Huon

Proof #11 :

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, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.

Huon

Proof #12 of the dozen :

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.

Toto

This is generally thought to refer to Spain, but we had some discussion on this a while back, and it may be metaphorical, or based on a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, or might refer to some other province.

PhilosopherJay

Hi 2-J and Huon,

Thanks for moving the discussion in the direction of the evidence.

I think we have to distinguish between "narrative-story evidence" and "deductive evidence" (Please note that I am not using the word "deductive" in the classical/Aristotelean sense of deduction from a syllogistic form, but in a more casual sense).

The fact that Superman comes from the planet Krypton and was raised in Smallville comes from narrative-story evidence. It is explicitly stated in the first comic-book involving Superman. On the other hand, although not explicitly stated, we may deduce that Superman did not lift 100 pound barbells as a form of exercise as a kid. As a baby, Superman could easily lift cars weighing thousands of pounds. Therefore, lifting small weights of hundreds of pounds would not have significantly increased his strength. This fact that Superman did not lift barbells is not explicitly stated in the narrative, but can be deduced from the narrative.

Deductive evidence is often a source of serious debate. For example, on the television show, "Xena," it was often deduced by some fans that the lead characters, Xena and Gabrielle, were lovers. Although never explicitly stated in the narrative-stories, certain scenes of them bathing and sleeping together could be pointed to as evidence. We may say that there is narrative-story evidence that Xena and Gabrielle lived and traveled together, but there is only deductive evidence that they were lovers.

In the case of Peter, there is no narrative-story evidence that he was ever in Rome. There is possibly narrative-story evidence that he was executed. As Huon noted, there's the statement of Jesus to Peter from John 21.18-19 "18. "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." but that is such a vague statement that it cannot be taken by itself as narrative-story evidence. It could just as well be a statement of the human condition, that all people dress themselves when they are young and go where they wish, but when they get old, other people dress them and they lose their independence.

What is interesting is that there is no narrative-story evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. There are no stories in which Peter travels to Rome and does anything. Clement of Alexandria (circa 210) gives a narrative-story about the execution of Peter's wife, but says nothing about Peter's death or his being in Rome (Stromata 7:3):

They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

In Tertullian's Scorpiace there is this:

Now, then, the epistles of the apostles also are well known. And do we, (you say), in all respects guileless souls and doves merely, love to go astray? I should think from eagerness to live. But let it be so, that meaning departs from their epistles. And yet, that the apostles endured such sufferings, we know: the teaching is clear. This only I perceive in running through the Acts. I am not at all on the search. The prisons there, and the bonds, and the scourges, and the big stones, and the swords, and the onsets by the Jews, and the assemblies of the heathen, and the indictments by tribunes, and the hearing of causes by kings, and the judgment-seats of proconsuls and the name of Caesar, do not need an interpreter. That Peter is struck,110 that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones,111 that James is slain112 as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another,113 when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom. Wherever I read of these occurrencer so soon as I do so, I learn to suffer; nor does it signify to me which I follow as teachers of martyrdom, whether the declarations or the deaths of the apostles, save that in their deaths I recall their declarations also. For they would not have suffered ought of a kind they had not previously known they had to suffer. When Agabus, making use of corresponding action too, had foretold that bonds awaited Paul, the disciples, weeping and entreating that he would not venture upon going to Jerusalem, entreated in vain.114 As for him, having a mind to illustrate what he had always taught, he says, "Why weep ye, and grieve my heart? But for my part, I could wish not only to suffer bonds, but also to die at Jerusalem, for the name of my Lord Jesus Christ." And so they yielded by saying, "Let the will of the Lord be done; "feeling sure, doubtless, that sufferings are included in the will of God. For they had tried to keep him back with the intention not of dissuading, but to show love for him; as yearning for (the preservation of) the apostle, not as counselling against martyrdom.

There are a number of problems with this passage. First, in the book of Acts, Paul is not beheaded. Second, In the Lives of the Caesars there is no mention of any of Peter and Paul's death. We may take it that the references to Peter here is a later interpolation. The passage makes sense if we take out the reference to the Lives of the Caesars and Peter:


This makes more sense. We may assume that circa 210 when Tertullian was writing, the book of Acts of the Apostles still contained the death of Paul by Beheading after he goes to Jerusalem. Unless, Paul was beheaded in Jerusalem, Tertullian has no reason to make a big deal of how his friends tried to stop him from going to Jerusalem. If Paul survived in Jerusalem, the citation of this incident totally contradicts Tertullian's argument that the Apostle's knew that they were going to suffer in advance and still went through with it.

