MCMXCIX

iv

THE BAMPTON
LECTURES

FOR
1913

v

THE CHURCH IN ROME

IN THE FIRST CENTURY

LECTURE
III

Rev.
17:18 -
The great city, which reigneth over the Kings of the earth.

In
my previous lectures I have attempted to show from the internal evidence
of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that there existed at Rome in 57
A.D.
a Christian Church of high repute and many years’ standing, and that this
Church had been founded and built up by a man into the sphere of whose
labours he [St. Paul] had been careful not to intrude. Moreover though St.
Paul does not mention the name of the man, circumstantial evidence has
been brought forward making a very strong prima facie case in favour of
the ancient tradition that he was none other than St.
Peter.

To-day
I propose to consider how far that tradition in the form in which it has
been handed down to us by Eusebius and Jerome[1]

is
consistent with the facts of the early Apostolic history contained in the
Acts and the Pauline Epistles and fits in with the chronological framework
of that history.60
Eusebius[2]

tells
us, on the authority of Justin Martyr (a passage of whose ‘Apology’[3]

he
quotes at length), that a certain Simon of the village of Gitton in
Samaria, whom nearly all the Samaritans worshipped, confessing him to be
the Supreme God, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius Caesar and having
there performed many magic rites was regarded as a god. After further
describing, this time on the authority of Irenaeus, the character of this
man’s teaching, as being the fountain-head of all heresy, Eusebius
proceeds to say that when in Judaea Simon was convicted of his wickedness
by the Apostle Peter, and later journeying from the east to the west
arrived at Rome and was there successful in bringing many to believe in
his pretensions. ‘Not for long, however,' adds the historian, ‘did his
success continue; for on his steps in this same reign of Claudius, the
all-good and most beneficent providence of God conducts the mighty and
great one of the Apostles, Peter, on account of his virtue the leader of
all the rest, to Rome against so great a corruption of life, who like some
noble warrior of God armed with divine weapons, brought the precious
merchandise of the light that had been made manifest from the east to
those in the west, preaching the true light and the word that is the
salvation of souls, the proclamation of the Kingdom of God.’[4]

It
is not necessary here to enter into any detailed examination of the
theories of Christian Baur[5]

and
his disciples of the Tübingen School or of the arguments of Richard
Lipsius[6]

in
their attempt to prove that the Roman 61Petrine
legend was without foundation and that Simon Magus never had any real
existence, but was a lay figure concealing the personality of St. Paul;
for later research has shown that their conception of the course of early
Christian History is fundamentally false and it is becoming generally
discredited. These distinguished scholars indeed, while brushing aside the
pseudo-Clementine literature with one hand, as pure romance invented by
Essene-Ebionite writers of the third and fourth centuries, at the same
time laid hold with the other hand on those very fictions, on which the
Clementine romance is built up, in order to erect thereon a romance of
their own equally unsubstantial, and no less inconsistent with the clear
evidence of the earlier authorities that we possess. Dr. Hort as long ago
as 1884 in his ‘Lectures on the Clementine Recognitions’ (pp. 130–1)
declared—‘all these impossible theories [of the Tübingen School] have no
other real basis than the assumption that Simon is only St. Paul in
disguise. The true relations of the Syrian and Roman stories are much
simpler, according to what seems to me the most natural interpretation.
Simon at Rome was familiar in the second century; of Simon in conflict
with Peter in Syria, we hear nothing till the third century has well
begun.’

Indeed
with regard to this second century evidence, how is it possible to set
aside the statements of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus ? The evidence of
Justin is of great weight. He was himself born at Flavia Neapolis in
Samaria in 103 A.D.,
a place only a few miles distant from the native place of Simon Magus. His
account of Simon’s earlier activity and great success in the neighbourhood
of his own home must be regarded as first-hand evidence, and it is in
exact agreement with the other account of that earlier activity which we
have in the eighth chapter of the Acts, an account which it is more than
probable that St. Luke derived directly from that best of all witnesses,
Philip the Evangelist. I have already pointed out that the emphasis with
which St. Luke dwells upon this episode of the encounter between Peter and
Simon at Samaria suggests that he had in 62his
mind that later encounter at Rome, which would be fresh in the memories of
the first readers of the Acts.[7]

Be
this as it may, Justin was himself at Rome for some years between 150 and
160 A.D.,
and wrote his ‘Apology’ to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in that city. In
writing a defence intended for the Imperial eyes it may surely be taken
for granted that Justin would not twice over have ventured (for in a
slightly different form in c. 56[8]
he repeats the statement from c. 26 already quoted) to declare that the
Magician Simon of Samaria visited Rome in the reign of Claudius and that a
statue was erected in his honour and that he was worshipped as a god,
unless it were well known that such had been the case. Yet a third time in
his ‘Dialogue with Trypho’[9]

Justin
speaks of the Simonians as an existing sect that took their name from the
arch-heretic. Two points have been pressed against the evidence of Justin.
The first that he states that Simon ‘had been honoured with a statue as a
god in the river Tiber, (on an island) between the two bridges, having the
superscription in Latin Simoni Deo Sancto, which is, To Simon the
Holy God.’ Now in this same island was found in the sixteenth century an
inscription to the Sabine God Semo Sancus, i.e. Semoni Sanco Deo
Fidio. It is of course quite possible that Justin saw this
inscription, and being a Samaritan ignorant of Latin mythology mistook
this for an inscription referring to Simon Magus. It was a natural
mistake. That Justin was right in saying that a statue was erected to
Simon and worshipped is sustained, as will be seen, by other evidence. The
other point is that while Justin states that Simon was in Rome in the
reign of Claudius he makes no mention of his encounter with St. Peter. The
only argument here is that most 63treacherous
and worthless of all arguments—the argumentum
ex silentio.
Justin was not writing for our instruction, but was offering a defence of
Christianity to a Roman Emperor. If anyone has thought that the omission
of Peter’s name here was an argument against his presence in Rome in the
reign of Claudius, let him read the summaries of Justin’s pleading in the
latest edition of the ‘Apologia’ by Mr. A. W. F. Blunt (Camb. Univ. Press,
1911), and he will see that neither in the twenty-sixth nor in the
fifty-sixth chapter was there any place for a reference to
Peter.

The
evidence of Irenaeus, who was in Rome some ten or fifteen years after
Justin, is equally striking. Irenaeus writes at some length about Simon.
He describes the rudimentary gnosticism of his teaching, and, like Justin,
he mentions the tradition that an image was erected by Claudius Caesar to
his honour in the figure of Jupiter, which the people worshipped, and he
speaks of him as the father of all heretics.[10]

Even
these testimonies to the still living fame of Simon, as a religious leader
whose lofty pretensions and skilful charlatanry had made a deep impression
at Rome and elsewhere, do not stand alone. The discovery in the middle of
the last century of a MS. at Mount Athos containing a Iarge part of the
‘Philosophumena’ or ‘Refutation of all Heresies’ by Hippolytus, the
learned bishop of Portus, has thrown much fresh light upon Simon and his
teaching.[11]

Hippolytus,
who is described as a disciple of Irenaeus,[12]

spent
at least twenty years of his life at or pear Rome and also travelled
widely. He devotes a long section of his sixth book, which was probably
written about 225 A.D.,
to an account of the heresy of which Simon was the author. Of the man
himself he writes thus

:[13]
‘This Simon deceiving many by his sorceries in Samaria was reproved by the
Apostles and was laid under a curse, as it has been written 64in
the Acts. But he afterwards abjured the faith and attempted [these
practices]. And journeying as far as Rome he fell in with the Apostle, and
to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, Peter offered repeated
opposition.’ Here then is another absolutely clear statement that Simon
went to Rome and there encountered St. Peter.

