[Hemidakota]

The next chain of events after the murder of Peter, would have fell to James. He was the next senior Apostle. When James was beheaded, it would again fell to the next senior Apostle. Eventually, I could not see behind John since there was no leadership but the church eventually fell in pieces since there was no true replacement as a prophet and those apostles that were murdered.

Some background to the last days of Simon Peter...

With few exceptions the remaining years of Peter's life and ministry are not accounted for in the New Testament. He is dropped suddenly by Luke in the midst of his story. From this point on, we are dependent upon Paul and tradition for the few references available to us. The tradition is to some extent derived from non-canonical, apocryphal, or early religious literature, much of which is sheer fabrication or out and out forgery. From such sources, however, we do get a picture of the popular stories and accounts going the rounds in that day. Some of these are repeated and reinforced often enough that they cannot be ignored; they carry some weight, if only that of folklore consensus.

From the available sources it seems reasonable to conclude that Peter left Jerusalem to work among Jewish Christians in Judea and Samaria. That he did not formally abandon his ties and responsibilities is clear since he eventually returned before the council which convened there about A.D. 50 to consider the gentile question.

Here at Antioch, he had one of the most difficult experiences of his ministry, one which probably gave him more cause to think about his position, both ecclesiastically and theologically, than any other since the days when he had come under the direct tuition of the Savior himself.

Paul was very explicit when he declared in the second chapter of Galatians:

when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them. . . . I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? . . . Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ . . . If [we built] again the things [we] destroyed, [we] make [ourselves] . . . transgressors (11-12, 14, 16, 18).

Peter no doubt chafed under this and subsequently modified his position considerably since he eventually became a great missionary unto the Gentiles (although this has not been emphasized as part of the Petrine tradition).

It appears that his Antiochian ministry included missionary ventures into the north and west provinces of Asia Minor and Galatia en route to and from the city of Corinth. Although there is some disagreement among Catholic scholars, the consensus of Roman tradition has it that Peter arrived in Rome between A.D. 41 and 45, was the founder of the congregation, and continued to reside there as its bishop, presiding over the whole Church until his death, except for visits to the East and the Holy Land to attend the councils.

Since Peter could not have been in Rome while Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans, and since there is neither scriptural nor even legendary reference to any of the other Apostles having been there, this author senses the implication in Paul's letter to the Romans that no Apostle had yet visited that city. Paul insists that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles and will magnify his office (Romans 11:13). Since he does not preach the gospel where there has already been an apostolic witness "lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Romans 15:20), it would be inconsistent for him to plan to preach in Rome if another Apostle had founded that branch. Therefore, there appears to be justification for the assertion that Peter could not have resided in Rome before A.D. 56-57. This would allow him at least five years for the Antiochian ministry and missionary activities prior to his arrival in Rome two or three years after Nero's ascension to the imperial throne, and at least that many years before Paul's arrival in the capital city. From this we can establish a plausible chronology: Peter left Jerusalem and began his Antiochian ministry, A.D. 51 Nero came to the throne, A.D. 54; Peter may have come to Rome, c. A.D. 56-57; Paul to Rome, A.D. 58-59, assuming he followed Peter.

It is also clear that neither Peter nor Paul could have been the founders of the church at Rome since in Paul's letter to the Romans he is corresponding with an already established community of Christian believers sharing some formal arrangement of congregational communion. This study must therefore concur with others of the same opinion that the Roman congregation may have been made up of Jews of the Diaspora, of the merchant and military class, probably converted by missionaries or during visits to the homeland. Some may even have been among those present on the day of Pentecost and had been converted or moved to investigation by Peter's sermon.

During at least part of the period of apostolic supervision and leadership in Rome, Peter shared veneration and recognition with Paul. A great deal of evidence is available, especially from fourth century mosaics, burial relics, and other archeological remnants, showing Paul on the right side of the Lord and Peter on the left. Nevertheless, Peter eventually came to be singularly recognized as the presiding Apostle in Rome.

In scant literary remains of the earliest time we have reference to these two united in closest conjunction as sharing in the development of the apostolic church in Rome.

St. Clement, within thirty-five years of their martyrdom, referred to them in this relationship while Gaius and Irenaeus allude to such before the end of the second century; Irenaeus went so far as to declare that when Matthew was publishing a written gospel for the Hebrews, Peter and Paul were anxiously engaged in the good work in Rome (Roberts and Donaldson 1:414).

In the confession of the Roman celebration of the Lord's Supper, both are still accorded recognition as Saints of the Roman church. There is both scriptural and traditional evidence enough to justify the conclusion that John Mark was also a close associate and assistant to both of the Apostles.

