The question in the title is genuine, not polemic. I could be perfectly happy to follow an ancient — and what is regarded as a well-attested — tradition. But I do not feel compelled to follow it simply because it is tradition. I would like to have arguments that Peter founded the church in Rome. John Wenham succinctly sets them forth before he defends them at length.

“1. There was a large and world-famous church in Rome in 57 with which Paul had had contact for some years.

2. A well-grounded tradition says that its foundation was laid by Peter in the second year of Claudius.

3. This fits without difficulty into the account of Peter in Acts.

4. Rome’s claim to Petrine foundation was unchallenged throughout the church.”¹

I consider the first and fourth arguments unassailable. Wenham estimates that the church in Rome might have been over 1000 members distributed in various house-church congregations.² This seems highly likely to me as well.³ Paul himself speaks of the fame of the church (Romans 1:8) and no one questions that it became one of the most prominent churches in the Ancient world. That Peter had founded the church was part of its ancient claim to fame — though it could have been famous for its faithfulness to God, even without having been founded by Peter.

The question, therefore, is about claims 2 and 3: “well-grounded tradition” and “the account of Peter in Acts.” Let’s first consider the account of Peter in Acts. On this, I find Wenham’s reconstruction less than satisfactory. First, though he makes no assertions, he reports of others who take the Acts 12:17 reference to Peter’s departing to another place to be speaking of Peter going to Rome. However, the usually suggested date for Peter’s visit is the second year of Claudius, AD 42. This makes Luke’s story from Acts 11:27-12:25 more than a little convoluted, whereas a straightforward reading of the text encounters no problems, except that it does not seem to fit traditions about Peter and some interpretations of secular history.

Let’s consider first a “naive” reading of Acts 11:27 to the end of chapter 12. The first paragraph (11:27-30) tells of prophets from Jerusalem visiting Antioch and predicting a famine, which subsequently happened in the days of Claudius (ruled from AD 41-54), though an exact date for the famine is not given. Barnabas and Saul were appointed to deliver an offering from the church in Antioch to the church in Jerusalem to aid in their relief preparations (11:29-30).

Next we are told that “about that time” (12:1), Herod (Agrippa) persecuted the church, even killing James the brother of John (12:2). Then, because he saw that his policy pleased the Jews, he also arrested Peter during Unleavened Bread, intending to put him to death (12:3-4). However, God intervened and miraculously delivered Peter from prison (12:5-10). Having been released, Peter proceeded to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was called Mark (12:11-12), but ironically those present would not believe Rhoda’s report that Peter was at the door (12:13-15) — Luke obviously alluding to the resurrection appearances of Christ to women and the disciples. Finally, they let Peter in, and he reported to them how God had delivered him, after which he departed (12:17). The impression given by the flow of the story is that all of this happened around Passover, though we are not told what year.

On the next day, when it was discovered that Peter was gone, Herod Agrippa I did what kings do in such a situation: he ordered the guards killed, after which he went to Caesarea (12:18-19). Nothing in the story indicates long intervals in the action — just the opposite. What follows, seemingly quite soon after, is that Herod gave a speech to the people of Tyre and Sidon who had come to seek peace with Herod. They flattered Herod, saying “The voice of a god and not of a man” (12:22), praise which Herod was happy to accept. God, however, was not happy with Herod’s pride and cursed him with worms so that he died (12:23).

Secular history provides background. F. F. Bruce, citing Josephus, writes of Agrippa: “He ruled Judaea for only three years (A.D. 41-44), and it is within those three years that the events of Acts 12:1-23 (the execution of James the son of Zebedee and the imprisonment and escape of Peter) must be dated.”⁴

Returning to Acts 12, the concluding words of the chapter (12:25) bring us back to Barnabas and Saul: “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry, and they also took with them John whose surname was Mark.”

Thus, the story begins with Barnabas and Saul leaving Antioch to visit Jerusalem and concludes with Barnabas and Saul returning to Antioch. The natural reading of the account suggests that Barnabas and Saul were in Jerusalem when Peter was set free from prison. Since Barnabas and Mark were cousins, Barnabas and Saul might even have been among the many at Mary’s house when Peter unexpectedly appeared. At any rate, the flow of the narrative suggests that Herod Agrippa I died while Barnabas and Saul were still in Jerusalem.

For some scholars, my reading leads to a problem, for in their view the secular history and Luke’s account would not seem to fit. Again, Bruce provides the details.

