The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul 0198767188, 9780198767183

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES General Editors Gillian Clark

Andrew Louth

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

THE OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarly volumes on the thought and history of the early Christian centuries. Covering a wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources, the books are of interest to theologians, ancient historians, and specialists in the classical and Jewish worlds. Titles in the series include: The Roman Martyrs Introduction, Translations, and Commentary Michael Lapidge (2017) Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings Jennifer Otto (2018) St Theodore the Studite’s Defence of the Icons Theology and Philosophy in Ninth-Century Byzantium Torstein Theodor Tollefsen (2018) Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrinal Works A Literary Study Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (2018) The Donatist Church in an Apocalyptic Age Jesse A. Hoover (2018) The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria Hauna T. Ondrey (2018) Preaching Christology in the Roman Near East A Study of Jacob of Serugh Philip Michael Forness (2018) God and Christ in Irenaeus Anthony Briggman (2018) Augustine’s Early Thought on the Redemptive Function of Divine Judgement Bart van Egmond (2018) The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431–451 Mark S. Smith (2018)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul D A V I D L. E A S T M A N

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © David L. Eastman 2019 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2018965052 ISBN 978–0–19–876718–3 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

With gratitude to Bentley Layton, my teacher and Doktorvater, for mentoring me in the craft of scholarship and teaching

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Acknowledgments I wish to express my gratitude to the many colleagues who have discussed my work during the production of this book. Their insights and suggestions have made the project stronger. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewer for Oxford University Press for the learned and helpful critique. Any remaining deficiencies are of my own doing. I received generous funding to complete this project from the Thomas E. Wenzlau Presidential Discretionary Fund at Ohio Wesleyan University and from an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation award to the Five Colleges of Ohio: Digital Collections: From Projects to Pedagogy and Scholarship. I am also grateful to the Methodist Theological School in Ohio for providing an office and research support during my sabbatical in the spring of 2018. Finally, I wish to thank three outstanding students at Ohio Wesleyan: Makenna Huff Daniels, Kiersten Payne, and Elea Karras, who provided excellent assistance at various points during the project.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Contents List of Figures Abbreviations

xi xiii

Introduction

1

1. Unity in Death?

11

2. Justifying Death

38

3. Dating the Deaths

68

4. Locating Death and Burial

103

5. Confusing Peter and Paul

142

6. The Apostles versus Rival Christs

174

Conclusion Bibliography Scripture Index General Index

210 213 225 227

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

List of Figures 5.1 The standard iconography of Peter and Paul on gold glass. Photo Vatican Museums.

169

5.2 Peter and Paul presented as the nearly indistinguishable apostolic twins on gold glass. Photo Vatican Museums.

170

5.3 Traditional apostolic iconography on gold glass but with Peter and Paul reversed. Photo Vatican Museums.

171

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Abbreviations 1 Apol. 1QM ABD Abd. Pass. Paul Abd. Pass. Pet. Act. apost. Acts Paul Acts Pet. Acts Pet. Paul Adv. nat. Adv. pag. Agr. AH AJT An. Ann. ANRW

Ant. Ap. John Apoc Apoc. Pet. Apocrit. Apol. Apos. Con. ARID ArtBull Aug. BARIS BEGE BETL BibInt BMRP ByzAust CahRB Carn. Chr.

Justin, Apologia i War Scroll Anchor Bible Dictionary Pseudo-Abdias, Passion of Paul Pseudo-Abdias, Passion of Saint Peter Arator, De actibus apostolorum Acts of Paul Acts of Peter Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul Arnobius of Sicca, Adversus nationes Paulus Orosius, Historiae adversus paganos Tacitus, Agricola Art History American Journal of Theology Tertullian, De anima Tacitus, Annales Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Apocryphon of John Apocrypha VII 3 Revelation of Peter Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus Tertullian, Apologeticus Constitutiones apostolicae Analecta Romana Instituti Danici The Art Bulletin Suetonius, De vita Caesarum. Divus Augustus British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Series British Museum Research Publication Byzantina Australiensia Cahiers de la Revue biblique Tertullian, De carne Christi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

xiv CCSA CCSL CD CFHB Chron. Chron. Pasch. Chronog. CMSBAV Conf. CSEL Dep. mart. Dial. Sav. Dion. Ep. Tim. Doct. Apost. DOP Eccl. occ. mon. iur. EMEur Ep. Ep. Tra. Epist. can. 9 Exc. Hier. Fast. GCS GFA Glor. mart. Haer. Hist. Hist. Aug. Marc. Hist. eccl. Hist. Paul Hist. Shim. Hom. Hom. 2 Tim. Hom. in 2 Cor 11:1 HTR Hymn.

Abbreviations Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Damascus Document Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Chronicon (various authors) Chronicon Paschale John Malalas, Chronographia Catalogo del Museo sacro della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Augustine of Hippo, Confessionum libri XIII Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Depositio martyrum III 5 Dialogue of the Savior Epistle of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite on the Death of the Apostles Peter and Paul to Timothy Doctrine of the Apostles Dumbarton Oaks Papers Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima Early Medieval Europe Epistulae (various authors) Pliny the Younger, Epistulae ad Trajanum Peter of Alexandria, Epistula canonica 9 (Περὶ μετανοίας) Pseudo-Hegesippus, De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae Ovid, Fasti Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft Gregory of Tours, De gloria martyrum Adversus haereses (various authors) Cassius Dio, Historiae Historia augusta, Marcus Aurelius Historia ecclesiastica (various authors) History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles Homiliae (various authors) John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Timotheum John Chrysostom, In illud: Utinam sustineretis modicum Harvard Theological Review Ambrose of Milan, Hymni

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Abbreviations ICUR Ign.Eph. ILCV Inst. IP J.W. JBL JRS JSJ JSJSup JTS JTS.NS Jud. gent. KNNE Laud. Paul. Leg. Lib. pontif. Lin. Mart. Paul Lin. Mart. Pet. Marc. Mart. Ascen. Isa.

Mart. Paul Mart. Pet. MGH.AA MIÖG Mirabil. Mort. Nat. Nero NHMS NHS

xv

Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum libri VII Instrumenta Patristica Josephus, Jewish War Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theological Studies. New Series John Chrysostom, Contra Judaeos et gentiles quod Christus sit deus Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/ Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics John Chrysostom, De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis Liber pontificalis Pseudo-Linus, Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle Pseudo-Linus, Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Mart. Head Paul Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of his Severed Head Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Paul in Rome (in Acts of Paul) Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter (in Acts of Peter) Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores antiquissimi Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung Mirabiliana Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum (On the Deaths of the Persecutors) Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia Suetonius, De vita Caesarum. Nero Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Nag Hammadi Studies

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

xvi NovT NTS Od. Oppugn.

Abbreviations

Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Home, Odyssea (Odyssey) John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae Or. Orationes (various authors) Or. laud. Basil. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio in laudem fratris Basilii Pan. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion (Adversus haereses) Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul Pass. Holy Pet. Paul Pseudo-Marcellus, Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul Perist. Prudentius, Peristephanon (De coronis martyrum) Pist. soph. Pistis Sophia PO Patrologia Orientalis Pol. Phil. Polycarp, To the Philippians Praescr. Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum (Prescription against Heretics) Ps.-Clem. Hom. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies Ps.-Clem. Rec. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions PTS Patristische Texte und Studien REAug Revue des études augustiniennes RelSRev Religious Studies Review RLLTC Recentiores: Later Latin Texts and Contexts Rom. Plutarch, Vita Romuli (Vitae parallelae) RSER Revue de la Société Ernest-Renan RSR Recherches de science religieuse SAAA Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles Sat. Horace, Satirae Satyr. Petronius, Satyricon SBLHBS Society of Biblical Literature History of Biblical Studies SC Sources chrétiennes Scap. Tertullian, Ad Scapulam Scorp. Tertullian, Scorpiace (Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting) Serm. Sermones (various authors) Serm. Steph. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermo in sanctum Stephanum SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism SHG Subsidia Hagiographica Sib Or. Sibylline Oracles Silv. Statius, Silvae Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Abbreviations T. 12 Patr. T. Lev. Teach. Shim. Rom. Tract. Ps. TRuNF TUGAL TZT UALG Urb. cond. VC VIÖG Vir. ill. Virginit. VOHDSup WGRW WGRWSup WUNT ZAC ZNW

xvii

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Testament of Levi Teaching of Shimeon Kepha in the City of Rome Jerome, Tractatus in Psalmos Theologische Rundschau Neue Folge Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Livy, Ab urbe condita Vigiliae Christianae Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung Jerome, De viris illustribus John Chrysostom, De virginitate Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland. Supplementband SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Supplement Series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Introduction In the Cappella Paolina in the Vatican Palace hangs Michelangelo’s Crucifixion of Saint Peter, one of the most recognizable images in Christian art. As a crowd of onlookers watches, the aged and surprisingly muscular apostle lies nailed to a cross, his intense eyes glaring directly at the viewer. One soldier digs a hole for his cross, while seven others struggle to raise the cross into position so that Peter will be suspended upside down.1 Michelangelo was one of many artists to depict this scene of inverted crucifixion that dates back to the ancient literary accounts of Peter’s death. The explanation for Peter’s mode of martyrdom is also considered common knowledge: He asked to be crucified upside down because he considered himself unworthy of dying in the same way that Christ did. However, the earliest description of Peter’s death contradicts this “common knowledge.” The Martyrdom of Peter, part of the larger Acts of Peter, was produced no later than the third quarter of the second century and likely reflects earlier oral and perhaps even literary traditions. In this account Peter is brought to his place of execution and then launches into an extended theological diatribe. In the midst of this, he explains that he asks to be crucified upside down not because of Christ’s death, but as a proclamation on the fallen state of humanity due to Adam: “But the hour has come for you, Peter, to surrender your body to those taking it. Take it, then, for it is yours. I ask you executioners, crucify me 1

This painting has been the subject of extensive study, including discussion of where the martyrdom is pictured. One possibility is Montorio, as argued by Philipp Fehl, “Michelangelo’s Crucifixion of St. Peter: Notes on the Identification of the Locale of the Action,” ArtBull 53.3 (1971): 326–43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

2

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul in this way—with my head down and no other way. I will say the reason to those who are listening.” Thus, they hung him up in the way that he had requested, and he began to speak again: “Oh men, whose duty it is to hear, pay attention to the things that I will now proclaim to you as I am hanging here. Understand the mystery of all nature and what was the beginning of all natures. For the first man, who existed in the form that I now have and was brought forth with his head down, showed an origin that did not exist long ago. For nature itself is dead, and it has dead movement. Therefore, because that one came down after casting down his own beginning to the earth, he framed for himself this entire form of the cosmos, in which he showed that the things on the right are on the left, and the things on the left are on the right. And all the signs of their nature were perverted, so that good things are considered not good, and the evil things that come from their nature are considered noble. Concerning these things the Lord says in a mystery, ‘Unless you make the things on the right as things on the left, and the things on the left as things on the right, and the things below as the things above, and the things behind as the things in front, you will not enter into the kingdom of God.’ Having presented this idea to us2 [ . . . ]. The form in which you see me hanging here is a perfect representation of that one who descended and came as a man at his own beginning.”3

Peter dies upside down not due to humility, but as a theological statement. The apostle’s theology of Adamic creation is somewhat obscure, but he is clearly representing the fallenness of humanity through the “first man,” who was brought forth by God with his head down. In this downward position, one perceives everything backward—right and left are reversed, which is emblematic of the human condition, in which “all the signs of their nature were perverted, so that good things are considered not good, and the evil things that come from their nature are considered noble.” The purported quotation from Christ is not otherwise known, but the point is clear: human perception of the world is distorted from birth, going all the way back to the birth of the “first man.” Peter goes on to add other layers to his death through allegorizing the cross itself, and here at last Christ comes into play: Christ is the vertical beam, the nature of humanity is the crossbeam, and the nail that intersects the two represents human repentance. According to 2 Some manuscripts read “ . . . to you.” The lacuna that follows in the text makes it difficult to determine the original reading. 3 Mart. Pet. 8–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Introduction

3

Peter, nothing about his death is as it seems on the surface. He admonishes his hearers: I will not conceal the mystery of the cross, which for a long time has been closed up and hidden in my soul. Do not let that which is visible be for you the name of the cross, oh you who hope in Christ, for it is something other than what is visible to you . . . Separate your souls from everything that seems to be perceptible but is not true. Close the eyes of the flesh, and close your ears to these things done only in appearance.4

Peter dies on a cross as he does not because he is unworthy, but because only this mode of death can reveal “the mystery of the cross” that up to now he has kept “hidden in my soul.” The physical reality of Peter’s suffering and death, so emphasized by Michelangelo, is ultimately of little significance. Christian authors of the third and early fourth century display no knowledge of Peter’s inverted crucifixion at all, let alone awareness of his purported humility at the time of his death. Tertullian makes specific reference to Peter’s manner of death twice in his writing, but in both cases there is no mention of inversion. In his Prescription against Heretics, he is touting the authority of churches with apostolic foundations. With regard to Rome Tertullian states, “How blessed is that church on which the apostles poured out their whole teaching with their own blood—where Peter equaled the passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with a death like John.”5 Rome receives a special blessing because both Peter and Paul died there. Their deaths mirror those of biblical figures. Paul dies by decapitation, just as John the Baptist had. Peter “equaled the passion of the Lord,” a reference to death by crucifixion. Tertullian says nothing to indicate anything unusual about Peter’s death. To the contrary, the very point is that Peter died just as Jesus died, which would seemingly undermine the notion that Peter intentionally altered his death in order to distinguish himself from Christ. In Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting, another text focused on combatting heresy, Tertullian again mentions Peter’s death. He claims that imperial records confirm the historical claims made by Christians: “If a heretic wants to place faith in a record, then the archives of the empire will speak, as will the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars. Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith in Rome. At that time Peter was bound around the body by another 4

Mart. Pet. 8.

5

Tertullian, Praescr. 36.3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

4

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

when he was bound to the cross.”6 Tertullian seems primarily concerned with describing Peter’s death in line with John 21:18–19, where Jesus predicts a future death that will involve Peter’s being bound and taken against his will. There is no reference to upside down crucifixion. Writing at the beginning of the fourth century, Peter of Alexandria also refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome. With regard to Peter the apostle, the Alexandrian bishop records, “Thus the chief of the apostles, Peter, who had often been arrested and thrown into prison and treated poorly, was finally crucified in Rome.” The author then moves on to Paul’s death without any allusion to a special mode of crucifixion. As far as Peter of Alexandria is concerned, Peter the apostle died by typical crucifixion. Lactantius produces his work On the Deaths of the Persecutors between 313 and 316 CE, early in the principate of Constantine. His goal is to describe how every persecuting emperor up to his own time had ultimately met his demise. Lactantius says that Peter came to Rome, performed miracles, and together with Paul converted many to faith in Christ. When Nero learned that the apostles were turning many toward a new religion, “he—being an abominable and wicked tyrant—sprang forth to tear down the heavenly temple and abolish righteousness. He was the first of all to persecute the servants of God. He nailed Peter to a cross and killed Paul.”7 Lactantius’ description of the deaths is concise. He knows the tradition of Peter’s crucifixion but does not mention anything unusual in the carrying out of this sentence. These authors of the third and early fourth century all note that Peter died by crucifixion but mention nothing about Peter’s inversion; and certainly there is no reference to a lack of Petrine worthiness. Their silence is nonetheless significant. Peter’s inverted crucifixion as a sign of humility may first appear in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, although the allusion may be traced back to Origen. In summarizing the career of Peter, Eusebius asserts, “Peter seems to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the Diaspora. After he finally came to Rome, he was crucified with his head downward, as he thought it proper for him to suffer.”8 After a reference to Paul’s death at the hands 6 8

Tertullian, Scorp. 15.3. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1.

7

Lactantius, Mort. 2.5–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Introduction

5

of Nero, Eusebius goes on to state, “Origen speaks about these things in writing in the third book of his commentaries on Genesis.” Eusebius acknowledges the limitations of his information—“Peter seems to have preached . . . ” (Πέτρος . . . κεκηρυχέναι . . . ἔοικεν)—but is the first to record that Peter “was crucified with his head downward, as he thought it proper for him to suffer” (ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεϕαλῆς, οὕτως αὐτὸς ἀξιώσας παθεῖν). Eusebius does not explain why Peter thought this was proper. Was Peter highlighting the fallen human condition, or did he consider himself unworthy? Or was there another reason? Eusebius does not say. The chronicler adds that Origen has already written about “these things” in a commentary on Genesis. Unfortunately, this commentary has survived only in fragments; thus, it is not clear what “things” are included. Did Origen refer to the apostolic manners of death specifically, and did he expand on what it means that Peter did “as he thought it proper for him to suffer”? Given Origen’s penchant for metaphorical readings, it is possible that he knew and appreciated the allegorical explanation in the Martyrdom of Peter and considered that to be “proper.” As the text stands in Eusebius, Peter’s death is on some level appropriate (ἀξιώσας), but it is not explicitly tied to humility. Reading any more than that into Eusebius would be going beyond the evidence. Only in the last quarter of the fourth century does an author explicitly describe Peter’s manner of death as a result of a perception of personal unworthiness. The pseudonymous Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle was produced under the name of Linus, of the traditional first bishops of Rome. The work is a Latin reworking of the Martyrdom of Peter, with some expansions and revisions that belie its historical context. Pseudo-Linus includes much of the esoteric Petrine teaching from the cross about the nature of fallen humanity and its relationship to his mode of death. These considerations are secondary, however, to the primary reasons for the inversion: He also entreated the masters of the executioners, speaking to them and prevailing upon them, “I beg you, noble ministers of my salvation, that when you crucify me, position me with my head downward and my feet upward. It is not proper that I, the least of all servants, should be crucified in the same way as the Lord of the universe deemed worthy to suffer for the salvation of the whole world, for he should be glorified by my passion. This is also so that I may always be able to contemplate

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

6

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul with a focused gaze the mystery of the cross, and so that what I say from the cross may be more easily heard by those standing around me.”9

Peter begs his executioners to crucify him upside down first and foremost as a sign of his own worthiness. This literarily constructed Peter has to borrow from Paul to explain his death, for he calls himself “the least of all servants”10 and unworthy to die as Jesus did. Peter intends to glorify Christ by his passion, not draw attention to himself, and hanging inverted will allow him to do this and to contemplate the cross more perfectly. The second reason is more practical: If Peter’s head is lower to the ground, then those standing around can hear him better. Thus, even the apostle’s appeal to humility is supplemented by a practical concern. As Peter continues in his long discourse from the cross, he returns to the form of crucifixion and its meaning: You alone, Lord, were worthily crucified with your head raised on high, you who redeemed the whole world from sin. I have sought to imitate you also in my passion. But I did not presume to be crucified upright, because we who were born from Adam are only human beings and were born sinners, while you indeed are God from God and true light from true light before all ages.11

Only Christ merits the honor of being crucified with his head upright, for he saved the whole world. Peter, however, as a fallen human being deserves to die in the opposite orientation. This passage then leads into Pseudo-Linus’ retelling of the confusion of left and right that appears in the earlier Martyrdom of Peter. The potential tensions between the various explanations for Peter’s request to the executioners—unworthiness, acoustics, and an allegory for the human condition—are never addressed. Most of the subsequent references to Peter’s martyrdom explicitly mention the apostle’s sense of unworthiness.12 Jerome records that Peter “was nailed to a cross by Nero and crowned with martyrdom, with his head turned toward the earth and his feet lifted skyward, for 9

10 Lin. Mart. Pet. 12. 1 Cor 15:9; Eph 3:8. Lin. Mart. Pet. 13. The Christological imagery here, which is taken from passages in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 but not present in the Nicene Creed of 325, contributes to the dating of this text to the end of the fourth century. 12 Several authors from the fifth century and later mention the death but not the inversion: Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29; Macarius of Magnesia, Apocrit. 4.4, 4.14; Orosius, Adv. pag. 7.7; Dion. Ep. Tim. 4. 11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Introduction

7

he claimed that he was unworthy of being crucified in the same way as his Lord.”13 Asterius of Asamea pens his homily On the Holy Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul about a century later and agrees with Pseudo-Linus and Jerome: [Nero] passed over the other methods of torture and decided to nail the triple-blessed one to the wood of a cross, so that Peter might imitate his Lord not only in walking on the sea, but also in hanging on a tree. Nevertheless, as a pious and wise man, even in a time of suffering, he knew the difference between a master and his servant, and he asked one favor from his enemies: that they place him on the cross not in the same position [as the Lord], but with his head toward the bottom of the cross, for it is not proper even in suffering that the servant should be equal to his master. He spoke and it happened as he requested.14

Asterius’ Peter takes his cue from Jesus’ statement about a servant not being equal to his master.15 Even the pressure of persecution did not cause the apostle to lose a sense of his proper place. In martyrdom accounts produced in the fifth century and later, Peter’s motivation of humility takes center stage, and the allegory of the human condition drops out entirely. In the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Peter explains his death as the exact opposite of the Christ model: “Because my Lord Jesus Christ, who descended from heaven to the earth, was raised on an upright cross and has deigned to call me from the earth to heaven, my cross ought to place my head toward the earth and my feet directed toward heaven. Therefore, because I am not worthy to be on a cross in the way that my Lord was, turn my cross upside down.” And they turned over the cross and attached his feet upward and his hands downward.16 13

14 Jerome, Vir. ill. 1. Asterius of Amasea, Hom. 8.16. Matt 10:24; John 13:16; 15:20. 16 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 60. The account is the same in the closely related Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul 81. The description of his “hands downward” may present Peter as fixed to the cross not in the traditional cruciform shape (crux immissa), but with his hands and feet at full extension in opposite directions on a wooden beam (crux simplex) or on a T-shaped cross (crux commissa). Several recent studies have addressed the various forms of ancient crucifixion, e.g. John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 1/327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Cook, “Envisioning Crucifixion: Light from Several Inscriptions and the Palatine Graffito,” NovT 50 (2008): 262–85; Cook, “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania,” NovT 54 (2012): 68–100; Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament 15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

8

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Christ came down from heaven to earth and died with his head raised high, but Peter is going to ascend from earth to heaven, so his head should be downward. This makes his death symbolically inverse, and Peter then immediately clarifies that he is also unworthy, lest that point be missed. Pseudo-Abdias in the sixth century follows suit, asserting, “Approaching the cross, [Peter] asked to be put on the cross upside down. This he did out of reverence, lest the servant seem to be crucified as his Lord was.”17 The Syriac author of the History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles goes one step further, suggesting that Peter felt unworthy and was afraid that some might believe that he thought he was equal to Christ based upon his form of death: He beseeched his crucifiers and said, “I ask of you that, as I wish, they may crucify me in this way, and not in the great sign of my Lord, for he was crucified upright. I fear that if I am nailed on a cross like he was, by the similarity I might presumptuously claim some equality to him. But if I am crucified with my head downward, then I will remember his sufferings for my sake. My mouth and my eyes will kiss the places of the nails with which the feet of the body of God the Word were crucified. Then the crucifiers did to him as he wished and rejoiced that he had thus doubled his sentence.18

Peter fears that even being crucified in the same form as Christ will be perceived as insolent. His head will now be where Christ’s feet were, so that symbolically he may kiss the feet of Christ as a sign of his humility. The author seems to be painting the picture of Peter being crucified not just upside down but also with his face turned toward the cross—he is thus reversed both vertically and horizontally. His executioners perceive this as an even worse fate than normal crucifixion. The author of the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which is largely a resume of earlier traditions—especially the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul—also highlights Peter’s humility in

Terminology of Crucifixion, WUNT 2/310 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). On crucifixion scenes in Christian iconography, see Felicity Harley-McGowan, “The Constanza Gem and the Development of Crucifixion Iconography in Late Antiquity,” in Gems of Heaven: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity AD 200–600, ed. Christopher Entwistle and Noel Adams, BMRP 177 (London: British Museum Press, 2011), 214–20. 17 18 Abd. Pass. Pet. 20. Hist. Shim. 34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Introduction

9

death: “Peter, however, asked that he be crucified upside down, because he considered himself unworthy to be crucified in the way that his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had been crucified.”19 Other authors of the sixth century also include the humility motif. John Malalas claims that Peter imposed upon the prefect to grant this request: “But holy Peter the apostle died as a martyr, being crucified with his head downward, because the apostle had bound the prefect by an oath, ‘Do not let me be crucified as my Lord was.’”20 Gregory of Tours likewise emphasizes Peter’s near desperation to ensure that he dies upside down: “The holy apostle Peter, as we said before, went to the cross after his wars with Nero and Simon [the sorcerer]. After he had completed his contest for the blessed trophy, he asked to be crucified with his feet upward toward heaven, crying out that he was unworthy to be raised up as his Lord was.”21 These later sources demonstrate that by this time period Peter’s humility was interwoven with his manner of death. Nonetheless, this overview of the ancient literature shows that the early accounts of even one of the most famous scenes in Christian history, the death of Peter, do not present a single narrative of the events, for they do not agree on why Peter requested to die in the precise way that he allegedly did—if they even record the inversion at all. Over time, historians and theologians have tended to smooth over these rough edges, creating the impression that the ancient sources all line up in a certain direction. This impression, however, misrepresents the evidence. The reason for Peter’s inverted crucifixion is not the only detail on which the sources diverge. In fact, such disagreement can be seen concerning nearly every major narrative point in the martyrdom accounts of Peter and Paul. The purpose of this book is to show that the process of smoothing over differences in order to create a seamless and consistent master narrative about the deaths of Peter and Paul has distorted the evidence. This process of distortion not only blinds us to differences in perspective among the various authors, but also discourages us from digging deeper into the contexts of those authors to explore why they told the stories of the apostolic deaths differently in their contexts.

19 21

20 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13. John Malalas, Chronog. 10.35. Gregory of Tours, Glor. mart. 1.27.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

10

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

This book will demonstrate that there was never a single, unopposed narrative about the deaths of Peter and Paul. Instead, stories were products of social and collective memory, told and retold in order to serve the purposes of their authors and their communities.22 The history of the writing of the many deaths of Peter and Paul is one of contextualized variety.

22

The creative and generative aspects of social and collective memory have been famously explored by e.g. Maurice Halbwachs, La mémoire collective (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950); Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (Munich: Beck, 2007). Their arguments about the ways in which the past is remembered, reimagined, and retold inform the hermeneutics of this book.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

1 Unity in Death? Tourists and religious pilgrims to Rome today are taken to a few select sites traditionally associated with the apostles Peter and Paul. They are taken to the Vatican and told that Peter was killed in the Circus of Nero by inverted crucifixion and then buried at a place beneath the Vatican honored with a monumental tomb. For Paul they are taken to the Church of St. Paul Outside the Walls, south of the city along the ancient road leading to the port city of Ostia. Here Paul died by decapitation at the order of Nero and was buried. In the fourth century a larger basilica eventually replaced the small shrine that marked his grave, and archaeological discoveries from this century are presented as supporting this ancient, unbroken tradition. The Mamertine Prison is another favorite stop, for here Peter and Paul were supposedly incarcerated together before going to their martyrdoms. As presented, these are seamless stories of ancient traditions carried down to this day. However, these accounts contradict much of the ancient evidence. There was no single tradition about the deaths of Peter and Paul. Instead, there existed a cluster of traditions with some overlap on basic points, but much variety on other details. This chapter examines the discrepancy between separate and unified stories of the deaths of Paul and Peter.

SEPARATE TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTOLIC DEATHS A fundamental distinction among the different accounts concerns the connection, if any, between the deaths of Peter and Paul. In other words, were these individual events, or should we speak of a joint

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

12

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

apostolic martyrdom? Our earliest sources, the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul, both tell individual martyrdom stories. These sources as they survive date probably to the final quarter of the second century and are likely composites of sources, including the martyrdom accounts, which had been circulating independently and had been passed down orally even prior to being recorded in textual form.1 The Martyrdom of Peter, the final section of the Acts of Peter,2 provides an extended description of the death of the apostle, and the emphasis is on Peter alone. As the attention turns to the events leading up to Peter’s death, the author3 begins, “When it was the Lord’s day, and Peter was speaking to the brothers [and sisters]4 and urging them to have faith in Christ, many of senatorial and equestrian rank and very many rich women and matrons were present and encouraged in the faith.”5 It is Peter the solo preacher who brings such encouragement to the faithful and draws the attention of some prominent members of Roman society (παρόντων πολλῶν συγκλητικῶν καὶ ἱππικῶν πλειόνων καὶ γυναικῶν πλουσίων ματρωνῶν). This emphasis on Peter’s preaching is carried through to the end of the text, for on the cross Peter delivers an extended theological soliloquy. Peter also dies in a singular way that recalls the death of Christ. Indeed, Christ himself appears to Peter to tell the apostle that his death will be another form of the death of his savior: As [Peter] was going out the gate, he saw the Lord entering Rome. Seeing him Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” And the Lord said to him, “I am going to Rome to be crucified.” And Peter said to him, “My Lord, you are being crucified again?” And the Lord said to him, “Yes, Peter, I am being crucified again.”

1 See e.g. Glenn Snyder, Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Biblical Canon, WUNT 2/352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013); Matthew C. Baldwin, Whose Acts of Peter? WUNT 2/196 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). In my volume The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul (WGRW 39 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015]), I include only the sections on the martyrdoms, which likely had originally circulated on their own. 2 A new edition of the rest of the Acts of Peter, the so-called Vercelli Acts, preserved in Latin, was recently published by Marietheres Döhler, Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2018). 3 At points it may be more precise to speak of an editor than an author, but it is unclear where to draw that line, so I will refer to the “author” for the sake of simplicity. 4 Literally, “the brothers,” but it is clear that Peter’s followers are a mixed audience. 5 Mart. Pet. 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

13

Then Peter came to himself and saw the Lord ascending into heaven, and he went back into Rome rejoicing and praising the Lord, because he said that he would be crucified again—which was a prophecy of what would happen to Peter.6

Peter prepares himself to die as another Christ,7 a unique honor given to the apostle. This distinctive death is emphasized at the end of the account, where the description of Peter’s death includes an explicit to Christ’s: “As the crowd standing nearby offered up the ‘amen’ in a loud voice together with him, the apostle Peter gave up his spirit.”8 The expression that Peter “gave up his spirit” (παρέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα) is identical to the expression used by the author of John in describing the death of Jesus: καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεϕαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα.9 The author of the martyrdom account of Peter is drawing a personal connection between the apostle and Christ, a connection that emphasizes the distinctiveness of Peter’s death. Posthumous appearances by Peter encourage the faithful, and only later does Paul come onto the scene: “But Marcellus awoke and recounted this appearance [of Peter] to the brothers [and sisters] who had been strengthened in their faith in Christ by Peter. And he himself was strengthened even more until the arrival of Paul in Rome.”10 In this text it sounds as if Paul has never been to Rome. Peter is the one who has established the church in Rome and strengthened it in Christ until Paul arrives later to continue Peter’s work (μέχρι τῆς ἐπιδημίας Παύλου τῆς εἰς Ῥώμην). There is a clear chronological distinction between the two apostles, and this distinction also serves to establish Peter’s priority over Paul in the Roman setting. However, this Petrine priority cuts against the grain of an earlier tradition, suggested in the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul had arrived in Rome prior to Peter. In Acts 28 Paul arrives in Rome and spends two years under house arrest, during which time he preaches freely and successfully. There is no mention of Peter at the end of Acts, so the author clearly gives the impression that Paul is the primary evangelist to the capital. This is not to say that Paul was the first person to bring the message of Jesus as the Messiah to Rome. The fact that Paul had 6

Mart. Pet. 6. Christological imitation was prominent in other, later martyrdom accounts, as well. See Candida R. Moss, The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 8 9 10 Mart. Pet. 11. John 19:30. Mart. Pet. 11. 7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

14

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

previously written a letter to the Romans indicates that a Christian community was already present, but there is no reason in the text or in any tradition to connect this with Peter. The message about Christ had reached Rome and was extended after Paul’s arrival at the end of Acts.11 A third-century editor determined that this historical issue needed to be clarified in the Acts of Peter, so this editor added a preface that explains where Peter’s arrival in Rome fits into the chronology by introducing but then removing Paul from Rome. This preface, which represents an additional layer in the Acts of Peter, opens by describing the success of Paul’s preaching in Rome, essentially picking up at the end of Acts 28. Paul begins fasting and asking God for the next stage in his mission. He has a vision telling him to go to Spain, thus fulfilling a desire that he had expressed in his epistle to the Romans.12 The Christians in the city are deeply saddened and are begging Paul to remain, when a heavenly voice interrupts: “Paul, the servant of God, is chosen for ministry for the rest of his life. In the hands of Nero, the impious and wicked man, he will be perfected before your eyes.” Paul preaches for several more days and then boards a ship bound for Spain.13 The editor therefore accomplishes several goals. This preface honors the Lukan tradition of an early Pauline visit to Rome, explains that Paul’s desire to visit Spain was realized, and removes Paul from the scene so that full attention may be given to Peter. By later picking up on the anticipated visit of Paul near the end of the Acts of Peter, the editor also creates a frame narrative in which the Pauline Roman traditions serve as a backdrop for the primary narrative of Peter. Thus, the second-century author of the Acts of Peter and the thirdcentury editor agree that the account of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome should be told in the absence of Paul. This is a story of a single apostolic martyrdom, and no explicit or implicit connection is drawn to the death of Paul. Another text that maintains this singular focus on Peter found in the Acts of Peter is a Latin translation and expansion entitled the Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle. Although it is traditionally 11

According to Acts 18:2–3, Aquila and Priscilla met Paul in Corinth after they had been expelled during the reign of Claudius. Apparently, they had heard the gospel in Rome before meeting Paul. 12 13 Rom 1:8–15; 15:23–28. Acts Pet. 1–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

15

ascribed to Linus, an alleged early bishop of Rome and in some accounts a companion of Peter, internal evidence demonstrates that this text dates from the fourth century.14 The primary elements of the story line up very closely with the Acts of Peter, although there is significant theological expansion, particularly in the speeches by Peter prior to his death. Here the Petrine focus is made clearer, for Paul is never mentioned in the story, even though Peter alludes frequently to the Pauline epistles in his prayers and sermons.15 This singularity is reflected in other early Christian sources. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (100–130 CE) includes a passing reference seemingly to the death of Peter and tying it to an apocalyptic vision of Nero as Beliar. This wicked king “will persecute the plant that the twelve apostles of the beloved one will plant, and one of the twelve will be given over into his hands.”16 Peter is singled out here as the object of Nero’s wrath, with no reference to Paul. The Apocalypse of Peter (100–140 CE) presents a similar vision. There Peter is told, “Go to the city that rules over the West, and drink the cup that I promised you, which is in the hands of the son of the one who is in Hades.”17 The revelatory voice, presumably that of Jesus, instructs Peter to go to Rome, “the city that rules over the West,” to drink a “cup.” In Mark 10:37–39, Jesus tells James and John that they will drink the cup that he is about to drink—namely death. That imagery is applied here to Peter’s death, an event foreshadowed by Jesus in John 21:18–19 and perhaps implicitly in John 13:36–38. Several early texts also emphasize Paul’s singular death. The Acts of Paul is not the earliest extant reference to Paul’s death18 but is the earliest account of it. Like the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul brings together several textual traditions. The martyrdom section, which is the final section of the collected Acts of Paul, opens with Luke and Titus waiting for Paul in Rome.19 Paul arrives and rents a barn outside the city walls, where great crowds come to hear him preach.20

14

Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, 28–30. This topic is addressed more fully in Chapter 5. 16 17 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4:2–4. Apoc. Pet. 14:4–6. 18 1 Clement 5.6–7 includes a general reference, which is discussed below. 19 Luke has arrived from Gaul and Titus from Dalmatia. Cf. 2 Tim 4:10–11. 20 The author/editor may be intending to describe the scene of house arrest from Acts 28. However, there is no mention of Paul’s incarceration, and the allusion to material from 2 Timothy may suggest that the author has in mind a second Pauline trip to Rome. 15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

16

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Paul comes into conflict with Nero indirectly, for the apostle raises from the dead Nero’s cupbearer, Patroclus, who had died after falling from a window while listening to Paul’s preaching. Nero is thrilled to see his servant alive once again but disturbed when Patroclus proclaims but he is now in the service of another, greater king, “Jesus Christ, the king of the whole world and the ages.”21 The emperor soon discovers that his household, including his personal bodyguards, has been infiltrated by servants of this rival king,22 so he orders all the Christians to be rounded up and brought in for trial. He quickly identifies Paul as their leader, and the exchange with the apostle confirms Nero’s fears about what he perceives as Paul’s treason. The apostle dies alone, but not before he convinces several more of Nero’s soldiers to accept faith in Christ. Two of Paul’s protégés, Titus and Luke, baptize the converted soldiers after Paul’s death. Thus, the text is thoroughly Pauline from start to finish, and Peter is never even mentioned. As was the case with the Acts of Peter, there exists a fourth-century translation and expansion of the Acts of Paul in Latin, also traditionally but incorrectly credited to Linus. The Pseudo-Linus text follows the Greek original quite closely, apart from some additional speeches by Paul before his death and the addition of a posthumous miracle story involving a cloth that covered Paul’s eyes at his decapitation and was then restored to a pious matron named Plautilla. The singular focus on Paul is maintained, and here again Peter is never mentioned. The anonymous authors of 1 Clement (80–130 CE)23 highlight both Peter and Paul as those who “fought to the death” but present Paul’s death as a discrete event. Peter suffered many hardships, and “after bearing witness (μαρτυρήσας)24 he went to the place of glory that was due him.” Paul’s earthly sufferings are then enumerated more extensively, and he is lauded for having preached “in both the East and the 21

22 Mart. Paul 2. Cf. 1 Tim 1:17. Phil 4:22. The tradition associating this text with Clement, a bishop of Rome, is a later development. The language of the text indicates that a group of leaders in Rome is writing to a group of leaders in Corinth. 24 The verb μαρτυρέω had arguably not yet taken on the technical meaning of dying as a martyr. See e.g. Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Some Notes in 1 Clement 5, 4–7,” IP 19 (1989): 83–89; Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish–Christian Relations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 156–57. Cf. Robert F. Stoops, “If I Suffer . . . Epistolary Authority in Ignatius of Antioch,” HTR 80.2 (1987): 165–67, who argues that this technical meaning is present in 1 Clement, Acts, and Revelation. 23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

17

West . . . even to the limit of the West” (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως)—which I have shown elsewhere is a reference to his mission to Spain.25 Finally he suffers death: “When he had borne witness (μαρτυρήσας) before the rulers, he was thus set free from the world and taken up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of perseverance.”26 Peter bore witness, but Paul bore witness “before the rulers” (ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων), which may well be an implicit reference to a Roman death. The authors of this text are noticeably silent on the location of Peter’s death, which is peculiar given that the text allegedly originates in Rome. In any event, there is no suggestion of a direct link between the apostolic deaths, apart from the fact that they both die “on account of jealousy and strife.”27 A number of other authors writing prior to and during the fourth century refer to the death of Paul as an individual event with no apparent connection to Peter’s martyrdom. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Ephesians that Paul’s death is the model for his own journey to Rome for martyrdom: “You are the highway of those being killed for God. You are fellow initiates of the mysteries with Paul, the one who was sanctified, who was well attested, who is worthy of blessing. May I be found in his footsteps when I attain to God—that is, in the footsteps of the one who remembers you in Christ Jesus in every letter.”28 The Antiochene bishop might be expected to ally himself more closely with Peter, yet Peter receives no mention. It is Paul’s death alone that serves as his example. Polycarp of Smyrna, a close

25 David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 145–46. Cf. Wolfgang Grünstäudl, “Hidden in Praise: Some Notes on 1 Clement 5.7,” in The Last Years of Paul, ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey, WUNT 352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 375–89. Grünstäudl leaves open the interpretation of this critical expression and suggests that it could refer to Rome as Paul’s final goal. The debate over a possible trip to Spain is extended in The Last Years of Paul, with Armand Puig i Tàrrech arguing in favor of a Pauline visit to, even possible imprisonment in, Spain (“Paul’s Missionary Activity during His Roman Trial: The Case of Paul’s Journey to Hispania,” 469–506), while Christos Karakolis is unconvinced and willing to concede only that there is no firm evidence against a Pauline trip to Spain (“Paul’s Mission to Hispania: Some Critical Observations,” 507–20). 26 1 Clem 5.1–7. 27 On the possible interpretation of the apostles’ deaths as a result of internal conflict, see David L. Eastman, “Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement,” ZAC 18.1 (2014): 34–53. 28 Ign. Eph. 12.1–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

18

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

associate of Ignatius, also highlights Paul’s death when writing to the Christians in Philadelphia: I encourage you all, then, to obey the teaching about righteousness and to discipline yourselves with all the discipline that you saw with your own eyes—not only in the blessed men Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others from among your number, and in Paul himself, and in the other apostles. Be assured that all of these did not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are in the place that is due them in the presence of the Lord, with whom they suffered.29

The examples they should follow include Ignatius himself and Paul, who had run their races and suffered with and for the Lord (συνέπαθον). John Chrysostom also makes a number of allusions to Paul’s death with no reference to Peter. For example, in his treatise Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life, Chrysostom proclaims, “This Nero accused the blessed Paul—for it happened that they both lived at the same time . . . First he put [Paul] in chains, but because this did not persuade him to agree to stay away from the young woman, he finally killed him.”30 In all these examples of episcopal letters, Peter is absent. It is Paul’s death that serves as an example of Christian perseverance even unto death. A significant shift in the tradition occurs in the late second century, however, when authors begin to link the martyrdoms through their common location in Rome. Irenaeus of Lyons claims that Matthew produced his gospel “while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” The gospels of Mark and Luke, informed by Peter and Paul, respectively, were written after the apostles’ “departure” (ἔξοδον),31 which is presumably a reference to their deaths. Irenaeus’ focus here is on the writing of the Gospels, not the deaths of Peter and Paul, yet the Roman connection is highlighted. Writing at the turn of the third century, Tertullian brings this connection front and center. With reference to Rome, he writes, “How blessed is that church on which the apostles poured out their whole teaching with their own blood—where Peter equaled the passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with a death like John, and where the apostle John was later plunged into boiling oil but suffered 29

Pol. Phil. 9.1–2. John Chrysostom, Oppugn. 1.3. See also e.g. Laud. Paul. 4.15; Hom. 2 Tim. 10.1–2. 31 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1. 30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

19

nothing, and so was exiled to an island.”32 Peter was crucified as Jesus had been, and Paul was decapitated as John the Baptist had been.33 The reference to the apostle John is peculiar and contradicts the Acts of John, which places John in Ephesus, not Rome.34 This might raise questions about Tertullian’s sources, but he is adamant that Peter and Paul “poured out their whole teaching with their own blood.” He makes the same point in another work, referring to the Roman Christians as “those to whom Peter and Paul left the gospel sealed with their own blood.”35 In yet another place he points to the sufferings of various apostles as the evidence for the truth of their teaching. Even the imperial records, he claims, attest to this fact and counter any doubts raised by heretics: “We read the lives of the Caesars. Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith in Rome. At that time Peter was bound around the body by another36 when he was bound to the cross (cum cruci adstringitur). At that time Paul obtained the birth of Roman citizenship, when he was born again there by the nobility of martyrdom” (cum illic martyrii renascitur generositate).37 The two deaths are placed in Rome at the time of Nero. Thus, there is a geographical and approximate chronological connection between the deaths; however, Tertullian still speaks as if the deaths were individual events. Others likewise emphasize these general commonalities between the deaths of Peter and Paul. Peter of Alexandria, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, recounts, Thus the chief of the apostles, Peter, who had often been arrested and thrown into prison and treated poorly, was finally crucified in Rome. Likewise also the famous Paul—who had frequently been handed over and in danger to the point of death, and who had endured many trials and had boasted in his many persecutions and afflictions38—had his head cut off with a sword in that same city (ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει καὶ αὐτὸς μαχαίρᾳ τὴν κεϕαλὴν ἀπεκείρατο).39

32

Tertullian, Praescr. 36.1–3. Mark 6:14–29; Matt 14:1–12; Luke 9:7–8; Josephus, Ant. 18.5.2. 34 Early tradition equates John the apostle with John the author of Revelation, who had his visions on the island of Patmos (Rev 1:1–4, 9). However, Eusebius—based on comments made by Papias—suggests that these might be two separate figures named John (Hist. eccl. 3.39.5–6). Tertullian is the earliest extant source for the story that John was in Rome and survived boiling oil. 35 36 Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.1. John 21:18–19. 37 38 Tertullian, Scorp. 15.1–3. Rom 5:3–5; 2 Cor 11:16–31. 39 Peter of Alexandria, Epist. can. 9. 33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

20

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Lactantius, also writing in the fourth century, states that Nero, the “abominable and wicked tyrant,” perceived the rising threat of Christianity and responded with violence: “He nailed Peter to a cross and killed Paul (Petrum cruci adfixit, Paulum interfecit).”40 Both apostles die at the hands of Nero, but there is no indication that the events were specifically connected. Similarly, the Doctrine of the Apostles,41 a Syriac text dating from the fifth or sixth century, associates the deaths through their shared location in Rome but not otherwise to each other directly: But Luke the evangelist took care to write down the heroic deeds of the Acts of the Apostles, the rules and laws of the ministry of their priesthood, and where each one of them went. Thus, with care Luke wrote these things and more than these, and he placed them in the hand of Priscus and Aquilus,42 his disciples. They accompanied him until the day of his death, just as Timothy and Erastus of Lystra43 and Menaeus,44 the first disciple of the apostles, had accompanied Paul until he went up to the city of Rome, because he stood up against

40

Lactantius, Mort. 2.6. This text should not be confused with the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) from the late first or early second century or the third-century Teaching of the Apostles (Didascalia apostolorum). The latter is also preserved in Syriac but is translated from a lost Greek original. 42 Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla in Acts) were a husband-and-wife team that partnered with Paul at several points (Acts 18:2–3, 18–19, 24–26; Rom 16:3–5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19). They are probably described as Luke’s disciples because of the traditional connection between Paul and Luke. The form Priscus appears to result from changing the feminine name Πρίσκα/Πρίσκιλλα (Prisca/Priscilla in the Vulgate) to the masculine form Priscus. It would appear, therefore, that the Syriac author believes, or wants to communicate, that both of these Lukan disciples were male. Cf. the sixth-century Palestinian Aramaic text of 1 Cor 16:19 in the Codex Climaci Rescriptus, which gives the names as Aq(u)ilus and Prisca ( ). See Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, eds., A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Groningen: Styx, 1998), IIB: 87. 43 Timothy and Erastus are mentioned in Acts 19:22. Timothy was from Lystra (Acts 16:1), but the place of origin of this Erastus, who was sent to Macedonia with Timothy (Acts 19:22), is never specified. This figure should not be confused with the Corinthian city official named Erastus (Rom 16:23). A reference to an Erastus in 2 Timothy (4:20) could indicate either of these figures, or neither. 44 There is no reference to anyone named Menaeus in the New Testament, which makes his designation as the “first disciple” peculiar. William Cureton (Ancient Syriac Documents: Relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the Neighbouring Countries [London: Williams & Norgate, 1864], 173) suggests that the name should be Manaen, a member of the church in Antioch mentioned in Acts 13:1. 41

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

21

Tertullus the orator.45 And Nero Caesar killed Shimeon Kepha with a sword in the city of Rome.46

The author does not describe Paul’s death, but the event is clearly inferred in the parallel presented: Luke’s disciples followed him to his death, just as Paul’s disciples had followed him all the way to Rome to his death. The author mentions the death of Peter (Shimeon Kepha) only in passing and, notably, ascribes Paul’s means of death to Peter.47 This brief reference recognizes the separate martyrdom traditions while also connecting the deaths of the apostles through their geographical correlation. A final example of this phenomenon is found in the Syriac History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul: “These victors were crowned in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which is the thirty-sixth year of the passion of our Savior. Shimeon was crowned before Paul, and Paul was crowned after him in that same year on Thursday, the twenty-ninth day of the month of Tammuz.”48 Both apostles died under Nero, but their deaths occurred at different times within the same year. Like Tertullian, all these authors link the deaths of Peter and Paul to Rome and Nero, but not explicitly to each other. Thus, the separate narratives of the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul, and their Latin Pseudo-Linus translations and expansions, stood unchallenged.

