John Wenham: "Did Peter Go To Rome in 42 AD?"

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1972_23_04_Wenham_PeterInRome.pdf

Tyndale Bulletin

23 (1972) 94-102

DID PETER GO TO ROE IN AD 42?

By

JOHN WENHAM

On the day when this article was begun,

The Times (16.3.72)

on its front page carried a headline across five columns: 'Scroll

fragments put accepted date of the Gospels in doubt.' It referred

to an article in

Biblica 53 (1972) by J. O'Callaghan which

reported the finding at Qumran of what was apparently a

fragment of St Mark's Gospel, to be dated only about twenty

years after the death of Christ. Whether this identification is

confirmed or not, time will tell; but the possibility of such a

discovery shows how urgent it is that those who believe in

early dates for the Synoptic Gospels should state their reasons.

From the point of view of Christian apologetics the importance

of the question as to whether to date these Gospels in the 70s,

80s and 90s on the one hand, or in the 40s and 50s on the

other, can scarcely be exaggerated.

There are two solid arguments for early dates. Firstly, in all

three the fall of Jerusalem is forecast at great length, but no

suggestion is made that the prophecy had been fulfilled at the

time of writing. This is an argument from silence, but it is

quite difficult to imagine that the fulfilment of so cataclysmic

a prophecy should have been passed by without mention. (By

contrast it will be observed that the fulfilment of the prophecy

of world famine in Acts 11:28 is immediately mentioned.)

Secondly, the argument (associated especially with A.

Harnack) for dating Acts in 62,

1 at the point where the story

ends, is cogent. The reader waits breathlessly to hear what

happens at Paul's trial, but is never told. Harnack's argument

is said to be facile, but the alternatives are unconvincing; they

derive their force from the belief (which I am sure is correct)

that Luke's Gospel was written before Acts and that it made

1

The exact chronology is not important. The table on p. 102 is based on F. F.

Bruce's dating in

Acts, Tyndale Press, London (1951), 55f., which on the whole

seems more satisfactory than that of G. Ogg,

The Chronology of the Life of Paul,

Epworth Press, London (1968), 200. Many of the dates are approximate only.

DID PETER GO TO ROME IN AD 42? 95

use of Mark, and from the belief (which I question) that

Mark

could not have existed at so early a date.

Luke's Gospel, which the

prologue suggests was the result of careful research, is better

dated before the shipwreck (in which all manuscripts would

have been destroyed) than after. Luke was nearby during

Paul's two-year stay at or near Caesarea about 57-59, and

this would make a very suitable period for the final preparation

of his material for publishing.

2 Is it conceivable that Mark was

written even earlier?

It is hardly conceivable if we take seriously (as we must) the

strong tradition that Mark's Gospel in some way represents

the teaching of Peter in Rome, and if we take the usually

accepted view that Peter did not get to Rome until the 60s.

If however—as I wish to argue—we put Peter's first visit to

Rome in 42, the whole position is revolutionized.

I have to confess that such an idea had never made any

serious impact on my mind till a couple of years ago, when I

chanced upon a popular book by G. R. Balleine, entitled

Simon Whom He Surnamed Peter

(Skeffington, London, 1958),

which argued that the 'another place' to which Peter went

after he had been released from prison in Acts 12:17 was

Rome. The idea was so novel and the implications so farreaching

that I felt scarcely able to trust my own judgment in

the matter. Further reflection, however, has made me feel that

the case is sound and that it should again become a subject

for serious study by Christian scholars.

Admittedly there is a great weight of authority to discourage

it. Here are typical statements by fairly conservative scholars:

C. S. C. Williams: 'the Roman Catholic Church claims that

Peter went at an early date to Rome and spent twenty-five

years there, but there is no evidence for this. . . . The tradition

. . . is abandoned by the best Roman Catholic scholars.'

E. G. Selwyn: 'The tradition . . . is on many grounds improbable.'

F. F. Bruce : 'The tradition . . . is contradicted by the

evidence of the N.T.' Most important is the verdict of J. B.

Lightfoot, whose truly magisterial handling of the material

2

The beginning and end are recorded in Acts 25 and 27, which are 'we'

passages. Incidentally J. D. M. Derrett's studies in

Law in the New Testament,

Darton, Longman & Todd, London (1970) pay particular attention to Luke's

minutely accurate preservation of Jewish and Palestinian elements in the teaching

of Jesus.

96 TYNDALE BULLETIN

has greatly influenced all subsequent writers : 'It is wholly

unhistorical'; 'quite inconsistent with known facts. . . . if

silence can ever be regarded as decisive its verdict must be

accepted in this case.'

3

Yet there have been voices on the other side. While not

going back to 42, T. W. Manson was prepared to argue for a

first visit

c. 55.4 Similarly H. Lietzmann, author of a special

study

Petrus und Paulus in Rom, also thought that Peter had

visited Corinth and had 'quite probably' gone thence to Rome.

5

In addition to Balleine's contribution, all the other three major

works on Peter in English this century have been quite disinclined

to dismiss the early tradition. J. Lowe says : Peter

‘might well have been there earlier’ than the date of the Epistle

to the Romans (say 57). F. J. Foakes-Jackson says: 'That Peter

visited Rome after he had escaped from Herod Agrippa's prison

is perfectly possible.' F. Underhill says : 'It seems likely . . .

that St. Peter . . . [in 42] made his way to the Eternal City.'

6

There is thus no

prima facie case against looking at the evidence

afresh.

Direct evidence for Peter's movements after the death of

Stephen are scanty: we find him at Samaria, and (initiating

the first Gentile mission) at Caesarea and at other places in

Palestine. During Agrippa's reign (41-44) he escaped from

Jerusalem and fled Agrippa's territory. He was in Jerusalem

again for the famine visit of Paul and Barnabas in 46 and for

the Apostolic Council of 49. He visited Antioch (Galatians 2:11)

and had associations with the churches in northern Turkey

(I Peter 1:1). In 54 Paul can speak of Peter 'leading around a

3

C. S. C. Williams, Acts, A. & C. Black, London (1957), 149f.; E. G. Selwyn,

The First Epistle of Peter

, Macmillan, London (21947), 61; F. F. Bruce, Acts, 248;

J. B. Lightfoot,

Apostolic Fathers Pt. 1. S. Clement of Rome I, 340; II, 490f. O. Cullmann,

Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr

, SCM, London (21962) says concerning Peter's

episcopal status: 'All these statements [about Peter receiving the episcopal

office] stand in such flagrant contradiction to The Acts and the letters of Paul

that it is unnecessary even to discuss them' (p. I 13, n. 72). But on the question of a

visit to Rome in 42, he seems to leave open the barest possibility: 'The wording

does not permit the identification of the "other place" with Rome . . . (It) can be

identified with any city of the Roman Empire' (p. 39).

4

T. W. Manson, BJRL 28 (1944), 13of.

5

H. Lietzmann, Beginnings of the Christian Church, Lutterworth Press, London

(1949), 111.

6

J. Lowe, Saint Peter, OUP, London (1956), 28; F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Peter:

Prince of the Apostles,

Hodder & Stoughton, London (1927), 195; F. Underhill,

Saint Peter,

Centenary Press, London (1937), 207.

DID PETER GO TO ROME IN AD 42? 97

wife', presumably moving from place to place in missionary

work (I Corinthians 9:5). Beyond this we are left to inference.

The later lists of the bishops of Rome credit Peter with a

twenty-five year episcopate—the

Liber Pontificalis, for instance,

makes it twenty-five years, two months, three days, and the

Liberian Catalogue

twenty-five years, one month, eight days. The

months and days in these lists were unknown to Eusebius and

were evidently late additions to the original lists. It is impossible

to check the chronology completely, but judging from the

checks which are possible there is reason to believe that it is

basically sound. As is to be expected, there is stronger ground

for believing in the accuracy of the lengths of the later episcopates

than of the earlier ones. The later figures are known to

have been based on documentary evidence, whereas the sources

information for the earlier figures are unknown. For this

reason the first-century dates are treated with great reserve,

and it has been possible to dismiss the twenty-five year episcopate

of Peter without compunction. It is argued that no credence

should be given to this tradition, since patently Peter was not

in Rome when he was in Jerusalem or Antioch around 46-49,

nor in 57 when Paul wrote his letter to Rome (with its many

salutations), nor in 60 when Paul landed in Italy, nor when

he wrote Colossians. The second century had its Christian

fantasies, such as the

Clementine Recognitions, and this tradition

is written off as pure legend too.

