The Liberian Catalogue of Roman Bishops (354 A.D.) describes St Peter as Bishop of Rome for 25 years but dates it 30-55 A.D., apparently assuming that he was made a Bishop by our Lord and that his see must have been Rome.

The Liber Pontificalis has several contradictory notices:

(a) that St Peter held the Bishopric of Antioch for 7 years, (b) that he entered Rome in the reign of Nero and held the Bishopric of Rome for 25 years,

(c)

that he was in the reigns of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius and Nero,

(d) that he suffered martyrdom together with St Paul in the 38th year after the Crucifixion, i.e. 67 a.d.

It would seem therefore that there is no mention of St Peter as Bishop of Rome until the fourth century, and the earlier lists of Bishops all reckon Linus as the first bishop. The 25 years' episcopate may perhaps have been based upon a legend that our Lord ordered the Apostles to wait 12 years before going out into the world. This story was contained in the Preaching of Peter, probably an early second century book, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5), and also in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which represented St Peter as coming to Rome when the 12 years had expired and there contending with Simon Magus. But the story is placed after St Paul's departure to Spain, which would imply a much later date. If however the Crucifixion is dated 30 A.D. 12 years would bring us to 42 A.D. and this would leave 25 years before the traditional date of St Peter's death.

The evidence of the first three centuries suggests a comparatively late date for St Peter's work in Rome, placing it after previous work in Antioch, Corinth or Asia Minor, coupling it with St Paul's work in Rome which certainly did not begin until about 59 A.D., and connecting it with the issue of Gospels by St Matthew and St Mark or with the Neronian persecution.

This later date is far more consistent with the language of St Paul's Epistles. The Epistle to the Romans alike by its statements and its silence makes it incredible that St Peter was then in Rome or had previously worked there. The ignorance of Christianity professed by the Jews in Rome on St Paul's arrival (Acts xxviii. 22), even if it was wilfully exaggerated, is

hardly consistent with the view that St Peter had been working in Rome.

In the Epistles of his first Roman Captivity St Paul mentions numerous fellow-workers, including St Mark and others "of the circumcision," but is absolutely silent about St Peter.

Therefore it is most difficult to believe that St Peter worked in Rome earlier than 61 A.D.

On the other hand there is considerable evidence that St Peter did work in Rome for a considerable time, and a fair amount of early evidence that St Peter and St Paul worked together in Rome. It is therefore a very plausible conjecture of Dr Chase (Hastings' D. of B., iii. 778) that St Peter may have come to Rome on St Paul's invitation about the time of St Paul's release, and that they worked there together for a time before St Paul started on the Missionary work implied in the Pastoral Epistles, and that St Peter remained in Rome with St Mark, until he was summoned to Jerusalem in 63 or early in 64 to take part in the election of Symeon Bp of Jerusalem. Dr Chase suggests that St Peter returned to Rome and was one of the earliest victims of the Neronian persecution in 64 A.D. This would tally with his burial place being in the Vatican near the hideous scenes of Nero's gardens.

If however the traditional date 67 or 68 A.D. is accepted for St Peter's martyrdom, we must assume that he was absent from Rome during the first fury of the persecution and returned or was brought to Rome only to be martyred at the end of Nero's reign, possibly after St Paul's death.

The "first trial" and protracted remand of St Paul, referred to in 2 Tim., and the invitation to Timothy to join him before winter and bring Mark with him seem hardly consistent with the view that the first fury of the Neronian persecution was then raging.

The Mission work implied in the Pastoral Epistles also demands a longer period of liberty than would be the case if St Paul was executed in 64 A.D. It is therefore easier to date St Paul's martyrdom about 67 A.D., and if St Peter had already suffered we should have expected St Paul to refer to his death.

For an account of the various apocryphal writings ascribed to St Peter and a discussion of the legends about his conflict with Simon Magus the Article "Simon Peter" in Hastings' D. of B. should be consulted.

The chief arguments in favour of the Petrine authorship are: A. External.

The Epistle is quoted as the work of St Peter by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and other early writers (possibly including Papias), while the Second Epistle of St Peter, which is certainly very early even if not genuine, refers to a previous epistle bearing the name of St Peter which most probably means our Epistle.

The attestation of the Epistle by so many witnesses widely separated in place and circumstances shews that it had a circulation and authority in the early Church such as it could hardly have acquired unless it was regarded as the work of some leading Apostle.