THE MERGING OF THE MARTYRDOM TRADITIONS Another stream of the tradition developed, however, that claimed that the apostles died not just in the same city under the same emperor, but also at the exact same time. Eusebius is the first to record this in citation of Dionysius of Corinth. In a passage 45 According to Acts 24:1–9, the Jewish authorities hired the orater (ῥήτωρ) Tertullus to accuse Paul before Felix in Caesarea Maritima (Acts 24:1–9). Cf. Hist. Paul 10, where Tertullus is described as a prefect (also with a Greek loan word, ὕπαρχος). 46 Doct. Apost. 14. 47 The author’s confusion (or at least conflation) of the apostolic deaths in this passage will be addressed in Chapter 5. 48 Hist. Paul 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

22

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

emphasizing Rome’s apostolic claims, Eusebius first summarizes the traditions that Paul was beheaded and Peter crucified by Nero. He then quotes Dionsyius, a bishop who lived in the late second century. Dionysius first highlights that both apostles had preached in Corinth—a way of raising the stature of his own church—and then concludes, “In the same way after teaching together in Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.”49 The chronological connection here is much closer. Both apostles died not just during the reign of Nero, but “at the same time” (κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν), although neither Dionysius nor Eusebius provides any further detail. At the end of the fourth century, Jerome picks up on this tradition and clarifies the chronology even more. In his Tractate on the Psalms, Jerome is commenting on Psalm 97:10:50 “[God] preserves the souls (animas51) of his saints; he delivers them from the hand of the wicked.”52 His audience seems to assume that the preservation of the anima should include the protection of one’s life: Here the question is raised: If the Lord preserves the souls of his saints and frees them from the hand of sinners, then how were the martyrs overcome by persecution? How did the impious Nero condemn Peter and Paul with a death sentence given on one day, if the Lord preserves the souls of his saints? Pay careful attention to what he says: “The Lord preserves the souls of his saints.” He says souls, not bodies (animas dixit, non corpora).53

Jerome explains that protection of the anima is protection of the soul, not necessarily protection of the body. The deaths of Peter and Paul are therefore not in tension with this Psalm and resulted from “a death sentence given on one day.” Their deaths are not tied to Nero in general but to a specific day. Jerome reiterates this point in his work On Illustrious Men, written just a few years after his Tractate on the Psalms. Here again he places the deaths of Peter and Paul on the very same day: “[Peter] was nailed to a cross by Nero and crowned with martyrdom, with his head turned toward the earth and his feet lifted skyward . . . In the 49

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.8. By Jerome’s numbering, this is Psalm 96:10, because the Latin Vulgate followed the numbering system of the Greek Septuagint, which was different by one number. 51 The MT has ‫ ַנְפ ׁ֣שֹות‬, while the Septuagint, the source of Jerome’s Latin translation, has ψυχάς. 52 53 Jerome, Tract. Ps. 96:10. Jerome, Tract. Ps. 96:10. 50

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

23

fourteenth year of Nero and on the same day as Peter, Paul was decapitated in Rome for Christ.”54 Jerome assigns both deaths to a single day in the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign, thereby suggesting that the emperor sought to eliminate both apostles, and the threat they represented, at the same time. This shared martyrdom date would justify their annual joint festival day on June 29, a celebration that had been occurring in Rome at least as early as 258.55 Asterius of Amasea makes this connection to the festival day more explicit in his sermon On the Holy Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul: “[Nero] adorned both of them with the crown of martyrdom. One he nailed to a cross, while he cut off the head of Paul. But for us and the world he left behind the suffering of the saints as a holiday and an occasion for such a great feast.”56 This homily was likely delivered as part of the liturgy on the feast day itself, and Asterius even finds a silver lining to Nero’s actions. Yes, the emperor had executed the apostles, but in doing so on the same day, he created the opportunity for commemoration and celebration by later Christians, “a holiday and an occasion for such a great feast.”57 The day of apparent defeat for the apostles and victory for Nero, ironically, became a lasting tribute to the victory of the Christian message over its imperial opponents. The tradition reflected in the writings of Jerome and Asterius is difficult to justify with the perspectives espoused in the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul. If the author-editors of those texts knew that the apostles had died on the same day, then why did they not say it? Indeed, the Acts of Peter specifies that Paul was not in Rome at that time. Dionysius seems to be the outlier prior to the fourth century in linking the deaths so closely, but by the end of the

54

55 Jerome, Vir. illustr. 1, 5. Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 22–24; 95–97. Asterius of Amasea, Hom. 8.33. 57 The reference to a “great feast” certainly suggests a liturgical setting for the sermon. A clear parallel is the numerous sermons delivered by Augustine in honor of martyrs on their feast days. On these sermons see e.g. Richard Klein, “Die neugefundenen Augustin-Predigten aus der Mainzer Bibliothek,” Gymnasium 100 (1993): 370–83; 102 (1995): 242–62; François Dolbeau, “Nouveaux sermons de saint Augustin pour la conversion des païens et des donatistes (VI),” REAug 39 (1993): 411–23; Henry Chadwick, “New Sermons of St Augustine,” JTS.NS 47.1 (1996): 69–91; Peter R. L. Brown, “Enjoying the Saints in Late Antiquity,” EMEur 9.1 (2000): 1–24; Éric Rebillard, Greek and Latin Narratives about the Ancient Martyrs, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 25–27. 56

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

24

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

fourth century—Jerome and Asterius—this tradition was in the ascendant.58 Notably, these authors both received and interpreted the stories of the apostolic deaths through the lens of liturgical practice. Their deaths were celebrated on the same day, so it would be logical that they had died on the same day.59 Hence, liturgical practice was apparently a significant factor in this reshaping of the earlier traditions. For subsequent authors linking the deaths of Peter and Paul to a single day, however, there was more at stake than just the liturgical calendar. The proclamation of both deaths on the same day created a rhetorical history that illustrated the harmony between the apostles (concordia apostolorum) until their deaths. As we will see, this in turn reinforced Roman claims to a joint apostolic foundation and to ecclesiastical authority. This dynamic is apparent beginning in the late fifth or early sixth century, when an anonymous author produced a much-expanded story of the deaths of Peter and Paul, the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. This Latin text seems to have enjoyed immediate popularity and was quickly translated, with some material added, into a Greek form, the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Tradition ascribes this text to Marcellus, a character who goes back to the second-century Acts of Peter. In that earlier text, this erstwhile follower of Simon the sorcerer is converted by the preaching of Peter and cares for the apostle’s body after his death. That same Marcellus is also credited with the production of this text, an anachronism that is no doubt meant to grant the text more veracity. The true author is unknown, but as I have demonstrated elsewhere, both the original Latin text and the Greek translation originate in a Roman context.60

58

A similar passage credited to Damasus of Rome would also be from the fourth century but has been shown to be spurious. See Cuthbert H. Turner, ed., Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima (Oxford: Clarendon: 1899–1939), 1.2:157. In the fifth century, Maximus of Turin echoed the story of both deaths on a single day: Serm. 1.2; 2.1; 9.1. 59 Other authors attempted to balance both traditions. The apostles had died on the same date of the year—not the same day—and a year apart. Thus, the individual death accounts are reinforced, but the legitimacy of the joint festival day is also supported. See Ambrose of Milan, Virginit. 19.124; Augustine, Serm. 295.7, 299A.1, 299C.1, 381.1; Prudentius, Perist. 12.5, 21–22; Gregory of Tours, Glor. mart. 28; and Arator, Act. apost. 2.1247–49. 60 Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 62–67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

25

From the outset of this text, the author emphasizes complete accord between Peter and Paul. In the opening scene Peter and Paul are called upon to settle a dispute between Jewish and Gentile believers about who should have the privileged position.61 The Jewish believers appeal to their heritage as the people of God, while the Gentiles castigate the Jews for rejecting the prophets and counter that they received the gospel as soon as it was presented to them. The apostles present a united front in defusing the situation, thus illustrating that there is no tension between them on the issue of Jewish–Gentile relations. This scene is probably meant to correct any impression to the contrary from the scene in Galatians 2:11–21, in which Paul confronts Peter to his face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) for his withdrawal from eating with Gentiles.62 The scene also subtly deconstructs the division of labor in Galatians 2:1–10, in which the leaders in Jerusalem commission Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles and dedicate Peter, James, and John to preach to the Jews. Here Paul and Peter have equal responsibility for both groups. Much of the overall martyrdom account is dedicated to a lengthy debate between the apostles and Simon the sorcerer (Simon Magus, Peter’s opponent in Acts 8:9–24) in the presence of Nero. On several occasions the author emphasizes that the apostles are of one mind. Peter speaks, and then Nero turns to Paul, who simply affirms all of Peter’s words in toto. Later Paul speaks, and then Peter states that Paul’s words are his own. The apostles are one, so when one speaks, they both effectively speak.63 They eventually work in tandem to kill Simon by striking him down from the sky—Paul prays while Peter rebukes the demons that are carrying the sorcerer in his apparent flight over Rome. Nero then sentences them to death: “Then Nero said to his prefect Agrippa, ‘It is necessary to kill these impious men in a cruel way. Thus, after they have been tortured with iron claws, I order that they be killed in the

61

There is additional material at the beginning of the Greek version of this text, which describes Paul’s journey to Rome in more detail. This preface was likely added later. 62 Resolving the tension created by the scene in Galatians 2 was a consideration in early Christian literature and has continued to be a source of disagreement in the scholarly literature. See e.g. Lothar Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, Kontrahenten und Partner: Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse (Munich: Aschendorff, 1996). 63 In Chapter 5 we will see that Peter often speaks using words from Paul’s epistles.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

26

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Naumachia64 and that all people of this sort be put to death cruelly.’”65 Nero’s intention is to kill the apostles together, yet Agrippa intercedes and distinguishes between the apostles. Paul deserves punishment for his impiety, but because Peter was the one who actually struck down Simon, he should be treated as a murderer: “As it seems to me, it is fair to cut off the head of the impious Paul. As for Peter, however, because he also committed murder, order him to be hung on a cross.”66 Nero agrees, and “Peter and Paul were led away from the presence of Nero”67 to go to their deaths. Here the apostolic stories diverge, but the author only briefly mentions that Paul dies on the Ostian Road before describing Peter’s death in more detail. The author clearly gives the impression that Peter and Paul died at the same time in Rome, separated only at the very end due to their divergent forms of death. While the precise locations of their deaths may not have been the same, the same events lead up to their deaths, and they are condemned together. Soon after the executions, some mysterious men from Jerusalem arrive in Rome. They praise the Christians of Rome and reinforce the notion of a joint martyrdom: “Rejoice and be glad, because you have merited having the great patrons and friends of the Lord Jesus Christ.68 Know, however, that this Nero, the most wicked king, is not able to keep his kingdom after the slaughter of the apostles.”69 Paul and Peter are presented together as “the great patrons and friends of the Lord Jesus Christ” (patronos magnos . . . et amicos Domini Iesu Christi), and the sentence is pronounced upon Nero for killing the apostolic pair. From the viewpoint of this author, the Roman story of Peter and Paul is one of unity to their deaths. This joint account is reiterated in a slightly later text, the Latin Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul (differentiated in title from the previous text only by the omission of “Holy”). Large sections of the

64 Naumachia refers to a mock sea-battle or to a place where mock sea-battles were staged. Nero constructed an amphitheater for naumachiae in 57 CE on (or near) the Field of Mars, opposite the Vatican hill (Suetonius, Nero 12.2–6; Cassius Dio, Hist. 61.9.5). Cassius Dio (Hist. 62.15.1) states that Nero staged a battle there in 64 CE, preceded by animal hunts and gladiatorial shows. 65 66 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 58. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 58. 67 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 59. 68 On Paul and Peter as martyr-patrons of Rome and friends of Christ, see Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 84–89. 69 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

27

narrative are derived from the previous text, including the emphasis on apostolic agreement beginning in the first line: “In those days after the blessed Peter and Paul, the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, had entered Rome, by the will of God they were received by the many faithful who had believed in Christ. They frequently visited the home of a certain relative of Pontius Pilate, because they had been acquainted when Pilate was governor in Judea.”70 Two details merit attention here. First, the author speaks as if the apostles had come to Rome at the same time (in diebus illis). There is no indication, as in earlier sources, that one had arrived prior to the other. The tradition in the Acts of the Apostles that seemingly places Paul in Rome first is ignored, as is the resulting anxiety that prompted the third-century editor to add the preface to the Acts of Peter. The apostles arrive together and are greeted by “the many faithful” (a diuersis fidelibus), although no explanation is given as to how Christianity had previously arrived in the capital. Second, the author implicitly inserts Paul into the context of the Gospel narratives. Neither the Gospels, nor the Acts of the Apostles, nor the Pauline epistles suggest that Paul had any direct connection with Jesus or his disciples during Jesus’ ministry; nevertheless, here the author suggests that both apostles, together, knew a relative of Pontius Pilate. Even a direct connection between Peter and a relative of Pilate is a peculiar idea, given Pilate’s limited role in the Jesus narrative and Peter’s infamous absence during those events; yet, here the author claims this connection and even applies it equally to Paul. Taken at face value, this text would cause one to assume that Peter and Paul were together in the number of Jesus’ disciples and had interactions with Pilate outside the trial recounted in the Gospels. Indeed, later in the text the apostles identify themselves with one voice as “Peter and Paul, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.”71 According to the Gospels, Paul (then more correctly Saul) was not a disciple of Jesus,72 and Paul never uses this term about himself in his epistles. He becomes an apostle—one who is sent—only 70 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 1. Technically, Pilate was the prefect (praefectus) of Judea, but this text follows the Latin Vulgate in designating him the governor (praesidatus). In the biblical account the only relative of Pilate mentioned is his wife (Matt 27:19). 71 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 6. 72 Cf. Stanley E. Porter, When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), who resurrects and argues in favor of the thesis that Paul had met Jesus and heard him teach. Porter presents some interesting points, but none of these is clearly convincing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

28

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

later.73 This departure from earlier tradition seems to be part of the rhetoric of the text, namely that there existed no primacy, chronologically or otherwise, between these two apostles. The conflict with Simon is repeated in this text, as is the cooperation between Paul and Peter to strike down Simon from the sky. Nero also condemns them together, although the initial sentence links their tortures more directly: “Aroused by great anger against Peter and Paul, [Nero] spoke thus to Clement,74 the prefect of the city, ‘Father Clement, those men are far too impious, and they are able to destroy our religion completely, if we allow them to live any longer. But let them take iron claws and be forced to beat each other in turn.’”75 Not only are both condemned to being raked with iron claws, but Nero suggests that they are to inflict these blows upon each other. As in the Passion of the Holy Apostles, the prefect, here identified as Clement, convinces Nero to punish Peter differently as a murderer. The author gives no indication that the decapitation of Paul and the inverted crucifixion of Peter occur in different places in Rome; neither the Vatican nor the Ostian Road is mentioned. In fact, the author emphasizes the unified nature of the martyrdoms and assigns both to the same day: “They suffered on the third kalends of July, when Nero (for the second time) and Piso were consuls. And they were received into heaven.”76 The apostles die on the same day and are received together into heaven (in caelum recepti sunt). Their unity follows them even to their eternal reward. Another account emphasizing the close connection between the apostolic deaths is a pseudepigraphical epistle known as the Epistle of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite on the Death of the Apostles Peter and Paul to Timothy. Tradition ascribes this letter to Dionysius, an Athenian converted by Paul’s preaching on the Areopagus in Acts 17,77 but the evidence in the text clearly points to a date in the second half of the sixth century or the first half of the seventh century. The letter falls primarily into the literary genre of consolatio, for the author is attempting to assuage Timothy’s grief at the death of his teacher. At the same time, however, he proliferates this sense of loss 73

74 1 Cor 15:7–9. The prefect is identified as Agrippa in other accounts. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13. 76 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13. This date corresponds to June 29, 57 CE, and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 77 This Pseudo-Dionysius should not be confused with the Christian theologian and Neoplatonic philosopher of the fifth or sixth century. 75

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

29

by encouraging Timothy to establish a feast day to commemorate the martyrdom. While Paul is the primary subject of the letter, the author also emphasizes the unity between the apostles up to the moment of their deaths: When the terrible moment of their end had come, however, and they were separated from each other, then the soldiers bound the pillars of the world, and the brothers78 left each other with groaning and weeping. Then Paul said to Peter, “Peace to you, founder of the churches and shepherd of the sheep and lambs of Christ.”79 Peter then said to Paul, “Go in peace, preacher of good tidings, mediator and chief of the salvation of the just.”80

Until the instant that they are forcibly separated from each other, Paul and Peter are one. Even as they are ripped apart, they exchange parting blessings. The author claims that he followed Paul to his death but still elsewhere bemoans the martyrdoms together: “These two terrible and bitter blows have come to us in one day. . . . Behold, indeed Peter, the foundation of the churches and the glory of the holy apostles, has departed from us and left us orphans. Paul also, the familiar comforter of the nations, has deprived us of a parent and is no more.”81 Even in a text written primarily to praise the Pauline legacy of preaching, teaching, and martyrdom, the author does not want the death of Peter to be far from the minds of the reader. The significance of Paul’s death cannot be fully understood without connecting it to the martyrdom of Peter. The connection did not end at death, however, for the author claims to have seen a vision after their deaths: Oh, beloved brother, listen to a miracle and behold a sign that occurred on the day of their sacrifice, for I was present at the time of their departure. After their deaths I saw them one after the other entering 78 The image of brotherhood appears in several of these martyrdom texts and reinforces the apostles’ unity in life and death. 79 John 21:15–17. 80 Dion. Ep. Tim. 4. The Roman church monumentalized this exchange with a chapel on the Ostian Road just south of the Gate of St. Paul. The Chapel of the Farewell (also known as the Chapel of the Parting or the Chapel of Saints Peter and Paul) featured a plaque bearing the parting greetings from this text. Mussolini destroyed this chapel, but the plaque is now on display in the church of Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini in the Piazza dei Pellegrini in Rome. See Mariano Armellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX, 2nd ed. (Rome: R.O.R.E., 1942), 2:1148–49. 81 Dion. Ep. Tim. 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

30

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the gates of the city hand in hand, and I saw them dressed in garments of light and adorned with bright and radiant crowns. I was not the only one who saw this, but Lemobia, a handmaid in the service of the emperor and a disciple of Paul, also saw it.82

The narrator describes a unifying appearance of the glorified apostles. Dressed in glowing robes, like Jesus at the Transfiguration, they were seen wearing “bright and radiant crowns” (coronis claritatis et lucis), the martyrs’ symbol of victory.83 They went back into Rome together, “hand in hand,” symbolizing that even death could not expel their influence from the city or break their bond of brotherhood. The narrator attempts to add credence to the story by claiming that he was not the only one to see this. Apostolic unity, even beyond death, was on display to others, as well. The emphasis on connecting the two martyrdoms in this later period extends also to cycles of apostolic lives. Although the cycles focus on each apostle one at a time, the individual accounts of Peter and Paul include specific references tying the apostles to each other at the time of their deaths. One of these cycles is the History of the Apostolic Contests, a text credited since the medieval period to Abdias, the traditional first bishop of Babylon and one of the 70 apostles mentioned in Luke 10. However, the fact that the text was written in Latin suggests western provenance, and the text’s reliance on other sources allows us to date it to the sixth century (not the first). More precisely, internal evidence points to Gaul the most likely place of production.84 Although the text may not have come from Rome, it was clearly influenced by the Roman tradition. The account of Peter’s life and death comes first in the cycle. While Peter is the focus, the anonymous author of the text, like the third-century editor of the Acts of Peter, seems compelled to address the connection between the sojourns of

82 Dion. Ep. Tim. 8. Pious maidens who witness Paul’s death also appear in Lin. Mart. Paul 14–17, where she is called Plautilla, and Acts Pet. Paul 80–84, where she is named Perpetua. 83 Numerous gold glass fragments from late antique Rome show Peter and Paul receiving their martyrs’ crowns. See e.g. Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 79–81. 84 The proposed date and Gallic provenance result from the fact that the text displays literary affinities with the works of Gregory of Tours (ca. 538–594 CE), Venantius Fortunatus (ca. 530–600 CE), and a recension of the Martyrology of Jerome traced to southern Gaul. Concerning the reliance on earlier sources, sections 16–19 closely follow the late fourth-century Pseudo-Hegesippus, Exc. Hier. 3.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

31

Peter and Paul in Rome. Here Peter still enjoys pride of place, for the author suggests that Paul is the latecomer: Then the apostle Paul came to Rome and was preaching Christ the Lord. Therefore, at the time of Nero Caesar, there were in Rome the salvation-bearing teachers of the Christians, the apostles Peter and Paul. Through them the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ was growing in the minds of all, and the growth of religion was being spread, because they were distinguished in their deeds and famous in their teaching by the strength of divine grace. Nero, however, began to oppose the apostles vehemently under the influence of Simon the sorcerer.85

The author clearly implies that Peter had already come to Rome before Paul arrives under arrest, so Peter and Paul end up preaching in Rome at the same time. It is therefore the apostles together who become the object of Nero’s wrath through the agency of Simon. Paul makes no further appearance in this story about Peter, yet the fact that he appears at all indicates the author’s desire to link the two apostles. The story of Paul’s life and death comes second in this cycle of apostolic lives, and the anonymous author reiterates that Paul was in Rome at the time of Peter’s death. The author attempts to present his account as a seamless continuation of the Acts of the Apostles, and the first reference to Peter is meant to demonstrate that Peter’s death fits within that narrative. After paraphrasing the end of Acts 28, the author continues: After the crucifixion of Peter and the elimination of Simon the sorcerer, Paul remained in the city in free custody. He had been spared from the crown of martyrdom on that same day by divine provision, so that through him all nations might be filled with the preaching of the gospel. After Paul had been led to Rome by the centurion Julius, he was placed in the custody of only one soldier.86

Paul could, or perhaps should, have died on the exact same day as Peter, as we read in some of the sources discussed above. However, God intervenes to extend the life of Paul for evangelistic reasons. Eventually Paul’s teaching, which is considered a threat to Roman authority, comes to the attention of Nero. The conflict with the emperor, told here without a reference to Patroclus, leads to Paul’s

85

Abd. Pass. Pet. 16.

86

Abd. Pass. Paul 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

32

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

death, but the author has already emphasized overlap in Rome between the two apostles. It seems as if Peter is in Rome when Paul arrives and dies some time during Paul’s two-year imprisonment described in Acts. The “free custody” to which the author refers is this same two-year imprisonment, because that is the technical category of incarceration described by Luke. Paul finally dies by decapitation, and at the very end of the text the author specifies, “He suffered on the third calends of July two years after the passion of Peter.”87 Pseudo-Abdias seems caught between traditions stating that the martyrdoms were completely separate and those claiming that the apostles died on the same day. The author produces something of a middle way, maintaining the individual accounts but suggesting a chronological and geographical connection that unifies the martyrdoms. A similar cycle of apostolic lives was produced in Syriac in the sixth or seventh century and shows an analogous concern for maintaining the individual accounts but linking the deaths of Paul and Peter. The History of Shimeon Kepha is the first in this cycle, the Acts of the Martyrs and Saints. At its core it is a summary of the second-century Acts of Peter, and in this regard it follows the Petrine focus. Peter, identified by his Aramaic name, Shimeon Kepha, is credited with building churches throughout Italy: “Shimeon Kepha built churches in Rome and in all of Italy. He multiplied the teaching in the region of Rome, and many from the household of Caesar also believed in the teaching of our Lord.”88 These claims elevate Peter’s role in establishing Christianity in Italy but do not conflict with the traditions reflected in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter “multiplied the teaching in the region of Rome,” which suggests that the teaching was already there. From reading Acts, one might well assume that Paul had already brought the Christian message to the capital. However, the author then elevates Peter by emphasizing his formal leadership in the early Roman church: “He had administered the oversight of salvation in the city of Rome for 25 years. When he perceived that he would soon glorify God by death on a cross, he summoned Linus the deacon and made him bishop of Rome in his place. He admonished and ordered him to teach in the church everything that he had heard him teaching.”89 Structurally speaking, therefore, Linus is

87

Abd. Pass. Paul 8.

88

Hist. Shim. 29.

89

Hist. Shim. 33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

33

assigned the task of carrying on Peter’s work.90 At first glance, this may appear to diminish or even negate Paul’s role in Rome, and Peter’s death may seem quite separate from Paul’s. However, the author provides further clarification on the relationship between the apostles in the History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul, which comes second in the cycle. The Syriac author follows Luke’s account in Acts until Paul’s imprisonment in Rome but then claims that Paul successfully defended himself and was set free, going from Rome to preach in Spain. It is Peter’s death—his crowning as a martyr—that prompts Paul to return to the capital: “But after the blessed Peter had been crowned by Nero, the brothers [and sisters] whom Shimeon91 had made disciples also began making disciples of others until the arrival of Paul in Rome for the second time. When Paul was told about the crowning of Shimeon, he hurried and came to Rome.”92 There he successfully preaches and converts many, including some from the household of Caesar. This story explicitly presents him as Peter’s successor as the primary preacher in Rome, although not as the city’s bishop. Nero sentences Paul to death, and the apostle dies alone, yet the author claims a physical connection between the deaths: “A short time after the crowning of Shimeon Kepha, he also led Paul to that place where Shimeon had been killed. They cut off his head with a sword, and his blood mixed with the blood of the blessed Shimeon Kepha.”93 I will return in Chapter 4 to the issue of the location of the deaths, but for our purposes now it is notable that the author links the martyrdoms through the mingling of the blood. The author apparently intends this mixing to be understood literally, which is historically very unlikely. This image also suggests that Peter’s crucifixion was a bloody one, although there is no mention of blood in the Petrine history. Nonetheless, the mingling of blood is an image of an intimate symbolic and tangible connection between the deaths of Paul and Peter.

90

The Liberian Catalog from 354 CE also states that Peter ordained Linus (T. Mommsen, ed., MGH.AA 9, Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI.VII. [Berlin: Weidmann, 1892], 73), as do Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.6.1); Hist. Paul 12; and Teach. Shim. Rom. 6. Cf. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3), who records that Peter and Paul together ordained Linus. Other sources list Clement as Peter’s ordained successor: Abd. Pass. Pet. 15; the apocryphal Epistle of Clement to James 2; and Tertullian, Praescr. 32. 91 At different points the author of this text refers to Peter by both his Greek (Peter) and Semitic (Shimeon) names. 92 93 Hist. Paul 9. Hist. Paul 11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

34

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

The Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of his Severed Head, as the title suggests, focuses primarily on Paul. However, the Syriac editor/compiler, possibly working in Rome in the late fifth century, explicitly couples the deaths of Peter and Paul.94 Both are in Rome at the same time, and in this story the agreement between Paul and Peter to divide the missionary field occurs here, not in Jerusalem.95 Their preaching in Rome is very successful, so Nero orders their deaths (with no reference to Simon). They travel to their deaths together, ordaining their successors along the way: “When they were proceeding to be killed, they entrusted the laying on of hands of the priesthood to their disciples, Peter to Mark and Paul to Luke.96 But after Peter was crucified and Paul was killed, along with many whom they had made disciples, Luke and Mark went out at night and carried their bodies into the city.”97 In this account it sounds as if Paul and Peter meet their deaths not as individual apostles, but as part of a crowd of Christians being executed by Nero. Luke and Mark are able to collect both their bodies at night, another detail that links their deaths quite closely. The author avoids references to the Vatican and the Ostian Road or to other elements of the earlier martyrdom accounts that present the apostolic deaths as separate events, instead suggesting that their deaths occurred at the same time and in the same place. Another roughly contemporaneous Syriac text, the Teaching of Shimeon Kepha, likewise links the apostles through their deaths: But when Caesar ordered that Shimeon be crucified head downward, as he himself had requested from Caesar, and that the head of Paul be cut off, there was a great commotion among the people and bitter distress in the whole church, because they were deprived of the sight of the apostles. Ansus the bishop arose and took their bodies by night and buried them with great honor, and that place became a meeting house for many.98

94 The text has three distinct sections, which may have circulated separately before being compiled by this editor. 95 Cf. Gal 2:7–9; Rom 1:5; Acts 9:15. 96 Irenaeus (Haer. 3.1.1), Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.8.3), and Tertullian (Marc. 4.5) confirm these succession lines from Peter to Mark and from Paul to Luke. Eusebius also affirms the Paul–Luke association (Hist. eccl. 3.4.6–7) and cites a passage from Clement of Alexandria supporting the Peter–Mark connection (Hist. eccl. 6.14.6–7). 97 98 Mart. Head Paul 1. Teach. Shim. Rom. 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

35

Nero’s order of Peter’s crucifixion happened at the same time as his sentencing of Paul. These events caused great upheaval and turmoil among the Christians in Rome, for both apostles were taken from them at once. The author further confirms the concurrent nature of the martyrdoms by describing their simultaneous burials. The bishop took both bodies at the same time and buried them in the same place. Ansus is probably a modified form of the name Linus, who according to some traditions was Peter’s successor as the bishop of Rome. The site of their burials is almost certainly a reference to the joint apostolic cult site on the Appian Road, known in antiquity simply as The Catacombs but now as the Catacombs of Saint Sebastian, located beneath the remains of the Constantinian Basilica of the Apostles.99 The message of the text is clear: the deaths of Peter and Paul were a single, horrific event for the church, not two separate occurrences.

CONCLUSION: EVOLVING TRADITIONS The ancient accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul, then, do not tell the same story when it comes to the circumstances of the martyrdoms. The earliest sources, beginning with the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul, focus on the individual apostles. Each one is treated on his own merits and as a separate story. This perspective is maintained in the fourth-century Latin translations and expansions falsely ascribed to Linus of Rome. By the fifth century, however, we see a shift toward emphasizing a close connection between the martyrdoms, and this tendency sets the course for the subsequent tradition. How might we explain this change? The answer lies in the deteriorating ecclesiastical position of Rome vis-à-vis its eastern rivals, especially Antioch and Constantinople, which led to an aggressive reassertion of Roman claims to a joint apostolic foundation. As the balance of power in the church shifted clearly toward the east, Roman authors sought to remind their readers and their rivals that Peter and Paul had not only preached together in Rome but had also died together in Rome. These authors were giving voice to the implications of the words of Tertullian, that 99

See Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 71–114.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

36

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the apostles “left the gospel sealed with their own blood” in Rome. As the site of the apostolic deaths, Rome enjoyed prestige as the center of the apostolic cults, which were centered on places associated with their deaths and burials. At the time that a larger basilica was being completed at the traditional site of Paul’s tomb, around the turn of the fifth century, the poet Prudentius imagined a new foundation myth for Rome with the deaths of Peter and Paul at its center: “The Tiber marshland, which is washed by the river nearby, knows that its turf was consecrated by two victories. It was witness of both cross and sword, by which a shower of blood flowed through its grass twice and soaked it.”100 The joint “victories” of the apostles (their martyrdoms) sanctified the city, for their blood mixed together and flowed in the Tiber through the heart of the capital.101 For Prudentius the apostolic deaths were perhaps symbolically even more important than the apostolic preaching. Cities such as Antioch and Jerusalem could also claim that the apostles had preached there, but the possession of the relics of Paul and Peter was a unique and abiding boon to Rome’s position within the Christian world.102 Even John Chrysostom, the great preacher from Antioch, had recognized this fact: “In the imperial city of Rome, emperors, consuls and generals, putting aside everything else, rush to the tombs of a fisherman [Peter] and a tentmaker [Paul].”103 These rhetorical claims on behalf of Rome, however, could not mask the ecclesiastical and political realities of the time. In the fourth century two ecumenical church councils were held, both in the Greek-speaking East—Nicaea and Constantinople. Of the 318 bishops reportedly at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, only the priests Vitus and Vincentius attended as representatives of Bishop Sylvester I of Rome, and they seem to have had no impact on the proceedings. In 381 the Council at Constantinople was held without the presence 100

Prudentius, Perist. 12.7–10. Prudentius is probably the source of the later history of the mixing of apostolic blood in the Syriac History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul, discussed above; however, Prudentius places the deaths at opposite sides of the city. 102 Prudentius also employs this image in creating a new, alternative story of the foundation of Rome. See Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 29–35. A new study on the importance of relics for ecclesiastical authority claims was published just before the completion of this book but was unfortunately unavailable to me: Martina Hartl, Leichen, Asche und Gebeine: der frühchristliche Umgang mit dem toten Körper und die Anfänge des Reliquienkults (Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2018). 103 John Chrysostom, Jud. gent. 9. 101

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/4/2019, SPi

Unity in Death?

37

of Damasus of Rome or any of his representatives. Damasus protested that two of the presiding bishops (Meletius of Antioch and Gregory Nazianzus) held their positions against Canon law—a point on which he was technically correct—but the bishops ignored his protests and proceeded without his blessing or input.104 Damasus invited the Eastern bishops to Rome in 382 for a council, but they refused to go and instead sent a letter restating their decisions of 381.105 By the turn of the fifth century, the reality was that the cities of the East had become more strategic ecclesiastically, politically, and militarily. The Sassanid threat at the eastern frontier of the empire drew imperial resources and attention in that direction, leaving Rome increasingly isolated and susceptible to threats or overthrow by Visigoths (410), Huns (452), Vandals (455), and later Ostrogoths and Lombards. The rhetorical move of reemphasizing the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul served to remind Christians everywhere of the city’s former authority and of the basis for that authority. Moreover, merging the two separate stories into one story highlighted the concordia apostolorum and the fact that the Roman church was birthed by the efforts of both and by the shedding of their blood. No other city could compete with this claim. Unifying the apostolic martyrdom accounts, therefore, was a means of bolstering the position of the Roman church.

104

Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1:1–4, 21–30; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 805–12. 105 Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. 1.8, 5.8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

2 Justifying Death Another important element of the ancient martyrdom accounts was an explanation of how and why a fisherman from a backwater town in the Galilee and an itinerant preacher from the eastern Mediterranean not only came to the attention of officials in Rome but also warranted the death penalty. As was the case in the previous chapter, on this issue the sources do not agree. In this chapter we will see that the early accounts, with their focus on the apostolic deaths as individual events, provide separate explanations of the charges that led to the apostles’ deaths: Peter rouses the ire of the emperor through his preaching of chastity, while Paul is viewed as a political revolutionary. However, as the emphasis on the concordia apostolorum and the joint martyrdom tradition developed in later centuries, authors needed a common cause to bring the apostles together at the time of their deaths. This cause was provided by a joint conflict with the character Simon Magus.

PETER AND THE PREACHING ON CHASTITY According to the Acts of Peter, the conflict with Roman imperial authority begins with Peter’s teaching about sexual abstinence: Peter the apostle was in Rome rejoicing with the brothers and sisters in the Lord and giving thanks to God night and day for the crowd being brought daily to the grace of God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the wives of the prefect Agrippa were coming to Peter, four of them: Agrippina, Ikaria, Euphemia, and Doris. When they heard the teaching about chastity and all the sayings of the Lord, they were sorely

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

39

pricked in their spirits. After they had agreed among themselves to remain pure from intercourse with Agrippa, they were harassed by him every day.1

Peter initially comes into initially indirect conflict with Agrippa not because he is preaching the theology of Christianity in general, but specifically because his preaching causes the wives of the prefect to refuse to have sex with him. Agrippa responds by sending someone to follow his wives and discover who has convinced them to deprive him of physical pleasure. When he learns that they are listening to Peter, he issues grave threats against them and the apostle: “That Christian has taught you not to be with me. Know that I will destroy you and burn that man alive.” According to the text, the women stand strong, “so that they might no longer be defiled,” and are able to endure mistreatment by Agrippa through “the strength of Jesus Christ.”2 Peter’s life is now in jeopardy because he has angered the prefect, but his situation worsens when his preaching about chastity also persuades other aristocratic women. Foremost among these is Xanthippe, the wife of Albinus, a friend of the emperor Nero. She listens to Peter’s teaching and also decides to withdraw from the marriage bed. The frustrated Albinus now joins Agrippa in wanting to take his revenge on Peter: “Filled with fury and love for Xanthippe, he was grieved that she had pulled away from him. He was angry like a wild beast and wanted to kill Peter, for he knew that Peter was responsible for her withdrawal from intercourse.”3 Many other Roman women follow the example of Agrippa’s wives and Xanthippe, and even some husbands take on a chaste life “because they wished to worship God in a holy and reverent way.”4 This breakdown of marriages is perceived as disturbing the social fabric of Rome, and Albinus threatens extreme action unless Agrippa uses his influence to eliminate the apostle: “Agrippa, either you take vengeance for me on Peter, who has separated my wife from me, or I will avenge myself.” Agrippa confirms that he has the same problem from the same source, leading Albinus to press for immediate action: “Then why are you hesitating, Agrippa? Let us arrest him and kill him as a meddlesome man. And let us avenge ourselves, so that we might have our wives back, and so that we might avenge those who are not able to avenge themselves—those whose wives he has also turned 1

Mart. Pet. 4.

2

Mart. Pet. 4.

3

Mart. Pet. 5.

4

Mart. Pet. 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

40

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

away from them.”5 Albinus and Agrippa agree to seek a way to kill Peter, thinking that their wives, and the wives of many others, will then return to sexual activity with their husbands.6 Xanthippe overhears the plan and alerts Peter and the other believers. They encourage Peter to flee, and although he resists at first, he then agrees to leave the city. As he is passing through the city gate, he sees a vision of Christ. Peter asks the Lord where he is going,7 and Christ says that he is going to Rome to be crucified again. Peter understands that this is a prophecy of his own death and returns to Rome rejoicing. At that moment four soldiers sent by Agrippa arrive and arrest Peter, and the prefect, driven to illness by sexual deprivation (διὰ τὴν νόσον αὐτοῦ), orders Peter’s crucifixion. Despite the protests of the gathered believers, Peter willingly goes to his death.8 Agrippa and Albinus are successful in eliminating this nuisance and restoring order to Rome and to their own beds. However, then the author for the first time introduces Nero by name into the narrative, and the emperor is not happy with what has occurred: When Nero finally learned that Peter had departed this life, he was angry at the prefect Agrippa, because he had killed him against his will. For Nero wanted to punish him more extensively and exact even greater revenge upon him, because Peter had made disciples of some of those

5

Mart. Pet. 5. Agrippa’s agreement to take part in this plot indicates a departure from his character earlier in this text, where he is presented as a more impartial figure. See István Karasszon, “Agrippa, King and Prefect,” in Jan M. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, SAAA 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 21–22. 7 This is the famous “Quo vadis?” scene, but other manuscripts present Peter as asking Jesus not where he is going by why he is going there. An eleventh-century Greek manuscript from Ohrid, Macedonia, reads, τί ὧδε, κύριε; (“Lord, why are you coming here?”; see Otto Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., UALG 96 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 82–92, 408. Zwierlein favors this reading, because it makes more sense of Jesus’ answer, “I am going to Rome to be crucified.” Peter meets Jesus entering Rome, so it is obvious where Jesus is going. Peter is asking why Jesus is going to Rome, and the answer is crucifixion. Zwierlein also notes that a Coptic edition of the text, dating perhaps from the fifth century, includes both questions, “Lord, why are you here, and where are you going?” The History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles (31) also includes the question “Why?” not “Where?” (David L. Eastman, The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul, WGRW 39 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 110–11). However, the two other primary Greek textual witnesses (ninth–eleventh century) and the other accounts of this scene favor the “Where?” reading (Lin. Mart. Pet. 6; Abd. Pass. Pet. 19; Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 61; Acts Pet. Paul 82; Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 12). 8 Mart. Pet. 6–7. 6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

41

close to him, who had then left him. Thus, Nero remained angry and for a long time did not speak to Agrippa.9

Although Nero is the figure traditionally blamed for Peter’s death, in the earliest story of the apostle’s martyrdom, Nero finds out about the execution only after the fact.10 Agrippa has declared and enforced a sentence of capital punishment without consulting the emperor, and this makes Nero angry. It is not that Nero is concerned about due process, but that he has missed an opportunity to torture Peter before killing him. The implicit suggestion is that Nero’s concern is ultimately the same as Agrippa’s. “Some of those close to him” had left his service after hearing Peter’s preaching. I would argue that the author is not referring to members of the imperial household or household servants in general; this is not analogous to the Acts of Paul’s emphasis on the imperial cupbearer, Patroclus. Instead, those withdrawing from Nero are among his concubines, and thus he is also suffering from sexual deprivation. Peter had managed to infiltrate Nero’s inner circle at the most intimate level, his very bedroom, and this deserved the emperor’s most extensive but unrealized punishments. Because Peter is now out of his reach, Nero resolves to kill all those whom Peter had made disciples, presumably focusing on those who had taken on a life of chastity. Only a frightening nocturnal vision dissuades Nero from this course of action, and the emperor then leaves the Christians alone.11 Therefore, the dominant narrative in the Acts of Peter focuses on sexual renunciation, not Christian theology in general, as the cause of Peter’s death.12 In presenting this version of the story, the author is picking up on Christian apologetics in Rome in the second century, where sexual 9

Mart. Pet. 12. In the Pseudo-Linus expansion, Nero is mentioned early in the narrative as the one responsible for Peter’s arrest: “But when the time arrived that the faith and labors of the blessed apostle should have been rewarded, the chief of perdition—obviously the Antichrist Nero, wickedness in its highest form—prevented this and ordered Peter to be bound and fettered with shackles in the foulest prison” (Lin. Mart. Pet. 2). However, here as well Nero learns about Peter’s death only after it has occurred and even seeks to arrest Agrippa for his insolence. 11 Mart. Pet. 12. 12 As Karasszon (“Agrippa,” 23) has commented, “The use of this motive [chastity] underscores that the enmity of the heathen world is not directed toward the Christian message as a whole, only to one of its characteristics.” 10

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

42

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

restraint is identified as a marker of separation between Christians and non-Christians. Justin makes this argument in his Apology. At many points he is attempting to correct misconceptions about Christian belief and practice, and speaking of Christ he states, “Concerning self-restraint, he said things such as this . . . ,” followed by a list of quotations from the Gospels about sexual purity and then chastity. This includes a variation of Matthew 19:11–12: “There are some who have been made eunuchs by men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven. However, not everyone is able to do this.”13 Justin further clarifies that the words of Christ have led some to a lifetime of celibacy, while others have heard the sayings and reformed their previous ways to follow Christ’s ideal lifestyle of renunciation: There are many men and women aged sixty or seventy who have been disciples of Christ since childhood and remain uncorrupted, and I say boldly that I could show such people from every race of people. For what might we also say about the countless multitude of those who have changed their licentious ways and have learned these things? For Christ did not call the just or the chaste to repentance, but the impious and the licentious and the unjust.14

Thus, for Justin, Christ teaches sexual renunciation ideally as a lifelong askesis. In fact, the apologist reappropriates Mark 2:17 and parallels (Matt 9:13; Luke 5:32) to emphasize the point: “I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners.” In the original context, Jesus is responding to religious leaders who criticize him for eating with tax collectors and sinners. The statement is therefore a general declaration of Christ’s mission to those who need the most help. Justin, however, has modified the quotation and its meaning to focus on sexual purity, and in particular renunciation. Later in the Apology, Justin returns to this issue of sexual continence. He states that Christians enter marriage only for the purpose of raising children, but those who are unmarried refrain from sex: “If we decline marriage, we practice abstinence.”15 He follows this immediately with a story of a young Christian in Alexandria who had requested surgery to become a eunuch, due to his commitment to chastity. The surgery required approval from the governor, who denied it, so the young man lived out his days disciplining himself 13

Justin, 1 Apol. 15.

14

Justin, 1 Apol. 15.

15

Justin, 1 Apol. 29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

43

in a life of abstinence. Such, Justin claims, is the commitment of Christians to sexual purity. Justin’s rhetorical approach, I would suggest, may provide a link to the Acts of Peter.16 The apologist’s statement about the reformation of “licentious ways” describes well the case of the four wives of Agrippa. Prior to hearing Christ’s preaching through Peter, they are living in a polygamous relationship with Agrippa, yet they change their ways and accept the (in the eyes of the author of the Acts) idealized Christian lifestyle of renunciation. The author specifies that the wives of Agrippa take on a life of chastity, even at danger to themselves, because they hear “the teaching about chastity and all the sayings of the Lord.”17 It is unclear, however, which “sayings of the Lord” (τὰ τοῦ κυρίου λόγια) the author has in mind. Both Justin and the author of the Acts of Peter link chastity directly to Christ’s words, and I would propose that the passages and interpretations/ adaptations of those passages cited above from Justin could lie behind the story of Agrippa’s wives in the Acts of Peter. Which “sayings of the Lord” lead to chastity? Justin provides a series of them in his Apology. Could it be that the wives of Agrippa are presented as examples of the “countless multitude” mentioned by Justin who were allegedly changing their ways? Could the young man from Alexandria be a model to which they and Xanthippe were aspiring? Is it possible that the author of the Acts of Peter is aware of Justin’s Apology and is personifying the apologist’s rhetoric in narrative form in this story about Peter? Given the likely provenance of the Acts of Peter, the possibility that the author of the Acts knew and used Justin is viable.18 Because Justin had appealed to renunciation as a dividing line between Christians and non-Christians and as a virtue in which Christians by far surpassed others, the author of the Acts of Peter amplifies the importance of this issue. Christian ethics are so superior

16 Typically, discussion of Justin related to the Acts of Peter is limited to Justin’s discussion of Simon Magus as background for the Simon passages in the Acts. 17 Mart. Pet. 4. Nero’s unnamed concubines in the Acts of Peter are in the same situation, living a sinful life until they accept the teachings of Christ through Peter. 18 Justin is not the only second-century Christian author to emphasis sexual renunciation. The theme is also important in e.g. Athenagoras (Leg. 33) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3), but I have focused on Justin due to the greater likelihood of his direct influence on the Acts of Peter. Of course, all such references could simply hearken back to passages such as 1 Thess 4:3–5, where Paul identifies control over the passions as a mark of distinction between followers of Christ and τὰ ἔθνη.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

44

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

in this regard that non-Christians like Agrippa and Albinus, and later Nero, decide that the Christians must be eliminated. Historically speaking, we have no way of knowing whether the issue of chastity or any of the characters in the Acts of Peter had any role whatsoever in Peter’s death. Even the validity of a Petrine visit to Rome remains a thorny question.19 In fact, the story in the Acts of Peter may have little connection to Peter himself. Therefore, by making the preaching of chastity the cause of Peter’s death, the author of the Acts of Peter is likely telling us more about the rhetorical and polemical context of the late second century than about the events in the life of the historical Peter.

PAUL AS POLITICAL DISSIDENT The author/editor of the Acts of Paul, working at around the same time, focuses on a different tension for Christians in the Roman world, namely political affiliation and loyalties. This problem initially arises in the text indirectly. The author recounts the story of Patroclus, the imperial cupbearer for Nero who comes to hear Paul preach on the outskirts of Rome. The story was summarized briefly above, but it merits more extensive investigation for our purposes here. Like Eutychus in Acts 20:7–12, Patroclus falls asleep during Paul’s preaching and falls out of a window to his death. A messenger immediately goes to Nero to report the tragedy, and the emperor is deeply sorry to lose his faithful servant. Meanwhile, however, Paul is aware of the young man’s plight and leads a prayer to bring him back to life: “Paul said, ‘Now let our faith be seen. All of you come, and let us cry out to our Lord Jesus Christ, so that this youth may live and we may remain 19 The debate has been recently renewed in the arguments against a Petrine visit by Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom, 2010; 2nd ed. 2011; Zwierlein, “Kritisches zur römischen Petrustradition zur Datierung des Ersten Clemensbriefes,” GFA 13 (2010): 87–157; Zwierlein, Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom: Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten, UALG 109 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013). Those in favor of a Petrine visit have responded e.g. in a volume edited by Christian Gnilka, Stefan Heid, and Rainer Riesner (Blutzeuge: Tod und Grab des Petrus in Rom [Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2010]). For a collection of twenty-two essays on issues surrounding this debate, see Stefan Heid, ed., Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (Freiburg: Herder, 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

45

undisturbed.’ After they had all prayed to the Lord, the youth arose and regained his breath. They set him on a beast and sent him away with the others from the house of Caesar.”20 Nero is in the process of appointing a replacement for Patroclus, when his servants announce that the young man is alive and has returned. Nero is incredulous and asks Patroclus how this happened, and his servant responds that he was raised to life by the power of “Jesus Christ, the king of the whole world and the ages.”21 Nero’s focus changes immediately from the fact that Patroclus was brought back from the dead to the fact that his cupbearer proclaims Jesus Christ as a rival king. He follows up to clarify: Caesar was troubled and said, “Is that one, then, going to rule throughout the ages and destroy all the kingdoms under heaven?”22 Patroclus answered and said, “Yes, for he rules in heaven and on earth, namely Jesus Christ. He destroys not only the kingdoms under heaven, but also every empire of darkness and the power of death and wicked authority.23 He alone is the one whose kingdom will have no end forever, and there is no kingdom that will escape him.” But Nero struck him on the face and said, “Patroclus, are you also a soldier24 of that king?” And he said, “Yes, for he raised me from the dead.”25

The emperor is furious to learn that he has traitors within his own household but soon discovers that the situation is worse than he had realized. Three of his personal bodyguards—Justus the flat-footed (Ἰοῦστος ὁ πλατύπους), Orion the Cappadocian, and Hephaestus the Galatian—also admit to being soldiers of this rival king. He has all of them thrown into prison and tortured and issues an edict that all the soldiers of that rival king (the Christians) should be rounded up and executed. It is clear that Nero perceives Patroclus, his bodyguards, and all other Christ followers as a military threat, not just followers of an alternative worldview, for he describes them as enemy soldiers. Nero identifies Paul as the leader of the Christians and questions him about his treacherous attempts to recruit Romans to join a rival army: “Oh, man of the great king and military commander, why did it

20

21 22 Mart. Paul 1. Mart. Paul 2. Cf. 1 Tim 1:17. Dan 7:27. 1 Cor 15:24–26. 24 This military imagery in a Pauline context may be derived from texts such as 2 Tim 2:3; 4:7; 1 Tim 1:18. On Christian use of military language more generally, see Adolf von Harnack, Militia Christi: Die christliche Religion und der Soldatenstand in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1905). 25 Mart. Paul 2. 23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

46

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

seem good to you to enter secretly into the empire of the Romans and enlist soldiers from my kingdom?”26 Interestingly, Paul does not correct Nero’s misreading of the situation. He does not, for example, follow the example of Jesus, who had declared to Pontius Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.”27 Rather, Paul continues to frame their interaction using military imagery, stating that Christians recruit soldiers not just from the Roman Empire, but from everywhere: “Caesar, we levy soldiers not only from your kingdom but also from the entire world. For this has been ordained for us, that no one wishing to be a soldier for my king should be excluded.”28 Paul even offers Nero the opportunity to join the army of Christ. The emperor is enraged and orders all the Christians to be burned alive, yet Paul is sentenced to decapitation “according to the law of the Romans”29 (presumably a reference to Paul’s legal right to decapitation as a Roman citizen). Nero begins killing many Christians but is persuaded by a mob to slow the persecution. The sentence against Paul stands, however, and he is ultimately beheaded. We note some important differences between the Acts of Paul and the story of Peter in the Acts of Peter. First, Nero himself is directly responsible for Paul’s death, while in the Acts of Peter the emperor heard about the death of Peter only after the fact. Second, Paul’s “crime” is not domestic in the sense that he is disrupting Roman families or provoking sexual frustration for Roman aristocrats and the emperor. Patroclus is Nero’s cupbearer, not his concubine. Instead, Paul in the Acts of Paul is charged with a political and military crime of treason. The reason that the apostle and some other Christians die is that they are viewed as a threat to the political stability of the Roman Empire as a whole, not just to the bedrooms of influential officials. Just as the justification for Peter’s death can be viewed as a product of the debates of the late second century, so can this different emphasis in the Pauline tradition. While some second-century Christian authors (e.g. Justin) emphasized sexual chastity as a way of distinguishing Christians from non-Christians “from the inside,” the charge of political sedition was seemingly levied against Christians “from the outside”; that is to say, the idea that Christians were a threat to the empire came from some non-Christian sources. This 26 29

27 28 Mart. Paul 3. John 18:36. Mart. Paul 3. Mart. Paul 3: τὸν δὲ Παῦλον τραχηλοκοπηθῆναι τῷ Ῥωμαίων νόμῳ.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

47

notion was not necessarily universally accepted or acted upon initially; nonetheless, sporadic and localized persecutions, such as the one described in this text, were apparently linked to the idea that the presence of Christians was problematic for the empire. The danger was not necessarily that they would raise a rival military force, such as Nero seems to think in the Acts of Paul, but that their refusal to take part in civic life, including the worship of the traditional Roman gods, could upset the pax deorum—the harmonious balance between humans and the gods—and threaten the stability of the empire. This anxiety may lie at the heart of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius. According to Suetonius, Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome, because they were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”30 Many historians have postulated that Chrestus is a variant of Christus (Christ). Thus, the “disturbances” (tumultuantis) in question surrounded missionary activities by Christians in the synagogues of Rome. Cassius Dio corroborates that Claudius had issues with the Jewish population of Rome and speaks of a partial removal.31 It is unclear whether both authors are referring to the same event, and even if they are, it is not certain that Christ followers among the Roman Jewish population instigated these events, which were perceived as enough of a threat that they required imperial intervention. Such a reconstruction might explain the story of Aquila and Priscilla, a Jewish Christian couple that had been forced to leave the capital and subsequently met Paul in Corinth.32 However, the evidence for the Claudius event is incomplete, so it is not possible to say with certainty whether or not a perceived Christian threat to the pax deorum provoked the emperor. This concern is prominently reflected, however, in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan. Writing around 110 CE, Pliny, the regional governor of Bithynia-Pontus, consults the emperor on a number of practical issues, including the question of what to do with the Christians. Pliny is aware of some of the more fantastic charges against the Christians, such as incest and cannibalism, yet his investigations reveal that these are baseless rumors. Still, Pliny has ordered the execution of some Christians, because he sees 30

Suetonius, Claud. 25. For a critique of reading Chrestus as Christ, see Dixon Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome, SFSHJ 160 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 151–217. 31 32 Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.6.6. Acts 18:1–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

48

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

them as a threat. Trajan recommends a measured approach to the Christian problem, not defending Christians but also encouraging the governor not to accept blindly every accusation. Although the more extreme rumors are not true, Pliny still censures the Christians for perpetuating a “depraved and excessive superstition” and as deserving punishment for their “stubbornness and inflexible obstinance.”33 The secrecy of their meetings concerns him, and the spread of Christianity risks upsetting traditional Roman mores. However, a more aggressive crackdown, he notes, had already seen positive results: For many persons of every age, of every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be put in danger. For not only into the cities but also into the villages and farms the contagion of this superstition has spread. However, it seems possible that it can be halted and cured. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been nearly deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rights, which had been neglected for a long time, are being resumed, and that the flesh of sacrificed animals is coming from far and wide, when previously a buyer for it had been hard to find.34

