1 Peter, for (see Peter, Epistles of) it is probable that the reference to Babylon ought to be interpreted as meaning Rome. If so, and if the epistle be genuine, this is conclusive evidence that Peter was in Rome. Even if the epistle be not genuine it is evidence of the same tradition. Nor is corroboration lacking: Clement (c. A.D. 97) refers to Peter and Paul as martyrs (1 Clem. 5–6) and says that “To these men . . . there was gathered a great company of the elect who . . . became an example to us.” This points in two ways to a martyrdom of Peter in Rome, (1) because Peter and Paul are co-ordinated, and it is generally admitted that the latter suffered in Rome, (2) because they seem to be joined to the great company of martyrs who are to be an example to the Church in Rome. Similarly Ignatius (c. A.D. 115) says to the Romans (Rom. iv.), “I do not command you as Peter and Paul.” The suggestion obviously is that the Romans had been instructed by these Apostles. By the end of the 2nd century the tradition is generally known: Irenaeus (3, 1, 1), Clement of Alexandria (comment. on 1 Peter), Origen (Hom. vi. in Lucam), Tertullian (Scorp. 15, and several passages) are explicit on the point, and from this time onwards the tradition is met with everywhere. There is also a tradition, found in Irenaeus (3, 1, 1) and in many later writers, and supported by 1 Pet. v. 13, and by the statements of Papias (Eus. H.E. 3, 39, 15) that Mark acted as Peter’s assistant in Rome and that his gospel is based on recollections of Peter’s teaching.
This evidence is probably sufficient to establish the fact that Peter, like Paul, had a wide missionary career ending in a violent death at Rome, though the details are not recoverable. The chronological question is more difficult both as regards the beginning and the end of this period of activity.
The Acts, in describing the visits of Peter to Samaria, Joppa, Lydda and Caesarea, justify the view that his missionary activity began quite early. Gal. ii. 11 and 1 Cor. ix. 5 show that Acts minimizes rather than exaggerates this activity, the Antiochian tradition probably represents a period of missionary activity with a centre The Chronology of Peter’s Wider Missionary Work. at Antioch; similarly the tradition of work in Asia is possibly correct as almost certainly is that of the visit to Rome. But we have absolutely no evidence justifying a chronological arrangement of these periods. Even the silence of Paul in the epistles of the captivity proves nothing except that Peter was not then present, the same is true of 2 Tim. even if its authenticity be undoubted.
The evidence as to the date of his death is a little fuller, but not quite satisfactory. The earliest direct witness is Tertullian, who definitely states that Peter suffered under Nero by crucifixion. Origen also relates the latter detail and adds that at his own request Peter was crucified head downwards. Probably John xxi. 18 seq. is a still earlier reference to his crucifixion. Fuller evidence is not found until Eusebius, who dates the arrival of Peter at Rome in 43 and his martyrdom twenty-five years later. But the whole question of the Eusebian chronology is very confused and difficult, and the text of the Chronicon is not certain. The main objection to this date is based partly on general probability, partly on the language of Clement of Rome. It is more probable on general grounds that the martyrdom of Peter took place during the persecution of Christians in 64, and it is urged that Clement’s language refers to this period. It is quite possible that an error of a few years has crept into the Eusebian chronology, which is probably largely based on early episcopal lists, and therefore many scholars are inclined to think that 64 is a more probable date than 67. As a rule the discussion has mainly been between these two dates, but Sir W. M. Ramsay, in his Church in the Roman Empire, has adopted a different line of argument. He thinks that 1 Peter was written c. A.D. 80, but that it may nevertheless be Petrine; therefore he lays stress on the fact that whereas the tradition that Peter was in Rome is early and probably correct, the tradition that he was martyred under Nero is not found until much later. Thus he thinks it possible that Peter survived until c. 80, and was martyred under the Flavian emperors. The weak point of this theory is that Clement and Ignatius bring Peter and Paul together in a way which seems to suggest that they perished, if not together, at least at about the same time. If this view be rejected and it is necessary to fall back on the choice between 64 and 67, the problem is perhaps insoluble, but 64 has somewhat more intrinsic probability, and 67 can be explained as due to an artificial system of chronology which postulated for Peter an episcopate of Rome of twenty-five years—a number which comes so often in the early episcopal lists that it seems to mean little more than “a long time,” just as “forty years” does in the Old Testament. On the whole 64 is the most probable date, but it is very far from certain: the evidence is insufficient to justify any assurance.
For further information and discussion see especially Harnack’s Chronologie, and Bishop Chase’s article in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible. The latter is in many ways the most complete statement of the facts at present published.
Caius, who lived in the beginning of the 3rd century (see Eus.
H.E. 2, 25), stated that the τρόπαια (i.e. probably the burial
place, not that of execution) of Peter and Paul were
on the Vatican. This is also found in the Acta Petri,
84 (in the Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, p. 52 seq., 118
sqq.). From this place it appears that the relics (whether
genuine or not) were moved to the catacombs in A.D. 258
The Grave
of Peter.
(cf. the Depositis martyrum, and see Lightfoot’s Clement, i. 249);
hence arose the tradition of an original burial in the catacombs,
found in the Hieronymian Martyrology.
For further information and investigations see Duchesne, Liber pontificalis; Lipsius, Die Apokr. Apostelgesch.; and Erbes “Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus u. Petrus,” in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F., iv. 1. (K. L.)
PETER I., called “the Great” (1672–1725), emperor of Russia,
son of the tsar Alexius Mikhailovich and Natalia Naruishkina,
was born at Moscow on the 30th of May 1672. His earliest
teacher (omitting the legendary Scotchman Menzies) was the
dyak, or clerk of the council, Nikita Zotov, subsequently the
court fool, who taught his pupil to spell out the liturgical and
devotional books on which the children of the tsar were generally
brought up. After Zotov’s departure on a diplomatic mission,
in 1680, the lad had no regular tutor. From his third to his
tenth year Peter shared the miseries and perils of his family. His
very election (1682) was the signal for a rebellion. He saw one
of his uncles dragged from the palace and butchered by a savage
mob. He saw his mother’s beloved mentor, and his own best
friend, Artamon Matvyeev, torn, bruised and bleeding, from
his retaining grasp and hacked to pieces. The haunting
memories of these horrors played havoc with the nerves of a
supersensitive child. The convulsions from which he suffered
so much in later years must be partly attributed to this violent
shock. During the regency of his half-sister Sophia (1682–1689)
he occupied the subordinate position of junior tsar, and after
the revolution of 1689 Peter was still left pretty much to himself.
So long as he could indulge freely in his favourite pastimes—shipbuilding,
ship-sailing, drilling and sham fights—he was quite
content that others should rule in his name. He now found a
new friend in the Swiss adventurer, François Lefort, a shrewd
and jovial rascal, who not only initiated him into all the
mysteries of profligacy (at the large house built at Peter’s
expense in the German settlement), but taught him his true
business as a ruler. His mother’s attempt to wean her prodigal
son from his dangerous and mostly disreputable pastimes, by
forcing him to marry the beautiful but stupid Eudoxia Lopukhina
(Jan. 27, 1689), was a disastrous failure. The young
couple were totally unsuited to each other. Peter practically
deserted his unfortunate consort a little more than a year after
their union.
The death of his mother (Jan. 25, 1694) left the young tsar absolutely free to follow his natural inclinations. Tiring of the great lake at Pereyaslavl, he had already seen the sea for the first time at Archangel in July 1683, and on the 1st of May 1694 returned thither to launch a ship built by himself the year before. Shortly afterwards he nearly perished during a storm in an adventurous voyage to the Solovetsky Islands in
