The Bones of Simon Peter.

Dear in Christ,

[Inspired by an article from Dr. W. A. Criswell, (1909-2002).]

Roman Catholic church's initial claims was that Peter was the bishop of Rome from 33 AD till 67 AD. Later they amended it as 42 AD till 67 AD. They also claim that Peter's tomb and his bones are under the high altar of St. Peter's church in Rome. Let's examine whether this is scripturally plausible.

• Let's assume that Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection and ascension happened in 30 AD. Let's also assume that Paul's conversion happened in 33 AD.
• Paul tells us that after his conversion he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus AND AFTER THREE YEARS went up to Jerusalem to meet Peter. (Gal 1:17, 18)
• This takes us to 36 AD (33 AD + 3 years). AND PETER IS STILL IN JERUSALEM.
• Then, AFTER 14 YEARS he went up to Jerusalem, this time to meet Peter, James and John, the pillars of the church. (Gal 2:1-9).
• This takes us to 50 AD (36 AD + 14 years). PETER IS STILL IN JERUSALEM.
• The above-mentioned meeting is also known as the JERUSALEM COUNCIL, which is also mentioned in Acts 15. History tells us that the Jerusalem Council took place around 50 AD. PETER IS STILL IN JERUSALEM.

Now, it's the turn of Peter to visit Paul who was in Antioch. (Gal 2:11). We don't know the dates of this visit. We get to read about Paul criticizing Peter about his hypocrisy in Gal 2:11f.

Practically nothing is known about the whereabouts of Peter after 50-51 AD.

If Peter were in fact the bishop of Rome, the epistle to Romans (supposedly) written around 58 AD, makes no mention of Peter. 2 Timothy, (supposedly) written around May 61 AD, says: "Only Luke is with me..." (2Tim 4:11). Isn't it intriguing that Paul doesn't mention Peter, if he were present in Rome?

Peter's own words:

Apparently, 1 Peter was written from Babylon, because Peter says:

1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you;

It's unlikely that the Babylon mentioned here is a symbol for either Rome, as claimed by Roman Catholic church (it's an own goal) OR Jerusalem, as claimed by some others, because, none of the other places mentioned in the epistle are symbolic. Though this Babylon could be the ancient city on Euphrates, it could also have been a little place called Babylon in Egypt (a military fortress).

If Peter, in fact, were the bishop of Rome, why Rome isn't listed among the recipients of his epistle?

1Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,...

The gap of time between 2 Peter and Jude.

While Peter was writing his second epistle, he knew that it was the time for him to put off his tabernacle, i.e, die. (2Pet 1:13, 14).

He goes on to warn his reader that scoffers, ungodly men and those who walk after their own lusts would appear among them.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that THERE SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS, walking after their own lusts,.

It's a well known fact that both 2 Peter 2, 3 and Jude detail the same things, albeit with minor differences. Let's see what Jude has to offer:

Jud 1:4 For THERE ARE CERTAIN MEN CREPT IN UNAWARES, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, UNGODLY men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (See also: 2Pet 2:1-3

So, whatever Peter had been cautioning his readers have already come to pass by the time Jude was writing his epistle.

Jude goes on to say:

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, REMEMBER YE THE WORDS WHICH WERE SPOKEN BEFORE OF THE APOSTLES OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST;
Jud 1:18 How that THEY TOLD YOU THERE SHOULD BE MOCKERS (the same Greek word translated as Scoffers in ) IN THE LAST TIME, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

The Greek word translated as Before in Jude 1:17 implies a considerable time gap and not something that occurred a couple of weeks or months ago. (it's translated as " foretold" in Mar 13:23).

So, whatever Peter has foretold (using future tense: "shall come") in 2 Peter 2 and 3 has been fulfilled by the time Jude was writing his epistle.

There are many scholars who say Jude plagiarized Peter's epistle, and some say that Peter plagiarized Jude's epistle. (There are others who say that both plagiarized someone else's work.)

Peter's usage of the term "SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS" sounds to imply that he visualized those days to be in his future, whereas Jude's usage of the expression "THERE ARE CERTAIN MEN CREPT IN UNAWARES" (in present or present perfect tense) implies that it was happening then. Apart from the Roman Catholic and Church Fathers' fables, isn't it safe to assume that there could have been 10-20 years gap between the writing of 2 Peter and that of Jude's epistle?

I think it's reasonable to think that Peter died in 50s AD.

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal