A
AlexR
Guest
Whether st.luke had a interview with Peter for his gospel ? Is there any biblical account??
- Status
A
AlexR
Guest
St. Luke brother
po18guy
Well-known member
He was a companion of Saint Paul, and both Paul and Peter ended up in Rome - but I know of no tradition which states that Luke interviewed Peter. It is a totally different story with John Mark.
This might help to clarify:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/confraternity/id54.html
This might help to clarify:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/confraternity/id54.html
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
It is generally accepted, I believe, that Peter and Paul were in frequent contact with one another while they were both living in Rome. It is also generally accepted that Mark and Luke were also both there, acting in supporting roles, Mark as a secretary or fixer for Peter and Luke in a similar capacity for Paul. Therefore all four* of them would evidently have been in fairly close contact, at least for a time.
However, “generally accepted” does not mean that we have certain knowledge of all this. We don’t. It’s a question of probabilities, not of certainties. @billsherman, a historian of the early Church who has been answering questions on another thread (link below), warns that:
Sadly, other than Paul’s Letter to the Romans, we have basically no information on Christianity in Rome in the First Century. Believe it or not, there isn’t even any historical evidence Peter ever traveled to Rome. Seriously, there is tradition, but no actual written record of him ever being there (please note: that doesn’t mean he wasn’t there, just that no record of it survives).
*Among others, of course. But these are the four who have been named so far by the OP and other commenters on this thread.
Last edited:
J
JohnR77
Guest
You can ignore the historical evidence but it is there . Peter in his first letter in chapter 5 verses 12 to 13 indicating that he is writing from Rome.
1 Peter 5:12 - 13
"I write you this briefly through Silvanus,* whom I consider a faithful brother, … 13. The chosen one* at Babylon sends you greeting, "
- [5:13] The chosen one: feminine, referring to the Christian community (ekklēsia) at Babylon, the code name for Rome
N
NotThatHarvey
Guest
I will trot this out again.
[Album] Gospel Commonality- from Hagan's "Year of the Passover"
[Album] Gospel Commonality- from Hagan's "Year of the Passover"
B
BartholomewB
Guest
If you like, you could follow the link I gave and put the question directly to @billsherman himself.
J
JohnR77
Guest
Thank you but I would consider that a waste of my time. Anybody can call themselves a historian. So that title means nothing. Just because a person can prove that he can doubt something that does not mean his ideas are worth listening to. The doubters cannot offer a good argument as to how it is Peter’s bones were found in Rome if he wasn’t there.
The Bones of St. Peter
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ss/peter/index.html
The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh.
Read fascinating account of how they were able to prove that the bones they found under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome were the bones of the first Apostle, Peter
The Bones of St. Peter
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ss/peter/index.html
The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh.
Read fascinating account of how they were able to prove that the bones they found under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome were the bones of the first Apostle, Peter
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
@bartholomewB mentioned me, so I might as well make an appearance. Even if you think I have nothing worth saying, I recommend listening to him. His ideas are based on evidence, are intriguing, and most importantly, he is a good example of what an internet forum can be at its best: a place for people of different backgrounds and interests to learn from each other. 
@bartholomewB is correct, the historical evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome is non-existent. That, of course, doesn’t rule out that he wasn’t there, it just means it can’t be proven historically.
As to the two pieces of evidence you cited, namely 1 Peter and the bones discovered below the Vatican, nearly all scholars reject them as evidence Peter was in Rome.
1 Peter: there are a number of problems with it, but the biggest, ironically, is the one you cited. The letter presumably refers to Rome as Babylon. There is no evidence that Christians called Rome Babylon before the wide circulation of Revelation which wasn’t until around 100 AD. This reference is pretty solid evidence the letter was written after Peter’s death, hence it can’t be evidence of anything directly related to Peter, except perhaps his theological views. That is useful in itself, but only so far as it goes.
The bones found in the Vatican: Unfortunately, since the St. Peter’s Basilica is built on top of a cemetery, and the twentieth century excavation was carried out by someone with no background in archeology, the bone fragments may or may not be St. Peter’s. Even if they are, there is simply no way to tell (we are aware of none of his ancestors, so DNA testing isn’t helpful). The Church, I believe has pronounced that the relics are “worthy of belief,” but stops short of positively identifying them.
Also, since relics were frequently moved, even if they are St. Peter’s bones, they could just as easily have been moved there from Jerusalem.
I suspect St. Peter DID actually make it to Rome, but I can’t prove it. Maybe he didn’t.
While anyone can certainly call themselves a historian (or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a pope, etc . . .), I assure you there is always something to be gained by learning from and with others. Especially those with whom you disagree.
@bartholomewB is correct, the historical evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome is non-existent. That, of course, doesn’t rule out that he wasn’t there, it just means it can’t be proven historically.
As to the two pieces of evidence you cited, namely 1 Peter and the bones discovered below the Vatican, nearly all scholars reject them as evidence Peter was in Rome.
1 Peter: there are a number of problems with it, but the biggest, ironically, is the one you cited. The letter presumably refers to Rome as Babylon. There is no evidence that Christians called Rome Babylon before the wide circulation of Revelation which wasn’t until around 100 AD. This reference is pretty solid evidence the letter was written after Peter’s death, hence it can’t be evidence of anything directly related to Peter, except perhaps his theological views. That is useful in itself, but only so far as it goes.
The bones found in the Vatican: Unfortunately, since the St. Peter’s Basilica is built on top of a cemetery, and the twentieth century excavation was carried out by someone with no background in archeology, the bone fragments may or may not be St. Peter’s. Even if they are, there is simply no way to tell (we are aware of none of his ancestors, so DNA testing isn’t helpful). The Church, I believe has pronounced that the relics are “worthy of belief,” but stops short of positively identifying them.
Also, since relics were frequently moved, even if they are St. Peter’s bones, they could just as easily have been moved there from Jerusalem.
I suspect St. Peter DID actually make it to Rome, but I can’t prove it. Maybe he didn’t.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Thank you, Bill, but really, you’re too kind!
[Shuffles feet in embarrassment.]
Last edited:
- Status