Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

[Root of Jesse]

That's it? Bones? You have no proof that these are Peter's and they probably aren't because Peter would have had to be in Rome, first and he never was.

Bones of St. Peter and Rome's Truth

Outside the Vatican, the jury is still out about their authenticity, with experts weighing in on both sides of the debate.

“It’s very difficult for me to believe the bones are authentic,” said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian. “It’s one thing to say the bones are 2,000 years old and that they have the characteristics we believe to be those of St. Peter. But recall that in the time of St. Peter, Christianity was illegal. Things were hidden and moved around hastily.

“A man of faith, of course, may see things differently, but the truth is that from a factual perspective there is no way to know if something that old is real or not,” Lombatti said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/st-peters-bones-fake_n_4393739.html

As I stated, we have proof, you don't accept it.

 

[outsidethecamp]

As I stated, we have proof, you don't accept it.

None of the apostles ever testified or wrote of Peter being in Rome. If Peter was the first pope of the church then he would have been mentioned many times, as such.

Paul was in Rome for quite awhile as you know and he addresses many Christians in his letters and also mentions many in Rome, but he never mentions Peter. None of the other NT writers mention Peter being in Rome.

I hear there are two Catholic institutions that say they have the head of John the Baptist. How could John have 2 heads?

 

[Root of Jesse]

None of the apostles ever testified or wrote of Peter being in Rome. If Peter was the first pope of the church then he would have been mentioned many times, as such.

Paul was in Rome for quite awhile as you know and he addresses many Christians in his letters and also mentions many in Rome, but he never mentions Peter. None of the other NT writers mention Peter being in Rome.

I hear there are two Catholic institutions that say they have the head of John the Baptist. How could John have 2 heads?

He is mentioned many times in Scripture, mostly first, as in "Peter and the others". Regardless of whether he was in Rome, he was head of Church by the word of Christ. The title Pope is an invention. It means "Papa".
Regarding Paul, when he was in Rome, he was in prison much of the time. He might not have known Peter was there. He also wrote letters which addressed particular issues in particular churches.

 

[outsidethecamp]

He is mentioned many times in Scripture, mostly first, as in "Peter and the others". Regardless of whether he was in Rome, he was head of Church by the word of Christ. The title Pope is an invention. It means "Papa".
Regarding Paul, when he was in Rome, he was in prison much of the time. He might not have known Peter was there. He also wrote letters which addressed particular issues in particular churches.

You're funny, and so is your conjecture.

 

[tz620q]

The NT is a record of the early church and original Apostles which included Peter. There is absolutely no hint that Peter ever went to Rome.

What is your documentation that Paul went to Spain and Peter went to Rome? Link, name of book or something, please.

Eusebius' "Church History" Book 3, Chapter 1.2
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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You're funny, and so is your conjecture.

If it was conjecture, you might be right. But, sadly, it's not.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think this is a good example of the anti-catholic mindset present in so much of reformed protestantism. Sola Scriptura taken to the extreme. The Bible is the Word of God. In it, through the Holy Spirit God tells us everything that we need to know, everything that He wants us to know; but not everything that we want to, or think we should know. Because Scripture happens to be silent on something does not mean it did not happen; follow that mindset and one could argue that the period of time between the last book of the OT and the Book of Matthew does not exist.

We have reliable extra Biblical writings; and while St. Peter's presence in Rome may be of little consequence to the salvation of one's soul, the fact remains that we have reliable sources regarding the martyrdom of both Sts. Peter and Paul, and we should have no issue with the fact that it almost certainly happened in Rome.

By denying this extra Biblical evidence, I believe that we dishonor God's servants.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

BTW, just a reminder...

The title of this thread is very misleading, based on the content of "Wall of Text" and the points made in the posts titled parts I and II; the title should read: "Peter was not a Pope".

 

[outsidethecamp]

Peter is significantly dishonored calling him a pope, making him a member of a religion that usurps the preeminence of Jesus Christ and referring to him as the "Rock".

Where are the reliable sources that Peter went to Rome? Please, no skeletal remains.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Peter is significantly dishonored calling him a pope, making him a member of a religion that usurps the preeminence of Jesus Christ and referring to him as the "Rock".

Where are the reliable sources that Peter went to Rome? Please, no skeletal remains.

It seems that Peters absence from Rome is an article of faith, and that the whole of Christendom's salvation is dependent on it.
Your conviction is clear; I'm sorry that you do not desire a reasonable, respectful exploration of this topic.

