The Claim that Peter became a Bishop. Religious myth or is there textual evidence?

[Clearly]

In my posts I find that the Roman Catholics and churches associated with ancient Rome such as the eastern orthodox and others of byzanthian descent are the ones most interested in the attempt to associate themselves to a claim of authority by claiming that Peter, the apostle was a Bishop in their church. Most of us grew up hearing this claim.

As the earliest christianities vied for pre-eminence and influence, the Roman congregation became more influential over the christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth etc. Just as Italy became more politically powerful, so Rome became more powerful over the other cities where there were Christian congregations. Ultimately the Roman congregation, it's leadership, and it’s type of Christianity won out for influence over other various types of Christianities during this time period.

One of the mechanisms the later Roman congregation and it’s theologian’s used to claim the right to pre-eminence was the claim that Peter was a bishop of Rome, and thus the Roman's then could more easily and more fully fully develop their claim to authority.

However, I've seen no significant evidence supporting the claim that Peter ever gave up his traveling apostleship role to become a stationary Bishop of Rome. The Tradition of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome, if true, is repeated quite commonly. So he may have ended up in Rome at some point before his martyrdom. But what about the twenty five years during which this mighty, and dynamic, powerful apostle and prophet is claimed by Catholics to have governed the other churches from Rome?

As I look at first and second century christian texts, I cannot find any early texts or evidence that the Apostle Peter ever left the traveling role of apostle and took on the congregational call of "Bishop".

Does anyone have any data from the first or second century texts that describes Peter's actual acts as a Bishop. I am not talking about later Catholic claims, I mean actual textual evidence of what would have been the greatest Bishopric of the Roman congregation had it actually taken place.


For example : Centuries AFTER the traveling apostle Peter is in rome, Catholics such as Irenaeus' attempt to create logical connections to Apostolic Authority make perfect sense within these movement to become the pre-eminent Chrisitnity, however Iraneaus cannot refer to any early records of Peter in Rome, nor have I been able to find any record of Peter as a Bishop in Rome during the 25 years after leaving the church in Antioch, nor can I find any early records that he left his traveling office of apostle in exchange for the Bishop over a single congregation.

“If Peter ever came to Rome” and stayed there relates Goguel (which one can neither prove nor deny since we don’t have record of him after he left Antioch) “his presence there left no direct or deep memories” in anyone who lived in Rome at that time. This complete Silence regarding Peter for more than twenty years is absolutely amazing if Peter actually had gone to Rome and left the apostleship to become a Bishop over the Church Congregation in Rome. It would be like having Peter in a 20 year presidency of the United States, but no record of Peter's sayings as president, no record of his acts; no legislation he signed; no people he met nor speeches he gave. It's almost inconceivable historically that he could have been president without SOME record of what he did in this important position.


For example : The Patrologiae Graeca contains TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES of the writings and doings of Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.

If Peter stayed in Rome, ESPECIALLY if he actually became Bishop of Rome, then there should be a great deal of textual records as there are for Clement. However, I am asking : where are Peter’s sermons, his miracles, his conversations, is administrative acts, etc. Clement himself writes a great deal regarding personal daily interactions with Peter when Peter is in Palestine. But, upon leaving Palestine, even Clement loses sight of Peter and writes nothing of what happened to him. If Peter DID go to Rome, then the silence and void is even more astounding.

A lack of records would seem to make it plain that Peter did NOT stay in Rome nor did he ever govern the other churches from there because he could NOT have lived in Rome and governed the growing churches without at least some record and remembrance of it (as there are of his doings elsewhere).

If the claim that Peter was a Bishop is simply an incorrect political Myth, and did not stay in Rome during those years, then what actually DID happen to him?

Is anyone aware of any early records where Peter actually went and what Peter actually did do?

Does ANYONE know of any records which indicated what actually happened to Peter during these two decades after he left Antioch?


Clearly

 

[tz620q]

As the earliest christianities vied for pre-eminence and influence, the Roman congregation became more influential over the christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth etc.

Jerusalem - wiped out in 70 A.D. by Titus
Corinth - never thought of as one of the preeminent patriarchates.
Antioch (and I would add Alexandria) - Patriarchates with thriving Christian community and school of theology

Just as Italy became more politically powerful, so Rome became more powerful over the other cities where there were Christian congregations. Ultimately the Roman congregation, it's leadership, and it’s type of Christianity won out for influence over other various types of Christianities during this time period.

