(3) Tertullian (c. 200) (Scorp. 15) says "Nero was the first to stain the rising faith with blood at Rome." "Then Peter is 'girded by another' when he is bound to the cross." Then Paul

etc.

(4) Origen (c. 250) (ap. Eus. iii. 1) mentions St Peter's death by crucifixion in Rome before St Paul's martyrdom, and dates the latter in the reign of Nero.

(5) Commodian (c. 250) (Carmen Apologeticum 820 f.) speaks of Peter and Paul as suffering in Rome under Nero.

(6) The Chronicon of Eusebius. The Armenian version puts the Neronian persecution, when the Apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, in the thirteenth year of Nero, i.e. 67—68 a.D., while Jerome's version gives the fourteenth year of Nero, i.e. 68 A.D., as the date.

(7) The Catholic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, p. 172 f.) (probably fifth century but based upon a second century document) connect with St Peter's death a prophecy that "Nero should be destroyed not many days hence."

(8) The lists of Roman Bishops give Linus as the first Bishop after the Apostles with 12 years' episcopate, then Anacletus as second Bishop with 12 years' episcopate, followed by Clement as third Bishop. Eusebius dates the accession of Clement in 92 A.D. which would place the appointment of Linus in 68 A.D., but Lightfoot would date Clement's accession 86–88 A.D. which would place Linus 62-64 A.D.

If Linus is regarded as succeeding to the Bishopric on St Peter's death this would corroborate the Neronian date for the martyrdom.

Irenaeus however describes Linus as being appointed Bishop by St Peter and St Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome, and no writers of the first two centuries or more describe St Peter himself as Bishop of Rome. Therefore Linus may have been Bishop in St Peter's lifetime, and in that case his accession affords no clue for the date of St Peter's martyrdom.

(9) It seems probable that St Mark's written record of St Peter's preaching (which was either our second Gospel or at least the basis of it) was written before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and Irenaeus states that Mark wrote it after the ëέodos

of Peter and Paul, which probably means after their death. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome on the other hand represent St Mark as writing during St Peter's lifetime. But Irenaeus is more likely to represent the tradition current in Rome, and St Peter's death would make the need of a written record much stronger. Moreover "the presbyter" quoted by Papias (Eus. iii. 39) describes St Mark as having to rely upon his memory of what St Peter preached, and this suggests that St Peter was dead.

The general consensus of tradition therefore seems to place St Peter's martyrdom in the reign of Nero, and this would make 68 the latest possible date for the Epistle.

(b) We have next to consider the most probable date at which St Peter, St Mark and Silvanus were in Rome together.

The apparent traces of the Epistle to the Ephesians contained in 1 Peter make it unnecessary to consider any earlier date than 61 A.D., and reasons have been given above (see p. xviii f.) for the view that St Peter had not worked in Rome before that date. On the other hand there is a strong tradition that St Peter worked for a considerable time in Rome, and there is some evidence that St Peter and St Paul worked together in Rome. There is therefore reasonable ground for presuming that St Peter arrived in Rome very soon after Colossians and Ephesians were written and before St Paul left the city. We know from Col. iv. 10 that St Mark was already in Rome, "touching whom," St Paul says, "ye received commandments, if he come unto you receive him." This suggests three questions:

(a) What were these "commandments"? (b) Why had it been necessary to send them? (c) Why does St Paul go out of his way to refer to them?

A plausible answer is (a) that the commands were the words which follow, namely instructions which had been sent to the Colossians (probably by St Paul himself) to receive St Mark if he passed that way on his journey to Rome; (b) that such instructions were necessary because St Mark, as a previous deserter, whom St Paul had declined to accept as a fellowworker (possibly, as Dr Chase suggests, because St Mark was not in full sympathy with his policy towards the Gentiles)

might well have been coldly received unless his journey was known to have St Paul's full concurrence, (c) that St Paul desired to shew the Colossians how fully St Mark's visit to Rome had justified the hopes which he had formed in preparing for it. As one of the leading representatives "of the Circumcision" St Mark had been a great comfort to him at a time when others were preaching Christ out of faction (Phil. i. 17). If this explanation be accepted there is no ground for believing that St Mark was thinking of leaving Rome in 61 A.D. and contemplating a possible visit to Colossae. He may therefore have remained in Rome and been St Peter's companion there from 61 to 64 A.D. On the other hand it suggests that St Mark's visit to Rome had been carefully arranged for and undertaken with St Paul's concurrence, if not at his request.

