In respect to the primacy of Peter we can observe a certain difference even among the Palestinian gospels which succeeded to the primitive _syntagma_ of Matthew. Little, indeed, is known of the orthodox _Gospel of the Nazarenes_, beyond its relatively late and composite character; for it borrowed from Matthew, Mark and Luke in turn. Its list of apostles, however, begins with "John and James the sons of Zebedee," _then_ "Simon and Andrew," and winds up: "Thee also, Matthew, did I call, as thou wert sitting at the seat of custom, and thou followedst me." The anti-Pauline _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ shows its conception of the seat of apostolic authority by giving to "James the Just" the place of Peter as recipient of that first manifestation of the risen Lord, which laid the foundation of the faith. Why then does the Greek Palestinian gospel, in contrast with its rivals, lay such special stress on the primacy of Peter? From the cautious and (as it were) deprecatory tone of the appendix to John (John xxi.) in seeking to commend the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" as worthy to be accepted as a "true witness" without detriment to the acknowledged authority of Peter as chief under-shepherd of the flock, we may infer that not at Rome alone, but wherever there was question of 'apostolic' tradition, the authority of Peter was coming rapidly to the fore. The tendency at Antioch is even more marked than at Rome, as is manifest from Acts. If, then, it seems stronger still in a region where we should expect the authority of James to be put forward, this need not be taken as a specifically Roman trait. We must realize the sharp antagonism which existed in Palestine from the time of the Apostolic council down, between (1) the consistent legalists, who maintained down to the period of Justin (153) and the _Clementine Homilies and Recognitions_ (180-200), their bitter hostility to Paul and his gospel of Gentile freedom from the Law; and (2) the 'catholic,' or liberal, Jewish-Christians, who took the standpoint of the Pillars. It is but one of many indications of its 'catholic' tendency that our Matthew increases the emphasis on the apostolic authority of Peter to the point of an actual primacy. The phenomenon must be judged in the light of the disappearance or suppression of all evangelic story save what came under the name of Peter, and the tendency in Acts to bring under his name even the entire apostleship to the Gentiles. Peter is not yet in these early writings the representative of Rome, but of _catholicity_. The issue in Matthew is not as between Rome and some other dominant see, but (as the reflection of the language of Gal. i. 17 f. in Matt. xvi. 17 shows) as between 'catholic' apostolic authority and the unsafe tendencies of Pauline independence.