Vorkosigan

Since I have never explored this topic, I decided to have a look into the arguments for a Roman martyrdom of Peter and Paul. I don't have any strong opinion about this topic, so I thought it might be fun. Philo Jay, if you have any perceptive comments to make about Eusebius here, jump in.

I've shamelessly ripped off the traditional arguments from the venerable Catholic Encyclopedia. Let's have a look.

• That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not -- "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John, xxi, 18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.

Here are the verses in question

• 18
  11 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
  19
  He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."

Clearly this writer knows of a tradition of Peter's death. John 21 was a chapter added later to John, probably in the second half of the second century. Already there circulated traditions of Peter's death at this time. Note that the verses do not specify where Peter died.

• St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

This epistle is psuedoepigraphic. Schnelle lists the considerations:

• (1)Peter is written in a sophisticated Greek style. But the predominantly bilingual character of Palestine and the later missionary activity of Peter in Greek-speaking areas (1 Cor 9.5; 1:12) allow the possibility that Peter was proficient in Greek as well as in his native Aramaic. However, the style of 1 Peter corresponds not to the oral, but to the literary Koine, which points clearly to Greek as the author's native tongue....(2) In 1 pet 1.1 the author describes himself as an [Gr: apostle], but in 1 Pet 5.1 as [Gr:fellow elder]. One who was a member of the origianl circle of Twelve, an apostle, need hardly have resorted to this title that appear late in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. It should be noted that the letter gives no personal information about its purported author. Thus references to the passion of Jesus come into view only as elements of early Christian tradition (cf 1 Pet 2.22-25); the primary testimony of an eyewitness is nowhere found in the letter. (3) The numerous points of contact between 1 Peter and the letters of Paul show that the author of 1 Peter takes up the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor, but does not write as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus and the missionary history of early Christianity....(4) The author of 1 Pet cites the Old Testament primarily from the LXX (exception: Prov 10:12 in 1 Pet 4:8). (5) The spread of Christianity presupposed in Asia Minor and the ecumenical perspective in 1 Pet 5:9b, 13 likewise point to a later phase in early Christian missionary history.(p400-1)

Schnelle adds that Asia Minor seems the most likely place of composition, given the letter's interest in, and knowledge of, the Churches in Asia Minor. In pseudoepigraphy, Schnelle notes, both place and author can be fictive. Schnelle dates this letter to 90, a solid mainstream date.

Thus, there is no reason to accept this letter as evidence for Peter being in Rome. It wasn't written in Rome, and contains no real information about Peter.

• From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

Again, here are two later traditions, most probably fictive. The Gospel of Mark is above all a Pauline, not Petrine document; indeed some scholars have suggested that the Papias quote was fabricated to "Petrinize" a Pauline document. Peter obviously did not dictate its complex literary structures, nor did he depict himself as perennially stupid and finally failing in the end. There are many other problems as well. Further, these are also second century. Thus, at best they can confirm only a tradition, but it is more likely they are complete fictions.

• Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

When 1 Clement was written is a matter of dispute. The end of the first century is the usual date. It is not said where Peter met his death. Paul's death is placed in Rome.

• In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

Detering made some pretty strong arguments that the letters of Ignatius are forgeries from after the middle of the second century. In any case, the author of the Cath. Ency. piece has simply read into what is written. Ignatius does not say anything about where Peter and Paul were, or how they died, in these remarks.

• Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).

This letter is cited in Eusebius, so the earliest copy of it is a copy in a fourth century text. The letter dates from the middle of the second century at the earliest.

• Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

Another late second century source. Worthless.

• In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them" (see above).

Another late second or early third century tradition, containing information about Mark and Peter that is clearly nonsense. Worthless.

• Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In "De Praescriptione", v, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).

The third century. Worthless. We have the testimony of others for the establishment of this tradition by the middle of the second century.

• The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).

Late second, early third century. Worthless.

• There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat", ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.

The Muratorian fragment was once thought to be second century but is now increasingly seen as fourth. Worthless in either case.

• The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.

Second century and....worthless.

As you can see, the problem of Paul and Peter's death is a vexing one. The earliest account is 1 Clement, and that one already knows it as a tradition. There's nothing out there that is very solid. Acts knows that Paul died, apparently in Rome, but doesn't say how.

I have no great problem with the idea that P & P were martyred in Rome. I just don't see any strong reason to commit to that point, however.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

With respect to the Clement citation, the date in the 90's is based on a weak reference to persecution in Rome. Coupled with the observation that there are supposedly elders who were appointed by the apostles who were appointed by Jesus, we are to infer this letter was not written in the Neronian persecution - but the Domitian persecution instead.

The Neronian persecution never happened to begin with, but let's take on the 1st century claim directly.

Since there was no Jesus "big bang" as you have put it (coined?), there were also no apostles appointed by him and in turn nobody appointed by apostles. On the face of it, this is a letter pretending to vest authority in Rome on that very set of premises. A post-HJ fabrication.

The letter is not signed by anyone, and when we start hearing about authorship by Clement we find Eusebius, pargon of honesty, at the helm. It can't be signed by Clement in 95 AD because there is no "pope" Clement and even signing it that way in say 115 AD is not possible because it is too easily challenged. Clement? What Clement?

Not only does the letter not say it is from anyone named Clement, but when we try to find any hard data behind the tradition of this person, there isn't any. It is a circular logic to tie the letter to Clement and vice-versa.