The growing influence of Christianity had caused many people to abandon the temples of the traditional gods, and Pliny is concerned about the impact on the empire.35 His efforts had achieved some success, for people had begun returning to the temples and the traditional rites. Thus, even if some of the individual charges against Christians were not accurate, Christians still posed some threat to the pax deorum and thus to the empire that required assertive action. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing around the same time, expresses similar concern about and disdain for Christians. In his Annals he describes the persecution of Christians by Nero after the emperor blames them falsely for the fire he himself had started in Rome in 64 CE. Although all agreed that Nero was truly responsible for the fire, Tacitus still holds the Christians in contempt, calling Pliny the Younger, Ep. Tra. 10.96: superstitionem pravam et immodicam . . . pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. 34 Pliny the Younger, Ep. Tra. 10.96. 35 Lactantius later blames the death of Peter on the abandonment of traditional Roman practices, for the apostle had converted many in Rome: “When [Nero] observed that not only in Rome, but everywhere, a great multitude was daily turning away from the worship of idols and, condemning their old ways, going over to a new religion, he—being an abominable and wicked tyrant—sprang forth to tear down the heavenly temple and abolish righteousness” (Mort. 2.6). 33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

49

them “a group hated for their shameful acts” and “a very destructive superstition.” He does not specify the particular crimes upon which his opinion is based, but he bemoans the fact that this “evil” had spread from Judea to Rome. Tacitus furthermore describes Christians as “criminals who deserved new and exemplary punishments,” even if they did not commit arson on this particular case.36 At their core, then, Christians are criminals and threats to Roman society and must be treated as such. This general hatred of Christians was a topic also addressed by Christian apologists of the second century. Here again we look to Justin and his Apology, written around 153 CE to the emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161) and his sons Verissimus (Marcus Aurelius) and Lucius (Verus).37 In this work Justin argues that Christians are in fact not a threat to the social order. He points out that Christians faithfully pay their taxes, because Jesus had said that his followers should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.38 God deserves worship from the faithful, but otherwise they submit to the secular authorities: “Therefore we worship God alone, but in other things we gladly serve you, recognizing you as the kings and rulers of people, and praying that you will be found to have sound judgment along with royal power.”39 In fact, Justin directly refutes Nero’s misconception in the Acts of Paul that the apostle was recruiting soldiers for the military force of a physical kingdom: When you heard that we await a kingdom, you rashly assumed that we are speaking about a human one, although we are speaking about one that is with God. This is evident from the fact that, when examined by you, we confess to be Christians, although we know that the penalty established for confessing is death. For if we were awaiting a human kingdom, we would deny in order to avoid being killed, and we would have tried to hide in order to achieve what we were waiting for. However, because our hopes do not rest in the here and now, we have not been concerned about those who kill us.40

36

Tacitus, Ann. 15.44. On the date of the work, see Denis Minns and Paul Pervis, eds., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 44. Hadrian had given Marcus Aurelius the nickname Verissimus (Cassius Dio 69.21.2; Hist. Aug. Marc. 1.10; 4.1). 38 39 Mark 12:17; Matt 22:21; Luke 20:25. Justin, 1 Apol. 17. 40 Justin, 1 Apol. 11. 37

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

50

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Justin reasons that if Christians were expecting to be part of a physical kingdom, then they would certainly seek to avoid death, so that they may realize their hopes. However, because they understand that the kingdom of God is not a physical one, they are not afraid to die for their confession. In Justin’s eyes, such a punishment from the Romans is irrational, for Christians pose no threat to the Roman Empire. In fact, they contribute positively to the civic order, for “We are your helpers and allies for peace more than all other people.”41 Those who do not know God act wickedly when they believe they can escape punishment, because there is no motivation for them to do good. Christians, on the other hand, believe that they will answer to God for all their actions, so they strive to live virtuously at all times, even when no one else is watching. A wise ruler, therefore, will not seek to stamp out the Christians but will at least leave them alone to worship their God in peace, knowing that they pose no political threat to the empire.42 The Christian apologist Athenagoras also addresses the concern about Christian loyalty to the Roman Empire in his Embassy (or Apology) for the Christians (Πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν). Written between 177 and 180 CE and dedicated to the co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, the Embassy is an attempt to correct common misconceptions about Christians and a plea for the same freedoms experienced by many other groups within the empire.43 41

Justin, 1 Apol. 12. A spurious letter credited to Marcus Aurelius was written later to strengthen Justin’s case and attached to the Apology after the time of Eusebius (Minns and Parvis, Justin, 30 n. 84). It describes a specific incident of Christians helping the Roman cause, namely the rain miracle of the Thundering Legion. Marcus Aurelius was leading an army against the Quadi in 174 CE, and his army was overcome by exhaustion and thirst. Christian soldiers of the Twelfth Legion prayed to God, and a heavy thunderstorm arose out of nowhere, providing water for the Romans and frightening away the enemy forces. Tertullian (Apol. 5; Scap. 4), Themistius (Or. 15.191), and other later Christian authors also recount this story. The event was well known outside Christian circles, but Roman authors credited the prayers of the emperor and the intervention of Jupiter (e.g. Cassius Dio, Hist. 71.8.3). Jupiter was also credited with the storm on Roman coinage. See Joseph H. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum (Vienna: Sumptibus J. Camesina, 1794), 1.3. 64. 43 Scholarly discussion continues over the extent to which the explicit addressees in apologies were the only intended audience or were even the true audience at all. Some have argued that such texts were also or even primarily written to provide Christians with counter-arguments to criticisms of Christianity. See e.g. Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1913), 175; Michael Fiedrowicz, Apologie im frühen Christentum: Die Kontroverse um den christlichen 42

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

51

For the majority of the work, Athenagoras is refuting the accusations of atheism and immorality. In the introduction he, following Justin, asserts that Christians observe a high morality and are a positive influence within the empire: “But of all people we are the most pious and just concerning matters related to the divine and to your kingdom.”44 He admonishes his readers to ignore the frivolous accusations against Christians, for “up to now the things the things they say about us are just the common and uninformed opinion of the populace.”45 After attempting to show at length the foolishness of this “common and uninformed opinion” by numerous appeals to philosophy and Greek and Roman myths, Athenagoras concludes by restating his appeal for clemency on behalf of the Christians and by expressing a desire for the successful transfer of power from the father, Marcus Aurelius, to the son, Commodus: Who ought more justly to receive what they request than men like ourselves, who pray for your reign that the succession to the kingdom may proceed from father to son, as is most just, and that your reign may grow and increase as all men become subject to you? This is also to our advantage that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life and at the same time may willingly do all that is commanded.46

Athenagoras assures the emperors that from a political perspective, the Christians want the same thing that they do, namely a peaceful succession that will ensure the continuity of the Antonine Dynasty. Indeed, nothing could be considered more Roman than hoping for the continuation and even expansion of Roman rule. Athenagoras is writing very close to the time that the Acts of Paul is being compiled and edited into the form that has survived to us. While the evidence suggests that in this period emperors largely left the problem of the Christians to their subordinates,47 Marcus Aurelius’s reign (161–180 CE) is traditionally associated with famous

Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2000); Mark Edwards et al., “Apologetics in the Roman World,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire, ed. Mark Edwards et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 8–9; Anders-Christian Jacobsen, “Main Topics in Early Christian Apologetics,” in Critique and Apologetics: Jews, Christians, and Pagans in Antiquity, ed. David Brakke, AndersChristian Jacobsen, and Jörg Ulrich (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009), 85–111. 44 45 Athenagoras, Leg. 1. Athenagoras, Leg. 2. 46 Athenagoras, Leg. 37. 47 Timothy D. Barnes, “Legislation against the Christians,” JRS 58 (1968): 32–50.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

52

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

cases of persecution against Christians.48 Polycarp, Justin, and the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne are among those who likely died during his administration, even though it is not clear if the emperor had any direct role in any Christian martyrdom.49 The time of Marcus Aurelius was certainly one of Christian anxiety, for in addition to Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Miltiades, and possibly Bardaisan also wrote apologies addressed to that same emperor.50 For the author of the Acts of Paul, finishing his work in the 170s or 180s CE, a narrative in which a Christian leader is killed because his faith is viewed as a threat to Rome was a present reality. The political climate of the latter half of the second century therefore offered a believable context for explaining the death of the apostle at the hands of Nero. It also provided an opportunity for the author to explain and reiterate that the kingdom of Christ was not an earthly one. Roman emperors had nothing to fear from Christians or their God, unless, like Nero, they chose to persecute Christians unjustly. The presentation of Paul’s martyrdom as a political assassination persists through later layers of the tradition. In the fourth-century Pseudo-Linus adaptation, Paul initially enjoys a good reputation in the eyes of Nero and the Roman Senate. However, the death and resurrection of Patroclus brings Paul’s subversive teaching to the emperor’s attention. The apostle’s meeting with Nero seals his fate: “Hearing these things Nero was inflamed with anger. Because Paul had said that the form of the world must be destroyed through fire, he ordered that all the soldiers of Christ be consumed by fire.51 But as for Paul, by the decree of the Senate, and as if it were a case of treason, 48 Edward Gibbon summarized the emperor’s attitude and actions in this way: “During the whole course of his reign, Marcus despised the Christians as a philosopher, and punished them as a sovereign” (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2. [London: Strahan, 1783], 446). 49 Peter Brunt, “Marcus Aurelius and the Christians,” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, ed. C. Deroux, Collection Latomus 164.1 (Brussels: Latomus, 1979), 483–520. Paul Keresztes, “Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?” HTR 61 (1968): 321–41. 50 Eusebius records that Bardaisan wrote a work On Fate that was “addressed to Antoninus” and written in response to the persecutions of the time (Hist. eccl. 4.30.2). It is unclear, however, which Antoninus Eusebius has in mind (Marcus Aurelius or perhaps Antoninus Pius) and whether this work took the form of an apology. 51 Tacitus (Ann. 15.38–44) records that Nero attempted to deflect the blame for the devastating fire that he set in Rome in 64 CE, so Christians were killed on the charge of arson.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

53

Nero ordered that his head be cut off according to the Roman laws.”52 After some delay, Paul is brought back to face the emperor once again, and the sentence is reiterated: “Take him away! Take away this evildoer! Cut off the head of this imposter! Do not permit this enchanter to live! . . . Remove his head quickly. Let him delude himself about eternal life but understand that I am the unconquered king—I who chained him and conquered him by striking him down.”53 Paul is killed but then visits Nero in a vision to announce the emperor’s imminent punishment and eternal damnation on account of his actions. Political sedition also plays a role in the later Pseudo-Abdias story of Paul’s death. After the author paraphrases the end of the Acts of the Apostles with Paul’s successful preaching from his rented house, the focus shifts suddenly to Nero: “While the apostle was doing these things in Rome, it was reported in the presence of the emperor Nero that not only was Paul bringing a new superstition, but in fact he was inciting rebellions against the empire.”54 Nero summons the apostle and demands an account of his teachings, which Paul provides. The summary is extracted from a number of different Pauline epistles, with Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy being cited most frequently. Paul recites a long list of teachings, most of them focusing on morality (e.g. love, peace, showing honor) and maintaining social order (e.g. obedience to parents and masters).55 There is never any statement against the temporal authority of the empire. In fact, Paul specifies, “I have taught those who have possessions to pay tribute with care. I have taught merchants to pay taxes to the servants of the republic.”56

52 Lin. Mart. Paul 7. The charge against Paul is identified here as maiestas. On the legal details of this charge, see e.g. Richard J. Kassidy, Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul (New York: Crossroad, 2001), 55–67; Harry W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul: A Judicial Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2/35 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989), 36–42. Regarding the entire series of trials endured by Paul, see Heike Omerzu, “The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26,” in The Last Years of Paul, ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey, WUNT 352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 187–200, with a response in the same volume by Friedrich W. Horn, “The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26: Response to Heike Omerzu,” 201–12. 53 54 Lin. Mart. Paul 8. Abd. Pass. Paul 7. 55 This summary of Pauline teachings is very similar to Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 36–38. It is difficult to determine direct dependence, although this is certainly possible. 56 Abd. Pass. Paul 7. This passage echoes Rom 13:5–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

54

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

What is striking here is the lack of anti-imperial sentiment of the kind found in the Acts of Paul. Here the apostle does not speak of Jesus as a rival king or proclaim that Christ’s kingdom will replace any earthly kingdom. This author’s Paul makes no negative statement about Rome, only a positive commitment to worshipping God: “I have taught the assembly57 of believers to worship the one omnipotent, invisible, incomprehensible God.”58 In this text Paul gives Nero no reason to perceive him as a direct threat. In fact, at first Nero’s reaction is neutral: “When he had said these things, the emperor Nero was amazed.” However, Nero’s perspective soon changes: “But afterward he was angered and pronounced a sentence of death against Paul, namely that he should have his head cut off.”59 The author provides no explanation for the emperor’s change of heart. The moralist preacher who teaches his followers to pay their taxes and maintain social order is not an obvious target for imperial wrath. Perhaps Pseudo-Abdias assumes that his audience will already be familiar with the story from earlier accounts, so the political element does not require explanation. Or, perhaps the author wants to emphasize that Paul was punished unjustly. This Paul should have given Nero no cause for concern, yet the wickedness of the emperor nonetheless manifests itself. In any event, the theme of Paul as a political threat is less well developed in Pseudo-Abdias than it is in other texts. Nero’s eventual paranoia and reaction are nevertheless no less vigorous, for the emperor even sends two members of his personal guard to ensure that Paul is dead. The apostle dies because he is a threat to Rome, even if in this text the reasons for perceiving him as such are not evident. The authors of the earliest layers of the martyrdom traditions of Peter and Paul provide different explanations for the deaths of the two apostles. Peter is presented as a threat to Roman households through his preaching of sexual chastity, while Paul is a threat to the empire as a whole, for he is recruiting “soldiers” for a rival king who will overthrow all the kingdoms on earth. Neither story reliably takes us back to historical events of the mid-first century, but both provide explanations for the executions of the apostles that would ring true to audiences in the second half of the second century. The fourthcentury Latin translations and some later expansions of these texts

57

Or “church.”

58

Abd. Pass. Paul 7.

59

Abd. Pass. Paul 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

55

maintain these basic narratives, and audiences living after the time of Decius and Diocletian would have little trouble imagining persecution at the hands of a Roman emperor. The explanation for Paul’s death continues into the sixth-century tradition of Pseudo-Abdias. As we will discover, however, a noticeable change occurs through readaptation and further development of the figure of Simon the sorcerer.

SIMON THE SORCERER AND THE MERGING OF TRADITIONS Simon the sorcerer (Simon Magus) would become a key figure in the eventual merging of the stories of the apostolic martyrdoms.60 A conflict between Simon the sorcerer and Peter first appears in the Acts of the Apostles, when Simon attempts to purchase the ability to confer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. In later stories about Peter, Simon consistently reappears; however, Simon’s conflicts with Peter, which eventually lead to Simon’s death, are not always connected with the death of Peter. This dynamic is present as early as the Acts of Peter. Confrontations in Rome between Peter and Simon the sorcerer had already occurred in the Acts of Peter prior to the martyrdom section. Simon had been conjuring illusions in Roman dining halls and had even challenged Peter to a show of supernatural power. The sorcerer attempted to deceive the crowds into believing that he had raised a certain Nicostratus from the dead, but Peter showed Simon’s actions to be false and then did in fact raise the dead man. Simon’s reputation was severely damaged, and the author of the martyrdom account claims that Simon “was constantly being disgraced and mocked by the crowd of Romans and was distrusted because he was promising to do something he could not achieve.”61 On the other hand, the apostle was enjoying great success in Rome through his preaching and his performing of many healings. In a desperate move to defeat Peter and restore his reputation, Simon declares that on the next day he “will 60 Simon will be a focus of Chapter 6, but at this point the focus is when and why he enters the martyrdom tradition. 61 Mart. Pet. 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

56

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

leave behind you godless and impious people and fly up to God, whose power I am in weakened form.”62 Simon had amazed the people by his ability to fly before Peter had come to Rome, and on the following day he stood on a high place overlooking the Sacred Way. He directly challenges Peter and Peter’s God and begins to fly over the city. The Christians are disturbed by the sight and look to Peter, who prays to Christ. If Simon is allowed to do this, he prays, then the faith of many will be shaken, for they will believe that Simon’s power, not Peter’s power, is true. The apostle then makes a very specific request: “After he has fallen down, let him be openly broken to pieces but not die. Let him be destroyed, and let his leg break in three places.”63 Simon then falls in this exact way and is humiliated in front of the crowd, some of whom throw stones at him. Peter is vindicated, and Simon finally finds a few people willing to carry him out of Rome to Aricia. Aricia, a village in Latium, was sacred to the goddess Diana and the god Virbius (Hippolytus) in Roman mythology, so it was, from a Christian perspective, a center of false worship and an appropriate place for Simon to go. Simon is eventually taken to Castor, a figure who had been banished from Rome on the charge of sorcery. Castor is therefore another type of Simon and attempts some kind of procedure to help Simon. Because he is also a false healer, the procedure is unsuccessful: “After undergoing surgery (κατατεμνόμενος) there, Simon the messenger of the devil came to the end of his life.”64 The text then moves immediately to a joyful scene of Peter’s popular preaching of chastity and the response of aristocratic women, as discussed above. There is no connection, explicit or implicit, anywhere in the Acts of Peter between the death of Simon caused by Peter’s intervention and the death of Peter himself. The first implicit reference to such a connection occurs in the Pseudo-Linus expansion of the Acts of Peter martyrdom story. At the outset of the text, Simon is mentioned but only in passing: “After conflicts and various struggles on behalf of the name of the true Christ had taken place against Simon the sorcerer and so many other heralds of Antichrist . . . ”65 Simon is one of many who had challenged the heralds of Christ, yet nothing more is said. The author/editor does not 62 65

Mart. Pet. 2. Lin. Mart. Pet. 1.

63

Mart. Pet. 3.

64

Mart. Pet. 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

57

describe Simon’s conflicts with Peter but only associates the sorcerer with an antichrist figure, who, we find out soon afterward, is none other than Nero himself. Thus, we find the establishment of a direct link between Simon with Nero. This connection is mentioned again only at the end of the text after Peter’s death at the hands of Agrippa. As in the Acts of Peter, Nero is angry that Agrippa had killed Peter without his consent. The author continues that Nero “was lamenting that he had been deprived of the spells of Simon, the patron of his salvation, and he was grieving for the sake of so great a friend, who, he claimed, had performed numerous favors for himself and the republic.”66 The author does not suggest that Simon’s death led Nero to target Peter or Peter’s followers. We do read that Nero begins persecuting Christians in order to get revenge, but the emperor’s wrath, as in the Acts of Peter, seems to focus on the apostle’s preaching of chastity: It then came about through the blessed Peter’s preaching that great love of chastity burned brightly among many women of different ages and social status, even from among the nobility. As a result, very many Roman matrons were eagerly striving to keep their hearts and their bodies, as much as they could, pure from intercourse with a man. But when the time arrived that the faith and labors of the blessed apostle should have been rewarded, the chief of perdition—obviously the Antichrist Nero, wickedness in its highest form—prevented this and ordered Peter to be bound and fettered with shackles in the foulest prison.67

Nero has Peter arrested because the apostle’s preaching on chastity had disrupted the sexual status quo of numerous Roman households. It seems that the emperor’s wrath mentioned at the end of the text is the same wrath that had caused him to arrest Peter in the first place. Reading back into the text through the lens of later tradition, one could be tempted to identify a causal relationship between the loss of Simon and Nero’s wrath. However, this retroactive reading must be resisted, for this is not the message of the Pseudo-Linus text itself, which echoes the Acts of Peter’s focus on the preaching of sexual renunciation as the source of the apostle’s imperial conflict. Simon ultimately plays a central role in the death of both apostles in accounts in which the explanations for the deaths of Peter and Paul 66

Lin. Mart. Pet. 17.

67

Lin. Mart. Pet. 1–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

58

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

are brought closely into line with each other in order to emphasize the concordia apostolorum. The Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (Pseudo-Marcellus) and the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul both date from the fifth or sixth century. The two display narrative parallels for the majority of the accounts, so there is undoubtedly a literary connection. I have argued elsewhere that the Latin is the original. It is traditionally credited to Marcellus, an erstwhile disciple of Simon the sorcerer who comes to follow Peter, because there is a brief notation at the end of some of the Latin manuscripts: “I, Marcellus, have written what I saw.” However, a first-century date is impossible for this text.68 The Greek translation and expansion is dated only slightly later. It contains some additional material and minor modifications, yet the central Nero–Simon– Peter–Paul narrative is nearly identical. The text opens with Paul’s arrival in Rome, where he is reunited with Peter. Their joyful reunion is cut short, however, by an emerging conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the city. Leaders from the Jewish community come to Paul and ask him to confront Peter, because the latter is undermining the Jewish law by his inclusion of the Gentiles. Soon the conflict erupts openly, with crowds of Jewish and Gentile believers converging on the apostles. Both sides claim superiority over the other, but finally the apostles manage to alleviate the tension by appealing to an inclusive understanding of the history of salvation. Many are convinced by their arguments and decide to follow the teaching of the apostles. Yet, others are threatened by the success of the apostles: “However, when the leaders of the synagogues and the priests of the unbelievers saw that the preaching of Peter and Paul might bring about their end, they arranged it that the teaching of Peter and Paul would be met with murmuring from the people.” The initial strategy of the apostles’ opponents is to stir up the people against them, but then they intensify their efforts: “Then it came about that they brought forth Simon, Nero’s sorcerer, and accused Peter and Paul.” The crimes of which the apostles are allegedly guilty echo the charges in the Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul:

68 Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, 221–27. The ascription to PseudoMarcellus is maintained as a way of differentiating the Latin text from several others with similar titles.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

59

At the time that innumerable people were being converted to the Lord through the preaching of Peter, it came to pass that the wife of Nero, Livia, and the wife of the prefect Agrippa, named Agrippina, were converted, so that they withdrew from the side of their husbands. Through the preaching of Paul many abandoned military service and clung to God, such that even from the bedchamber of the king they came to him.69 And those who became Christians were unwilling to return either to military service or to the palace.70

Peter’s preaching causes the wife of the emperor and the wife of the prefect to take on a life of chastity and renounce sexual relations with their husbands. The plight of the prefect recalls the Acts of Peter, and I argued above that Peter also impacted Nero’s sexual practices in that text. In this retelling the tension is increased, because the author specifies that Nero’s wife is one of the converts. In the case of Paul, he is accused of converting members of the imperial household and causing many to withdraw from their military responsibilities to the empire. Both of these accusations also appear in the Acts of Paul, although here the apostle does not explicitly state that the kingdom of Christ will overcome the kingdom of Nero. This text diverges from prior traditions, however, in that these accusations are not ultimately the causes for the deaths of the apostles. The charges are mentioned here but not pursued throughout the text. In fact, Simon himself never refers to either of these charges in his conflict with Paul and Peter. Instead, seizing on the popular momentum initiated by the synagogue leaders and other priests of the city, Simon accuses Peter of being a sorcerer and deceiver. He amazes the crowds with his apparent displays of power, and Peter counters by healing and raising the dead. The conflict between the followers of Simon and the followers of Peter escalates and catches the attention of the emperor, who sends for Simon. Simon tricks the emperor through his magical arts and warns Nero that his kingdom will be destroyed unless Peter and Paul are eliminated: “It is certain that unless you plot their destruction, your kingdom will not be able to stand.”71 Nero summons the apostles and first engages Peter. Paul is present in the ensuing scene but is initially silent and remains in the background. Simon and Peter exchange accusations of sorcery. Simon also claims to be divine, while Peter denounces him as a deceiver. Nero is 69 70

Phil 1:12–13; 4:22. See also Mart. Paul 1–2; Lin. Mart. Paul 1–5. 71 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 10. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

60

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

left attempting to determine who is telling the truth and at one point declares, “I cannot decide between you.”72 A contest of divine power ensues, with Peter getting the better of Simon multiple times. Nero seems to concede the victory to Peter: “Well, Simon? I think that we are beaten.”73 Desperate to salvage his reputation, Simon reiterates his claim to being divine and offers to prove it: “Order a tall tower to be built for me out of wood. I will climb it and call upon my angels, and I will order them to carry me into heaven to my father with everyone watching. When those men are not able to do this, you will know that they are ignorant men.”74 At this point Nero turns to Paul and asks what he can contribute. Paul counters Simon’s threat to Nero’s kingdom with one of his own: “I know this, Caesar, that if you let that sorcerer [Simon] go on doing such things, then great evil will increase upon your country, and your kingdom will be thrown down from its current position.”75 Nero thus faces threats to his kingdom from both sides. The debate between the apostles and Simon becomes protracted and includes debates over Simon’s identity (a focus of Chapter 6), the apostles’ teaching, and circumcision. After this lengthy verbal altercation, the narrative returns to Simon’s request to have a tower built so that he can ascend into heaven. Simon prepares to mount the tower, and Peter and Paul prepare to counter him. Paul goes to his knees to pray, and Peter issues this admonition to Simon: “Go ahead with what you have started. Your exposure indeed approaches, as does our calling. I in fact see my Christ calling me and Paul.”76 The apostle warns Simon that he is about to be exposed as a fraud, yet he also seems aware that Paul and he are soon going to depart this world. Nero believes that Peter plans to flee Rome but then realizes that the apostle speaks of a different departure: “Nero said, ‘And you are therefore going to go into heaven?’ Peter said, ‘We are going where it pleases the one who is calling us.’”77 Peter understands that the imminent showdown with Simon will ultimately lead to the deaths of the apostles, as well. Simon’s defeat will lead to their martyrdoms. Simon’s flight into heaven is brief, for Peter invokes the name of Jesus Christ and commands the demons to let Simon fall: “And immediately he was dropped and fell onto the place called the Sacred 72 74 76

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 25. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 30. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 52.

73 75 77

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 28. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 29. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

61

Way.78 He was broken into four parts and turned into four stones, which remain to the present day as a testimony to the apostolic victory.”79 Nero’s response is angry and immediate: “Then Nero ordered Peter and Paul to be bound in chains. The body of Simon, however, he ordered to be kept carefully for three days, believing that he would rise again on the third day.”80 The emperor is convinced that Simon will rise as the true Christ and is angry with the apostles for killing him. He threatens the apostles with brutal punishment, yet Peter responds that Nero in fact has no say over their fate, for God has already determined this: “What has been promised to us, not what you wish, is what must be done.”81 Agrippa, who had been mentioned only briefly in this text, now returns at the moment of sentencing. Unlike the Acts of Peter, in which Agrippa acts on his own in killing Peter, this text presents Agrippa as consulting with the emperor: Then Nero said to his prefect Agrippa, “It is necessary to kill these impious men in a cruel way. Thus, after they have been tortured with iron claws,82 I order that they be killed in the Naumachia83 and that all people of this sort be put to death cruelly.” Agrippa the prefect said, “Most holy emperor, you order them to be punished with a penalty that does not fit their crimes.” Nero said, “Why?” Agrippa said, “Because Paul seems to be innocent. Peter, however, is the one guilty of murder and is impious besides.” Nero said, “By what punishment should they die, then?” Agrippa the prefect said, “As it seems to me, it is fair to cut off the head of the impious Paul. As for Peter, however, because he also committed murder, order him to be hung on a cross.” Nero said, “You have pronounced an excellent judgment.”84

78

The Sacred Way was the path of Roman triumphal processions and passed from the Capitoline Hill through the Forum. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, Simon was flying “in an unnatural way” and was thrown to the earth (Apos. Con. 2.3.14). Arnobius of Sicca claims that Simon attempted to pilot a fiery chariot but was thrown down by the words of Peter. He broke his legs and subsequently committed suicide (Adv. nat. 2.12). 79 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 56. The text seems to be referring to some monument with four stones known in Rome at that time. 80 81 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 56. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 57. 82 Literally, cardi, torture devices designed to lacerate the skin as if one were carding wool. 83 84 On the naumachia see note 64 in Chapter 1. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 58.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

62

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Because the apostles have acted impiously by killing Simon, Nero desires to torture and execute them publicly, along with all those who follow them. Agrippa makes a distinction, however. Technically, he offers, Peter is the murderer, because he uttered the prayer that led to Simon’s death. Paul still deserves death but on the more general charge of impiety (Paulo inreligioso). Nero agrees, and the apostles are led away to their executions. In the Latin Pseudo-Marcellus text, Paul’s death is described very succinctly: “Paul was decapitated on the Ostian Road.”85 In the Greek expansion (the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul), Paul’s death is significantly enlarged and includes a miracle narrative involving a pious matron named Perpetua. Both texts provide full accounts of Peter’s death, and both agree that this apostle’s execution was the direct result of the defeat of Simon. Gone from this tradition is the idea that Peter’s teaching of chastity led to his death—his initial arrest, yes; but his death, no. Gone is the charge against Paul of needing to die as a political revolutionary and threat to the stability of the Roman Empire. Gone also is the narrative of separate apostolic deaths for distinct reasons. Here Paul and Peter die together in Rome—not in the exact same place or by the same means—but at the same time and for the same cause, namely the killing of the emperor’s favorite sorcerer. The concordia apostolorum is on full display in the Latin Passion of Pseudo-Marcellus and the resulting Greek Acts. The apostles share a joint mission of defeating heresy, personified by Simon. This narrative elevates the apostles to the status of martyrs and also elevates the Roman church itself as the center of joint apostolic teaching. The author emphasizes this point by then introducing mysterious visitors from the ancient spiritual capital: “Suddenly there appeared holy men, whom no one had ever seen before or was able to see afterward. They were saying that they had come from Jerusalem because of Peter.”86 Peter is singled out, because these mystery men are associated with Marcellus, a former follower of Simon turned follower of Peter—and the purported author of the Latin Passion. The mysterious visitors encourage and praise the Christians of Rome: “Rejoice and be glad, because you have merited having the great patrons and friends of the Lord Jesus Christ.”87 Thus, those speaking on behalf of 85 87

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 59. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 64.

86

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

63

Jerusalem itself legitimize the Roman narrative of prominence and uniqueness. Even Jerusalem, the holy city, is deferring to Rome through the declaration of these “holy men” (uiri sancti); it is the symbolic passing of the torch from Jerusalem to Rome as the new spiritual capital of Christianity. The narrative suggests that these visitors might carry even greater authority. They are not normal men, for “no one had ever seen [them] before or was able to see [them] afterward.” What kinds of men just appear and disappear? They also “were saying that they had come from Jerusalem,” but the author introduces some doubt as to their true origin. Perhaps these were not men at all, but heavenly messengers sent to proclaim the preeminence of the Roman church because of the preaching and martyrdoms of Paul and Peter. Indeed, the visitors speak with an otherworldly prophetic authority, predicting Nero’s downfall because of the apostolic deaths: “Know, however, that this Nero, the most wicked king, is not able to keep his kingdom after the slaughter of the apostles.”88 God’s wrath will topple Nero’s reign according to the word of these unusual guests, who disappear as quickly and mysteriously as they had appeared. This reading may be implicit in the text, yet there is little doubt that the author intentionally leaves their true identities somewhat ambiguous. At the very least, they proclaim Rome’s glory on behalf of Jerusalem, and their rhetoric and declarations result directly from a joint apostolic martyrdom tradition, not separate and unrelated traditions. A slightly later text, the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, relies heavily on Pseudo-Marcellus.89 The account of the verbal debates between the apostles and Simon is much less extensive in this text, but the overall narrative is similar, including the climactic scene of Simon attempting to fly into heaven. In Simon’s final exchange with the apostles, they are already aware of their future. However, here it is Paul, not Peter, who first indicates that their demise is imminent. When Peter suggests that they both pray against Simon, Paul responds to his apostolic counterpart: “Our departure from the world draws near.”90 Simon begins to fly, and Nero turns to the apostles triumphantly and declares that the apostles are the true 88

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 64. I have elsewhere dated the text to the latter sixth century or early seventh century (Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, 318–19). 90 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 10. 89

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

64

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

deceivers. Peter and Paul have a short exchange in which they confirm their mutual understanding that Nero will kill them if they strike down Simon, but they also agree that this must be done. Nero thinks they have lost their minds with their ramblings about being called by Christ. Then Peter rebukes the demons, and Simon falls. He is taken to Aricia and dies soon afterward. Furious, Nero begins to plot to kill Peter in particular. The narrator’s voice then intervenes and echoes the expectation of forthcoming connected deaths: “Because the time had now arrived when the holy apostles were being called to their Master, the order was then given that the apostles should be arrested.”91 Peter initially flees the city but is shamed into returning by a vision of Christ, who was going to Rome “to be crucified again.”92 Peter turns back and is arrested along with Paul on the following day. Nero is at last forced to accept that Simon is not going to rise from the dead and buries his rotting corpse, which renews his anger toward the apostles. He consults with the prefect, here identified as Clement: “Father Clement, those men are far too impious, and they are able to destroy our religion completely, if we allow them to live any longer. But let them take iron claws and be forced to beat each other in turn.”93 The prefect agrees with the sentence of death for both apostles, although he suggests alternative punishments. As in the previous PseudoMarcellus Passion, the prefect here distinguishes between the apostles in terms of their means of death. He orders decapitation for Paul, “the insolent one against Roman power,” but painful and humiliating crucifixion Peter, “who committed murder by his incantations.”94 Nonetheless, their ultimate fate is the same: “And Peter and Paul were received into heaven, but Simon was led away into hell, for those who believe in Christ will live with him forever in eternal glory, forever and ever.”95 Following the narrative in Pseudo-Marcellus, this author places the death of Simon at the center of a joint martyrdom account. In fact, Simon is even more prominent here, for the apostolic conflict with the sorcerer is introduced in the first few lines and remains the central 91

Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 12. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 12: dicit ei Iesus: uenio iterum crucifigi. 93 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13. 94 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13: Paulus contumax contra Romanum imperium capitali sententia puniatur. Petrus autem qui carminibus suis homicidium perpetrauit crucifigatur. 95 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13. 92

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

65

narrative until the final line of the text, in which the protagonists are separated based on their eternal destinations. Paul may be “insolent against Roman power,” but contrary to the Acts of Paul, there is no mention of the apostle as a recruiter of soldiers for a rival king. Peter’s preaching of chastity is never even mentioned. In fact, the sexually frustrated prefect, one of the primary characters in the Acts of Peter and other earlier narratives, does not appear until the scene of judgment. There is no indication that he has any issues with his sex life or personal animosity toward Peter. The apostle’s sentence results from a straightforward charge of murder. The final line of the text highlights the centrality of Simon as the provocation for the apostolic deaths and the unity of the apostles. Simon is sent to hell, while the apostles “were received into heaven” jointly. Thus, the text concludes with a triumphant declaration of the heavenly continuation of the concordia apostolorum. In the development of the literary tradition, the figure of Simon provides the justification for ascribing to the martyrdom accounts a single cause and double event. Simon was perceived as a threat to the very foundations of Christianity, and a joint apostolic effort was required to expose him as a fraud and execute a sentence of divine judgment before the eyes of Nero and everyone else in Rome. In this combined martyrdom tradition, Nero’s sexual practices and earthly kingdom are not initially at risk because of Paul and Peter. In fact, Nero is not initially at risk at all. Paul even states that the empire is endangered only if Nero fails to eliminate Simon. The punishment of Simon—viewed as murder by Nero and the prefect—is what prompts a death sentence. Even if Peter is perceived as slightly guiltier, both apostles still must die. What is initially perceived as a great loss for the Roman church becomes one of its greatest victories. The concurrent deaths, which followed the apostles’ joint preaching, guaranteed the Roman church a prominent position within the church universal—or at least, so believed the Romans. Ironically, Simon—the ultimate example of heresy and deception—becomes the catalyst for Rome’s ultimate claims to a unique and unchallenged dual apostolic legacy. Another text from the same time period, the Pseudo-Abdias Passion of Saint Peter, also features Simon prominently in the apostolic story. The author explains the roots of the Simon conflict in Rome by mentioning the story in the Acts of the Apostles and then recounting a showdown between the apostle and the sorcerer in Caesarea

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

66

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Maritima. Peter triumphs to Simon’s shame, and the Magus disappears from the story for a time. Simon reappears suddenly in Rome after Peter and Paul have established a successful outreach in that city: Then the apostle Paul came to Rome and was preaching Christ the Lord. Therefore, at the time of Nero Caesar, there were in Rome the salvation-bearing teachers of the Christians, the apostles Peter and Paul. Through them the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ was growing in the minds of all, and the growth of religion was being spread, because they were distinguished in their deeds and famous in their teaching by the strength of divine grace. Nero, however, began to oppose the apostles vehemently under the influence of Simon the sorcerer.96

The joint apostolic mission was expanding through the preaching and deeds of Paul and Peter, but Simon had meanwhile managed to achieve influence over Nero through his deceptive arts: “Through various illusions of demons, the sorcerer had gained control of the mind of Caesar to the extent that Nero without hesitation placed confidence in Simon as the author of his salvation97 and the guardian of his life. For he believed that he would enjoy victories in war, the conquest of nations, and prosperity in all his affairs because of him.”98 After the introduction of this frame story for what follows, Paul fades into the background, and the focus is placed squarely on Peter and Simon. Peter confronts and exposes Simon, and from that point forward the story focuses on Peter’s renewed conflict with Simon and his final and fatal defeat of Simon. As the sorcerer flies over the city, Peter prays and asks Christ to prevent Simon from succeeding, lest many of the faithful be led astray. Then he takes a more direct approach by addressing the demons: “‘You who are carrying him, I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to drop him right now.’ As soon as Peter spoke, [Simon] was dropped by the demons, and when the wings that he had taken became entangled, he fell. He did not die right away, but his whole body was broken, and his legs were crippled. After a few hours he died in that very place.”99 This account is similar to those we have seen above. Peter strikes down Simon; the sorcerer experiences some kind of mutilation; and then eventually he dies. 96

97 98 Abd. Pass. Pet. 16. Cf. Heb 5:9. Abd. Pass. Pet. 16. Abd. Pass. Pet. 18. According to Lactantius, Inst. 2.16, the verb adjuro is used specifically in the context of exorcism which may explain why Peter uses it here in speaking to demons. 99

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Justifying Death

67

Nero’s response is swift and violent: “When Nero learned this, he was angry that he had been deceived and disappointed and was indignant at being deprived of a man useful to himself and necessary for the republic. He then began to seek reasons to kill Peter.”100 The story concludes with the account of Peter’s arrest and eventual death. Nero is motivated to kill Peter because he is convinced that Simon’s power granted success to him and his political ambitions: “victories in war, the conquest of nations, and prosperity in all his affairs.” Nero reacts by taking a life for a life. There is no indication of imperial wrath based on sexual frustration caused by Peter’s preaching. The apostle had cost him something far dearer: “the author of his salvation and the guardian of his life.”

CONCLUSION The martyrdom accounts do not agree concerning the reasons for the deaths of Peter and Paul. In the earliest account in the Acts of Peter, Peter causes upheaval in the bedrooms of Rome through his preaching of chastity. Because the aristocratic men are losing control of their wives, they see Peter as a threat to the social order that needs to be eliminated. Paul in the Acts of Paul, on the other hand, is seen as a threat to the order and safety of the empire as a whole, because he is subverting Roman power by recruiting for a rival king. This other king is misunderstood to be an aggressive, colonizing, temporal force, so Paul is killed before he can spread this sedition too widely. In other reconstructions of the apostolic deaths, Paul and Peter are brought together and into conflict with Nero through the agency of Simon Magus. They present a joint apostolic front in the face of this demonic threat, and they pay for his death with their own lives. The apostles are united in death as they had been in life, and thus the authors of the martyrdom accounts strive to provide the ultimate demonstration of the concordia apostolorum.

100

Abd. Pass. Pet. 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

3 Dating the Deaths Any attempt to reconstruct the chronology of the lives of Peter and Paul presents vexing problems. For Peter, the texts included in the New Testament, even if taken at face value, provide very little information. It is possible to piece together a series of events in Peter’s life, but assigning them any particular dates is impossible. In the case of Paul, the epistles are not very helpful, and even adding the material in the Acts of the Apostles leaves a number of gaps and uncertainties.1 Identifying the time of their deaths is no less challenging, yet this proved to be a topic of interest among the authors of various martyrdom accounts and other early Christian sources. Following the trends we have explored in the first two chapters, the sources provide a variety of answers to the question of when the apostles died. Some might be reconcilable, while others are contradictory. This chapter will divide this issue into two parts. The first part will focus on the date(s) of the apostolic deaths. Here we will see that the liturgical date of June 29 seems to been a controlling factor in the production of would-be historical accounts, not the other way around. The second part will focus on the year(s) of the martyrdoms. While some authors were content to place these events within the reign of Nero, others sought greater precision and provided specific dates that varied from each other by more than a decade. The goal of this chapter is not to establish when the deaths happened—these details are unavailable to us based on our sources—but rather to demonstrate that the sources do not agree on this basic question, either. Thus, these texts must be read as literary, not historical. 1 See e.g. David L. Eastman, “Paul: An Outline of His Life,” in All Things to all Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks and Romans, ed. Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 34–56.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

69

DATING THE DEATHS OF THE APOSTLES

The Liturgical Calendar As early as 258 CE, Christians in the West were celebrating a joint feast day on June 29 in honor of the deaths of Peter and Paul. The Burying of the Martyrs is a liturgical calendar that in its surviving form dates probably from 336 CE. It provides a list of feasts held at Rome in honor of certain martyrs, particularly Roman martyrs, and is the earliest extant Christian festival calendar of its type. The entry for June 292 reads as follows: “[Feast of] Peter in the Catacombs, of Paul on the Ostian Road, when Tuscus and Bassus were consuls.”3 Tuscus and Bassus were consuls in the year 258, and it is notable that the cult of Peter is associated not with the Vatican but with “the Catacombs.”4 In antiquity, “the Catacombs” referred not to underground burial sites in general but rather to a specific site on the Appian Road south of Rome—now San Sebastiano. Evidence from graffiti at the site

2 Hippolyte Delehaye has argued that June 29 has no historical connection to the martyrdoms but was a purely liturgical date incorporated later into the literary record (Les origines du culte des martyrs, 2nd ed., SHG 20 [Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1933], 264). Others have argued from a passage in Ovid (Fast. 6.795–96) that the Christian feast day was an attempt to supersede the celebration of the traditional date of Romulus’ foundation of Rome. See Carl Erbes, Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus und ihre römischen Denkmäler (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 39–40; Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed., trans. Floyd V. Filson (London: SCM, 1962), 129–30; Janet M. Huskinson, Concordia Apostolorum: Christian Propaganda at Rome in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, BARIS 148 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1982), 82. This explanation has been strongly criticized by Gitte Lønstrup, “Constructing Myths: The Foundation of Roma Christiana on 29 June,” ARID 33 (2008): 27–64. Lønstrup grants that June 29 might be associated with the foundation of a temple by the Emperor Augustus in honor of Quirinus, the god with whom Romulus was equated after his death; however, even this potential connection lacks sufficient evidence in the sources. 3 III kal. iul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso consulibus. See MGH.AA 9 (Chronica minora I), ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892), 71. The text has survived because it was attached to the 354 Filocalian Calendar, a Roman civil calendar. The approximate dating of the Burying of the Martyrs is calculated based on information in the Burying of the Bishops (Depositio episcoporum), a related calendar that was also transmitted by the Filocalian Calendar. 4 Louis Duchesne linked the June 29 date with the transfer of the apostolic relics in 258 CE, but I have shown elsewhere that such a simple solution does not account for the evidence from the sources. See Le Liber pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire (Paris: Librarie des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome: 1886), 1:civ, 151 n. 7; David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 94–114.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

70

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

demonstrates that both Peter and Paul were honored at this site by the mid-third century. This joint apostolic veneration continued throughout antiquity, as attested by Damasus of Rome in the fourth century, the fifth-century Passion of St. Sebastian, and the Book of Pontiffs and Gregory I in the sixth century. The Catacombs existed alongside the Ostian Road and the Vatican as other locations for apostolic cults for Paul and Peter, respectively.5 When Ambrose visited Rome in the fourth century, he noted the prominence of all three cultic sites on the annual feast day of the apostles: “Around the circuit of so great a city a streaming throng makes its way. Celebrated on three roads is the feast of the sacred martyrs. One would think that the whole world is coming forth.”6 Ambrose’s three roads were the Aurelian Road (the Vatican), the Ostian Road (Basilica of Paul), and the Appian Road (the Catacombs). The former site sits north of the walls of the city, while the latter two are situated south of Rome’s walls. According to the poet Prudentius, this made June 29 a very long day for those honoring the apostles: All through Rome [people] are running around and rejoicing. Today for us the feast of apostolic triumph has returned, a day made famous by the blood of Paul and Peter . . . Look, the people of Romulus are pouring through the streets in two different directions, for one day shines for two festivals [Peter and Paul]. Let us hurry at a quick pace to both and enjoy the hymns sung both here and there.7

The day was particularly challenging for the exhausted bishop, who, like the multitude of pilgrims, had to hurry across the city in order to celebrate at both memorials on the same day: “The sleepless bishop first fulfills his sacred duties on the other side of the Tiber [at the Vatican], then immediately runs back here and repeats the offerings.”8 This joint festival day accorded well with accounts stating that the apostle died on the same day.9 However, as we saw in Chapter 1, many of the martyrdom accounts emphasize that the apostles died separately. Some authors resolved this tension by stating that the 5 See e.g. Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 15–69; George E. Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, Divinations (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 13–38. 6 7 Ambrose, Hymn. 12.25–29. Prudentius, Perist. 12.2–4, 57–60. 8 Prudentius, Perist. 12.63–64. 9 Dionysius of Corinth, cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.8; Jerome, Vir. ill. 5; Tract. Ps. 96.10; Maximus of Turin, Serm. 1.2; 2.1; 9.1; Pseudo-Damasus, Eccl. occ. mon. iur. 1.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

71

apostle died on the same date but one year apart. This is the approach of Prudentius in his poem on the feast day: “The same day, coming back after a full year, saw both win a crown by their glorious death.”10 The crown was a symbol of athletic victory, and Christians applied it to descriptions of the victory of the martyrs. Indeed, Prudentius gives the title Peristephanon (On the Crowns)11 to his entire cycle of poems in honor of the martyrs. This image was also prominent in Christian iconography. Excavations in the ancient Christian burial grounds around Rome have revealed the decorated bottoms of over 500 broken glass drinking vessels. Many of these vessels feature the images of martyrs, including Paul and Peter, and the breakage pattern suggests that care was taken to preserve these images when the glass was broken.12 In numerous examples Peter and Paul face each other, and the figure of Christ holds wreaths over their heads, symbols of their victory as martyrs.13 Here Prudentius paints his own poetic icon of the apostles as recipients of crowns. Prudentius later recounts the death of Peter and again clarifies its chronological connection to the death of Paul: “When the round wheel of the turning world had run its course and the rising sun brought back the same day, Nero spewed forth his burning rage onto the neck of Paul and ordered the teacher of the nations to be struck down.”14 Prudentius claims that one year to the day separated the deaths, thus legitimizing the authenticity of the festival. Writing nearly two centuries later, Gregory of Tours made the same claim in his work On the Glory of the Martyrs: “One year later, on the same day that the apostle Peter had suffered, the apostle Paul died in the city of Rome by being struck with a sword.”15 Another sixth-century

10

Prudentius, Perist. 12.5–6. Although Prudentius wrote in Latin, he gave Greek names to nearly all his works. 12 K. Painter, “Frammenti di coppa,” in Vetri dei Cesari, ed. Donald B. Harden (Exposition Catalog: Milan, 1988), 279–81; Fabrizio Bisconti and Danilo Mazzoleni, The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, Decoration, Inscriptions (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 1999), 80–81. 13 Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 79–81; Guy Ferrari and Charles R. Morey, The GoldGlass Collection of the Vatican Library: With Additional Catalogues of Other Gold-Glass Collections, CMSBAV (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959), nos. 37, 50–51, 53–54, 58, 60–68; Donald B. Harden, Glass of the Caesars (Milan: Olivetti, 1987), 285, no. 160; Hermann Vopel, Die altchristlichen Goldgläser: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 107–9. 14 15 Prudentius, Perist. 12.21–22. Gregory of Tours, Glor. mart. 28. 11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

72

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

author, Arator, preserved this same tradition in his epic verse retelling of the Acts of the Apostles: “Not the same day but one day presented them as twins to the stars. [Paul’s] passion has sanctified the repeating light after a year passed, and their shared grace earns the eternal palm [of victory].”16 The sixth-century author of the Abdias account similarly attempted to preserve the joint festival date but introduced yet another variation. In describing the death of Paul, Pseudo-Abdias states, “He suffered on the third calends of July two years after the passion of Peter, during the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ.”17 The author preserves the shared martyrdom date, and thus joint festival day, of June 29 but asserts that two years separated the actual deaths. To my knowledge, this is the only source that puts a two-year gap between the deaths. The author also places both martyrdoms within the reign of Nero, which raises issues related to the years of their deaths that will be explored later in this chapter. Augustine, for his part, was inconsistent on this issue of the relative chronology of the deaths. In some cases he suggests that the deaths were on the very same day. For example, in a sermon delivered on the festival day in 428 CE, the bishop states, In order that later the faithful could pass through the distresses of their sufferings, through the road full of thorns, and through the trials of persecutions, they had the apostles as their leaders. The blessed Peter was the first of the apostles, while the blessed Paul was the last of the apostles. They rightly worshipped the one who had said, “I am the first and the last,” and the first and the last [of the apostles] ran to meet each other on the one day of their passion.18

Augustine first introduces a dichotomy. Peter is the “first of the apostles” (beatus Petrus primus apostolorum). According to Mark and Matthew, Peter (Simon) is one of the first two disciples called, along with his brother Andrew,19 while Luke focuses primarily on Peter individually.20 The term “first of the apostles” probably also has a metaphorical meaning, for Peter was also known as the “chief of the 16 Arator, Act. apost. 2.1247–49. The use of astral imagery related to Peter and Paul was employed by Damasus of Rome in a poem in honor of these martyrs and ties them to the tradition of Castor and Pollux (the Dioscuri). See Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 33 n. 43. 17 18 Abd. Pass. Paul 8. Rev 1:17, 22:13; Augustine, Serm. 298.1. 19 20 Mark 1:16–20; Matt 4:18–22. Luke 5:1–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

73

apostles” as an expression of the Petrine primacy emphasized by the Roman church. Jerome, for example, identifies Peter in this way: “Simon Peter, the son of John, was from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, the brother of the apostle Andrew and chief of the apostles.”21 Peter of Alexandria likewise labels him “the chief of the apostles.”22 On the other hand, Paul is labeled the “last of the apostles” (nouissimus apostolorum), a term inspired by Paul’s selfdescription as the apostle called last (ἔσχατον) by Jesus and the “least of the apostles” (ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων).23 Nevertheless, these two opposites were joined at the time of their deaths, for they “ran to meet each other on the one day of their passion.” This image of the apostolic meeting in Rome appeared not only in textual but also artistic traditions.24 It was yet another manifestation of the concordia apostolorum and Rome’s unique connection to the joint martyrdom tradition. Augustine uses similar imagery to communicate a shared day of death in another sermon delivered on the annual liturgical celebration. There he declares, “The blessed apostles Peter and Paul were called at different times but crowned on one day. The Lord called Peter before all the others and Paul after all the others. Peter was the first of the apostles, Paul the last. He who is the first and the last25 led them to the same day. A most beautiful integrity is maintained when the last things agree with the first.”26 Augustine repeats the “first and last” motif, juxtaposing Peter and Paul at opposite ends of the timeline of apostolic call. However, their paths finally converge on “the same day” (adduxit eos ad unum diem). In yet another sermon, Augustine links the apostolic deaths through the common shedding of their blood: “They both [Peter and Paul] led a harmonious life; they both shed their blood together; they both received a heavenly crown; they both consecrated this present day.”27