Eusebius or someone else later interpolates this passage:

Now, this is the same information given by Lactantius in his OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PERSECUTORS DIED (circa 315-320, chapter 2):

Note that Lactantius does not source his information. Tertullian does source his information about the beheading of Paul, he claims it was from Acts. The interpolater gives the public archives in Rome/Lives of the Caesars as his source. But if this was the source of Tertullian, on such an important question, Lactantius should have sourced Tertullian, or Tertullian's sources, or at least given his own sources. Remember that Tertullian was a fellow North African who lived almost one hundred years before Lactantius. If that was his source, there is no reason not to cite it.

On the other hand, we can try this hypothesis to explain Lactantius' lack of citation: the rhetorician Lactantius made up the story. It passed to Eusebius who inserted it into Tertullian's text. Perhaps, Eusebius intended to slip it into the Suetonicus' Lives of the Caesars, but never got around to it.


Incidentally, the beheading of Paul in Jerusalem supports the hypothesis that Acts of the Apostles was originally about John the Baptist/Nazarene and Paul was a later substitution for him in the text.

In any case, there is virtually no narrative-story evidence of Peter's execution in Rome and the deductive evidence points more to the Fourth century and the rhetoric of Lactantius as the birthplace of the idea. Other references may be seen as later interpolations.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Solo

I think the more germane question about the text is whether its author wanted to say (or did say) that Peter and Paul "suffered martyrdom", or whether the Catholic Ency. translation reads something into it. Clement seems to be saying that the present church "pillars" are being put to death for their faith. This probably relates to the persecutions under Domitian and/or Trajan. Then he cites the two apostles as examples who acquitted themselves (in the times preceeding to Clement's time) delivering their "testimony" (of Christ). Only Paul's tribulations ( which in his own words, have internal origins: cf. Rom 9:1-2, 2 Cr 12:7-8, Gal 4:13) are related to the confrontations with "hegemons" but his post-mortem glory is earned by patient endurance, not by getting himself killed. I find it odd and improbable, that such wording was meant to convey that the "witness" of Peter & Paul was confirmed by the manner of their death.

Here is an alternative translation (from www.supakoo.com) of the "witness" formulas in 1 Clement 5 (bolded above for comparison):

�*�*τρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο, ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀθειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. (1Cl 5.4)
there was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὄλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τ�*ρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμ�*νων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἀνελήμφθη, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μ�*γιστος ὑπογραμμός. (1Cl 5.6)

...having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. (1Cl 5.6)

Jiri

Huon

To meet the demand of Pope Pius XII, excavations were made in the in the Vatican grotto, beneath the Basilica, from 1939 to 1949, then from 1953 to 1958. A pagan necropolis was found, dating from the IInd and IIIrd centuries CE. This pagan necropolis was used to bury christians during the first half of the IIIrd century CE. A small pagan sepulchre of a Julii family shows traces of a christian sepulchre.

In 1941, the excavations showed in a wall older than the constantinian monument a loculus (dimensions 77 x 29 x 31.5 cm) in which was found a cladding of marble, plaster lumps, earth, and some bones. These remains were put in a small casket, and forgotten until 1952. In 1952, Pius XII made a declaration that the tomb of Peter had been discovered.

In 1963, professor Venerando Correnti concluded after a long investigation that the bones belonged to only one person, male, robust, and aged 60 to 70 when he died. In the earth were found traces of gold, and some fabric dyed with some purple. This purple fabric and the gold threads could be considered as a wrapping of important remains.

The supporters of the Vatican claim that the loculus is the trophy of Gaius mentioned by Eusebius, and that the bones are those of St Peter. The Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) denied both claims. Other critics say that the trophy of Gaius was a monument built at the end of the IInd century, and was never a tomb. They add that the early christians did not give much importance to the burial of the dead, since they believed in an afterlife.

2-J

The book "The Bones of St. Peter - The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body" ( John Evangelist Walsh, Doubleday & Co, 1982) is quite an interesting read. The full text is online here:- http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Necro...fStPeter-1.htm

There is without doubt a pagan cemetery under St.Peter's, and certain graves date back to the 1st century (some later). Also the archaeological evidence is that half the Vatican hill was levelled just so the Basilica could be built over a specific spot. This is what we would expect, in that Constantine obviously intended, in the 4th century, to build a Basilica over the alleged grave of St.Peter, and it would make sense that, even if the alleged resting place was faked later than the 1st century, it would have to be convincing to outward appearances (i.e. the graveyard would have to date from the 1st-2nd century at least).

Beyond that the archaeological evidence is more tenuous. There seems to be some evidence that the site was venerated at least a short while before the building of the basilica, but not definitely a long while (there was another structure around the grave built before the basilica). There's graffiti on a certain wall of one of the structures that has been argued over (I'm not an expert so just read the book if you're interested).

As for the bones themselves being St.Peter, the evidence is very tenuous and depends on spurious claims that certain bones were overlooked by the initial dig team, and various other spurious theories about Peter being buried to the side of the main grave. It makes interesting reading (to me) but the bones part at least is completely tenuous, compounded by the fact that the initial digs didn't have any impartial observers or a proper standard of field notes (certain reports were later reviewed by independent archaeologists though).

Really the archaeological evidence does leave ample time for someone to have made the identification of the grave (perhaps with 'divine inspiration') during the 2nd or 3rd centuries, i.e. unreliably. The strongest argument against that would be one that argued that there was a continuous christian community in Rome that wouldn't have let such a speculative and / or false later identification to be made. But there are arguments against that showing how easy it is to fake things even into the 20th century and beyond.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Huon,

In post #5239587 / #84 in this thread, I noted that an interpolation regarding Peter and Rome had been made in Scorpiace.

Likewise, there is evidence of an interpolation in Tertullian's Prescriptions Again Heretics. Here is the passage:
Note that Tertullian is addressing heretics whom he says, are not far from Corinth and not far from Macedonia. These Heretics are also able to cross to Asia/Ephesus. If we triangulate to find the position he is talking about, it is easy to see that Athens or some place North of there on the East Coast of Greece is the place where he is positioning the heretics that he is talking to. Once we do this, the following statement, "Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome," becomes unintelligible. Nobody would call a place close to Rome after calling Corinth, Philippi, Thessaloniki and Ephesus close to it. It is like saying you are close to New York, Washington, Baltimore and Boston and since you can make it to Boston, you are close to Tokyo. It is nonsense. Only someone with an ideological agenda that had to be promoted would not have noticed the nonsense.

After going to Ephesus, the only heretics would not find themselves close to Rome, they would however find themselves close to Palestine and Jerusalem. We may take it that Tertullian originally wrote this:

But this is not quite right. The island of exile where John allegedly wrote Revelation is next to exile island of Patras. It would have been mentioned in connection with Patras.

Eusebius tells us in his Church History that John returned to Ephesus after his exile on Patras. If he "returned" there, we may surmise that he went into exile from there.

Church History (3.23):
In 5.18, Eusebius again associates John with Ephesus, "he relates that a dead man had, through the Divine power, been raised by John himself in Ephesus."

We can be certain that the legend of John's boiling in oil took place, not in Rome, but in Ephesus. Thus we can reconstruct the original passage this way:


Tertullian writing circa 200 knew that Paul and Peter had died in Jerusalem and wrote it clearly. This was unacceptable to the Church of Rome in the Fourth Century and his writings had to be revised. This now matches the idea expressed in our reconstruction of the Scorpiace passage that Paul died in Jerusalem.

As Scorpiace was revised to go along with the official history, so was Prescriptions

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

There is no evidence that either text is thus interpolated.

Roger Pearse

Huon

Philosopher Jay :

I have looked on the site of the tertullian project :
http://www.tertullian.org/

I found there two translations of the passage.

Joseph Betty, Tertullian's Prescription against Hereticks. Oxford (1722)
Chapter XXXVI
Do you live in Achaea? There is Corinth. Are you not far removed from Macedonia ? You have Philippi and Thesalonica. Are you nigh unto Asia? There is Ephesus. Or if you border upon Italy; there is Rome, from whence also we have Authority.

Translated by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., F.r.a.s., Etc., Etc.
Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).

There are also two translations into french, which are very close to Joseph Betty's. My opinion is that the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., F.r.a.s., Etc., Etc. is not a better translator than Betty, at least on this passage.

I read there simply a piece of eloquence. However, your remark about the absence of Jerusalem (after all, what is the importance of Jerusalem to Christians ?) is interesting. And nothing about Alexandria or Antioch.