« AnteriorContinuar »
week, at Iconium not more than some months; and that they removed not far from the main roads, we can hardly allow more than two years for this journey.
Considering all this, it is evident that we must reckon those fourteen years from Paul's conversion, and not from his visit to Jerusalem. If Paul's conversion occurred, as we have proved above, in A. D. 38 or 39, then the Council of Jerusalem is to be placed in A. D. 52 or 53. In this year, therefore, Peter had not gone to Rome. All that is maintained of this journey to Rome, is not above a mere story or fiction, at the bottom of which there lies nothing solid.
§ 11. Peter at Antioch.
After the Council at Jerusalem (a. D. 53), Paul and Barnabas went back to Antioch (Acts 15: 35, 36) — " Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren, in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do." During this abode of Paul at Antioch, Peter also came there, as is shown Gal. 2: 11. This journey occurred after the council, as is clear from the subsequent context of the second chapter.1 As
1 This appears to mc made out, and I will here briefly give the proof. Paul says (Gal. '2: 1, etc.), that he made this his journey to Jerusalem to the Council with Titus; he had brought him with him from Asia Minor after be had converted him from heathenism. Therefore Paul went to Jerusalem after his first return from Asia Minor. Verse 3rd, etc., he states that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, but that he had to withstand false heathen who came in to spy out their liberty in Christ. In verse 2nd he had stated, that he came to Jerusalem in order to communicate the Gospel privately to them who were of refutation which he had preached to the Gentiles. With these men of reputation, among whom he names James, Peter, and John, he came to an understanding, and was acknowledged by them as an Apostle to the Gentiles. Verses 10 and 11. "Only they would that wo should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." We see this coming of Peter to Antioch took place first after the Council. I cannot, therefore, ayrce with our excellent Hug, who places it before this Council, indeed, immediately after Peter's imprisonment. At that time, when Paul had not approved himself an Apostle of the Gentiles, he would scarcely have ventured on so bold a resistance against Peter.
now Peter went not directly to Antioch with Paul, but followed him there later, so it appears that his abode there was protracted till A. D. 54.
As after this time Luke no further mentions Peter's abode, either in Palestine or in Jerusalem, although in Acts 21: 17, 18, there was a pressing occasion for it in case Peter had stayed there; so we conclude that he travelled from Antioch to the East, to preach the gospel to the Jews of the dispersion. That, moreover, he did not then go to Rome, we will now prove.
§ 12. Peter, after his journey from Antioch.
If we assume, what we have proved, that Peter in A. D. 53 or 54 had not come out of Palestine and Syria, then the opinion that he went to Rome immediately after, at once falls away to nothing. Pagi and Stolberg (Religionsgeschichte—History of Religions, vol. vi.), influenced by the reasons which the Holy Scriptures present, and which we have explained above, regard Peter's departure from Syria and Palestine as following first after the Council, and agreeable to Lactantius, make him come to Rome in the beginning of the reign of Nero, and therefore in A. D. 55, and accordingly assume that he journeyed there directly from Antioch.
But this cannot be absolutely assumed. Peter could not pass by the Jews of the dispersion. And, though we will not here adduce his Epistle written from Babylon, in proof of his abode in Chaldea and Mesopotamia, yet its address "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," proves that Peter preached the gospel in these extended countries, and founded and set in order churches there. That for this, labor was required, not a few months merely, but a succession of years, we may conclude from the fact that Paul, on his second tour, which embraced only certain strips of South-western and Middle Asia Minor, and some points of Greece, yet spent five years. Pagi and Stolberg assume that Peter founded
Vol. XV. No. 59. 51
the churches in such extensive tracts of country while passing along; a supposition which is irrational. It must hence follow, that Peter had not come to Rome in the beginning of the reign of Nero, that is in A. D. 54 and 55. We will now prove that he had not yet come there up to A. D. 63.
§ 13. Proof from Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
The Epistle to the Romans, according to the agreement of all the learned, was written A. D. 58. As a proof that when Paul wrote this Epistle, Peter was not bishop of Rome, and was not staying there, we first produce the fact that Paul not only gives no salutation to Peter, which must have necessarily been the case, had Peter already been bishop of that city and ruler of the whole church ever since A. D. 42 or 54 ; but also that only those men are mentioned who were not from Peter's school. Mark, Peter's favorite and constant companion, is not once named. In fact, we must assume either that Paul had no knowledge of Peter's abode in Rome and his bishopric there, or that the omission of a salutation to him supposes a gross want of respect, which was unworthy of Paul.
