2-J

The story is first recorded in the apocryphal Acts Of Peter but the tradition may predate that. What parts of the text are preserved are discussed here. The link says the book was written 'no later than 200AD' but not being a scholar I can't confirm....

Minimalist

Doesn't say anything about Rome...nor martyrdom.

2-J

martyrdom is surely a reasonable enough interpretation of that passage? (taking into account the preceding "the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted") And no, it doesn't refer to Rome, but the quotes as a whole are meant to constitute evidence that Peter was martryed in Rome. Not every one is evidence for both things.

Also maybe the gospel of John witnesses an early tradition of martyrdom too? Verses 18-19 "'…when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and take you where you do not want to go.' Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God".

Toto

a vague reference that might imply martyrdom, or might not. (The word martyr derives from the word for "testimony.")

Still pretty vague - no idea of where Peter or Paul were when they "commanded."

Unless this was written by Eusebius - always a possibility - this indicates that by 170 C.E., the legend that Peter and Paul both died in Rome as martyrs was well established. But this is pretty late to be taken as historical reporting.

The idea that Peter was crucified upside down sounds very much like legend.

You have two competing hypotheses - 1) Peter traveled to Rome, was crucified there in a symbolic manner, and, unlike most victims of crucifixion, was buried in an identifiable grave - or - 2) The church at Rome decided to increase its prestige and authority by creating legends (divinely inspired, no doubt) of Peter being designated by Jesus to continue his tradition, traveling to Rome, and leaving his mortal remains there; and Paul also being transported to Rome.

Of course, there is a third hypothesis, that Peter never existed at all, so the church felt free to make up whatever stories they wanted.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. not quite. See Strathmann's entry in the TDNY on μάρτυς, μαρτυρ�*ω, μαρτυρία, μαρτύριον, ἐπιμαρτυρ�*ω, συμμαρτυρ�*ω, συνεπιμαρτυρ�*ω, καταμαρτυρ�*ω, μαρτύρομαι, διαμαρτύρομαι, προμαρτύρομαι, ψευδόμαρτυς, ψευδομαρτυρ�*ω, ψευδομαρτυρία*

Quote:

μάρτυς would seem to come from the root smer, “to bear in mind,” “to remember,” “to be careful,” cf. the Gk. μ�*ρμερος, “that which demands much care or deliberation; he who considers or deliberates much,” then μερμαίρω, μερμηρίζω, “consider, deliberate, hesitate,” μεριμνάω, μ�*ριμνα, the Lat. memor, memoria, Gothic maúrnan, Anglo-Saxon murnan, Old High German morneµn, “to be anxiously concerned.” Hence μάρτυς was probably “one who remembers, who has knowledge of something by recollection, and who can thus tell about it,” i.e., the witness. To the verb μαρτυρεῖν applies something which is true of verbs in ·�*ω formed from nouns and adj. of all declensions, namely, that they denote a state or habitual activity, but can often take on trans, significance.6 μαρτυρεῖν thus means “to be a witness,” “to come forward as a witness,” “to bear witness to something.” The secondary noun μαρτυρία, whether referred to μάρτυς or μαρτυρεῖν,7 has in the first instance, like most such nouns, an abstract significance: the bearing of witness. But it can then mean the witness thus borne. On the other hand, μαρτύριον, like other nouns in -ιον, is more concrete and denotes witness from the more objective standpoint as the proof of something. Any μαρτυρία can become a μαρτύριον, but not conversely. μαρτυρία and μαρτύριον are related like ναυαγία (“shipwreck”) and τὰ ναυάγια (“the remains of the ship”) or γυμνασία (“bodily exercise”) and γυμνάσιον (“the place of exercise”).8

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

There is good evidence that, by sometime in the second century, many Christians believed he did.

There is zero evidence that they believed it for any good reason.

andrewcriddle

If as is IMO probable the death of Peter in Rome was commemorated with a monument set up around 150-160 CE this is prima facie reasonably good evidence. It is referring to something important to Roman Christians supposedly occurring in Rome less than a century ago.
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Necro...5.htm#memorial

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

When was Peter of the NT in Rome? The NT did not record Peter's death nor did the authors place him in Rome.

In the entire Pauline Epistles, Peter is mentioned only five times in Galations, chapter 1 and 2, and he was not in Rome. In Acts, written probably in the 2nd century, Peter was not shown to be in Rome.

Now, if Peter died during Nero, this would signify that all the Gospels were written after his death and Peter's own Epistle was written from the grave.

Who claimed Peter was in Rome? Eusebius? If it was Eusebius, it is probably not true.

2-J

True, although this is an argument from silence.

I think many would concede that the letter attributed to Peter wasn't written by him, but would still argue that Peter made it to Rome.

It's not just Eusebius, there were other christian writers bearing witness to this earlier tradition. Which seems to have been in place by the second half of the second century AD.

aa5874

Silence augments my position. I need silence, without silence I have no argument. The NT is silent on Peter's death and being in Rome. The entire NT appeared to have been written after Eusebius claimed Peter died, yet all of the authors of the NT are silent about his death and the place where he died.

Acts was probably written in the 2nd century, why didn't the author write about Peter's whereabouts when he died? He wrote a lot about Peter and it would have helped to increase authenticity if the author of Acts could acknowledge that Peter was martyred and given the exact date and location. But as I expected all the vital details are all missing.

I would argue that Peter's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained.

Was it Eusebius that claimed there was an early tradition in Church history?

If we take into account that the authors of the NT wanted their readers to think that there was a tradition of the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the resurrection and the ascension, I cannot accept their words without external corroboration.

According to the author of Acts, Christians/disciples/apostles witnessed Jesus of Nazareth going through the clouds on his way to heaven (See Acts 1). I don't think these NT Christian writers are credible at all.