Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Did Paul know Peter's travel locations?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Did Paul know Peter's travel locations?
  • Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:17:41 -0400


Dear Richard,

You wrote,

<<<In any case, some from Rome and elsewhere heard Peter's preaching in
Jerusalem (Acts 2:10,14), and "those who welcomed his message were baptized,
and that day about three thousand persons were added" (Acts 2:41 NRSV). So it
is very plausible that Peter was, in a sense, the apostle to Rome, whether he
visited them in person or not. He may have communicated with them by letter,
for example to tell them not to call anyone unclean, following his vision.>>>

Given the speculative nature of my reconstruction I am hardly in a
position to deny anyone else’s speculation here. However, considering the
involvement of the rest of the apostles and others at Pentecost I think it
unlikely that Peter’s contribution there would have been sufficient for
him to have been considered the ‘apostle to Rome’. Considering the
traditions concerning the far-flung travels of some of the apostles (e.g.
Thomas to India; Andrew to Scythia), Rome does not seem so far away. We
cannot ignore the strong traditions of Peter’s presence there. It had a
major Jewish population and would surely have been a significant mission
ground even if that mission were restricted to the Jews. Paul’s reluctance
to build on another’s foundation must surely indicate an apostolic
presence in Rome. There were Christians in Asia, Prygia, Pamphylia and
Crete (Acts 2:9-11) but Paul saw no problem with ministering in/to those
regions.

<<<The Corinthians' knowledge of Cephas, therefore probably originated with
those Roman Christian Jews who moved to Corinth from Rome after having been
expelled by Claudius in 49.>>>

Are you suggesting that this knowledge was merely epistolary, still from
Pentecost or are you allowing that perhaps Peter may have been to Rome
prior to 49.

<<<Prisca and Aquila were not the only believers to move from Rome to
Corinth. Some of the others opposed Paul, and were behind the problems that
Paul addresses in 1 & 2 Corinthians (see my last e-mail). I see no reason to
assume that Peter ever went to Corinth. It is an unnecessary assumption.>>>

I would not be at all surprised if Prisca and Aquila were convereted under
Peter’s ministry in Rome and hence their return there to help Peter in the
more ‘Gentile’ phase of his ministry there (as per my first post on this
thread).

You may be right about the Roman believers becoming a problem for Paul,
there are many possible explanations. Personally I suspect that some from
Asia, to avoid Paul and his apostolic authority, may have been
responsible, especially those in 2 Cor (e.g. the false apostles). If,
after Claudius’ death, Peter passed through Corinth in early 55 on his way
to Rome, it is quite possible that some who were inclined to be factious –
but who until this time had no apostolic ‘equal’ of Paul’s to whom they
could attach themselves – found that someone in Peter (not that Peter
would have condoned it and it would not have been voiced until after his
departure). I Cor 9:5 may not demand that Peter had been to Corinth, but I
suspect it is implied.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page