But it is generally accepted that Rome reached its zenith when most of its population was not Christian. So ties of political power to Christian religious influence pre-Constantine are unsubstantiated.

Also what major differences do you see in this time frame (pre-300 A.D.) between the Roman Christianity and that of Antioch or Alexandria.

However, I've seen no significant evidence supporting the claim that Peter ever gave up his traveling apostleship role to become a stationary Bishop of Rome. The Tradition of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome, if true, is repeated quite commonly. So he may have ended up in Rome at some point before his martyrdom. But what about the twenty five years during which this mighty, and dynamic, powerful apostle and prophet is claimed by Catholics to have governed the other churches from Rome? As I look at first and second century christian texts, I cannot find any early texts or evidence that the Apostle Peter ever left the traveling role of apostle and took on the congregational call of "Bishop".

Why don't you present the evidence that you have showing that Peter remained a traveling apostle and I will present the evidence that Peter spent at least a majority of his last years in Rome.

Was he ever a congregational "Bishop"? No, I think most Catholics would rather see the apostles and specifically Peter, as universal "Bishops". Their authority was not confined to a specific area, but extended throughout the early Christian church.

For example : The Patrologiae Graeca contains TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES of the writings and doings of Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.

I think you might be confusing Clement of Alexandria with Clement of Rome here. The only extant writing that we have from Clement of Rome is Clement's letter to Corinth.

 

[Clearly]

Clearly said : “For example : The Patrologiae Graeca contains TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES of the writings and doings of Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.”

Tz620q said : “I think you might be confusing Clement of Alexandria with Clement of Rome here. The only extant writing that we have from Clement of Rome is Clement's letter to Corinth.”

I certainly could be wrong on points and would appreciate any correction you might make. Perhaps you could do some research and correct me if you still feel that I am incorrect. Having a volume of the Patrologia Graeca does NOT mean that the person a volume is dedicated to actually wrote the volume (though the later volumes describe much of the history that took place during the historical period the volume covers).

The wonderful catholic Migne places Clement I of Rome’s writings first in the Patrologia Graeca along with other writings that comes under Clement heading in volume one. Below is a picture first page of volume one of the PG with clement’s name on the page.

Volume two of the Patrologia Graeca also is dedicated to Clement I of Rome (though he did not write barnabas/matthias/Batholomaeus/Anacletus papa, Hermas/Diognetus, 12 patriarchs etc - these are documents that were placed in the second volume which was dedicated to Clement I of Rome) a picture of the index page of the second volume of the P-gracae is shown below :

Please, feel free to review and let me know if you still feel I made any mistake or mis-spoke so as to have inadvertently confused. I am NOT above making mistakes and am grateful to have them pointed out to me.

The point is that no record of the deeds of Peter as an administrative bishop is found in the earliest of the volumes. As I said, it is as though a presidential administration exists without any description of what the President did, what the President said, or what the President ordered. None of the Presidents letters (e.g. to churches) exist; none of the President's daily doings (as a Bishop) exist. There seems to be nothing short of later claims to show for the claim that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.


We have evidence that Peter had been in Rome, but I’ve seen nothing regarding Peter’s presumed administration. He and Paul seem to have founded churches as part of their missionary activities, but nothing regarding an administration as a sitting Bishop.

If Peter had been a sitting Bishop in a Roman Administration over decades of time, I think the Roman church would have kept a tremendous amount of records as to what Peter did.



Tz620q - If you have copies and access to such texts, I would be absolutely grateful to have you describe these "ur-texts" and give us any significant data from them you possess.


Clearly :


TZ620q : After writing the above post, I re-read my post and see what you mean. I mis-spoke. The PG do NOT tell us about the "day to day" doings of Clement other than his extant writing, the first three writings in the first page are "genuina" (which does not mean that clement wrote them all, and the other two the "dubia" are of lessor prominence). I apologize that I worded it that way. Volume one simply contains the extant writings attributed to Clement as they were seen at the time of collation and other sacred writing of the time period. Presumably, had Peter BEEN the Bishop of Rome, over decades, he would have written a great deal of letters that would have made it into a volume of the Patrologia as they start to become historical volumes of sorts.

By the way : If you thought that I meant Clement of Alexandria, or that I meant that the volumes of the Patrologia Graeca were all written by those to whom they are dedicated, I did not mean to do this, but the blame does lie in my description. 2nd Clement is now seen as anonymous for example (though extremely important for other reasons) ... Administrative histories, such as that which covers a high office, such as the president of the US (as in my example), are usually written by others and not by the president himself (who presumably would have more important duties.). As I said, if you have the data that I have never seen, I would be very grateful to have been introduced to it. If you have such data, I would thank you in advance for exposing me to it.