B. Internal.

(1) The Epistle itself claims to be written by Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the opening salutation can only be rejected on one of two theories:

(a) that it is an interpolation added in the second century to a document which was previously circulated anonymously. This view has been suggested by Harnack but it is most improbable. A treatise such as "Hebrews" or a homily such as 2 Clement might have been circulated anonymously, but 1 Peter reads distinctly like a letter, and as such must surely have had some writer's name attached to it from the first. Moreover if this letter was originally anonymous, it is difficult to account for its subsequent ascription to St Peter rather than to St Paul to whose writings it has a decided resemblance.

(b) that the Epistle is a forgery. For this no adequate reason can be assigned, unless we are to adopt the theory of the Tübingen school that St Peter and St Paul and their respective followers were diametrically opposed to one another and that this Epistle, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, was written by some well-meaning forger of the second century, who desired to promote the union of the two branches of the Church by attributing Pauline views to the leading Jewish Apostle St Peter. Apart from this theory, which is now discredited by nearly all

critics, no adequate motive can be suggested for the supposed forgery in St Peter's name. The Epistle denounces no heresy, it supports no special system of doctrine or Church organization. It shews no traces of any legends or stories about St Peter's life. It is addressed to an enormous district, large parts of which are connected with no known Apostolic missionary work. Silvanus is elsewhere connected with St Paul rather than St Peter. Why, therefore, should any forger have selected his name as the amanuensis, or bearer, of the Epistle? On the other hand Silvanus (Silas) is described in Acts xv. 22 as one of the "chief men among the brethren" in Jerusalem and therefore was certainly well known to St Peter-and unless the writer of this Epistle was a man of recognized apostolic authority he would hardly have been likely to have commanded the services of one so influential as Silvanus as his subordinate.

(2) Again in v. 13 the writer speaks of "Mark, my Son,” and such a claim to parental relationship to St Mark not only indicates the writer's evident importance, but also agrees with the unanimous testimony of tradition that St Mark was in special attendance upon St Peter.

(3) In v. 1 the writer describes himself as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" and evidently implies that he is testifying what he himself heard and saw (cf. the graphic imperfects in which he describes our Lord's conduct during His trial and Passion, ii. 23).

(4) There are also several coincidences of thought and language between this Epistle and the speeches of St Peter as recorded in Acts.

In his speeches St Peter constantly emphasizes the fact that the Apostles are "witnesses" Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, v. 32, x. 39, 41, cf. 1 Pet. v. 1, but in Acts the "witness" is of the resurrection whereas in the Epistle it is of the sufferings of Christ. Christ is spoken of as "the just " Acts iii. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 18.

His sufferings are regarded as "foreordained" Acts ii. 23, iv. 28, 1 Pet. i. 20; and as having been foretold by the prophets Acts iii. 18; 1 Pet. i. 11.

The same passage about the stone disallowed by the builders

becoming the headstone of the corner is quoted Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 4, 7.

The Cross is spoken of as "the tree" Acts v. 30, x. 39; 1 Pet. ii. 24 (elsewhere only Acts xiii. 29, and Gal. iii. 13 quoting from the O.T.).

The descent into Hell is referred to Acts ii. 31 "That Christ's soul was not left in Hell," cf. 1 Pet. iii. 19.

Christ is described as being raised from the dead by God Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 10, v. 30, x. 40; 1 Pet. i. 21.

The judgment of "the quick and the dead" (a phrase which elsewhere occurs only in 2 Tim. iv. 1) is mentioned in Acts x. 42 and 1 Pet. iv. 5.

The exaltation of the ascended Christ at the right hand of God is emphasized in Acts ii. 33 and 1 Pet. iii. 22.

The transgression and fall of Judas to go to "his own place” is recognized as a fulfilment of Scripture Acts i. 16, 25, and may suggest the same idea of an underlying purpose of God with regard to the consequences of man's guilt as is implied in 1 Pet. ii. 8 "them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto they were appointed."

The importance of Baptism is emphasized in Acts ii. 38, x. 47, 48; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 21.

God is described as "no respecter of persons" Acts x. 34; 1 Pet. i. 17. His choice of the Gentiles to be His "people" is referred to by St James as having been shewn by St Peter in Acts xv. 14, and Gentiles are certainly included in the "people of God” in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10—and the "purification of their hearts by faith" Acts xv. 9 may be compared with 1 Pet. i. 22 "seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth."

The chief arguments which have been urged against the Petrine authorship are:

(1) That the references to organized persecution point to a late date outside the probable limits of St Peter's life. In answer to this it may be argued (p. xli ff.) that the allusions to persecution do not necessarily imply a persecution organized by the state, and that even if they are so explained they are not inconsistent with what we know of the Neronian persecution to which St Peter's martyrdom is usually assigned. It is moreover possible (though