Duration of Peter's stay in Rome and date of his death
A tradition of the third century (1) recalls the stay of Peter in Rome for 25 years (from 42 to 67 AD). Girolamo also refers to this tradition (2) .
In reality, today no Catholic scholar can argue that Peter remained in Rome for 25 years, as this would contrast both with the expulsion of Christians from Rome at the time of Claudius (3) , and with the presence of Peter in Jerusalem during the apostolic meeting (ca. 50 AD). It should also be noted that, according to Girolamo, Peter came to Rome to "unmask the magician Simon", which suggests a link between this tradition and the legends produced about Simon the Magus, so that the reliability of this news is greatly compromised. Furthermore, the tradition and the hypothesis of his long stay in Rome is contradicted by some indisputable biblical data.
In 42 Peter leaves Jerusalem to go to Antioch where Paul finds him shortly after (Acts 12, 1f; Ga 2, 11).
In 40-50 there is the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem and in it Peter does not speak at all of his work among the Gentiles, but is content to report the fact of the baptism of Cornelius. It is Barnabas and Paul who speak instead of their mission among the Gentiles (Acts 15: 7-11; cf. ch. 17). The famous Valesio says that there is no doubt that Peter resided in Judea and Syria until Agrippa's last year.
In the year 51-52 Peter is at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Not long after, Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2). After the meeting in Jerusalem, the Acts of the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, no longer speak of Peter, yet they give us the history of the church until 61.
In 57 Paul writes to the Romans, but he does not say at all that the Church had been evangelized by Peter, as would have been logical. Paul writes his letter to the Romans without even making an allusion to Peter, who according to Catholic tradition would have been their Bishop, Paul's superior. In chapter 16 Paul greets 26 people (by name) who were in Rome, some of whom he calls fellow workers. And Peter? Not even a hint!
In 63-64, writing his letters from captivity, Paul never alludes to the presence of Peter (4) . The Jews wish to know something about this new "way" which is so opposed, as if they knew nothing, which would have been absurd if Peter had been in Rome (Acts 28: 21-24).
In 64 AD there is the persecution of Nero with the probable death of Peter. Here is the passage from Tacitus (ca. 60-120 AD):
«As rumors circulated that the fire in Rome, which had damaged ten of the fourteen Roman quarters, had been malicious, Nero presented as guilty, hitting them with highly sought-after penalties, those who, hated for their abominations, were called Christians by the common people.
Christ, hence their name, was sentenced to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Submitted for a moment, this detestable superstition reappears not only in Judea, where evil had arisen, but also in Rome, where it flows from every place and what is horrible and shameful is admired. Therefore, first those who confessed (to being Christians) were arrested, then a huge multitude - following the reports of those - were condemned, not so much for the accusation of the fire, but rather for his hatred of the human race. To the punishment he added mockery: some covered with wild beast skins were left to eat by dogs, others were crucified, others were set on fire to serve as night lighting, once the day was done. Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle and gave games in the Circus, where he in the uniform of a charioteer mingled with the plebs or took part in races with his chariot. Then a feeling of pity arose, even though they were people deserving of the most exemplary punishments, because it was evident that they were annihilated not for a public good, but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual "(5) .
It can therefore be concluded that Peter was by no means the founder of the church of Rome, and that if he came, he only came there to suffer martyrdom. It is also the thought of Porphyry, a Neoplatonic philosopher, who says of Peter: "He was crucified after having led his flock to pasture for only a few months" (6) .
1. Corpus Berolinensis VII / I, p. 179.
2. Acts of Peter, and Lipsius, pp. 172 and following
3. Probably the year 49 because of the agitation provoked among the Jews, "by the instigation of Chresto (= Christ)": "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulsit". Cf Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25 (Acts 18, 2). See W. Seston, L'empereur Claude et les Chrétiens, in «Rev. d'Hist. et de Philosoph. Relig. ", 1 (1931), pp. 275-304; A. Momigliano, The work of the emperor Claudius, Florence 1932.