I also agree with your claim that “Catholics”, especially after the first two centuries “would rather see the apostles and specifically Peter, as universal "Bishops", despite that wish being inconsistent with descriptions of Bishops during the age in which Peter and Clement lived (as referenced in the early texts such as the didache, the pseudo-Clementine records (so important to catholic claims), in the Apostolic Constitutions, etc. Remember, the office that the Catholics now call "bishop" changed in the Catholic usage. It is NOT the same as the early Judao-Christian office "Bishop". Still, this is somewhat irrelevant.


Tell us about the texts from the time of of Peter’s "administration" if you actually know of any. I admit some excitement that you might know something my colleagues and I do not know.

twackj

 

[tz620q]

Perhaps you could do some research and correct me if you still feel that I am incorrect. Having a volume of the Patrologia Graeca does NOT mean that the person a volume is dedicated to actually wrote the volume (though the later volumes describe much of the history that took place during the historical period the volume covers).

I admit, I am jealous. I would love to have access to PG or PL. The pure scope of Migne's scholarship is staggering and the rarity of the books make them a treasure. I must admit, since I do not have access to PG, that I made my comment to you based on the fact that you cited PG, which is predominantly the Greek Fathers and not the Latin; and because of today's opinion that Clement did not write much of what previously had been attributed to him. Truly, we know less about Clement of Rome than we do of Peter. I also must confess that my previous e-mail was not a call to debate as much as an exploratory post to see how well read you are on this subject. I have had the misfortune at times to try to engage people here on topics where I found myself doing research and presenting what I could find only to be met with a wall of invincible ignorance and web site "cut and pastes". You are obviously not of that caliber. I will see what I can find and I assure you that I will try to remain objective on what is available.

The point is that no record of the deeds of Peter as an administrative bishop is found in the earliest of the volumes. As I said, it is as though a presidential administration exists without any description of what the President did, what the President said, or what the President ordered. None of the Presidents letters (e.g. to churches) exist; none of the President's daily doings (as a Bishop) exist. There seems to be nothing short of later claims to show for the claim that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

Hmm. This brings up many points.
First, Did these records exist in the mid-1800's, when Migne was compiling his massive tome? Looking at his unremitting drive to include everything that was extant at that time, I think we can conclude, No.

Second, Did these records exist during the time of Peter and were later destroyed? I got a chuckle out of your thoughts above about Presidential records. The Romans were notoriously detailed about their administrative records and the Papacy starting in the 4th century continued that habit. There are those that say our love of record-keeping dates back to the Romans and the Catholic Church. So, could the records have existed and been obliterated without anyone noting them or referencing them in other writings. Again, I would conclude, No.

Third, What are possible reasons for Peter not having detailed records of his "administration"? I can think of a lot of possibilities here.
1. When you choose an illiterate fisherman for your spokesperson, don't expect a lot of written material. If you look at the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you can see that these men were not noteworthy so much for what they did as for their being literate. I think we live in a document-based society now and read back into history a need for written documentation that was not as important in the 1st century C.E.
I think if we could ask Paul what was more important, the letters he wrote or the sermons he gave. He would answer the sermons, since this was the Gospel that he was commanded to preach. Yet we have very little written evidence of what Paul actually preached in Corinth or Athens, etc.

2. The Christian church in Rome was probably quite small and didn't need the type of administration that the 1 billion person Catholic Church of today needs. So to think that Peter spent most of his time doing administrative tasks and having them recorded for posterity is again putting today's concepts on yesterday's context.

3. The Christian church in Rome in the time from 44 C.E. to 67 C.E. went through several persecutions that resulted in people being exiled from Rome, imprisoned, and executed. A leader of this community might not want to have a lot of written records that could be used in a trial against him.

I also agree with your claim that “Catholics”, especially after the first two centuries “would rather see the apostles and specifically Peter, as universal "Bishops", despite that wish being inconsistent with descriptions of Bishops during the age in which Peter and Clement lived (as referenced in the early texts such as the didache, the pseudo-Clementine records (so important to catholic claims), in the Apostolic Constitutions, etc. Remember, the office that the Catholics now call "bishop" changed in the Catholic usage. It is NOT the same as the early Judao-Christian office "Bishop". Still, this is somewhat irrelevant.