 

[outsidethecamp]

It seems that Peters absence from Rome is an article of faith, and that the whole of Christendom's salvation is dependent on it.
Your conviction is clear; I'm sorry that you do not desire a reasonable, respectful exploration of this topic.

So far no one has postulated anything reasonable. I don't consider bones either relevant or reasonable.

Salvation is completely dependent on Christ and is not threatened by another religion building its total existence on Peter.

I would love to hear something reasonable.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So far no one has postulated anything reasonable. I don't consider bones either relevant or reasonable.

Salvation is completely dependent on Christ and is not threatened by another religion building its total existence on Peter.

I would love to hear something reasonable.

So, unless you are willing to consider the extra Biblical sources already quoted may (or maybe not) have some credibility; I agree, reasonable discussion is truly impossible. The Nicene Creed can not be found verbatim in the Bible; does that invalidate it's merit and make it not worth study and consideration?

 

[Dialogist]

From this point in history, all inspired or even secular history about either Paul or Peter comes to an end. The next mention of Peter's whereabouts will not appear for another eighty years. And for uninspired writers, whose writings are critically rejected for other reasons, their suggestion that he was in Rome leaves much doubt about their reliability.

Eusebius writes of St. Peter's time in Rome in his History of the Church. The editors of Eusebius' History of the Church in the Series II of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers makes the following observation regarding the controversy surrounding St. Peter's time in Rome and the extant patristic references there to:

The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See especially Lipsius’ Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius’ latest work upon this subject, Die Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.) The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside, and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in John xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given. The first extra-biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing tradition. Ignatius (Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a favorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles. This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well known in Rome. Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter labored in Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to mention Peter’s death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed to imply it) is Tertullian (De Præscrip. Hær. chap. 36), but he mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is so unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where Origen is quoted by Eusebius.

The controversy of St. Peter's time in Rome is often conflated, I think, with the controversy surrounding whether, in fact, he was ever truly the bishop of Rome. If I am not mistaken, the patristic sources do NOT support the claim that St. Peter was bishop of Rome and even identify Linus, and not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome. The fact that he may not have been the first bishop of Rome, however, doesn't negate that he ever was actually there.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Eusebius writes of St. Peter's time in Rome in his History of the Church. The editors of Eusebius' History of the Church in the Series II of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers makes the following observation regarding the controversy surrounding St. Peter's time in Rome and the extant patristic references there to:

The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See especially Lipsius’ Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius’ latest work upon this subject, Die Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.) The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside, and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in John xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given. The first extra-biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing tradition. Ignatius (Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a favorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles. This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well known in Rome. Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter labored in Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to mention Peter’s death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed to imply it) is Tertullian (De Præscrip. Hær. chap. 36), but he mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is so unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where Origen is quoted by Eusebius.

The controversy of St. Peter's time in Rome is often conflated, I think, with the controversy surrounding whether, in fact, he was ever truly the bishop of Rome. If I am not mistaken, the patristic sources do NOT support the claim that St. Peter was bishop of Rome and even identify Linus, and not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome. The fact that he may not have been the first bishop of Rome, however, doesn't negate that he ever was actually there.

We have to keep in mind that it is the tradition of the Catholic church that Peter died in Rome.

The UNCONFIRMED historical report that Peter died on a Roman cross had a purpose. Its purpose was and is to undermine the Word of God and render the words and prophecy of Jesus Christ null and void. Had the unconfirmed historical report never surfaced, there would be little discussion today of how the Apostle Peter died. Scripture plainly tells us how he died. Therefore, the interpretation of the description of Peter's death is marred when it is reported that according to history, the Apostle Peter was a martyr, crucified on a cross, and perhaps even crucified upside down. The historical facts may be true regarding such a Peter, but it was not THE Apostle Peter. The name Peter was a very common name similar to our Bob, Bill, John, etc. There may have been someone who underwent that particular fate. However, it was NOT THE APOSTLE PETER. The report that Peter died upon a Roman cross and perhaps upside down serves only to glorify the FLESH. Christians seize upon this opportunity to elevate the Apostle Peter to a high human plain and glory in the fact of his martyrdom. They praise his courage, his unyielding faith, and uncompromising determination to follow Christ in the face of such a dilemma. But this was not what God had in mind for Peter, for Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This He spoke, signifying by what death he (Peter) would GLORIFY GOD". The popular historical report of Peter's death has succeeded in drawing many (otherwise) good Bible Teachers away from the facts and words of scripture and into a world of supposition and conjecture. It is because of this departure from scripture that the Apostles and New Testament writers left us with this final warning . .