Frankly
then the contention that Simon is merely Paul in disguise, Paul the
heretic in the eyes of all good Jews, whom the orthodox Peter is
represented as triumphantly pursuing from place to place, has not a shred
of early evidence behind it, and must be given up. Indeed Professor
Kirsopp Lake in his recent work on the early epistles of St. Paul does not
express himself a whit too strongly, when he says ‘The figure of a
Judaizing St. Peter is a figment of the Tübingen critics with no basis in
history.’ [14]

So
far indeed from Peter and Paul being bitterly opposed, there is every
ground for believing that they worked at Rome during their latter years in
the closest harmony. The First Epistle of Peter is saturated with Pauline
thoughts and language, and its amanuensis was Silvanus, the companion of
Paul on his second missionary journey. St. Paul twice mentions Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, as being with him during his first
imprisonment, and writing to Timothy immediately before his death shows
anxiety to have him at his side, because ‘he is profitable to me in the
ministry.’[15]

Whatever
misunderstandings concerning their attitude towards Judaism or divergences
in practice there may have been between the two great Apostles in early
days, it is evident that they have been greatly exaggerated. It was rather
on questions of expediency than of principle that they differed, and the
experience of years spent in earnest work had long before the end drawn
them together into the friendliest co-operation.

The
appearance of Simon Magus at Rome followed by Simon Peter, so far from
being an extraordinary or even an 65unusual
event, is one in complete accord with all that we know from non-Christian
sources of the way in which during the reigns of Claudius and of Nero
religious teachers, preachers, and wonder-workers from the East found
their way to Rome. Oriental cults, especially the worship of Cybele and of
Isis, were all the vogue. Judaism had great attractions for the Roman
upper classes. Priests, magicians, soothsayers, astrologers crowded the
capital and found a ready welcome. Claudius, we are told, was so struck by
‘the progress of foreign superstitions’ that he thought it an act of sound
political conservatism to re-establish the haruspices.[16]

Harnack
makes the statement in his ‘Expansion of Christianity’ that ‘the majority
of the Christians with whose travels we are acquainted made [Rome] their
goal,’ and he admits that there are no real grounds for doubting that
Simon Magus did so.[17]

Of
prominent Christians who were in Rome in the time of St. Peter’s and St.
Paul’s ministry, Timothy, Apollos, Silas, Titus, Epaphras, Aristarchus,
Mark and Luke are mentioned in the salutations of extant epistles, and in
all probability the names of John and of Barnabas should be added to the
list. The travels and experiences of Apollonius of Tyana are most
instructive (even when full allowance has been made for the element of
romance introduced by his biographer Philostratus), for he was an exact
contemporary of the Apostles, and a kind of second Simon Magus. His vast
journeys, which extended from the Ganges to the Pillars of Hercules, are a
proof of the facilities with which such wonder-working teachers of
philosophy and religion made their way from place to place, and the honour
and respect with which they were generally received. Apollonius was in
Rome in 65 and 66 A.D.[18]
66

Of
St. Peter’s first Roman visit and preaching early tradition has handed
down few details; a series, however, of witnesses affirm that Mark
accompanied the Apostle to Rome and there wrote his Gospel. Both Irenaeus
and John the Presbyter, as reported by Papias, speak of Mark as Peter’s
‘interpreter,’[19]

as
do later writers. That Peter should have chosen John Mark to go with him
is quite what one might expect from the narrative of the Acts, for Peter
was clearly on terms of the closest intimacy with Mary, the mother of Mark
and the aunt of Barnabas, whose house was a centre of reunion for the
Christians of Jerusalem. There is no reason for thinking that this was the
first time that Mark had acted as the Apostle’s companion and interpreter
; his services would ‘be profitable to the ministry’ in Palestine,
scarcely less than in Rome, and the suggestion that he was a catechist to
whom the instruction of the Apostle’s Greek-speaking converts in the
elements of the Gospel story was entrusted, is both plausible and
probable.[20]

His
surname, Marcus, may be taken as indicating that his family had some Roman
connexion; he may have been, like Paul and Silas, a Roman citizen.
Eusebius relates that as a consequence of Peter’s preaching ‘the power of
Simon was soon extinguished and destroyed together with the man,’ but that
the Apostle’s hearers were not content with listening but once ‘to the
unwritten doctrine of the Divine Message, but they persisted in
supplicating Mark, who was Peter’s companion and whose Gospel is extant,
that he should leave them also in writing a memorial of the doctrine that
had been orally delivered. Nor did they cease their entreaties until they
had prevailed with the man, and in this way that writing which is called
the Gospel according to Mark is due to them. And they say that when the
Apostle through the 67revelation
of the Spirit knew what was done he was pleased with the zeal of the men
and gave authority for the writing to be read publicly in the churches.’[21]

This,
says Eusebius, is the account given by Clement [of Alexandria] in the
sixth book of his ‘Hypotyposeis’ and that it is also corroborated by
Papias the bishop of Hierapolis. In other parts of his work Eusebius
actually gives the quotations to which he here refers, from which it
appears that he has really combined more than one passage of Clement in
his statement.[22]

The
evidence of John, as recorded by Papias[23]

—‘that
Mark being the interpreter of Peter wrote whatsoever he remembered with
great accuracy, but not in the order in which the things were said or done
by the Lord ’—is interesting, for it seems to point to the Gospel in its
present form having been compiled from a set of separate lections intended
for public exposition and for catechetical instruction. Harnack has come
to the conclusion that ‘internal indications place no impediment in the
way of assigning Mark at the latest to the sixth decade of the first
century.’[24]

But
it is fairly certain that Mark was 68not
at Rome during the sixth decade, and there can therefore be no objection
to accepting the voice of tradition, which makes the Gospel to have been
written for the use of St. Peter’s Roman converts about the year 45
A.D.

The
evidence of St. Jerome, as to the form of the Petrine tradition, which was
current in the Rome of Pope Damasus during the latter part of the fourth
century, now demands our most careful attention, for it is of great
importance. His words (to which I have already referred) are: ‘Simon Peter
. . . prince of the Apostles, after an episcopacy of the
Antiochean Church, and after preaching to the dispersion of those of the
circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and
Bithynia, in the second year of Claudius journeys to Rome to combat Simon
Magus, and there for twenty-five years he occupied the sacerdotal chair,
until the last year of Nero, that is the fourteenth.’[25]

The
biographical notice of St. Peter, which appears in the edition of the
‘Liber Pontificalis’ published about 530 A.D.,
is, as the Abbé Duchesne states,[26]

borrowed
from St. Jerome, and this notice has remained as what may be justly styled
the standard Roman tradition ever since. I have said that this represents
the form of that tradition as it obtained at Rome in the pontificate of
Damasus (366–384). Damasus has been well named the first Christian
archaeologist. Some of his many beautifully engraved inscriptions,
embodying often 69the
results of personal research and investigation, above the tombs of the
martyrs in the catacombs and in the churches of Rome are still extant.[27]

Tradition
connects the name of this Pope, coupled with that of Jerome, with the
compilation of the original ‘Liber Pontificalis,' as the forged letters
prefixed to the work testify. Indeed so long and to such an extent did
this tradition survive that in the thirteenth century and later we find
the work designated as the ‘Chronica Damasi’ or ‘Damasus de Gestis
Pontificum.’[28]

In
any case Damasus did make the early history of the Roman Church his
special study, and Jerome was his secretary at the time of his death in
384. Nor was this all. Jerome spent some time in his earlier life at Rome,
as a student, and he has himself left on record,[29]
how at that time he visited the sepulchres of the Apostles and martyrs in
the catacombs, and it must be borne in mind that in those days there were
in existence very many tombs and inscriptions of the highest historical
interest, which have long since been destroyed, and that others were then
accessible, which have not yet been unearthed. Lastly in assaying the
value of Jerome’s evidence, as to the received Petrine tradition in the
pontificate of Damasus, it is a matter of no small interest to know that
he must have met at Rome in 382–84 and been the companion at the Papal
Court of Furius Dionysius Filocalus.[30]

This
man was the artist who engraved the 70Damasene
inscriptions, so noted for the peculiar beauty and special character of
their calligraphy. He was the illuminator and probably the editor of the
Liberian or Filocalian Catalogue of the Roman Bishops, which was compiled
and edited in 354 A.D.
and which was the basis of the later ‘Liber Pontificalis.’[31]

With
this Liberian catalogue it is impossible that Jerome should have been
unacquainted, and the differences between its form of the Petrine
tradition and that given by Jerome are of interest and will demand our
consideration. What is, however, important now to note is that Jerome, the
later writer, in differing from the Liberian notice of St. Peter must have
done so intentionally.