Tell us about the texts from the time of of Peter’s "administration" if you actually know of any. I admit some excitement that you might know something my colleagues and I do not know.

You know I would admit that the office of "Bishop of Rome" has changed over time; but doesn't that happen to all offices. They change to fit the needs of the time. With 2000 years of Popes and the many differences in size of the church, political situations, etc., I would be amazed if there had not been change. We can look at the life of any group and see that it goes through roughly the same stages:
1. Early growth - typically ran by a few fervent leaders that operate in a dynamic, flowing mode of authority and core beliefs.
2. Critical Mass - a certain level of acceptance and size is reached that creates a more self-sustaining group that doesn't depend on the dynamic leadership of the early leaders. This period is usually one of calcification of beliefs and functions.
3. Gradual growth - Once critical mass is reached, the growth slows due to the sheer size and administrative needs of the group.

So how does this relate to Peter as a Bishop? As one of the early leaders he would have moved from one "functional" assignment to the next. So we see him as the leader of the early Jerusalem church, then opening the "Way" to the Gentiles, then moving to Antioch and being "Bishop" there, and finally moving on to Rome. During all of these phases, I am sure he had local functional things that he did. He may have fulfilled the functional aspects of today's Bishops, preaching, correcting, consecrating the Eucharist, etc. But as an apostle, he had a universal authority that transcended the local functional job. So we see him coming back to Jerusalem for the Council and standing up and stating his belief that the Gentiles should not have to be circumcised. We see Paul coming to him at times to seek guidance and acceptance. These are things that point to an authority beyond Rome or whereever he was at the time.

I know this has been rather long-winded and probably already known by you; but I think it is important to establish the "Catholic" context for our perspective of Peter's papacy. One thing that people do now is try to tie the papacy to Rome. That is the wrong perspective. It is better to view Rome as the headquarters of a worldwide organization. This headquarters could be moved tomorrow without changing the organization substantially. So from Rome, the Pope directs the church; but he could have done this from Antioch or Jerusalem as well.

Finally, could one even call Peter, Pope? There is the rub. Pope comes from the Italian Papa or Father. So at it's core the papacy is similar to Paul's claims that he was the spiritual father of the churches that he worked with. Was Peter a spiritual father to the Roman church? Everything that I have read from this time frame says yes.

This is my perspective in a nutshell. I have linked a thread here that I had with SimontheZealot a couple years ago about Eusebius' Chronicles. I know that this is later than 300 C.E., but it was one of the early textual evidences of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. I don't think I put a lot of credence in Eusebius' accurateness here; but it does point to an early belief that Peter was in Rome for an extended time and served in some official capacity there.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6487878/

 

[Clearly]

Clearly in post #3 : "Tell us about the texts from the time of of Peter’s "administration" if you actually know of any. I admit some excitement that you might know something my colleagues and I do not know."

Clearly said : "The point is that no record of the deeds of Peter as an administrative bishop is found in the earliest of the volumes. As I said, it is as though a presidential administration exists without any description of what the President did, what the President said, or what the President ordered. None of the Presidents letters (e.g. to churches) exist; none of the President's daily doings (as a Bishop) exist. There seems to be nothing short of later claims to show for the claim that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome."

Tz620q replied : Hmm. This brings up many points.
First, Did these records exist in the mid-1800's, when Migne was compiling his massive tome? Looking at his unremitting drive to include everything that was extant at that time, I think we can conclude, No
Second, Did these records exist during the time of Peter and were later destroyed?
Third, What are possible reasons for Peter not having detailed records of his "administration"? I can think of a lot of possibilities"

tz620q, I understand the need to “establish the Catholic context” for these issues and I appreciate the mental work it took to do this. However, as I mentioned in the OP, I was interested in any textual records from the 20 plus year period the Catholics Claim Peter was a Bishop. Your comments seem to theorize why there are no textual records records from this two decade long period rather than an offering of textual records.

Are you saying you do not have or know of any textual records or copies or reports of textual records, from the life of peter that shows he was ever the bishop of rome? (other than claims generated centuries later?)


Clearly
viaclo

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think there is written evidence that Peter was in Rome at some point if you believe that Peter wrote 1 Peter:

1:1 From Peter,
5:13 The church in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son.

It's not a bad inference to think that wherever one of the 12 lived, they would have taken on a preeminent role simply by virtue of their close relation with Jesus as being one of the 12. Given the nature of Clement's letter, I don't think it's enough to warrant a conclusion that Peter wasn't in Rome or didn't carry a significant role if he was there.

