(eBook PDF) Image Operators: Image Processing in Python instant download
(eBook PDF) Image Operators: Image Processing in Python instant download
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-image-operators-image-
processing-in-python/
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-digital-image-processing-global-
edition-4th-edition/
https://ebookluna.com/download/digital-image-processing-using-matlab-ebook-
pdf/
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-digital-image-processing-4th-
edition-by-rafael-c-gonzalez/
Feature extraction and image processing for computer vision Fourth Edition
Aguado - eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/feature-extraction-and-image-processing-for-
computer-vision-ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) Radiographic Image Analysis 5th Edition
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-radiographic-image-analysis-5th-
edition/
https://ebookluna.com/download/riemannian-geometric-statistics-in-medical-
image-analysis-ebook-pdf/
https://ebookluna.com/download/handbook-of-robotic-and-image-guided-
surgery-ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) Deep Learning for Medical Image Analysis by S. Kevin Zhou
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-deep-learning-for-medical-image-
analysis-by-s-kevin-zhou/
https://ebookluna.com/download/handbook-of-medical-image-computing-and-
computer-assisted-intervention-ebook-pdf/
Contents
vii
viii Contents
4.3.5 PNG.................................................................................................. 65
4.3.6 Other Compressions......................................................................... 65
4.4 Summary....................................................................................................... 65
PART V Basis
xv
xvi Python Codes
xxi
Software and Data
Software and data used in this text are available at:
https://jmkinser49.wixsite.com/imageoperators
Software and images copyright (c) Jason M. Kinser 2018. Software and images provided on this
site may be used for educational purposes. All other rights are reserved by the author.
xxiii
Other documents randomly have
different content
Cnap. VIII] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 209 _ be
unimportant matters which called for no further discussion? All this is
in the highest degree improbable, and shows clearly that this whole
trial before the Sanhedrim is, in the form in which we have it, a
scene arranged by the author of the Acts, in which he does not even
take pains to sustain the dignity of the Apostle’s character. We need
not scruple to say that the quarrel between the Apostle and the High
Priest, which forms the prelude to this disorderly assize, is so
unworthy of the Apostle that thanks are due to any criticism which,
on sufficient reasons, would free him from this blot upon his
character. The author of the Acts of the Apostles has here in his
mind—a thing that tells against rather than in favour of the historical
character of his narrative—the trial of J esus before the Sanhedrim ;
but how unlike does the Apostle appear to the image of him who
“lived in him.” “Ubi est illa patientia Salvatoris qui quasi agnus ductus
ad victimam non aperuit os suum, sed clementer loquitur verberanti;
‘Si male locutus, argue de malo, si autem bene, quid me cedis?’”
This is Jerome’s sentence on this passage (contra Pelag. iii. init.),
and the impression left by these words is not effaced when he adds,
“Non Apostolo detrahimus, sed gloriam Domini preedicamus, qui in
carne passus carnis injuriam superat et fragilitatem.” Even Olshausen
does not hesitate to say that it appears unworthy of the Apostle to
have spoken so abusively; that by such behaviour he transgressed
the decorum due to the . supreme court of justice, and, confounding
the office with the person, gave passionate vent to his feelings with
regard to the man, where only the office was concerned! Neander
indeed is of opinion that these passionate words contained the truth,
and that the Apostle, when it was pointed out to him that it was the
High Priest whom he had thus vilified, at once retracted his words,
saying that he had 1 It is really incomprehensible how Olshausen
from his standpoint could have committed himself to such an opinion
on the behaviour of the Apostle. If the letter is worth so much, and
leaves no room to doubt that the Apostle really behaved as is
represented, and if it be also certain that the Apostles must, as
direct organs of the Holy Spirit, be considered infallible authorities
on every subject, then we ought not to judge the behaviour of the
Apostle according to our human standard of morality, but rather to
arrange our standard of morality according to the behaviour of the
Apostle. ~v ἢ 0
210 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, not reflected that it
was the High Priest to whom he was speaking, and to whom, of
course, according to law, reverence was due. But this can scarcely
stand, for the simple reason that the words οὐκ ἤδειν cannot mean
“non reputabam.” They can only mean “I did not know.” Now the
Apostle could not say in earnest that he did not know him : he can
only have said, “ I did not know that he was the High Priest,” in an
ironical sense. If the words are to be taken in this sense, they show
how little he thought of retracting. The same is shown by the
stratagem to which he immediately afterwards resorted in order to
embarrass the Sadducees, his real enemies, who had the High Priest
Ananias at their head, by ranging himself on the side of the
Pharisees, and making common cause with the latter against them.
The same tone and character run through the whole of the Apostle’s
behaviour at this trial. I cannot agree with the opinion which
Neander expresses on this passage (p. 421, Bohn, 306), “The
manner in which the Apostle conducted himself here shows him to
have been a man who knew how to control the ebullitions of feeling
with Christian self-control, and to avail himself of circumstances with
Christian prudence without any compromise of truth.” I can see here
neither any “ Christian repression of passion” nor any Christian
“turning circumstances to 3) account without prejudice to truth ;”
and I consider it unjust that the picture of the Apostle’s character
which we gain from his Epistles should be distorted by the
misrepresentations of an author who lived long after the Apostolic
period, and wrote in the interests of a party. If we have formed a
true estimate of the passages, xxi. 17-26 and xxiii. 1-10, we are led
to the conclusion that we are not entitled to regard the narrative of
which they form a part as a piece οἵ. actual history : even though
historical criticism should not be able to demonstrate in every
particular the truth of the suspicion at which it has thus arrived.