But, while it is not possible to prove that the earliest parts

of the lists were based on reliable evidence, it must not be

lightly assumed that they were not. If it can be shown that

the reasons for rejecting the twenty-five year episcopate are

themselves invalid, we must give considerable weight to such

early documentary evidence as we possess. It is worth noting

that twenty-five was not a sacred number such as might have

appealed to an imaginative hagiographer.

In its earliest use

ἐπίσκοπος was not a technical term and it

would have been appropriate, for instance, to Paul as nonresidential

overseer of the churches which he had founded. If

Peter twenty-five years before his death worked for a time in

Rome and kept in touch with the church thereafter, he could

rightly have been regarded as its overseer. The fact that our

only explicit evidence is late is not surprising, in view of the

98 TYNDALE BULLETIN

systematic destruction of Christian books in the Diocletian

persecution. Eusebius and Jerome, who were no simpletons and

must have known from the New Testament that Peter was not

resident in Rome for much of the time, accepted the twentyfive

years' episcopate. Jerome, as secretary to Pope Damasus,

had access to the episcopal archives, which, in spite of losses

during persecution, doubtless contained much information now

lost to us. In any case the idea that Peter and Paul (Peter

nearly always being mentioned first) were in some sense the

founders

of the Roman Church was a general belief towards

the end of the second century. Irenaeus (

Adv. Haer. iii. 3.1),

for example, speaks (in about 180) of 'the very ancient and

universally known church . . . founded and organized at Rome

by . . . Peter and Paul'. Paul could be described as 'founder'

of the church only in a very loose sense, so that it is unwise to

read too much into this description written by one who was

looking back after more than a century's interval. But it is

perhaps a little difficult to account for this term if neither

apostle appeared on the scene until several years after the faith

of the church had become world-famous (Romans 1:8). It

would, however, have been easy to couple the illustrious name

of Paul to that of Peter, when in retrospect it was seen how

the hand of God had brought both of them to the capital of

the empire, not only to establish and build up the church but

also to earn a martyr's crown.

Chronologically the twenty-five year 'episcopate' spans the

period from Agrippa to Nero neatly. Agrippa's reign was 41-44

and Nero died in 68, which tallies well with Eusebius who dates

the episcopate from 42 to 67. That Peter

could have escaped to

Rome is clear enough. 'There was no small stir . . . over what

had become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him

and could not find him, he examined the sentries and ordered

that they should be put to death' (Acts 12:18f.). Agrippa was

in deadly earnest and Peter in deadly peril. To escape to a

neighbouring province would have been to invite extradition,

but the ports (where Peter had friends) were full of ships waiting

to take the Passover pilgrims home. Peter could have escaped

to Egypt, Ephesus, Carthage, Spain, but none of these places

claims him. The most likely place in the world to harbour an

escaped prisoner was also the home of a vast Jewish population;

DID PETER GO TO ROME IN AD 42? 99

Rome presented to the one who was later to be described as

‘the apostle to the circumcision’ an open invitation to an inexhaustible

field of work.

There seems to be absolutely no reason why Peter should

not have gone there, unless Luke's cryptic statement that he

‘went to another place’ proves to be an insurmountable obstacle.

If Peter went to Rome, why does not Luke say so? It is of

course impossible to know for certain, but it is well to bear in

mind that Luke is a past master at avoiding things which lie

outside the scope of his book, and it could be that at this point

(in Blaiklock's words) 'he is preparing to usher Peter from the

stage, as Paul steps to the forefront. The apostle to the Jews

has played his part. He has, in fact, prepared the way for the

apostle to the Gentiles'.