The
quotation given above from the ‘De Viris Illustribus’ closely follows the
lines of the passage from the Chronicle of Eusebius about St. Peter, which
in the Hieronymian version is thus rendered—‘Peter the Apostle
. . . when he had first founded the Antiochean Church, sets out
to Rome, where as bishop (episcopus) of the same city he continues
for twenty-five years preaching the Gospel. After Peter Linus first held
the Roman Church for eleven years’.[32]

The
notice in the ‘De Viris Illustribus’ adds the detail, which appears later
in the ‘Liber Pontificalis,’ that it was in the second year of Claudius
that Peter arrived in Rome, and as Peter’s death is asserted to have taken
place in the last year of Nero, the interval gives exactly the twenty-five
years of the so-called episcopacy, or, as in this case it would be better
rendered, overseership of the Roman Church. The Abbé Duchesne in his
monumental work on the ‘Liber 71Pontificalis,’
while stating that it is only after the time of Xystus I (117–126) that
there is sufficient uniformity in the catalogues to inspire confidence in
the figures given for the duration of the earlier episcopates, writes: ‘As
far as regards St. Peter the figure of his twenty-five years is as well
attested as the figures of the years of his successors after Xystus I. I
have then believed myself able to note it, but without indicating from
what date one ought to count it, for there are on this point grave
incertitudes.’[33]

With
these grave incertitudes let me now deal very briefly. The Eusebian
History and Chronicle give lists of the Roman bishops, and the Chronicle
the lengths of their term-years, while the Liberian or Filocalian
Catalogue gives a list of bishops and their term-years, but (as I have
already said) with considerable divergences. Both are based on earlier
authorities—the Eusebian on the lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus,
i.e. on documents belonging to the second half of the second
century; the Liberian on a chronicler, most probably Hippolytus, about
fifty years later. Now both the Eusebian Chronicle and the Liberian
Catalogue give twenty-five years as the term of St. Peter’s episcopacy,
but they differ as to the dates of its beginning and its end. We have
already seen that the Eusebian date-limits are from 42 A.D.
to 67 A.D.;
the Liberian, however, are from 30 A.D.
to 55 A.D.
The Liberian chronicler states that ‘after the Lord’s Ascension the most
blessed Peter received the office of a bishop (episcopatum).’[34]

He
further states that Linus succeeded him at Rome in 56 A.D.
At first sight it may appear that these two sets of dates are hopelessly
inconsistent.[35]

That
72this
is not necessarily the case, I will now endeavour to
show.

First,
let me point out that the Liberian Chronicler’s account of the whole of
the early history of the Roman episcopate is full of blunders; his errors
are not confined to his statement about St. Peter. By him Clement is
reckoned as the second bishop instead of the third, and Anencletus or
Cletus is represented as two persons[36]

instead
of one. In the case of St. Peter the Chronicler apparently regards the
Ascension as being the date of the assumption of a general episcopate by
the Apostle, who after that date became undoubtedly the acknowledged
leader of the Twelve. Moreover St. Luke emphatically mentions sojourners
from Rome, Jews and proselytes as being present at the feast of Pentecost
when by Peter’s preaching 3000 converts were made. But what about the
other date, 56 A.D.?
It will be my aim now to show that this date also may be one of real
historical significance in the life-work of St. Peter.

The
Hieronymian-Eusebian version of the Petrine tradition is indeed, as it
stands, scarcely less in conflict with the Lukan history than is the
Liberian. Jerome’s statement that before Peter went to Rome in 42
A.D.
he had been bishop of the Church at Antioch and had preached to the Jewish
Diaspora in various provinces of Asia Minor is obviously
irreconcilable with the narrative in the Acts. The explanation however of
all these difficulties seems to me to lie in the hypothesis of a sojourn
of Peter at Rome about midway between the sojourn in the early part of
Claudius and the final sojourn towards the close of Nero’s reign, which
ended with his martyrdom. I propose therefore to 73examine
the possibilities of such an hypothesis, and to see whether any evidence,
circumstantial or otherwise, exists to give it support.

The
sequence of events as given in the Acts has been frequently misunderstood.
In the eleventh chapter, verses 19-20, St. Luke tells us of the rapid
spread of the Christian faith at Antioch through the efforts of
evangelists from Cyprus and Cyrene, men who had once been among the
Hellenist disciples of Stephen at Jerusalem, and further that in this
company of the new converts were many Greeks as well as Jews. He then
proceeds to state that when news of this was brought to the Apostles in
Jerusalem, they resolved to send, in their name and as their
representative, Barnabas, as being at once a prominent member of the
Church at Jerusalem and a Cypriote by nationality, to take charge of this
important new movement and to assume its leader-ship. Barnabas was
successful in his mission and having brought Saul from Tarsus to help him
in his task, by the joint efforts of these two men of special gifts and
earnest zeal the growth of the Church made such conspicuous progress as to
attract public notice and to gain for the new sect in the mouth of the
multitude that scoffing but distinctive nickname of Christiani
which was to be in the coming centuries a title of honour the profession
of which would bring to thousands of martyrs terrible sufferings and
death.

Between
verse 26 and verse 27, however, a certain interval elapsed. The phrase
‘now in these days’—as in the opening verse of the sixth chapter—is one of
those loose chronological expressions common to the Lukan writings,
implying an uncertain interval of time. In this case the statement that
‘certain prophets came down from Jerusalem unto Antioch’ may be taken to
have suggested the insertion at this point of the episode with which Chapter 12 opens: ‘Now about that time Herod the
King put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church.’ The departure
of the prophets for Antioch was in fact one of the results of the
persecution of Herod, and as the story of the persecution was essential to
the writer’s purpose he has interpolated it here in the 74midst
of his Antiochean narrative, which is resumed at verse 25 of this same
twelfth chapter. One of these prophets, whose name Agabus is given, is
stated to have predicted the coming of a great famine over all the world,
and such was the belief inspired by his utterance that the Christian
community of Antioch determined to collect a contribution for the relief
of the brethren that dwelt in Judaea. Now the famine, which was, in
accordance with Agabus’ prophecy, of wide extent throughout the Eastern
portion of the Roman world,[37]

seems
to have begun in Judaea in the year 45 A.D.
and to have reached its height in the following year. According to
Josephus[38]

the
famine took place when Tiberius Alexander was procurator in Judaea, and
his term of office did not begin before the latter part of 45 A.D.
As this same historian gives a circumstantial account of the relief
brought personally to Jerusalem by Queen Helena, mother of Izates, King of
Adiabene in 45 A.D.,
and of her remaining there some considerable time distributing corn that
she imported from Egypt and figs from Cyprus, it is evident that the
dearth lasted for at least two years. The probability is that the prophecy
of Agabus was delivered some time in 44 A.D.
and that with the first reports of a failure of the crops being imminent
the fund in aid at Antioch was started. The raising of a sufficient sum by
weekly collections would take some time, and it is not likely that the
delegates Barnabas and Saul left Antioch until the spring of 46
A.D.
75was
sufficiently advanced for a voyage to one of the Palestinian ports to be
possible. The Feast of Pentecost would have been a very fitting time for
the arrival of men bringing alms to supply the needs of those suffering
from the loss of the harvest.