After our examination of the passage xxill, 1, sg., it must appear
doubtful whether the Apostle’s case was ever heard before the
Sanhedrim at all. If this is doubtful, what security have we that the
two speeches said to be delivered
Caap. VIII. ] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM, 211 by the
Apostle—one, in chap. xxii, before the Jewish people, the other,
chap. xxvi., before King Agrippa—were really delivered as the author
tells us? The first at any rate must have been delivered under
circumstances which were scarcely suitable for such a discourse. Is it
likely that the Roman tribune, who had arrested the Apostle in the
midst of a wild tumult, should have given permission to a prisoner
whom he held to be an incendiary of the most dangerous kind, and
about whom he knew nothing except what he heard from his own
mouth—that he was a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, to deliver a public
address when he was in the act of being removed to the castle ; it
being impossible to foresee what effect the speech would have on
the people, who were already excited to such an alarming degree? Is
it likely that in the excited state they were in, the people would have
listened so long with patience to a man whom they hated, and of
whom they were already convinced that he was worthy of death? At
any rate we must again draw attention to the curious circumstance
which marks this speech as well as the speech of Stephen, and that
delivered by the Apostle in the Areopagus. It is arranged in such a
way that when the speaker arrives at a certain point he is
interrupted. The point in this case is where he begins to speak of his
mission to the Gentiles, and this reminds the people of their special
reason for hating him. This point, however, is not reached until he
has worked out his main thesis as far as he could mean to do so
under such circumstances. Both speeches, chaps. xxii. and xxvi.
have a thoroughly apologetic tendency. The chief idea which the
Apostle dwells on is this: the vocation to which he had hitherto
devoted himself among the Gentiles was by no means arbitrarily
chosen, or the accidental result of a resolution arrived at in his own
mind without being influenced from without ; he had merely
followed a call that had been addressed to him from above, he had
been forced to take the step by an objective external agency, which
operated on him so powerfully that he could not resist it. Of course,
such an apology seems not inappropriate to the aim which the
Apostle is supposed to have had in view in delivering the two
speeches, but it also suits in a remarkable
212 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Parr Τ" manner the
apologetic tendency which the author of the Acts of the Apostles
generally sets himself to further. The question therefore arises from
it whether, when at other times he found it necessary to vindicate
his position, the Apostle was in the habit of referring to the fact on
which this apologyis based. But this is not the case: in none of the
Apostle’s Epistles,in which he certainly had occasion to defend his
position against opponents of various kinds, is there any distinct
reference in such a spirit and for such a purpose to the outward
matter of fact which he is here reported to have made the chief
subject of important discourses on two separate occasions. But such
an apology is, strictly considered, not at all suited to the situation in
which the Apostle found himself, at least in chap. xxii. We must not
here forget that the true cause of the hatred of the Jews against the
Apostle was not so much his faith in Christ as his attack upon the
law, As long as he did not vindicate himself on this last subject, any
apologetic attempt must have been in vain; but the whole of the
speech contains no reference to this, and we cannot suppose the
reason to have been that he was interrupted, or that he would have
spoken on the subject if the speech had been continued. In the
second speech also, in which the Apostle was at full liberty to
express himself fully and in detail, nothing is said on this point. | In
fact the Acts of the Apostles purposely avoids it as if Paul did not
differ in this respect from the other Apostles. In the then position of
the Apostle such an apology could not have been of much use ; but
things would appear differently to a writer who had to vindicate the
Apostle not merely in respect of his attitude towards the Mosaic law,
but generally in respect of his Apostolic authority. What stronger
evidence could be brought forward for such a purpose, than the
repeated and circumstantial narrative of the extraordinary event by
which, against his own intentions, and even against his will, he had
been placed in the career in which he had been working as an
Apostle ? If these two speeches, especially the first, can scarcely be
thought to have been actually delivered, then we can scarcely help
thinking,
Cuap. VIII.] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 213 with regard
to this part of the Acts which deals with the Apostle’s arrest, that the
course of affairs was in reality much simpler than we have it here.
The simple original fact has been made up into quite a number of
public trials, each of which, however, is merely a repetition of one
and the same scene. The same idea, also, is present in them all,
namely, to have the Apostle’s innocence proclaimed, now by himself,
and now by others whose verdict might appear to be entitled to
respect. This is the intention of the Apostle’s speech before the
people: it was not indeed possible for him to convince them of his
innocence, yet it was something to set up the objective point of view
from which his case must, in justice, be decided. The proceedings
before the Sanhedrim were instituted by the Roman tribune, to
whom the true cause of the tumultuous popular riot against the
Apostle was still unknown, in order γνῶναι τὸ ἀσφαλὲς, TO TL
κατηγορεῖται Tapa τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (xxli. 80). As the Apostle
succeeded in drawing the party of the Pharisees over to his interest,
and received from them the declaration, οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν
TO ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ (xxiii. 9), how striking a public recognition of his
innocence and of the justness of his cause was thus achieved! The
mild, indulgent treatment of the Apostle by the Roman tribune was,
as the Acts regards it, the result of the favourable issue of the trial
before the Sanhedrim. The new trial which was instituted by the
Roman Procurator Felix, in the form of a Roman process, gave the
Apostle a fresh opportunity not only of proving the injustice of the
accusation brought against him, but also of exhibiting his orthodoxy
as a Jew, in such a way as to make the point on which he differs
from his opponents appear to be avery trifling affair indeed. But here
also we cannot see how the Apostle could say with a clear
conscience, ὁμολογῶ δὲ τοῦτό σοι, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν
αἵρεσιν, οὕτω λατρεύω τῷ πατρῴῳ Oca, πιστεύων πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ
TOV νόμον καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γεγραμμένοις (inter alia, then
the commandment, Genesis xvii. 14), ἐλπίδα ἔχων εἰς τὸν Θεὸν, ἣν
καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι προσδέχονται, ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι νεκρῶν,
δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων" ἣ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι εἰπάτωσαν, τί εὗρον ἐν ἐμοὶ
ἀδίκημα, στάντος
214 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. μου ἐπὶ τοῦ
συνεδρίου ἣ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς, ἧς ἔκραξα ἑστὼς ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι
περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν (xxiv. 14,
sqg.) The case of the Apostle is here again placed in a very
equivocal light, but he is so far successful that the Procurator Felix
not only does not decide against him, but treats him with attention
and forbearance. Under the successor of Felix, the new Procurator
Porcius Festus, a new and somewhat splendid trial took place, at
which the Jewish King Agrippa and his sister Bernice were present.