Dr Chase (Hastings' D. of B.) hazards a further conjecture that St Peter's own visit to Rome was also at St Paul's request. St Paul's ardent desire was to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians in One Body, and if this could be accomplished in a mixed Church like that of Rome, the capital and meeting-place of the Empire, the problem would be largely solved for the rest of Christendom. This had been the great object of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Its fulfilment would be enormously furthered if St Peter the Apostle to "those of the Circumcision" and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles were seen working together in Rome. Such an object-lesson of unity would shew how completely "the middle wall of partition" was broken down. In any case, whether it were at St Paul's request or on his own initiative, St Peter would certainly welcome such an opportunity of again "giving the right hand of fellowship" to St Paul's work. He had himself been chosen to "open the door" to Gentile converts. It was he who advocated their exemption from Circumcision and the observance of the Law. If on one occasion at Antioch he withdrew from intercourse with Gentiles it was obviously not from any personal bigotry of his own but merely out of deference to Jewish scruples. There is no evidence that he resented St Paul's outspoken rebuke when once he realized that his conduct involved a breach of principle.

Although his own sphere of work had been specially among those of the Circumcision he must have been genuinely distressed

on finding himself claimed by Judaizers as a supposed opponent

of St Paul.

There is therefore no reason to distrust the early tradition that St Peter and St Paul did "work together" and jointly founded the Church in Rome. If this was the case it can only have been just after St Paul's release in 61 A.D., and the whole tenour of St Peter's Epistle is easiest to explain if it was written during or just after such a period of fellowship with St Paul.

With regard to St Peter's other companion Silvanus (or Silas) we are told nothing of his movements after St Paul's Second Missionary journey. Certainly Silvanus cannot have been in Rome before or during St Paul's first imprisonment, otherwise so faithful a fellow-worker would inevitably have been mentioned in his Epistles. It is therefore quite possible that St Peter, St Mark and Silas might have been together in Rome at any time from 62 A.D. (or late in 61 A.D.) till the middle of 64 a.d. It is less easy to find an occasion when they might be there together later in Nero's reign.

If St Peter was in Rome during the first violence of the Neronian persecution he would almost certainly be one of the first victims. It is however possible that he may have returned to Jerusalem to take part in the election of Symeon as Bishop of Jerusalem after the death of James the Lord's brother-which happened most probably in 62 A.D. Eusebius H. E. iii. 11 quotes a tradition that the surviving Apostles came together from all parts for the election of Symeon.

It is true that Eusebius places this event after the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but he was apparently misled by a rhetorical exaggeration of Hegesippus (Eus. ii. 23) who speaks of Vespasian commencing the siege immediately after the murder of James. But the account given by Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. 1), which is also quoted by Eusebius, would place the death of James in 62 A.D., and in this case the election of Symeon was presumably not long deferred. Some time however would necessarily elapse before the news of James' death could reach Rome, and further delay would be necessary to summon a meeting of the scattered Apostles (say) in 63 or early in 64 A.D. If then St Peter did leave Rome before the persecution broke out he may have escaped martyrdom until nearly the end of Nero's reign (or possibly even until a later

date). On the other hand it seems inconceivable that either St Peter or Silvanus were in Rome when 2 Timothy was written shortly before St Paul's martyrdom-and if St Peter had then been recently put to death St Paul would surely have referred to the fact. St Mark was certainly then somewhere in the East as St Paul asks Timothy to bring him with him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). It is certainly difficult to believe that St Paul was writing during the first fury of the Neronian persecution, but if he was writing in the autumn of 64 A.D. and St Mark did come to Rome "before winter" in answer to his request, then he may have remained in Rome after St Paul's death as St Peter's companion, and there would still remain some three years (65-68 A.D.) within the reign of Nero when 1 Peter might have been written. But if, as seems on the whole more probable, St Paul's death is placed as late as 67 A.D. there would be hardly time for St Peter's visit to Rome before Nero's death.

E. The Silence of the Epistle about St Paul.

Arguments from silence are always precarious, but it is certainly difficult to believe that St Peter, if he wrote from Rome shortly after St Paul's martyrdom, could have failed to mention it. Unless therefore we adopt Ramsay's view that 1 Peter was written several years after St Paul's death, and we set aside the tradition that St Peter himself was put to death in the reign of Nero, the absence of all mention of St Paul is more easily explained on the assumption that St Paul was still alive. In this case there are two alternatives. (1) That St Paul was still in Rome but that his old colleague Silvanus, the bearer of this Epistle, was charged with all necessary tidings about him. Possibly, as Dr Chase suggests, Silvanus was being sent on a mission to Asia Minor on St Paul's behalf.

(2) That St Paul had already left Rome and had himself gone to Asia. He certainly contemplated such a journey soon after his release, as he asked Philemon to prepare him a lodging at Colossae (Philemon 22). In this case also Silvanus would perhaps be able to give tidings of St Paul to St Peter's other readers.

The various arguments as to the date of 1 Peter may therefore be summed up as follows: