allow that S. Peter visited Rome and spent some time in the capital city; wrote his great First Epistle from it, in which Epistle he called "Rome" by the not unusual mystic name of "Babylon," and eventually suffered martyrdom there on a spot hard by the mighty basilica called by his name.
The only point at issue is, did he—as the favourite tradition asserts—pay his first visit to Rome quite early in the Christian story, circa A.D. 42, remaining there for some seven or eight years preaching and teaching, laying the foundations of the great Church which rapidly sprang up in the capital?
Then when the decree of the Emperor Claudius banished the Jews, A.D. 49-50, the tradition asserts that the apostle returned to the East, was present at the Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem A.D. 50, only returning to Rome circa A.D. 63. Somewhere about A.D. 64 the First Epistle of Peter was probably written from Rome.[1] His martyrdom there is best dated about A.D. 67.
A careful examination of the most ancient "Notices" bearing especially on the question of the laying of the early stories of the Roman Church, determines the writer of this little study to adopt the above rough statement of S. Peter's work at Rome. Some of the principal portions of these "notices" will now be quoted, that it may be seen upon what basis the conclusion in question is adopted. The quotations will be followed by a sketch of the traditional and other evidence specially drawn from the testimony of the very early Roman catacomb of S. Priscilla. This sketch, which is here termed the "traditional evidence," it will be seen, powerfully supports the deduction derived from the notices quoted from very early Christian literature.
- ↑ Professor Ramsay in his book, The Church in the Roman Empire, prefers a later date for the composition of the First Epistle of St. Peter than that usually given, A.D. 64-5. He believes it was impregnated with Roman thought and was certainly written from Rome, but not before A.D. 80. This would give a long period of Roman work to the apostle; still—able as are Professor Ramsay's arguments—the later date and all that it involves are absolutely at variance with the universal tradition.