The Procurator was convinced of the Apostle’s innocence as his
predecessor had been, yet his compliant attitude towards the Jews
made it necessary for the Apostle to appeal to the Emperor. This trial
is said to have been held as a compliment to the king; another
reason is given afterwards, that the Procurator wished to have the
king’s opinion on the case, he being a Jew (yet this opinion could
only be founded on the ex parte statement of the Apostle himself),
in order that he might have something definite to report to Rome.
The Apostle accordingly relates afresh before this august assembly
the history of his conversion, not without repeated assurances of his
orthodoxy as a Jew, though at the same time evading the real point
of the accusation against him. The result of this scene is the
unanimous decision of the whole assembly : ὅτι οὐδὲν θανάτου
ἄξιον ἢ δεσμῶν πράσσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος with the additional
declaration of Agrippa to Festus, ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος
οὗτος, εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα. This was the result to which the
author of the Acts wished to lead his reader, and he does not neglect
to point out the importance of such an opinion from the mouth of
one who was so well acquainted with all the customs and religious
controversies of the Jews, and who also knew something of the
history of Jesus (xxvi. 3). The question directly put to the King by
the Apostle (verse 27), πιστεύεις βασιλεῦ ᾿Αγρίππα τοῖς προφήταις ;
with the confident answer given by the Apostle himself, οἶδα ὅτι
πιστεύεις, What purpose do they serve but to increase the
importance of the King’s decision, by this assurance of his
orthodoxy? But it can scarcely be imagined that the decision of a
King whose morals were not of the most
Cuap. VIII.] HIS ARREST AT JERUSALEM. 215 respectable,
could have possessed such value in the Apostle’s eyes; nor that he
prized so highly the opportunity afforded him of pleading his cause
before the King, as the author of the Acts of the Apostles represents
him to have said at the outset of his speech, xxvi. 2. |
CHAPTER IX. THE APOSTLE PAUL IN ROME—HIS
IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. In consequence of the Apostle’s
appeal to the Emperor, the Procurator Festus ordered him to be
removed from Cesarea to Rome. He travelled with some other
prisoners under the escort of a Roman centurion, whose humane
treatment of him is warmly spoken of in the Acts. The detailed
narrative of this journey, apparently taken from an account of it by
Luke, though betraying another hand here and there, is yet the most
authentic information that the Acts gives us on the Apostle’s life ; for
the history of his apostolic labours, however, it contains little of
importance. But as soon as he arrives in Rome we see him plunged
into a controversy with the Jews, the results of which demand our
study and attention. The most important statement bearing on the
Apostle’s life which this part of the Acts contains, is that given at the
close of the work, that the Apostle remained two whole years in
Rome, and held free intercourse with all that came to him, working
unhindered for the kingdom of God by the preaching of the gospel of
Christ. What makes this concluding remark, which has been so much
discussed, so enigmatical, is that in speaking of a period of two
years, it suggests that at the expiration of this period there was a
change in the Apostle’s circumstances, and that some definite event
then took place. But what could this have been? If the appeal of the
Apostle to the Emperor was decided after this long delay, and the
Apostle consequently set at liberty, it does not seem conceivable that
the author of the Acts of the Apostles should pass over in utter
silence an event for
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 217
which the reader is prepared by all that goes before, and which
would have been in such striking accordance with the apologetic
tendency of his work.’ f, “The general assumption is that at the end
of these two years the Apostle was set at liberty, either in
consequence of the verdict of the Emperor, or in some other way ;
that he then made several journeys, especially one to Spain, but that
he afterwards underwent a second imprisonment at Rome, and at
last suffered martyrdom along with the Apostle Peter. A second
Roman imprisonment is first spoken of by Eusebius, but the idea had
already become traditional in his time, and is based upon no other
evidence than the Epistles called by the Apostle’s name, which were
thought not to be intelligible without it. Our opinion on this
pretended fact, as well as on all that goes beyond the limit set by
the Acts, depends chiefly on the question how far the historical
connection in which these laterfortunes of the Apostle are embodied
appears to be worthy of our confidence. We still find Peter and Paul
inseparable from each other ; even in their death they are not
divided. This is very significant ; we cannot fail to see here the
mythico-traditional working out of the parallel which the author of
the Acts has instituted between the two Apostles all along. The
legend continues to expand in the direction of this definite idea ; and
this process does not cease till a belief is formed and takes
possession of the mind of the period, that Peter and Paul, the most
illustrious of the Apostles, had founded the Roman Church together,
and after this common work had suffered a common martyrdom in
the same city. Here the legend reaches 1 In order to explain this
conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles, Schneckenburger remarks, p.
