Why did Peter vanish?

[Rachel Rachel]

I'm not sure why you think Peter vanished. He plays a role in the Acts of the Apostles. He is known from other Christian writings to have been a bishop of both Antioch and Rome. He wrote his epistles from Rome (Babylon is a Christian euphemism for Rome).

Yes, we hear from Peter until mid Acts. Then one sure letter from Rome. It's almost certain that he did not write 2nd Peter.

What Christian writings show him to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome?

 

[Open Heart]

What Christian writings show him to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome?

Eusebius, Church History III, 36 lists Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Tradition holds that Peter established the church at Antioch in AD 34, before he went to Rome.

There is more than one source placing Peter in Rome. One of the is Peter himself in his epistle. He states that he is writing from Babylon, which is a Christian euphemism for Rome. He certainly wasn't in the literal city of Babylon, in which there was no church at that time.

Peter is also thought to be the Jewish leader of the followers of "Chrestus" referred to in a Roman document that became unruly and got kicked out of Rome for a time. Very Peterish. At that time Peter went back to Jerusalem for a time.

 

[Hank77]

I've been wondering why Peter all but vanished from scripture after the Resurrection. He was told many times by Yeshua to feed his sheep. But he went to Rome and sent out only one letter that we're sure was from him.
Did he feed Yeshua's sheep?
Why did Paul take over that role?

In I Peter when he says he is writing from Babylon, why do you think this is code for Rome rather than Babylon in Assyria where there were synagogues and a large population of Jews who had not returned to Jerusalem with Ezra?

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Eusebius, Church History III, 36 lists Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Tradition holds that Peter established the church at Antioch in AD 34, before he went to Rome.

There is more than one source placing Peter in Rome. One of the is Peter himself in his epistle. He states that he is writing from Babylon, which is a Christian euphemism for Rome. He certainly wasn't in the literal city of Babylon, in which there was no church at that time.

Peter is also thought to be the Jewish leader of the followers of "Chrestus" referred to in a Roman document that became unruly and got kicked out of Rome for a time. Very Peterish. At that time Peter went back to Jerusalem for a time.

Yes, Catholic tradition is the only source we have of Peter after the epistle I Peter.
Maybe I'm making too much of it but out of all Yeshua's apostles, Peter was given the task of feeding Yeshua's sheep. I would have expected to find a lot more written word from him.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

In I Peter when he says he is writing from Babylon, why do you think this is code for Rome rather than Babylon in Assyria where there were synagogues and a large population of Jews who had not returned to Jerusalem with Ezra?

Good question. I guess we just believe what we're told until it's challenged.

 

[BukiRob]

Luke's account of the formation and development of the Early Church is the only one that has survived and the only one accepted as part of the canon of NT Scripture. Nevertheless, there are probably traditional accounts of Peter's activities in the Vatican archives. There should be, if the RCC venerate Peter as their first Pope. It may be worth doing some research in that direction.

IMO it is highly unlikely that Peter ventured to Rome OR was the RCC first pope. We see CLEARLY that Peter is in Jerusalem in Acts. He is a co-leader of the sect of Judaism along with James (The Nazzariens as it is called in scripture.) We are told upon Pauls return to Jerusalem that James and all the elders (this would include Peter) were in Jerusalem when Paul is giving an account of his ministry to them.

Factually, there is absolutely no archeological evidence that supports the idea that Peter traveled to or spent significant time in Rome

 

[BukiRob]

Yes, we hear from Peter until mid Acts. Then one sure letter from Rome. It's almost certain that he did not write 2nd Peter.

What Christian writings show him to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome?

I disagree. There is plenty of internal evidence to support the fact that Peter, in fact, did write 2 Peter. The larger issue is if he did not you have an immediate problem with the inerrancy of scripture. If scripture contains error, then it can not be trusted.

I personally do not find the arguments that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphy to be rather weak and full of major assumptions that are not really supported very well.

 

[BukiRob]

Yes, Catholic tradition is the only source we have of Peter after the epistle I Peter.
Maybe I'm making too much of it but out of all Yeshua's apostles, Peter was given the task of feeding Yeshua's sheep. I would have expected to find a lot more written word from him.

I would suggest you reread Acts. Peter plays a MAJOR role in the early church. Just because Peter did not write much of what is canonized does not in any way, preclude his involvement in being obedient to Messiah. Outside of Paul, the next most prolific author is John. Does that mean that the other 10 didn't do much? Certainly not.

After the destruction of the temple which marked the beginning of the Age of the Gentiles, most of scripture is to the Goy and their conversion and reconciliation back to Adonai through Messiah. It should be no surprise that little is spoke of or about the Messianic Jews of that time period.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I disagree. There is plenty of internal evidence to support the fact that Peter, in fact, did write 2 Peter. The larger issue is if he did not you have an immediate problem with the inerrancy of scripture. If scripture contains error, then it can not be trusted.

I personally do not find the arguments that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphy to be rather weak and full of major assumptions that are not really supported very well.

I've read that the writing style of 2nd Peter is completely different, as well as several other differences.

Clues in support of pseudepigraphyEdit
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[9] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[10] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15–16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).​

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I would suggest you reread Acts. Peter plays a MAJOR role in the early church. Just because Peter did not write much of what is canonized does not in any way, preclude his involvement in being obedient to Messiah. Outside of Paul, the next most prolific author is John. Does that mean that the other 10 didn't do much? Certainly not.

Thank you for your excellent suggestion but as it turns out, I have read Acts.

We can't compare the other apostles to the direct mandate given to Peter. I would expect to see as much from him as John.

After the destruction of the temple which marked the beginning of the Age of the Gentiles, most of scripture is to the Goy and their conversion and reconciliation back to Adonai through Messiah. It should be no surprise that little is spoke of or about the Messianic Jews of that time period.

Really? Why?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I've read that the writing style of 2nd Peter is completely different, as well as several other differences.

Clues in support of pseudepigraphyEdit
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[9] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[10] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15–16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).​

If the Church council did not believe that either Peter or someone closely associated with and influenced by him wrote 2 Peter, they would not have included it in the Canon of the New Testament.

Also, if Peter was still alive at 70AD, he would not have stayed in Jerusalem because he would have perished in the Roman invasion. Therefore, he would have travelled elsewhere, so it is quite probable that he ended up in Rome.

 

[BukiRob]

Thank you for your excellent suggestion but as it turns out, I have read Acts.

We can't compare the other apostles to the direct mandate given to Peter. I would expect to see as much from him as John.


Really? Why?

Again, you are assuming. Peter is PROMINENT in the first half of Acts. The second half largely deals with Paul's ministry to the Gentiles.

I guess I just disagree with your view

 

[BukiRob]

If the Church council did not believe that either Peter or someone closely associated with and influenced by him wrote 2 Peter, they would not have included it in the Canon of the New Testament.

Also, if Peter was still alive at 70AD, he would not have stayed in Jerusalem because he would have perished in the Roman invasion. Therefore, he would have traveled elsewhere, so it is quite probable that he ended up in Rome.

Peter wasn't alive then. Secondly, its HIGHLY unlikely that Peter would have traveled to Rome for 2 reasons. The first being that Rome was very hostile towards Jews, to begin with, and believers even more. Peter would have likely followed (were he alive) the rest of the church elders in Asia Minor.

What we know for certain is the manner of death Peter would suffer because Messiah told him and it is found in scripture....

 

[Charlie24]

I'm not trying to cut Peter short, everyone knows that Peter was a pillar in the early Church. This is the man who was so filled with Spirit of God that the streets were filled with the sick and those vexed with evil spirits, that the shadow of him passing by might heal them. The scripture says that every one of them were healed!

It was necessary for Peter to vanish from the book of Acts. God had raised another great Apostle, who would take the Gospel across Europe to Brittan, and eventually to the shores of the United States. Not only did he take the Gospel to the world, he was chosen as the master church builder, but most importantly, he was a vessel chosen by Christ to reveal the Mystery of Christ, the revelation of the New Covenant. That's why the Holy Spirit gave pen to the Apostle Paul for one third of the New Testament.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In I Peter when he says he is writing from Babylon, why do you think this is code for Rome rather than Babylon in Assyria where there were synagogues and a large population of Jews who had not returned to Jerusalem with Ezra?

Did Babylon actually exist in the First Century? I don't think it did. John, in Revelation, refers to that sinful city called Babylon, and at that time, most concluded that he was speaking of Rome, which was the principal city in the known world at the time.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

IMO it is highly unlikely that Peter ventured to Rome OR was the RCC first pope. We see CLEARLY that Peter is in Jerusalem in Acts. He is a co-leader of the sect of Judaism along with James (The Nazzariens as it is called in scripture.) We are told upon Pauls return to Jerusalem that James and all the elders (this would include Peter) were in Jerusalem when Paul is giving an account of his ministry to them.

Factually, there is absolutely no archeological evidence that supports the idea that Peter traveled to or spent significant time in Rome

We know that Peter was living at Joppa 10 years after the Day of Pentecost (that would put it around 44 A.D). Also, Peter was with Paul in Galatia, where Paul corrected him over his attitude to Gentiles in the presence of Jewish visitors. (my reckoning it was after 50 A.D.) It was also around that time that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to sort things out, and it was James who was the leader at that stage. That would have been more than 10 years after Pentecost, because it would have been some years since Paul's conversion. The death of James would have to have been after 50 A.D. and before 70 A.D. because Pentecost was around 34 A.D. and Paul's conversion would have to have been at least a couple of years after that, and then he spent 14 years in Arabia before he was brought to Antioch, and we don't know how long they were there until Paul and Barnabas were sent out on the first missionary journey. Then we don't know how long it was until Paul had the problem with the Galatian churches that prompted his visit to Jerusalem to confer with James and the other Apostles. Peter is not mentioned at that visit. Paul was in Ephesus 20 years after Pentecost (around 64 A.D.). So it appears that Peter was travelling outside of Jerusalem, and it is quite easy to believe that he went to Rome at some stage.

 

[Hank77]

Did Babylon actually exist in the First Century? I don't think it did. John, in Revelation, refers to that sinful city called Babylon, and at that time, most concluded that he was speaking of Rome, which was the principal city in the known world at the time.

Babylon in Assyria had been in existence long before the 1st century. If you think about it I'm sure you already know this. The first time the Israelites were taken into captivity it was by the Assyrians. The Assyrians spoke Aramaic. And remember that the Jews have the Babylonian Talmud.
Until around 650 AD there was a large Jewish and Christian population there. It's estimated that the total population was at one time around 200,000 people, the largest city in the Rome Empire.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Babylon in Assyria had been in existence long before the 1st century. If you think about it I'm sure you already know this. The first time the Israelites were taken into captivity it was by the Assyrians. The Assyrians spoke Aramaic. And remember that the Jews have the Babylonian Talmud.
Until around 650 AD there was a large Jewish and Christian population there. It's estimated that the total population was at one time around 200,000 people, the largest city in the Rome Empire.

I don't think they called it Babylon. I have a friend who identifies herself as Assyrian, and who emigrated from Iraq. I think that Assyria was a cultural area rather than concentrated in a definite city in the region. Ancient Babylon was totally destroyed and has existed ever since as a mound of rubble called a "tell" which has only in recent times been examined by archaeologists.

 

[Hank77]

I don't think they called it Babylon. I have a friend who identifies herself as Assyrian, and who emigrated from Iraq. I think that Assyria was a cultural area rather than concentrated in a definite city in the region. Ancient Babylon was totally destroyed and has existed ever since as a mound of rubble called a "tell" which has only in recent times been examined by archaeologists.

I pretty sure that Babylon was still a populated city in the 1st century.
However, you are correct that city would not have been in existence as late as 650 AD which is what I said, rather than 65 AD. Sorry about that. I confused myself.

I won't continue to go on about this but if you are interested my resources were Adam Clarke's Commentary, Strabo and Josephus.
Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV
I do think that Josephus may be referring to the new capital on the Tigris, which was approx. 34 miles from the old city of Babylon.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I pretty sure that Babylon was still a populated city in the 1st century.
However, you are correct that city would not have been in existence as late as 650 AD which is what I said, rather than 65 AD. Sorry about that. I confused myself.

I won't continue to go on about this but if you are interested my resources were Adam Clarke's Commentary, Strabo and Josephus.
Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV
I do think that Josephus may be referring to the new capital on the Tigris, which was approx. 34 miles from the old city of Babylon.

Actually, I stand corrected because I consulted Wikipedia, and discovered that there was a region called Babylon right through to 650 A.D. So here is a quote from Wikipedia under the heading Renewed Persian Rule:
"Christianity was introduced to Mesopotamia in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and Babylon was the seat of a Bishop of the Church of the East until well after the Arab/Islamic conquest." So I can happily accept that Peter may have visited that region and referred to it in his letter.