I tend to think, based on 1 Peter, that Peter was indeed there, but I don't think that he founded the church at Rome (much more likely candidates would be a group of which Prisca and Aquilla were members) or was it's first bishop. I think the church in Rome probably started out structured around a group of elders with some of it's early members being mentioned by Paul:

Rom 16:3-16:15
Prisca and Aquila, Epenetus, Mary, Greet Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas.

And if you think, as I do, that Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, you have other important names:

4:21 Greetings to you from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers and sisters.

I think it's safe to think that when Peter arrived in Rome, he would have been one of the church's elders and by default been an important figure:

1 Peter 5:1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you:

 

[tz620q]

Are you saying you do not have or know of any textual records or copies or reports of textual records, from the life of peter that shows he was ever the bishop of rome? (other than claims generated centuries later?)


Clearly
viaclo

Clearly,
I am sorry if that last post seemed a circumlocution. It is very difficult for me to put a finger on what you are asking for. Are you wanting original source documents written in Peter's own hand? Obviously, these do not exist and by that standard, most of what we know of this time period could be disputed.

If you will accept other sources from that time period, do these have to be first hand accounts of Peter's work in Rome or will you accept second and third hand accounts?

Do you accept that 1 Peter was written from Rome?

I think the crux of this rests in you OP. The thought that only textual evidence is authoratitive in proving Peter as Bishop of Rome and then only if the evidence is contemporaneous with Peter's life is putting a modern, Sola Scriptura attitude onto this issue. I know that these are the same criterium used in establishing historical fact; but this was not the standard used by the early church; which accepted oral, as well as written evidence. So oral tradition is passed on and maybe written down later. Does this mean that the knowledge only existed after the writing of the document or was personal integrity then high enough to guarantee an accurate transmission of oral tradition? Do you see my quandary? I have no way of knowing what level of accuracy you would give to anything that I present. I doubt that I will surprise you with anything that I point to here and I don't want this to slide into another rehashing of old arguments.

So I will continue to throw out tidbits and see how you react. You asked in the OP about records of sermons given by Peter. I would contend (along with Papias, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus) that the Gospel of Mark is just that.

God's Grace be with you,
Byron

 

[tz620q]

It's not a bad inference to think that wherever one of the 12 lived, they would have taken on a preeminent role simply by virtue of their close relation with Jesus as being one of the 12.

I tend to think, based on 1 Peter, that Peter was indeed there, but I don't think that he founded the church at Rome (much more likely candidates would be a group of which Prisca and Aquilla were members)

Agreed. We see Prisca and Aquilla meeting Paul after being exiled from Rome by Claudius around 45 A.D. Using Eusebius' rather questionable contention that Peter was Bishop of Rome for 20 years and having him die around 66 A.D. would mean that Peter arrived after Claudius' persecutions.

or was it's first bishop. I think the church in Rome probably started out structured around a group of elders with some of it's early members being mentioned by Paul:

Agreed again. Though if we take the Catholic and Orthodox standard of only having Bishops "ordained" by other Bishops or, early on, Apostles; then I don't know of any record of an Apostle visiting Rome before Peter. So probably, noone was Bishop and the group was ran by elders.

Rom 16:3-16:15
Prisca and Aquila, Epenetus, Mary, Greet Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas.

And if you think, as I do, that Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, you have other important names:

4:21 Greetings to you from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers and sisters.

I think it's safe to think that when Peter arrived in Rome, he would have been one of the church's elders and by default been an important figure:

1 Peter 5:1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you:

I disagree with this idea that Paul's silence on Peter's presence in Rome is somehow definitive. There are several good reasons why Paul did not mention Peter, none of which necessitate that Peter was not in Rome at the time.

1. Paul did not want to let the Roman authorities know of Peter's presence in Rome.
2. My opinion of Paul as a person is that he liked to be top dog. Acknowledging Peter in Rome would mean that his upcoming journey there would be one of building on another's foundation. Paul wanted to speak to the hearts of the Christian's there and not have to worry about having Peter okay what he was preaching.
3. Paul, never having been to Rome, might have been ignorant of Peter's presence there.

I know that this is conjecture; but then I see this as being more probable than the conjecture that Paul's silence meant Peter never went to Rome.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I disagree with this idea that Paul's silence on Peter's presence in Rome is somehow definitive. There are several good reasons why Paul did not mention Peter, none of which necessitate that Peter was not in Rome at the time.

