If you only read Acts 28, you might get the impression that Christian faith was fairly new to Rome at the time Paul arrived there. But in reality, Christians had been in Rome for a long time before Paul finally set foot in the city around AD62. The emperor Claudius had already kicked all the Christian Jews out of the city in AD49. Apparently, the controversy within the synagogues of the city had become so divisive that it even drew the emperor's attention.[1] Priscilla and Aquila left Rome at that time (Acts 18:2).
We do not know exactly when Jewish believers in Jesus first came to Rome. Perhaps it was some of those present in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Still, it is hard to imagine the issue not coming to a head sooner if many Christian Jews had been in Rome for that long. By AD49, Christianity had apparently grown strong enough for all-out war to break out in the synagogues.
Christian tradition has long held that the church at Rome was founded by Peter, especially Roman Catholic and Orthodox tradition. But this suggestion seems unlikely. Peter probably did not come to Rome until after Paul had visited there. Acts gives us no reason to think that Peter had ever been to Rome before Paul, nor does the book of Romans give us any hints along these lines.[2]
On the other hand, it is possible that the churches at Rome had the flavor of Peter’s Christianity.[3] Is Rome the city to which the sermon called Hebrews was written? Is this the audience that was tempted to rely on the sacrificial system rather than on the death of Christ?
If so, Hebrews mentions a previous time of persecution. They had earlier endured a time of great conflict and suffering (Heb. 10:32). Some had been arrested (10:34). Some had lost their property. Perhaps some of their leaders had been martyred (13:7).
Some think that crisis might have taken place during Claudius’ persecution of Christian Jews.[4] But this crisis sounds more like what happened around AD64 when Nero blamed Christians for the fire that burned much of Rome. That event was a couple years after the time Paul first reached Rome. Indeed, perhaps Nero’s encounter with Paul gave him the idea of blaming Christians for the fire of Rome.
After Claudius kicked the Christian Jews out of Rome in AD49, the Christian community left would have been overwhelmingly Gentile for a time. By the time Paul wrote Romans, not quite 10 years later in the late 50s, some Christian Jews presumably had returned to Rome. Romans gives us hints that the church at Rome at that time was still primarily Gentile (cf. Rom. 1:6; 11:13; 15:13). [5]
It is quite likely that we should think about the churches, plural, at Rome. They met in house churches that could scarcely hold more than 40 or 50 people in a very large one, and Rome probably did not have as many churches even this large because of tenement housing. It is thus quite possible that the church of Rome was more segmented than in some other places...
[1] The Roman historian Suetonius, writing in the early second century, mentions this expulsion in Claudius 25.4.
[2] Peter likely wrote 1 Peter from Rome. 1 Peter says it was written from Babylon (5:13), which probably means Rome (cf. Rev. 18:2). It is only natural that Jews would refer to Rome as Babylon after Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD70 the way Babylon had. It is possible that they referred to Rome even before then, especially in the late 60s after the Jewish War had started. This would be necessary for Peter to be its author, since tradition has it he died at the hands of Nero. See my forthcoming volume, The Church Moving Forward for discussions of 1 Peter and Revelation.
[3] This is the hypothesis of Raymond Brown and John Meier in Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1983).
[4] E.g., William Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (Waco: Word, 1991).
[5] Although it is common to hear that Hebrews was written to Jews, this is usually based upon certain stereotypes that don't hold up under closer examination. Hebrews 5:11-6:4 fits a group of Gentile converts to Christianity much better than it fits Jewish converts. The date of Hebrews is disputed, but if it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could indicate that Christianity at Rome remained primarily Gentile later in the century as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
What about Romans 15:20? Several noted Catholic and Anglican scholars have proposed that this is a reference to Peter.
We know Peter was already in Corinth and had left and had been replaced by Apollos by the time of 1 Corinthians. That could easily put Peter near Rome in the late 40s / early 50s.
Edmundson claims that Peter left Jerusalem for Rome after the martyrdom of Stephen, leaving Rome during Claudius' persecution and journeying eastward back to Jerusalem through Corinth and Antioch. This seems to fit all the data.
Someone from my former church taught that the Babylon of the OT where Daniel and company were held captive, corresponds in location to the current day Baghdad, Iraq. Is that true?
Nathaniel, certainly possible. The question to me is whether it's probably. For example, I personally think that the church at Corinth had only heard of Peter, not that he had visited.
Susan, yes, historic Babylon was in Iraq. I take the reference in 1 Peter 5 to be metaphorical, however, rather than literal.
Does the early, consistent and multiple, independent sources of the Petrine tradition weigh into your probability at all?
Nathaniel, could you share some of those sources? I'm trying to learn. Thanks.
You'll not be surprised Nathaniel, that while I consider the early church more mature when it comes to doctrine, I consider the fathers increasingly mangled when it comes to historical information. It is in the nature of traditions to be based on a kernel of truth that becomes increasingly legendized. Better known names replace lesser known ones. Ordinary people become more extraordinary. Farts are edited out...
Sure, I get that. But the Petrine narrative has multiple, independent sources. These independent sources differ on many details, but they all agree on at least two points:
1. Peter was in Rome at least periodically across a span of ~25 years.
2. Peter was martyred by crucifixion in Rome.
Early sources, like 1 Clement, presume the story so well known that no explanation is needed. The same is true in John 21:18-19. The commentary is in v19 is particularly important. The story of Peter's martyrdom is so well known that no commentary is necessary.
This is, of course, unfortunate for us moderns attempting to reconstruct the history. However, if this were the case that Peter's death was so well known no commentary was necessary, you'd see independent narratives develop with a common core. And that is precisely what we have in the 2nd and 3rd centuries: independent narrative strains with a common core (listed in two points above). The succession names are distinct. The dates are different in different accounts. There are various legendary stories that develop. But they all agree: 25 years and then crucifixion.
Susan,
This work is a bit dated now given some recent articles, but is nonetheless probably the highest quality freely available work:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.html
Nathaniel, I do accept that Peter was martyred by Nero in Rome.
Nathaniel, I do accept that Peter was martyred by Nero in Rome.
I'm not clear what hypothesis you are referring to as the hypothesis of Raymond Brown and John Meyer, but I would like to point out that in his 'Introduction to the NT', Raymond Brown is very cagey regarding the authorship of 1 Peter. It seems to me that he didn't believe Peter wrote 1 Peter but was reluctant to say so outright.
Thus I think your:
[2] Peter likely wrote 1 Peter from Rome .....
[3] This is the hypothesis of Raymond Brown .....
could easily be misinterpreted.
The Raymond Brown reference was to the Roman church being primarily Gentile rather than to the authorship of 1 Peter.
Thanks Nathaniel!
:-) to you both.
Post a Comment