The letter is instead self-attributed to the "Church" at Rome and I think this is quite important. On the one hand it is tendering itself as authority but on the other hand the evidence for the succession of that very authority is absent. Because there is none to begin with.

It is second century material masquerading as first century, for the purpose of "authenticating" Rome with a heritage of Church authority from Jesus to the proto-popes.

Christians have always been big on playing the martyrdom card. The Clement fabrication plays it without detail, as is so tiresome with the Christian "after-the-fact" historical revisionism. Peter and Paul get their medals in a war so important it doesn't have a name.

andrewcriddle

The belief that the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians is by someone called Clement is probably witnessed to by Origen in Commentaries on John Book 6 This is almost certainly a reference to 1 Clement 55
We have evidence from the Shepherd of Hermas for someone called Clement (Clemens) exercising some position of authority in the Roman church in (probably) the very early 2nd century. I'm not saying the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians is necessarily by someone called Clement. It may not be. But there is reasonably early evidence to support such a position.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The excavations of the supposed tomb of Peter under St Peters have (despite over-enthusiastic claims) probably not found the tomb of St Peter they have however found the site of the memorial mentioned by Caius which seems to have been set up as a shrine during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (147-161). This seems to imply that Peter and Paul were commemorated as Martyrs at this site from shortly after the middle of the 2nd century.

In itself this may be too late to be reliable evidence but given its agreement with less specific references in earlier tradition it should I think be accepted.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Oh, I agree that all the evidence we have points in just one direction, toward a martyrdom of Peter in Rome sometime in the first century. It's almost all evidence that dates from after the middle of the second century and later, though. Isn't Caius' mention ~ 200 CE? I'd just as soon stay agnostic.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Yes Caius is c 200 CE or slightly earlier. What I'm saying is that he's referring to a shrine commemorating Peter and Paul set up roughly 40 years before he wrote. The existence of such a shrine from shortly before 161 CE appears confirmed by archaeology.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Very nice. Very thorough.

Generally, I am pretty well convinced that anything that mentions Rome and Christianity comes from the Third Century at the earliest. Anything that mentions the two before then is most likely a forgery or intepolation.

The only thing that surprised me on the list was the reference to Peter baptising in the Tiber in Tertullian's Baptism. The other references to Peter and Paul in Rome in Tertullian (Scorpiace and praescriptions) are easily discencered as interpolations.

Here is the reference (Baptism, chapter 4):

Note that the argument in the first part of the sentence is that it does not make a difference if one is baptized "in the sea or in a pond, a river..." To demonstrate this the author uses John's baptizing in the Jordan and Peter baptizing in the Tiber. Now, this clearly does not show the point that the author is making. He is comparing baptism in two rivers. To make his point, we would expect the author to compare baptism in a river with baptism in a sea or a pond or a fountain, etc. We may thus suspect the phrase "Peter Baptized in the Tiber" as being an interpolation by someone who did not understand the point that the author was making about different types of bodies of water having no effect.

We find another anomally when we examine the later part of the text -- "those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless, perhaps that eunuch whom Philip baptized in caual water in the course of his journeyings obtained a greater or lesser degree of salvation" There is a sudden and odd switch from Peter to Philip. Tetullian seems to be confusedly offering an exception to a different case. It is a little like saying "Shakespeare wrote Henry V alone, unless, perhaps, Marlowe got help from his friends in writing Act One.

To get rid of both these problems, we can propose that the original text read

Now we have the needed distinction between river and sea and we have a specific exception to a general action that makes sense.

This leads us to the question of why "Philip baptized in the Mediterranean" was changed to "Peter baptized in the Tiber"

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

andrewcriddle

Clement of Alexandria in Book 4 of the Stromateis is an earlier witness to the authorship of the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians by someone called Clement
Andrew Criddle

Chili

The death of Peter was the same as the death of Jesus. I think Jesus showed us the way ("I am the way" etc.) which was the tradition (native to mankind) and is therefore predictable after the "follow me." It is called Rome because it is for Catholics only.

Verse 18 shows how believers are allowed to go about as they pleased after the early indoctrination of Catholic faith = feed my lambs. Dressed as young Catholics they are allowed to go as they pleased = tend my sheep, who later will return to the Church to die in Christ = feed my sheep.

It must be a very simple kind of death if only the ego needs to die, and yes, upside down in Rome is probably a good metaphor.

rlogan

Yes.

In these pseudoletters we need to reject the silly notion that they are letters at all and instead infer their purpose from the text and the understanding that there was no "big bang" and linear succession.

Rather, they are propaganda pieces with the thinnest veneer of ostensible excuse, occasioned by a political need at the time of actual construction. Vague reference in this case is made to some kind of big-time conflict at Corinth. But the "letter" doesn't even get around to addressing the supposed point until book 44. Even then, not a word about the nature of the conflict. That is preposterous given that conflict arises over doctrine. How can we buy into this spurious piece when there is zero doctrinal discussion of the conflict?

There is a general theme throughout the revision of Christian history with "concrete" retro-actualization of initially vague fabrications. Jesus is of course the central model, beginning with the spiritual mystery concept and being supplanted by a "real" person.

Likewise, the phony "letter" from the Church at Rome eventually is placed in the hands of a phony "pope".

As I have alluded to earlier, one cannot be precise when initially fabricating a story close to the purported date of composition. It is too easily debunked. Later writers can come along with characters of legend and myth to perform some verisimilitude surgery.