The question of when Peter journeyed to Rome is not merely a historical curiosity; it sits at the heart of a significant theological debate. For centuries, some Protestant denominations have argued that the Apostle Peter never actually set foot in Rome. This assertion is often used to challenge the Catholic Church’s claim to papal authority, which is rooted in the belief that Peter, considered the first Pope, established the Church in Rome. Understanding when Peter might have traveled to Rome requires us to delve into biblical texts, early Christian writings, and even archaeological discoveries.
The Protestant Argument: Questioning Peter’s Roman Presence
A key tenet in the Protestant argument against papal primacy is the claim that Peter was never in Rome. The logic is straightforward: if Peter wasn’t in Rome, he couldn’t have been the first Bishop of Rome, and therefore, the lineage of Popes claiming succession from him would be historically unfounded. This perspective often highlights the apparent silence of the New Testament on Peter’s presence in the capital of the Roman Empire.
Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, succinctly presents this viewpoint, stating that the New Testament is completely silent on Peter’s connection to Rome. He points out the detailed account of Paul’s journey to Rome in Acts 27 and 28, contrasting it with the lack of any similar narrative for Peter. Boettner contends that the idea of Peter’s Roman episcopate rests solely on legend, lacking both biblical and historical proof. This line of reasoning aims to undermine the historical basis for the papacy, suggesting it emerged from later political and ecclesiastical developments rather than from Christ’s direct appointment of Peter.
However, while the Bible doesn’t explicitly state “Peter went to Rome on [date],” this absence of explicit mention doesn’t equate to proof that he never went. In fact, the New Testament provides limited details about the post-Ascension journeys of most apostles beyond Paul. To rely solely on explicit biblical statements is to ignore other forms of historical evidence that can shed light on this question.
Deciphering “Babylon”: A Biblical Hint Towards Rome
Interestingly, Boettner overlooks a significant detail within Peter’s own writings. In the closing of his first epistle, Peter writes, “The church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The crucial word here is “Babylon.” While literally referring to the ancient Mesopotamian city, by the first century, “Babylon” had become a well-known code word for Rome, particularly in Jewish and early Christian literature.
This symbolic usage is evident in various contemporary texts like the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Esdras. Eusebius of Caesarea, a fourth-century Church historian, also noted that early tradition understood Peter’s reference to “Babylon” as Rome. This coded language makes sense when considering the context of potential persecution. Openly stating Peter’s location in Rome, the center of imperial power and potential persecution, would have been imprudent. Using “Babylon” served as a discreet way to indicate Rome without directly alerting hostile authorities.
Furthermore, the Book of Revelation repeatedly uses “Babylon the Great” to symbolize a corrupt and persecuting power. The descriptions of “Babylon” in Revelation as a “great city” that has fallen and persecutes God’s people strongly align with the characteristics of Rome in the first century, rather than the geographically insignificant and politically irrelevant ancient Babylon. Therefore, Peter’s mention of “Babylon” in his first epistle provides a compelling, albeit indirect, biblical clue pointing towards his presence in Rome.
The Overwhelming Testimony of Early Christian Writers
Beyond the biblical hints, a wealth of early Christian writings firmly places Peter in Rome. These aren’t mere legends, but historical testimonies from the first few centuries after Christ, widely recognized by historians as valuable sources. William A. Jurgens, in his comprehensive compilation The Faith of the Early Fathers, meticulously documents numerous early Church Fathers who explicitly state Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome.
Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200, speaks of the Roman church as “happy…where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord.” He further mentions that the church of Rome, unlike other apostolic churches, traced its lineage directly back to Peter, who ordained Clement (later known as Clement of Rome, the fourth Pope) as bishop. Clement of Rome himself, in his Letter to the Corinthians (written possibly before A.D. 70), alludes to Peter’s death in the same location as Paul’s, which tradition and historical accounts place in Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (c. A.D. 110), acknowledges the unique authority of the Roman church, referencing Peter and Paul’s commands to the Roman Christians, implying their leadership in that community. Irenaeus, around A.D. 190, states that Matthew wrote his Gospel while “Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He also lists Linus as Peter’s successor, followed by Anacletus and Clement, establishing a clear line of succession in the Roman See directly from Peter.
Clement of Alexandria and Lactantius, writing around the turn of the third and early fourth centuries respectively, also contribute to this consistent narrative. Clement of Alexandria recounts Peter’s public preaching in Rome, while Lactantius describes Peter’s arrival in Rome during Nero’s reign (54-68 AD), his miracle-working, and his establishment of a strong Christian community there. This consistent chorus of early Christian voices leaves little room to doubt the widespread and ancient belief in Peter’s Roman ministry and death.
Archaeological Confirmation: Peter’s Tomb Beneath the Vatican
Finally, archaeological evidence provides tangible support for Peter’s presence in Rome. While Boettner dismissively refers to “bones of uncertain origin,” he overlooks the significant excavations conducted beneath St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. These excavations, extensively documented in works like John Evangelist Walsh’s The Bones of St. Peter, revealed a tomb directly beneath the high altar, containing early inscriptions explicitly identifying it as Peter’s.
Following years of meticulous investigation, Pope Paul VI officially announced in 1968 that the tomb of St. Peter had been conclusively identified. The historical and scientific evidence amassed from these archaeological findings, combined with the consistent early Christian testimony, offers compelling proof that Peter did indeed come to Rome and was martyred and buried there.
Conclusion: Peter in Rome – A Historically Grounded Truth
While pinpointing the exact date of Peter’s arrival in Rome remains challenging due to the nature of historical records from that era, the evidence overwhelmingly confirms his presence and ministry in the city. The Protestant argument against Peter’s Roman sojourn, often based on a selective reading of scripture and dismissal of early Christian sources, crumbles under the weight of historical and archaeological evidence.
The biblical allusion to “Babylon,” the unanimous testimony of early Church Fathers, and the archaeological discovery of Peter’s tomb in the Vatican all converge to solidify the historical reality of Peter’s time in Rome. Therefore, while “When Did Peter Go To Rome” might not be precisely datable, the more crucial question of “did Peter go to Rome?” is answered resoundingly in the affirmative. This historical understanding is vital for appreciating the development of the early Church and the foundational claims of the papacy.