Jude 1:17 But, beloved, REMEMBER YE THE WORDS which were spoken before of the APOSTLES of our Lord Jesus Christ: - II Peter 3:1-2This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, that you may BE MINDFUL OF THE WORDS which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

Peter died of old age and was taken care of (another shall gird thee and take him places he could not go).

 

[Dialogist]

We have to keep in mind that it is the tradition of the Catholic church that Peter died in Rome.

The UNCONFIRMED historical report that Peter died on a Roman cross had a purpose. Its purpose was and is to undermine the Word of God and render the words and prophecy of Jesus Christ null and void. Had the unconfirmed historical report never surfaced, there would be little discussion today of how the Apostle Peter died. Scripture plainly tells us how he died. Therefore, the interpretation of the description of Peter's death is marred when it is reported that according to history, the Apostle Peter was a martyr, crucified on a cross, and perhaps even crucified upside down. The historical facts may be true regarding such a Peter, but it was not THE Apostle Peter. The name Peter was a very common name similar to our Bob, Bill, John, etc. There may have been someone who underwent that particular fate. However, it was NOT THE APOSTLE PETER. The report that Peter died upon a Roman cross and perhaps upside down serves only to glorify the FLESH. Christians seize upon this opportunity to elevate the Apostle Peter to a high human plain and glory in the fact of his martyrdom. They praise his courage, his unyielding faith, and uncompromising determination to follow Christ in the face of such a dilemma. But this was not what God had in mind for Peter, for Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This He spoke, signifying by what death he (Peter) would GLORIFY GOD". The popular historical report of Peter's death has succeeded in drawing many (otherwise) good Bible Teachers away from the facts and words of scripture and into a world of supposition and conjecture. It is because of this departure from scripture that the Apostles and New Testament writers left us with this final warning . .

Jude 1:17 But, beloved, REMEMBER YE THE WORDS which were spoken before of the APOSTLES of our Lord Jesus Christ: - II Peter 3:1-2This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, that you may BE MINDFUL OF THE WORDS which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

Peter died of old age and was taken care of (another shall gird thee and take him places he could not go).

It is also the understanding of all Orthodox Christians that Peter was martyred in Rome.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It was not my intent to stir up any contention.

Without intending to stir up additional controversy, I would like to point out two things related to your comment:

The patristic interpretation of John 21:18-19 is that the Lord is specifically referring to St. Peter's martyrdom in this passage. The Byzantine (not Roman Catholic) commentator Theophylact, explains, for example:

The words When thou was young, thou girdest Thyself, and so on, foretell Peter's martyrdom. "You love Me, and have repeatedly promised to lay down your life for Me. Be of good cheer. I shall grant your desire, and what you did not suffer when you were young, you shall suffer in old age." By reminding him of his former life, the Lord teaches Peter that when the spirit prevails the flesh gives way, and vice versa. In one's youth, the influence of the world is stronger; in old age, its hold is weaker. But in matters of the spirit, when old age approaches, virtue shines more brightly. The Lord speaks as He does to kindle in Peter the desire for martyrdom. His next words indicate what kind of martyrdom Peter would suffer: Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee. This means that Peter would stretch out his arms to be bound and crucified.

Regarding Peter's supposed crucifixion as an example of his being glorified and thereby (if I understand the gist of your comments) taking our attention and focus away from Christ - I am not sure that this is the effect. In fact, the accounts written of his crucifixion all say that when he saw that he was to be crucified he was troubled because he did not want people to think of his crucifixion the same way as they thought of the Lord's Crucifixion. For this reason he asked the Romans to crucify him upside down.

But these points aside, I understand from your reply that we should have no interest whatsoever in the lives and works of the Apostles other than what is documented in the canonical New Testament Scriptures. Am I representing your view correctly?

 

[outsidethecamp]

It is also the understanding of all Orthodox Christians that Peter was martyred in Rome.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It was not my intent to stir up any contention.

Without intending to stir up additional controversy, I would like to point out two things related to your comment:

The patristic interpretation of John 21:18-19 is that the Lord is specifically referring to St. Peter's martyrdom in this passage. The Byzantine (not Roman Catholic) commentator Theophylact, explains, for example:

The words When thou was young, thou girdest Thyself, and so on, foretell Peter's martyrdom. "You love Me, and have repeatedly promised to lay down your life for Me. Be of good cheer. I shall grant your desire, and what you did not suffer when you were young, you shall suffer in old age." By reminding him of his former life, the Lord teaches Peter that when the spirit prevails the flesh gives way, and vice versa. In one's youth, the influence of the world is stronger; in old age, its hold is weaker. But in matters of the spirit, when old age approaches, virtue shines more brightly. The Lord speaks as He does to kindle in Peter the desire for martyrdom. His next words indicate what kind of martyrdom Peter would suffer: Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee. This means that Peter would stretch out his arms to be bound and crucified.