At
this point let us carry our thoughts back to St. Peter, whom we left at
Rome with Mark, as his companion and interpreter. There exists no record
to tell us what was the duration of this his first sojourn in that city.
At this critical stage however of the development of the Christian Church
the advice and guidance of so trusted a leader must have been frequently
needed both at Jerusalem and at Antioch, The longest stay that St. Paul
ever made in one place was at Ephesus, where he remained for three years,
and three years may be safely regarded as the extreme limit of St. Peter’s
absence in these opening years of the reign of Claudius.[39]

In
any case the news of the famine would be sure to hasten his departure, and
if, as I myself strongly hold, the second visit of Paul to Jerusalem in
company with Barnabas, described in the second chapter of the Epistle to
the Galatians,[40]

be
identical with their mission from Antioch as the bearers of the relief
fund, then in the spring of 46 A.D.
they would find both Peter and Mark on their arrival already at Jerusalem.
The only other member of the 76Twelve
present in the Holy City at this juncture seems to have been St. John, and
no more suitable opportunity could have been afforded for a private
discussion of the situation raised by the admission into the Antiochean
Church, without any Jewish restrictions, of a large number of Gentile
converts, and of an understanding being arrived at upon the vital issues
that were in question. The five principal representatives of what may be
styled the old, the moderate and the new schools of Christian thought and
opinion were now brought together by the discharge of a common charitable
duty, and the result was an agreement on general principles and a working
arrangement as to missionary spheres, which approved itself, if not to the
Judaistic extremists, to the recognised leaders Peter, John and James no
less than to Paul and Barnabas, as satisfactory.

The
measure of Peter’s satisfaction may be gathered from the fact that John
Mark accompanied the two delegates on their return to Antioch, probably in
the spring of 47, and that some months later, but before the period for
sailing was over, Barnabas and Saul set out on their missionary journey to
Cyprus, taking Mark with them. Their work in Cyprus, for they went through
the whole island, would occupy them till the spring, when they crossed to
Perga in Pamphylia where Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. Many
reasons have been suggested as the cause of this abandonment at this time.
It may have been due in part to dissatisfaction with Paul’s methods of
teaching, more probably to a feeling that now the Cyprian mission was over
it was his duty to return once more to the side of his old leader in that
new sphere of work with Antioch as its centre which Peter had probably
been, to Mark’s knowledge, for some time planning.[41]
77

No
tradition from early Christian times is stronger or more persistent than
that which asserts that before Peter entered upon his Roman ‘episcopate,’
he for seven years filled a similar office at Antioch.[42]

Now
if the so-called Roman episcopate be taken to date strictly from the
second year of Claudius, it is quite clear that Peter did not spend seven
years at Antioch previously. So it has come to pass that even those who
have been willing to accept the Roman visit of 42 A.D.
as historical have dismissed the Antiochean tradition as baseless fable.
But in my opinion no tradition of this character can have come into
existence and held its ground as this did without there being a genuine
substratum of truth in it. The real difficulty is the chronological one.
Can this be overcome? I believe it may be. If Peter sojourned at Rome a
second time in the years 54–56 A.D.,
and I hope to show grounds for believing that he may have done so, then
there is no reason why the seven years that preceded this (47–54
A.D.)
should not have been years during which Peter made Antioch the centre of
his missionary work, a starting-point for journeys to Mesopotamia in the
east or even to Cappadocia and Pontus in the north, an abode from which
visits to the feasts at Jerusalem could be easily undertaken. It is
certain that he was in Antioch at the same time as Paul and Barnabas after
the return of the latter from their first missionary journey in the autumn
of 49 A.D.[43]
The account, which Paul gives in the second chapter of his Epistle to the
Galatians, of the dispute he had 78with
Peter concerning the question of eating with the Gentiles, would indeed
lead one to think that the Apostle’s stay at that time had been one of
some duration. As St. Luke from the thirteenth chapter of the Acts and
onward confines his narrative entirely to the missionary life of St. Paul,
it is with gratitude that we welcome these flashes of light from the
autobiographical portions of the Pauline epistles, which from time to time
suddenly illumine the darkness of these early decades of the first
century, through which we are pain-fully striving to grope our way, and,
however evanescent, prove to us at any rate that for the moment we are
walking upon the right track. There is probably no epistle which is so
rich in passages of this kind as St. Paul’s First Epistle to the
Corinthians. It is generally agreed that this epistle was written at
Ephesus towards the end of St. Paul’s stay of three years in that city.
Now the recent discovery of an inscription at Delphi[44]

practically
fixes the date of Gallio’s proconsulship in Achaia as 52 A.D.,
and with it the chronology of this part of St. Paul’s life. The date of
the First Epistle to the Corinthians can therefore be given with something
approaching to certainty. It was written towards the end of the year 55
A.D.
Now one of the chief objects of this epistle was to reprove the
Corinthians for their divisions and party spirit. There was a party there
which called itself by the name of Cephas. Again there is a direct
reference to the fact that Cephas was accompanied in his missionary
journeys by his wife.[45]

What other explanation can be given of such statements than the obvious
one, that Peter had been paying a visit of such duration to Corinth
79as
to have created a following who boasted themselves distinctively, as being
the disciples of one whom they looked upon as a ‘super-eminent Apostle.’[46]

Further
a chance reference is made to Barnabas, as working for his maintenance,[47]

a reference which would be meaningless unless the Corinthians were
acquainted with Barnabas personally and had seen him so working. That
Peter was really regarded in the second century as a founder of the
Corinthian Church conjointly with Paul is proved by the quotation,
preserved by Eusebius, from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to
Soter, bishop of Rome, who speaks of ‘the plantation of Peter and Paul at
Rome and at Corinth. For they both together here in Corinth planted us and
taught alike; and both together in Italy taught alike, and then were
martyred about the same time.’[48]

These
almost casual references preserved in the First Epistle to the Corinthians
relating to an event of much significance in the history of an important
Church, to which an eminent bishop of that Church bears witness as a
recognised and established tradition about a century later, bring before
us in a startling way how widespread were the activities of Peter and
other members of the Apostolic band in those years when the narrative of
the Acts is dumb as to their very existence, and therefore how little
right we have to express ourselves dogmatically and without reservation
upon questions of first-century Christian history, of which our knowledge
is so utterly fragmentary, or to reject unceremoniously traditions which,
if carefully sifted, will generally be found to contain some precious bits
of authentic historical fact. The particular episode of Petrine history
with which I am now dealing affords an excellent illustration of these
remarks.80

Granted
then that the natural interpretation of certain passages of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians implies that both Peter and Barnabas were in
Corinth and working there in the autumn of 54 A.D.,
it may well be asked is it not strange that these two Apostolic men of all
others should have thus gone apparently out of their way to visit a Church
so recently founded by the efforts of St. Paul, and which should have been
regarded as in his special charge ? The reply is that not by a single word
does St. Paul make any complaint on the subject. What then is the
explanation ? It is, I believe, that Peter on hearing of the death of
Claudius on October 13, 54 A.D.,
had thought the time opportune for revisiting his Roman converts and had
asked Barnabas to accompany him. They had stopped at Corinth simply as a
convenient halting-place, being the half-way house between Syria and
Italy. And now let us turn to tradition. There are many traditions which
associate Barnabas with Rome and Italy. The forms in which they have come
down to us are, like most of the fifth and sixth century Acts, Passions
and Travels, full of chronological errors and contain many impossibilities
and contradictions due to the later inventions and interpolations of
hagiographers careless or ignorant of history and anxious only to glorify
the memory of the particular saint or martyr in whom for local or other
reasons they are interested. But as the learned French writer, Edmond le
Blant,[49]

who
is a specialist on this subject, well says ‘These interpolations, in my
opinion, ought not either to disconcert or to repel criticism. Under a
layer of invention the original traits exist, and a great number of them
appear on the very surface. One must extricate them patiently.’ The
earliest reference to Barnabas[50]81is
that found in the ‘Clementine Recognitions.’[51]

This
work, an Ebionite romance of a much later age than Clement the supposed
writer, is prefaced by an account of Clement’s early life at Rome. The
author says that Clement was converted by the preaching of Barnabas, who
afterwards introduced him to St. Peter. The object of the author of the
‘Recognitions’ is to magnify the authority and orthodox teaching of Peter,
so that the introduction here of Barnabas, who is never mentioned again,
is purely gratuitous, and indeed inexplicable in such a narrative unless
the fact recorded were one based on a received and ancient tradition too
well known to be ignored. The mention of Barnabas’ preaching has nothing
to do with the story. The insertion thus of this incident without cause in
an Ebionite document of Eastern origin strongly speaks for its
authenticity. The traditions represent Barnabas as having preceded Peter[52]

as
a preacher at Rome, and it is quite possible that he may now have left
Corinth some weeks or months before Peter followed him, and that one of
the first-fruits of his ministry in the Imperial City was the conversion
of the man who 82was
to occupy so important a place in the history of the Church in Rome during
the latter half of the first century.[53]

If
certain passages of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians have
suggested that St. Peter visited Corinth in 54 A.D.,
certain other passages of the Epistle to the Romans, sent by St. Paul from
Corinth to its destination in the early spring of 57 A.D.,
suggest no less strongly that he [Paul] had been recently hindered from
going to Rome by the presence in that Church of one who was its founder.
And here I would venture to say that we may rest assured that the
principle ‘not to build on another man’s foundation’[54]

was
an Apostolic and not merely a Pauline rule of action. That Peter went to
Corinth with any intention of interfering with Paul’s great work in that
town, or of placing himself before the Corinthians as a rival and superior
to the Apostle of the Gentiles, is inconceivable. But just as Paul
proposed in Peter’s absence to pay a passing visit to Rome on his way to
Spain in order that he might be refreshed by personal intercourse with
those of whose faith in Christ he had heard so much, and that he might in
his turn be able to impart to them some spiritual gift,[55]

so
would Peter be anxious to break his voyage to Rome at the Isthmus of
Corinth, so as to make acquaintance during a brief sojourn with a
Christian community in whose first conversion and establishment as a
Church his own Roman disciples, Aquila and Prisca, had played so
considerable a part.

Now
St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans twice emphatically declares that
though he had for some time longed to visit Rome, he had been many times
hindered, and the cause is plainly stated, i.e. that it was his settled
practice 83not
to trespass in another man’s sphere of work. As I do not wish to go over
old ground, I shall assume that ‘the other man’ here referred to is St.
Peter. But this being granted, the more often I read over these
autobiographical passages from this epistle the more thoroughly am I
convinced that the writer is not here simply alluding to so distant an
event as the preaching of that Apostle in the Imperial City in the early
days of Claudius, but to Peter being actually present at Rome in person at
the times when otherwise he, Paul, might have been able to carry out his
wished-for visit. For such a friendly visit of short duration need not, as
I have already said, any more than the contemplated visit on the way to
Spain, have been regarded as a ‘building upon another man’s foundation.’
The ‘often-times’ of c. 1:13 and the ‘many times’ of c. 15:22 are
practically confined within somewhat narrow limits. Paul after what he
must have learned from Aquila and Prisca would scarcely have thought of
adventuring himself in Rome before the death of Claudius. At that date be
was in Ephesus, a city that was in direct and constant communication with
the capital, and during the next two years he might have found several
opportunities for undertaking a voyage to Rome: one, for instance, when
from Ephesus he paid that second visit to Corinth of which there is no
record in the Acts, but which is mentioned in the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians.[56]

Another,
and a most tempting one, when his tried friends and fellow helpers, Aquila
and Prisca, returned home after the tumult. Yet a third when after leaving
Ephesus he went to Macedonia and then apparently followed the Via Egnatia
to Illyricum before making that third sojourn in Corinth, when he wrote
the Epistle to the Romans. If he were hindered from doing so, it was
because precisely during this period Peter was himself in Rome.

I
now turn to the evidence of the Liberian or Filocalian Catalogue of 354
A.D.,
which has been traced back by those who speak with the highest authority
upon the subject to the lost Chronicle of Hippolytus, written about
84234
or 235 A.D.[57]

The
Liberian Catalogue makes several palpable blunders in the early part of
its list of the Roman bishops, as I have already said, but the most
curious is that which makes the twenty-five years of St. Peter’s
episcopate to begin in 30 A.D.
and to end in 55 A.D.
Now this last date can scarcely be intended as that of St. Peter’s
martyrdom, for the Chronicler goes on to say that he suffered with St.
Paul on June 29 in the reign of Nero, showing clearly his acquaintance
with the common tradition. But the fact that the names of the Consuls (in
a corrupted form) for the year 55 are correctly given is a piece of strong
circumstantial evidence that this date was one of special importance in
the early history of the Roman Church.[58]

The
assertion that Linus at this time succeeded Peter as bishop supplies, I
believe, a clue by which to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. Later
writers and the ‘Liber Pontificalis’ itself mention both Linus and
Anencletus as having been ordained by Peter as bishops and as having
exercised the duties of that office in his name during his lifetime,[59]

and
there is likewise a tradition that Clement also was ordained bishop by
Peter in his lifetime. This is a quite possible representation of what
really took place. The date 55 A.D.
occupied a permanent place in the records of the Roman Church because at
this date Peter personally gave to that Church its local organisation by
appointing out of the general body of presbyters an inner presbyteral
council entrusted with special pastoral duties of administration and
overseership, 85the
members of which bore the name of episcopi,
which as St. Peter himself in his first epistle tells us was virtually the
equivalent of pastores.
Not until after the death of St. Peter however did this administrative
episcopal body deem it necessary to select one of their number to succeed
him as presiding episcopus
and chief pastor of the Church.

There
is one event which should, I think, be connected with this visit of St.
Peter in 55 A.D.,
of considerable interest. It has generally been assumed that the mass of
the early Christians belonged to the lowest classes and that many of them
were slaves. This is no doubt to a certain extent true, but not by any
means altogether so. Aquila and Prisca may have belonged to the ‘freedman’
class, but they were well-to-do people, and it is probable that Prisca was
Roman by birth and a person of some position. Again after dismissing all
that is worthless and utterly fictitious in the account given of Clement’s
family and their adventures in the so-called Clementine literature, that
literature bears evidence that long after his death Clement was given a
place apart among the men of the sub-apostolic age not merely because he
was a disciple of St. Peter or the author of a well-known epistle, but
because he was connected by ties of relationship with the Imperial house.
It seems unlikely that Ebionite writers in Eastern lands should have gone
out of their way to lay stress on this relationship, unless it had some
foundation in fact. To this matter I shall return later.