E.g. Jerome, Vir. ill. 1: Simon Petrus . . . princeps apostolorum. Peter of Alexandria, Epist. can. 9: ὁ πρόκριτος τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρος. 23 1 Cor 15:8–9: ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤϕθη κἀμοί. ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων. 24 Herbert L. Kessler (“The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome: An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood,” DOP 41 [1987]: 265–75) has demonstrated that the image of Peter and Paul running to embrace each other in Rome was a common iconographical trope. 25 26 This is another allusion to Rev 1:17, 22:13. Augustine, Serm. 299C.1. 27 Augustine, Serm. 297.5. 21 22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

74

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Augustine emphasizes the unity of the apostles in life (concordem uitam) and in death. The sharing of a single day could simply mean that they died on the same date according to the liturgical calendar, as we saw in other sources above; however, Augustine employs tangible language of deaths linked through the mixing of blood (socium sanguinem ambo fuderunt). Augustine’s imagery closely parallels that of Prudentius, who produced his poem in honor of the apostles at around the same time: “The Tiber marshland, which is washed by the river nearby, knows that its turf was consecrated by two victories. It was witness of both cross and sword, by which a shower of blood flowed through its grass twice and soaked it” (Prudentius, Perist. 12.7–10). The Tiber formed a conceptual link between the Petrine basilica at the Vatican and the new basilica of Paul recently dedicated on the Ostian Road. The cult sites were on opposite sides of the city, but the mixture of apostolic blood flowing through the Tiber sanctified its banks, and by extension sanctified all of Rome.28 In Augustine’s application of the metaphor, however, there is a much stronger sense of a direct chronological overlap between the deaths. Elsewhere, however, Augustine seems to suggest that the deaths happened in different years but still on the same day of the year. In another of his festival day sermons, while focusing on the suffering of Paul, he declares, Behold, the Lord showed [Paul] the things that he would have to suffer for the sake of his name. After that he trained Paul with hard labor— with chains, with beatings, with imprisonment, and with shipwrecks.29 He secured for Paul his suffering and brought him to this very day. There is one day for the suffering of the two apostles, but those two are also one. Although they suffered on different days, they are one. Peter went first, and Paul followed.30

The apostles suffered separately but share one day as a memorial for their sacrifice (unus dies passionis duobus apostolis). The death of Peter is presented as preceding that of Paul, thus granting Peter slightly superior status as the apostolic protomartyr of Rome. Given 28 Prudentius extends this metaphor surrounding the Tiber to create a new myth of origins for Rome, with Paul and Peter replacing the traditional founders Romulus and Remus. See Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 31–35; Michael J. Roberts, Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: The Liber Peristephanon of Prudentius, RLLTC (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 170–71. 29 30 2 Cor 11:23–27. Augustine, Serm. 295.7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

75

Augustine’s allegiance to the Roman church,31 it is not surprising that he would also follow Roman rhetoric on the issue of Petrine primacy. Some were apparently still unclear on the precise relationship between the deaths, so in another sermon preached on the feast day, the bishop specified, The memory, based on the tradition of the learned fathers, maintains that they did not suffer on one day between sunrise and sunset. Paul suffered on the birthday of Peter—not on the day that he was added to the number of men from his mother’s womb, but on the day that he was born from the bondage of the flesh into the light of the angels. For this reason, while each had a separate day [of martyrdom], now both are celebrated on one day.32

Here Augustine explicitly denies that Paul and Peter died on the very same day: “they did not suffer on one day between sunrise and sunset” (non uno die passi sunt per coeli spatia decurrente). He states that his claim is “based on the tradition of the learned fathers” (sicut traditione patrum cognitum memoria retinetur) but does not specify his sources. As we have seen, not everyone agreed on this point.33 Augustine identifies the feast day as the “birthday of Peter. He is speaking not of physical birth—”not on the day that he was added to the number of men from his mother’s womb”—but of spiritual birth into heaven. The use of birth imagery to describe a martyrdom day goes back at least to the Martyrdom of Polycarp. After the Christians of Smyrna bury the bones of Polycarp, they continue to commemorate the day of his death annually: “As we are able, we gather together there with joy and gladness, and the Lord will permit us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom in memory of those who have gone before and for the training and preparation of those who will do so in 31 This loyalty is most readily seen in the context of the Donatist Controversy. Augustine was part of the Caecilianist faction that, although a minority in North Africa, enjoyed the support of the Roman church and the emperor against the Donatists. 32 Augustine, Serm. 381.1. 33 One wonders if the intentional reference to “learned fathers” (patrum cognitum), as opposed to “unlearned fathers,” is Augustine’s way of separating traditions with which he agrees from those with which he does not. Jerome in particular disagreed with Augustine, and evidence shows that the two clashed on other issues, as well. See Robert J. Connell, “When Saintly Fathers Feuded: The Correspondence between Augustine and Jerome,” Thought 54 (1979): 344–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

76

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the future.”34 Augustine was not the only one to use this language to speak of the apostolic festival. Ambrose of Milan, another contemporary of Augustine, had employed the same imagery in a sermon from 378 CE in honor of the June 29 festival: “Today on their very same birthday the Holy Spirit has cried out, saying, ‘The day spews forth the word of the day.’ That is to say, from the secret treasury of the heart they preach the faith of Christ. And doubly good is the day that has vomited forth the true light to us.”35 Likewise, Paulinus of Nola, writing at around the same time as Augustine, made a pilgrimage to Rome every year from approximately 394 to 406 for the “very popular apostolic birthday celebration.”36 In another sermon Augustine also emphasizes the chronological distance between the two deaths while preserving the connection through the liturgical calendar: There is one day for two martyrs and two apostles. We have received this much from the tradition of the church: that they did not suffer on one day, and they did suffer on one day. Today Peter suffered first, and today Paul suffered later.37 Their merit made their suffering equal, and their love made itself evident on this day. He brought this about in them—the one who was in them, who was suffering in them, who was suffering with them, who was helping them as they did battle, and who crowned them when they were victorious.38

Appealing to “the tradition of the church” (ecclesiae traditione) and without reference to the opposing viewpoints, the bishop playfully engages the irony that the apostles do share one day, and yet do not share one day. On the one hand, “they did not suffer on one day” (non uno die passi sunt), as he specifies in the passage from Serm. 381.1 discussed previously. The sun did not rise and fall on both days within a single day. However, “they did suffer on one day” (et uno die passi sunt) in that they share the martyrdom date of June 29. Both were crowned as victors, and both suffered equally, 34

Mart. Pol. 18.3. Ambrose of Milan, Virginit. 1.19.124. Cf. Ps 18:3. This use of vomiting imagery is not unique to the time. Augustine, perhaps influenced by Ambrose, also employed it: “Saint John belched forth this opening to his Gospel, because he had drunk it in from the Lord’s own breast” (Serm. 119.1). 36 Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 18.1. 37 The implication is that they suffered on the same date but not in the same year. Cf. 298.1 above, where Augustine speaks of “the one day of their passion.” 38 Augustine, Serm. 299A.1. 35

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

77

although Augustine reinforces Peter’s position as protomartyr: “Peter suffered first, and today Paul suffered later.” Overall, then, Augustine seems to present different ideas. In some sermons, he emphasizes their joint martyrdom, stating that they “ran to meet each other on the one day of their passion,” that the Lord “led them to the same day,” and that “they both shed their blood together.” In other cases, he claims that the apostles did not die at the same time. They “suffered on different days,” and “they did not suffer on one day between sunrise and sunset.” Always mindful of the rhetorical force of his words, the bishop no doubt adapted the details of the story to fit the needs of the moment, even in one instance dancing nimbly on the line between the traditions: “they did not suffer on one day, and they did suffer on one day.” In all cases, Augustine is reinforcing the importance of the June 29 festival, the day on the liturgical calendar in the West on which Christians celebrated the deaths of both Paul and Peter. June 29 was a liturgical date around which these authors constructed a narrative of the apostles’ deaths, but it was not the only date on which the event was celebrated. According to another martyrology, in the entries for December, “On the 28th in Rome, Paul the apostle and Simon Peter the chief of the apostles of our Lord.” This martyrology survives in a Syriac text from 411 CE, although it is a translation of an earlier Greek original, probably from the fourth century.39 The joint martyrdom celebration is here placed in December, not June. Unfortunately, the portion of the martyrology covering late June did not survive, so we do not know how the editor dealt with the June 29 date. In any event, this text might be easily dismissed as an outlier, except that other sources also support a festival date at the end of December. Gregory of Nyssa attests to this in the eulogy for his brother, Basil, which was delivered on January, 1, 381 CE. On this occasion Gregory highlights the feasts that they had just recently celebrated. Christmas begins the liturgical year for Gregory, but then between Christmas and January 1 fall feasts for the apostles,

39 François Nau has dated this Greek original to the fourth century (“peut être antérieur à 360”) and linked it to Nicomedia. He argues that the Synaxarium of Constantinople, which eventually informed the so-called Martyrology of Jerome, later overshadowed it. See Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques, in Martyrologes et ménologes orientaux I–XIII, PO 10 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1915), 7–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

78

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

including Peter and Paul.40 Indirect evidence in John Chrysostom suggests the same schedule in Antioch at the end of the fourth century, and the Armenian calendar of saints associated the apostles with the end of December.41 Thus, while June 29 enjoyed pride of place in the Roman tradition and in regions influenced by Rome, it was not the only date for celebrating the deaths of Peter and Paul.42 The various solutions offered by these different authors to the problem of the date of the deaths sought to preserve the liturgical calendar, whether June 29 or December 28. Nonetheless, the existence of these very solutions highlights that there were different theories on the exact timing of the martyrdoms—even among those who venerated Paul and Peter on the same date.

The Year(s) of the Apostolic Deaths This disagreement over the timing of the deaths also yields a related question: In what year or years did they occur? Here again, the ancient sources display variety, and attempts to date the apostolic deaths offered solutions that diverged from each other by nearly a decade. The one area of agreement among all the sources is that the deaths occurred during the reign of Nero.43 The first surviving written reference dates from 100–130 CE and pertains specifically to the death of Peter. It is embedded in the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, a composite text that dates to the very end of the first century or the beginning of second century CE.44 The first part of the text 40 Gregory of Nyssa, Or. laud. Basil., 109.18–19. In a sermon in honor of the protomartyr Stephen and probably delivered on December 27, 386 CE, Gregory again mentions Peter among the most prominent martyrs, but Paul is not mentioned (Serm. Steph. 2, 100.17–19). The editions of J.-P. Migne and Otto Lendle do not include section numbers, so the page and line references are provided from the more recent publication by Lendle: Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Sermones II.10.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1990). 41 Hans Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus in Rom, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927), 127–30. 42 The examples of a December festival date all come from the East, but without more specific evidence I am hesitant to propose any conclusions about a defined geographical distinction. 43 To be precise, the author(s) of 1 Clement make allusions to the deaths of Peter and Paul without mentioning Nero, so technically this text is silent on the issue. 44 Antonio Acerbi, L’Ascensione di Isaia: Cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni del II secolo (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1989), 83–98; Robert G. Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” JBL 109.2 (1990): 289–306. It should be noted that oral traditions

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

79

recounts a version of the martyrdom of Isaiah, and within that story the following passage appears: [After this has taken place, Beliar, the great ruler and king of this world, will descend—the one who has ruled it since it came into being. He will descend from his firmament]45 in the form of a man, who is a lawless king and a murderer of his mother. He himself, this king, will persecute the plant that the twelve apostles of the beloved one will plant, and one of the twelve will be given over into his hands. This leader will come in the likeness of that king, and all the powers of this world will be present.46

The Beliar figure in this text is a complicated one, but this particular passage displays strong dependence on stories about Nero. This wicked king is described as “a murderer of his mother” (μητραλῴου), a reference to Nero’s slaying of his mother, Agrippina, in 59 CE.47 This same king will attempt to kill the growth from the seeds planted by the twelve apostles, and eventually “one of the twelve will be given over into his hands.” This detail appears to display awareness of a tradition that Peter died at the command of Nero. Beliar will come back “in the likeness of that king,” a resurrection motif based on the legend of Nero redivivus.48 Thus, while the author mentions neither Peter nor Nero by name, the reference seems quite clear. Nero’s reign features prominently in the martyrdom account in the Martyrdom of Peter, the final section of the Acts of Peter. As we saw in Chapter 2, the emperor himself is not blamed for the death, yet he was certainly ruling at the time that it occurred. Peter’s preaching of chastity costs Nero dearly, “because Peter had made disciples of some of those close to him, who had then left him.”49 I have argued in Chapter 2 that the author is referring specifically here to sexual consorts of Nero who had withdrawn from his chambers; however, the emperor is robbed of the pleasure of torturing and killing the about the deaths of both apostles likely predate this text, but this is our earliest surviving literary source. 45 These opening lines in brackets are based on the Ethiopic translation, which was used to complete the fragmentary Greek text. See Paolo Bettiolo et al., eds., Ascensio Isaiae: textus, CCSA 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995). 46 47 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4:2–4. Tacitus, Ann. 14.1–9. 48 L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents, JSJSup (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 194–205. 49 Mart. Pet. 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

80

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

apostle by the actions of the prefect, Agrippa, who orders the execution also due to Peter’s impact on his sex life. Nero is initially angry at Agrippa but then turns his ire toward the Christians: Nero therefore wanted to kill all the brothers [and sisters] who had been made disciples by Peter. One night he saw a certain figure whipping him and saying, “Nero, you are now not able to persecute or kill the servants of Christ. Keep your hands off them.”50 And Nero was so frightened by this vision that he kept away from the disciples in that time after Peter departed this life.51

Nero plans “to kill all the brothers [and sisters]” but is dissuaded by a frightening vision. The story as it stands introduces several historical challenges, perhaps due to the nature of the Acts of Peter. First of all, earlier in the composite Acts of Peter, the author had claimed that Peter came to Rome twelve years after Christ’s death.52 However, Nero’s reign lasted from 54 CE to June 9, 68 CE, so the timelines do not line up.53 Second, the prefect Agrippa is blamed for Peter’s death, yet no urban prefect with that name—or a name even close to that—is recorded in the first century. It is very possible that Herod Agrippa I, a ruler in Judea in the middle of the first century, inspires this narrative character Agrippa.54 According to the Acts of the Apostles, Herod Agrippa arrests Peter to please the apostle’s Jewish opponents, but Peter is miraculously freed from prison.55 Thus, Agrippa was a name associated with the arrest and would-be persecution of Peter, so his name is inserted here. Regarding the conflict between Agrippa and Nero, according to Josephus Agrippa twice ran into trouble with the emperor Tiberius and was forbidden from coming into his presence. An imprecise, or perhaps

The later Latin version identifies Peter as the chastising figure (Lin. Mart. Pet. 17). 51 52 Mart. Pet. 12. Acts Pet. 5. 53 This inconsistency has been noted by Léon Vouaux, Les Actes de Pierre. Introduction, textes, traduction et commentaire (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1922), 93–100; Christine M. Thomas, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 22. Thomas summarizes various explanations given by previous scholars, including artistic license and the novelistic genre of the work. 54 Thomas has argued for this explanation of the Agrippa figure in Acts of Peter, 57–58. 55 Acts 12:1–11. A version of this story is told again in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.9.4. 50

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

81

reappropriated, version of that story thus appears in the Martyrdom of Peter.56 Finally, the text states that Nero intends to unleash his wrath on the Christians—“to kill all the brothers and sisters.” However, a vision frightens him so much “that he kept away from the disciples in that time after Peter departed this life.” It is common for later authors, both ancient and modern, to connect Peter’s death to the persecution of Christians following the fire of 64 CE. However, the Martyrdom of Peter does not obviously support that connection. According to this version, Nero considers a broad persecution but does not carry it out. He “kept away from the disciples,” at least in the aftermath of Peter’s death. Thus, the martyrdom of Peter stands as an isolated incident executed apart from Nero’s wishes, not the most prominent death among many at the hands of the emperor in a period of intense persecution. The placement of Peter’s death within Nero’s reign is repeated throughout the Petrine tradition, often without more chronological precision. Not surprisingly, the Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle follows its Greek predecessor closely. Peter is arrested by and dies at the order of a sexually frustrated Agrippa, and Nero seeks revenge. In this expanded version, Peter posthumously warns the Christians of an impending persecution and personally visits and threatens Nero in a violent vision: Then the very cruel Nero set his mind on the persecution of those whom he learned had been close to the blessed Peter, so that his wrath toward Peter may be satisfied by their punishments. But the blessed apostle made this known to the brothers and sisters through a revelation and recommended that they avoid Nero like a wild beast. Nero, in fact, saw in a vision the holy Peter standing by him. After being scourged brutally at [Peter’s] command, he heard, “Most impious one, withdraw your hands from the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you will no longer be able to bind.” Frightened by this, Nero calmed down a little from that point on.57

56 As Thomas summarizes, “Christian memory in the Acts of Peter recalls the two or three major events in the life of a historical figure: Agrippa’s arrest of early Christian leaders and his difficulties with and imprisonment by the Roman emperor—though the texts of the Acts of Peter anachronistically represent him as Nero rather than Tiberius. These events, again, are retold in terms of their significance to the Christian community: Agrippa is punished for executing Peter” (Acts of Peter, 58). 57 Lin. Mart. Pet. 17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

82

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

The most notable difference occurs at the very end of this text. Unlike in the Martyrdom of Peter, in which Nero is stopped before he can begin a persecution, in this case some level of persecution has already begun. Nero is warned to “withdraw your hands from the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you will no longer be able to bind.” His hands are already upon them, and he has begun arresting them. Rather than being warned to stop what he is planning to do, he is threatened with castigation if he does not withdraw from what he is already doing.58 Likewise, the later Pseudo-Abdias Passion of Saint Peter refers to Nero in a general way: “Then the apostle Paul came to Rome and was preaching Christ the Lord. Therefore, at the time of Nero Caesar, there were in Rome the salvation-bearing teachers of the Christians, the apostles Peter and Paul.”59 Here Peter is the primary concern, but the second account in the cycle focuses on Paul, and the author therefore preemptively provides a context for that death, as well.60 Similarly, the author of the Doctrine of the Apostles highlights Peter’s death under Nero, although the author presents an alternative means of death:61 “And Nero Caesar killed Shimeon Kepha with a sword in the city of Rome.”62 This general reference to Nero’s time also appears in other texts concerning the apostolic deaths. In his Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting, Tertullian identifies Nero as first in line among imperial persecutors: “We read the lives of the Caesars. Nero was the first who

58 This could be a reference to the persecutions that followed the fire of 64 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44), but the author does not make this point explicitly. 59 Abd. Pass. Pet. 16: tunc et Paulus apostolus Romam ueniens, Christum Dominum praedicabat. tempore igitur Neronis Caesaris, erant Romae salutiferi doctores Christianorum Petrus et Paulus apostoli. 60 Pseudo-Abdias must be treated with special care on any issue of chronology. The author incorporates significant material from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies and Pseudo-Hegesippus, Exc. Hier. 3.2. Both of these source texts possess their own chronological challenges. On speaking specifically of the Recognitions, Nicole Kelley comments, “The Recognitions’ willingness to place different sources side by side, with seemingly little concern for the chronological and theological contradictions created in the process, suggests its author’s lack of interest in the editorial process” (Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines: Situating the “Recognitions” in Fourth Century Syria, WUNT 2/213 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 4). 61 This confusion of Peter’s means of death with that of Paul will be discussed in Chapter 5. 62 Doct. Apost. 40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

83

stained with blood the rising faith in Rome. At that time Peter was bound around the body by another when he was bound to the cross. At that time Paul obtained the birth of Roman citizenship, when he was born again there by the nobility of martyrdom.”63 Tertullian appeals to Roman records themselves as proof of the apostolic martyrdoms, in this case in the context of a debate with “heretics.” This is a significant text on another level, as well, for Tertullian is the first author to blame Nero for Peter’s death. As we have seen, the Martyrdom of Peter states that the prefect Agrippa killed the apostle without the emperor’s knowledge. Nero is in fact angry when he learns that he missed the opportunity to have a hand in Peter’s death. Here, however, in a text written circa 211–212 CE, there is no reference to the prefect, only to Nero as being the “first who stained with blood the rising faith in Rome” (orientem fidem Romae primus Nero cruentauit). In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius also makes several allusions to the deaths placing them within the time of Nero. In one place he records: “After [Nero] had made clear that he was indeed the foremost enemy of God among them, he was stirred up for the slaughter of the apostles. It is therefore recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and that Peter was likewise crucified under him.”64 Eusebius echoes the sentiment of Tertullian that Nero was at the forefront of the battle against God. While Tertullian had called Nero “the first who stained with blood the rising faith in Rome,” Eusebius calls him “the foremost enemy of God” (θεομάχος . . . πρῶτος). He does not specify why the emperor was “stirred up” (ἐπήρθη), but it led directly to the “slaughter” (τὰς . . . σϕαγάς) of Paul and Peter. In another place Eusebius repeats the same basic contours of the story: “After [Peter] finally came to Rome, he was crucified with his head downward, as he thought it proper for him to suffer. Why is it necessary to speak about Paul, who had fully explained the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum and was at last martyred in Rome under Nero?”65 Both of these references refer to Nero without providing any further specificity. Other accounts speak of the reign of Nero but explicitly place these events at or very near the end of his rule. In the Martyrdom of Paul in the Acts of Paul, Nero is prominent, for the apostle first comes into 63 65

Tertullian, Scorp. 15.3. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1.

64

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

84

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

conflict with the emperor over his resurrection of the imperial cupbearer and the proclamation that Paul is recruiting for a rival king. At the end of the text, the author suggests that the apostle’s death happens near the end of Nero’s governance, for Paul makes a posthumous visit to Nero and announces his imminent demise: While Caesar was still amazed and at a loss, Paul came at around the ninth hour,66 when many philosophers and leaders—both rich and distinguished—were standing with Caesar, and when the centurion was present. Appearing to them all, Paul said, “Caesar, see that the soldier of God did not die but lives. There will be great evil for you on account of the many righteous people whose blood you spilled, and these things will happen to you after not many days.” Nero was troubled and ordered that all the prisoners be set free, including Patroclus and all those remaining.67

The frightened leader releases his Christian prisoners, but it appears that the damage had already been done. Nero’s reign is doomed “after not many days” (οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ἔσται σοι ταῦτα). It is impossible to be too precise about the dating, but this postscript seemingly pushes the date of the martyrdom into the mid-60s CE. Indeed, by the beginning of 68 CE, Nero was being directly challenged on multiple fronts, and his demise became increasingly certain. Gaius Julius Vindex, governor of Transalpine Gaul, rebelled in March of 68, and soon after Galba in Spain and Lucius Clodius Macer in Africa revolted. (Of these it was Galba who would next take the throne.) The author is unfortunately not more specific, but in any event the martyrdom occurs under Nero. The Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle tells very much the same story. Nero is threatened by Paul and eventually orders the execution of the apostle. The author provides a chronological marker that initially appears hopeful in stating that Nero “handed Paul over to the prefects Longinus and Megistus and the centurion Acestus.”68 However, Roman prefect lists show no record of either of these figures, so the names are apparently the products of legend, not history. As in the earlier Martyrdom of Paul, the apostle visits Nero after death and promises impending judgment in this life, but additionally also in the one to come: “As for you, wretched man, unspeakable evils and the greatest punishment will come upon you 66

That is, around 3:00 p.m.

67

Mart. Paul 6.

68

Lin. Mart. Paul 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

85

very soon. And eternal destruction awaits because, among other terrible crimes, you have unjustly spilled a large amount of blood of the righteous.”69 Here again, these events seem to occur at or very near the end of Nero’s administration. Lactantius also espouses the view of divine retribution that leads directly to the end of Nero’s reign, although in this case he links God’s wrath to the deaths of both Peter and Paul. We saw in Chapter 2 that in his work On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Lactantius ascribes the apostolic deaths to the undermining of Roman religion. We return to that passage here but extend the reference to include the author’s description of the punishment inflicted on Nero: While Nero was ruling, Peter came to Rome. After he had performed certain miracles, which he was doing by the strength of God himself that had been given to him by God, he converted many to righteousness and established for God a faithful and steadfast temple. This matter was reported to Nero. When he observed that not only in Rome, but everywhere, a great multitude was daily turning away from the worship of idols and, condemning their old ways, going over to a new religion, he—being an abominable and wicked tyrant—sprang forth to tear down the heavenly temple and abolish righteousness. He was the first of all to persecute the servants of God. He nailed Peter to a cross and killed Paul. However, he did not get away without punishment. God took note of the distress of his people. Thrown down from the pinnacle of imperial power and deprived of the highest position, the powerless tyrant suddenly disappeared, so that not even the burial place of so wicked a beast could be found on earth. As a result, some deluded people believe that he was taken away and kept alive—as the Sibyl says, “The mother-killer and fugitive will come from the ends of the earth”—so that he who was the first persecutor might also be the last and may precede the coming of antichrist.70

In response to the perceived abandonment of traditional practices, which could upset the pax deorum and put the entire empire at risk, Nero kills both of the apostles preaching in Rome at that time. Nero stands out as “the first of all to persecute the servants of God” (primus omnium persecutus Dei seruos) and provokes a divine reaction, for “God took note of the distress of his people.” Nero loses his position on the throne and is suddenly gone. For the uninformed, the uncertainty of Nero’s fate led to the legend of Nero redivivus, yet Lactantius 69

Lin. Mart. Paul 18.

70

Lactantius, Mort. 2.5–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

86

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

rejects the notion that Nero lived on and was himself an antichrist figure and offers a different interpretation of the events. He states that “not even the burial place of so wicked a beast71 could be found on earth,” thereby suggesting that Nero did not enjoy a proper burial. Denying burial was a form of posthumous punishment exacted typically against the worst criminals. As long as the body remained unburied, the soul could not rest in the realm of the dead.72 God’s judgment extended beyond the simple destruction of Nero’s power in this life; the emperor continued to suffer after death. The punishment, according to Lactantius, seems to follow not long after the crime, so the author implicitly places these events near the end of Nero’s rule. The fifth- or sixth-century Pseudo-Marcellus Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul affirms the connection between the deaths of the apostles and Nero’s swift fall.73 The text provides extended descriptions of the conflict between the apostles and Simon Magus in the presence of Nero, who favors the latter. After Simon is dead, Nero exacts revenge on Peter and Paul, yet this is not the end of the story: “It happened after these things that hatred from his own army and hatred from the Roman people rose up against [Nero]. Thus, they decided that he should be publicly beaten at a flogging post for a long time, until he died in the way that he deserved. When news of this plan reached him, trembling and unbearable fear fell upon him, and thus he fled and was never seen again.”74 These details as presented are dubious, but the author might be reflecting a general memory of the chaotic end of Nero’s reign. As discussed above, in 68 CE the emperor faced uprisings by Gaius Julius Vindex, Galba (with the help of some Roman conspirators), and Lucius Clodius Macer. Perhaps this is the “hatred from his own army and hatred from the Roman people” mentioned by Pseudo-Marcellus. According to Suetonius, Nero fled to the villa of his freedman, Phaon, and committed suicide.75 The memory of Nero’s flight also appears in this text, but the author provides a story of Nero’s final days that is not nearly as kind as the 71 Lactantius calls Nero a beast, probably echoing the identification of Nero as such in Rev 13:18. 72 For an extended discussion of various examples of denying burial in the Roman context, see Donald G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 2001), 128–264. 73 The text of the closely related Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (86) is nearly identical in its description of Nero’s fate. 74 75 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 65. Suetonius, Nero 48–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

87

story in Suetonius: “There were some who said that after fleeing he was wandering around in the forests, grew stiff from excessive cold and hunger, and was devoured by wolves.”76 Nero is presented as finishing his days in dishonor and isolation, roaming through the countryside and ultimately suffering the ignominious fate of being eaten by wolves. A she-wolf had suckled Romulus and Remus to ensure the foundation of Rome despite the efforts of the wicked Amulius,77 and now wolves were the agents of divine punishment and removing a wicked ruler from the imperial seat of Rome. As in Lactantius, Nero is denied a proper burial and is therefore shamed and chastised both in life and after death. Writing in the first quarter of the fifth century, Orosius likewise links the executions of Paul and Peter with the end of Nero’s reign, although he does so through a somewhat confused chronology. Like the authors just discussed, Orosius claims that Nero’s actions against the apostles provoked divine retribution. However, God’s punishments are not immediately directed at Nero personally but instead impact various parts of the empire: The rashness of [Nero’s] impiety toward God added to his mass of crimes. For he was the first to inflict torments and death on the Christians in Rome and ordered that they be tortured with a similar persecution throughout all the provinces. He attempted to eradicate the name itself and killed the most blessed apostles of Christ—Peter on a cross, and Paul with a sword. Soon disasters sprang up from every side to weigh upon that most unfortunate city. In that following autumn, so great a plague oppressed the city that 30,000 funerals were recorded in the counting of Libitina. Then Britain immediately suffered disasters, for two of the main towns were plundered, and a great number of citizens and their allies were injured and killed. Furthermore, in the East the great provinces of Armenia were lost. Roman legions were placed under Parthian control, and Syria was barely retained. In Asia earthquakes destroyed three cities—Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae.78

This series of woes experienced by the empire is taken directly from Suetonius’ Life of Nero, where the Roman chronicler is summarizing a variety of misfortunes that occurred under Nero. There, however, Suetonius ascribes them not to divine retribution but to bad fortune: “In addition to all the disasters and abuses caused 76 78

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 65. Orosius, Adv. pag. 7.7.

77

Livy, Urb. cond. 1.4–5; Plutarch, Rom. 3–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

88

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

by this leader, there were also certain things that happened by chance.”79 The events that follow come from different parts of Nero’s principate. The plague that killed 30,000 is also mentioned by Tacitus and dates from 65/66 CE.80 The destruction of two cities in Britain refers to events in 60 CE, when Boudicca, wife of the client king Prasutagus, led the Iceni and Trinovantes in revolt against the Roman governor. The insurgents sacked the cities of London and Verulamium and the colony at Colchester before being defeated by the Roman forces.81 The loss of Armenia and the Parthian threat can be dated to the very early 60s CE. Tacitus places these events in or around 62 CE, for he describes them as happening close in time to Nero’s execution of Claudia Octavia, his stepsister and first wife.82 Cassius Dio dates them slightly earlier, linking them to Nero’s foundation of the Neronia in 60 CE.83 The earthquake can also be assigned to 60 CE based on the parallel account and chronology in Tacitus.84 Orosius reinterprets the account taken from Suetonius. Suetonius had described many of Nero’s flaws yet describes these events as, in essence, bad luck (fortuita). Suetonius does not blame Nero directly for them. Orosius, however, implies that they are results of divine punishment, evidence of Nero’s “impiety toward God.” Because Nero persecuted Christians and killed the apostles, his “most unfortunate city” must suffer. Orosius thereby compresses all these events, which span a period from 60 to 65/66 CE, into a short period of time and

79

Suetonius, Nero 39. Tacitus, Ann. 16.13. Libitina was the Roman goddess of funerals and burial. Horace (Sat. 2.16.19) uses her name as a metonymy for death, and this is probably the intended usage here. 81 Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 14.31–37 and Agr. 16.1–2. Cassius Dio (Hist. 62.1–12) also dates these events to 60 CE, just after Nero’s murder of his mother, Agrippina, and at the time that he established the Neronia, quadrennial Olympic-style games held in Rome. 82 Tacitus, Ann. 15.1–17. Octavia died on June 8, 62 CE. 83 Cassius Dio, Hist. 62.19–26. 84 Tacitus, Ann. 14.27. This report by Orosius is often cited relevant to the dating and authorship of Colossians, but the report by Tacitus states only that Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake. Tacitus says nothing about Colossae. Cf. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 8–9. See also Halil Kumsar et al., “Historical Earthquakes that Damaged Hierapolis and Laodikeia Antique Cities and their Implications for Earthquake Potential of Denizli Basin in Western Turkey,” BEGE 75.2 (2016): 519–36. 80

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

89

misrepresents the chronology.85 Moreover, following his summary of these events during Nero’s reign, Suetonius moves his attention to the emperor’s final year. Orosius takes his cue from this and therefore links these disasters with the events of 68 CE and Nero’s downfall: But after Nero learned that Galba had been declared emperor by the army in Spain,86 he completely lost all spirit and hope. Because he had attempted to perpetrate incredible deeds of wickedness to throw into disorder and even destroy the republic, the Senate declared him an enemy of the state. Fleeing in the most shameful fashion, he killed himself at the fourth milestone from the city, and in him the whole family of the Caesars came to an end.87

In fact, Galba initially insisted that he be declared a legate of the Senate, not emperor, in 68 CE He marched to Rome only after Nero’s death and began his very short stint as emperor. In Orosius’ version, however, Galba is implicitly an agent of divine justice. While Nero had committed many crimes (including matricide and uxoricide), the assassinations of Peter and Paul finally provoke God’s vengeance. Nero ends his life “in the most shameful fashion.” In Nero’s death, the Julio-Claudian dynasty also dies with him. Numerous later textual and artistic traditions follow the general Neronian narrative, yet others attempted to provide more precision on the date. Among these a cluster suggests a date of 67–68 CE. Jerome is the earliest surviving source to designate this year. In his Tractates on the Psalms, cited earlier in this chapter as evidence to the apostolic deaths on a single day, Jerome provides a more general reference to Nero. In commenting on Ps 97:10 (96:10 in Jerome’s counting), he states, “Here the question is raised: If the Lord preserves the souls of his saints and frees them from the hand of sinners, then how were the martyrs overcome by persecution? How did the impious Nero condemn Peter and Paul with a death sentence given on one day, if the Lord preserves the souls of his saints?”88 For Jerome’s audience (real or imagined), the case of Peter and Paul challenged a theology of

85 This error is also repeated by some modern scholars based on Orosius. See e.g. Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel, BibInt 65 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 157. 86 Tacitus (Hist. 1), Suetonius (Galba), and Plutarch (Galba) tell similar versions of the story. They may all draw some material from Pliny the Elder’s A fine Aufidi Bassi, although this is disputed. Cf. Cassius Dio, Hist. 63–64. 87 88 Orosius, Adv. pag. 7.7. Jerome, Tract. Ps. 96.10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

90

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

divine protection, so this issue receives the bulk of his analysis. Elsewhere, however, in his work On Illustrious Men, Jerome summarizes the ecclesiastical career of Peter with some more specific time markers: After being bishop of the church in Antioch and preaching to the Diaspora of those who had believed in circumcision in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, he went to Rome in the second year of [the reign of] Claudius to defeat Simon the sorcerer. There he held the priestly chair for twenty-five years, until the final year of Nero’s reign, which was year fourteen. He was nailed to a cross by Nero and crowned with martyrdom.89

Jerome provides two specific historical markers for Peter’s time in Rome. First, he went to Rome “in the second year of Claudius.” Claudius came to power under dubious circumstances following the murder of Caligula in January, 41 CE. This would date Peter’s arrival in Rome to some time during the year 42 CE. Jerome also claims that Peter “held the priestly chair for twenty-five years, until the final year of Nero’s reign, which was year fourteen.” The “priestly chair” (cathedram sacerdotalem) is a reference to the episcopal seat and thus implicit support for the tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Peter’s life is given a specific ending date, twenty-five years after his arrival during “the final year of Nero’s reign.” Jerome is assuming the accuracy of the June 29 date, and Nero died on June 9, 68 CE. Thus, if he had any hand in Peter’s death, it had to occur according to this account on June 29, 67 CE. This would fit with the explanation that Peter spent twenty-five years in Rome, from 42 to 67 CE. In this work Jerome dates Paul’s death to the very same day. Initially, Jerome backtracks to date Paul’s first visit to Rome: “In the twenty-fifth year after the passion of the Lord—that is, the second year of [the reign of] Nero, at the time that [Porcius] Festus, the procurator of Judea, succeeded Felix—[Paul] was sent in chains to Rome.”90 Jerome thus dates Paul’s initial visit to Rome to 55/56 CE and dates Jesus’ death to approximately 32/33 CE. These dates are questionable based upon the sources,91 yet Jerome employs them to anchor his account chronologically. Paul does not die at that time, 89

90 Jerome, Vir. ill. 1. Jerome, Vir. ill. 5. On the date of Porcius Festus as procurator, see David L. Eastman, “Paul: An Outline of His Life,” in Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs, eds., All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks and Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 91

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

91

however. Taking a cue from the reference in 2 Tim 4:16–17 to Paul’s being abandoned at a first trial, Jerome asserts that the apostle was set free and fulfilled his desire to preach farther west: For two years he remained in free custody and argued daily with the Jews about the coming of Christ. It must be known, however, that at Paul’s first defense, the power of Nero had not yet been strengthened, nor had his wickedness burst forth to such a degree as the histories tell about him. Paul was released by Nero, so that he might preach the gospel of Christ also in the western regions, just as he himself writes in his second letter to Timothy at the time that he suffered, which he dictated while in chains.92

Jerome supports the Lukan account of Paul’s two-year stay in Rome and suggests that he came to trial before Nero, the “lion” of 2 Tim 4:17: “Obviously [Paul] uses ‘lion’ because of the cruelty of Nero.”93 However, because Nero’s wickedness had not yet fully blossomed, he released Paul, even though the apostle’s supporters abandoned him. Eventually, Paul comes back to Rome and suffers a second Roman imprisonment,94 and when writing 2 Timothy “he certainly sensed that his martyrdom was imminent.”95 Paul eventually endures his fate at Nero’s hands: “Therefore, in the fourteenth year of Nero and on the same day as Peter, Paul was decapitated in Rome for Christ. He was buried on the Ostian Road in the thirty-seventh year after the passion of the Lord.”96 Paul dies in Rome during the final complete year of Nero’s “on the same day as Peter,” thus June 29, 67 CE. In his expansion of Eusebius’ Chronicle, Jerome also places the apostles’ deaths in the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign. The Greek original of the Chronicle has been lost, and our most complete witnesses are a Latin translation of the chronological tables by Jerome 49–50. On the date of Jesus’ death, see e.g. Karl Paul Donfried, “Chronology of the Life of Jesus,” ABD 1:1015–16. 92 Jerome, Vir. ill. 5. Cf. Acts 28:16, where Paul is under “military custody” (σὺν τῷ ϕυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν στρατιώτῃ), meaning that he is allowed to live in a private dwelling but is guarded by a soldier. On the different categories of imprisonment, see Richard J. Cassidy, Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letter of St. Paul (New York: Crossroad, 2001), 37–43. 93 Jerome, Vir. ill. 5. 94 John Chrysostom also argued for two separate imprisonments: “What kind of first defense is [Paul] talking about? He had already stood before Nero and escaped. But after he taught his cupbearer, Nero beheaded him” (Hom. 2 Tim. 10.1–2 [on 2 Tim 4:16]). 95 96 Jerome, Vir. ill. 5. Jerome, Vir. ill. 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

92

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

and an Armenian translation of the complete Chronicle from the fifth century. A comparison of the Latin and Armenian texts reveals a number of Jeromian additions, including the reference to the deaths of Peter and Paul. In the fourth year of the 211th Olympiad, corresponding to the fourteenth year of Nero: “Above all his other crimes, Nero also is the first to carry out a persecution against Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.”97 The fourth year of the Olympiad corresponds to 67/68 CE, so it appears that he has in mind June of 67 CE. Admittedly, Jerome’s dates are not always accurate based on what we know from other sources,98 but he nonetheless presents this timeline as being based on historical data. A similar but slightly different chronology for the apostolic deaths is presented in the Syriac Acts of the Martyrs and Saints, a cycle produced probably during the sixth or seventh century that includes accounts of Peter (History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles) and Paul (History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul). The martyrdom section of the Petrine history presents primarily a résumé of earlier accounts of Peter’s passion, especially the Martyrdom of Peter in the Acts of Peter. However, the text does contain some interesting elements of its own, including its dating of Peter’s career and death. The author states that Peter came to Rome in the third year of the reign Claudius,99 thus 43 CE. This timeline places the apostle in Rome one year later than Jerome had suggested. Peter enjoys a profitable ministry in the West: “Many of the Jews and Gentiles became disciples, and Shimeon Kepha built churches in Rome and in all of Italy. He multiplied the teaching in the region of Rome, and many from the household of Caesar also believed in the teaching of our Lord.”100 Peter is credited with successful missionary activity among both Jews and Gentiles not just in Rome but also throughout Italy. He nonetheless made a particular mark in Rome, even infiltrating “the household of Caesar,” a common Christian motif more often associated with Paul and dating back to Paul’s letter to the Philippians (4:22). The author then agrees with Jerome on the length of Peter’s sojourn in the capital: “He administered the oversight of salvation in the city 97

Jerome, Chron. Olympiad 211. For example, even within that same Olympiad, Jerome dates the death of Octavia to 66/67 CE instead of to 62 CE, and he places Vespasian’s assignment to suppress the Jewish revolt in 67/68 CE instead of 66 CE. 99 100 Hist. Shim. 12. Hist. Shim. 29. 98

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

93

of Rome for twenty-five years . . . Then Nero Caesar pronounced a sentence upon him that he would die by death on a cross.”101 Parts of this story and basic timeline also appear in another roughly contemporary Syriac text, the Teaching of Shimeon Kepha in the City of Rome: “There was great rejoicing in his teaching, and he built up the church there in Rome, in the cities around it, and in all the villages of the people of Italy. And he served there as the overseer of the Mass for twenty-five years.”102 No other dates are provided by the text, but it appears that the author is aware of the same traditions that informed Jerome and the anonymous author of the History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles. However, these dates present a potential problem. If we add twenty-five years to the 43 CE arrival date, then this would yield a date of 68 CE for the death. How might we resolve this twenty-fiveyear period as it relates to the end of Nero’s reign? Is the author unaware of the fact that Nero died at the beginning of June of that year and therefore could not have ordered Peter’s execution at the end of June of that year? Or could the author be familiar with the alternative date for the festival of Peter and Paul, December 28, and this requires counting the years differently? As we will see below in the analysis of the Pauline martyrdom account that follows, it is very unlikely that the author intends to communicate that Peter died in 68 CE, and the June 29 date is not part of the equation. Thus, as I read the text, the author is indeed thinking of a death date in 67 CE. We are simply dealing here with variations in the counting of time and some ambiguity between saying that Peter died after twenty-five years in Rome and that he died in his twenty-fifth year in Rome. Adding the data from the History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul does nothing to clarify the picture. The author agrees with Jerome and John Chrysostom that Paul faced a trial before Nero but was released and headed westward to preach: “But after Paul made his defense before Nero and was set free, he again prepared for the ministry of preaching. He went and preached for ten years in Spain and the regions around there.”103 The apostle is enjoying great success but is drawn back to Rome by the death of Peter and the 101

102 Hist. Shim. 33. Teach. Shim. Rom. 10. Hist. Paul 9. On the traditions of Paul’s visit to Spain, see David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 144–48. 103

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

94

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

needs of the Roman community: “But after the blessed Peter had been crowned by Nero, the brothers and sisters104 whom Shimeon105 had made disciples also began making disciples of others until the arrival of Paul in Rome for the second time. When Paul was told about the crowning of Shimeon, he hurried and came to Rome.”106 Paul continues his successful preaching and brings “thousands” to faith in Christ, including members of the imperial household. A figure named Tertullus107 accuses Paul in front of Nero, and the emperor sentences the apostle to death. The events described would suggest the passage of significant time after Peter’s death: word travels to Paul in Spain, Paul comes to Rome and converts thousands, Paul is accused and condemned. However, the author is at pains to show that Nero executed both apostles in very close succession: “A short time after the crowning of Shimeon Kepha, he also led Paul to that place where Shimeon had been killed. They cut off his head with a sword, and his blood mixed with the blood of the blessed Shimeon Kepha.”108 The deaths happen so closely together that the blood of Paul actually mixes with the blood of Peter. This idea of the mixing of apostolic blood echoes the passage from Prudentius noted above, in which the Tiber was consecrated by the flowing of apostolic blood.109 Here, however, the author places both deaths in the exact same place. The Syriac author goes on to provide specific dates concerning the career and death of Paul, and here we find even more departures from the accounts discussed above. First the author gives a timeline of Paul’s life and career, similar to the one provided for Peter: The time of the preaching of the blessed Paul, therefore, lasted for thirty-five years, from the nineteenth year of Tiberius until the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero Caesar. There were twenty-one years until he was handed over by the Jews in Judea. Then he spent two further years in prison in Caesarea and two in Rome the first time he was

104 Literally, “brothers,” but the author previously specified that both men and women became disciples through Peter’s preaching. 105 The author refers to the apostle by both his Greek (Peter) and Semitic (Shimeon) names. 106 Hist. Paul 9. 107 The Syriac word comes from the Greek ὕπαρχος and can mean “prefect” or “governor.” In any event, this narrative figure is probably based on the orator Tertullus, who was hired by the Jewish religious authorities to accuse Paul before the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea Maritima (Acts 24:1–9). 108 109 Hist. Paul 11. Prudentius, Perist. 12.8–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

95

there. Together with these were the ten other years, so that altogether from his calling until his crowning there were thirty-five years.110

The dates given for Paul’s preaching career, based on imperial dating, extend from approximately 33 to 66/67 CE. Paul’s total of thirty-five years was comprised of twenty-one years of preaching freely, four years in prison, and ten years of preaching in Spain before he returned to Rome and was martyred (crowned). His biography overlaps most directly with Peter’s at the end of his life, when his death is closely linked to Peter’s: “These victors were crowned in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which is the thirty-sixth year of the passion of our Savior. Shimeon was crowned before Paul, and Paul was crowned after him in that same year on Thursday, the twentyninth day of the month of Tammuz.”111 Tammuz is the tenth month in the Syriac calendar and corresponds to July or to late June/early July. If the Thursday designation for the twenty-ninth day of Tammuz is applied, then the calculation yields a date of June 29, 67 CE. This would fit with the date provided by Jerome, although this date falls in the fourteenth year of the reign of Nero, not the thirteenth. The author clearly places the death of Paul on June 29, the date of the joint apostolic feast in the West. However, it appears that Peter does not die on that day: “Shimeon was crowned before Paul, and Paul was crowned after him in that same year.” Only Paul dies on the traditional feast day of June 29, for Peter is said to have died some time earlier that year. This is a notable departure from the other traditions discussed in this chapter. Even the sources that do not assign their deaths to the exact same day at least place them on the same date (June 29) separated by a year or two. This author seems uncertain of the date of Peter’s death, apart from the fact that it happened in the same year as Paul’s, apparently 67 CE. A similar accounting of Paul’s life and death appears in the Syriac Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of his Severed Head. It must be said up front that this text must be used carefully for several reasons. First of all, it is a composite text with three distinct sections. The first section includes a summary of Pauline biography, from his Jewish background through his death. The second section is another Pauline biography that claims continuity with the Acts of the Apostles and the historical writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. The 110

Hist. Paul 13.

111

Hist. Paul 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

96

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

third section includes a brief reference to the martyrdom of Paul and a claim of the date at which this Syriac text was translated from Greek. All three sections include references to specific chronology. In the first and second sections, the author espouses a thirty-fiveyear career for Paul, broken into three parts: twenty-one years of freedom, four years total in prison, and ten latter years of preaching.112 This agrees with the timeline proposed by the History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul. A common source likely lies behind all these accounts. The first section provides additional detail, however, in dating Paul’s death and explaining his annual feast day: “He became a martyr in the thirty-sixth year after the passion of our Savior. Behold, he was placed with great honor in the splendid churches of the empire in Rome, and every year on the twenty-ninth of Tammuz, we celebrate the day of his festival.”113 The year of Paul’s death is given in reference to the death of Jesus. Ancient sources were inconsistent in designating which year this was, and the author/editor of this text does not clarify, so it is not possible from this information to pinpoint the year in question. Notably, the thirty-five-year career of Paul ends in the thirty-sixth year after the death of Christ, indicating that the apostle had his Damascus Road experience within a year of the passion. In the final section of the text, the author returns to the issue of date. Here we find two references to the timeline of the life of Jesus, and one reference to a potential concrete date to be calculated: In the days of Nero, Caesar of the Romans, the apostle Paul became a martyr in Rome when his head was cut off by a sword. This was in the thirty-sixth year after the passion of our Savior. The good fight114 was fought in Rome on a Thursday in the month of Tammuz, on the twenty-ninth. The holy martyr was perfected in martyrdom in the sixty-ninth year of the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ.115

The reference to the thirty-sixth year is a repeat from the first section and is yet another indication that producer of this text has conglomerated several sources that provide similar dates. This thirty-sixth year after the passion is the sixty-ninth year of the advent, thus indicating a lifespan of thirty-three years for Jesus. What, then, is the year of the advent? The author provides some additional chronological information: “Thus, altogether from the time when he became a martyr until the year 810 of 112 115

Mart. Head Paul 1, 4. Mart. Head Paul 5.

113

Mart. Head Paul 1.

114

Cf. 2 Tim 4:7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

97

Alexander the Macedonian, when this book was translated from Greek into Syriac for the first time, there were 436 years. Accurately have I made known the time of the martyrdom of Paul.”116 The author/editor claims accuracy, but, as we might expect, the calculations are not that simple. The dating system in Syriac texts typically begins with the Seleucid period and October 1, 311 BCE—hence the reference to Alexander.117 Thus, year 810 would equal 499 CE. If there were 436 years between Paul’s death and the translation of the text into Syriac in 499, then Paul’s martyrdom would date to 69 CE. This would correspond to the fact that Paul died in the sixty-ninth year of the advent, but it would place the martyrdom after the end of the reign of Nero and contradict the claim that Nero ordered Paul’s death. Moreover, the author states that Paul died “on a Thursday in the month of Tammuz, on the twenty-ninth.” As noted above, this would correspond to June 29, 67 CE, not 69 CE. Of course, it is expecting too much precision from the sources for the dates to line up neatly. In these sources we are often dealing with authors working from and seeking to support liturgical dates, not historical ones.118 The use of previous layers of sources introduces numerous additional opportunities for a loss of exactitude. We need not be surprised if some sources suggest a date in 67 CE, while others might point to 68 or 69. And yet, in their contexts these authors sought to present an air of historicity, even accuracy. At the end of the day, all that can be safely said is that they place the deaths of Peter and Paul within Nero’s reign and construct narratives to support this view. Other sources also provide specific dates for the apostolic martyrdoms, but their calculations differ from the 67–69 CE date range. Writing at the beginning of the fifth century, Sulpicius Severus suggests a direct connection between the apostles’ deaths and the fire of 64 CE. At the time that Christianity was growing rapidly in the 116

Mart. Head Paul 5. On Syriac dating see Ludger Bernhard, Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften, VOHDSup 14 (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1971). 118 In the words of William Walker Rockwell, “Though this oriental linking up of Peter and Paul with the Christmas cycle proves to be merely a liturgical construction of the fourth century, replaced in the Western church by Holy Innocents’ Day, the very fact that it was possible to ignore June 29 shows that the compilers of this martyrology must have seen in that date a celebration with significance of the local sort that attaches to a translation of relics, and not the authentic anniversary of martyrdoms of primary interest to all the world . . . The day of Peter and Paul does not yield any testimony of moment for the history of the church in the first century” (“The Latest Discussions on Peter and Paul at Rome,” AJT 22.1 [1918]: 116). 117

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

98

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

capital, the conflagration occurred that destroyed large parts of the city. Common opinion placed the blame at the feet of Nero, a perspective that is also presented by the Roman historians Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio.119 Severus draws further from Tacitus in recounting that the emperor attempted to shift the blame to the Christians and exposed them to various kinds of torture and execution: “Even new forms of death were imagined, and as a result [the Christians] were covered with the skins of wild animals and died by being torn apart by dogs. Many were crucified or burned with fire, and very many were set aside for the purpose of nightly illumination after day had ended. In this way ferocity against Christians had its beginning.”120 Nero did not stop at inflicting torture and death, but outlawed Christianity altogether. Then Severus notes, “At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to death. One of them had his head cut off, while Peter was raised up on a cross.”121 Severus indicates that the condemnation of Paul and Peter happened “then” (tum), in the aftermath of the fire and its fallout. There is perhaps a short passage of time for the passing of this alleged legislation, but the events of 64 CE and the martyrdoms are closely connected chronologically. Moreover, Severus then proceeds to describe events in Judea that happen after the martyrdoms but are dated to 66 CE: “While these things were happening in Rome, the Jews began to rebel, because they would not endure the harms inflicted on them by their governor Festus Florus.122 Vespasian was sent against them by Nero with the authority of a proconsul, and in numerous and great battles he forced the conquered to seek refuge within the walls of Jerusalem.”123 Gessius Florus was the Roman procurator of Judea beginning in 64 CE. According to Josephus, Florus was openly antagonistic toward the Jews. He refused to defend their rights, extorted money from the treasury of the temple in Jerusalem, and imprisoned and/or executed

119 Pliny the Elder, Nat. 17.1; Suetonius, Nero 16, 38; Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Cassius Dio, Hist. 62.16–18. 120 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44. 121 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29. 122 This would likely be Gessius Florus, who was the Roman procurator of Judea from 64 to 66 CE. According to Josephus, Florus was openly antagonistic toward the Jews (J.W. 2.14.5–9) and ultimately provoked the Jewish Revolt (Ant. 20.11.1). 123 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

99

many who protested.124 This ultimately provoked a revolt that led to the First Jewish–Roman War. Rebel forces overran Jerusalem in 66 CE and chased Festus and the pro-Roman king Herod Agrippa II from the city. The Twelfth Legion led by Cestius Gallus was sent from Antioch but routed. Nero immediately dispatched Vespasian to suppress the uprising that had by then spread as far north as Galilee, and the general successfully defeated many of the rebel forces and pushed them back into Judea.125 All these events occurred subsequent to the deaths of Peter and Paul. Thus, in Severus’ timeline, the apostles had to die some time between the fire of 64 CE and the Jewish uprising in 66 CE. Severus does then refer to Nero’s eventual flight and suicide, the events of 68 CE, but these are separated in time from the apostolic martyrdoms by the events in Judea. Another source presents an even earlier date for the martyrdoms. In the second half of the sixth century, John Malalas compiled his Chronography from various sources, including Eusebius.126 It begins with a mythical history of Egypt and continues into the reign of Justinian. Historians consider it of little historical value, yet the passages on Peter and Paul are notable for our purposes. Regarding Peter, Malalas states, “Holy Peter the apostle died as a martyr, being crucified with his head downward, because the apostle had bound the prefect by an oath, ‘Do not let me be crucified as my Lord was.’ The holy Peter was killed during the consulate of Apronianus and Capito.”127 Malalas follows a standard Roman dating practice by referring to the consular year. Gaius Vipstanus Apronianus and Gaius Fonteius Capito served as consuls from January through June of 59 CE. Malalas does not provide a more specific date for Peter, but his death is situated within that six-month period. June 29 would fall at the very end of this range, but he does not refer to it specifically. Malalas presents Paul’s death as a separate event, distanced from Peter’s martyrdom by at least a year: “During Nero’s reign, right afterward, holy Paul came to Rome, having been sent from Judea to stand trial. He died as a martyr by being decapitated three days before

124

Josephus, J.W. 2.14.5–9; Ant. 20.11.1. Tacitus, Hist. 5.10; Josephus, J.W. 3.1–4.9. 126 Elizabeth Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources,” in The Sixth Century: End or Beginning? ed. Pauline Allen and Elizabeth Jeffreys, ByzAust 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 167–216. 127 John Malalas, Chronog. 10.35. 125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

100

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the calends of July, during the consulship of Nero and Lentulus.”128 Very soon after (εὐθέως) the death of Peter, Paul arrives in Rome from Judea. This is an allusion to the arrest and journey described in Acts 27–28. Nero served as consul129 alongside Cossus Cornelius Lentulus from January through June of 60 CE, and Malalas pinpoints the date of Paul’s death as June 29, “three days before the calends of July.” Thus, Peter died in the first half of 59 CE, and Paul died approximately one year later on June 29, 60 CE. Malalas therefore disagrees with Luke’s claim that Paul spent two full years in Rome,130 and he also does not support the idea of a second Roman imprisonment.131 It is unclear which source(s) inform the timeframe proposed by Malalas, because no other sources known to us provide these dates. His Chronography is nonetheless an important witness to the existence of variant chronologies of the end of the apostles’ lives. One of the later joint apostolic martyrdom accounts dates the deaths of both apostles even earlier. The Latin Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul draws from other martyrdom accounts and probably dates from the latter sixth or early seventh century. The text focuses on a conflict before Nero between Simon Magus and Peter and Paul. After a contest of power that ends in Simon’s death, Nero orders the arrest of the apostles. Peter initially flees but then returns to Rome and is arrested and condemned along with Paul: Then Clement the prefect of the city gave the sentence, saying, “Paul, the insolent one against Roman power, let him be punished by the sentence of decapitation. But Peter, who committed murder by his incantations, let him be crucified.” Peter, however, asked that he be crucified upside down, because he considered himself unworthy to be crucified in the way that his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had been crucified. They suffered on the third calends of July, when Nero for the second time and Piso were consuls.132

The author hearkens back to the second-century Martyrdom of Peter in assigning the sentencing to a prefect, here named Clement— another prefect in a martyrdom account not recorded in Roman records. Paul and Peter are given the same execution date, June 29

128 130 132

129 John Malalas, Chronog. 10.37. This was Nero’s fourth consulate. 131 Acts 28:30–31. Pace Jerome and John Chrysostom as cited above. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Dating the Deaths

101

of the year “when Nero for the second time and Piso were consuls.” Nero’s second consulship lasted for the entirety of 57 CE, and L. Calpurnius Piso served as consul from January through June of that year. This yields a date of June 29, 57 CE for both martyrdoms, a full decade earlier than the date suggested in other sources. One final source, the Chronicon Paschale, merits attention, because it demonstrates how a single source could provide different dates for the same event. The anonymous author/editor of this Greek text from the seventh century borrowed freely from a number of earlier chronicles, including the work of Eusebius and John Malalas. On the date of the death of Peter and Paul, the compiler did not shy away from including conflicting details. In a list of Roman consuls by year, the year 58 CE is noted as follows: “Nero for the third time, and Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus. While they were consuls, Peter and Paul suffered on the third calends of July.”133 The year 58 CE does correspond to a joint consulate of Nero and Corvinus, although by May Gaius Fonteius Agrippa had technically succeeded. Nonetheless, here the author/editor gives the joint apostolic martyrdom date as June 29, 58 CE.134 Elsewhere in the Chronicon, we find a different date. In a list of Roman bishops going all the way back to Peter, the text includes the following entry for Peter: “Peter for twenty-five years, one month, and nine days. He was bishop during the times of Tiberius Caesar, and Gaius [Caligula], and Tiberius Claudius, and Nero—from the consulate of Vinicius and Longinus until the consulate of Nero and Veterus. He suffered with Paul on the third day of the calends of July when these consuls were in place and Nero was emperor.”135 By this reckoning, Peter began his episcopacy during the consulate of Vinicius and Longinus in 30 CE.136 He remained for twenty-five years,

133

Chron. Pasch. 12. Romano Penna draws from a variety of sources to argue that 58 was “the most probable year for the dating of Paul’s death” (“The Death of Paul in the Year 58: A Hypothesis and Its Consequences for His Biography,” in The Last Years of Paul, ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey, WUNT 352 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 333–51, quote at 545). However, as the evidence here shows, it is difficult to formulate a strong historical argument about any particular date. 135 Chron. Pasch. 17. 136 The text dates Jesus’ crucifixion to the spring of 29 CE and the consulate of Gaius Fufius Geminus and Lucius Rubellius Geminus (Chron. Pasch. 17). 134

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

102

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

until he suffered together with Paul on June 29 of the consulate year of Nero and Lucius Antistius Vetus in 55 CE.137 In two different sections of the Chronicon, the author/editor provides dates of 58 CE and 55 CE for the same events. These lists are likely based on two other sources, which disagree with each other on the precise timing of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.

CONCLUSION The Chronicon Paschale provides a snapshot of the problem of dating the deaths of Paul and Peter. Numerous different sources offer a variety of perspectives. June 29 appears prominently in a number of sources as the date on which both died. However, this date is not attested in the earliest sources. It is most likely a liturgical date, not a historical date, yet sources subsequently adapt their narratives to support this liturgical date. This literary move brought Christian story into line with Christian practice. However, as we saw in Chapter 1, some authors do not believe that the apostles died at the same time. Thus, they assert a one-year or two-year hiatus between the death of Peter and the death of Paul. Identifying the year or years of the apostolic deaths is even more challenging. The Emperor Nero plays a prominent role in nearly all the accounts. Some leave the precise dates unstated, choosing simply to note that the apostles died during Nero’s principate. Others assign the events to the end of Nero’s reign, claiming that the execution of the apostles led to the emperor’s downfall through divine retribution. Still more explicit are those authors who provide specific years, often employing Roman consular dates. These sources suggest dates as late as 67/69 CE, and as early as 55 CE. This cluster of accounts resists efforts to place them in a logical progression showing development of different dating schemes over time. Instead, we see here again that even basic questions about the deaths of Peter and Paul, in this case the date(s), have never had a single, clear answer. The sources are characterized by their variety every bit as much as their continuity. 137 Other records suggest that Nero and Antistius Vetus may not have still been consuls by June of 55 CE, but such details are not addressed in the Chronicon, or perhaps more correctly in its source text.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

4 Locating Death and Burial In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI announced a jubilee year in honor of the 2000th anniversary of the traditional date of the birth of the apostle Paul. Activities focused particularly on the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, where excavations had recently unearthed a sarcophagus believed to be that of Paul himself.1 In his announcement of the upcoming year, the Pope emphasized the historical claims lying behind the sanctity of the space: “This ‘Pauline Year’ will take place in a special way in Rome, where for 2000 years under the papal altar of this basilica, lies the tomb that according to experts and undisputed tradition has conserved the remains of the apostle Paul.”2 There are some obvious historical problems with this statement, beginning with the fact that both the sarcophagus and the Basilica have been dated to the fourth century. Thus, neither has been in place for 2000 years. In addition, the Pope bases his confidence on the authority of “experts and undisputed tradition.” However, a closer examination of the evidence reveals that there were in fact disputes even in early Christianity about what happened to the body of Paul, as well as what happened to the body of Peter. In this chapter, we will examine the various accounts of the deaths and burials of the apostles. This examination will reveal that different authors offered diverse stories about where the apostles died and were buried. The goal is not to adjudicate which stories are true and which ones are false, for that is not the historian’s task. Instead, the analysis

1 On these excavations led by Giorgio Filippi, see David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 36–42. 2 Pope Benedict XVI, “Pauline Year of Proclamation,” Basilica Papale San Paolo Fuori le Mura Press Office 28 June 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

104

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

will contextualize these accounts in light of various cults sites (ancient and modern), liturgical practice, and popular piety.

PETER’S DEATH AND BURIAL Following the death of Pope Pius XI in 1939, the papal grottoes beneath the Basilica of St. Peter were subjected to significant work. The Vatican was adding a tomb for Pius XI and wanted to update the grottoes into a usable chapel, but the low ceiling height posed challenges. Thus, the Vatican decided to create additional height by removing the floor of the grottoes and lowering the level by nearly a meter. Lowering the floor required digging into earlier and more ancient layers of earth. What emerged was a complex system of tombs, walls, and debris. While a full-fledged excavation was not in the original plans, the finds convinced Pope Pius XII to allow archaeologists to extend their investigations into the area under the Basilica’s high altar. In 1942, archaeologists identified what they believed to be the ancient tomb of Peter—a simple grave that had been covered in antiquity by ordinary slabs and later had a wall built over it. There they found a promising collection of bones. Pius XII announced that relics of Peter had been found, only to be proven wrong several years later, when the bones were found to come from several humans and various animals. The “chance” rediscovery of other bones from that same vicinity, which had been placed in storage and ignored for more than a decade—allegedly provided the solution to the puzzle. These bones belong to a single male individual, who is described as being stout and having died when he was 60–70 years old. Margherita Guarducci argued for the authenticity of the bones based on inscriptions at the site,3 and this assessment was convincing enough for Pope Paul VI, who announced in 1968 that the real bones of Peter had been discovered. These bones were later reburied in a private ceremony.4 Pope Francis brought out a few of the bones for the closing mass of 3 Margherita Guarducci, Le Reliquie di Pietro (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965). 4 Margherita Guarducci, Pietro ritrovato: il martirio, la tomba, le reliquie, 2nd ed. (Milan: A. Mondadori, 1970); Venerando Correnti, “Relazione dello studio compiuto su tre gruppi di resti scheletrici umani già rinvenuti sotto la confessione della Basilica Vaticana,” in Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica vaticana: una

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

105

the “Year of Faith” in 2013, but otherwise they remain beneath the Vatican encased in glass in a tomb visited by thousands of pilgrims and tourists each year. The belief in the presence of these bones has made the Vatican the center of the world for veneration of Peter, one of the closest companions of Jesus. According to the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul, he was considered one of the leaders of the Christian community in Jerusalem and later in Antioch. Tradition states that at some point and for an unknown reason, he came to Rome and led the church there, as well. Eventually, he died at the hands of Nero by crucifixion on the Vatican hill. There he was buried, and there he has been honored by Christians since the early days of the faith. Such, at least, is the traditional story. However, the ancient sources are not nearly so tidy and consistent in their account of the events surrounding Peter’s death and burial. Our investigation begins with the earliest account of Peter’s martyrdom in the Acts of Peter. As we have seen, Peter’s initial conflict is with the prefect, Agrippa. It is Agrippa who gives the order for execution by crucifixion, and a large crowd gathers to protest the decision. In response Peter “went up to the place” and “calmed the crowd,” but the author does not specify where this scene is taking place. Peter then instructs them that their anger is misplaced and willingly turns his face toward his death: “Do not be angry now toward Agrippa, for he is a servant of his father’s5 essence and authority and conspiracy, and what is coming to pass is happening exactly as the Lord revealed it to me. But why do I delay and not go forth to the cross?”6 At this point we are expecting some indication of where the executioners are taking Peter, but this does not appear. Instead, the very next line begins, “After coming to the cross and standing beside it, he began to say . . . ”7 The author provides no information about where this climactic scene is happening. The narrative suggests that the execution is happening in a place separate from the sentencing, but neither location is identified. At no point in the text does the messa a punto, ed. Margherita Guarducci (Rome: Coletti, 1967), 83–160; J. E. Walsh, The Bones of St. Peter (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 99–107. 5 The insinuation is that Agrippa’s father is Satan, the one truly responsible for attacks on Christians. 6 7 Mart. Pet. 7. Mart. Pet. 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

106

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

author connect these events to any specific location in Rome, including the Vatican. It is significant that the location of the crucifixion remains unstated. Other important events in the narrative are, by contrast, located specifically. Peter’s Quo vadis? meeting with Christ, who was going to Rome to be “crucified again,” happened at one of the city gates;8 the eventual conflict between Peter and Simon the sorcerer takes place “on the Sacred Way”; after falling from the sky, Simon is taken “out of Rome to Aricia,” where he is tended by “a certain Castor, who had been banished from Rome to Terracina on the charge of sorcery.”9 It is possible that the author expects the members of the audience to know where the apostle’s crucifixion unfolded, yet this would be a bold assumption if the text is taking shape nearly a century after the events. The silence on this matter should not be overlooked, for the text provides no justification for the connection of Peter’s death with any particular place in the city. The description of Peter’s burial provides additional variation from the dominant tradition. According to the author, As the crowd standing nearby offered up the “amen” in a loud voice together with him, the apostle Peter gave up his spirit.10 But Marcellus, who had not received this idea from anyone—and this was not allowed—saw that the blessed Peter had died, and after taking the body off the cross with his own hands, he washed it with milk and wine. After he cut up fifty minas of mastic and myrrh and aloe, and another fifty minas of silphium,11 he embalmed his remains. And after filling a great stone coffin with a large amount of expensive Attic honey,12 he placed Peter in it. But the apostle Peter visited Marcellus by night and said, “Marcellus, did you not hear the Lord say, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead’?”13 Then Marcellus said, “Yes.” Peter said to him, “Therefore, those things that you offered for the dead, you have lost, for you who are alive took care of the dead as if you were dead.” But Marcellus awoke and recounted this appearance to the brothers and 8

9 Mart. Pet. 6. Mart. Pet. 3. ὁ ἀπόστολος Πέτρος παρέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα. Cf. Jesus in John 19:30: παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα. 11 This rare plant from Cyrene was highly valued by the Romans but was overharvested and later became extinct (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 19.15). 12 Achilles (Homer, Od. 24.68) and Alexander the Great (Statius, Silv. 2.2.118) were also traditionally buried in honey. Plutarch and others claim that this was the common embalming practice in Babylonia and Assyria. 13 Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60. 10

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

107

sisters who had been strengthened in their faith in Christ by Peter. And he himself was strengthened even more until the arrival of Paul in Rome.14

In important ways, the burial of Peter resembles the burial of Jesus, especially as recounted in the Gospel of John. While Mark, Matthew, and Luke mention that Joseph of Arimathea had taken the body for burial, none of those accounts refers to the money spent. In John, Joseph is joined in the burial effort by Nicodemus, a secret follower of Jesus among the Sanhedrin: “Also Nicodemus, who previously had come to [Jesus] at night, came and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 100 pounds in weight. Then they took the body of Jesus and wound it in linen cloths with spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.”15 The use of myrrh and aloe explicitly connects Peter’s burial with that of Jesus. Just as Peter had followed Jesus in death, so did he also in his method of interment. Marcellus plays an intriguing role in these affairs. On one level he is praised for burying Peter, yet in the process he commits two offenses. The first offense is against typical Roman treatment of crucified individuals. People executed in this way were often left on the cross and denied proper burial. Tacitus states plainly that “the condemned, in addition to forfeiting their property, were also deprived of burial.”16 Instead, their bodies were left to be eaten by scavengers.17 Denying burial was an additional form of punishment that followed the condemned after their deaths, for if a body remained unburied, then the spirit was not able to find rest in the afterlife. Marcellus ignores the normal Roman practice, and the author specifies that he acted on his own—he “had not received this idea from anyone”—and did what “was not allowed.”18 This element of the story departs from the account of the burial of Jesus after crucifixion, when, according to the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea received permission from Pilate to take and bury the body of Jesus.19 Here, Marcellus receives no such permission. 14

15 16 Mart. Pet. 11. John 19:39–40. Tacitus, Ann. 6.29. Suetonius, Aug. 13.1–2; Petronius, Satyr. 111–12; Horace, Ep. 1.16.48. Cf. the fear of such treatment in Ps 79:2. In the Jewish context, there was always an attempt to bury the corpses even of criminals before sunset, in keeping with Deut. 21:22–23. See e.g. Josephus, J.W. 4.317. Marcellus is in no way identified in the text as being Jewish, so he is acting against his own Roman culture, not motivated by Jewish practice. 18 ὁ δὲ Μάρκελλος, μηδὲ γνώμην τινὸς λαβών, ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν. 19 Mark 15:42–46; Matt 27:57–59; Luke 23:50–54; John 19:38–42. 17

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

108

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

This devotee of Peter prepares the body for burial by washing it and embalming it with various spices. The precise amount of money spent on this process is difficult to calculate precisely by modern standards, but we have some indications. In this period, one mina was equal to 100 drachmae, and in classical Greece one drachma was a day’s wage for a soldier. Overall, 100 minas (10,000 drachmae) were spent on the embalming materials. This would therefore equal a soldier’s combined salary over the course of more than 27 years. Inflation and regional variety require leaving significant flexibility in this calculation, yet the overall point is clear: Marcellus spent a lot of money. In addition, he procured a stone coffin and filled it with “a large amount of expensive Attic honey,” both significant additional expenditures. At first glance, this would seem an appropriate course of action to honor the apostle. However, the author tells us that in doing this, Marcellus commits his second mistake—preparing this burial at all. That night Peter visits him in a dream, not to thank him for his kindness and generosity, but to rebuke him. Peter quotes the words of Jesus as recorded in Matt 8:22 and Luke 9:60: “Marcellus, did you not hear the Lord say, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead’?” The apostle tells Marcellus that he has wasted his money, “for you who are alive took care of the dead as if you were dead.” This earliest account of the burial of Peter does not glorify or justify the existence of a tomb at which the apostle may be honored; to the contrary, the posthumous Peter condemns this action. Marcellus then tells others, “Marcellus awoke and recounted this appearance to the brothers and sisters who had been strengthened in their faith in Christ by Peter.” What is the content of his report? Based on the text, there is only one message: Building a monumental tomb is a waste of time and money, not a venerable practice of piety. Hence, the Acts of Peter includes a stinging critique of those wishing to honor Christian heroes with a monumental shrine.20 20 For further expansion of this critique and a discussion of a parallel in the Acts of John, see Tobias Nicklas, “ ‘Let the Dead Bury their Own Dead’ (Matt 8:22 par. Luke 9:60): A Commandment without Impact for Christian Ethos?” in Biblical Ethics and Application: Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts in Ethical Discourse, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert, KNNE 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 75–90. Nicklas concludes that such accounts draw attention to “what is more important—memorializing the past or becoming a witness for Jesus in the present” (90).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

109

Also notably absent from this description is where Marcellus buries Peter. As we saw above, the text does not connect Peter’s death with the Vatican or any other particular site in Rome, and neither does the burial account. The author states only that Peter is placed in “a great stone coffin,” thus suggesting that the burial was monumental in nature but providing no additional details. By the fourth century and the Pseudo-Linus account of the martyrdom, the story undergoes some expansion and clarification. First of all, the author/editor of this text clarifies the precise location of Peter’s death. After Agrippa announces the sentence of execution, “A great multitude then went together with the apostle and the deputies to a place called the Naumachia, next to the obelisk of Nero on the mountain,21 for there a cross had been placed.”22 The term naumachia (Greek ναυμαχία) refers to mock sea-battles or to places in which mock sea-battles were staged. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Nero was the first emperor to put on such an event in an amphitheater in 57 CE. Dio also records that Nero staged a battle there in 64 CE, preceded by animal hunts and gladiatorial shows. The sources suggest that Nero constructed this building on or very near the Field of Mars, opposite the Vatican hill,23 but it has proven difficult to locate this amphitheater precisely from the material remains. Archaeologists have identified a structure on the Vatican hill close to the Circus of Nero, where the obelisk once stood, that may have been constructed for naumachia; but this edifice was not dedicated until 109 CE by Trajan. If the author has this amphitheater in mind, then that would be a clear anachronism in the text. Such details were probably of no consequence to the audience of this text, for by the time of its production (the last quarter of the fourth century), Constantine’s Vatican basilica in honor of Peter was 21

Its exact location is unknown, but it is possible that the amphitheater and the place at which it was located could have taken on the name of the spectacles staged there. Archaeologists have identified a structure on the Vatican hill close to the Circus of Nero (where the obelisk stood) that may have been constructed for naumachia and was dedicated by Trajan in 109 CE. See Eva Margareta Steinby, ed., Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae (Rome: Quasar, 1996), 3:338–39. This location is now the site of the Church of San Pellegrino in Vaticano (formerly San Pellegrino in Naumachia). If the topographical allusion in this text is taken to refer to the Trajanic structure, then this would be a clear anachronism. 22 Lin. Mart. Pet. 10: ad locum qui uocatur Naumachiae iuxta obeliscum Neronis in montem. illic enim crux posita erat. 23 Suetonius, Nero 12.2–6; Cassius Dio, Hist. 61.9.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

110

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

already complete. This updated story confirmed what they could see with their own eyes: The Vatican hill in Rome was the place of Peter’s death. The location of Peter’s burial was also a well-established tradition before Pseudo-Linus produced this text. In his Ecclesiastical History, written in the first quarter of the fourth century, Eusebius quotes from an earlier ecclesiastical writer, Caius, who was writing in the context of a debate over the control of apostolic burial sites. Caius had claimed, “I am able to show the trophies of the apostles (τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων), for if you will go to the Vatican (ἐπὶ τὸν Βασικανόν) or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”24 The term “trophy” (τρόπαιον) typically referred to a commemorative monument, in this case memorials at the tombs of Peter and Paul.25 Eusebius confirms this interpretation when he states that the “most splendid monuments” of Peter and Paul still stood in the cemeteries of Rome as testimonies to their deaths in his own day (εἰς δεῦρο).26 The audience of the Pseudo-Linus account would therefore have already assumed an association between Peter and the Vatican through both architectural and literary attestation. The story of the zealous Marcellus also appears in Pseudo-Linus, but with some notable development and modifications: Immediately Marcellus did not at all wait for permission, but seeing that the blessed apostle had died, he took down the holy body from the cross with his own hands and washed it with milk and the best wine. Rubbing it with 1500 minas of mastic, aloe, myrrh, and aromatic leaves, along with another 1500 minas of myrrh oil and various other spices, he embalmed Peter with the greatest care. He also filled a new sarcophagus with Attic honey and placed the body in it coated with spices. On that same night, when Marcellus was keeping a vigil at Peter’s tomb and

24

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.7. The structure believed to be Caius’ trophy was found during the excavations of the early twentieth century; not so for the trophy of Paul. The identification of the trophies as tomb sites has been widely accepted, e.g. Giorgio Filippi, “La basilica di San Paolo fuori le mura,” in Pietro e Paolo: la storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli, ed. Angela Donati (Milan: Electa, 2000), 59; Paolo Liverani, “La basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano,” in ibid., 55; Christine Mohrmann, “À propos de deux mots controversés de la latinité chrétienne: Tropaeum—Nomen,” VC 8.1 (1954): 163. Cf. Charles Guignebert, La primauté de Pierre et la venue de Pierre à Rome (Paris: É. Nourry, 1909), 304–11. However, Guignebert’s arguments against the association of the trophies with the tombs are not convincing. 26 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.6. 25

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

111

weeping out of his severe grief—for he had decided not to be separated in his own lifetime from the tomb of his most beloved teacher—the blessed Peter came to him. Seeing him and beginning to shake, Marcellus rose quickly and stood in front of him. Blessed Peter said to him, “Brother Marcellus, did you not hear the voice of the Lord, who said, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead’?”27 And Marcellus said, “I heard him, dear master.” Then Peter said to him, “Therefore, do not seem to bury and weep for the dead as if you were dead, but rather as one who is alive, delight in living and rejoicing, and leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, as you learned from me, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”28 With great gratitude Marcellus told this to all the brothers and sisters, and by the merits of holy Peter, the faith of the believers was completely confirmed by God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.29

Gone is the statement that Marcellus did what “was not allowed,” so the text emphasizes his initiative in a positive way. Marcellus washes, embalms, and buries the body, but here the expense is greatly enhanced. Instead of spending 100 minas on embalming supplies, Marcellus spends a total of 3000 minas—an astronomical amount. He embalms Peter “with the greatest care” (condiuit eum diligentissime), another detail lacking from the Acts of Peter. Rather than burying Peter in a coffin that is notable only for its size, here it is a “new sarcophagus”—no doubt an allusion to the “new tomb” of Jesus30— and the expensive Attic honey is coated with an additional and presumably costly layer of spices. The efforts of Marcellus are far more extensive and expensive. In a rhetorical sense, Marcellus has outdone himself. Peter still visits Marcellus at night to chide him for the burial—the location of which is again not given in the text—but the message is softened by additional details. We learn that Marcellus was “keeping a vigil at Peter’s tomb and weeping out of his severe grief—for he had decided not to be separated in his own lifetime from the tomb of his most beloved teacher.” Peter’s disciple had committed himself to the extreme practice of remaining at the tomb all the time and committing to remain there until his own death. Peter does rebuke Marcellus, but not so much for burying him with such honor; rather, the rebuke

27 30

28 Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60. Luke 9:60. Matt 27:60; Luke 23:53; John 19:41.

29

Lin. Mart. Pet. 16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

112

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

is focused on Marcellus’ lack of attention to his other duties as a Christian.31 By staying at the tomb, he is acting as if he were already dead. Peter wants him to act as one who is still alive and has work to do: “Delight in living and rejoicing, and leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, as you learned from me, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Marcellus risks failing to follow the example of, and to complete the commission given to him by, the apostle. Peter wants Marcellus to go forth and preach, not stay at the tomb in perpetual mourning. The apostle first quotes Jesus to correct Marcellus (“Leave the dead to bury their own dead”), but then does so again to empower him: “But as for you . . . go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”32 It is not the memorial itself that Peter condemns, for he does not state here that Marcellus had wasted his money, as in the Acts of Peter; the concern is Marcellus’ lack of evangelistic fervor, his lack of understanding of the motivation for Peter’s sacrifice. Peter died for his message, and Marcellus should continue to trumpet it. The content of Marcellus’ report to the other Christians also changes as a result. Rather than reporting Peter’s rebuke of the burial, Marcellus recounts Peter’s (and Jesus’) challenge to “proclaim the kingdom of God.” In this way, “the faith of the believers was completely confirmed by God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.” Marcellus’ momentary loss of perspective ends up serving a positive function, because the faith of others is “completely confirmed.” Some later versions of the Petrine narrative tell a similar story in summary fashion. Pseudo-Abdias records, “Marcellus, one of his disciples, did not wait for anyone’s permission but took down his body from the cross with his own hands. After embalming it with the most precious spices, he placed it in his own sarcophagus in a place that is called the Vatican, next to the triumphal way, where it is

31 Vigils at the tombs of holy figures was a common practice among early Christians. See e.g. Augustine, Conf. 6.2; Ramsay MacMullen, The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200–400, WGRWSup 1 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2009). Church leaders were concerned that these vigils were an occasion for drunkenness and sexual impropriety, and that they too closely resembled what Augustine calls “the superstitious rites that the pagans held in honor of their dead” (Conf. 6.2). 32 Luke 9:60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

113

honored in peace by the veneration of the entire city.”33 The central components are present: Marcellus, a follower of Peter, takes the body on his own, embalms it with spices, and buries it in a sarcophagus. This author also adds some details. The sarcophagus is not one that Marcellus buys for Peter but one that he had purchased for himself: “in his own sarcophagus” (in suo ipsius sarcophago). This links Marcellus back to the account of Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea, but only in the Matthean version. While Luke and John agree that the tomb of Jesus had never been used, only Matthew specifies that Joseph lays Jesus “in his own new tomb” (ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ).34 The final line of Pseudo-Abdias explicitly mentions the Vatican location. It is reminiscent of, and quite possibly borrows from, a passage from Jerome’s work On Illustrious Men. In the fourth century, Jerome had reported that Peter is “buried in Rome at the Vatican, next to the triumphal way, where he is honored with veneration by the whole world.”35 Writing about two hundred years later, Pseudo-Abdias ends the story of Peter by stating that the apostle’s burial place is “in a place that is called the Vatican, next to the triumphal way, where it is honored in peace by the veneration of the entire city.”36 Pseudo-Abdias also follows Jerome in emphasizing that the site is “next to the triumphal way,” thus marking the space as more important and central to the city. While the triumphal way in early imperial times had gone nowhere near the Vatican—it began on the other side of the river on the Field of Mars and wound its way through the

33 Abd. Pass. Pet. 20. Textual variants offer the reading “the entire world” (totius orbis) or “the entire city” (totius urbis). E.C. Richardson chose the former in his critical edition (Hieronymus Liber de viris inlustribus, TUGAL 14 [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1896], 7), but the author of this martyrdom account reflects the latter. The reference to the triumphal way likely reflects the Christian reappropriation of Roman space, such that the Basilica of St. Peter now marked the beginning of the new via triumphalis. See e.g. Raymond Van Dam, Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 211–15. 34 Matt 27:60. 35 Jerome, Vir. ill. 1: sepultus Romae in Uaticano, iuxta uiam triumphalem, totius orbis ueneratione celebratur. 36 In loco qui dicitur Uaticanus, iuxta uiam triumphalem, ubi totius urbis ueneratione celebratur in pace. The changes are only slight, the most notable being that Pseudo-Abdias focuses on the local Petrine cult, the “entire city” (totius urbis) instead of the “whole world” (totius orbis).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

114

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Circus Maximus before finishing on the Capitoline Hill37—by late antiquity the route had changed and skirted the ancient cemetery at the Vatican. The author of the Syriac History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles likewise provides a brief summary of the burial process: “When the soul of the holy man went up, Marcellus approached, although he had not consulted with anyone. He took Shimeon down from the cross and washed him. Then he prepared a mixture of spices of myrrh and aloe and embalmed him. He placed him in a splendid stone coffin38 purchased at a high price and laid him in his own burial place.”39 The primary elements are again present: Marcellus acts on his own; he prepares and embalms the body; he buries the body in a rich coffin. As in Pseudo-Abdias, the burial place was not purchased for Peter but belongs to Marcellus himself ( ). However, unlike Pseudo-Abdias, this author nowhere states where Peter was buried. The Vatican is not mentioned, and there is no explanation of why Marcellus would have had a dedicated burial there. For this author, there is apparently nothing noteworthy about the location of the Marcellus–Peter burial site.

Peter’s Death and Burial in Dual Martyrdom Traditions The Petrine martyrdom story is also recounted in accounts that link the death of Peter with that of Paul. The fifth/sixth-century Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul follows many of the details from Pseudo-Linus.40 Peter and Paul face Nero together, and after Simon Magus meets his terrible end at the hands of the apostles, the emperor decides to punish them together: “It is necessary to kill these impious men in a cruel way. Thus, after they have been tortured with iron claws, I order that they be killed in the Naumachia and that all people of this sort be put to death cruelly.”41 The prefect, Agrippa, intervenes with Nero and convinces him that Peter deserves worse 37

Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2007), 335. 39 Literally, a “vessel” or “urn.” Hist. Shim. 35. 40 The closely associated Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul generally follows this Latin Passion. 41 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 58; Acts Pet. Paul 79. The “iron claws” (cardi) were torture devices designed to lacerate the skin as if one were carding wool. The Greek employs ὀγκινάραις σιδηραῖς. 38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

115

punishment as a murderer, because he had actually struck Simon from the sky and killed him. Nero agrees, a narrative sleight of hand that allows the author of the Latin Passion to emphasize the mutuality of the apostles’ connected martyrdoms while also honoring traditions that presented them as dying separately (see Chapter 1). Paul is led away to his demise “on the Ostian Road,” while without any narrative transition, “Peter came to the cross.”42 The insinuation is that Nero is still carrying out his plan of having Peter killed in the Naumachia, next to the Vatican hill. However, instead of having Peter tortured with iron claws, Nero decides to move directly to crucifixion. The author expects the audience to be familiar enough with the story to fill in some gaps for themselves. When it comes to Peter’s burial, the Passion of the Holy Apostles both follows and departs from Pseudo-Linus. Following Peter’s death: Suddenly there appeared holy men, whom no one had ever seen before or was able to see afterward. They were saying that they had come from Jerusalem because of Peter. They were together with Marcellus, a nobleman who had believed and had followed Peter after leaving Simon. They took away his body secretly and placed it under a turpentine tree next to the Naumachia in a place called the Vatican.43

Mysterious figures claiming to be from Jerusalem appear out of nowhere—and later disappear just as suddenly. They had come to Rome “because of Peter” (propter ipsum). In a rather abrupt transition, the author inexplicably links these “holy men” to Marcellus: “they were together with Marcellus” (et ipsi una cum Marcello). There is no explanation of how or why they were associated with Marcellus, and the Greek translation and expansion (Acts of the Holy Apostles) smooths over this tension slightly by suggesting that perhaps they had come with Marcellus all the way from Jerusalem.44 The mention of Marcellus is an obvious attempt to preserve earlier tradition while introducing a new element, figures that, as I have suggested in Chapter 2, are meant to be understood as heavenly visitors, not earthly ones. 42 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 60. The Greek Acts Pet. Paul (81) is even less direct in its transition to the crucifixion scene: “But as for the soldiers who had led away holy Peter, as soon as they came to crucify him, the blessed one said to them . . . ” 43 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 63. 44 Acts Pet. Paul 84: οὗτοι ἔλεγον ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων παραγενέσθαι, ἅμα Μαρκέλλῳ.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

116

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Marcellus, however, is a different figure here. In the Acts of Peter, Pseudo-Linus, Pseudo-Abdias, and the Syriac History of Shimeon, Marcellus is a follower of Peter who seems to be from Rome. In fact, he appears to be a leader in the Roman Christian community, for when the believers are begging Peter to leave Rome and avoid death, Marcellus is mentioned by name.45 Marcellus’ ambiguous relationship with the nameless visitors, particularly in the Greek version, suggests that he may not be from Rome at all, but from Jerusalem. Because Marcellus is a quintessentially Roman name, this represents an odd twist in the texts. In addition, Marcellus is described as a “nobleman” (inlustri uiro / ἀνδρὶ ἰλλουστρίῳ). This detail is likely taken from Pseudo-Linus, who uniquely claims that Marcellus is “the son of the prefect Marcus.”46 This Marcus is unknown, and Pseudo-Linus does not specify which type of prefect Marcus allegedly was.47 In the Pseudo-Linus account, identifying Marcellus as Marcus’ son makes Marcellus a foil to other upperclass Romans in the story—the prefect Agrippa and Nero—who reject Peter’s teaching and authority. The author of the Passion of the Holy Apostles picks up on this claim of nobility but uses it for different purposes, in this case to elevate Marcellus to being in some sense on a par with the “holy men” from Jerusalem. Finally, the Passion of the Holy Apostles describes Marcellus as a former follower of Simon Magus. This appears to be a conflation of several characters from earlier accounts. Marcellus appears in various texts, as we have seen, but in the Acts of Peter there is a separate character, Gemellus, who leaves Simon to follow Peter: But a certain one of the friends of Simon named Gemellus came quickly from the road. Simon had received many things through him, and he had a Greek wife. Seeing Simon’s leg broken, Gemellus said, “Simon, if the power of God is broken, then will not God himself whose power you are be blinded?” Then Gemellus ran and followed Peter, saying to him,

45

46 Mart. Pet. 4; Lin. Mart. Pet. 3, 4. Lin. Mart. Pet. 3. Rome had multiple figures identified as “prefect.” Most important was the Praetorian prefect, but there was also a city prefect (praefectus urbi), a prefect of firemen and police (praefectus vigilum), a prefect of the treasury (praefectus aerarii), a prefect of the military treasury (praefectus aerarii militaris), and a prefect in charge of the grain supply (praefectus annonae). In addition, the military had many other leaders identified as prefects. 47

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

117

“I also pray to be among those who believe in Christ.” But Peter said, “What hindrance is there, my brother? Come and stay with us.”48

Gemellus was a person of financial means, for Simon “had received many things through him” (παρ’ οὗ πολλὰ ἔλαβεν ὁ Σίμων). We hear no more of this Gemellus, yet he stands for those who had been deceived by Simon until they accept the truth of Peter. In the Passion of the Holy Apostles, the figure of Gemellus, or at least what he represents, contributes to the composite figure of Marcellus.49 The Pseudo-Abdias Passion of Saint Peter, written at around the same time, reflects a different reception of the story of a Simonfollower turned convert of Peter. In that text the story takes place in Caesarea Maritima before Peter has even come to Rome. The figure is unnamed, referred to only as “a certain one of the disciples of Simon.” After hearing Peter’s teaching, he “began to regard [Simon] as just a man—an evil man.” He recounts the story of accompanying Simon to the sea, carrying “certain foul things and his own accursed secret things” related to the practice of sorcery. Simon had dumped all these items into the sea, so that they could not be used to prove his witchcraft. The sorcerer then asked the anonymous follower to accompany him to Rome with the promise of “all kinds of riches,” but by this point the man had seen Simon’s true colors. He had appealed to foot pain (pedes doleo) and not wanting to leave his family as reasons not to follow Simon to Rome, so the sorcerer had set out alone. This man now comes to Peter: “I returned here immediately, praying that you would receive me into repentance, because I was deceived by him.” Peter welcomes him, and he does not appear again in the text.50 The renewed conflict between Simon and Peter in Rome is presented as subsequent to all this. The author of the Passion of the Holy Apostles is aware of various traditions of Peter’s death and of characters, named and unnamed, that appeared in them. In this case he combines several of them into a single figure, Marcellus. He is a nobleman, a former follower of Simon, and an associate of the mysterious Jerusalem visitors. He also receives partial credit for Peter’s burial: “They took away his body secretly and placed it under a turpentine tree next to the 48

Mart. Pet. 3. The two names are somewhat similar, but there is no manuscript evidence to suggest that Gemellus is a mistake for Marcellus. 50 Abd. Pass. Pet. 11–12. 49

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

118

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Naumachia in a place called the Vatican.” They took his body. The plural verb (abstulerunt) refers back to Marcellus and the “holy men” from Jerusalem, so Marcellus still receives some credit, but not all of it. The text preserves the idea that the removal and burial of the body were not sanctioned, for Marcellus and company took the body “secretly” (occulte). Because Marcellus is an aristocrat, we might expect emphasis in this account on the richness of Peter’s burial, as we saw elsewhere. However, the author makes no reference to the cost of the burial, and the description is quite succinct. Peter is buried “under a turpentine tree next to the Naumachia in a place called the Vatican.” The interment is marked by three characteristics: a tree (otherwise unattested), its proximity to the Naumachia, and the name of the area itself. The Vatican cult site is therefore confirmed, but there is no ostentatious coffin filled with spices and Attic honey. The Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles also speaks of Marcellus and the “men” from Jerusalem, but they do not receive credit for the burial. After recounting their arrival in Rome and Marcellus’ past as a follower of Simon, the author states, “Faithful people secretly took the body of holy Peter and placed it under a turpentine tree next to the Naumachia at a place called the Vatican.” The account follows the Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles closely, except in the detail of the burial itself. It is not the aristocratic Marcellus and the Jerusalem visitors alone who take action, but a more general category of “faithful people” (πιστοί). Marcellus and the visitors are presumably among this group, yet the disciples of Peter more broadly care for the apostle’s body in secret (λάθρα). This rendition is not an account of Peter’s special veneration by a few elite, but of a communal effort to honor the apostle. Before leaving these texts, we must circle back to the Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles for one final note. At the end of some of the manuscripts of this text, a final line was added: “I, Marcellus, have written what I saw.” Marcellus becomes not only a significant character in establishing the authority and legitimacy of Peter’s teaching vis-à-vis Simon, and not only a central figure in the veneration of the apostle through his burial at the Vatican; he also becomes the author of the story itself. Rhetorically, he is the guarantor of the authenticity of the story he recounts concerning Peter and Paul’s adventures in Rome, for he “saw” it all. Elements of the text require a date at least into the fifth century CE, so a first-century figure could not have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

119

produced this work. Nonetheless, traditionally this text is credited to Marcellus (Pseudo-Marcellus in scholarly circles). This ascription is significant, for the author of this story of Peter and Paul is told by a follower of Peter, a devotee of Peter, a venerator of Peter. In this tale of the apostolic pair, it is Peter who rises to the top and receives the most attention. Paul is largely in the background, and, as we will see, his death is treated in the text almost as an afterthought. One final text is worthy of note concerning the story of Peter. Entitled the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul (only the omission of “Holy” distinguishes it from the text above), this anonymous text is a slightly later summary (late sixth or seventh century) in Latin of the joint Peter and Paul story. Although it is based largely on the Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles and Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles, it omits some significant details found in those texts. When the apostles stand before Nero following Simon’s death, the emperor is conversing with the prefect about their fates, as he did in the source texts. Here the prefect is named Clement, not Agrippa, and Nero says to him, “But let them take iron claws and be forced to beat each other in turn.”51 The Latin (accipiant utrique cardos ferreos) is quite similar to the passage in the Passion of the Holy Apostles (cardis ferreis acceptis), yet the later synopsis leaves out the reference to the Naumachia. Clement, like Agrippa, then convinces Nero to deal differently with Paul than with Peter, but the location of Peter’s death is never given. It is not associated with the Naumachia/Vatican area or any other location in the city. The deaths of both Peter and Paul are mentioned very briefly, and there is no reference to any burial. The author focuses instead on the fact that “Peter and Paul were received into heaven.” Thus, the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, perhaps the latest of all the sources analyzed, makes no mention whatsoever of the Vatican in relation to Peter’s death or burial. The author is more focused on Peter’s (and Paul’s) heavenly destination than his earthly death and burial site(s). These accounts of Peter’s martyrdom and burial present intriguing points of connection, but also notable points of diversion or simply silence. Marcellus is present in six of the seven accounts (lacking only

51

Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

120

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

in the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul), yet this character has no demonstrable connection to any historical figure.52 Even though the details of Marcellus’ identity and role (or not) in Peter’s burial vary, he nonetheless serves as a consistent narrative element. Whether or not this has any basis in historical fact—which we cannot verify one way or the other—the memory of Peter’s burial seems to have involved a strong association with this Marcellus figure. The accounts otherwise disagree with each other on many of the details of Peter’s death and burial. Four of them (Acts of Peter, Pseudo-Linus, Pseudo-Abdias, History of Shimeon) describe a luxurious burial with expensive spices in a grand (sometimes new) coffin. This elevates the importance of Peter, but none of these descriptions matches the simple grave identified as Peter’s by the Vatican archaeologists. The Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles and Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles, closely related to each other, both highlight Marcellus’ elevated social class but describe a seemingly mundane burial. Peter is buried beneath a tree, perhaps directly in the ground, for no sarcophagus is mentioned. These later texts, for what it is worth, actually describe a scenario that is more easily aligned with the claims of the Vatican archaeologists about the humble burial beneath St. Peter’s Basilica. In addition, only three of the texts, all late fifth century or later (Pseudo-Abdias, Passion of the Holy Apostles, Acts of the Holy Apostles), associate Peter’s burial with the Vatican. Other evidence from Eusebius and Jerome confirms that the Vatican tradition predates the fifth century, but this leaves the vexing question of why four of the martyrdom accounts fail to mention it. Other details of the story are not left out in texts such as the Acts of Peter and PseudoLinus, so why would this be omitted? Perhaps the authors assumed this knowledge, or perhaps there was an alternative tradition. A liturgical calendar known as the Burying of the Martyrs might point in the latter direction. In its surviving form, this list of dates and sites of feasts held at Rome in honor of certain martyrs, particularly Roman martyrs, probably dates from 336 CE. It notes the June 29 joint festival for Peter and Paul in this way: “[Feast of] Peter in the

52 In Rome the name Marcellus was famous from the third-century BCE consul and military leader Marcus Claudius Marcellus, but there is obviously no connection in these stories to that historical figure.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

121

Catacombs, of Paul on the Ostian Road, when Tuscus and Bassus were consuls.”53 The consular date is 258 CE, so the text purportedly is describing practices of the apostolic cult in the middle of the third century. Notably, the feast of Peter is not at the Vatican but in the Catacombs,54 the Appian Road site (now St. Sebastian) where graffiti attests to the veneration of both apostles in the third century and where Constantine built his Basilica of the Apostles in the fourth century.55 Was there uncertainty or competition that caused some of the martyrdom authors to remain silent on the exact location of Peter’s death and burial? Arguments from silence are impossible to support, but the silence itself cannot be ignored and should not be simply filled in with details from other texts in order to support the dominant (and perhaps later) tradition. Finally, the attitude toward the burial is markedly different in the various texts. In the Acts of Peter, the apostle rebukes Marcellus for his efforts, and in Pseudo-Linus that rebuke is present but softened by a focus on the need for evangelism. In Pseudo-Abdias and the Syriac History of Shimeon, however, the burial is presented only in a positive light. It is the site where Peter is honored and venerated by people from the whole city or the whole world. The authors of the Passion of the Holy Apostles, Acts of the Holy Apostles, and Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul make no reference to the site either positive or negative; the former two simply give the location, and the latter does not provide even that information. Analysis of the Petrine accounts reveals anything but a consistent telling of what has become the traditional narrative and accepted account. Just as we have seen variety and discrepancies in these stories in previous chapters in this book, so do we see variety and discrepancies at the climactic moment of Peter’s story—his crucifixion—and in the description of his burial, which has been central to the Petrine cult for the better part of two millennia.

53 Dep. mart.: III kal. iul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso consulibus. The text was very early on attached to a Roman civil calendar, the Filocalian Calendar of 354. The approximate dating of the Burying of the Martyrs is calculated based on information in the Burying of the Bishops (Depositio episcoporum), a related calendar that was also attached to the Filocalian Calendar. 54 This term originally referred uniquely to this location. Only later did it pass into more general use for any underground necropolis. 55 Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 72–94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

122

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

The Death and Burial of Paul In 2007, as we saw at the beginning of this chapter, Pope Benedict XVI expressed full confidence in the “undisputed tradition” connecting Paul’s relics to the basilica on the Ostian Road. However, much like the stories about Peter, the accounts of Paul’s death and burial display divergence at significant points. Our investigation begins with the earliest account, the Acts of Paul. While the text dates to the late second century, it is probably comprised of oral traditions that are much earlier.56 Notable in the Acts of Paul is the lack of any mention of the location of Paul’s martyrdom. Nero arrests a number of Christians on the charge of being traitors to the empire, and then on two separate occasions he orders Paul’s death.57 His first pronouncement is an immediate reaction to Paul’s description of Jesus Christ as the king who will one day judge the world: “After he heard these things, Caesar ordered all those in chains to be burned with fire,58 but Paul to be beheaded according to the law of the Romans.”59 Nero began to have Christians killed but slowed his actions after a crowd protested. He then renewed his efforts and restated Paul’s sentence of execution. In neither case does he specify where the apostle was to die. A little while later, Nero sends soldiers to see if Paul was dead, but again there is no description of the place. Rather, the author focuses the narrative on Paul’s prediction of his resurrection and posthumous appearance and then his fulfillment of those predictions.60 It is as if the death itself is ultimately of little consequence.

56 See e.g. Glenn E. Snyder, Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Snyder argues, for example, that the martyrdom account may have been composed as early as the reign of Trajan. 57 Most scholars agree that the charge against Paul was probably maiestas (treason). See e.g. Richard J. Kassidy, Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul (New York: Crossroad, 2001), 55–67; Harry W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul: A Judicial Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2/35 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989), 36–42. Regarding Paul’s trial as a whole, see Heike Omerzu, “The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26,” in The Last Years of Paul, ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey, WUNT 352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 187–200. Friedrich W. Horn provides a response to Omerzu in the same volume (“The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26: Response to Heike Omerzu,” 201–12). 58 59 60 Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44. Mart. Paul 3. Mart. Paul 4–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

123

The author does refer to Paul’s tomb but not its location. The tomb reference focuses on two prominent individuals who are convinced by Paul’s preaching and become concerned about their own standing with God, a prefect named Longinus and a centurion named Cescus: “Because Longinus and Cescus were inquiring about their salvation,61 Paul said, ‘Go quickly [at dawn]62 to my tomb, and you will find two men praying—Titus and Luke. They will give you the seal in Christ.’”63 Following the apostle’s death, the soldiers follow through on Paul’s directive: As Paul had ordered, at dawn the centurion and those with him went with fear and hesitation and approached the tomb of Paul. They drew near and saw men praying—Titus and Luke—and Paul standing in their midst. They saw this and were astounded. Titus and Luke, being men and fearful, started to flee. But after they pursued and laid hold of them, they said, “We pursue you not to kill you,64 servants of Christ, but so that you may give us eternal life, just as Paul—the one who was praying in your midst just a little bit ago—commanded us.” After they heard these things, Titus and Luke received them, glorified God, and gave them the seal in Christ, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen.65

While earlier in the narrative only two names are given—Longinus and Cescus—now the group has apparently grown to “the centurion and those with him.” Longinus is presumably among this group, as are others. They know the location of the burial and find Paul’s disciples there along with Paul himself. This is the apostle’s second posthumous appearance in the text and reinforces the narrative emphasis on Paul’s continuing life, even after his corporeal death. The meeting at the tomb results in the baptism of Cescus and his companions: “Titus and Luke received them, glorified God, and gave them the seal in Christ.” The author concludes the text with a triumphant line about the grace and glory of Christ. In the Acts of Paul, the tomb, wherever it is, is first and foremost a site of salvation, not a site of veneration. Titus and Luke are praying to God alongside Paul, not praising the martyr himself. The climax of the text is not Paul’s death or burial, nor even his posthumous 61 63 65

62 Cf. 1 Pet 1:10. Some manuscripts insert ὄρθρου here. 64 Mart. Paul 5. Literally, “not for death.” Mart. Paul 7. Cf. Rom 11:36; 16:27; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

124

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

appearances, but the effective result of his preaching in the salvation of Longinus, Cescus, and others. If Eusebius is to be believed, then a particular location in Rome was associated with Paul’s burial not too long after the formation of the Acts of Paul. As we saw above, Eusebius quotes from an earlier writer, Caius, who wrote around the year 200 CE: “I am able to show the trophies of the apostles (τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων), for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road (ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὠστίαν), you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”66 By around the turn of the third century, then, a location on the Ostian Road south of Rome had become associated with Paul’s “trophy,” his tomb. This fact is not evident, however, in the Pseudo-Linus version of Paul’s martyrdom, which in large part follows the Acts of Paul. A few more details are given than in the earlier text, but much is still left ambiguous. Nero is again angered to hear about Christ and his soldiers and orders most of them to be burned alive. He has a different plan in mind for Paul: “By the decree of the Senate, and as if it were a case of treason, Nero ordered that his head be cut off according to the Roman laws.”67 Nero is not uniquely blamed, for the Senate is also implicated in the sentencing. The prefect Longinus and the centurion Acestus (Cescus in the Acts of Paul) appear again, this time accompanied by another prefect, Megistus. Nero gives Paul specifically to them, “so that they could lead him outside the city and make a spectacle of his death for the people by having him decapitated.”68 Pseudo-Linus includes the detail that Paul would be killed “outside the city” (extra urbem), which was not mentioned in the Acts of Paul. Even though the death will be beyond the walls, Nero still wants to ensure that he makes an example of Paul because of his treachery. While the Acts of Paul never explains how the prefect and the centurion come to believe in Christ, Pseudo-Linus specifies that the apostle was thereafter preaching constantly to his executioners: “Paul was preaching the word of salvation to them without interruption” (quibus Paulus sine intermissione uerbum praedicabat salutis).69 At last he wins them over, and they begin asking how they might have “true life.” The apostle tells them to mark and return to the place of his burial: 66 68

67 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.7. Lin. Mart. Paul 7. 69 Lin. Mart. Paul 7. Lin. Mart. Paul 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

125

My brothers and sons, as soon as I am decapitated, and you and the other agents of my death have retired from the place in which the Lord deems it worthy to call me, faithful men will take and bury my body. You, however, note the location of my grave, and come there tomorrow right at dawn. There you will find two men praying, Titus and Luke. Tell them why I sent you, and they will give you the sign of salvation in the Lord. Do not hesitate to carry out what was commanded to you, because as soon as you who believe are dipped in the sacred fountain and consecrated by the life-giving power of the divine mysteries, you will immediately be purified from all the contagions of sin, and even from this evil deed committed against me, which you fear. You will be purified whiter than snow,70 added to the rank of the soldiers of Christ, and made co-heirs of the heavenly kingdom.71

Paul refers to the site of his impending martyrdom as “the place in which the Lord deems it worthy to call me,” yet the text never specifies where that place is. The apostle does refer to the act of his burial, which will be carried out by “faithful men” (uiri fideles). However, the Ostian Road is not mentioned here or anywhere else in the text in relation to Paul’s death or interment. As in the Acts of Paul, the apostle instructs them to identify where he is buried and go there the next morning. Titus and Luke will be there to baptize them, dipping them “in the sacred fountain.” The forgiveness from baptism will include all their past transgressions, including the killing of Paul himself, a deed that was prompting fear in all of them. Paul comes to the unnamed “place of his passion”72 and dies there. It is outside the city walls, because several agents of Nero, who had come to confirm Paul’s death, have an encounter with a pious woman named Plautilla after they “turned back and came to the gate of the city.”73 They report their experiences to Nero, who is himself visited by the apostle that very afternoon.74 From that point, the story is similar to the conclusion of the Acts of Paul. The two prefects and the centurion come to Paul’s grave at dawn and see Titus and Luke praying, accompanied by Paul. The would-be converts approach the disciples of Paul (whose first instinct is to flee for their lives) and explain that they have come not to kill the disciples but at the invitation of the “true teacher,” who had promised that they might pass into eternal life through 70 72

71 Ps 51:7. Lin. Mart. Paul 15. Cf. Rom 8:17; Gal 3:29; 4:7. 73 74 Lin. Mart. Paul 16. Lin. Mart. Paul 17. Lin. Mart. Paul 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

126

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

baptism. Titus and Luke lay their hands on them and baptize them. The author finishes the text with an expanded, triumphant, and trinitarian pronouncement: “They were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, together with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, be honor, glory, power, and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”75 Paul’s ultimate victory is shown not only by his conversion of authoritative members of Roman society, but even more so by his conversion of the very men who had killed him. Paul’s conquest is complete and threefold: over those who sentenced him to death (particularly Nero), over death itself, and over the agents of his execution. Pseudo-Abdias summarizes the events of Paul’s death with many similar details but also some important differences. Nero sentences Paul to death by decapitation, but the location of this event is not given explicitly. Information about the location may be inferred by piecing together certain details, but these details seem to contradict each other. Nero sends soldiers to arrest Paul and see to his death, and as in Pseudo-Linus, the apostle begins preaching to them. The soldiers are convinced and ask Paul to pray for them, and he gives them some instructions: “After a little while, sons, come here to my sepulcher, and you will find two men praying, Titus and Luke. They will give you the sign of salvation after me.” Wherever Paul is at the time of his arrest, he seemingly identifies that as the future site of his grave: “come here to my sepulcher” (uenite huc ad sepulchrum meum). The author then states: “When he had said these things, the soldiers came and led him bound outside and out of the city.”76 Wherever Paul was, he was inside, because the soldiers lead him “outside”; and he was inside the city, for they led him “out of the city” (qui correptum eum foras, extra ciuitatem duxerunt). The text places Paul inside a building inside the city, and in a place to which the soldiers should return for their salvation at his tomb. It was a violation of Roman law to bury a dead body within the city walls, but that is what is described at this point in the narrative.77 Paul then comes to “the place of

75

76 Lin. Mart. Paul 19. Cf. Rev 5:13. Abd. Pass. Paul 8. This is another indication of the later date of this text, for the presence of relics in intramural basilicas had caused a de facto loosening of Roman restrictions by the sixth century. 77

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

127

punishment” and is beheaded. Milk spurts out of his body instead of blood and soaks the hand of the executioner. All are amazed.78 Then, something unexpected happens: “Lucina, a servant of Christ, packed his body with spices and buried it at the second milestone from the city on the Ostian Road on her own estate.”79 This claim introduces a conflict with the passage cited above, in which Paul was inside the city and told the soldiers to come “here” (huc). Now Paul is buried outside the city on the Ostian Road, which brings the story back in line with cultic practice. The Ostian Road was the location of the trophy of Caius, the Basilica of Paul built by Constantine, and the larger Basilica of the Apostle Paul and the Three Emperors begun by Theodosius I, Valentinian II, and Arcadius at the end of the fourth century and completed by Honorius.80 Pseudo-Abdias, however, never resolves the conflict within the text concerning the descriptions of the location of Paul’s burial. Furthermore, the figure of Lucina is a parallel character to Marcellus in Pseudo-Abdias’ Passion of Saint Peter. In the case of Peter’s body, “After embalming it with the most precious spices, [Marcellus] placed it in his own sarcophagus in a place that is called the Vatican.”81 Here Lucina plays that role, for she “packed [Paul’s] body with spices” in preparation for burial. Marcellus had buried Peter “in his own sarcophagus,” and Lucina buries Paul “on her own estate” (in proprio praedio). She is just as pious and as wealthy as Marcellus, and the two patrons are presented as property owners at what were, by the time of Pseudo-Abdias, the well-established cult sites for the apostles. She is also, like Marcellus, almost certainly a composite character rather than an historical one. Traditions of pious women seeing to the 78 On the imagery of milk and its possible interpretation, see Tobias Nicklas, “Milch statt Blut,” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 2: Die Wunder der Apostel, ed. Ruben Zimmermann (Munich: Gütersloh, 2017), 500–8. 79 Abd. Pass. Paul 8. The “Crypt of Lucina” is one of the most ancient parts of the catacomb of St. Callistus, but this is on the Appian Road, not the Ostian Road. Archaeologists date the St. Callistus catacomb to the second century at the earliest. 80 The letter from the three emperors outlining their desire to build the basilica is found in Otto Günther, ed., Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae: inde ab a. CCCLXVII usqve ad a. DLIII datae, CSEL 35.1.2 (Leipzig: F. Tempsky, 1895), 46ff., no. 3; reprinted in André Chastagnol, “Sur quelques documents relatifs à la basilique de Saint-Paul-hors-les-murs,” in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol, ed. Raymond Chevallier (Paris: SEVPEN, 1966), 436–37. The mosaic dedication over the triumphal arch that mentions Honorius is ICUR 2:4780; ILCV 1761a. 81 Abd. Pass. Pet. 20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

128

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

holy dead begin in the Christian tradition with Jesus himself,82 and this motif continues throughout many of the early martyrdom texts. Lucina herself is associated with Paul here in Pseudo-Abdias and with a mid-third-century relocation of the relics of Peter and Paul (in a text to be discussed later in this chapter). She also shows up in the Passion of St. Sebastian, a fifth-century account of a martyrdom that supposedly occurred in 287/288 CE. Thus, Lucina is a stock character, a symbol of the motif of the pious woman attending to the proper burials of the martyrs.83 This indeed may have happened in some cases, but those historical identities have been lost.84 The Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, discussed above with regard to Peter, both specify the location of Paul’s death—yet they disagree with each other. The Latin Passion states succinctly that “Paul was decapitated on the Ostian Road.”85 This is consistent with the tradition in Eusebius and elsewhere. The editor of the Greek Acts dedicates much more effort to the description of Paul’s death. There is an extended account of Paul’s encounter with a pious woman named Perpetua, who gives him a shroud to cover his eyes at his execution and miraculously receives it back, bloodied, after his death. Regarding the death itself, the text states, “They led Paul three miles outside the city in order to decapitate him, and he was bound in irons . . . They decapitated him at the estate called Aquae Salvias, near the pine tree.”86 As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the reference to Aquae Salvias is not another way of referring to the Ostian Road cult site; it represents

82

Mark 16:1–3; Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1. In the words of Henry Chadwick, “If all were historical she [Lucina] must have lived a long life of about 300 years spent in devotion to the care of the departed” (“St Peter and St Paul in Rome: The Problem of the Memoria Apostolorum ad Catacumbas,” JTS.NS 8 [1957]: 40). The various appeals to Lucina (and her near double Lucilla) are also discussed by Kate Cooper, “The Martyr, the Matrona and the Bishop: The Matron Lucina and the Politics of Martyr Cult in Fifth- and SixthCentury Rome,” EMEur 8.3 (1999): 308. 84 Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women (Boston: Beacon, 2007), xi–xviii. Denzey suggests that such stories still have value for historians, because “fictive characters like Lucina might conceal real women . . . who inspired these narrative re-creations” (xvi). 85 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 59. 86 Acts Pet. Paul 80. The reference to the pine tree, like the reference to a turpentine tree for Peter, has never been explained. 83

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

129

an entirely different place.87 Aquae Salvias lay on the Laurentinian Road, several kilometers southeast of the Ostian Road location.88 Within the Roman hagiographical tradition, this site developed its own, distinct narrative connected to Paul’s death. The Greek Acts is one witness to this narrative but is no means the only one. Gregory the Great wrote a letter in 604 CE instructing a sub-deacon to use income from the Aquae Salvias estate to buy lamps for the Basilica of Paul on the Ostian Road. Gregory knew these sites to be separate but considered this to be appropriate, for Paul was buried on the Ostian Road but had died at Aquae Salvias: “It seems to be very inappropriate and most unfortunate that this particular property should not be at [Paul’s] service, for it was the place where he received the palm wreath of martyrdom and was decapitated so that he might live.”89 Gregory’s letter represents a late antique attempt to harmonize the opposing accounts.90 A later text, the twelfth-century Marvels of the City of Rome, adds that when the soldier cut off Paul’s head at Aquae Salvias, it bounced three times on the ground as the apostle cried out “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.” A spring miraculously appeared at each place that his head bounced.91 This story gave the location its current name, the Three Fountains. The three places of miraculous rebounding are marked by altars in the current church, which was built in the sixteenth century. A partially preserved column stands in one corner of the church and is purported to be the column to which Paul was bound at his execution. Adjacent is the Church of Santa Maria in Scala Coeli, the crypt of which is identified as the prison in which Paul was held prior to execution. The Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, although closely connected in almost every other way, disagree about where Paul died. They bear witness not just to a potential lack of accurate 87

Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 62–66. Lucrezia Spera, “Aquae Salvias, Massa,” in Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae: Suburbium, ed. Adriano La Regina (Rome: Quasar, 2001), 1:147–48. 89 Gregory I, Ep. 14.14. This letter was later inscribed onto marble and placed in the Basilica of Paul. It now rests in the monastery. See ICUR (New Series) 2:4790. 90 This tendency continues in more recent scholarship. See e.g. R. A. Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome (Boston: Houghton and Mifflin, 1899), 156–57; Giorgio Filippi, “Un decennio di ricerche e studi nella basilica Ostiense,” in San Paolo in Vaticano: La figura e la parola dell’Apostolo delle Genti nelle raccolte pontificie, ed. Umberto Utro (Todi: Tau Editrice, 2009), 29. 91 Mirabil. 1.5. 88

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

130

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

memory about the location, but to outright rivalry between sites competing for the honor. On the issue of Paul’s burial location, however, they are equally silent. The author of the Syriac History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul connects Paul’s death and burial very closely to Peter’s but leaves out location details. This text is part of a cycle of apostolic lives that includes the History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles, discussed above. A short time after the execution of Peter, Nero “also led Paul to that place where Shimeon had been killed. They cut off his head with a sword, and his blood mixed with the blood of the blessed Shimeon Kepha . . . Then Linus the bishop92 issued an order and took the body of Paul by night and buried him with great honor in the same place that he had placed my lord Shimeon Kepha.”93 The Petrine story, as we have seen, does not provide any details regarding the location of Peter’s death or burial, and the Pauline story follows suit. The author does not state where Peter died or was buried, and thus we also do not know where Paul died and was buried by Linus. Wherever the author believes the apostles died, they did so in close proximity, for their blood was mixed together. This is a peculiar statement on one level, given that so many accounts separate their places of death. However, this version echoes elements of the poetry of Prudentius, who wrote at the turn of the fifth century. Prudentius emphasizes the dual apostolic foundation of the church in Rome and uses imagery that presents Peter and Paul as the new Romulus and Remus.94 Although he follows the traditions locating the apostles’ deaths on opposite sides of the city—Peter at the Vatican and Paul on the Ostian Road—he nonetheless links their deaths symbolically through the mixing of their blood in the Tiber River: “The Tiber marshland, which is washed by the river nearby, knows that its turf was consecrated by two victories. It was witness of both cross and sword, by which a shower of blood flowed through its grass twice and soaked it.”95 The reeds along the river were soaked with the blood of 92 Several sources identify Linus as Peter’s successor: the Liberian Catalog from 354 CE; Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3)—although Irenaeus states that Peter and Paul together ordained Linus; Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.6.1); Hist. Shim. 33; and Teach. Shim. Rom. 6. However, others give that honor to Clement: Abd. Pass. Pet. 3.15; the apocryphal Epistle of Clement to James 2; and Tertullian, Praescr. 32. 93 94 Hist. Paul 11–12. Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 32–35. 95 Prudentius, Perist. 12.7–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

131

both apostles, even though they died separately. The author of the History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul, who may or may not have known the writings of Prudentius, propagates a similar tale of mixed apostolic blood yet takes it to its logical conclusion—that the apostles must have actually died in the same place. None of the Pauline martyrdom accounts produced before the sixth century designates where Paul died. Authors such as Eusebius and Prudentius, along with the archaeological record, confirm the existence of a Pauline cult on the Ostian Road by the turn of the third century. However, for some reason none of the writers describing his death includes this detail until the later Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul—and even they disagree with each other on where Paul died. In addition, only one of the martyrdom texts, Pseudo-Abdias, places his burial in a specific place and confirms the Ostian Road tradition. The consistent narrative climax for the authors of these texts is that Paul had been executed by Nero but had triumphed through his preaching. The where was apparently of so little importance that it is typically not even mentioned.

JOINT BURIALS OF THE APOSTLES In some cases the fates of the bodies of Paul and Peter are treated together, not separately. The corporeal remains of the apostles are buried together, or moved together, or put together and then later separated. These sources are further evidence of the variety within the accounts of the apostolic martyrdoms. The Syriac History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul, with which the previous section concluded, is an excellent place to start this analysis, for it reveals tensions within the tradition. As we saw, the author claims that Paul died at the same place as Peter, and then Linus “took the body of Paul by night and buried him with great honor in the same place that he had placed my lord Shimeon Kepha.”96 This same author had credited Peter’s burial to Marcellus, who “placed him in a splendid stone coffin purchased at a high price 96

Hist. Paul 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

132

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

laid him in his own burial place,”97 so we would expect Paul to be laid there, as well. However, the very next line of the text about Paul introduces a twist: This was not in the tomb of Marcellus, because after a time they took Shimeon Kepha from there and placed him in a certain house. At that time the body of blessed Paul the apostle was also placed with him, and that house in which they were laid became a house of prayer for many. When there was peace in the church, they brought the two of them and placed them in a church with great honor.98

Bringing the bodies of the apostles together required some narrative dexterity. Marcellus had honored Peter, but he must not be confused with the Pauline tradition. The author therefore creates a backstory. Marcellus placed Peter in an expensive, monumental burial, but the body did not stay there long, for Paul died only “a short time after the crowing of Shimeon Kepha.”99 Within that brief span of time, an anonymous “they” had already removed Peter’s body from Marcellus’ coffin and moved it. This story is quite surprising, given both Roman and Jewish prohibitions against disturbing burials, and there is no explanation of why “they” would have moved the body. Even more strangely, the body is moved from a necropolis into “a certain house” ( ), and this author eventually places both dead apostles in this same house. Jewish law expressly forbade contact with a dead body, but “many” ignore this prohibition and come to pray there. Thus, in order to create a scenario of posthumous concordia apostolorum and joint apostolic veneration, the author explicitly undermines the importance of the Marcellus burial as described even earlier in this same cycle. This story has a close parallel in another Syriac text, the Teaching of Shimeon Kepha in the City of Rome. There the author states that after both apostles die, seemingly at the same time, “Ansus100 the bishop arose and took their bodies by night and buried them with great honor, and that place became a meeting house for many.”101 The story is similar, but with the Marcellus tomb phase removed. This “meeting house” is presented as the first place of burial for both 97

98 99 Hist. Shim. 35. Hist. Paul 12. Hist. Paul 11. This is a variation of the name Linus. In Syriac an initial lamadh can signify a direct object, so at some point a copyist seems to have been confused by a proper name beginning with lamadh and dropped the initial consonant. 101 Teach. Shim. Rom. 12. 100

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

133

Paul and Peter. The problem of contact with dead bodies remains, but the desecration of disinterment is removed from the story. In the Syriac History of Paul, however, the story of the bodies is not yet done. Another unspecified period of time then elapses until “there was peace in the church.” At that time “they brought the two of them and placed them in a church with great honor.” Is this the same anonymous “they” who moved Peter’s corpse from Marcellus’ tomb to the house, or is this another anonymous “they” much later? Is this the post-Constantinian “peace,” or another earlier period in which Christians felt greater safety? The author does not specify, but in any case the tomb of Peter is violated for a second time in effecting this transfer. Also notable is that both bodies were placed in a single church ( ). These details suggest that the author may have in mind the joint cult site for Peter and Paul on the Appian Road, the Catacombs (now St. Sebastian), but even this reading faces challenges. Constantine built his Basilica of the Apostles at the site during his reign, which could be read as the period when at last “there was peace in the church.” This would place nearly three centuries between the burial of both bodies in “a certain house” and their placement in the church. This is hypothetically possible, but other evidence from graffiti in a room at an earlier archaeological stratum and from a liturgical calendar place veneration of the apostles at the Catacombs at least as early as 258 CE, over half a century before a church existed there.102 We need not, however, expend too much effort trying to figure out how all this might have fit together historically. It is unnecessary and probably unreasonable to expect too much historical precision from this sixth- or seventh-century Syriac text. The author has a vague notion of a joint burial site in a church in a time of peace, but beyond that the details are wanting. Indeed, that is the point. The author is quite clear on some aspects of the traditions surrounding the deaths and burials of Peter and Paul, but on other issues there is much less clarity. There was no single tradition running throughout these texts. We should not leave the Syriac History of Paul without noting references to two additional cult sites unknown to us. Within the passage already discussed, there is “a certain house” that served as the

102

Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 71–114.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

134

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

center of the apostolic cult for some period of time, perhaps even centuries according to this author’s reckoning. No such site is known; even the graffiti-covered room beneath Constantine’s Basilica of the Apostles is too late to have served this purpose in the time of Peter and Paul. Where, then, did this author believe this house to be? Additionally, the author goes on to tell a story about a miraculous development at the site at which both apostles died: A little while later, in the places upon which the blood of the holy men flowed, two great trees sprang up that were different from all the other trees in regard to their leaves and their fruit. Many healings and great miracles were performed by them. When the word about this marvel spread, many people from everywhere were coming to see that new and amazing spectacle. Everyone was receiving from the trees a blessing, as if [from] the healing power of that place,103 and they were healing all the severe maladies among those who approached them. There were ready healings for very many people for a long time.104

The passage of time is again obscure, but from the blood of the apostles grow two unique trees. The trees and the place itself display miraculous power, no doubt sanctified by contact with the blood of the martyrs. They serve as secondary relics and carry the healing power of relics through the healing power of the apostles. The author adds that the trees used to bow toward each other and actually embrace at the offering of the peace during the Easter Vigil every year, a sign of the concordia apostolorum and an agent of conversion among Jews and Gentiles. Lest the reader should go to Rome to witness this spectacle, the author bemoans that the trees were cut down by a crowd of the “Jewish crucifiers” and have never grown back. I can find no other reference to such trees, but in the reality created by this author, they play a critical role as proof of the power and unity of the apostles. This account of a joint apostolic burial is not unique. A composite Syriac text of perhaps the late fifth or sixth century, the Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of his Severed Head, also suggests that the bodies of Peter and Paul (minus his head) were gathered together after their executions: “But after Peter was crucified and Paul was killed, along with many whom they had made disciples, Luke and

103

The Syriac here is obscure.

104

Hist. Paul 14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

135

Mark went out at night and carried their bodies into the city.”105 This is yet another passage suggesting a scenario that was very unlikely given Roman law concerning the burial of the dead, but this author appears unconcerned with those details. The text provides no information about where the bodies were placed inside the city, and there is no reference even to “a certain house.” The burial situation is left ambiguous. The text does contain a curious appendix concerning Paul’s head, which was lost in the immediate aftermath of his execution: The head of Paul, however, was lost among those killed and was not found. A long time later, when a shepherd passed through the place where those killed were buried, he found Paul’s head. He carried it with the head of his staff and went and put it above the sheepfold of his flock. After nightfall he beheld a fire break out above it, and he went and made this known to bishop Xystus and the clergy. All of them understood that it was the head of the corpse of Paul. Xystus said to them, “Let us observe a vigil and prayer all night, and let us bring out the corpse and put the head next to the feet. If the trunk turns around and is joined to its neck, then it will be acknowledged that it is [the head] of Paul.” They proceeded in this way, and the entire body turned around and was joined to the head, as if a vertebra had never been severed.106

The text indicates that many Christians died that day, and body parts were easily confused. Apart from the apostles, the others killed that day were buried in the same area, or perhaps in a mass grave of mangled parts. Somehow Paul’s head—or presumably skull by this time—found its way to the surface and into the possession of a shepherd. After a strange portent, the head is taken to the bishop. Xystus is an alternative spelling for Sixtus. Sixtus I is unlikely to be the bishop in this story, for his tenure lasted approximately ten years during the reign of Hadrian.107 Sixtus II is the more likely candidate, for he was bishop from 257 to 258 CE. As we saw above, June 29, 258, is identified in the Burying of the Martyrs as the date of a feast of “Peter in the Catacombs, of Paul on the Ostian Road, when Tuscus

105 Roman law and custom strictly forbade burials within the city walls, and this seems to have changed only in late antiquity with the burial of Christian holy people in intramural basilicas. 106 Mart. Head Paul 1. 107 In the Liberian Catalog, Optatus assigns the dates 117–126 CE, while Eusebius gives the dates 119–128/129 CE (Hist. eccl. 4.4.1–4.5.5; Chron. Olympiad 224.3).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

136

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

and Bassus were consuls.”108 It would seem more likely for a later author to associate this completion of Paul’s burial with a bishop already connected to an important cultic date. Of course, the author may have no particular historical referent in mind at all and could simply be using the name of a known early bishop. Wherever the body had been lying, which is not specified, it is reunited with the head. After the church rejoices at this miracle, Paul “was placed with great honor in the splendid churches of the empire in Rome, and every year on the twenty-ninth of Tammuz,109 we celebrate the day of his festival.”110 The passage ends with a confirmation of the June 29 annual festival. The reference to the plural “splendid churches of the empire” ( ) is intriguing. How can the now reunited body be lying in more than one church? This could be an allusion to the Pauline traditions on the Ostian Road and at the Catacombs on the Appian Road, or it could simply be the product of ambiguity on the author’s part about the final resting place(s) of the body. A similar story, with some additional details, is told by the author of the Epistle of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite on the Death of the Apostles Peter and Paul to Timothy. The author writing as Dionysius—the Athenian converted by Paul in Acts 17111—claims to have witnessed the final hours of Peter and Paul. He confirms that they were separated from each other at the very end, for “they did not kill them in the same part of the city.”112 He followed his teacher, so Paul receives the bulk of the attention in the letter. The account of Paul’s death introduces a pious woman named Lemobia, who gives the apostle a veil to wear over his eyes for his execution. (She is a clear parallel to Perpetua in the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.) As the executioner is returning to the city, she questions him: “Where did you send my master Paul?” His answer reconnects the corpses of Paul and Peter: “He lies together with his friend there outside the city in the valley of the fighters, and his face is covered with your veil.”113 Presumably, the soldier is referring to Peter as the “friend,” because the two had been inseparable until the last moment.

108

109 110 Dep. mart. June 29. Mart. Head Paul 1. This Pseudo-Dionysius also should not to be confused with the Christian theologian and Neoplatonic philosopher of the fifth or sixth century. 112 113 Dion. Ep. Tim. 5. Dion. Ep. Tim. 8. 111

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

137

The bodies lie close to each other, although it is not clear if they are buried at this point or not. The location of this valley is not immediately obvious, but a clue may come from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic translations of this account. The original language of the text was Greek, so the Latin “valley of the fighters” (in ualle pugilum) is itself a translation from the Greek. In other translations, the location is designated by names that sound similar to each other but have no meaning in those languages: Armeno in Syriac, Armanum in Arabic, Arerminon in Armenian, and Armaten or Armatul in Ethiopic. It is highly speculative to explain this similarity, but one possibility is worth consideration. All these forms may come from the Latin Armamentaria, a term used for the gladiatorial training facility (also known as the Ludus Magnus) located in a valley next to the Roman Colosseum. Historically speaking, this facility did not exist until the time of Domitian, and after the construction of the Servian Wall in the fourth century BCE, it lay within the city, not outside it.114 The reference would therefore be problematic for two reasons, but the author may not be aware of or care about such details. We are on very tenuous ground stating that the valley of the Ludus Magnus is intended, so that point must remain nothing more than a possible inference. Nevertheless, without question the narrative indicates that the apostolic bodies are brought back together somewhere other than the Vatican, the Ostian Road, or the Catacombs. The author continues with a version of the loss and rediscovery of Paul’s head in the valley. “After a long time” imperial works unearth the head, which is found by a shepherd and eventually given to the bishop, here called Fabellius (a name not among any list of Roman bishops). Many claim that they can identify it as Paul’s head, but the bishop insists that they test the head and body. The body turns to join the head, and all praise God.115 There is no description, however, of what happens to the body afterward. This curious tale about Paul’s head points to another category of story about the apostolic burials, namely those that record the movement of both bodies at a time later than their deaths. The Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul tells of the relocation of the bodies after an attempted theft. The story immediately follows the

114

Steinby, Lexicon topographicum, 1.126; 3.196–7.

115

Dion. Ep. Tim. 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

138

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

account of the death of Nero, so the author seemingly positions these events a few years after the martyrdoms: However, when the bodies of the holy apostles were removed by some Greeks—bodies that they claimed had to be carried to the East—a huge earthquake occurred. The Roman people ran and seized these men at the place called the Catacombs, on the Appian Road at the third milestone. There the bodies were kept for a year and seven months, until the places in which their bodies were placed could be built.116 From there the bodies were retrieved with glorious singing and were deposited—that of holy Peter in the Vatican at the Naumachia, and that of holy Paul on the Ostian Road at the second milestone.117 In those places the blessings of prayers are fully manifest forever and ever.

“Some Greeks” attempt to take the bodies back to the East. The term “Greeks” can be used as a general designation for people from the eastern part of the empire (Greek speakers), so it is unclear if the bodies are heading for Greece proper. The attempted pilfering is prevented by a natural disaster, which alerts the Christians of Rome to the problem. This scene is a precursor to stories from the medieval period, in which saints would sometimes prevent the translation of their bodies by causing storms or earthquakes.118 The near theft reveals that the original burials of the apostles are not secure, even if the desecrators are ecclesiastical bandits, not angry Romans attempting to defile Christian burials. The sneaky Greeks are stopped at the Catacombs on the Appian Road, and the relics remain there “for a year and seven months.”119 This account affirms the legitimacy of the Catacombs as a joint apostolic cult site, for the relics had rested there for a period. The relics remain “until the places in which their bodies were placed could be built.” These are shrines designed to prevent future theft. Which “places” does the author have in mind? Are these the “trophies” of the apostles referred to by Caius, 116 On the dual apostolic cult site on the Appian Road, which dates back at least to the third century based on archaeological evidence, see Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 71–114. 117 There are several accounts (including one by Gregory I) of a failed attempt to move the apostolic bodies to the East; see ibid., 110–14. 118 Patrick J. Geary, Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages, rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 108–14; Heinrich Fichtenau, “Zum Reliquienwesen in früheren Mittelalter,” MIÖG 60 (1952): 73. 119 The parallel story in the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul fixes the stay as slightly shorter, only “a year and six months” (Acts Pet. Paul 87).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

139

or perhaps some earlier versions of these shrines, at the Vatican and on the Ostian Road? This would push the foundation of the earliest apostolic shrines back into perhaps the third quarter of the first century CE. This would seem surprisingly early, especially given the silence of the earliest sources on the locations of the apostles’ deaths, but there is no direct evidence to rule out such a possibility. In any event, the presence of very early shrines is the way the story is remembered and perpetuated here. According to this account, the bodies lay in three different locations. First, they lay in their original locations, although the author does not state if they were together (e.g. in “a certain house” inside Rome) or separate (e.g. already at the Vatican and on the Ostian Road). Second, after the thwarted attempt to take the bodies from Rome, the apostles were together for a time on the Appian Road. It is only in their third burials that they arrived at their most famous—and separate—cult sites. In a letter of 594 to the empress Constantina, Gregory I of Rome tells a similar story. He states that these events occurred “at the time of their martyrdom,” thus placing these occurrences even closer in time to the deaths and within the reign of Nero. “Believers from the East” come to take the bodies and put them “in a place called the Catacombs.” The stop on the Appian Road is not caused by the intervention of the Roman Christians but is seemingly the work of the eastern relic hoarders. Perhaps they were hiding the relics until they could complete their operation after it became safer to relocate the bodies. The trouble begins when they attempt to move the remains again: When their whole crowd gathered and tried to remove them from there, violent thunder and lightning terrified them and put them to flight through such great fear that they did not in any way attempt to try such a thing again. Then the Romans went out and raised the bodies of those who were worthy because of their piety toward the Lord and put them in the places in which they are now buried.120

Is the Catacombs their first burial “at the time of their martyrdom,” or do these believers take the bodies from where they originally rested? The text is unclear. The relocation to the Appian Road is somehow permitted by the saints, but the supernatural warnings begin when 120

Gregory I, Ep. 4.30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

140

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the eastern Christians attempt to move the bodies too far from Rome. It is the thunder and lightning, not the Roman Christians, that stop the relics from journeying eastward. The Romans arrive late on the scene to carry the corpses to (or back to?) their final resting places; presumably Gregory has in mind the Vatican and the Ostian Road. The bishop thus confirms three distinct locations in the apostles’ progressive posthumous journeys: the original interment location(s), the Appian Road, and “the places in which they are now buried.” A final record of a joint burial is found in the Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis), which also dates from the sixth century and further illustrates the ambiguities and contradictions concerning the apostles’ burials. This text alleges to describe events going back to the time of Peter, and the initial description of Peter’s burial is not a surprise: “He was buried on the Aurelian Road in the shrine of Apollo, near the place where he was crucified, near the palace of Nero on the Vatican, near the triumphal district.”121 Paul’s burial is not specifically described, because he was not a Roman bishop. Later in the text, however, both apostolic bodies are suddenly and without explanation together at the Catacombs, from which they are moved during the time of the bishop Cornelius (251–253 CE): At the request of a certain matron, Lucina, he raised the bodies of the apostles, blessed Peter and Paul, from the Catacombs at night. The body of blessed Paul was first received by the blessed Lucina and laid on her own estate on the Ostian Road, next to the place where he was decapitated. The blessed bishop Cornelius took the body of blessed Peter and put it next to the place where he was crucified, among the bodies of the holy bishops in the temple of Apollo, on the golden mountain,122 on the Vatican, near the palace of Nero.

The author does not state when or why the body of Peter was moved from the Vatican to the Catacombs in the first place (and this is by no means the only contradiction in this text). The removal of the apostolic bodies from there is equally problematic. Lucina appears again in this text, nearly two centuries after she allegedly buried Paul the first time, according to Pseudo-Abdias. She somehow possesses the influence to convince Cornelius to desecrate the tombs of Paul and 121

Lib. pontif. 1. Lib. pontif. 22. The Latin says Mons Aureus, but this may be a corruption of Mons Aurelianus. The latter would make more sense, given that the location is along the Aurelian Road. 122

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/4/2019, SPi

Locating Death and Burial

141

Peter by moving their bodies. As in Pseudo-Abdias, Lucina claims Paul’s body for her own estate. Cornelius takes Peter’s body to (or back to?) the Vatican. The reasoning for all this movement is never explained in the text,123 but the compiler of the Book of Pontiffs has a more important project in mind—to reconcile the various traditions. The editor is aware of the Vatican and Ostian burial traditions, the Catacombs cultic tradition, and the story of Lucina. This text is an attempt to harmonize them all while primarily bolstering the Petrine traditions at the Vatican. The bodies had been where they were believed to have been and are now where they are believed to be. All this occurred under the authority of the bishop and with the help of a wealthy, pious matron. These accounts of temporary joint apostolic burial follow the trajectory of the individual accounts: they are marked by ambiguity and sometimes contradiction. Some of these stories support the traditional tomb sites at the Vatican and on the Ostian Road; others highlight the Catacombs cult site on the Appian Road; still others claim burial for a time in a house inside the city walls. Some authors create scenarios in order to reconcile and justify several or all of these traditions, suggesting as many as three different interment locations. The fundamental Roman and Jewish prohibitions against disturbing burials pale in comparison to the desire to propagate and promote particular cult sites.124 The overall picture in this chapter is clear: The martyrdom stories that reveal such variety on other details discussed in previous chapters do little better with the ends of the lives of Peter and Paul. The accounts are frequently uncertain or silent about the locations of the executions, and the bodies experience significant posthumous movement. These sources leave us with a picture that is more impressionistic than clear, so as historians we would be wise not to demand of them—and then create for ourselves—too strong a sense of certainty.

123

Louis Duchesne attempted to provide some historical justification for this complicated shuffling of corpses, but his reconstruction is strained and driven by a positivist agenda. See Le Liber pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire (Paris: Librarie des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1886), 1:civ, 151 n. 7. 124 An important study on the development of the various apostolic burial sites in Rome is Steffen Diefenbach, Römische Erinnerungsräume. Heiligenmemoria und kollektive Identitäten im Rom des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Millennium-Studien 11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). Diefenbach approaches the study of these sites through the lens of “kulturellen Gedächtnis” (cultural memory).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

5 Confusing Peter and Paul To this point we have seen a number of discrepancies in the presentations of the deaths of Peter and Paul. Yet, within this diversity we have noted a clear desire by certain authors to bring the apostles together through their deaths to establish a semblance of a unified apostolic tradition and cult, a true concordia apostolorum. In these cases, Paul and Peter are portrayed as the apostolic pair par excellence, the pillars of the church in Rome and elsewhere, even if their relationship was complicated by different perspectives on key issues such as legal observance or by different bases for their claims to authority.1 This chapter will explore how the desire to present the apostles as unified may in some cases have gone farther than intended. In cases where the authors of martyrdom accounts want to emphasize a harmonious apostolic history, they sometimes conflate and/or confuse Paul and Peter with one another, and in doing so they influence later literary work and certain artistic traditions. This confusion is more evidence of the consistently diverse nature of the apostolic martyrdom narratives.

1 E.g. Gal 2:11–14. Moreover, beginning at least as early as the eighteenth century, some scholars have read the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (probably third- or fourth-century texts) as an indication of apostolic rivalry. Johann Salomo Semler was the first to make this explicit connection, although his ideas were probably influenced by the arguments that John Toland had earlier proposed. These ideas were reworked by scholars such as J. K. L. Gieseler and later F. C. Baur, who is popularly but incorrectly credited with their genesis. See F. Stanley Jones, “From Toland to Baur: Tracks of the History of Research into Jewish Christianity,” in The Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity: From Toland to Baur, ed. F. Stanley Jones, SBLHBS 5 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 123–36; David Lincicum, “F. C. Baur’s Place in the Study of Jewish Christianity,” in ibid., 137–66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

143

CONFUSION IN APOSTOLIC MARTYRDOM ACCOUNTS The apocryphal acts represent one of the primary means by which later authors sought to fill in the missing details in the apostolic biographies. Second-century texts like the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul were reappropriated, altered, and expanded upon in the apostolic acts of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries and beyond. The acts of Pseudo-Linus, Pseudo-Marcellus, and Pseudo-Abdias, along with the Epistle of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to Timothy, are among more than a dozen late antique accounts of the later adventures and eventual martyrdoms of these two apostles. In these texts Paul and Peter speak at length, particularly on the issues of legal observance and suffering, but the authors face a fundamental problem: Paul has much more to say on these and other questions than Peter does in the authoritative sources—that is, in the scriptural texts. The thirteen letters of the traditional Pauline corpus, combined with the majority of the book of Acts, provide much more material from which one might draw than do the two brief Petrine epistles and the sermons in Acts ascribed to Peter. It was evidently challenging in a literary format to present Peter and Paul as equals, or even Peter as Paul’s superior, when Paul had provided so much of the best teaching on the topics at hand. In these texts, therefore, we find two solutions to this problem.

Peter’s Mouth, Paul’s Words One solution was simply to take the words of Paul and place them in Peter’s mouth. In the Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle (probably dated to the fourth century), this happens on multiple occasions as the text reaches its climax. At the behest of the Christians in Rome, Peter had agreed to leave the city to preserve his life. However, he was met at the gate of the city by Christ, who said that he was going to Rome to be crucified again. (This is the famous “Quo vadis?” scene.) Peter understood that this was the Lord’s directive for his own death and returned to Rome determined to face his fate. Now back in the city, he begins to give his final directives and words of encouragement: It is easy for the Lord to strengthen the hearts of his servants even without my humble admonition. Those whom he planted he will make grow to the point that they may be able to plant others. But I, as a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

144

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

servant, must follow the will of the Lord to the end. Therefore, if he sends me back to linger in the flesh for your sake, then I will not resist. But if he has decided that I should suffer for his name and sees fit to receive me through my passion, then I exult and rejoice in his grace.2

Here Peter is presented as alluding to two separate Pauline passages. In the first instance he reminds his audience that the Lord is the one who makes the faith of believers grow to the point that they can tell others. This is an allusion to 1 Cor 3:5–9, where Paul uses the same imagery to address divisions within the Corinthian community. Paul has heard that the Corinthians are split into factions associated with Peter/Cephas, Paul, and Apollos. Part of his response to this situation is to strip the apostles of any credit by giving to God all the glory for the growth among them: “I planted; Apollos watered; but God caused the growth. Thus, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who is causing the growth.”3 In this text “Peter” alters the emphasis, but his point is the same. God ultimately grows the church, so the believers in Rome do not need Peter with them to ensure that they will survive and flourish. In the second part of this passage, Peter wrestles with the same quandary that vexes Paul in Philippians: “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this for me is fruitful labor, and I do not know what I will choose. I am constrained from two sides, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is by far much better. But remaining in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.”4 Peter, like Paul in Philippians, desires to depart and be with the Lord, yet he understands that he may need to remain in the flesh for the sake of other Christians. Although Paul discerns that he will linger in the flesh for the sake of the Philippians,5 Peter seems uncertain of the outcome. From a narrative perspective, Peter’s ambiguity is perplexing, because he had just returned from his meeting with Christ at the gates of Rome. Peter knows perfectly well what must happen to him, but the author paints him with a Pauline brush, because Paul provides the example of an apostle who struggles within himself over the issues of death, life, and the fate of his disciples after his departure. In this story Peter mimics, and for the Roman context supplants, Paul in this role. Replacing Paul with Peter thus makes the Romans decidedly

2 5

Lin. Mart. Pet. 7. Phil 1:25–26.

3

1 Cor 3:6–7.

4

Phil 1:21–24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

145

Peter’s spiritual children in the way that the Philippians had been Paul’s. The Pauline citations do not stop here, however. When he faces the Roman prefect Agrippa, Peter declares, “I have no glory except the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose servant I am.”6 This is a clearly allusion to Galatians, where Paul writes, “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”7 The appeal to Paul is logical, for in Galatians Paul links this declaration to a sense of his own symbolic crucifixion. In our text Peter is facing his real crucifixion, so the author places in his mouth this Pauline quotation, which draws attention to Peter’s sacrifice as a follower of Christ while still elevating Christ’s crucifixion to a higher level of importance. Indeed, this elevation is clarified in the lines that follow: “And Agrippa said, ‘Do you wish, therefore, to be crucified just as your God was crucified?’ Peter responded, ‘I am not worthy to make the testimony of my passion to the world on an upright cross, but through whatever kinds of entreaties are necessary, I wish and desire to follow in the footsteps of his passion.’”8 Peter wants to die by crucifixion so that Christ might be “crucified again” through him “in the footsteps of his passion” (desidero eius sequi uestigia passionis), but he does not feel worthy to die in the same position. This leads to his famous request for inverted crucifixion—a request based in the Pauline conception of Christ’s cross as a source of boasting, rather than shame. In the sections that follow, Peter continues to pepper his prose with Pauline passages. When he stands before a mob and tries to dissuade them from revolting against Agrippa because he had sentenced Peter to death, the apostle encourages the crowd, “Remain calm, therefore, rejoicing and happy that I may offer my sacrifice to the Lord with gladness, for God loves a cheerful giver.”9 Paul had written to the Corinthians that “God loves a cheerful giver,” but this was to remind them to fulfill their promise of a financial gift for the believers suffering in Jerusalem.10 Pseudo-Linus reappropriates the line for a different context, and thus Paul’s statement about money is reinterpreted as a declaration of God’s desire for believers to offer their lives as martyrs. Later, at the close of what seems to be Peter’s final speech—although it turns out that he has much, much more to 6 9

7 8 Lin. Mart. Pet. 8. Gal 6:14. Lin. Mart. Pet. 8. 10 Lin. Mart. Pet. 9: . . . hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus. 2 Cor 9:7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

146

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

say—the apostle tells his listeners, “Farewell, brothers. Be steadfast, and preserve the things that you have heard.”11 Peter’s admonition invokes 2 Thess 2:15, where Paul (or “Paul”) instructs, “So then, brothers, stand firm and preserve the traditions that you were taught, either by our word or by our letter.” The Romans, like the Thessalonians, should preserve especially what they have heard directly from the apostles. Here again, Peter thus becomes the primary apostolic voice for the Roman church, as Paul had been for the Thessalonians.12 Furthermore, when Peter is instructing his executioners on how to crucify him, he identifies himself as the “least of all servants,”13 echoing Paul’s claim to be the “least of all.”14 Once on the cross, Peter returns to preaching and sets out to explain—to those who can understand it—“the mystery of all nature and the beginning of everything that has been made.”15 He is concerned with the connection between his inverted crucifixion position and the inverted position of children at birth, with the reversal of things that are left and right, with the symbolism of the cross as fallen human nature, and with the discrepancy between the material and the spiritual. This section of the text is quite convoluted and therefore difficult to translate. What is clear, however, is a dichotomy between the situation of the “first man” and the “Progenitor” of the new race of Christians. The “first man” was essentially born dead, with his head dropped as a sign of his fallen state. Through him human nature “suffered the error of alteration” and was doomed to destruction. But Christ reversed the situation: However, drawn by his own mercy, the Progenitor came into the world through a corporeal being to the very one whom he had cast to the earth by a just sentence. Suspended on a cross, he restored the first man through the appearance of the calling that must be honored—namely the cross—and he established for us the things that formerly had been altered by the regrettable error of men. . . . Human nature, which

11

Lin. Mart. Pet. 10. The fact that Peter does not also appeal to the authority of a letter, as Paul does, may be explained by the fact that neither of the Petrine epistles is addressed to Rome. However, there is a tradition that both were written from Rome, so by the fourth century the Roman community would have likely had access to “Peter’s” teachings through these letters. I will return below to the peculiar lack of Petrine allusions in the apocryphal texts to 1 and 2 Peter. 13 14 Lin. Mart. Pet. 12: seruum ultimum. 1 Cor 15:9; Eph 3:8. 15 Lin. Mart. Pet. 14. 12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

147

suffered the error of alteration in the first man, has recovered its true understanding through the one who is God and human.16

The incarnate Christ, who was fully both God and human, reversed the curse brought upon humanity by Adam’s sin. The dichotomy that Peter presents is taken directly from 1 Cor 15:20–23 and Rom 5:12–21, where Paul argues that just as death came through the one man, Adam, so does resurrection come through the one man, Jesus Christ. Paul explains this reversal as a manifestation of the contrast between that which is earthly (or natural) and that which is spiritual,17 a theme that Pseudo-Linus picks up in Peter’s sermon, as well. Peter’s mystical presentation of human history and Christ’s redemptive work, therefore, is constructed on a Pauline theological framework and employs Pauline language, even if the Peter of this text applies the reversal metaphor in ways that Paul had not. Finally, as Peter praises Christ just before dying, he proclaims, “In you we live, move, and exist. Therefore, we ought to have you as our everything, so that you may give to us those things that you have promised, things which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard nor have entered into the heart of man, things which you have prepared for those who love you.”18 As with our first example above, we find here a double Pauline reference. The first is from Paul’s Areopagus speech in Acts 17:28: “In him we live and move and exist.”19 Then Peter shifts suddenly and cites Paul’s claim that no one can conceive of the rewards awaiting the faithful: “Things that eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and have not entered into the heart of humankind, things that God has prepared for those who love him.”20 There is no doubt that Pseudo-Linus is quoting Paul, because while marginal notations in modern translations tend to identify 1 Cor 2:9 as a citation from Isaiah (and perhaps the Psalms), it is in fact not. No other known text presents this litany in its Pauline form,21 so Pseudo-Linus’ Peter is certainly again citing Paul, not a passage from the Hebrew Bible. Thus, when the author of the Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle sets out to present Peter as a 16

17 18 Lin. Mart. Pet. 14. 1 Cor 15:45–49. Lin. Mart. Pet. 15. The main alteration from the text of Acts 17:28 is the change of the pronoun from “him” to “you.” 20 1 Cor 2:9. 21 On the possible sources for 1 Cor 2:9, see Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 63–64. 19

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

148

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

learned teacher of divine mysteries, he cannot do so without references to Paul. Peter does not have his own words to speak. He can find expression of the eternal truths revealed to him only through the language of the apostle whose knowledge of the gospel came first and foremost through divine revelation. Pseudo-Linus is not the only author to place Paul’s words in the mouth of Peter, although no other text includes Pauline citations in such quantity or density. The author of the sixth-century Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul22 likewise draws from Paul’s epistles in giving voice to Peter. The text opens with a chaotic scenario in which the Jewish23 leaders are seeking Paul’s assistance in silencing Peter, and the Jewish and Gentile Christians are in open conflict with one another. Both apostles address the crowds in an attempt to restore peace, and when Peter turns his attention to speaking to the Jewish leaders, he offers this explanation and justification for the foundation of the church: “In order that [Christ] might fulfill the necessary redemption for the world, he allowed himself to undergo all these things, so that just as Eve was formed from the rib of Adam,24 so too from the side of Christ—who was placed on the cross—the church may be formed, which has neither stain nor wrinkle.”25 Peter appeals to the Genesis creation story as the model for the birth of the church and then punctuates his statement with a reference to Eph 5:27: “so that [Christ] may present to himself the church glorified, not having stain or wrinkle or anything like these.”26 Peter’s church is spotless, as it was for the writer of Ephesians, and Peter is even more Pauline in that his commentary expands on the Pauline model of the church as Christ’s bride, articulated most

22 From this point forward, I will refer to this text as the Latin Passion. It is traditionally ascribed to a certain Marcellus, who is mentioned in the story as a nobleman who had been following Simon the sorcerer but was converted by the teaching of Peter. 23 The debate over translating the Greek Ἰουδαίος as “Jew” or “Judean” is well documented. Due to the concerns properly raised by Jewish scholars about the elimination of Jews from ancient texts by the use of Judeans, I have opted for the term “Jew/Jewish” here. See e.g. Adele Reinhartz, “The Vanishing Jews of Antiquity,” Marginalia, 24 June 2014, http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/vanishing-jewsantiquity-adele-reinhartz/; Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2006), 159–66. 24 Gen 2:21–22. 25 26 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 8. Eph 5:27.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

149

explicitly in Eph 5:22–23.27 Just as Eve was born from Adam’s side and then became his wife, so was the church born from Christ and is now his bride. Peter’s teaching, therefore, may be read as a kind of midrash on Eph 5:22–27, although Peter applies this imagery to the church rather than to the household.28 That Peter so often parrots Paul is significant, but this is all the more striking when we take into account the lack of Petrine allusions to “his own” letters. In fact, in the later apocryphal acts, I know of not a single case in which Peter quotes 1 or 2 Peter. It is not as if the Petrine epistles would offer no relevant material. In 1 Pet 2:11–17, 3:13–4:2, 4:12–19, and 5:9–10, the author addresses the issues of persecution and the Christian’s proper conduct toward the government authorities. Surely something of this would have been useful for an author constructing a narrative of Peter before Nero. In 2 Pet 1:13–14, the author predicts his imminent demise and refers to his clear sense of what he must do while he remains in the body. Why would Peter not use “his own” words in the later texts to speak of his death? And why would a Peter struggling (in Pauline fashion) with whether life or death is preferable for him (see above) not refer back to this same issue in 2 Peter?29 The only explicit reference to a Petrine epistle in the apocryphal texts comes from the Latin Passion and is actually placed in the mouths of misguided Jewish Christians. As part of their polemic against the Gentile believers, they proclaim, “We are the elect, royal race of the friends of God: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets.”30 This is an allusion to 1 Pet 2:9: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.”31 The Greek version of these acts 27 See also 2 Cor 11:2–4 and Rom 7:7, which were no doubt the source of Eph 5:22–23. The imagery of God and the people being married has deep roots in the Hebrew Bible, e.g. Isa 54:4–6, 62:4–5; Ezek 16:8; Hosea. 28 When the Pseudo-Marcellus text was translated into Greek (known as the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul), the translator maintained this Pauline connection (Acts Pet. Paul 29). 29 Scholars generally deny Pauline influence on 2 Peter, but it may be that the Pauline description of the church as having no σπίλον (Eph 5:27) has influenced the Petrine admonition to the believers to remain ἄσπιλοι (2 Pet 3:14), which notably comes just prior to the reference to Paul and his epistles. In any event, perhaps the apocryphal author’s choice not to cite 2 Peter is evidence of the early church’s hesitation to acknowledge its authorship as apostolic. 30 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 5: nos genus sumus electum regale amicorum Dei, Abrahae, Isaac et Iacob et omnium prophetarum. 31 1 Pet 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

150

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

(the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul)32 makes the connection to 1 Peter even stronger by employing terminology taken directly from 1 Peter: “We are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, of the tribe of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets.”33 Both Paul and Peter subsequently speak out against this sense of superiority and entitlement among the Jewish believers. Thus, the only explicit reference to the Petrine epistles in these early acts provokes not apostolic support, but apostolic rebuke. The words of Peter seem to pale in comparison to those of Paul in terms of their relevance and authority, so these authors simply have Peter speak with Paul’s words. A final possible example of this phenomenon is worthy of note, although uncertainties in the development of the literary tradition require caution when assigning influence. As discussed in Chapter 2, a tradition that Peter preached aggressively about chastity appears in several of the Petrine martyrdom texts. In the Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter (within the Acts of Peter), Peter’s trouble with Roman authorities begins with this preaching: Peter the apostle was in Rome rejoicing with the brothers and sisters in the Lord and giving thanks to God night and day for the crowd being brought daily to the grace of God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the wives of the prefect Agrippa were coming to Peter, four of them: Agrippina, Ikaria, Euphemia, and Doris. When they heard the teaching about chastity and all the sayings of the Lord, they were sorely pricked in their spirits. After they had agreed among themselves to remain pure from intercourse with Agrippa, they were harassed by him every day.34

Agrippa and another sexually frustrated husband named Albinus plot against Peter, and Agrippa has the apostle killed. Nero finds out about the execution after it has occurred and is angry at Agrippa for depriving him of the chance to torture Peter first, because Nero had also suffered sexual deprivation as a result of Peter’s preaching. What, however, is the source of the idea of Petrine preaching on chastity? In the Petrine literary tradition, 1 Peter includes passing references to personal holiness and the conquest of the passions 32

I will refer to this text as the Greek Acts. Acts Pet. Paul 26: ἡμεῖς γένος ἐσμὲν ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. Cf. 1 Pet 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. 34 Mart. Pet. 4. 33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

151

(1:14–16; 2:11; 4:2–3), but chastity is never explicitly mentioned. In fact, wives even of unbelievers are told to submit to their husbands as an act of evangelism (3:1–6). There is no suggestion of a need to withdraw from sexual intercourse; in fact, such withdrawal would seem to undermine the command. In 2 Peter the author encourages self-control and warns against punishment for sin (1:5–8; 2:4–10). 2 Peter 2:14 contains perhaps the most direct teaching about sexuality, warning against those who have “eyes full of μοιχαλίδος, insatiable for sin.” The word μοιχαλίς refers generally to unfaithfulness, but it can refer more specifically to adultery. Even if this latter meaning is applied, there is nothing in either of these Petrine letters concerning chastity as a universal teaching. Such a teaching does appear in the Acts of Paul, a text taking shape at around the same time as the Acts of Peter. In this text Paul has to flee Antioch and comes to Iconium, where he is hosted by a certain Onesiphorus and his family. Here Paul presents his own version of the beatitudes, which includes statements on chastity: Blessed are those who keep the flesh pure (μακάριοι οἱ ἁγνὴν τὴν σάρκα τητήσαντες), for they will become a temple of God. Blessed are those who are continent (μακάριοι οἱ ἐγκρατεῖς), for God will speak to them . . . Blessed are those who have wives as if they do not have them (μακάριοι οἱ ἔχοντες γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες), for they will inherit God . . . Blessed are the bodies of virgins, for they will be well-pleasing to God and will not lose the reward for their continence (μακάρια τὰ σώματα τῶν παρθένων, ὅτι αὐτὰ εὐαρεστήσουσιν τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐκ ἀπολέσουσιν τὸν μισθὸν τἠς ἁγνείας αὐτῶν).

The author goes on to suggest that Paul spoke much more extensively on this topic, and his preaching attracted “many women and virgins” (πολλὰς γυναῖκας καὶ παρθένους). In this crowd is a young woman named Thecla, who is inspired by the teaching and breaks off her engagement in order to pursue a life of celibacy and Christian preaching. The story in the Acts of Peter is quite reminiscent of the situation in the Acts of Paul, in which women in particular are drawn by apostolic preaching about chastity. It is difficult to draw a clear line of influence—from the Pauline tradition to the Petrine tradition, or vice versa. However, other literary evidence suggests that Pauline preaching on renunciation is likely to the be the source of the Petrine story. Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 were the subject of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

152

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

extensive interpretation in early Christianity,35 with some reading this text through the lens of sexual renunciation. A tradition of teaching about sexual continence seems to have its roots most clearly in the Pauline tradition, so the Pauline tradition on this issue appears to hold pride of place.36 If this analysis is correct, then the Petrine preaching on chastity in the Acts of Peter would constitute another example of Paul’s teachings being placed in the mouth of Peter.

A Shared Apostolic Voice—Somewhat The other solution to the relative lack of usable Petrine language was to present the words of each apostle as the words of both apostles, although here again Paul enjoys pride of place. In both the Latin Passion and the closely related Greek Acts, Peter and Paul engage in a lengthy debate with Simon the sorcerer in the presence of Nero. Initially, Peter and Simon are the primary verbal combatants, but then Nero turns to Paul and asks what teaching he had learned from his master (Jesus) and then spread through his preaching. Paul gives a lengthy response, in the midst of which he explains to Nero, Concerning the teaching of my master, however, about which you asked me, no one can understand it except those who accept faith with a pure heart.37 For whatever things concern peace and love, I have taught them. Throughout my journey from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum,38 I have spread the word of peace. I have taught men to love one another.

35 See e.g. David L. Eastman, “ ‘Epiphanius’ and Patristic Debates on the Marital Status of Peter and Paul,” VC 67.5 (2013): 499–516. 36 Dennis R. MacDonald has argued that the Acts of Paul likely precedes and is a source for the Acts of Peter. See “Which Came First? Intertextual Relationships among the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives, Semeia 80 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 11–24. For other discussions of this issue, see e.g. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostollegenden 2.1 (Braunschweig: Schwetschke und Sohn, 1887), 109–74; G. Poupon, “Les ‘Actes de Pierre’ et leur remaniement,” in ANRW 2.25.6 (Berlin 1988), 4363–83; Christine M. Thomas, “Word and Deed: The Acts of Peter and Orality,” Apoc 3 (1992): 125–64; Thomas, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 14–39; Matthew C. Baldwin, Whose Acts of Peter? Text and Historical Context of the Actus Vercellenses, WUNT 2/196 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 37 38 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 2:22. Rom 15:19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

153

I have taught them to outdo one another in showing honor.39 I have taught the lofty and the rich not to elevate themselves and hope in the uncertainty of riches, but to place their hope in God.40 I have taught those with ordinary food and clothing to be content.41 I have taught the poor to rejoice in their poverty.42 I have taught fathers to teach their sons the discipline of the fear of God.43 I have taught sons to obey their parents and the salvific admonitions.44 I have taught those who have possessions to pay tribute out of duty. I have taught merchants to pay taxes to the servants of the republic.45 I have taught wives to love their husbands and fear them as their masters.46 I have taught husbands to be faithful to their wives, just as they wish to keep themselves blameless in every way.47 That which a husband punishes in an adulterous wife, the Father and maker of all things, God himself, punishes in an adulterous husband. I have taught masters to deal mildly with their servants.48 I have taught servants to serve their masters faithfully and as if working for God.49 I have taught assemblies50 of believers to worship the one omnipotent, invisible,51 incomprehensible God. This teaching was given to me not by men, nor through another man, but through Jesus Christ and the Father of glory,52 who spoke to me from heaven.53

This is a remarkably dense series of allusions to the Pauline epistles, but it is not a summary of any particular letter. Rather, the author has pulled teachings from a wide variety of sources, for seven of the thirteen Pauline letters are cited in this one passage. When Paul finally finishes his monologue, Nero turns back to Peter to see if he has anything to add. Peter responds, “All the things that Paul said are true.”54 He then recounts the story of Paul’s background and conversion, ending with the summary statement, “He abandoned what he was defending and began to defend that which he was persecuting— that is the path of Christ, which is the way for those walking in purity, the truth for those who are not deceivers, and the life eternal for those who believe.”55 Peter therefore testifies that all of Paul’s teachings are true and implicitly affirms that they were given to him directly by

39 43 46 47 49 51 53 54 55

40 41 42 Rom 12:10. 1 Tim 6:17. 1 Tim 6:8. Cf. 2 Cor 6:10. 44 45 Cf. Eph 6:4. Col 3:20; Eph 6:1. Rom 13:5–7. No such command is given even among the disputed Pauline epistles. 48 Col 3:18–19; Eph 5:22–28. Phlm; Col 4:1; Eph 6:9. 50 Col 3:22–24; Eph 6:5–6. Or “churches.” 52 Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17. Gal 1:1, 11–12. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 36–38 (parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 57–59). Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 39 (parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 60). Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 39 (parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 60), citing John 14:6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

154

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Christ. This Petrine confirmation is in effect a recapitulation of Paul’s claims in Galatians that he received his gospel from Christ alone and not from any person,56 and that neither Peter nor anyone else had anything to add to his gospel.57 Peter’s relative silence at the end of Paul’s speech before Nero shows that even at the end of their lives, Peter still had nothing to add to Paul’s teaching. He simply accepted it as his own, thus making Paul’s gospel his, as well. In the scene that follows, Peter condemns Simon the sorcerer once more, saying, “There is no truth in you, but everything you say and do comes from only falsehood.”58 Nero then turns back to Paul to ask what he might say. The process is now reversed, for Paul retorts, “Consider that the things you heard from Peter were also said by me. We feel the same way, because we have one Lord, Jesus Christ.”59 When one apostle speaks, both speak, for they have the same Lord and will therefore supposedly teach exactly the same message. It is notable, however, that in this exchange of apostolic affirmations, Paul still maintains the privileged position. As we have seen, Peter gives his approval to an extended litany of Paul’s teachings drawn from seven letters. All that Paul is agreeing with in the text is a single statement of Peter condemning Simon the sorcerer. Paul does not assent to Petrine teaching in general, and certainly not to any material taken from the Petrine epistles. Thus, it is still Peter who primarily benefits from this apostolic univocality. Peter’s perceived lack of authoritative teachings created a problem for authors desiring to present the apostles as equals, and even more so for those for whom Peter ought to represent some kind of primacy. Robbing Paul to pay Peter was the solution, whether this took the form of ascribing Paul’s words to Peter or declaring their words indistinguishable from each other. The goal seems to have been the same, namely to obfuscate any qualitative differentiation between the apostle with great theological gravitas and the one who (it would seem) had made little contribution through his two meager epistles. This robbing, I would suggest, may have had a marked impact on later reception history. Phrases and concepts that we identify as distinctly Pauline, because we are familiar with them through our 56

57 Gal 1:11–12. Gal 2:6–9. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 40 (parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 61). 59 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 41. This section is missing from the text of the Greek Acts Pet. Paul. 58

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

155

study of the scriptural texts, might have sounded Petrine to later audiences, if their primary exposure to these ideas had come through the very popular stories of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. In such contexts, Peter would become not only one of Jesus’ closest disciples and a worker of miracles, but also a theologian on a par with Paul himself.

Conflated Actions and Reactions Paul and Peter are also confused in some of these texts through the presentations of what they did and how certain people reacted to them. From reading texts such as Galatians, Romans, and Acts, for example, we learn that Paul’s missionary preaching was more successful among Gentiles than among Jews, in large part because his teachings about Torah observance often provoked the ire of devout Jews. Luke in fact tells us that Paul’s position on the law was the primary factor in his arrest in Jerusalem and even prompted a death squad to seek his life.60 Peter accepts Gentiles based on the Cornelius story but still seems to support legal observance, which caused him to fall afoul of Paul at Antioch.61 Thus, we would expect the animosity between Paul and other Jews, and the close connection between Peter and Torah-observant Jews, to carry over into the apocryphal acts. Many of these texts, however, are silent on any controversy between Paul and the Jews.62 A debate between the apostles and some Jewish leaders is featured at the opening of the Latin Passion, but notably the traditional apostolic roles are reversed: When Paul had come to Rome, all the Jews came together to him, saying, “Protect our faith in which you were born. It is not right that you, who are a Hebrews of Hebrews, should consider yourself a teacher of the Gentiles; or that you, who are circumcised, have become a defender of the uncircumcised and nullify the faith of the circumcision.63 Therefore, when you see Peter, stand against his teaching, because he has nullified all observance of our law, has eliminated our Sabbath and new moons, and has decimated our lawful feasts.” Paul responded to them, “From this you will be able to prove that I am a Jew, 60

61 Acts 21:27–33; 23:12–15. Gal 2:11–14. These texts credit Paul’s legal issues to the fact that he ascribes true kingship to Jesus, not Nero, or that he is involved in the showdown with Simon the sorcerer. 63 Or, “faith in circumcision.” 62

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

156

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

and a true Jew, namely that you will truly be able to observe the Sabbath and pay heed to circumcision. For on the Sabbath day God rested from all his works. We have the fathers and the patriarchs and the law. What sort of thing is Peter preaching in the kingdom of the Gentiles? But if by chance he wants to introduce any new teaching, then without any disturbance or animosity or trouble making tell him that we should see him, and in your presence I will refute him. And if by chance his teaching is supported by true testimony and the books of the Hebrews, then it is proper that we all obey him.”64

Paul’s arrival in Rome brings not a hostile reception by the Jewish leaders, nor even the initially ambivalent reception of Acts 28:17–29 by leaders who claim to have heard nothing about him. Rather, he is welcomed with great enthusiasm. The Jews of Rome have heard rumors about him and ask him to prove his fidelity to the traditions of the elders by confronting a known enemy of the law in Rome— Peter—who “has nullified all observance of our law, has eliminated our Sabbath and new moons, and has decimated our lawful feasts.” Paul begins his answer by assuaging their fears, assuring them that he does observe the law and respect the patriarchs. Thus, Paul is the traditionalist, while Peter is the one accused of subverting the law. Paul even offers a thinly veiled threat directed at Peter. If Peter is indeed teaching something new to the Gentiles, then the Jews should bring him quietly to Paul, and Paul will correct him in their presence. This scenario would be the Antioch incident in reverse, for here Paul would be rebuking Peter for not observing the law, instead of for observing it too rigorously. Paul adds the final condition that if “the books of the Hebrews” (Hebraeorum libris; presumably the Hebrew Scriptures) support Peter’s teaching, then all should obey him. The author of this text must want the reader to assume that Paul finds this to be the case, because in the text there is never any hint of theological debate between the apostles. The Greek version of this text (the Greek Acts) tells a story that is similar in many ways but features a few notable changes. While Paul’s arrival in Rome marks the beginning of the Latin Passion, in the Greek Acts this occurs in chapter 22. The first 21 chapters of the Greek Acts contain a detailed account of Paul’s journey from Malta to Rome. Most scholars agree that this section is a later

64

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 1–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

157

addition, and it contains some important details. The account opens with Paul’s departure from Malta, and the news reaches Rome of his impending arrival there. The response of the Jews is quite different from that in the Latin Passion: Therefore, falling into great distress and losing heart, they said to themselves, “It does not suffice that he alone afflicted all our brothers and fathers in Judea and Samaria and all of Palestine. He was not satisfied by these things, but behold, he even comes here, having appealed to Caesar so that through an attack he may destroy us.” Therefore, after all the Jews had turned the Senate against Paul and had contrived many things, it seemed good to them to go to Nero, the king who was ruling in those days, so that he would not permit Paul to come to Rome. Therefore, after they had prepared many gifts and had deliberated among themselves, they went to him with their petition, saying, “We beg you, noble king, to send out orders to all the provinces under control of your piety that Paul should not come near to these regions. We ask this because this man Paul, who has afflicted the entire race of our people, has asked to come here so that he may also destroy us. And the distress that we have from Peter, most pious king, is already sufficient for us.” Having heard these things, the emperor Nero answered them, “It is done according to your will, and we are writing to all our provinces, so that he may certainly not drop anchor in the regions of Italy.” And they informed even Simon the sorcerer, having summoned him so that, as has been said, Paul may not at all set foot in the regions of Italy.65

Rather than waiting to welcome Paul, the Jews of Rome secure an order from Nero that Paul is to be killed on sight. Some Gentile converts hear of this and send a warning, so Paul remains hidden for a week after his arrival in Puteoli. Then follows an almost comical scene in which the captain of Paul’s ship, a recent convert named Dioscorus, goes into Puteoli declaring the gospel. Because he is preaching Christ and is bald,66 the local authorities assume that he is Paul, decapitate him, and send his head to Caesar. “Then Caesar summoned the leaders of the Jews and reported to them, saying, ‘Rejoice greatly,67 because your enemy Paul is dead.’ And he even showed them his head. Therefore, after 65

Acts Pet. Paul 2–4. Paul’s traditional identification as a bald man is based on Acts Paul 1.7. 67 Literally, “Rejoice a great joy” (χάρητε χαρὰν μεγάλην). This is one of several Semiticisms in this section of the text. 66

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

158

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

they had held a great celebration on that day, which was the fourteenth day of the month of June, each of the Jews was fully satisfied.”68 Paul’s eventual arrival in Rome, therefore, is not met at all with enthusiasm, but with trepidation: But it became known in the city of Rome that Paul, the brother of Peter, was coming. Those who had come to believe in God were rejoicing greatly.69 But there was a great disturbance among the Jews, and they went to Simon the sorcerer and begged him, saying, “Report to the king that Paul did not die, but is alive and has come.” But Simon said to the Jews, “Whose, then, is the head that came to Caesar from Puteoli? Was this not also the head of a bald man?” And after Paul had come to Rome, a great fear fell upon the Jews.70

The authorities in Puteoli had killed the wrong bald man. Then as now, being bald is not always beautiful. When the Greek Acts joins the narrative of the Latin Passion, the leaders of the Jews, despite their fear, still come to Paul and beg him to defend the traditions of the elders and to confront Peter’s new teaching. But their charge against Peter is more general, for they say only that “he has undermined every observance of our Law,”71 failing to specify his infractions against the Sabbath and their feasts, as they do in the Latin version. Paul’s response is also noticeably shorter: “If his teaching is true, confirmed by the witness of the books of the Hebrews (τῇ τῶν Ἑβραίων βίβλων μαρτυρίᾳ), then it is fitting that all of us obey him.”72 Paul here repeats only the final condition from the Latin text, namely that the “Hebrew books” will be the standard of his assessment of Peter’s teaching. The Greek translator has redacted the text by omitting two elements. First, Paul does not claim that he will confirm his “Jewishness” by his actions. He makes no promises about observing the Sabbath or circumcision, and he is silent on following the patriarchs and the law. This seems to be a more canonical Paul. He is not necessarily opposed to such observance among Jews, but he also will not yield in the face of pressure from his Jewish brothers.73 He feels no compulsion 68

Acts Pet. Paul 5–10 (citation at 10). Literally, “rejoicing a great joy” (ἔχαιρον χαρὰν μεγάλην), another Semiticism in the text. 70 71 72 Acts Pet. Paul 21–22. Acts Pet. Paul 22. Acts Pet. Paul 23. 73 According to Acts 16:1–3, Paul did have Timothy circumcised, because he was known by the Jews of Lystra to have a Greek father. But Timothy also had a Jewish 69

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

159

to show that he is truly a “Hebrew of Hebrews” by outward demonstrations of legal piety. Instead, his focus is only on what can be shown by the “Hebrew books.” A second difference is that Paul does not offer a potential confrontation with Peter—the would-be Roman inversion of the Antioch incident. This could be another gesture toward the canonical texts, in which Peter is typically the more scrupulous one on legal matters. Yet it could also be a result of the Greek redactor’s desire to present a united apostolic front, perhaps taking his cue from texts such as Acts, 2 Pet 3:15–16, and later authors like Irenaeus. Indeed, the next passage in the Greek Acts (now again following the Latin Passion) is the account of the apostles’ joyful and tearful reunion.74 No suggestion of potential apostolic disagreement is discernible. The Latin Passion and the Greek Acts provide an interesting case study in apostolic description and ambiguity. The earlier Latin text reverses the dominant traditions about Paul and Peter on the issue of legal observance. It is Peter whom the Jewish authorities in Rome fear most, for he, not Paul, has been offering “new teachings” among the Gentiles. The Jews seek Paul as their ally, and he seems willing to play this role, confirming that he is legally observant and will rebuke Peter if his teachings do not conform to the Hebrew Scriptures. The translator-redactor of the Greek Acts corrects this confusion of Peter and Paul. His added prelude specifies early on that the Jews in Rome fear Paul because “he alone afflicted all our brothers and fathers in Judea and Samaria and all of Palestine.”75 They secure an execution order on Paul, in order to finish the task that the Jerusalem-based death squad had failed to complete. Paul’s apparent death is an occasion for rejoicing, but fear and confusion grip them once again when the apostle arrives. They do seek Paul’s help in thwarting Peter, but Paul is much less conciliatory in his response and omits any mention of a possible tête-à-tête with Peter. The redactor of the Greek text, therefore, seeks to set the record straight on his notion of Paul’s

mother, so there was some possible cause for him to be circumcised. The case of Titus in Jerusalem is a better indication of Paul’s resolve (Gal 2:3–5). There Paul refused to have Titus circumcised, despite intense pressure from “false brothers,” because Titus was a Greek. For Paul the central message of the gospel was at stake: “We did not yield to them in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel may endure for you.” 74 75 Acts Pet. Paul 24; Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 3. Acts Pet. Paul 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

160

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

real relationship to the law, to Jews pushing for traditional legal observance, and to Peter. In the above examples, Paul’s message was made to look more like the traditional Petrine approach to the law. A similar alteration occurred with relation to the preaching of chastity and was linked to Paul’s death. As we saw in Chapter 2, the earliest Petrine traditions ascribe Peter’s death to the preaching of sexual renunciation. This threatened the social order, when aristocratic women and even consorts of Nero himself began withdrawing from sex. In the earliest corresponding Pauline traditions, by contrast, Paul died because he was accused of promoting a rival king and being a political revolutionary. However, in a few cases Paul’s martyrdom is recast in a Petrine mold as the result of preaching chastity. This alternative presentation appears in the writings of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom had taken on a life of asceticism and was a great admirer of Paul,76 so it is not surprising that the bishop would see in Paul characteristics that he desired to emulate in his own life. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 7 provided fodder for reflection on Paul’s teaching about renunciation, and Chrysostom perceived an ascetic pattern throughout the apostle’s life as a whole.77 Nevertheless, some resisted the notion that asceticism represented the highest form of the Christian life and criticized those who had taken on this lifestyle. Chrysostom attacked these detractors directly in his treatise Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life. In this text, he applies his emphasis on the ascetic Paul to his retelling of the circumstances of the apostle’s death: You have heard a lot about Nero, for he was a man who was famous for his wicked lifestyle. He was the first and only one who found in such a position of leadership some new forms of intemperance and opportunities for disgraceful conduct. This Nero accused the blessed Paul—for it happened that they both lived at the same time—with the very sorts of charges that you bring against these holy men. For Paul had persuaded Nero’s very beloved mistress to accept the teaching of the faith and likewise to withdraw from impure sexual intercourse.78 Accusing Paul of such things, that man called him a corrupter and deceiver, the very 76 John Chrysostom, Hom. in 2 Cor 11:1 1: “I love all the saints, but I love the blessed Paul most of all” (ἅπαντας μὲν ϕιλῶ τοὺς ἁγίους, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν μακάριον Παῦλον). 77 Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 308–26. 78 This is probably not a reference to Livia. Cf. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 10, where the author identifies Livia as Nero’s wife.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

161

things that you say. First he put [Paul] in chains, but because this did not persuade him to agree to stay away from the young woman, he finally killed him.79

Nero’s primary charge against Paul was that the apostle had interfered with the emperor’s sex life by convincing his illicit lover “to withdraw from impure sexual intercourse” (τῆς ἀκαθάρτου συνουσίας ἀπαλλαγῆναι). Nero’s first course of action was to arrest Paul, in order to keep him away from the mistress. When this did not work, he had to take the final step of killing the apostle. This scenario is reminiscent not of the Acts of Paul but of the Acts of Peter, yet here Chrysostom has transposed the tradition for his own polemical purposes. Nero serves as the icon of the critics of the monastic life in Chrysostom’s time, who were identifiable by their “intemperance” and “disgraceful conduct” (ἀκολασίας καὶ ἀσχημοσύνης). Paul, the model for Chrysostom’s contemporaries, possessed the opposite qualities of self-discipline and virtuous conduct. He stood, suffered, and eventually died for the monastic ideal. Chrysostom took the story from the Acts of Peter and substituted his hero, Paul, in place of Peter. Because Peter had been married, he could not serve as the monastic par excellence. That honor belonged to Paul. The monks of Chrysostom’s time were being criticized for their promotion of chastity. They were being persecuted like Paul, and thus their critics were acting like Nero. Chrysostom’s retelling of the story influenced at least one later author, who produced the sixth- or seventh-century History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul in Syriac. According to this text, Paul rushes to Rome after hearing of the death of Peter. He preaches the gospel to great success: “After he had made disciples in many cities, he also brought into the household of Christ thousands in Rome who could not be counted, including a great multitude from the household of Caesar.”80 This reference to the “household of Caesar” ( ) could be read as simply an allusion to Phil 4:22: “All the saints greet you, and especially those from the household of Caesar” (ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας). However, the author then expands the scope of the imagery by recounting Paul’s ill treatment at the hands of Nero. A prefect accuses Paul of making all of Rome into Christians. In particular, Nero is 79

John Chrysostom, Oppugn. 1.3.

80

Hist. Paul 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

162

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

angry “because all the commanders and noblemen of Caesar who had been in his presence had left him and changed their way of living, so that they could exercise the virtue that is proper for disciples of the truth.”81 Their departures infuriate the emperor, but the author specifies that they had left Nero not for a general reason, but to pursue a particular “way of living.” The Syriac states that they desired to “exercise the virtue” ( ) that is appropriate for all true Christians. The verb refers to work done in a consistent, can refer specifically to the disciplined way, and the noun ascetical life. In this text, Paul’s crime is not tied to Nero’s personal bedroom, but is rather focused on the apostle’s effective and pervasive preaching of renunciation. Many of the leading men “changed their way of living,” so Paul had inverted Roman values of manhood— sexual chastity in place of sexual promiscuity. In the Acts of Peter, Peter angers the nobleman Albinus, the prefect Agrippa, the Emperor Nero, and others by preaching chastity. In the History of the Holy Apostle my Lord Paul, Paul himself assumes that role. Another source of confusion in later texts is the attribution of events to the wrong apostle. One notable example is found in the Doctrine of the Apostles,82 a text produced in Syriac somewhere in the Christian East prior to the sixth century.83 It states that following the miraculous events of Pentecost, the apostles set down regulations concerning worship, the church calendar, the roles and qualifications of church leaders, and various other ethical issues. The second half of the text specifies which apostles allegedly established the priesthood in regions of the Christian world from Britain to India. The author closes with the following lines: “Timothy and Erastus of Lystra and 81

Hist. Paul 10. This text is sometimes referred to as the Teaching of the Apostles, but this can cause confusion with the third-century church manual of the same name (the Didascalia apostolorum) that is also preserved in Syriac (translated from a lost Greek original). 83 The exact dating is difficult. It survives in three manuscripts in the British Library collection, with the earliest dating from the fifth or sixth century: Cod. Add. 14644 (fifth/sixth c. CE); Cod. Add. 14531 (seventh/eighth c. CE); and Cod. Add. 17193 (874 CE). William Cureton had done extensive study on this and some other closely related texts and planned to publish a lengthy introduction to accompany his edition and translation of them. However, his untimely death in 1864 left this work undone. B. P. Bratten, extrapolating from some notes left by Cureton, included this text in his Syriac Documents Attributed to the First Three Centuries (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), but such an early date for this text is far from established. N. B. Bratten incorrectly lists Cod. Add. 17193 as Cod. Add. 14173. 82

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

163

Menaeus, the first disciples of the apostles, accompanied Paul until he was taken to the city of Rome after he stood against the orator Tertullus.84 And Nero Caesar killed Shimeon Kepha (Simon Cephas)85 with the sword in the city of Rome.”86 The author of this text is obviously not confined by the traditional details of the accounts of the apostles’ deaths. The Acts of Peter and the apocryphal texts that depend upon it state that Peter died in Rome by inverted crucifixion,87 while the Acts of Paul and others say that Paul died at the edge of the sword by decapitation. Traditionally, it is believed that Nero killed them both. Here, however, the author of the Doctrine of the Apostles brings Paul to Rome to face Nero but then leaves him there, while Peter dies by the sword. On one level it is not surprising that the death of Peter, not of Paul, is the one explicitly described in Rome, for earlier in the text the author had stated, “The city of Rome and all of Italy, Spain, Britain, and Gaul, along with the rest of the countries around them, received the apostles’ ordination to the priesthood from Simon Cephas, who went there from Antioch. He was the ruler and leader in the church that he built there and in the regions around it.”88 Simon Cephas, not Paul, was the primary figure associated with the Roman church, so the retelling of his martyrdom there would be most important. 84

Timothy and Erastus are mentioned together in Acts 19:22, and Tertullus is the orator (ῥήτορ) employed by the high priest Ananias to bring charges against Paul in Acts 24:1–9. Menaeus is not known from the New Testament and should not be confused with Paul’s alleged opponent, Hymenaeus, mentioned in 1 Tim 1:20 and 2 Tim 2:17. 85 It is notable that the Syriac text prefers Peter’s Semitic name Simon Cephas, literally Shimeon Kepha. In Syriac the form Shimeon (initial Šīn) was frequently used for Peter, so that he would not be confused with Simon (initial Semkath) the sorcerer. Greek and Latin obviously lack the ability to distinguish between these initial Sh and S sounds. 86 Doct. Apost. 40: . 87 Timothy D. Barnes has claimed with certainty that Peter was burned alive based on John 21:18–19, but the evidence he offers is far from sufficient to support his argument. See Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 5–31. He restated this theory at the 2013 Peter in Early Christianity conference at the University of Edinburgh, later published as “ ‘Another shall gird thee’: Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter,” in Peter in Early Christianity, ed. Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 76–98. His title at the Edinburgh conference, “ ‘Another shall gird thee’—Ancient Evidence vs. New Testament ‘Scholarship,’ ” is more indicative of his dismissive treatment of any alternative theory. 88 Doct. Apost. 33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

164

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

This divergence from the tradition caught the attention of at least one of the scribes who transmitted the text and felt the need to make a correction. In a manuscript in the British Museum, a scribe added at the very end the phrase “crucifying him on a cross,” thus recasting the final line: “And Nero Caesar killed him [i.e. Paul] with a sword and Simon Cephas, crucifying him on a cross in the city of Rome.”89 This alteration also requires the insertion of an implied Waw (“and”), which is not actually in the text. The addition creates a differentiation between the methods of death for Paul and Peter and brings the text in line with the dominant tradition. A subtler but equally telling addition occurred in the English translation by William Cureton. Cureton correctly left off the reference to the crucifixion but did insert an implied Waw, yielding, “And Nero the Emperor slew him [Paul] with the sword, and Simon Cephas, in the city of Rome.”90 The addition of a comma followed by “and” suggests that the reference to death by the sword should apply to what came before (i.e. the reference to Paul), while the mention of Simon Cephas is a new topic. Cureton’s version states that Simon Cephas also died in Rome at the hands of Nero, but the sword that laid Paul low does not carry over to the other apostle. Cureton does not explain the reasons for his alteration to the text, but I would interpret it a result of his reading the text through the lens of tradition.

THE LEGACY OF CONFUSION IN LATER LITERARY SOURCES The ambiguity in this Syriac text is a foreshadowing of even greater confusion among later chroniclers in Arabic, who were heavily dependent upon Syriac sources. For example, the tenth-century Islamic chronicler Abū Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarīr al-Tabarī records the following: “Nero ruled for fourteen years. He slew Peter and

89

British Museum Cod. Add. 14173. William Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents Relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the Neighboring Countries (London: Williams and Northgate, 1864), 35. 90

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

165

crucified Paul head down.”91 Here the fate of the apostles under Nero is completely reversed, with Peter being slain (the sword is implied) and Paul being crucified upside down. Another tenth-century Arabic chronicler, the Christian bishop Agapius of Menbidj,92 was equally perplexed and noted that others were, as well: “Then Nero cut off the heads of Simon Cephas and Paul. As for Simon, there are some who claim that his head was not cut off, but that his beard was cut off, and that he was crucified with his head down. Paul had his head cut off at the same time that Simon, who is the same as Peter, was crucified with his head down, in the thirteenth year of his [Nero’s] reign.”93 Agapius himself seems a bit uncertain about the details, for his statement that both apostles are decapitated is quickly followed by a caveat that others tell a different story. It is interesting that he does not simply state the tradition that Simon/Peter died by inverted crucifixion. Those who support this crucifixion account apparently must respond to a well-known account that something on Peter was cut off by Nero. They argue that it was his beard, not his head, but Agapius’ comments indicate that the story of Peter’s decapitation was known in Syriac (the language from which the bishop takes nearly all of his material), for some felt the need to counter this version. As if this first citation from Agapius were not problematic enough, he introduces further confusion when he returns just a few lines later to the apostolic martyrdoms: “Then madness seized Nero, and his reason was disturbed. He killed his mother, his aunt, and many of his relatives. He killed Peter and Paul by crucifying them head down, as we have related.”94 But Agapius had not related that story. Rather, he had just stated that Paul died by decapitation and Peter by either decapitation or crucifixion. How might we explain this discrepancy? The editor of this chronicle gives no indication of any textual problems or evidence of scribal emendation here, so the text seems secure. It might simply be the case that Agapius himself is confused by the various traditions at his disposal and chooses to transmit them all, even if they do not agree with one another. The reasons for Agapius’ 91 Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa’l-mulūk 741, in The History of al-Tabarī Volume 4: The Ancient Kingdoms, trans. Moshe Perlmann (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), 126. 92 This city in Syria was known as Hierapolis in Greek. 93 Adapted from the translation in Agapius of Menbidj, Kitab Al-‘Unvan/Histoire universelle, trans. Alexander Vasiliev, PO 7.4 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1911), 493. 94 Adapted from Agapius, Kitab Al-‘Unvan, trans. Vasiliev, 494.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

166

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

enigmatic text ultimately remain unknown, but at some point the blurring of the lines between the Petrine and Pauline traditions must have played a role. If we return from the Medieval period to late antiquity and move outside Christian literature, we find yet another example of confusion about apostolic traditions in the anti-Christian polemical text known as the Toledot Jeshu (Life of Jesus). This tractate is a mélange of defaming stories (most of them seemingly of rabbinical origin)95 about Jesus and his followers. Parts of the text could date to the third or fourth century, although the work is first attested in some semblance of a whole in the ninth century.96 Of particular interest to us is the end of the text, where the Jewish sages appeal for help in separating the followers of Jesus from the other Jews: The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha [sic], for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed to them: “I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done.” Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, “Your new moons and your feasts my 95 See e.g. Tosefta Chullin 2:22–24, where Jesus is identified as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Pantera. 96 Even after this date the text is not static, for it survives in more than one form. Advocates for an early date for this material include William Horbury (“A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Jeshu” [PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1971]), who argues for a possible third-century date; and Hugh J. Schonfield (According to the Hebrews [London: Duckworth, 1937], 214–27), who suggests a date as early as the fourth century for the original version of the text. Most scholars assume the text took shape later, e.g. Stephen Gero, “The Stern Master and His Wayward Disciple: A ‘Jesus’ Story in the Talmud and in Christian Hagiography,” JSJ 25.2 (1994): 287–311; Hillel Newman, “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature,” JTS 50 (1999): 59–79; Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), esp. 147 n. 94; Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 2–3. A middle ground is accepting the possibility of some early core material later adapted in various independent traditions. This position is espoused by Riccardo Di Segni, Il vangelo del ghetto (Rome: Newton Compton, 1985); Manuela Niesner in the introduction to Brigitta Callsen et al., eds., Das jüdische Leben Jesu Toldot Jeschu, VIÖG 39 (Vienna/Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003), 13–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

167

soul abhorreth.” They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross97 instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year98 instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.99

When we come upon this reference to “Simeon Kepha,” we certainly expect to hear about Simon/Cephas/Peter. The name is quite specific, even if the description of him as “a greatly learned man” does not necessarily fit the canonical presentation of Peter as a fisherman.100 The claim that he was a disciple of Jesus also points toward Peter, who reportedly performed healings and did travel to Antioch.101 Even the fact that Simeon Kepha supposedly told the Nazarenes to “separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices” need not necessarily surprise us, for we have already seen that in several texts Peter is presented as undermining Torah observance. The surprise comes when this figure is identified as “Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes.” Indeed, the characteristics fit Paul well: very learned, went to Antioch, performed miracles,102 and taught against strict legal observance. Yet how does the name Simeon Kepha become attached to these traits? Is Peter being confused with Paul here, or is Paul being confused with Peter? The author of this part of the text has eliminated the distinction between Simon/ 97 This is an obvious anachronism, for the True Cross was not allegedly found by Helena, Constantine’s mother, until sometime between 326 and 328 (Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. 1.17). 98 This seems to be a textual problem, because the New Year that had just been supplanted by the discovery of the True Cross is now reinstated in place of Chanukah. 99 Toledot Yeshu, trans. Morris Goldstein, in Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillan, 1950), 153–54. Goldstein does not assign section numbers in his translation. 100 Cf. Toledot Yeshu 8.1–20, trans. Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, 59–61. Schonfield translates a different version of the text, in which Simeon Kepha is also very learned and is in fact the leader of the Sanhedrin before he is forced to joins the Nazarenes in order to prevent violence against other Jews. This version knows nothing of the connection to Paul, however. 101 102 Acts 3:1–10; Gal 2:11ff. E.g. Acts 14:8–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

168

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Cephas/Peter and Paul and seems to think that the members of the early Nazarene sect also held them to be one and the same person. Although the Nazarenes are obviously viewed negatively by the author, this Peter–Paul conflation actually serves a positive purpose, “to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.” In other words, this figure solves the internal strife over issues of Torah observance by convincing the followers of Jesus to split voluntarily from the rest of the Jewish community and go their own way. This description would fit neither the canonical nor the apocryphal Peter or Paul, who sought to broker a peaceful détente between Jewish and Gentile believers. In the Toledot Yeshu, however, the problem of Jesus is finally resolved by this Peter-Paul figure, who effects a “parting of the ways” between Jesus’ followers and the rest of Israel.

CONFUSION IN CHRISTIAN ART Literature is not the only medium in which we find apostolic confusion. It also occurs in early Christian art on late Roman gold glass. In the Christian burial grounds around Rome, archaeologists have discovered the decorated bottoms of over 500 glass drinking vessels. Many of these preserve the images of martyrs, and the breakage pattern suggests that the glasses were fractured in a way that intentionally preserved the images. Scholars date these glasses to the fourth and perhaps early fifth centuries CE, so they were produced at around the same time as some of our texts. They may have been used in commemorative banquets honoring the apostles, taken home as pilgrim tokens, or given as gifts—or all of these, as I have argued elsewhere.103 Of the numerous representations of Paul and Peter, many reflect the standard iconography for these apostles. Paul is bald (or at least balding) based on the description in the Acts of Paul 1.7 and has a pointed beard. Peter has a full head of hair and beard. We see these typical presentations in Figure 5.1. Paul, on our right, is quite bald and has a beard that comes to a point. Peter has hair and a full but neatly trimmed beard. These images match the 103 David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 79–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

169

Figure 5.1. The standard iconography of Peter and Paul on gold glass. Photo Vatican Museums

iconography of numerous other apostolic images, including those on late antique sarcophagi representing the apostolic martyrdoms, on the fifth-century arch mosaic in Santa Maria Maggiore, and in a fourth-century fresco of Christ flanked by the apostles in the Catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter (not the apostle) on the Via Labicana. Indeed, the vast majority of apostolic iconography throughout history follows this ancient pattern. Among the gold glass, however, we see two other phenomena. First, the two apostles may be visually indistinguishable from each other, as we see in Figure 5.2. Both apostles have the same amount of hair and effectively the same hairstyle. There seems to be some hair on the face, punctuated by prominent beards that look almost like goatees. They wear identical clothing, even down to the brooch on the front of their garments. Only the inclusion of their names allows us to distinguish them. Such images were probably meant to emphasize the concordia apostolorum and the reception of Paul and Peter as the twin apostles of Rome. Prudentius even fashioned them the new Romulus and Remus, who had reestablished the city of Rome as a Christian capital on the banks of the Tiber.104 The apostolic twins replaced the 104

Prudentius, Perist. 12.7–58. See Eastman, Paul the Martyr, 29–35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

170

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Figure 5.2. Peter and Paul presented as the nearly indistinguishable apostolic twins on gold glass. Photo Vatican Museums

mythological twins, and in these gold vessels their “twindom” is accentuated by their identical physical appearance.105 In some sense this is the visual equivalent of the literary device discussed above, in which the words of one are presented as the words of both, but here the distinction between Paul and Peter is eradicated iconographically. The second phenomenon goes beyond this blending into outright inversion. Figure 5.3 presents an image very similar to Figure 5.1. On our left is a figure with a full head of hair, while on the right is a bald apostle, both being crowned by Christ. Both also wear tunics fastened by brooches, yet there is an important distinction. The fully locked figure on the left is identified as PAULUS, while the balding figure on the right is PETRUS. The artist has confused the apostles and switched the names attached to each figure. The bald man is on the viewer’s right, and this should be Paul, for in every other example of Roman gold glass known to me on which Peter and Paul are shown 105 It is not possible to determine if Romulus and Remus were similarly presented as identical in appearance, because Remus appears so seldom in Roman art. Apart from the image of the twins with the Lupa Romana and a few images of the boys as babies, no other known representation of Remus survives. Jocelyn Penny Small, “Romulus et Remus,” in Lexicon Iconographum Mythologicae Classicae 7.1 (Zurich: Artemis & Winkler, 1994), 644 and figs. 15, 20, 24, 25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

171

Figure 5.3. Traditional apostolic iconography on gold glass but with Peter and Paul reversed. Photo Vatican Museums

side by side, Paul is always on the viewer’s right. This is because Christ is often shown between them, and the apostle on the viewer’s left (Peter) is actually at Christ’s right hand, thus reinforcing Petrine primacy in the Roman church.106 However, in Figure 5.3 Peter is the bald one, while Paul is on the viewer’s left and at Christ’s right hand. The artist has the iconography “correct” and has aptly shown one apostle as bald and the other as amply coiffed, but the identification of these figures is reversed. The artist must have known the artistic tradition very well, for this image is a near copy of scenes like the one in Figure 5.1. How, then, might we explain this reversal? I do not think we should read this as a subversive statement against Petrine and Roman primacy, as some have argued pertaining to certain images in Ravenna that seem to favor Paul over Peter. In Ravenna a cluster of traditio legis scenes show Paul standing at Christ’s right hand receiving the 106 Vatican Museums 60619 is a gold glass fragment imbedded in plaster and at first glance seems to be an exception, for Paul is on the left. However, closer inspection shows that the names are backwards, revealing that the piece was stuck into the plaster with the side meant to be viewed (with Peter on the left) facing the plaster, not the viewer.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

172

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

law: on the Sarcophagus of the Twelve Apostles (fifth century) in the Church of S. Apollinare in Classe, on the Pietro Peccatore Sarcophagus (fifth–sixth century) in the Church of Santa Maria in Porta fuori le Mura, and on the Sarcophagus Barbatianus (fifth–sixth century). Some have read these images as propaganda reflecting Ravenna’s orientation toward Constantinople to the detriment of Rome, and this reading seems to have some merit.107 Here in Figure 5.3, however, it seems that we have a case of simple apostolic confusion. Peter and Paul were so closely linked in the Roman ecclesiastical and artistic traditions that at points it is difficult to tell them apart. This artist has unwittingly taken the next step of complete inversion, in the same way that the authors of the martyrdom accounts blended or even reversed the traditions concerning the apostolic deaths.

CONCLUSION Peter and Paul were inextricably linked from the early decades of Christianity. Taking their cue from the accounts in the canonical literature, apocryphal authors and artists paired the apostle to the Jews and the apostle to the gentiles as the two primary pillars upon which the church rested. Tensions within their relationship were deemphasized in favor of the concordia apostolorum, particularly in the Roman context, where appeals to dual apostolic foundation functioned as the justification for claims of ecclesiastical authority. Paul and Peter were so closely linked in some of the diverse martyrdom accounts, however, that the distinction between them was lost. Authors borrowed Paul’s words to put them into the mouth of Peter, or the words of one were taken as the words of both. Traditions about their deaths were inverted, as were their iconographical representations.

107 Ruth W. Sullivan, “Saints Peter and Paul: Some Ironic Aspects of Their Imaging,” AH 17 (1994): 59–80, esp. 67–68; David R. Cartlidge and J. Keith Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha (New York: Routledge, 2001), 135, 169; Giuseppe Bovini, Ravenna, trans. Robert Erich Wolf (New York: Abrams, 1969), 178; figs. 107, 108, 110; J. Weis-Liebersdorf, Christus- und Apostelbilder: Einfluss des Apokryphen auf die ältesten Kunsttypen (Freiburg im Breisbau: Herder, 1902), 69–70; T. Klauser and F. W. Deichmann, Frühchristliche Sarkophage in Bild und Wort (Olten: Urs Graf-Verlag, 1966), fig. 35.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Confusing Peter and Paul

173

In the Toledot Yeshu this process reaches its most radical outcome in the total conflation of the two apostles into a Peter–Paul hybrid, yet even this literary twist in many ways follows the trajectory of earlier literature and art. The unity of the apostles was paramount, and in some traditions the expression of this unity seems to have led to outright confusion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

6 The Apostles versus Rival Christs The previous chapters in this book have explored diversity in the narratives from the perspective of Peter and Paul. However, there are other important figures in the stories that represent their own kind of diversity and bring their own variations to the narratives. This chapter will focus on two of these, the most notorious antagonists in the martyrdom accounts, Nero and Simon the sorcerer. The analysis will demonstrate that the authors of the martyrdoms present these figures as ultimately fighting against not the apostles but their master, Jesus Christ. This is due to the fact that these authors, like some other Christian authors, present Nero and Simon as antichrist figures. Because these rival christs claim for themselves the divinity and power that belong to Christ, they persecute and even kill the true Christ’s apostles who resist them.