“Luke’s account of Herod Agrippa’s attack on the apostles in Jerusalem is introduced by the vague phrase “about that time” (Acts 12: 1). The year 42 or 43 is most probable for this attack. In A.D. 41 Agrippa was in Rome at the time of the assassination of Gaius on 24 January, and stayed there until Claudius’s position as emperor was consolidated. It took at least five weeks to travel from Rome to Jerusalem, so he would not have reached Jerusalem long before Passover. It was at Passovertide that Peter was imprisoned, but when Agrippa arrived in his new capital he had more pressing matters to attend to than a campaign against the apostles. As for A.D. 44, he died in that year five days after taking ill at Caesarea while presiding at games in honour of the emperor which are usually identified with those celebrated quadrennially on the dies natalis of the city-that is, on 5 March. If this identification is right, then Agrippa was dead by Passover of that year, so the Passover of Acts 12:4 must be that of an earlier year than 44.”⁵

However, Keener seems to favor alternative dates that coincide with a footnote in Bruce’s article: “The events described in 12:20–23 occurred in 44 c.e. (Jos. War 2.219; cf. Ant. 19.343), as the latest coins from Agrippa’s reign demonstrate. If Agrippa’s collapse (described also in Josephus) occurred on Claudius’s birthday, it may date to August 1, 44 c.e.; the alternative is the anniversary of Caesarea’s founding (as a city dedicated to Caesar), on March 5 of the same year.”⁶ Hemer seems also to favor August as the date of Agrippa’s death: “Josephus’ authority is more secure for a well-known event within his own experience, and his dating here is confirmed by the dated sequence of Agrippa’s coins, the latest belonging to year 8 of his reign, or 44. If the occasion in honour of Caesar was Claudius’ birthday, it is possible that the actual day was 1st August 44 (cf. Suet. Claud. 2.1).”⁷

Following the flow of the story in Acts, the date of the celebration alluded to in Acts 12:21 would have probably been August 1, AD 44, some months after Passover in April. Fitting the story of Barnabas’ and Saul’s visit into this, we must assume they were in Jerusalem from Passover in early April to early August, a visit of about 4 months. This does not seem unreasonable when we take into account what Paul says in Galatians 2:1-10. Paul and Barnabas not only delivered the offering, but more importantly took time to meet with James, Peter, and John, confirming theological issues and mission strategy.

If all of this is correct, Acts 12:17 could not possibly refer to Peter going to Rome in AD 42, the second year of Claudius. But that is not the end of the story.

We must also consider Wenham’s second point about a well-grounded tradition. Does my explanation disprove the tradition that Peter visited Rome in AD 42? Not at all. It only means that Acts 12:17 does not refer to such a visit. In fact, however, another story in the record of Acts might indirectly confirm the tradition.

Reconsider an earlier Acts narrative: After Peter’s “third Pentecost” at the home of Cornelius — perhaps AD 40? — Peter returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2) and consulted with leaders about the visit with Cornelius (Acts 11:2-18). Then, for some unexplained reason, at this point, Peter disappears from the story until Acts 12. What happened to Peter? We do not know. But immediately after Peter vanishes from the story, a profoundly important event is recorded: Gentiles in Antioch turned to Christ (Acts 11:19-21). The church in Jerusalem was naturally interested and Acts records that they sent Barnabas to investigate (Acts 11:22-24).

This is something of a surprise. We should ask: Why Barnabas? Why not Peter? Remember, Jerusalem apostles sent Peter when they heard that Samaritans believed (Acts 8:14). Even more significant would be the fact that Peter had been the first apostle to baptize Gentiles. Would he not be the logical choice to visit Antioch? I think it should strike us as odd that it was not Peter who was sent.

Here the story in Acts might fit into the tradition of Peter’s visit to Rome in AD 42. We might speculate that the reason Peter was not sent to Antioch is because he had already gone to Rome — perhaps with an introduction by Cornelius — to further his work among Romans. Since Peter was not available, the church in Jerusalem decided on Barnabas.

Speculation along these lines keeps the story in Acts 11:27-12:25 intact as a chronologically continuous narrative that fits the history of the period as we know it and also allows for the traditional story of Peter visiting Rome in AD 42. Though I suggest a slight revision, Wenham’s four arguments seem to work. I have to add, however, that Peter might have been visiting a group of Roman Christians and so might not have been the literal “founder.” But there is also Romans 15:20, where Paul reminds the Roman church that he is careful not to build on another’s foundation, which suggests that someone founded the church. According to the tradition, that someone was Peter.

---

1. John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 149. Wenham develops each of these arguments in detail. ↩︎
2. Ibid., p. 278. ↩︎
3. Also, I assume the church in Ephesus, too, would have numbered well over 1000 members, considering Paul’s long and miracle-filled ministry in that important city and the value of the books the Ephesian Christians burned (Acts 19:19). ↩︎
4. F. F. Bruce, “Chronological Questions in the Acts of the Apostles,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 68: Issue 2. ↩︎
5. Ibid., pp. 276-77. ↩︎
6. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 2, 3:1-14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker, Academic, 2013), p. 1958. Bruce’s comment in a footnote is: “But if, as is possible, the games celebrated Claudius’s birthday, which fell on 1 August (Suetonius, Claudius, 2.1), the Passover of Acts 12:4 could have been that of A.D. 44. (In that year Passover fell on 3/4April.)” Op. cit. ↩︎
7. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck, 1989), p. 166. ↩︎