The
case of Julia Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror
of Britain, is exceedingly interesting. It is best told in the words of
Tacitus—‘Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who
returned from Britain with an ovation, was accused of some foreign
superstition and handed over to her husband’s judicial decision. Following
ancient precedent, he heard his wife’s cause in the presence of kinsfolk,
involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and he reported that
she was innocent. This Pomponia lived a long life of unbroken melancholy.
After the murder of Julia, Drusus’ daughter, by Messalina’s intrigues, for
forty years she wore only the 86attire
of a mourner, with a heart ever sorrowful. For this, during Claudius’
reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to
her.’[60]

It
had been long surmised that the ‘foreign superstition’ of which this lady
was accused was the profession of Christianity. At that time Christianity
was still regarded by the Roman authorities as a mere sect of Judaism, and
Judaism being a religio
licita
Pomponia would be entitled to acquittal. Possibly public rumour was
already beginning to accuse the Christians, as distinguished from the
Jews, of indulging in impure and impious orgies, but if this were the
ground of the accusation, it would not be difficult to refute it. The
discovery by the famous archaeologist Giovanni Battista De Rossi in 1867,
in the very ancient crypts of Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus, of a
Christian sepulchral inscription bearing the name, only slightly injured,
of a Pomponius Graecinus is a piece of testimony of considerable weight.
He may well have been a great-nephew of the Pomponia Graecina of Tacitus,
for De Rossi dates the inscription as belonging to the second half of the
second century. The conjecture then that Pomponia Graecina, who was not
only a friend but a relative of Julia and of the Claudian family, was a
Christian convert is rendered very probable. It is worthy of note that the
death of Julia, when Pomponia’s mourning began, was in 43 A.D.
during St. Peter’s first visit to Rome, and that her trial before the
family tribunal occurred in 57 A.D.
or about a year (according to the hypothesis I have been endeavouring to
sustain) after the second visit of the Apostle. It may well have been her
intercourse with him that led to this public notice being taken of her
addiction to a ‘foreign superstition.’

[1] Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. book ii. cc. xiii, xiv, xv; Jerome, De Viris Illustribus . The
evidence of Eusebius, it must be remembered, was based upon a wide
acquaintance with earlier Christian literature and with a mass of official
Church documents and state papers, as well as local traditions now lost to
us, and that Jerome had studied Eusebius’ works, and that he had access to
the Eusebian sources. Eusebius for example tells us that he was acquainted
with the five books of the Commentaries of Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian
who journeyed to Rome from the East expressly to learn what was the true
doctrine taught there ( Hist. Eccl. iv. 22). It appears that when at Rome
Hegesippus drew up a list of the Roman bishops. See Bright, Introd. to
Eusebius’ Eccl. History , pp. xxviii-xxix; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers,
Clement of Rome , i. 202–3; Lawlor, Eusebiana .

[2] Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. ii. 13. 14.

[3] Justin,
Apologia , i. 26.

[4] οὐ
μὴν
εἰς
μακρὸν
αὐτῷ
ταῦτα
προὐχώρει.
Παρὰ
πόδας
γοῦν
ἐπὶ
τῆς
αὐτῆς
Κλαυδίου
βασιλείας,
ἡ
πανάγαθος
καὶ
φιλανθρωποτάτη
τῶν
ὅλων
πρόνοια
τὸν
καρτερὸν
καὶ
μέγαν
τῶν
ἀποστόλων,
τὸν
ἀρετῆς
ἕνεκα
τῶν
λοιπῶν
ἁπάντων
προήγορον,
Πέτρον,
ἐπὶ
τὴν
Ῥώμην
ὡς
ἐπὶ
τηλικοῦτον
λυμεῶνα
βίου
χειραγωγεῖ,
ὃς
οἷά
τις γενναῖος
Θεοῦ
στρατηγὸς
τοῖς
θείοις
ὅπλοις
φραξάμενος,
τὴν
πολυτίμητον
ἐμπορίαν
τοῦ
νοητοῦ
φωτὸς
ἐξ
ἀνατολῶν
τοῖς
κατὰ
δύσιν
ἐκόμιζεν,
φῶς
αὐτὸ
καὶ
λόγον
ψυχῶν
σωτήριον,
τὸ
κήρυγμα
τῆς
τῶν
οὐρανῶν
βασιλείας
εὐαγγελιζόμενος
. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 14.

[5] See
Baur’s Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Christl. Jahrhunderten; Paulus
der Apostel Jesu Christi; Die Christus Partei in Korinth
&c.

[6] Lipsius,
Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, Quellen d. röm.
Petrus Sage and other works.

[7] See
p. 38.

[8] προεβάλλοντο
ἄλλους
Σίμωνα
μὲν
καὶ
Μένανδρον
ἀπὸ
Σαμαρείας
οἳ
καὶ
μαγικὰς
δυνάμεις
ποιήσαντες
πολλοὺς
ἐξηπάτησαν
καὶ
ἔτι
ἀπατωμένους
ἔχουσι.
καὶ
γὰρ
παῤ
ὑμῖν,
ὡς
προέφημεν,
ἐν
τῇ
βασιλίδι
Ῥώμῃ
ἐπὶ
Κλαυδίου
Καίσαρος
γενόμενος
ὁ
Σίμων
καὶ
τὴν
ἱερὰν
σύγκλητον
καὶ
τὸν
δῆμον
Ῥωμαίων
εἰς
ποσοῦτο
κατεπλήξατο
ὡς
θεὸς
νομισθῆναι,
καὶ
ἀνδριάντι,
ὡς
τοὺς
ἄλλους
παῤ
ὑμῖν
τιμωμένους
θεούς,
τιμηθῆναι.
. Apol. 56.

[9] Dial.
cum Trypho . 126.

[10] Irenaeus,
Adv. Haer. (Library of Ante-Nicene Fathers, tr. by Keble), p. 68; Irenaeus
speaks of the Simonians as an existing sect, i.
33.

[11] Hippolytus,
Philosophumenos , vi. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15.

[12] Photius
speaks of him as a disciple of Irenaeus.

[13] Philos
. vi. 15.

[14] Kirsopp
Lake, Early Epistles of St. Paul , p. 116. See the Introduction to Dr.
Bigg’s First Epistle of St. Peter (Int. Crit. Commentary), pp.
52–67.

[15] II
Tim. 4:11.

[16] Renan,
Hibbert Lectures , p. 54. See Lehmann, Claudius und seine Zeit , p. 326: ‘
Widersetzte er (Claudius) sich energisch, wiewohl erfolglos der mystischen
Richtung der Zeit, welche sich namentlich in der Vorliebe für
Superstitions peregrinae kundgab. ’

[17] Harnack,
Expansion of Christianity (Eng. tr.), i. 463.

[18] Philostratus,
Apollonius of Tyana , iv. 35–41; Justin, Irenaeus and Hegesippus were all
Eastern Christians who came to Rome. Also the Jews, Josephus and Philo.

[19] The
testimony of Irenaeus ( Cont. Haer. iii. i. 1) will be found in Eusebius
Hist. Eccl. v. 8; that of Papias, 39. See Chapman, Journ. of Theol. Stud.
July 1905, p. 563 ff.; Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apost. Geschichte
, pp. 88–93; Macchi, Critica Storica e 1'origine della Chiesa Romana , pp.
25–29.

[20] See
The Composition of the Four Gospels by Rev, A. Wright, ch. iii, ‘St. Mark
a Catechist.’

[21] Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. ii. xv.: παρακλήσεσι
δὲ
παντοίαις
Μάρκου,
οὗ
τὸ
Εὐαγγελίον
φέρεται,
ἀκόλουθον
ὄντα
Πέτρου
λιπαρῆσαι,
ὡς
ἂν
καὶ
διὰ
γραφῆς
ὑπόμνημα
τῆς
διὰ
λόγου
παραδοθείσης
αὐτοῖς
καταλείψοι
διδασκαλίας,
μὴ
πρότερόν
τε ἀνεῖναι,
ἢ
κατεργάσασθαι
τὸν
ἄνδρα,
καὶ
ταύτῃ
αἰτίους
γενέσθαι
τῆς
τοῦ
λεγομένου
κατὰ
Μάρκον
εὐαγγελίου
γραφῆς.
Γνόντα
δὲ
τὸ
πραχθὲν
φασὶ
τὸν
ἀπόστολον,
ἀποκαλύψαντος
αὐτῷ
τοῦ
πνεύματος,
ἡσθῆναι
τῇ
τῶν
ἀνδρῶν
προθυμίᾳ,
κύρωσαί
τε τὴν
γραφὴν
εἰς
ἔντευξιν
ταῖς
ἐκκλησίαις.

[22] The
clause above beginning φασὶ
τὸν
ἀπόστολον
is Eusebius’ own, derived not from the Hypotyposeis book vii. quoted Eccl.
Hist. vi. 14, but from some other source. The words of Clement in the
Hypotyposeis are remarkable— ὕπερ
ἐπιγνόντα
τὸν
Πέτρον
προτρεπτικῶς
μήτε
κωλῦσαι
μήτε
προτρέψασθαι
. Eusebius seems to have had in his mind another passage of Clement from
Adumb. in 1 Peter v. 13 (quoted by Harnack, Neue
Untersuchungen , p. 89)—‘ Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro
evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa
Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur
memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his, quae a Petro dicta sunt, evangelium
quod secundum Marcum vocitatur. ’

[23] Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.

[24] 155155Harnack,
New Untersuchungen , p. 88. The difficulties in accepting the Gospel of
St. Mark, as we now possess it, as the common narrative source of St.
Matthew and St. Luke, appear to me well-nigh insuperable. But if we
suppose that this Gospel is a revised continuous narrative formed from a
number of separate lections or instructions written by Mark previously for
the use of Greek-speaking converts in Judaea, the difficulty is largely
removed. If St. Luke had completed the Acts in 62 A.D. , it is highly
probable that he composed his Gospel at Caesarea during St. Paul’s
captivity under Felix. Such a set of catechetical instructions correspond
almost exactly to the type of διήγησις
of which Luke speaks in his preface. He would find the Marcan lections,
embodying as they did the teaching of St. Peter, almost certainly in the
possession of such a leader among the Hellenist teachers as Philip the
Evangelist, who was residing at Caesarea at the same time as
Luke.

[25] Simon
Petrus . . . princeps Apostolorum, post episcopatum Antiochensis
ecclesiae et praedicationem dispersionis eorum qui de circumcisione
crediderant, in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia, secundo
Claudii anno ad expugnandum Simonem Magum Romam pergit, ibique viginti
quinque annis cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit, usque ad ultimum annum
Neronis, id est decimum quartum. De Viris Illust.
i.

[26] Duchesne,
Liber Pontificalis , i. 51, 119.

[27]
Marucchi, Eléments d'Archéologie Chrétienne , 226–240; Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 296.

[28] Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 304.

[29] ‘
Dum essem puer et liberalibus studiis erudirer, solebam cum caeteris
eiusdem aetatis et propositi, diebus dominicis sepulchra Apostolorum et
martyrum circuire, crebroque cryptas ingredi, quae in terrarum profunda
defossae, ex utraque parte ingredientium per parietes habent corpora
sepultorum, et ita obscura sunt omnia, ut propemodum illud propheticum
compleatur: Descendant ad infernum viventes ( Ps. liv. 16); et raro desuper lumen
admissum horrorem temperet tenebrarum, ut non tam fenestram quam foramen
demissi luminis putes et caeca nocte circumdatis illud Virgilianum
proponitur: “Horror ubique animos, simul ipsa silentia terrent.” ’ Migne,
P.L. t. xxv. c. 375. In Ezeck. xii. 40.

[30] Marucchi,
Eléments d’Archéologie Chrétienne , i. 230, 235; De Rossi, Roma
Sotterranea , i. 118 ff, ii. 196 ff.; Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers , part i.
vol. i. pp. 64, 249.

[31] Duchesne,
Liber Pontificalis , i. 4; Lipsius, ‘Die Bischofslisten des Eusebius’ in
‘Neue Studien zur Papstgeschichte,’ Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. vi. 233 ff.
1880; Mommsen, ‘Ueber den Chronographen vom Jahre 354’ in Abhandlungen der
Philol. Hist. Classe d. K. Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften , 1854;
Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. ‘Early Roman Succession,’ pp.
199–345; vol. ii. ‘Hippolytus of Portus,’ pp. 317–477.

[32] ‘
Petrus Apostolus . . . cum primum Antiochenam Ecclesiam
fundasset, Romam proficiscitur, ubi Evangelium praedicans xxv annis
eiusdem urbis Episcopus perseverat. Post Petrum primus Romanam ecclesiam
tenuit Linus annis xi. ’ See Schoene, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in
ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus .

[33] Duchesne,
Liber Pontificalis , ccxviii: ‘ En ce qui regarde Saint Pierre le chiffre
de ses vingt-cinq années est aussi bien attesté que les chiffres d’années
de ses successeurs depuis Xystus I er . J’ai donc cru pouvoir le noter,
mais sans indiquer, à partir de quelle date il faut le compter, car il y
a, sur ce point, de graves incertitudes. ’

[34] ‘
Post ascensum eius beatissimus Petrus episcopatum suscepit ’; ‘
. . . Linus fuit temporibus Neronis, a consulatu Saturnini et
Scipionis ’ (A.D. 56).

[35] See
the authorities above quoted: Duchesne, Mommsen, Harnack, Lipsius,
Lightfoot, De Rossi, &c.

[36] The
evidence for the order of succession (as given by Irenaeus and
Hegesippus), Peter, Linus, Anencletus (or Cletus), Clemens is very strong.
Lightfoot’s judgment is—‘We have to reckon with three conflicting
statements, as far as regards the position of Clement in the Roman
succession—a tradition , the Irenaean—a fiction , the Clementine—and a
blunder , the Liberian or perhaps the Hippolytean. Under these
circumstances we cannot hesitate for a moment in our verdict. Whether the
value of the tradition be great or small, it alone deserves to be
considered. The sequence therefore which commends itself for acceptance is
Linus, Anencletus or Cletus, Clemens, Euarestus’ ( Apost. Fathers , part
i. vol. i. p. 66).

[37] Sir
W. M. Ramsay writes ( St. Paul the Traveller , pp. 48–49): ‘The famine
appears to me to be singularly well attested considering the scantiness of
evidence for this period. Suetonius alludes to assiduae sterilitates
causing famine prices under Claudius, while Dion Cassius and Tacitus speak
of two famines in Rome, and famine in Rome implied dearth in the great
corn-growing countries of the Mediterranean; Eusebius mentions famine in
Greece and an inscription perhaps refers to famine in Asia
Minor.’

[38] As
to the famine in Judaea Josephus is full and explicit ( Ant. iii. 15. 3;
xx. 2. 5 and 5. 2). The story of Queen Helena’s munificence is told also
by Eusebius ( Hist. Eccl. ii. 12). Ramsay in a note on the date of the
famine says that Tiberius Alexander’s entry into office cannot be fixed
with absolute certainty: ‘July 45 A.D. is the earliest admissible date and
46 A.D. is far more probable’ ( St. Paul the Traveller , p. 68). In the
article on ‘Chronology’ in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible , Mr. C. H.
Turner gives 46 A.D. as the date of the visit of the Antiochean
delegates.

[39] Both
the Latin (Hieronymian) and Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle make
Peter to have gone to Rome in the second year of Claudius and to Antioch
two years later (ed. Schoene, p. 211). This two years may represent the
time actually spent in Rome according to
tradition.

[40] Gal. 2:1-10.
For an eminently fair and thorough examination of the arguments for
identifying the Galatian visit ‘after fourteen years’ with (1) the visit
of Paul and Barnabas described in Acts 11 and
(2) with the visit to the Council described in Acts
15, see Professor Kirsopp Lake, The Early Epistles of St. Paul , pp.
274–293. Professor Lake after stating the case for the identification with
(1) says ‘To my mind it is extremely strong’ (p. 281). Again after
weighing the objections against (1) and (2) he concludes ‘my own view is
that the objections [against] placing Gal. 2 at the time of the famine are
much less serious, but I recognise that they are real, and prevent one
from claiming the right to feel quite certain on the subject’ (p. 293). It
will be seen that, in the circumstances under which I suppose the
interview to have taken place, the case for the identification is much
strengthened.