We know that for a while Paul had refused to be bothered with Mark after the young man had deserted him in the midst of their first missionary journey. But even though they had parted asunder, we find that when the Epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul from Rome A.D. 60-61, he makes reference to the fact that Mark is with him and is a fellow worker and a comfort to him (4:10). Papias, through Eusebius, tells us that during this time Mark was also interpreter for Peter, who was residing in Rome, albeit in a separate house. And, the First Epistle of Peter alludes to the affectionate association of Peter with Mark (1 Peter 5:13).

Although the church members in Rome sustained both Apostles during the apostolic period, and Paul may have had many Jewish converts as well, he seems to have looked for most of his support among the gentile converts. He admits that this was true in certain places even outside of Rome when he states in I Cor. 1:12, some said, "I am of Paul;. . . and I of Cephas." In Colossians, while referring to Mark as one of his fellow workers and comforters, Paul also makes it clear that Mark is one of only three of ecclesia circumciionae who are with him. The rest seem to be gentile converts.

Now, one final consideration. Did Peter live and die in Rome? The Roman tradition can be affirmed with an unequivocal yes. The weight of both historical and traditional evidence supports the claim.

On the other hand, however positive the evidence and tradition seem to be as to his presence and death in Rome, the facts as to his burial are lacking. Here, the evidences made available through archeological findings and tradition, including folklore, must be employed.

Some scholars believe that when Tacitus discussed the multitudo ingens of Christians who died "among ourselves," there was an implied reference to Vatican Hill as Peter's place of death (Lowrie 108). This, together with the claim in 1st Clement, makes an interesting combination.

The examination of mounds of material from Gaius, Zephyrinus, Proklos and the Montanist cults, the Petrine and Pauline cults of the third century, the records of the Ecclesia Apostolorum, the Epigram of Damascus, the Diggings of 1917, 1949, and the most recent archeological findings at the Vatican, provide convincing evidence that the Roman congregations of the third century had no united understanding. There was no consensus of opinion about the actual burial place of Peter, although there was no question in their minds that he had been buried somewhere in Rome.

It is reasonable to conclude that of two current theories pertaining to the burial of Peter, the less popular may be the more reliable. The consensus of Vatican scholars is that Peter was crucified on Vatican Hill. It is further claimed that he was buried there and that Constantine's Basilica was built over his tomb. Later, because of the threat of vandalism and persecution, the remains were temporarily removed to a spot under St. Sebastian's Church on the Appian Way, and then finally moved back to Vatican Hill. The present Cathedral of St. Peter was built over the burial place.

An alternative theory, based on this author's composite sequence information derived from inferential data in the catacomb beneath St. Sebastian's Church, together with evidence compiled by diggers and researchers ad catacumbus, suggests the possibility that Peter was crucified along the Appian Way. His body was claimed by Christians who buried him in a shallow, temporary grave near the roadside. His remains were later entombed in the catacomb over which St. Sebastian's Church was built and subsequently removed to Vatican Hill. The altar of the present Cathedral of St. Peter was built approximately 75 feet above the location of Peter's entombment. Finally, the concern is not with the present whereabouts of his bones, but whether this may have been the location of his final resting place. An interesting apocryphal account found in the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, claims that Peter met Paul on the Appian Way while they were both on the way to execution. After they embraced and parted with good feelings Paul was led away to a more distant place and was beheaded. "And seeing each other they wept for joy; and long embracing each other, they bedewed each other with tears" (Roberts and Donaldson 8:479).

Notwithstanding all this, there are numerous questions left unanswered with reference to certain others who must have figured prominently in the life of Peter. For those of us whose minds remain restless over such, as yet, unsolved problems, there will be the anticipation that some future researcher historian will be able to tell us more about Perpetua, said by Clement of Alexandria to have been the wife and companion of Peter on many missionary journeys. What was her final fate? According to Clement, Peter saw his wife led away to her death and called out to her as a parting word of comfort and admonition, "Remember thou the Lord" (Ibid. 2:541).

How did the missionary couple of Aquila and priscilla end their lives after years of service? Their home was open to the brethren and other members—a place of refuge and assembly. Flavia Domitilla, and her husband, Senator Flavius Clemens, were Christians, but were also relatives of the Emperor Domitian, and their sons were claimants to the imperial throne. Their house (Flavian) was a central gathering place in Rome for leaders and laity alike. As with much of Peter's story, it is likely that more was buried with them than has ever yet been uncovered.