126—‘‘He came to Rome and there preached unmolested : μετὰ
πάσης παῤῥησίας ἀκωλύτως. Is not this a fitting conclusion? Is it not
quite in harmony with the design running through the whole history
of Paul?” Certainly ; if, that is to say, the author of the Acts had no
more positive result to communicate ; if Paul was not actually
acquitted and released. 2H. EL ii. 22, Τότε μὲν οὖν ἀπολογησάμενον
αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος διακονίαν λόγος ἔχει στείλασθαι τὸν
ἀπόστολον" δεύτερον δ᾽ ἐπιβάντα τῇ αὑτῇ πόλει τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν
(Νέρωνα) τελειωθῆναι μαρτυρίῳ ἐν ᾧ δεσμοῖς ἐχόμενος τόν πρὸς
Τιμόθεον δευτέραν συντάττει ἐπιστολὴν, ὁμοῦ σημαίνων τήν τε
προτέραν αὐτῷ γενομένην ἀπολογίαν καὶ τὴν παραπόδας τελείωσιν.
218 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. its completion. Its
point of departure was simply what was known of the life of Paul;
nothing more. Paul did actually come to Rome : his office as Apostle
to the Gentiles led him thither, and we may also take it as a
historical fact that he died there as a martyr. In the case of Peter,
however, we can find no basis for the story but vague legends. It
cannot be disputed that he laboured for the Gospel beyond the
bounds of Judea. At least the Acts of the Apostles represents him as
not only going into Samaria, but also as visiting the cities of
Phcenicia; and, according to Gal. ii. 11, he also appeared at Antioch.
But on this point further proof is wanting: nothing can be built on
the passage 1 Cor. ix. 5. The Apostle Paul here says of himself, μὴ
οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ
ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ Κηφᾶς, but this περιώγειν
can only refer to the Apostle Paul himself, and the sense of the
words can only be: Had he not the right to take with him on his
missionary journeys an ἀδελφὴ γυνὴ as the rest of the Apostles had
an ἀδελφὴ yuvn? In any case it may well be assumed that the
foreign missionary activity of the Apostle Peter was directed
exclusively to the Jews, according to the arrangements made Gal. ii.
9. The martyrdom of the Apostle Peter is certainly mentioned in the
New Testament, but it is only in the apocryphal-looking appendix to
the Gospel of John, xxi. 18, 19, and neither here nor in the fourth
epistle of Clemens Romanus, ch. v., is the place specified. 1 Peter v.
13 shows, however, that when that Epistle was written, the legend
had fixed his residence at Rome; the interpretation of Babylon by
Rome agrees best with the whole tenor of the Epistle. Perhaps we
may see a slight allusion to this legend in the two passages, Acts xix.
21 and xxiii. 11. Even at that time, when the Apostle Paul first took
the resolve to travel from Ephesus by Macedonia and Achaia to
Jerusalem, he is said to have declared emphatically ὅτι μετὰ τὸ
γενέσθαι με ἐκεῖ, δεῖ με καὶ Ῥώμην ἰδεῖν, and when he had
successfully passed through the trial before the Sanhedrim, and the
stormy scene with which it ended, the Lord is represented as
appearing to him on the
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 219
following night, and encouraging him with the words, Θάρσει, ὡς
yap διεμαρτύρω τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ εἰς ‘Iepoveadnp, οὕτω σε δεῖ καὶ εἰς
“Ρώμην μαρτυρῆσαι. In both these passages there is so marked a
suggestion, that the apostolate must reach its highest point, and
receive its crown of glory in the εἰς Ρώμην μαρτυρῆσαι, that there
must be some special meaning in the phrase. In the case of an
author who displays so distinct and so persistent an apologetic
interest, it may not be too bold to suppose that the thought of the
Apostle Peter, whom legend had already taken to Rome, may have
been before his mind. Whether this be so or not, there was no doubt
about the Apostle Paul’s case; but the author wishes to make his
claim to the honour as clear as possible, and makes him express
beforehand his knowledge of his destination. Starting from this, and
seeking to trace the elements of the legend further, we find it divide
into two different branches, one of which takes an Anti-Pauline, the
other a Petrino-Pauline direction. The first of these forms is
connected with Simon Magus, on whose account Peter is made to
come to Rome. Even the Acts of the Apostles represents them as
meeting in Samaria. When the Apostle perceived the perverse nature
of the Magus from his design to obtain the Holy Spirit by impure
means, he encountered the danger of corruption which threatened
Christianity through the Magus. As for the question whether the
Magus represents a real historical person, it is clear from the Acts
that he is the reflection of a Samaritan popular deity. The religion of
Samaria being considered a heathen one, he became the
representative both of the heretical Christianity which was mingled
with elements of heathenism, and of heathenism itself;' and the
Apostle Peter travelled from place to place, from land to land, from
east to west, hard on the footsteps of the Magus who went before
him, to combat him in every place, and to refute the godless
doctrine he promulgated. This is the form in which the legend
appears in the pseudoClementine Homilies, and in the writings
connected with them. 1 Die Chr. Gnosis, p. 306. A more accurate
and detailed account of Simon Magus will be found in ‘“‘
Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrh.,” p. 87, sq. nm
220 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. In the same form
Eusebius is also acquainted with it. As soon as the Magus had fled
before the Apostle from the east to the west, and had attained so
great success in Rome itself by means of his magic arts, that he was
there honoured as a god and had a statue erected to him, Peter also
appeared there. Παραπόδας γοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας
ἡ πανάγαθος Kat φιλανθρωποτάτη τῶν ὅλων πρόνοια τὸν καρτερὸν
καὶ μέγαν τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, τὸν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων
προήγορον, Πέτρον, ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥώμην ὡς ἐπὶ τηλικοῦτον λυμεῶνα βίου
χειραγωγεῖ ὅς οἷατις γενναῖος τοῦ Θεοῦ στρατηγὸς τοῖς θείοις ὅπλοις
φραξάμενος, τὴν πολυτίμητον ἐμπορείαν τοῦ νοητοῦ φωτὸς ἐξ
ἀνατολῶν τοῖς κατὰ δύσιν ἐκόμιζεν φῶς αὐτὸ καὶ λόγον ψυχῶν
σωτήριον, τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας εὐαγγελιζόμενος.