[41] It
is a curious fact that Barnabas and Paul made no attempt to preach in
Pamphylia either on the outward or the return journey, nor is there any
evidence to show that Paul ever revisited that country. The idea suggests
itself that Pamphylia may already have become ‘another man’s sphere.’
Possibly Peter himself may have paused on his voyage back from
Rome
to preach to the Jewish Diaspora scattered along the Southern coast of
Asia
Minor.
If so, Mark’s refusal to proceed to Pamphylia would be explained on this
ground.

[42] The
Liber Pontificalis , both in its original form as restored by Duchesne and
in its later recension, gives seven years as the length of the Petrine
episcopate at Antioch. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis , i. 51, 118; also St.
Gregory, Ep. vii. 40.

[43] Certain,
that is, if the second visit of Paul to Jerusalem be identical with that
in Galatians ii, which I am now assuming.
It cannot fail to strike anyone how much more fittingly the dispute
between Peter and Paul falls into its place with this assumption, than if
it be regarded as occurring after the Council of Jerusalem. Indeed the
difficulty of regarding this meeting as happening at this later time just
after the Apostolic decree had been drawn up is so overwhelmingly great
that some authorities, i.e. Harnack, Zahn, and Turner (Hastings’s Dict. )
have felt compelled to suggest that the order of events has been inverted
by St. Paul. See Kirsopp Lake, Early Epistles of St. Paul , p. 294 ff.

[44] See
Revue d’Histoire et de la Littérature Religieuses , Mars–Avril 1911: E.
Ch. Babut, p. 139 ff., describes the discovery by M. Ed. Bourget of four
fragments of a letter of Claudius to the city of Delphi. In the
inscription, part of which is obliterated or wanting, the twenty-sixth
salutation of Claudius is mentioned and Gallio is Proconsul. M. Babut
shows that the date must lie between narrow limits. Claudius had his
twenty-seventh salutation on August 1, 52 A.D. , and the twenty-sixth
salutation probably not before April or May of that year. Also consult
Adolf Deissmann’s St. Paul (Eng. tr. 1912), where a facsimile of the
inscription is given and the Proconsulate of Gallio forms the subject of a
special Appendix, p. 235 ff.

[45]
I
Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5

[46] II Cor. 12:11:
ὑστέρησα
τῶν
ὑπερλίαν
ἀποστόλων
.

[47] I Cor. 9:6

[48] 179179Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. ii. 25: ταῦτα
καὶ
ὑμεῖς
διὰ
τῆς
τοσαύτης
νουθεσίας
τὴν
ἀπὸ
Πέτρου
καὶ
Παύλου
φυτείαν
γενηθεῖσαν
Ῥωμαίων
τεκαὶ
Κορινθίων
συνεκεράσατε.
Καὶ
γὰρ
ἄμφω
καὶ
εἰς
τὴν
ἡμετέραν
Κόρινθον
φυτεύσαντες
ἡμᾶς,
ὁμοίως
ἐδίδαξαν·
ὁμοίως
δὲ
καὶ
εἰς
τὴν
Ἰταλίαν
ὁμόσε
διδάξαντες,
ἐμαρτύρησαν
κατὰ
τὸν
αὐτὸν
καιρόν
. See also Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 23 and Kirsopp Lake, Early Epistles
of St. Paul , p. 112.

[49] ‘Les
Actes des Martyrs. Supplement aux Acta Sincera de Dom Ruinart’ (part 2, p.
87).

[50] The
traditions about Barnabas have been collected and fully treated by
Braunsberger. Der Apostel Barnabas. Sein Leben and der ihm beigelegte
Brief . Mainz, 1876. See also Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung
, 1876, No. 19, 487 ff. and Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und
Apostellegenden , 2er Band, 2e Hälfte, 270 ff. The chief document relating
to Barnabas’ work first at Rome then at Milan is entitled Datiana historia
Ecclesiae Mediolanensis ed. Biraghi, Milan 1848. Braunsberger’s conclusion
is that the preaching of Barnabas in North Italy was ‘ zwar nicht sicher,
aber sehr wahrscheinlich ’ (p. 83).

[51] Hort
in his lectures on the Clementine Recognitions shows that this
pseud-epigraphic writing, and the Clementine Homilies , which closely
resemble it, are two separate Ebionite versions of a much earlier work
known as the Circuits of Pete r— Περίοδοι
Πέτρορ
. See also Salmon’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian
Biography . The date of these versions is about the end of the third
century, of the Περίοδοι
about a century earlier. Both had their origin in the
East.

[52] In
the Datiana historia the Barnabas story as told by the author, after
relating Barnabas’ work with Paul at Antioch and the choice made of him
and Paul as Apostles to the Gentiles in the fourteenth year after Christ’s
Passion, and his first missionary journey, and second visit to Cyprus
after his separation from Paul, proceeds to state that thereon—in the
first year of Claudius, eight years after Christ’s ascension—he takes ship
with some of his disciples for Rome—‘ velut totius orbis dominam visere
cupiens ,’ where he, as the first Apostle, proclaims the Word of God and
among others converts Clement, afterwards the third successor of Peter in
the Roman episcopate (Lipsius, ii. 2, p. 311). Here it is obvious that the
chronology contradicts itself. It ought to be the first year of Claudius
Nero, i.e. 55 A.D. If the eight years be counted from Barnabas’
appointment as an Apostle of the Gentiles, 47 A.D. , we arrive at the same
date.

[53] A
prima-facie case is made out for the authenticity of the tradition of
Barnabas’ preaching in Rome and North Italy from the fact that it was so
greatly in the interest of the upholders of the Petrine origin of the
Roman Church to suppress it; as Harnack points out, its existence ‘ musste
dem römischen Bischofe höchst unbequem werden: denn sie drohte die
einzigartige Bedeutung des Petrus für das Abendland and die einzigartige
Stellung Roms im Abendlande zu gefärhrden. ’— Literatur Zeitung , 1876.
No. 19, 488.

[54] Rom. 15:20.

[55] Rom. 1:10-12; 15:23, 24.

[56] II
Cor. 12:24 and 13:1

[57] See
pp. 49, n. 2, 71, supra .

[58] Petrus
, ann. xxv. mens. uno, d. viiii. Fuit temporibus Tiberii Caesaris et Gai
et Tiberi Claudi et Neronis, a cons. Minuci [vinicii] et Longini [ A.D.
30] usque Nerine at Vero [Nerone et Vetere A.D. 55]. Passus autem cum
Paulo die iii. Kal. Iulias, cons. ss, imperante Nerone. Linus , ann. xii.
m. iiii, dies xii. Fuit temporibus Neronis, a consulatu Saturnini et
Scipionis [ A.D. 56] usque Capitone et Rufo [ A.D. 67] (Light-foot, Apost.
Fathers , I. i. p. 253).

[59] Hic
[Petrus] ordinavit duos episcopos, Linum et Cletum, qui praesentaliter
omne ministerium sacerdotale in urbe Roma populo vel supervenientium
exhiberent; beatus autem Petrus ad orationem et praedicationem, populum
erudiens, vacabat. . . . Hic beatum Clementem episcopum
conservavit, eique cathedram vel ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit.
—Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis , i. 118. See evidence of Epiphanius derived
from Hegesippus, Lawlor, Eusebiana , p. 9.

[60] Pomponia
Graecina, insignis femina, Plautio qui ovans se de Britanniis rettulit
nupta ac superstitionis externae rea, mariti·iudicio permissa; isque
prisco instituto, propinquis coram, de capite famaque coniugis cognovit et
insontem nuntiavit. Longa huic Pomponiae aetas et continua tristis fuit;
nam post Iuliam Drusi filiam dolo Messalinae interfectam per quadraginta
annos non cultu nisi lugubri, non animo nisi maesto egit; idque illi
imperitante Claudio impune, mox ad gloriam vertit. —Tacitus, Ann. xiii.
32.