1. Paul did not want to let the Roman authorities know of Peter's presence in Rome.
2. My opinion of Paul as a person is that he liked to be top dog. Acknowledging Peter in Rome would mean that his upcoming journey there would be one of building on another's foundation. Paul wanted to speak to the hearts of the Christian's there and not have to worry about having Peter okay what he was preaching.
3. Paul, never having been to Rome, might have been ignorant of Peter's presence there.

I know that this is conjecture; but then I see this as being more probable than the conjecture that Paul's silence meant Peter never went to Rome.

I wasn't making the argument that Paul's silence about Peter in the Epistle to the Romans meant that Peter didn't go to Rome. I think Peter did in fact go to Rome. I just don't think he was the founder or part of the group that founded the church there. But I say that not on the basis of silence by Paul in Rome, but based on the fact that I think I'm going by what the historical evidence I have indicates.

Paul's silence in the Epistle to the Romans is really just that - silence. You can't conclude too much from silence. I don't think (1) is a good reason though mainly because (a) Paul gives an entire laundry list of names in his letter. If he were worried about the safety of the leaders of the congregation, then he threw a few of them under the bus. And (b), if Paul was writing during the reign of Claudius, Christians weren't really persecuted. Some of the Jewish populace was expelled during Claudius' reign, but they eventually were allowed to return and none were reported anywhere for being in some unsafe circumstances that would cause them to need to hide from the authorities. If he were writing during the reign of Nero, it's worth noting that Nero didn't begin persecutions until the fire in 64, which is after Romans was written.

(2) or (3) might be possible though. But, silence in Romans doesn't prove much either way. If Peter was there when Romans was written though, and Paul knew Peter was there, he didn't seem to see the need to acknowledge him in any way, much less acknowledge him as bishop. But maybe Peter was there and Paul didn't know he was there. This might go well with an idea that perhaps the disciples traveled to various churches a little more than we tend to think. John, after all, is said to have bounced around Galilee, Jerusalem and supposedly wound up in Ephesus. Paul is known to have traveled quite a bit. Maybe the 12 traveled around the churches more than we think.

In any case, this is all conjecture. Peter was in Rome by the time 1 Peter was written, which is about all that can be conclusively said about when Peter was first in Rome. As far as his position within the church, he seems to have called himself "elder": 1 Peter 5:1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you:

 

[Clearly]

tz620q observed : "I am sorry if that last post seemed a circumlocution. It is very difficult for me to put a finger on what you are asking for. Are you wanting original source documents written in Peter's own hand? "

1) REGARDING LACK OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FOR PETER AS BISHOP AND POSSIBLE NEW DISCOVERIES

Byron, yes, your post was a bit of a circumlocution (no worse than some of mine...) but I genuinely appreciated the Catholic contextual information (that I could not have understood had you not spent effort in offering it. - Thank you).

However, I was trying to be logical and efficient and it seemed irrelevant to consider why there were no records until the first question as to whether there WERE ANY new century appropriate texts that had been discovered was answered. IF TEXTS HAD BEEN DISCOVERED, THEN THEY ARE THE ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE. IF NONE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, THEN your points as to WHY you thought there are no records would certainly have been appropriate and helpful to discuss.

Some of the greatest period historians in the world have claimed that there was never any early indication that Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome (for example, Lightfoot, the wonderful scholar and editor of the Apostolic Fathers, Adolph Karnack who obviously needs no introduction, and others). Part of their reasoning for this conclusion was the lack of any historical data from appropriate time periods (more on records later) that supports this specific Catholic Claim.

However, many, many, many Judao-christian records have been discovered in the 19th and 20th century that have dramatically changed our views on early christianities, their doctrines, and what they were like in other ways. (There have probably been more new Judao-Christian Texts discovered and printed in the 19th century than almost all other centuries combined.) Thus I wondered if there had been any period-appropriate discoveries that would modify the lack of period appropriate evidence for the Catholic claim that Peter was a Bishop.

Thus I still need to ask the yet unanswered question : Are you saying you do not have or know of any textual records or copies or reports of textual records, from the near the life time of peter that shows he was ever the bishop of rome? (other than claims generated centuries later?)




2) REGARDING TEXTUAL EVIDENCE AND WHAT IS CONCEIVABLE

Byron : I very much agree with your reasoning as to what creates “another rehashing of old arguments” and understand the “quandary” my lack of description places you in. I apologize for this and will try and better describe "appropriate textual evidence" in this post (see below).