What is said here as well as by Justin Martyr in the lesser “ Apology,”
of a statue erected to this Simon in Rome, on an island of the Tiber,
with this inscription, “‘ Simoni deo Sancta,” is an evident mistake, a
confusion of Simon Magus with the Sabine Roman god Semo Sancus
(who may also have been originally allied with the ancient Eastern
Sem, Semo); but the curious and important legend of the Magus and
the Apostle Peter cannot have been derived altogether from this
circumstance. This then was what brought the Apostle to Rome at so
early a period. For the truth of this tradition Eusebius appeals at the
close of his narrative ‘Gi. 15) to Clement of Alexandria, who has
related the history in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, and to the
similar testimony of Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. It is doubtful here
whether Clement and Papias are cited as witnesses for the whole of
the foregoing narrative about Simon Magus and Peter, or only for
that part of it which refers to the Gospel of Mark. Eusebius is
speaking about the reason why Mark composed his Gospel in Rome;
he says: “the great impression which Peter had made on the Romish
Christians by his brilliant victory over Simon Magus, had produced in
them a strong desire to possess a written memorial of the Christian
doctrine he had preached to them. So on their pressing entreaty,
Mark, the companion of Peter, drew up the
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 221
Gospel which has been handed down under his name.” As we see in
Eusebius vi. 14, Clement did actually mention Peter’s teaching in
Rome, but whether the elder Papias did so too is doubtful, as
Eusebius can only have referred to the passage quoted by him (ili.
39) from the works of Papias, in which it is only said that the Gospel
of Mark arose out of the doctrinal teachings of the Apostle Peter. The
Romish origin of the Gospel of Mark seems, moreover, to have been
an ancient tradition, which may thus have been well known to
Papias; and if he knew this, why should he not have been
acquainted with the rest of the story which stood in close connection
with it? Mark came to Rome only as the companion of Peter, but for
what cause could Peter have come to Rome at so early a period, but
that the presence of Simon Magus there made it necessary that he
should be there also? It is very possible that even in this form the
Apostle Peter, who followed him wherever he went, to combat him
and convert the people everywhere from his false doctrine, is
expressly described as the Apostle to the Gentiles, which he really
was not, but is now made to have been, in order not to leave this
renown exclusively to Paul. The pseudo-Clementine Homilies
expressly ascribe this title to the Apostle Peter, as he himself says, lil.
59, “ ὁρμᾷν εἰς Ta ἔθνη Ta πολλοὺς Θεοὺς λέγοντα, κηρύξαι καὶ
διδάξαι, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς ὃς οὐρανὸν ἔκτισε καὶ γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν
autos πάντα ὅπως ἀγαπήσαντες αὐτὸν σωθῆναι δυνηθῶσιν." This
sphere, which we are accustomed to see occupied exclusively by
Paul, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, is here described as being filled
by Peter equally, and in this same Homily we are startled to find, by
plain indications, that Simon Magus, whom the Apostle Peter
overcomes, represents the Apostle Paul himself. It has already been
shown what unequivocal attacks upon the Apostle Paul these
Homilies contain ; and especially how their theory of revelation is
used to prove that he had forced his way among the number of the
Apostles by illegitimate means, and was destitute of
222 IIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I, all true apostolic
authority. This attack runs through the whole of these Homilies. The
great charge brought against Simon Magus is that he had called
Peter κατεγνωσμένος (Hom. xvii. 19). Now this apples to the Apostle
Paul (Gal. 11. 11) There is the same reference when Peter, in the
letter to James which is prefixed to the Homilies, chap. 11., speaks
of a difference of doctrine which he not only knew of as a prophet,
but because he could already see the beginning of the evil. “For
some among the Gentiles,’ he says, “have rejected my preaching in
accordance with the law, and have adopted the lawless and
unworthy doctrine of a man opposed tome. Even in my lifetime
some have undertaken, through artful interpretation of my
teachings, to transform them into exhortations to the abolition of the
law, as if that were my real opinion, and I were not straightforward
in my teaching, which may God forbid. This conduct of theirs is
nothing but opposition to the law of God, which was given by Moses,
and testified to by our Lord when he said of its everlasting duration,
‘ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall not
pass away from the law.’ Thus he spoke that it might be kept in its
entirety. But those persons who, I know not how, profess to be able
to tell what I think, and to understand the teachings which I deliver
better than I do myself, say of those teachings, that their doctrine
and intention are such as I never intended them to be. If such
persons dare to utter such lies in my lifetime, how much more will
they dare to lie after my death !” There can scarcely be any doubt
that this ἄνθρωπος ἐχθρὸς, whose ἄνομος Kat φλυαρώδης
διδασκαλία the Gentiles accepted, is the Apostle to the Gentiles,
Paul. He is also that πλάνος, of whom Peter says, Hom. ii. 17, that
Simon Magus came to the Gentiles before him, but that he (Peter)
followed him, ἐπελθὼν ὡς σκότῳ φῶς, ὡς ἀγνοίᾳ γνῶσις, ὡς νόσῳ
ἴασις. οὕτως δὴ ὡς ἀληθὴς ἡμῶν προφήτης εἴρηκεν, πρῶτον ψευδὲς
δεῖ ἐλθεῖν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπὸ πλάνου τινὸς καὶ εἶθ᾽ οὕτως μετὰ
καθαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθὲς κρύφα διαπεμφθῆναι,
εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἐσομένων αἱρέσεων. The false gospel of this
heretical teacher, on
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 223.