7 To have mentioned Rome at this

juncture might have evoked a crop of side-tracking questions

which would have distracted the reader from following Luke's

developing story.

A more probable reason, however, is this. If, as we have

argued, Acts was published in Rome while Paul was awaiting

trial, and if (as seems likely) it had the part-purpose of inclining

those in positions of influence to look favourably on Christianity,

it might not have seemed tactful to call attention to the fact

that the church of Rome was founded by a much-wanted

criminal who was a fugitive from justice. His alleged deliverance

from prison by a miracle might not have carried sufficient

conviction to offset the fact that he was a man wanted by the

law. Looked at in this light the cryptic phrase (which is really

rather odd) suddenly makes sense. Any other destination could

have been mentioned by name without embarrassment, and

one would have expected such mention, but Rome was the

one place that required disguise.

It thus seems untrue to say that the possibility of a period of

work by Peter in Rome, beginning some twenty-five years

before his death, is contradicted by the evidence of the New

Testament or is inconsistent with the known facts; it also seems

to say (as we have just seen) that the one superficially

serious objection to the hypothesis really presents any difficulty;

furthermore it is untrue to say that the hypothesis is based on

an argument from silence unsupported by positive evidence.

7

E. M. Blaiklock, Acts, Tyndale Press, London (1959), 99f.

100 TYNDALE BULLETIN

The unwavering tradition of the Roman Church is itself weighty

evidence, and we believe that the literary argument for the

early date of the Synoptic Gospels provides further evidence.

In addition, the significance of Paul's remark in Romans

15:20-24 needs to be carefully weighed. In spite of his longing

of many years to come to them, he was intending only to pay a

passing visit to Rome, 'lest' (he said) 'I build on

another man's

foundation'. This suggests (what missionary experience in

general confirms) that the church of Rome did not arise

through the chance movements of Christian converts, but was

in large measure the result of one man's vision and work.

Paul's firmness in this matter gains added point, if the other

foundation-layer was the very man whom he had agreed was

to be acknowledged as the leader in the establishment of (predominantly)

Jewish churches, while he was to be acknowledged

as the leader in the establishment of (predominantly) Gentile

churches (Gal. 2:7-9). Paul's concern for the unity of the

church kept him steadfastly loyal to his agreement. C. K. Barrett

speaks of 'the delicacy of the situation that leads to the obscurity

of Paul's words' in this passage.

8 The delicacy of the relation

between the two apostles may well have been part of the reason

for the delicacy of the situation.

Another scrap of positive evidence is to be found in the

presence of a Cephas-party in Corinth. It is evidence of the

kind so effectively used in an earlier generation in William

Paley's

Horae Paulinae (1790) and in J. J. Blunt's Undesigned

Coincidences

(1847). Relatively insignificant details from three

separate documents dovetail to make a coherent little piece of

history. Acts 18:1-3 tells us that by edict of Claudius (in 49)

all Jews were expelled from Rome and that some of them,

including Aquila and Priscilla, settled in Corinth. Romans 16:3

(written in 57) shows that this couple returned to Rome, and a

good many others with them—if we may judge by the number

of Paul's personal greetings. 1 Corinthians 1-4 (written in 54)

tells us that at Corinth there were not only groups that looked

for inspiration to Paul and to Apollos (who are known to have

worked in Corinth), but there was also a group (which receives

slightly less emphasis) that looked to Cephas.

Peter might conceivably have visited Corinth and left behind

8

C. K. Barrett, Romans, A. & C. Black, London (1957), 277.

DID PETER GO TO ROME IN AD 42? 101

a band of enthusiastic admirers, but it hardly seems likely, in

view of the agreed division of spheres of responsibility between

Peter and Paul, that he would have considered it either necessary

or wise to ignore his agreement and risk creating friction by

working in a Pauline church. Alternatively, a group of Peter's

converts might conceivably have come to settle in Corinth from

some place other than Rome. But it would have been a remarkable

coincidence if two groups had migrated to Corinth—one

group, which is

unkown to history (or tradition), coming from

an unidentified place where Peter

had in fact been working; and

the other group, which (as we have just seen) is known to history,

coming from Rome, where Peter had

not in fact been working

(even though several lines of evidence suggest the contrary).

Mark fits readily into this suggested pattern of events. If

Peter did go to Rome as suggested, we may believe that he

proceeded to evangelize its teeming Jewish population with

energy and determination. It is unlikely that he was content to

work single-handed. There were many Christian workers who

had become mature and experienced in the twelve years since

the end of Christ's ministry, of whom Mark was doubtless one.

Peter left for the 'other place' from Mark's home and Mark may

well have gone with him on his journey. If not, he was presumably

summoned to join him soon after. This ties in with the

witness of Papias, Irenaeus, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue,

Clement of Alexandria and Origen which points to an association

of Peter and Mark in proclaiming the gospel in Italy.

Others like Rufus and Alexander, sons of Simon of Cyrene

(Mark 15:21; Romans 16:13), seem to have come over to

Rome too, since they were known to Mark's readers.

Now while Peter was in Rome, a highly successful work

amongst Gentiles was developing in Antioch, which had begun

with the witness of some 'men of Cyprus and Cyrene', and had

resulted in 'a great number' believing. Barnabas, himself a

Cypriot, was sent down from Jerusalem, and he in turn sought

the help of Saul, then at Tarsus (Acts 11:19-30). The development

of Gentile work created enormous tensions between

Jerusalem and Antioch

9 and these may well have been the

cause of Peter's leaving Rome. Agrippa was dead, and with

9

It is worth considering whether the teaching on faith and works in the Epistle

of James (2:14-26) is not James' comment on an oral report of Paul's teaching,

102 TYNDALE BULLETIN

the church involved in the greatest crisis of its history, the

chief of the apostles may have seen it as his duty to leave his

own important work in order to tackle the situation. In any

case we find Peter in Jerusalem in 46, when Saul and Barnabas

brought the famine relief.

10 He took counsel with James and

John, and the three of them received Paul and Barnabas and

it was then that they came to an understanding about their

respective spheres of work.

Peter's departure from Rome seems to provide the ideal

Sitz im Leben

for the writing of Mark's Gospel. His converts'

desire for a permanent record of his teaching, and the uncertainties

concerning the future of the Jewish population

which culminated in the order for their explusion from the

city in 49, would both have made its writing desirable. It is

reasonable to suppose that Peter left Mark behind and that

he then wrote his Gospel. It would take us beyond the scope

of this article to piece together from the New Testament and

tradition the subsequent movements of Peter and Mark, though

these may well have included a further period of work by the

apostle in the capital before his final visit and martyrdom. Suffice

it to say that a remarkably coherent picture emerges when

the twenty-five year 'episcopate' is rescued from the limbo of

‘wholly unhistorical’ legend and restored to its place as one of

the probabilities of history.

Chronological Table

Crucifixion AD 30 Galatians written 48

Paul's first visit to Jerusalem 35 Apostolic Council in Jerusalem 49

Agrippa becomes King 41 Claudius expels Jews from Rome 49

Arrest and escape of Peter 42 Romans written 57

Death of Agrippa 44 Paul detained at Caesarea 57-59

Peter back in Jerusalem 46 Luke written 59

Mark written? 46 Paul detained in Rome 60-62

Paul and Barnabas take famine Acts written 62

relief to Jerusalem 46 Death of Paul 65?

Paul's first missionary journey 47-48 Death of Peter 67?

Peter visits Antioch 48

__________________________________________________________

and Galatians and Romans Paul's rectifying of the misunderstanding. James is

no answer to Paul, but Paul is to James.

10

Gal. 2:1-10. This assumes that Galatians was written before the apostolic

council in Acts 15. If it was written after, it would involve the improbable conclusion

that Paul ignored the findings of the council, in spite of the fact that they

lent massive support to his argument against the necessity for Gentile circumcision.

In contrast, when Romans came to be written eight years after the Council, the

question had ceased to be a burning issue.