 18:21
    Then a powerful angel picked up a large rock. This rock was as big as a large millstone. The angel threw the rock into the sea and said, “That is how the great city of Babylon will be thrown down. It will never be found again.
    
12. Revelation 18:22
    O Babylon, the music of people playing harps and other instruments, flutes and trumpets will never be heard in you again. No worker doing any job will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again.

"Over the centuries following its destruction by Xerxes, the city gradually lost its glitter and importance, and by the time John wrote Revelation it was virtually a desolate ruin, and thus a graphic illustration of the impending fate of mystical Babylon. As early as the first century A.D., Christians were referring to Rome by the cryptic title Babylon (see 1 Peter 5:13 ). The Jews were suffering under Rome as they had previously suffered under Babylon, and Christians were also experiencing sporadic persecution. To avoid reprisal, both Jews and Christians began to use “Babylon” as a secret name for imperial Rome ( see the Sibylline Oracles 5:155–161; 2 Baruch 11:1; the Jewish Midrash Rabbah on Canticles 1:6 [“They called the place Rome Babylon”] [Soncino ed. ], p. 60). The Church Fathers of the early centuries, as for example Tertullian ( Against Marcion 3. 13) and Irenaeus ( Against Heresies 5. 26. 1), applied “Babylon” in the Apocalypse to the city of Rome or to the empire. Joachim of Floris ( d. 1202) was among the first to include the Roman Church under “Babylon” (L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith , vol. 1, p. 708). Others of the late Middle Ages who did so were Pierre Jean d’Olivi, a French Spiritual ( d. 1298) ( ibid. , pp. 764, 765); Michael of Cesena ( ibid. , vol. 2, p. 20); the Lollards ( ibid. , pp. 78, 79); John Huss ( ibid. , p. 116); and Savonarola ( ibid. , p. 152). This identification came to be widespread among Protestants. William Miller identified mystical Babylon with “Rome under papal rule” (Joshua V. Himes, [William Miller’s] Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology [1842], p. 200). Sylvester Bliss, a Millerite editor, held that Babylon is “everything in this world opposed to or varying from the spirit of Christ,” or “Satan’s Kingdom,” and that upon the division of the Roman Empire “the Papal horn succeeded to the supremacy, as the head of Satan’s power, and became the Babylon of the world” ( The Advent Shield and Review [1844], pp. 112, 113, 115, 116). When the Protestant churches rejected the message of Christ’s soon coming, Adventists began to include them under “Babylon,” along with papal Rome, and interpreted the fall of Babylon to be these churches’ rejection of that message."
EGW - Babylon (Symbolic)

http://archive.atsjats.org/06Garilva_White07-2.pdf

https://www.staycatholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/13.-ECF-Peters-Presence-in-Rome.pdf

"1. She is called Babylon, because she resembles Babylon, where the the Jews and the People of God were seventy Years in Captivity: For as Literal Babylon held the Bodies of Men in Captivity, so Rome, which is Mystery Spiritual Babylon, keeps their Souls. Therefore some of the Learned have said, Babylon was the first Rome, and Rome is the second Babylon."
A word in season being a parallel between the intended bloody massacre of the people of the Jews, in the reign of King Ahasuerus and the hellish powder-'plot against the Protestants in the reign of King James : together with an account of some of the wicked principles and practises of the Church of Rome, demonstrated in their barbarous and cruel murders and massacres of the Protestants in the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Piedmont, the Albigenses, &c. : also shewing that the present Church of Rome is an apostate church ... / by H.C., a lover of true Protestants.

"and see what Babylon she is. We say then, that this Babylon, is not that reall Babylon of Chaldee, but Rome, for these reasons. First, for that this Babylon is called mysterium Babylon, that is to say, mysticall or figurative Babylon: Therefore, it is not Babylon it self in Chaldee." 9. SEVEN HILLS: SEVEN FORMS OF ROMAN GOVERNMENT.— In support of seven-hilled Rome as Babylon, Napier cites Virgil, Propertius, Tertullian, Jerome, Eutropius, and others. And he concludes, "And so for assured certenty, this whorish 8c mystical Babylon, is verilie Rome." " The seven hills are interpreted as "seven sorts of royal governments; . . . Kinges, Consulles, Dictators, Trium-vires, Tribuns, Emperours, and Popes." The popes were "not come to government" until after the reign of the emperors!' 10. TEN-HORNED BEA"
https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Books/PFOF1948-V02.pdf

1 Peter 5:13
The church in Babylon sends you greetings. They were chosen just as you were. Mark, my son in Christ, also sends his greetings.

Daniel Marsh said:

Why do you go to the store when God did not send you?

Click to expand...

But He did.

philadelphos said:

....

I've been thinking about this for years, and this explains so much... Many Protestants idealise Peter and turn towards the RCC, quoting the pope, become ecumenical, boasting of having visiting Rome and the Vatican 'in awe', having seen the pope, etc. What I've noticed is that and it's almost always founded on a claim (a dogged insistance) that Peter was the first pope, bishop of Rome, 'the rock' (petra), the foundation of the church, etc... Even the most ardent Reformed scholars and ministers I know do this in one way or another...

....

Anyone with more info and detail to shed light on this would be much appreciated. Please, comment with academic resources and references, books, articles, etc, and of course Scripture, manuscript evidence etc. Especially in the area of Early Church History, the (in-) validity of the Apostolic (Roman Catholic) Church, the execution of Early Church martyrs like Polycarp etc by Romans, Jews, and others. - No belligerent quips or ad hominem, thank you.

....

Click to expand...

The evidence is too scanty to say whether Peter/Cephas was or was not in Rome. He was in "Babylon" (or Sheshach in cipher?) which does seem to be implied to be Rome in Revelation. Though some of the traditional evidence for Peter being in Rome might actually really be about Paul being in Rome.
Whether Peter was in Rome or not there is evidence that the early popes list is not a genuine successors list. There is not evidence for the genuine existence of the early bishops outside of church writings, and the authenticity of authorship and date of some of the writings has doubts, and though some of these writings are as early as the 4th/3rd/2nd century ad the honesty and reliability of the authors is also questionable. If even one early pope/bishop of Rome is fake then the whole succession list is broken. I have no doubt that Peter was leader of the apostles, and he might have been in Rome possibly, but I do doubt the apostolic succession of the popes for evidences reasons.
Also maybe relating to this is the discovery that Ephesus the 1st of the 7 churches on Revelation 1-3 seems to be an analogous match for Jerusalem since many details of Ephesus are analogous to details of Jerusalem, which means the 1st church is the early church centered at Jerusalem (not at Rome).

Babylon: 7 hills/mountains
Jerusalem: 7 hills (Scopus, Olivet, Mt of Corruption, Ophel, Original Mt Zion, New Mt Zion, the hill on which Antonia fortress was built). (Though this is dubious since 3 of them are outside the ancient city walls.)

Babylon: Dispersion in Genesis 11. End with a flood/sinking in prophets.
Jerusalem: Diaspora/flood.

(I'm surprised the catholics and aligned people here didn't complain about your thread/topic being offensive to them like they did with my Saints origins thread which was consequently deleted by the staff. I have more evidences on some of the above but they are too sensitive to post in forum due to past scares, but if you want more info you can PM me.)

Daniel Marsh said:

Google Dead Sea Scrolls inscriptions Greek
The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Hellenistic Context on JSTOR
Archaeologists Discover Additional Dead Sea Scroll Fragments In Desert Caves
All of the Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in koine, the common dialect of the post-classical Hellenistic and Roman worlds and the New Testament language. A total of 27 Greek manuscripts have been identified from the Qumran caves.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US

Was just a curiosity.