I think that you and I are similar in our attitudes regarding authorship of early sacred texts. For example, your recognize that Mark may NOT have been written by Mark. (How many christians even understand this principle?) However, if we apply your principle fairly to all New Testament Books then it affects your question when you asked me : “Do you accept that 1 Peter was written from Rome?”. Certainly it could have been, and the authorship could certainly have been another person besides Peter. However, IF Peter wrote it, then he is NOT Illiterate as you seem to intimate in the prior post. If Peter was Illiterate and did NOT write any sacred text, then it’s less important that it was written in Rome or not.

However, what you and I are able to conceive of and theorize is heavily dependent upon our prior bias and historical breadth. I was intrigued by your theories as to why Peter himself might not have generated texts himself (due to illiteracy, lack of need for records, etc...). I did consider them and think there is some application to them, however, they are is a very, very, very narrow list of considerations. For example, if we are considering what is personally conceivable or personally inconcievable, I have to offer a few points from my own list.




3) REGARDING PETER HIMSELF :

A) If Peter WAS illiterate, then he could not have written first peter. If Peter WAS literate, then he would not have written ONLY first peter. It is inconceivable to me that a “bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the more than two decades it is claimed that he was Bishop. Remember, Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write. Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.

B) During this time period, the church is experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than a church in a “steady state). It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).

C) It is inconceivable to me that the apostle Peter would not have given many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.

D) It is inconceivable to me that there would not continue to be a concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the church took root among differing culture and countries and that a Peter, acting as a “general Bishop” would not send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).

E) It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have offered Doctrinal guidance in a textual form to make corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.

F) It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions.

G) It is inconceivable to me that Peter or his administration would not have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.

H) It is inconceivable to me that the miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would not have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.

I) It is inconceivable to me that there would be no textual records associated with the organization of and adminstration of and direction of a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task, (Certainly many more ordinations than Clement alone)


J) It is inconceivable to me that at least some of these texts sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained. It is very unlikely that all copies of such documents would have undergone destruction. For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine).




4) THE DEPTH OF INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.
For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.

For example:

A) It is inconceivable to me that the ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would not have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mention something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there. I believe that you are correct in your description that

“The Romans were notoriously detailed about their administrative records and the Papacy starting in the 4th century continued that habit. There are those that say our love of record-keeping dates back to the Romans and the Catholic Church. So, could the records have existed and been obliterated without anyone noting them or referencing them in other writings. Again, I would conclude, No.” - tz620q in post #4

What are the chances, given their record keeping ability that you mentioned, that THEY would have lost all such records concerning Peter?

B) It is inconceivable to me that the ENEMIES of Christianity would not have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done.for years. Why would the Jewish and Pagan leaders have not continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” and no records of such complaints be extant?

C) What are the chances that none of the historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew vespacian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men&#8221 doesn’t mention Peter (though it included poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for historians?


D) It is inconceivable to me that at least ONE of the members of the Roman church would not write about Peter in a diary or secular text about Peter. For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other member discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.

I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote or did not write texts. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.


Byron, I DO think you have good logic and that the points you made have some validity. However, there are many other considerations that must be taken into account , and, I admit, that I not talented enough of a historian to accurately take them all into account. I appreciate your help in having offered me additional thoughts. Thank You



Clearly
nenelp

 

[sensational]

1) REGARDING LACK OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FOR PETER AS BISHOP AND POSSIBLE NEW DISCOVERIES

Byron, yes, your post was a bit of a circumlocution (no worse than some of mine...) but I genuinely appreciated the Catholic contextual information (that I could not have understood had you not spent effort in offering it. - Thank you).

However, I was trying to be logical and efficient and it seemed irrelevant to consider why there were no records until the first question as to whether there WERE ANY new century appropriate texts that had been discovered was answered. IF TEXTS HAD BEEN DISCOVERED, THEN THEY ARE THE ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE. IF NONE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, THEN your points as to WHY you thought there are no records would certainly have been appropriate and helpful to discuss.

Some of the greatest period historians in the world have claimed that there was never any early indication that Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome (for example, Lightfoot, the wonderful scholar and editor of the Apostolic Fathers, Adolph Karnack who obviously needs no introduction, and others). Part of their reasoning for this conclusion was the lack of any historical data from appropriate time periods (more on records later) that supports this specific Catholic Claim.

However, many, many, many Judao-christian records have been discovered in the 19th and 20th century that have dramatically changed our views on early christianities, their doctrines, and what they were like in other ways. (There have probably been more new Judao-Christian Texts discovered and printed in the 19th century than almost all other centuries combined.) Thus I wondered if there had been any period-appropriate discoveries that would modify the lack of period appropriate evidence for the Catholic claim that Peter was a Bishop.