Regarding Peter's supposed crucifixion as an example of his being glorified and thereby (if I understand the gist of your comments) taking our attention and focus away from Christ - I am not sure that this is the effect. In fact, the accounts written of his crucifixion all say that when he saw that he was to be crucified he was troubled because he did not want people to think of his crucifixion the same way as they thought of the Lord's Crucifixion. For this reason he asked the Romans to crucify him upside down.

But these points aside, I understand from your reply that we should have no interest whatsoever in the lives and works of the Apostles other than what is documented in the canonical New Testament Scriptures. Am I representing your view correctly?

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate them.

My view is that there is quite a bit of information in the NT of the missionary journeys of various Apostles, coupled with them being in different places and naming others that they have greeted or sending greetings to and I have not been able to find any NT evidence of Peter going to Rome or being in Rome. Of course, I am just investigating the NT, but if there were other historians such as Josephus (or others) that could give an account then that would be interesting. I don't believe Josephus makes any mention, either. I would like to see some reference from a contemporary of Peter and of course it would be great to see it in the Holy Spirit inspired NT. So far, it seems that it is only "tradition" that Peter went to Rome, was martyred in Rome, and was the Pope of the Roman church. I would think there would be at least a few references in the NT from other Apostles or Believers regarding Peter being in Rome.

Oh, and one other thing, I was just writing about another interpretation of Peter, "stretching forth his hands", and Jesus' reference to his old age. It seems that no one really knows for sure.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's 'only tradition' for 2/3 of Christianity. Besides which, it does not matter whether Peter went to Rome or not. Jesus didn't say "Peter, go to Rome and be Pope." He said 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." So wherever Peter went there went the Church.
By the way, Peter's successor in office knew Peter was in Rome. I know, you don't believe it. It's sorta like that commercial "You don't want to try the almond milk because you don't know if you'll like how it tastes. But you won't know if you like it unless you taste it."

 

[Arcangl86]

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate them.

My view is that there is quite a bit of information in the NT of the missionary journeys of various Apostles, coupled with them being in different places and naming others that they have greeted or sending greetings to and I have not been able to find any NT evidence of Peter going to Rome or being in Rome. Of course, I am just investigating the NT, but if there were other historians such as Josephus (or others) that could give an account then that would be interesting. I don't believe Josephus makes any mention, either. I would like to see some reference from a contemporary of Peter and of course it would be great to see it in the Holy Spirit inspired NT. So far, it seems that it is only "tradition" that Peter went to Rome, was martyred in Rome, and was the Pope of the Roman church. I would think there would be at least a few references in the NT from other Apostles or Believers regarding Peter being in Rome.

Oh, and one other thing, I was just writing about another interpretation of Peter, "stretching forth his hands", and Jesus' reference to his old age. It seems that no one really knows for sure.

So you won't believe the early leaders of the church that say Peter was martyred in Rome, but you would take the word of a Roman collaborator? The simple fact is that the Scriptures do not say what happened to Peter, and there is no evidence to contradict the once universally held tradition saying he was in Rome.

 

[dayhiker]

outsidethecamp ....
Thanks for putting together your post. I found it very interesting.

Years ago I read all the traditions of all the apostles. It is very interesting what they did.
As with everything often there is an agenda in what was told and they really didn't have hardly any of the critical way to that we evaluate history.
Even on FB today people publish all kinds of things as true that 5 mins of research can prove to be false. So I have no doubt that some things we things
are history can false. So we don't know for sure ... but I also had felt that Paul in all the people he names would have mentioned Peter if Peter and he were in Rome at the same time. Paul was in house arrest as I understand it, so I'd think both Peter and Paul would want to meet if they were in the same city.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We believe we know the gravesite of St. Peter? Why? Because he was important to the early Church. Can any other city make the same claim with any veracity? I doubt it. The question really is, "Why does it matter whether he was in Rome?"

Regarding Paul, he wrote to particular churches about particular problems and sent his own minions to minister to them. I don't think he would need to mention Peter. Had there been a written gospel, then maybe.