Click to expand...

Greek continued in wide use as a language of learning throughout the Middle East right through Roman times down into Islamic ones. Significant Greek texts like Aristotle were still being read in Transoxiana in the high Middle Ages. Few of these people spoke Greek as a home language, anymore than Europeans spoke Latin in the late Mediaeval period and beyond. In the 1st century the home languages in Palestine did seem to consist of some Greek and some Aramaic, as there is friction between the communities - and both used Greek texts to some extent, like Josephus an Aramaic speaker writing in Greek - as it was the lingua franca at the time. I come from South Africa, where probably 75% or more of writings are in English, but English home language speakers are about 8%. Greek texts being written or epigraphs or graffiti, are poor markers of the amount of home language speakers. Sumerian say, was still being written for 2000 years after it ceased to be used as a language of daily communication.

Subsequent Jewish languages show little Greek influence, so Greek was likely not the spoken daily tongue of their ancestors. That Greek speaking Jews, the Hellenistai, existed is beyond doubt, but I see no good evidence to consider them an 'overwhelming majority' and very good grounds to doubt it. The Hellenistai probably disproportionately converted to Christianity anyway, to judge by the thoroughly non-Greek character of subsequent Jewish tongues.

Quid est Veritas? said:

Greek continued in wide use as a language of learning throughout the Middle East right through Roman times down into Islamic ones. Significant Greek texts like Aristotle were still being read in Transoxiana in the high Middle Ages. Few of these people spoke Greek as a home language, anymore than Europeans spoke Latin in the late Mediaeval period and beyond. In the 1st century the home languages in Palestine did seem to consist of some Greek and some Aramaic, as there is friction between the communities - and both used Greek texts to some extent, like Josephus an Aramaic speaker writing in Greek - as it was the lingua franca at the time. I come from South Africa, where probably 75% or more of writings are in English, but English home language speakers are about 8%. Greek texts being written or epigraphs or graffiti, are poor markers of the amount of home language speakers. Sumerian say, was still being written for 2000 years after it ceased to be used as a language of daily communication.

Subsequent Jewish languages show little Greek influence, so Greek was likely not the spoken daily tongue of their ancestors. That Greek speaking Jews, the Hellenistai, existed is beyond doubt, but I see no good evidence to consider them an 'overwhelming majority' and very good grounds to doubt it. The Hellenistai probably disproportionately converted to Christianity anyway, to judge by the thoroughly non-Greek character of subsequent Jewish tongues.

Click to expand...

Outstanding Friend

Mosheli said:

The evidence is too scanty to say whether Peter/Cephas was or was not in Rome.

Click to expand...

"Activity and death in Rome; burial place
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

"And having gone forth from Baias, they went to Gaitas, and there he taught the word of God. And he stayed there three days in the house of Erasmus, whom Peter sent from Rome to teach the Gospel of God. "
CHURCH FATHERS: The Acts of Peter and Paul

"[Romulus was the traditional founder of Rome. He murdered his brother, Remus.] These are they who promoted you to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state 1 Peter 2:9, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See you attained a wider sway by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although you were increased by many victories, and extended your rule on land and sea, yet what your toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.

...

VI. Many noble martyrs have sprung from the blood of SS. Peter and Paul
Thither came also your blessed brother-Apostle Paul, the vessel of election Acts 9:15, and the special teacher of the Gentiles, and was associated with you at a time when all innocence, all modesty, all freedom was in jeopardy under Nero's rule."
CHURCH FATHERS: Sermon 82 (Leo the Great)

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius)

"For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter? Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship;"
CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book I (Clement of Rome)

Google Peter Rome gives us 128,000 results.

God Bless,
daniel

I can't find a link to the article, but a few decades ago, a Hebrew bible was discovered in a village near Thessaloniki that was written phonetically using the Greek alphabet. It appears that the Jewish community there could speak Hebrew but could only read and write in Greek.