Thus I still need to ask the yet unanswered question : Are you saying you do not have or know of any textual records or copies or reports of textual records, from the near the life time of peter that shows he was ever the bishop of rome? (other than claims generated centuries later?)




2) REGARDING TEXTUAL EVIDENCE AND WHAT IS CONCEIVABLE

Byron : I very much agree with your reasoning as to what creates “another rehashing of old arguments” and understand the “quandary” my lack of description places you in. I apologize for this and will try and better describe "appropriate textual evidence" in this post (see below).

I think that you and I are similar in our attitudes regarding authorship of early sacred texts. For example, your recognize that Mark may NOT have been written by Mark. (How many christians even understand this principle?) However, if we apply your principle fairly to all New Testament Books then it affects your question when you asked me : “Do you accept that 1 Peter was written from Rome?”. Certainly it could have been, and the authorship could certainly have been another person besides Peter. However, IF Peter wrote it, then he is NOT Illiterate as you seem to intimate in the prior post. If Peter was Illiterate and did NOT write any sacred text, then it’s less important that it was written in Rome or not.

However, what you and I are able to conceive of and theorize is heavily dependent upon our prior bias and historical breadth. I was intrigued by your theories as to why Peter himself might not have generated texts himself (due to illiteracy, lack of need for records, etc...). I did consider them and think there is some application to them, however, they are is a very, very, very narrow list of considerations. For example, if we are considering what is personally conceivable or personally inconcievable, I have to offer a few points from my own list.




3) REGARDING PETER HIMSELF :

A) If Peter WAS illiterate, then he could not have written first peter. If Peter WAS literate, then he would not have written ONLY first peter. It is inconceivable to me that a “bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the more than two decades it is claimed that he was Bishop. Remember, Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write. Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.

B) During this time period, the church is experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than a church in a “steady state). It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).

C) It is inconceivable to me that the apostle Peter would not have given many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.

D) It is inconceivable to me that there would not continue to be a concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the church took root among differing culture and countries and that a Peter, acting as a “general Bishop” would not send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).

E) It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have offered Doctrinal guidance in a textual form to make corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.

F) It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions.

G) It is inconceivable to me that Peter or his administration would not have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.

H) It is inconceivable to me that the miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would not have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.

I) It is inconceivable to me that there would be no textual records associated with the organization of and adminstration of and direction of a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task, (Certainly many more ordinations than Clement alone)


J) It is inconceivable to me that at least some of these texts sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained. It is very unlikely that all copies of such documents would have undergone destruction. For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine).




4) THE DEPTH OF INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.
For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.

For example:

A) It is inconceivable to me that the ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would not have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mention something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there. I believe that you are correct in your description that What are the chances, given their record keeping ability that you mentioned, that THEY would have lost all such records concerning Peter?

B) It is inconceivable to me that the ENEMIES of Christianity would not have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done.for years. Why would the Jewish and Pagan leaders have not continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” and no records of such complaints be extant?

C) What are the chances that none of the historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew vespacian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men”) doesn’t mention Peter (though it included poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for historians?


D) It is inconceivable to me that at least ONE of the members of the Roman church would not write about Peter in a diary or secular text about Peter. For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other member discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.

I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote or did not write texts. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.


Byron, I DO think you have good logic and that the points you made have some validity. However, there are many other considerations that must be taken into account , and, I admit, that I not talented enough of a historian to accurately take them all into account. I appreciate your help in having offered me additional thoughts. Thank You



Clearly
nenelp

Forgive my ignorance, I consider myself a neophyte when it comes to this subject but find it very interesting. Do you think Peter continued his missionary work without settling down until his death? Do you have any good resources you would recommend reading discussing this topic. (Not necessarily polemical apologetic Catholic vs Protestant stuff). I was thinking about picking up "Peter in the NT". Any recommendations would be appreciated.
In Christ,
JMS

 

[Clearly]

Sensational;

I am also a neophyte to history. The fact is that most all of us are neophytes and, despite any claim to credentials, history is seen through key holes and in bits and pieces. That the office of Apostle was generally expected to be a traveling office is clear but I do not have any recommendation for literature regarding any travel's Peter might have made. I simply haven't had enough interest in that specific question to have studied it in any sufficient depth.

clearly
(vinetwww)