Having set out from Cæsarea on the way to Tripolis, we made our first stoppage at a small town called Dora, because it was not far distant; and almost all those who had believed through the preaching of Peter could scarcely bear to be separated from him, but walked along with us, again and again gazing upon him, again and again embracing him, again and again conversing with him, until we came to the inn. On the following day we came to Ptolemais, where we stayed ten days; and when a considerable number had received the word of God, we signified to some of them who seemed particularly attentive, and wished to detain us longer for the sake of instruction, that they might, if so disposed, follow us to Tripolis. We acted in the same way at Tyre, and Sidon, and Berytus, and announced to those who desired to hear further discourses, that we were to spend the winter at Tripolis. 718 Therefore, as all those who were anxious followed Peter from each city, we were a great multitude of elect ones when we entered into Tripolis. On our arrival, the brethren who had been sent before met us before the gates of the city; and taking us under their charge, conducted us to the various lodgings which they had prepared. Then there arose a commotion p. 135 in the city, and a great assemblage of persons desirous to see Peter. 719
[In books iv.–vi. the scene is laid at Tripolis. The same city is the locality to which Homilies VIII.–XI. are assigned. The intervening portion (Homilies IV.–VII.) gives the details of the journey here alluded to, telling of various discourses at Tyre. Some of the matter of these discourses occurs in the Recognitions, but under different circumstances. The heathen disputants are not the same.
The parallelisms of the portions assigned to Tripolis are as follows: book iv. has its counterpart in Homily VIII. and in much of Homily IX.; book v. has a parallel in Homily X. and it, parts of XI.; book vi. in its general outline resembles Homily XI.
The discourses of the Apostle as given in the Recognitions are more orderly and logical than those in the Homilies. The views presented differ somewhat, in accordance with the general character of the two works. Much of the matter in the Recognitions occurs in a different order in the Homilies, but the internal evidence seems to point to the priority of the former. Both might be different manipulations of a common documentary source, but that theory is not necessarily applicable to these portions of the literature.—R.]135:719