Vorkosigan

Eisenman writes in JtBoJ, p. 529

• Early Church texts put Paul's death some time after the outbreak of the war against Rome around the years 68-9.

To what sources is he referring?

CX

I'm not sure. That seems a bit late. According to Schnelle it is assumed that Paul died under Nero in 64 C.E. and cross-references 1 Clement. Most of the things I've read place Paul's death between 62 and 64. Doesn't Eisenman give any footnotes?

Bobzammel

I think, judging by their letters, that Paul and Peter both probably died of natural causes. Paul probably was ill or something("Thorn in the flesh"). The tradition that they were martyred honestly holds any more weight than all the tales about Mary.

Vorkosigan

It seemed late to me, but it makes sense. The references in 1 Clement could refer to any time in that period, at least the way I read them.

Vorkosigan

-DM-

From <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785246002/InternetInfidels" target="_blank">All About the Bible</a>, Thomas Nelson publishers (a Christian publishing house).

In other words, it is an unknown as to exactly when he died.

-Don-

The Admiral

Is there any more historical evidence for the existence of Peter or Paul than there is for Jesus of Nazareth?

The Admiral

Amos

There better not be, or the myth would die with the historic fact.

Toto

For Peter, not much. The Gospel character of Peter contains a lot of what appear to be legendary overlays, owing a lot to Mithraism (the whole "rock" bit.) However, a Peter (or Cephas) is mentioned in Paul's letters as one of the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, and those letters are usually given some historical weight as opposed to the Gospels.

The best evidence for Paul is the letters that he wrote, or that were forged in his name. The picture of Paul that you get from those letters (as opposed to the fictionalized Acts) sounds (to me at least) like a real person - a church leader confronting schism and heresy in his own congregations, and personal psychological problems in himself.