which the true one follows, is the Pauline gospel of the abolition of
the(faw,Jand the words μετὰ καθαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου are not
merely a piece of chronology, but an allusion to Acts xxi. 28,
according to which passage the Jews fell upon Paul with the cry,
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ Kal τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ
τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχοῦ “διδάσκων, ἔτι τὲ καὶ Ἕλληνας
εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκε τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον. With
reference to the occurrence here narrated, Paul’s conduct, aiming, as
it was thought, at the violent abolition of the Mosaic ie and all the
institutions of Judaism, is designated as a καθαίρεσις τοῦ
ἁγίου.τόπου. His wild and characteristically heathen attack upon the
Tas uw was thus represented as a prec? to the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple, the ἅγιος τόπος, by the Romans. These
charges show the genuine Ebionitish spirit and character of these
Homilies. The Ebionites saw in the Apostle Paul nothing but an
apostate from the law, and a false teacher, and they rejected all his
Epistles." Epiphanius could have mentioned, if he had chosen, many
other particulars of their abuse of the Apostle Paul.2/ Men are apt to
think that those whom they detest as heretics and innovators in
religion have never been true members of the religion against which
they have thus grievously transgressed, and so the Ebionites
maintained that Paul was no Jew by birth, but a Greek or Gentile,
born of Gentile parents, and who had only in later life become a
proselyte to Judaism. To account for his inimical attitude towards
Judaism a story was told which reminds us of many other charges
originating in the same spirit. When Paul, the Ebionites asserted,
came ata later period to Jerusalem and remained there for some
time, he wished to marry a daughter of the High Priest. With this
view he became a proselyte, and submitted to circumcision. Failing,
however, to obtain his desire, he vented his wrath and vexation by
writing against circumcision and the Sabbath, and the law generally.’
It may be asserted that it 1 Trenzeus contra Haer., i, 26. Eusebius, H.
E. iii. 27. 2 Περὶ rod ἁγιού Παύλου, ὡς βλασφημοῦντες αὐτὸν
λέγουσιν, πόσα ἔχω λέγειν ; Haer. xxx. 25. 3 Epiphanius, cap. xvi.
224 ᾿ LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Parr I. was only in the
extreme development of their heresy that the Ebionites took up so
hostile an attitude towards the Apostle Paul ; but we must not forget
that the tendency which, as it increased, constituted Ebionitism a
heresy, was present in it from the beginning. The Jewish-Christian
teachers whom Paul combated in his Epistles afford the clearest
evidence of the feeling with which the JewishChristians regarded the
Apostle Paul even in the first age of the Church, in the period when
the antagonism between Ebionitism and Paulinism was only
beginning to arise. Wherever Ebionitism appeared, whether in a
more or less advanced stage, the same views and feelings with
regard to the Apostle Paul must to some extent have prevailed.
Papias and Hegesippus belonged to the JewishChristian or Ebionite
party, and we cannot be surprised to find, even in the few fragments
of their writings which have been handed down to us, allusions
which make us certain of their anti-Pauline tendency. Papias took a
great deal of trouble (as he himself tells us in Eusebius, H. E. 111,
39) to collect together and keep in remembrance all the information
about the disciples of the Lord that he could glean from living
tradition, which he accounted of more value than written documents.
For this end he made inquiries specially of those who had been in
any way connected with the original disciples of Jesus. “Οὐ yap,” he
says, “ τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον ὥσπερ ob πολλοὶ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς
τὠληθῇ διδάσκουσιν, οὐδὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς
μνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῆ πίστει δεδομένας
καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς ἀληθείας. Therefore he carefully
inquired for what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, or any
other of the disciples of the Lord had said. Not only is there no
mention made here of the Apostle Paul, but it is not improbable that
a man who laid so much weight on tradition which went back
directly to the doctrine and person of Christ, should have had the
Apostle Paul and his adherents in view, when he spoke of those who
τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσι, in opposition to those who, in
what they knew of the Lord, possessed the utterances of truth itself.
Photius has preserved a remarkable fragment on Hegesippus, in his
extracts from
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 225 _a
work of the Monophysite Stephen Gobarus." The work of Stephen
Gobarus consisted of a series of articles in which he collected
together the contradictory declarations of the teachers of the
Church. Thus he brings forward the statement, ὅτι τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα
τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ
καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη, and in contrast to this he goes on:
Ἡγήσιππος μέντοι, apyaios TE avnp καὶ ἀποστολικὸς ἐν TO πέμπτῳ
τῶν ὑπομνημάτων, οὐκ O10 ὅτι καὶ παθὼν μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα
λέγει καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε θείων γραφῶν
καὶ τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος" μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν οἱ βλέποντες
καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἀκούοντας, The first extract is taken from 1 Cor.
ii. 9, and the charge of false doctrine seems therefore to point to the
Apostle Paul. He is said to have made an untrue statement in these
words, and to have contradicted the words of the Lord, Matt. xiii. 16.
In this passage Jesus calls his disciples blessed, because they see
and hear what many prophets and righteous men had desired to see
and hear, but had not seen nor heard. The reason why they are
called blessed, is the direct personal intercourse with Jesus, which
the Apostles were privileged to have. This utterance of the Lord
seems to Hegesippus to conflict with what the Apostle Paul says, 1
Cor. ii. 9, “ ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται' ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, καὶ οὖς οὐκ
ἤκουσε, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς
τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
αὑτοῦ," and as Hegesippus undoubtedly understands these words to
refer to the manner in which Paul asserted that he had been called
to the apostolic office, namely, by a special revelation, we have here
the same contention as is set up in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies,
when these deny the true characteristics of apostleship to the
Apostle Paul, because he had become an Apostle only by a
revelation in a vision, and not, as the other Apostles, by immediate
intercourse with Jesus. Because this qualification for the apostolic
office was wanting to him, Hegesippus, speaking in the spirit of
Ebionitism, declares him to be a liar, and his asser1 Bibl. Cod., 232.
VOL. 1. Ρ
226 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. tion that a man may
become an Apostle as he had, without any . outward hearing or
seeing, to be a groundless one (μάτην εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα). There is no
reason’ whatever why we should take the words of Hegesippus in
any other sense than that which they so obviously suggest, and
which satisfies so well the requirements of the argument in which
they occur. All that we know of Hegesippus leaves us in no doubt of
his Ebionitism.’ It will not help us much to suppose with Neander
that he may have said this not as against Paul, but in the
vehemence of his zeal against the opponents of the material
millennium, which the Pauline passage already quoted, and others
like it, might be used to discredit, as they are opposed to sensuous
ideas of the happiness of the future.” Such zeal for the material
millennium would simply stamp him as a genuine Ebionite, and
warrant us in looking for the usual Ebionite view of the Apostle
Paul.* It is just a strong expression of these views, when it is said of
the Apostle Paul that he is no Jew but a Gentile, a Samaritan—that
very Simon Magus who was conquered by the Apostle Peter. It may
reasonably be supposed that this form of the legend, according to
which Peter’s controversy with the Magus made him follow that
personage even to Rome, originated in the anti-Pauline tendency of
Ebionitism. 1 Cf. my remarks on this subject in the Theol. Jahrb.,
1844, p. 571. 2 Neander’s Church History, ii. 431 (Bohn’s edition). 3
The only objection that can be made to this reference of the passage
of Hegesippus to the Apostle Paul, is that according to another
passage from the same work of Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. E. iii. 32)
the Church up to the time of the first Gnostics had remained a pure
untainted virgin, and only after the holy company of the Apostles
was broken up did the ἄθεος πλάνη begin. But it must not be
forgotten that the Church at that time remained so only ἐν ἀδήλῳ
που σκότει φωλευόντων εἰσέτι τότε τῶν, εἰ καί τινες ὑπῆρχον,
παραφθείρειν ἐπιχειρούντων τὸν ὑγιῆ κανόνα τοῦ σωτηρίου
κηρύγματος. At that time, then, ὑπῆρχόν τινες, as Peter speaks of
such τινες in the epistle to James in the Homilies, chapter ii, ἔτει μου
περιόντος ἐπεχείρησάν τινες, etc. Although Hegesippus attached no
further importance to these τινὲς, it was only because the immediate
presence of the Apostles seemed to him so overpowering that a
heretical element, even did it exist, could not flourish. The
expressions αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια, ἡ ἔνθεος σοφία, which Papias and
Hegesippus use of the person of Christ, are very characteristic of
their Ebionite position. The expressions are used in the Homilies to
point out the true prophets. Papias thought he heard the living voice
of this truth in the traditions which he collected.
Cuap. IX.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 227
The other form of the legend represents the two Apostles as in
fraternal agreement instead of being at enmity. They work together
in their vocation, share the same martyr-death, and the scene of
their common and glorious martyrdom is Rome, the Eternal City of
the world. The comparison of the different witnesses on this legend
shows clearly how it concentrated itself more and more on the
common work and end which the two Apostles had found in Rome.
Clement of Rome, the oldest witness on this side, merely speaks of
the martyrdom with which the two Apostles ended the great work of
their life. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. 111. sqq.), he
reminds this church, which was again divided into parties, of the
great mischief which is excited by envy and malevolence, and
exhorts it to order and unity. After quoting some Old Testament
examples in support of his exhortations, he continues (chap. v.) :
"AAV ἵνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμώτων παυσώμεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς
ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς: λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα
ὑποδείγματα. Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι
ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἦλθον. Λάώβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν
ἡμῶν τοὺς ayaθοὺς ἀποστόλους. ‘O Πέτρος διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ
ἕνα, οὐδὲ δύο, ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους, καὶ οὕτω
μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. Διὰ
ζῆλον ὁ Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέσχεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ
φορέσας, ῥαβδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε TH ἀνατολῇ
καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν,
δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ
κόσμου, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος
μέγιστος ὑπόγραμμος. It may be reasonably doubted here whether
the μαρτυρεῖν of Peter is to be understood in a special sense, of
martyrdom, or in a general sense, of his witness to the truth
throughout his apostolic labours. But, even irrespective of this, there
is little advantage conceded to Peter over Paul; he rather holds the
second place. Not only are the long and checkered labours of Paul
described in detail, but it is specially mentioned that he was a herald
228 LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Part I. of the faith in the
west as well as in the east, and when he arrived at the end of his
career was the teacher of the whole world. Nor is there a word to
show that the two Apostles suffered martyrdom together ; we are
led rather to infer the contrary, since it is said only of Paul and not of
Peter, that he worked in the west as well as in the east. They are
merely mentioned together as μάρτυρες in the wider sense; and a
distinction is drawn between them, as Paul, having come ἐπὶ τὸ
τέρμα τῆς δύσεως καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, is called the
great example of steadfast endurance. Ata later period, when the
martyrdom of Peter was an established fact, there was still some
variety of opinion on the point whether both the Apostles suffered
martyrdom at the same time. We find in the transactions of a Roman
Synod, held under Bishop Gelasius L, the following sentence in
reference to Peter, “ Cui data est etiam societas 8S. Pauli, qui non
diverso sicut heretici garriunt, sed uno tempore, eodemque die,
gloriosa morte cum Petro in urbe Roma cum Nerone agonizans
coronatus est.”* It is true that the difference mentioned here is only
one of date, but if the two Apostles did not suffer at the same time
as well as at the same place, it makes a very different affair, and so
the “ garrire” that is charged to the heretics probably covers a wider
difference, and rests on some old tradition. The tendency, however,
which led to the Apostles being placed in the relation to each other
which we find in the passage quoted from Clemens Romanus (it is
rather juxtaposition than identification with each other in this
passage) tended increasingly in the further development of the
legend to represent them as having everything in common, They not
only suffered a common martyrdom at the same time and in the
same place, that is to say in Rome, but it is no accidental meeting
that unites them here; they had entered on the journey to Rome
from the same point of their common labours, as if with a view to
the same martyrdom. This fact is specially dwelt on in the testimony
of the Corinthian Bishop Dionysius, who lived soon after the middle
of the second century. Eusebius quotes him as a witness of the
common Roman martyr1 Cf. Valesius in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. ii. 25.
Cuap. 1X.] HIS IMPRISONMENT AND MARTYRDOM. 229
dom of the two Apostles in the words (ii. 25), ὡς δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν
ἄμφω καιρὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν, Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος
ἐγγράφως Ῥωμαίοις ὁμιλῶν ὧδέ πως παρίστησιν: ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ
τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσιὰς τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν
γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε. Καὶ yap ἄμφω
καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς
τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν.
Not merely did the two Apostles suffer the same martyrdom in Rome
—they were also the common founders of the Corinthian as well as
of the Roman Church. From this time forward it is a standing
tradition that the Roman Church, as Irenzeus says in the well-known
passage,’ was the “maxima et antiquissima et omnibus cognita, a
gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romee fundata et
constituta ecclesia.” The two Apostles now stand side by side like
brothers, united together in death as in life; both share the same
renown. But this equilibrium is soon lost in the preponderance of one
over the other. For it is something else than the simple truth of
history which places them so fraternally side by side, and in the
growth of the legend there is a rivalry working between them. In the
earliest form of the legend Paul had been treated as an adversary,
and now he has to yield precedence at least to Peter, who is gaining
the upper hand of him. If both Apostles, as Tertullian says,’ in the
“felix ecclesia totam doctrinam cum sanguine suo profuderunt,” it is
only Peter who “passioni dominice adzequatur,’ whilst Paul
“Johannis” (the Baptist) “exitu coronatur.” With Origen this story has
grown.® After preaching the Gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia, Peter had at last come to Rome, and ἐν
“Ῥώμῃ γενόμενος ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς, οὕτως αὐτὸς
ἀξιώσας παθεῖν, on which Rufinus gives the following commentary in
his translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius: “ Crucifixus
est deorsum, capite demerso, quod ipse ita fieri deprecatus est, ne 1
Contra Her. iii. 3. 2 De Prescr. Her. c. 36. Compare Adv. Marc. iv. 5.
Petrus passioni dominice adzequatur. 3 In the passage in Eusebius,
Η, E, iii. 1. Compare Dem, Ev. 37; H. E. ii. 25.
230 IITFE AND WORK OF PAUL. [Parr I. exeequari Domino
videretur,’ although Tertullian takes no objection to the “adequari
passioni dominice.” Their graves even were not allowed to be in the
same place. The Presbyter Caius, living under the Roman Bishop
Zephyrinus, was the first to speak, as Eusebius states, of the martyr-
graves of the two Apostles. In his work against the Montanist Proclus
he is said to have mentioned the place, “ ἔνθα τῶν εἰρημένων
ἀποστόλων τὰ ἱερὰ σκηνώpata κατατέθειται, with the words, “᾿Εγὼ
δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι. ᾿Εὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς
ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿στίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ
τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν," and Eusebius
states, in proof of the trustworthiness of the traditions concerning
Peter and Paul, that the places where the two Apostles were buried
were generally known at this time, and were called by this name."
Caius does not indeed give the names of the Apostles in connection
with these τρόπαια, but there can be no doubt that at this time the
legend had already assigned to the Apostle Peter the more
distinguished place in the Vatican, and to Paul that outside the city
on the road leading to Ostia. Still more striking is the subordination
of Paul to Peter in the narrative of Lactantius : “Quumque jam Nero
imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit, et editis quibusdam miraculis, que
virtute ipsius Dei, data sibi ab eo potestate faciebat, convertit multos
ad justitiam, Deoque templum fidele ac stabile collocavit. Qua re ad
Neronem delata, quum animadverteret, non modo Rome, sed ubique
quotidie magnam multitudinem deficere a cultu idolorum et ad
religionem novam, damnata vetustata, transire, ut erat execrabilis ac
nocens tyrannus —Petrum cruci affixit et Paulum interfecit.”” Here
Paul is only casually mentioned ; the legend confines itself to Peter;
he alone is the original and true founder of the Roman Church. As
for these miraculous deeds which excited so much attention, there is
no doubt that the reference is to Simon Magus, and so 1 Πιστοῦται
τὴν ἱστορίαν ἡ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου εἰς δεῦρο κρατήσασα ἐπὶ τῶν
αὐτόθι κοιμητηρίων πρόσρησις. H. E, ii. 25. 2 De Mort. Persecut.
cap. 2.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookluna.com