But, say Baronius, Natalis Alexander, Rothensen, and others, the omission of the salutation to Peter, Mark, etc., proves nothing: Paul might have known that Peter, exactly then, was absent from Rome on an apostolical mission. For, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he does not salute Timothy, nor in the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, though the former was undoubtedly at Ephesus, and the latter in Jerusalem.
Both these resorts arc good for nothing. For whence do we know that Paul was aware of Peter's absence? How can any one have recourse to an hypothesis for which there is not the semblance of a reason to be discovered 1 As to what relates to the second resort, namely, the salutations to Timothy and James, omitted in the two Epistles named, the case is wholly different. For, in the first place, in his Epistle to the Hebrews Paul salutes no one as he does in the Epistle to the Romans, but "them that have the rule over you and all the saints," in general; the Epistle to the Ephesians absolutely bears no salutation. The Epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the church of Jerusalem where James was, but to all the Jewish Christians in general, and consequently a salutation to James as an individual, would have been very strange. But that Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, did not salute Timothy, lies simply in the fact that Timothy was not at Ephesus, but was with Paul at Rome. Tins is proved thus: the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul in his imprisonment at Rome (which lasted from A. D. 61 to 63), as is evident from 3: 1. 4: 1. 6: 20; and Natalis Alexander, p. 45, also admits it. At the same time, Paul wrote from Rome his Epistle to the Philippians (Phil. 4: 22) and the Colossians (Col. 4: 10, etc., compare with Acts 27: 2), as is likewise said in both of them clearly enough; and this Natalis admits, in the place cited. But now both of these Epistles begin: Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ at Philippi (and Colosse). Therefore Timothy was, at that time, at Rome with Paul when he wrote this Epistle to the Ephesians. Timothy also, in A. D. 65 or 66, when Paul wrote his second epistle to him from Rome, was not in Ephesus, as is expressly said, 4: 12.
What now shall we say of those men who make such objections, namely Natalis Alexander, who, to judge from what he writes p. 45, well knew that Timothy was not at Ephesus when Paul wrote thither. Here also it is plain that these men, when they are aiming to reach their party objects, rejeet on one side what they have written on the other.
And now, once more. Paul praises the Romans very much on account of their faith, which is spoken of throughout the whole world; he commends the laborers in the Romish vineyard of the Lord; and would he have forgotten to mention him from whom they had received the treasure of their faith, namely Peter? Would he have named the laborers, but be silent as to him who was their head?
§ 14. Proof from the Acts of the Apostles.
In A. D. 58, therefore, Peter was not yet in Rome. Let ns now see whether he was there in the following years, up to A. D. 63. It is well known that Paul, when he had appealed to Caesar, was carried to Rome. This happened, according to the universal opinion, in A. D. 60; and from A. D. 61 to G3 he remained in the capital of the world, two whole years. Luke describes his journey there Acts 27: 28, and in 28: 30 he relates that abode. Now there are in his narration several points of importance, from which it is evident that Peter was not, at this time, in Rome.
1. Though Luke reports at length Paul's arrival at Rome, and mentions his abode there, yet he. says not a word of Peter. He relates (Acts 27: 15) how the Roman church went out to meet him at Appii Forum and the Three Taverns; not a word of Peter.
2. Luke further mentions (Acts 28: 17, etc.), that Paul, three days after his arrival at Rome, caused the chief of the Jews to be called to him. "When they came to him, it is evident that they were still unacquainted with Christianity, because that it had not yet been especially preached to them. For they said, verse 22: "But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against." 23. "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him to his lodging, to whom he expounded and testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening24. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not."
We see, that the gospel had not yet been particularly preached to the Jews at Rome. The church at Rome had hitherto not attempted their conversion; we shall see, further on, that it was yet very small in A. D. 58.
If Peter was at this time (and indeed, as is maintained, had been for many years) at Rome, hoio could he to whom was specially committed the gospel to the Jews, have given