4. See 2 Ti 4, 11; Fl 4, 22; Cl 4, 7. 9-15.
5. Annales XV, pp. 38-41. For further information on Tacitus' words see this study .
6. Fragment 22, taken from the third book of Macario Magnete's Apocriticus (Texte Untersuchungen XXXVII / 4, Leipzig 1911, p. 56. Cf. A. Harnack, Porphirius gegen die Christen.
Some archaeological fakes
1. Even today the guides show the Mamertine prison into which Pietro would have descended by a steep staircase when he was imprisoned there. And with little objectivity they tell you: "Look here in the rock at the effigy left miraculously by Peter when he hit his head against you for a slap that was given to him". It is pure legend. Peter was never able to go down to that prison, reserved for sovereigns or nobles, guilty of treason or rebellion against the central government of Rome. Even today the guides show a small basin in that prison and say: "Here Peter baptized two jailers who converted to his word". This too is a pure legend, and recognized as such by the Catholic authors themselves. But the simple people who go there often accept everything with their eyes closed and therefore believe that Peter really went to Rome. In reality,
2. If you go to the church of San Sebastiano, near the catacombs of the same name, on the Via Appia, you will be shown a stone slab with the imprint of two large feet. And they will tell you: «Here is the imprint left by Christ when he appeared to Peter on the Via Appia. He was leaving Rome to escape Nero's persecution when Christ came to meet him, and the apostle asked him "Where are you going?" (Quo vadis). “To suffer death on the cross again”, the Master replied. And Peter, confused and repentant, retraced his steps to also undergo martyrdom for Jesus. And there, in that place, the stone miraculously preserved the imprint of Jesus' feet ». This too, however, is pure legend. The same Catholic scholars affirm that that presumed relic of Christ is none other than the votive monument placed in a not well-determined pagan shrine by a pilgrim, signifying the road he traveled and his desire to eternalize his presence in the shrine same; since, at that time, it was customary to leave similar footprints in pagan temples to testify to the votive pilgrimage to that place. This stone was then transported from the pagan temple to a Catholic temple, where it is still exposed to veneration as if it were a miraculous relic of Christ who appeared to Peter. it was customary to leave similar footprints in pagan temples to testify to the votive pilgrimage to that place. This stone was then transported from the pagan temple to a Catholic temple, where it is still exposed to veneration as if it were a miraculous relic of Christ who appeared to Peter. it was customary to leave similar footprints in pagan temples to testify to the votive pilgrimage to that place. This stone was then transported from the pagan temple to a Catholic temple, where it is still exposed to veneration as if it were a miraculous relic of Christ who appeared to Peter.
3. If you visit St. Peter's Basilica, in Rome, the so-called Chair of St. Peter will be indicated, that is, an armchair on which the apostle would sit during the years of his Roman residence. This chair cannot now be seen as it is all covered with precious and artistic coverings. However, some people who a few centuries ago had the opportunity to examine this "relic" would have found an Arab chair with an inscription praising Muhammad.
4. Regarding the bones of Peter, a specialist, prof. Oscar Cullmann, at the invitation of the pope himself, went to explore the excavations carried out under the Vatican basilica, and wrote about it: "To prove that the bones of Peter really rested in the supposed tomb, under the current dome, more certain clues would be needed of those that can be adduced on the basis of recent excavations. Indeed ... the reasons that play against the probability of a burial of Peter by Christians in the immediate vicinity of the Horti neroniani (Nero's gardens) are almost decisive. How could Christians, in the days of terror of Nero's persecution, perform a burial (a funeral) at this very point? Was there any possibility of distinguishing Peter's corpse from the others? Shouldn't we think that the bones of the tortured, if their ashes have not been scattered on the Tiber, have been thrown into a common grave? ".
No comments:
Post a Comment