NERO AS A RIVAL CHRIST Nero is remembered in Roman sources as a model of excess and debauchery. Tacitus, Suetonius, and others bemoan his delusional tendencies, his scandalous behavior, and his unrestrained narcissism. In Christian sources, he is frequently identified as the first persecutor of Christians in Rome, the one who set the standard for future bloodthirsty attempts to suppress the followers of Christ.1 According to some early Christian authors, including those of martyrdom accounts, Nero is dangerous not just because he persecutes Christians 1 E.g. Tertullian, Apol. 5.3, Scorp. 15.3; Lactantius, Mort. 2.5–8; Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. eccl. 2.25.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

175

and kills the apostles, but also because he appears as a rival to Christ himself. Revelation presents Nero as a “beast” and killer of Christians.2 Contrary to some popular notions, Nero is not described as “the Antichrist” in Revelation, for there is no single Antichrist figure in Revelation or anywhere else in the New Testament.3 Nero is a rival to Christ only in the sense that he demands worship from everyone and will ultimately be defeated by Christ.4 Nonetheless, this idea of Nero as a challenge to Christ’s unique right to human adoration seems to have fed into later works. There is also reference to Nero as a rival to Christ in the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, a text dated to the beginning of the second century CE and thus possibly contemporaneous with Revelation. In this apocalyptic text, Nero is identified by the name Beliar, a name used in Jewish texts to describe an adversary of God5: After this has taken place, Beliar, the great ruler and king of this world, will descend—the one who has ruled it since it came into being. He will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, who is a lawless king and a murderer of his mother. He himself, this king, will persecute the plant that the twelve apostles of the beloved one will plant, and one of the twelve will be given over into his hands. This leader will come in the likeness of that king, and all the powers of this world will be with him and will do whatever he desires . . . He will do in the world all that he desires to do. He will act and speak like the Beloved one and will say, “I am God, and there was none before me.”6 All the people in the world will believe in him. They will offer sacrifices to him and serve him, saying, “This is God, and beside him there is no other.”7

2

Rev 13:1–18, 17:7–18. In the Johannine epistles, the antichrist is a type of person—anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ: 1 John 2:22, 4:3; 2 John 1:7. Indeed, the author makes it clear that there are many antichrists: 1 John 2:18. Some conflate this antichrist type with the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3 and the beast in Revelation, but this reflects later theological speculation, not the content of the texts themselves. 4 Rev 13:8; 14:9–11; 20:4. 5 E.g. 1QM 13.10–12; CD 4.13–18; T. 12 Patr. T. Lev. 19.1. For more about early Christian interpretations of this figure, see L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents, JSJSup (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 194–205; Antonio Acerbi, L’Ascensione di Isaia: Cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni del II secolo (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1989), 83–98. 6 7 Cf. Isa 43:10. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4:2–8. Cf. Isa 44:6. 3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

176

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Nero is not directly named, yet it is clear that he is meant, because the author refers to this king as a murderer of his mother. Nero famously assassinated his mother, Agrippina, in 59 CE (after several failed attempts).8 This was just one of many charges against the emperor, and here is added that he murdered one of the Twelve—probably a reference to Peter—and claimed divinity for himself. The author presents Nero not just as a wicked emperor and killer of Christians, but also as a false Christ. He will falsely claim for himself the title of Beloved and divine self-referential statements from the text of Isaiah—while the true Beloved, the author had already stated, is known through his twelve disciples and death, resurrection, and ascension.9 Nero will deceive and led astray many through his apparent signs and wonders. The true believers will hide while they await the return of “the crucified one, Jesus Christ the Lord,” who will finally reappear with his angels and holy armies to defeat Beliar and cast him into Gehenna.10 Nero will experience judgment as an antichrist figure. In the Sibylline Oracles, another text from the same time period as the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, Nero is presented in a similar way. He wins athletic prizes at trumped up competitions and kills many—Nero was famous for both. Eventually, he “will return making himself equal to God (εἶτ᾽ ἀνακάμψει ἰσάζων θεῷ αὑτόν), but he will prove that he is not.”11 Later he is again described as one declared equal to God, a charge punctuated by a reference to matricide: “The poets will lament for thrice-wretched Greece when from Italy a great king of great Rome, a man equal to God (ἰσόθεος ϕώς), will cut the ride of the isthmus.12 They say that Zeus himself and queen Hera begot him. Playing at theater with honeysweet songs in a melodious voice, he will kill many along with his wretched mother.”13 The direct comparison to Christ is implicit but present. Nero is hailed as having divine lineage as the offspring of Zeus and Hera. He is therefore the son of a god and “a man equal to God” in public declaration. Nero is a rival divine son and divine being, but an Italian

8

9 Tacitus, Ann. 14.1–13. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:17–18. 11 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4:10–14. Sib. Or. 5.28–34. 12 Nero attempted to cut a canal across the Isthmus of Corinth (Suetonius, Nero 19). Vestiges of this attempt are still visible at the western end of the Isthmus. 13 Sib Or. 5.137–42. 10

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

177

counterfeit compared to the true Christ. His divine acclamations are as phony as the praise he receives for his “melodious voice.”14 These texts present Nero as an antichrist figure in different ways, but the descriptions are brief and/or indirect. They nonetheless provide the background for later expansions on this idea, such as those present in some martyrdom accounts. In the Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle, the competition with Nero is more explicit. At the opening of the text, the author sets the stage for the events to follow: After various and multifarious proofs of the way and life of salvation and numerous and very famous demonstrations of miracles; and after conflicts and various struggles on behalf of the name of the true Christ had taken place against Simon the sorcerer and so many other heralds of antichrist; and after numerous sufferings, the harshness of whips, and the terrible squalor of prisons, the blessed Peter was exulting in the Lord, giving thanks both night and day with his brothers [and sisters] in a crowd of those who had come to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.15

The background to the story of Peter’s death involves miracles, conflicts, and persecution. One of these conflicts had been with Simon, one of the “heralds of antichrist.” Simon is not himself an antichrist figure but is an indication that such a figure is about to appear. After coming through all these trials, Peter is rejoicing with other believers until an antichrist figure arrives on the scene: “But when the time arrived that the faith and labors of the blessed apostle should have been rewarded, the chief of perdition—obviously the antichrist Nero, wickedness in its highest form—prevented this and ordered Peter to be bound and fettered with shackles in the foulest prison.”16 At the moment when Peter’s efforts in preaching the gospel are coming to fruition, Nero comes onto the scene. He is “the chief of perdition—obviously the antichrist Nero, wickedness in its highest form” (praeueniens perditionis caput scilicet antichristus Nero, consummata iniquitas). Nero is an antichrist not in the ontological sense that he claims divinity for himself to replace Christ, but in the sense that he attempts to thwart the gospel. Since he is not able to contend with Christ directly, he attempts to silence the “herald” of Jesus Christ, Peter. 14

Nero won prizes for music and athletics at every contest he entered—honors clearly granted because of his imperial standing, not his abilities. See Suetonius, Nero 12, 20–23, 53. 15 16 Lin. Mart. Pet. 1. Lin. Mart. Pet. 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

178

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Nero stands in opposition to Christ, “anti-Christ” in the most literal and scriptural sense (see note 3 above). Nero’s motivation to suppress Christ’s messenger becomes one of the primary driving forces in the narrative as a whole. Another approach to pitting Nero against Christ focuses on earthly power. The rivalry between Nero and Christ—political in this case— plays a central role in the plot of the Martyrdom of Paul, the final section of the Acts of Paul. After the resurrected Patroclus, Nero’s cupbearer, returns to his master alive, he proclaims that he was raised by the power of a direct threat to Nero’s kingdom: “Jesus Christ, the king of the whole world and the ages.”17 Caesar was troubled and said, “Is that one, then, going to rule throughout the ages and destroy all the kingdoms under heaven?”18 Patroclus answered and said, “Yes, for he rules in heaven and on earth, namely Jesus Christ. He destroys not only the kingdoms under heaven, but also every empire of darkness and the power of death and wicked authority.19 He alone is the one whose kingdom will have no end forever, and there is no kingdom that will escape him.”20

Patroclus’ proclamation is not of a savior in the afterlife, but of a current king who extinguishes “all the kingdoms under heaven.” Christ rules now and forever, and no kingdom can escape his rule. As Nero understands these words, he and Christ are locked in a battle for control of the Roman Empire. The situation worsens when Nero discovers that three of his chief bodyguards are also servants of this rival: “Then Justus the flat-footed (Ἰοῦστος ὁ πλατύπους), Orion the Cappadocian, and Hephaestus the Galatian, the chief bodyguards of Nero, said, ‘We are also soldiers of that eternal king.’”21 This perceived direct military threat prompts the emperor to throw all these traitors into prison and seek out any others. This expanded search ensnares Paul, who admits that he is recruiting soldiers for this rival king within Nero’s own army: Nero said to him, “Oh, man of the great king and military commander, why did it seem good to you to enter secretly into the empire of the Romans and enlist soldiers from my kingdom?” And Paul said in front of everyone, “Caesar, we levy soldiers not only from your kingdom but also from the entire world. For this has been ordained for us, that no one wishing to be a soldier for my king should be excluded.”22

17 20

1 Tim 1:17. Mart. Paul 2.

18

Cf. Dan 7:27. Mart. Paul 2.

21

19

1 Cor 15:24–26. Mart. Paul 3.

22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

179

According to Paul, no kingdom is safe from the reach of Christ’s expanding domain. Just as that king will rule over all other kingdoms, so are his agents actively enlisting soldiers from all those kingdoms. This claim sets off the chain of events that leads to Paul’s martyrdom. The Pseudo-Linus version of the Martyrdom of Paul includes this same conflict between Nero and Christ as rival kings. When Nero first punishes Patroclus for his treason, five—not just three—of the emperor’s closest servants admit that they also are in Christ’s service: “Then Barnabas, Justus, a certain Paul, Arion the Cappadocian, and Festus the Galatian,23 who were servants of Caesar and constantly attended him, said to Nero, ‘Why, Caesar, do you strike this young man, who judges rightly and responds most prudently and truthfully? For we are also soldiers of that unconquered King, Jesus Christ our Lord.’”24 Nero understands that he is in a tenuous position and later specifically asks Paul, “Why did it seem good to you to enter the kingdom of the Romans in secrecy, undermine me, and gather soldiers for that King from among the best of my army?”25 Paul’s activities are particularly nefarious, for he had entered the Roman Empire “in secrecy” (latenter), was specifically charged with undermining Nero (mihi subtrabere), and was stealing some of Rome’s best soldiers (milites de meae militiae principatu). According to these Pauline martyrdom accounts, in Nero’s mind he and Christ are rivals for political control. As a contributor to this struggle, Paul pays with his life. These sources all present Nero as an antichrist figure, but from several different perspectives. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah and the Sibylline Oracles present an ontological rivalry, with Nero claiming divine birth and essence as a manifestation of his impiety toward God and Christ. The Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle follows Revelation in painting Nero as a rival of Christ who, unable to defy Christ directly, projects his animosity onto Christ’s followers—killing the saints in Revelation and throwing Peter into prison in the Martyrdom. The Pauline martyrdom stories paint the Nero–Christ rivalry in political terms. Nero is alarmed to hear of another king who will conquer all other kingdoms and has already infiltrated Nero’s inner court. This antichrist responds by arresting, torturing, and killing many of the soldiers of this opposing king.

23

Or Festus the Gaul.

24

Lin. Mart. Paul 5.

25

Lin. Mart. Paul 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

180

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

In the three martyrdom accounts examined here, Nero’s identity as an antichrist figure is not a secondary issue. Instead, his status and activity as an antichrist are central to the narratives and lead to the apostolic deaths. In other texts, a different antichrist figure directly leads to problems for the apostles. No longer just a “herald” of antichrist—as he is described in the Pseudo-Linus Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle—Simon the sorcerer himself becomes the primary and most dangerous antichrist figure.

SIMON MAGUS AS A RIVAL CHRIST Simon the sorcerer (Simon Magus) was one of the most feared and hated figures of early Christianity. No longer just the wrongheaded new convert who, according to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, had tried to buy the ability to confer the Holy Spirit and then repented of this, he became the embodiment of all the evils associated with sorcery and of many other evils feared by Christian authors. The diabolical figure of Simon haunted the halls of early Christian imagination, and some element of conflict with Simon is central to nearly all stories about the death of Peter and to some later stories involving Paul. Simon Magus and Simon Peter were in constant conflict.26 Although in these stories he was always thwarted or even killed by Peter (or by Peter and Paul), Simon would crop up again in another guise and in another text. This reimagined and reappropriated Simon—who did not necessarily have any identifiable connection with the figure in Acts—has received attention in the scholarly literature, but the studies are generally of two types. One group focuses on the image of Simon as a magician and looks at primarily

26 The Simon story also lies behind the justification for Peter’s presence in Rome at all. According to Jerome, “After being bishop of the church in Antioch and preaching to the Diaspora of those who had believed in circumcision in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, [Peter] went to Rome in the second year of [the reign of ] Claudius to defeat Simon the sorcerer” (Vir. ill. 1: post episcopatum Antiochensis ecclesiae et praedicationem dispersionis eorum qui de circumcisione crediderant, in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia, secundo Claudii anno, ad expugnandum Simonem magum, Roman pergit).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

181

a few select texts, in particular the Acts of Peter.27 The other general category focuses on the question of Simon’s connection (or lack thereof) to Gnosticism.28 Both of these approaches have paid less attention to other early Christian sources, including other accounts of Peter and Paul’s deaths.29 In these texts the authors construct a Simon whose greatest crime, which is ultimately punished by death, is his claim to be the Christ—not a second Christ or a new Christ, but the Christ, the son of God, who had come down from heaven. Simon’s claims to being the Christ have been noted,30 but there has been no examination of this dynamic beyond generalizations. This 27 Florent Heintz, Simon “le magicien”: Actes 8, 5–25 et l’accusation de magie contre les prophètes thaumaturges dans l’antiquité (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1997); Ayse Tuzlak, “The Magician and the Heretic: The Case of Simon Magus,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 416–26; L. Cerfaux, “Simon le magicien à Samarie,” RSR 27 (1937): 615–17. 28 Alberto Ferreiro (Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval, and Early Modern Traditions [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005]) addresses both of these images of Simon in the first four chapters of this volume of collected essays. The connection of Simon with Gnosticism appears as early as Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. The studies on this topic are numerous, and scholarly opinion generally does not favor the “Gnostic Simon” hypothesis. See e.g. Stephen Haar, Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2003); Wayne A. Meeks, “Simon Magus in Recent Research,” RelSRev 3.3 (1977): 137–42; T. Adamik, “The Image of Simon Magus in the Christian Tradition,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism, ed. Jan N. Bremmer, SAAA 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 52–64; Gerd Lüdemann, “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” NTS 33.3 (1987): 420–26; R. McL. Wilson, “Simon and Gnostic Origins,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie, ed. J. Kremer, BETL 48 (Leuven: Peeters, 1979), 485–91; Gerd Theissen, “Simon Magus—die Entwicklung seines Bildes vom Charismatiker zum gnostischen Erlöser: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Gnosis,” in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments; Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Klaus Berger et al. (Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 407–32; Kurt Rudolph, “Simon—Magus oder Gnosticus? Zum Stand der Debatte,” TRuNF 42 (1977): 279–359; Karlmann Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis, WUNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974); R. Bergmeier, “Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Act 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis—Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung,” ZNW 77 (1986): 267–75. This image of Simon as the father of Gnosticism was later used as a model for accusations against Mani. See e.g. Eszter Spät, “The ‘Teachers’ of Mani in the Acta Archelai and Simon Magus,” VC 58 (2004): 1–23; Maddalena Scopello, “Simon le mage, prototype de Mani selon les Acta Archelai,” RSER 37 (1987–88): 67–79. 29 The ancient accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul are now available in a single volume: David L. Eastman, The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul, WGRW 39 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015). 30 See e.g. Alberto D’Anna, “Simon Mago Anticristo? Una nota sugli Atti di Pietro,” in L’ultimo nemico di Dio: Il ruolo dell’Anticristo nel cristianesimo antico e tardoantico, ed. Alberto D’Anna and Emanuela Valeriani (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2013), 111–38. This dynamic is also mentioned in standard reference works such as the Catholic Encyclopedia.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

182

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

section will explore the ways in which the literarily constructed Simon attempts to prove his identity as the Christ by appealing to characteristics either consistent with, or in contradiction to, the Christ of the canonical Gospels. After considering how early polemical accounts of Simon in other texts highlight his blasphemous Christological claims, I will turn to the apocryphal acts and the different narrative strategies employed by the authors of these texts to resolve the issue of Simon’s true identity for their audiences. The climactic showdowns with the apostles, in which Simon tries to fly over Rome but is struck down, are narrative strategies to resolve not primarily the conflict between Simon and the apostles, but the rivalry between Simon and the true Christ. At the same time, these dramatic scenes contradict the possible conflation of Simon Magus with Paul in a polemical text of the fourth century.

Origins of Simon in the Acts of the Apostles Simon first appears in Acts 8:9–24, where the Samaritans are amazed by Simon’s magical displays and refer to him as “the power of God that is called great.”31 However, Simon then believes in Philip’s preaching about Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God. This should be a good thing, an erstwhile magician surrendering his right to be known as the “power of God” (ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ) when he believes in Christ. All is well until Simon sees Peter and John laying hands on people to confer the Holy Spirit and desires this power for himself. Simon’s crime is apparently not desiring this power but offering money to gain it.32 Peter rebukes Simon and tells him to repent and beg for even the possibility of forgiveness. Simon, in turn, asks Peter and John to pray on his behalf, so that he might avoid the potential judgment predicted by Peter. The account in Acts as it stands is the story of a new convert who has a mistaken understanding of God’s power and is corrected very harshly by Peter. It leaves the reader with potentially ambiguous feelings toward Simon. He clearly errs in offering money to Peter and John, yet the account ends with Simon, seemingly contrite, asking for prayer on his behalf. Nothing here presents him as Peter’s nemesis. 31

Acts 8:10. Thus, the practice of purchasing or selling ecclesiastical privileges came to be known as simony. For more on this passage see e.g. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Simon Magus (Acts 8, 9–24),” ZNW 73 (1982): 52–68. 32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

183

This is not how later Christian tradition received and transmitted the figure of Simon, however. The scene in Acts was presented as only one of many showdowns between Simon the sorcerer and the other Simon, Simon Peter.33 The two Simons square off multiple times in multiple locations, but always with the same result: Simon Peter defeats Simon Magus.34 The fact that Simon had believed Philip’s preaching and accepted the Christian message is mentioned only very briefly, if at all. Instead, in the variety of places in which he appears, Simon is always a magician who is always evil and always trying to thwart Peter and his preaching. He is Peter’s archenemy, Moriarty to his Sherlock Holmes.35 There is never anything redeemable about Simon, and he certainly never receives the benefit of the doubt for his misguided request in the Acts of the Apostles. Along with figures like Marcion, Simon is prominent among the most despised villains of early Christianity.

Simon’s Divine Claims in the Heresiological Literature Apart from Acts, the earliest references to Simon come from polemical contexts,36 beginning with Justin’s First Apology (ca. 148–161 CE). Justin is the first author to place Simon in Rome and therefore marks a significant development in the tradition. He may be repeating earlier oral or even written traditions, but we have no record of these. Justin’s description of Simon places him among a group of figures prompted by demons to confuse people by claiming to be gods: 33 Martyrdom accounts in Greek and Latin tend to avoid Peter’s other biblical name, Simon, probably to avoid confusion with his primary antagonist in many of these texts, Simon the sorcerer. In Syriac martyrdom texts, however, there is a preference for identifying the apostle by his Semitic name, Shimeon (or Shimeon Kepha), instead of Peter. In Syriac the two names are clearly distinguished by the use of the letter Shin (“sh”) for Shimeon, but Semkat (“s”) for Simon. 34 As Tuzlak (“Magician and the Heretic,” 421) has commented, “For the writers and readers of these accounts, a very sharp distinction needed to be drawn between magic and miracle; this distinction served to remind Christians that what they were doing was not temporary, illusory, or petty like ‘magic’.” 35 Pál Herczeg has referred to Simon as “a counterfeit of the apostle Peter” (“Theios Aner Traits in the Apocryphal Acts of Peter,” in Bremmer, Apocryphal Acts of Peter, 38). 36 Haar analyzes many of these texts through the lens of accusations of Gnostic teaching in Simon Magus, 83–112.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

184

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

There was a Samaritan, Simon, from a village called Gitto, who under Claudius Caesar performed powerful acts of magic in your royal city of Rome through the work of demons operating within him. He was thought to be a god and was honored as a god among you with a statue, which was erected on the river Tiber between the two bridges and has this inscription written in the Roman language: To Simon the holy God. Almost all the Samaritans, and a few people even from other nations, worship him even up to now and profess that he was the first god.37

Justin states that Simon was one of many to deceive people into believing that he was a deity. His proof for Simon’s divine status as the “first god” (τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν ἐκεῖνον) in the eyes of the Romans is an inscription along the Tiber. There is a famous problem in this text, however, for Justin has misread or misinterpreted the inscription. What he reports as “To Simon the holy God” (Σίμωνι Δέῳ Σάγκτῳ = Latin Simoni deo sancto) is almost certainly the inscription on an altar base currently in the Vatican Museum that actually reads “To the god Semo Sancus” (Semoni sanco deo).38 The inscription and statue honor Semo Sancus, one of the most ancient of Roman deities, who oversaw the swearing of oaths, treaties, and contracts. Justin’s evidence that Simon was considered a god, therefore, seems to be misinformed.39 Nevertheless, the apologist introduces a link between Simon and claims to divinity, and subsequent Christian authors built upon this link and made more explicit the christological connection. Writing a few decades later (ca. 180 CE), Irenaeus of Lyons expands upon Justin’s accusation against Simon. In his treatise Against Heresies, he proposes that Simon was so wounded by his encounter with the apostles Peter and John (in Acts) that he purposed to oppose them in any way he could. In Irenaeus’ words, Simon “applied himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, so that he might seem to be amazing, and dedicated himself with even greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, so that he might thus astonish large numbers of people.”40 Irenaeus then states that the Emperor Claudius had honored Simon with a statue because of his magical powers and that 37

Justin, 1 Apol. 26.2–3. See e.g. Otto Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., UALG 96 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 129–34. 39 Kurt Rudolph suggests that the followers of Simon were the actual source of this confusion. See Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. and ed. R. McL. Wilson (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 1983), 295. 40 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.1. 38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

185

many praised Simon as if he were a god. Justin is almost certainly his source for this account of Simon’s statue and recognition as a god. Irenaeus knew the works of Justin, for he cites Justin’s (now lost) Treatise against Marcion as one of his sources for Against Heresies.41 Therefore, Irenaeus perpetuates Justin’s misreading of the Semo Sancus inscription and misinterpretation of its implications. Yet, Irenaeus goes beyond mere recitation and engages in expansion. His explanation of Simon’s motivation for a lifelong vendetta against the apostles does not come from Justin, at least as far as we know. Nor does Justin provide what follows in Irenaeus’ account, in which Simon taught that he was the one who appeared among the Jews as the Son (quasi Filius), and descended in Samaria as the Father (quasi Pater), and came to other nations as the Holy Spirit (quasi Spiritus sanctus). He taught that he was the greatest power—that is the Father who is over all—and he allowed himself to be called whatever men called him.42

This is a more serious set of accusations against Simon. Not only did he allow some people to worship him as a god; he actively promoted himself as the God. Simon allegedly claimed that he was the one, true God—not another deity to be added to the Roman pantheon, and not even just the “first god”—but the “Father who is over all” (qui sit super omnia Pater). Although he was the Father, he had also “appeared among the Jews as the Son.” Irenaeus thus provides the first record of a claim by Simon to be the Christ of the Gospels—a Modalist, counterfeit Son who had lived among the Jews. The wickedness of Simon is shown further in that his heresy included not only Modalism, but also Docetism. In Irenaeus’ telling, Simon goes on to assert that he had “descended, transfigured, and assimilated to the authorities, powers, and angels,43 so that among men he might appear to be a man, although he was not a man, and may be thought to have suffered in Judea, although he had not suffered” (ut et in hominibus homo appareret ipse, cum non esset homo, et passum autem in Iudaea putatum, cum non esset passus).44 Simon thus alleges that the crucified Christ of the New Testament had

41

Justin refers to this work in 1 Apol. 26.8, a citation repeated in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.11.10. Irenaeus also refers to it in Haer. 4.6.2, repeated in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.18.9. 42 43 44 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.1. Cf. Eph 6:12. Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

186

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

been a ruse, Simon himself in disguise. Yes, he was truly divine, but he had not truly been human. He only appeared so to the people of that time, such that they even believed that he had suffered on the cross. The entire Christ story was a farce instigated and perpetuated by Simon himself, who had duped all the followers of this supposed Christ. Irenaeus’ source for these brazen claims ascribed to Simon is unknown. It is a substantial shift to move from alleging that Simon was considered a god by some to alleging that Simon had claimed ultimate divinity for himself and boasted that he had deceived so many by feigning to be the incarnate Jewish Messiah. Irenaeus never explains the basis for these accusations against Simon, but the propagation of this story had substantial repercussions in later tradition. Just as Irenaeus was dependent on Justin, so Tertullian depended on Irenaeus. Irenaean influence has long been recognized in Tertullian’s language concerning the virgin birth45 and his concept of the church as the only legitimate repository of faith and interpretation of scriptural revelation.46 On the matter of Simon, we see another direct connection. In On the Soul, Tertullian repeats that Simon turned against the apostles after the events in Acts and set his sights on a lifetime of revenge. He also follows Irenaeus in stating that Simon thereafter traveled around with a prostitute named Helena.47 However, Tertullian adds the provocative detail that Simon took the money he tried to give to the apostles and bought this prostitute. She was purchased with the exact same coins that Simon had been holding in his hands when he had his encounter with Peter and John. Moreover, Tertullian continues, Simon “even pretended to be the supreme Father,”48 and as in Irenaeus, those who had believed in the physical presence of a human Christ had been fooled, for Simon had “presented himself as a man among men and falsely showed himself as the Son in Judea and the Father in Samaria.”49 Hence, Tertullian also renews the charge of Modalism against Simon. The subsequent influence of the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian ensured that this story of Simon’s claim to be the Christ would be well known among both Greek- and Latin-speaking Christians. Yet this

45

Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 17. This is especially evident in Tertullian’s Praescr. 47 48 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.2. Tertullian, An. 34.3. 49 Tertullian, An. 34.4. These charges against Simon are later repeated by Filastrius of Brescia (Haer. 29.2) and Epiphanius of Cyprus (Pan. 1.21.1–2). 46

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

187

Christ, the Simonian Christ, was in some sense an antichrist, for he subverted many of the central claims about Christ championed by Irenaeus and Tertullian, among others. He was not a real human being with real flesh. He did claim to be God, but he was not the Son of the Father, not part of the divine economia as expressed in Scripture. Importantly, he had not suffered on the cross. Simon’s antichrist was a fraud that had deceived the simpleminded. This Simon was not just a misguided convert but a threat to the very foundations of the faith. This Simon was a figure Christians could easily learn to hate, and whose followers they could easily learn to fear. Writing not long after Tertullian, “Hippolytus” of Rome50 addresses Simon’s claims to Christhood in his Refutation of all Heresies (Philosophoumena). In the midst of a long passage outlining Simon’s numerous errors, “Hippolytus” compares Simon to a Libyan named Apsethus, who had claimed to be a god and had trained parrots to repeat the expression, “Apsethus is a god.” This would-be god was proven false, and a certain Greek taught the parrots to say, “Apsethus put us in a cage and forced us to say, ‘Apsethus is a god.’”51 The exposed Apsethus was finally burned alive, and now Simon has trained his own parrots (his deluded followers) to proclaim his divinity: In this way we must think about Simon the sorcerer, comparing him more readily to the Libyan rather than to the one who was God become man. If the assertion of this similarity is accurate, and the sorcerer experienced suffering that was similar to Apsethus, then let us undertake to reeducate the parrots of Simon that Simon was not the Christ who stood, who stands, and who will stand (ὅτι Χριστὸς οὐκ ἦν Σίμων ὁ ἑστὼς στὰς στησόμενος). But [Christ] was a man, the offspring of the seed of a woman, born of blood and the will of the flesh, just like all other men.52

50 The authorship of this work remains a matter of considerable debate, with some still arguing for Hippolytan authorship and others arguing for a pseudepigraphical author or even an author with no connection to the Hippolytan tradition. For a recent summary of the debate, see M. David Litwa, Refutation of all Heresies, WRGW 40 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), xxxii–xlii. Due to the ongoing ambiguity, I will refer to the author as “Hippolytus.” 51 Hippolytus, Haer. 6.8.4. 52 Hippolytus, Haer. 6.9.1–2. Simon’s self-referential tripartite formula of being one “who stood, who stands, and who will stand” (ἑστὼς στὰς στησόμενος) is repeated in Haer. 6.18.4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

188

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

Simon is like the deceptive Libyan and should not be confused with the true Christ, Jesus. Christ was God but was also made man; he was born of a woman and fully partook of the blood and flesh of the human condition—another implicit critique of Simon’s Docetism. At the same time, Christ is the eternal one.53 Ontologically and functionally, Simon is wholly different, and his parrots—his gullible disciples—also need now to be retrained. The true Christ stands alone. As further proof of Simon’s falsehood, the author highlights the sorcerer’s Docetism and Modalism. “Hippolytus” repeats a charge taken directly from Irenaeus, namely that Simon and his followers had inserted the sorcerer into the Christ story: He appeared as a man but was not a man, and he seemed to suffer in Judea when he did not suffer. But he appeared to the Jews as the Son, but in Samaria as the Father, and among the other nations as the Holy Spirit (ἀλλὰ ϕανέντα Ἰουδαίοις μὲν ὡς υἱόν, ἐν δὲ τῇ Σαμαρείᾳ ὡς πατέρα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν ὡς πνεῦμα ἅγιον). And he allowed men to call him whichever name they wanted to call him.54

The author sets out to distinguish this imposter (τοῦ πλάνου) and false Christ from the true one. Simon was a Docetic deceiver and had attributed the characteristics of the true divinity to himself. Simon and the Simonians then further polluted the understanding of the true God by claiming that the three persons of the Trinity were in fact manifestations of the same figure, Simon himself. This Modalist distortion, according to the author, further proved the depth of Simon’s crimes. Later in this text, “Hippolytus” alleges that Simon’s claims to being the Christ led directly to his death. He repeats the story of Simon’s prowess as a sorcerer in Samaria and his aggressive opposition to Christianity after he is rebuked by Peter. He reports that Simon came to Rome, where he met “repeated opposition” from Peter, despite continuing to amaze and deceive the crowds with his magic. Eventually, Simon was on the verge of being revealed as a fraud—“He was about to be convicted” of practicing magic, “Hippolytus” says—so he launched a desperate plan. Christ had risen from the dead on the third day, so Simon would prove his legitimacy by repeating that feat: “He said that, if he were buried alive, he would rise again on the third 53

Cf. Rev 1:8.

54

Hippolytus, Haer. 6.19.6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

189

day. Thus, after ordering his disciples to dig a ditch, he ordered that he be buried. They did what was commanded, but he has remained there until now, for he was not the Christ.”55 “Hippolytus’” ridiculing sarcasm in this final line is palpable. Simon’s folly led to his death, although if he was on the verge of being convicted as a magus and potentially burned alive (like the infamous Apsethus), then his death at the hands of the Roman authorities may have been imminent anyway.56 These additions by “Hippolytus” are significant, for he presents a Simon who attempts to claim Christhood in consonance with the events in the Gospels. Simon does not say that he was God pretending to be a man in Jesus Christ; rather, he actually was the Christ and could prove it by rising from the dead again. Of course, “Hippolytus” delights in the fact that Simon’s attempt to prove this fails. Our next sources come from the corpus of texts traditionally but incorrectly ascribed to Clement of Rome. Because Clement was considered the second, or third, or fourth bishop of Rome— depending on who was telling the story57—he stood as an important link in the chain of authority and preaching from the apostles to their successors. Stories of his life and association with Peter followed. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies represent different fourth-century recensions of an earlier text, the Periodoi Petrou (Circuits of Peter), likely composed in Syria in the first half of the third century. While the frame narrative and nomenclature suggest that Clement is the main character, both recensions in fact revolve around the person and teaching of Peter. Peter is presented as the 55

Hippolytus, Haer. 6.20.3. Suspicion, and even legal suppression, of those labeled sorcerers was a feature of the Roman world: “There was the danger of being prosecuted for magic-working under the law; then there were the police actions that the authorities might take at any given time to eliminate magic-workers from their midst, either executing them or expelling them” (Matthew W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World [London: Routledge, 2001], 142). See also several essays in the volume A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment, ed. M. Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2007): Michael Becker, “Μάγοι—Astrologers, Ecstatics, Deceitful Prophets: New Testament Understanding in Jewish and Pagan Context,” 87–107; Stanley E. Porter, “Magic in the Book of Acts,” 107–21; Ulrike Riemer, “Fascinating but Forbidden: Magic in Rome,” 160–72. 57 Clement is listed as the second bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter, in the apocryphal Epistle of Clement to James (2); Tertullian, Praescr. 32; and Abd. Pass. Pet. 15. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.6.1–2) place Clement fourth in the line of Roman bishops, while the Liberian Catalog lists him third (Theodor Mommsen, ed., MGH.AA 9 Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI.VII. [Berlin: Weidmann, 1892], 73). 56

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

190

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

representative of the “true prophet,” Jesus Christ.58 His primary opponent is the false Christ, Simon Magus, who attempts to lead people astray with his heresies. Simon denies the resurrection of the dead and presents the creator of this world as an inferior being.59 He also denies the existence of a divine son and asserts that Moses and Jesus are ignorant of the true, incomprehensible God.60 Such passages present Simon as a peddler of Gnostic ideas, denying the goodness of the material world and its creator. As a result, there are repeated confrontations between Simon and the apostle throughout the text. Early in the Recognitions, which survives mainly in a Latin translation by Rufinus, Simon reportedly makes an explicit claim to being the Christ. James, here identified as the bishop of Jerusalem, had received a letter from a certain Zacchaeus in Caesarea complaining of the presence and influence of Simon: A certain Simon, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was the one who stands (adserentern se esse quendam Stantem)—that is, in other words, that he was the Christ and the highest power of the exalted God, who is greater than the creator of the world. At the same time, he showed many wonders and caused some to doubt and others to turn away to him.61

Simon identifies himself as a Christ who is not the son of the creator God but is in fact superior to that God, for the material world and its creator are inferior beings. Simon performs seemingly miraculous deeds that cause some to doubt and others to accept his assertions completely. In response, James sent Peter to Caesarea to expose Simon’s deceptions and destroy his influence. This is the beginning of an extended debate and confrontation between the sorcerer and the apostle, with the latter ultimately disproving the blasphemous claims of the former. Simon lays claim to Christhood elsewhere in the text, as well, but does so implicitly by presenting himself as the product of a miraculous conception: Do not think that I am a man of your race. I am neither a magician, nor a lover of Luna,62 nor the son of Antonius. For before my mother Rachel and he came together, and while she was still a virgin, she conceived me 58

59 Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1.19; 3.21, 26. Ps.-Clem., Rec. 1.54; 2.37, 53. 61 Ps.-Clem., Rec. 2.49. Ps.-Clem., Rec. 1.72. 62 This reference is obscure. In the Roman period Luna, the moon goddess, played a role in the iconography of Mithraism. Perhaps Simon is attempting to distance himself from that group or from astrology more generally. 60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

191

when it was in my power to be either small or great and to appear as a man among men.63 Therefore, I have chosen you first as my friends, so that I may test you and place you first in my heavenly and unspeakable places after I have proven you. Thus, I have pretended to be a man, so that I might more clearly discern if you love me with full affection.64

The elements of Simon’s story are specific in their parallels to the Gospel narratives. His seeming human father, Antonius, is not actually his father. He was conceived by the virgin Rachel before Antonius and Rachel had consummated their union. Unlike the biblical story, in which the Holy Spirit is credited with the conception, here Simon decides to enter Rachel’s womb of his own free will. He is both the conceiver and the conceived. He exercises his power to “appear as a man among men” (hominem inter homines apparere) and then “pretended to be a man” (humana ergo de me ipso mentitus sum), in order to discern who really loves him. He will place first in his “heavenly and unspeakable places” those who pass the test as his “friends.” This perplexing Simon figure may be read as both a type of Christ and an antichrist. Like the Christ of the Gospels, he is born of a virgin, and his human father is not his real father. He promises a heavenly existence for those who follow him and calls them his “friends,” just as Jesus had done.65 On the other hand, Simon explicitly states that he is in fact not a man. He is God only pretending to be a man, reminiscent of the charges against Simon levied by Irenaeus and Tertullian. His is a rival miraculous conception, but not a rival incarnation, because he is not truly incarnate. He is a phantasm, a Docetic antichrist who challenges some basic beliefs about the Christ of the Gospels by ascribing them to himself, while also undermining their validity. For the fourth-century editor of the Recognitions, there is no greater proof of Simon’s utter wickedness than his blasphemous claim to replace the true Christ of the Scriptures with a false, Docetic one. The Homilies also include a description of Simon’s false teaching and Messianic claims. This debauched Samaritan makes blasphemous statements: “But sometimes hinting that he is the Christ, he calls 63 Although the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies is parallel to the Recognitions in many places, this parody of Jesus’ miraculous conception is not found there. 64 Ps.-Clem., Rec. 2.14. 65 John 15:15: “I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything that I heard from my Father.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

192

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

himself the one who stands (ἑστῶτα προσαγορεύει) . . . He rejects Jerusalem and puts Mount Gerizim in its place. He sets himself up against the one who is our Christ” (ἀντὶ τοῦ ὄντος Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύει).66 Simon’s claim to being the “one who stands” is paralleled in the Recognitions and therefore likely goes back to the source text, the Periodoi Petrou. The author makes much of Simon’s identity as a Samaritan, which causes him to favor Mount Gerizim over Jerusalem. Gerizim, in the hill country of Samaria, was, according to Samaritan tradition, the scene of several important events. Abraham camped here, later nearly sacrificed Isaac, and met with Melchizedek nearby.67 Jacob was sleeping on top of this mountain when he had his famous dream of the ladder reaching to heaven.68 The patriarch dedicated this place to God, so here the Samaritans celebrated Passover in their own rival temple until it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in the second century BCE.69 From the Jewish perspective, Gerizim was the site of polluted worship, and the text of the Homilies suggests that Simon represents analogous polluted worship in promoting himself in place of the true Christ. Epiphanius of Cyprus likewise condemned Simon and the Simonians for their distorted teachings. Much of his material is derivative of early heresiologists, but a few select passages illustrate that Epiphanius likewise considered Simon to be a false Christ. His deceived followers believed that “he was the great power of God and had come down from on high. Among the Samaritans he said that he was the Father, but among the Jews he said that he was the Son who had suffered yet not suffered, because he only seemed to suffer” (τὸν πατέρα δὲ ἔλεγεν ἑαυτὸν τοῖς Σαμαρείταις, Ἰουδαίοις δὲ ἔλεγεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, παθόντα δὲ μὴ πεπονθέναι. ἀλλὰ δοκήσει μόνον).70 The Docetic nature of Simon’s teaching is seen again in Epiphanius’ claims. While in “Hippolytus” Simon himself dies as a result of his delusion, in Epiphanius others also suffer: “He came out in public under the guise of the name of Christ—as if he were mixing hellebore with honey, slipped poison into the dignity of the name of Christ for those trapped by him in his deplorable error, and brought death to those who had been persuaded.”71 At the center of this ruse is his 66

67 68 Ps.-Clem., Hom. 2.22. Gen 12:6; 14:17. Gen 28:11–22. Samaritans continue to celebrate Passover at the mountain to this day, despite the lack of a temple. 70 71 Epiphanius, Pan. 21.1.3. Epiphanius, Pan. 21.2.1. 69

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

193

attempt to pass himself off as the true Christ. Those seeking God were misled, persuaded, and then poisoned to death—spiritual death in this case. Simon’s treachery is ultimately fatal to the poor souls whom he had led astray. The early apologists and heresiologists construct a Simon who is presented as the ultimate example of a dangerous false teacher.72 Jesus was not the only figure in that period to be associated with messianic claims or to be considered divine; there were other supposed Christs and other so–called sons of God,73 so how were believers to tell true from false? Simon represents the ultimate cautionary tale. He seemed to have great power and enjoyed great acclaim as a result, but his claims to divinity and his denial of the scriptural version of the incarnation, among other things, showed his true colors. Anyone claiming the power and privilege of God or Christ had revealed himself as a counterfeit Christ and should be avoided. “Hippolytus” represents a common distaste for the sorcerer with his macabre sense of satisfaction that Simon received his just deserts by dying as a result of his hubris and self-delusion.

Simon as an Antichrist in the Apocryphal Acts The apocryphal acts of Peter and Paul, and in particular their various martyrdom accounts, represent another body of evidence concerning Simon’s Christological claims. Three such accounts are of particular interest for the image of Simon as the Christ: (1) The Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (Pass. Holy Pet. Paul) is a text produced in Latin probably in the fifth or sixth century. It is also referred to as Pseudo-Marcellus, because a notation at the end of some manuscripts ascribes it to a certain Marcellus, a character that appears in the text but cannot be the author.74 (2) The Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul (Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul) draws heavily from text (1) and a section 72

Warnings against false teachers are numerous in early Christian literature, e.g. the Pauline epistles and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. 73 See e.g. Richard A. Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (London: Bloomsbury, 1999); Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 74 This Latin text was soon translated into Greek in the form of what is known as the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. I will focus my analysis on the Latin but note in the footnotes the Greek parallels, where they are present.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

194

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

from Pseudo-Hegesippus’ treatise On the Destruction of the City of Jerusalem.75 Based upon the layers of reworking and the demonstrated literary dependence, a date in the latter sixth or early seventh century is most likely. (3) The Passion of Saint Peter (Abd. Pass. Pet.) is written in Latin and is part of a larger cycle of apocryphal acts ascribed to Pseudo-Abdias. According to tradition, Abdias was a follower of the apostles who became the first bishop of Babylon and recorded these stories in Hebrew, later translated into Greek and then Latin. Historically speaking, there is no substance to any of these claims, and textual evidence suggests that the Pseudo-Abdias legends are the product of a late sixth-century, Latin hand (with no Hebrew or Greek Vorlagen). These three texts are thematically connected in that the authors/ editors all present Simon as the primary antagonist, whose claims to Christhood are critical to the flow and resolution of the narrative. Rather than treating each text independently, I will integrate them into a consideration of the lifecycle of the biblical Christ. This integrative approach will permit us to analyze the ways in which Simon is presented as inserting himself at critical points along that lifecycle. Let us begin, then, at the beginning. Here we turn first to PseudoAbdias, who, like the author of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, presents Simon’s version of how he entered the world: “I am the first power, who is forever and without beginning. However, I entered the uterus of Rachel and was born from her, so that I might be able to be seen by men as a man.”76 Simon calls himself the “first power” (prima uirtus) and indicates that he is eternal. This “first power” may be related to the “great power of God” language in Acts 8:10; however, a more likely interpretation is that Pseudo-Abdias is picking up the tradition from Irenaeus linking Simon to Gnosticism. Irenaeus asserts that Menander, Simon’s successor, affirmed the existence of a “first power (primam quidem Uirtutem) that is unknown to all, but he himself is the one who was sent by the invisible ones as a savior for the salvation of men.”77 The connection of the “first power” to a divine appearance among humans also appears in the Pistis Sophia, where Jesus says he visited Mary in the form of Gabriel: “When she turned toward the heavens toward me, I cast into her the first power (ⲛ̅ ⲧϣⲟⲣ̅ ̅ⲡ̅ ⲛ̅ ϭⲟⲙ) that I had received from Barbēlō, namely the body 75 76

Most of Pseudo-Hegesippus, in turn, comes from Josephus’ Jewish War. 77 Abd. Pass. Pet. 9. Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

195

that I bore in the heavens.”78 In the Apocryphon of John, Barbēlō itself is described as the “first power”(ⲧϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛϭⲟⲙ),79 while the Dialogue of the Savior refers to a destructive figure called the “first power of darkness” (ⲧϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛ̅ ϭⲟⲙ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ).80 The claim to being the “first power,” therefore, had multiple possible resonances with competing notions of God and traditions about Jesus, none of them positive for the author of this text.81 As in the Recognitions, Simon claims to have entered Rachel’s womb by his own power as both conceiver and conceived and appears to be a man, when in fact he is not. Simon’s body is not real, and his story challenges the claims of the followers of Jesus. His anti-incarnation stands in opposition to the incarnate Messiah. Elsewhere, Simon also claims a heavenly provenance. In the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, there is an extended debate between Simon and Peter and Paul over their respective identities and claims to authority. In defending his own legitimacy, Simon tells Nero, “Hear me, good emperor. I am the Son of God who descended from heaven.”82 In the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Simon asserts his heavenly identity earlier in his interactions with Nero— even before Nero rises to the imperial throne—but here again the issue arises as a measure of self-protection. When Nero realizes that Simon is gifted in the arts of sorcery, he orders soldiers to arrest him. Simon magically disappears, and Nero is amazed. After Nero becomes emperor, Simon visits him once again and freely offers his services, which Nero eagerly accepts. Now under the protection of the emperor, Simon responds to Nero’s inquiry concerning his origin: “I was born in Phoenicia (ex Fenice) but was sent from the East by the divine majesty, so that the Jews would believe the things that I was saying to them.”83 The term “Phoenicia” is being used here as a general, archaizing reference to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, which would include Samaria; and Simon tells Nero that he was sent by divine fiat first to the Jews, again mimicking the life of Jesus.

78

79 80 Pist. soph. 1.8. Ap. John 4.30. Dial. Sav. 3. On the association of “Great Power” language with Samaritanism and later Gnosticism, see Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985), 162–91. 82 83 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 15. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 2. 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

196

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

The final line of Simon’s statement points to another comparison with the life of Christ. Besides being the Son of God who had come from heaven and gone through at least the appearance of being born of a woman, Simon also went to, and was rejected by, the Jews, even to the point of death. Simon states that he was sent “so that the Jews would believe the things that I was saying to them.” He admits that his mission was unsuccessful, however: “Not only did those people refuse to believe me, but they even nailed me to a cross, and after the third day I was raised from the dead.”84 Nero believes Simon’s claims and later introduces him to the Senate in this way: “Senators, God sent a great man to our country. Here he is, a man whom the Jews beat and handed over for death.”85 Thus, Simon appears to have fulfilled the basic outline of the Gospel accounts of Christ by being rejected by the majority of the Jews and handed over for crucifixion, before rising from the dead. What, then, of Jesus of Nazareth? What was to be made of him and his followers? In the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Simon goes on the offensive on this issue: On the next day, when Simon the sorcerer and the apostles of Christ, Peter and Paul, went in to Nero, Simon said, “Here are the disciples of that Nazarene, and it is not so good a thing for them that they are from the common folk of the Jews.” Nero said, “What is a Nazarene?” Simon said, “There is a city in Judea that always acts against you and is called Nazareth. Their teacher was from there.” Nero said, “God admonishes and esteems every man, so why do you persecute them?” Simon said, “This is the race of men who have perverted all of Judea, so that they do not believe in me.”86

Simon opens with a condemnatory reference to “that Nazarene” (illius Nazareni) and a dismissive swipe at Peter and Paul for being members of the Jewish rabble. Nero understands the insult based on their social class, but he is curious about “that Nazarene.” Simon gives a strategic response, namely that Nazareth is a seedbed of rebellion “in Judea.”87 Anyone who comes from there, including the teacher of Peter and Paul, cannot be trusted. Upon further questioning Simon adds that the Nazarene and his followers “have perverted all of Judea, Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 2. Cf. John 1:11: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” 85 86 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 4. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 16–17. 87 Nazareth is in Galilee, not in Judea, but this distinction is ignored in the text. 84

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

197

so that they do not believe in me.” This is his real problem with Peter and Paul and their teacher: They deny that Simon is who he says he is and have deceived the Jews into denying him, as well. Simon also claims superiority over Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore a superior claim to Christhood, based on his superior powers. In the Pseudo-Abdias Passion of Saint Peter, Simon turns the charge of being a sorcerer back on Peter and attacks his master: All your words are empty, however, and you are not able to demonstrate any true deed—just like the one who sent you was a sorcerer who was not able to free himself from the penalty of the cross. I can disappear from those wanting to seize me but appear again when I want to be seen.88 If I wanted to flee, then I would bore through the mountains and pass through stones like clay. If I throw myself headlong from a high mountain, I will bring myself to the earth unhurt, as if I were carried down. If chained, I will free myself and send back in chains those who had enchained me. If bound in prison, I will cause the bars to be opened spontaneously.89

In this passage we see a subtle mixture of allusions to Gospel stories that creates the picture of a superior antichrist figure. The most explicit argument is that Peter’s master “was not able to free himself from the penalty of the cross.” Like those who mocked Jesus as he hung on the cross,90 Simon alleges that if Jesus’ power had been real and divine, then certainly he would have used it to escape crucifixion. He did not, because he could not. From this main point flows a series of subpoints about Simon’s ability to control his circumstances as a means of self-protection. He can escape the grasp of those wanting to seize him, which is reminiscent of Jesus’ escapes from crowds on several occasions.91 That Simon could throw himself from a mountain and land safely is reminiscent of Matt 4:5–7 and the parallel in Luke 4:9–12, where Satan tempts Jesus to throw himself down from the temple. Jesus did not, or from Simon’s perspective Jesus could not, because he lacked the power to guarantee a safe landing. The comparison with the temptation narratives in Matthew and Luke has additional resonance with these claims by Simon, for Satan had tempted Jesus by quoting Ps 91:11–12: “He will command his

88 90 91

89 Cf. Ps.-Clem., Rec. 2.9. Abd. Pass. Pet. 9. Mark 15:29–32; Matt 27:29–44; Luke 23:35–37. E.g. John 7:44 and John 10:39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

198

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.” The reference to angels is narrative foreshadowing, for when the time comes for Simon to fly over Rome in these various accounts, he makes explicit reference to the role of his “angels” in accomplishing this feat. His angels, because he is the true Christ, are superior to Jesus’ angels, because they can guarantee his safety when he leaps from a great height. Indeed, in the Passion of Saint Peter by PseudoAbdias, when Simon begins to fly over Rome, “Many were indeed saying that this was the power of a god, not of a man, who was flying with a body into heaven. And many said that Christ had never done anything like this.”92 Simon was doing with the help of his “angels”— momentarily, at least—what the rival Christ, Jesus, had never done, thus proving that his claim to Christhood was superior. If we return to the list of claims by Simon, we find that he allegedly could escape any prison and even bind those who had tried to bind him. While Jesus claims in Matthew 26:53 that he could summon twelve legions of angels to help him escape, he obviously in fact could not, according to Simon, because he had failed to save himself from crucifixion. The religious leaders and Roman officials did whatever they pleased to Jesus, and he seemingly had no power to offer the kind of defense that Simon asserts he would in such circumstances. In addition to these comparative claims, Simon is presented as making other straightforward declarations about his own Christhood by appropriating the words of Jesus and applying them to himself. During the verbal sparring between the sorcerer and the apostles in the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, for example, Simon claims that Paul and Peter have colluded against him and responds by alluding to Jesus’ words: “Good emperor, look at the conspiracy of these two against me. Indeed I am the truth,93 and they turn their thoughts against me.”94 Just as Jesus had responded to his dubious disciples in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” so does Simon now offer a similar retort to the doubting apostles. The Latin here, ego enim sum ueritas, is nearly identical to the Vulgate of John,

92

Abd. Pass. Pet. 18. Cf. John 14:6, in direct response to Peter’s words above. 94 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 40: bone imperator, intellege conspirationem horum duorum aduersum me. ego enim sum ueritas et isti aduersum me sapiunt. Parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 61. 93

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

199

ego sum . . . ueritas, so the literary allusion would have been evident to the audience of this Passion.95 Further on in this same exchange, Simon again borrows the words of the Johannine Jesus: Peter said, “I preach that there is one God, the Father, in Christ the Savior, together with the Holy Spirit, the creator of all things. He made heaven and earth, the sea and everything that is in them. He is the true king, and his kingdom will have no end.”96 Nero said, “Who is this king and lord?” Paul said, “The savior of all nations.” Simon said, “I am the one about whom you are speaking.”97

The Latin ego sum quem dicitis evokes the “I am” (ego sum) statements in John 8:24, 8:58, and 9:9, in which Jesus most clearly claims divinity by linking himself to God’s self-identification in the Hebrew Scriptures.98 The emphatic “I am” spoken by Simon reflects his counter-claims to that same divinity. The Greek translation makes this connection even more clearly, for there Simon uses the expression ἐγὼ εἰμί, which goes back not just to the Fourth Gospel but also to the Septuagint of Exodus and Isaiah.99 The Johannine Christ boldly proclaims his own place among the Godhead by employing the special divine name in a self-referential way, and Simon declares that he, as the Christ, is simply making those proclamations again. Peter and Paul flatly reject Simon’s claim, placing him in the category of previous counterfeits. As Peter states, “Before us there were false christs, like Simon, and there were false apostles, and there were false prophets, who came against the sacred writings and were eager to nullify the truth.”100 Simon is a liar and destroyer of the Scriptures and the truth they contain, but in this he is nothing new or special. He is simply the latest iteration of an old problem.

Unmasking Simon as a False Christ Simon’s claim to being the Christ in these accounts effectively deceives many people, including Nero himself, so the authors must

95 The Greek Acts Pet. Paul 61 has ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια, very close to the Greek of John 14:6: ἐγὼ εἰμι . . . ἡ ἀλήθεια. 96 This creedal statement is taken from the Latin form of the NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed and scriptural passages such as Ps 146:6; Luke 1:33. 97 98 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 48. E.g. Exod 3:14; Isa 52:6. 99 100 Acts Pet. Paul 69: ἐγώ εἰμι ὃν λέγετε. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

200

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

provide a resolution that unmasks the sorcerer’s true identity.101 In the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Nero is initially misled when Simon appears to prove that he is the Christ by repeating the feat of rising from the dead. Simon convinces the emperor (who is reluctant at first) to have him beheaded in a dark place, saying that he will then confirm his power through resurrection. Simon uses the cover of darkness to trick the dimwitted executioner into killing a ram in his place, and its head is put into a basket and sealed. After a few days, Nero asks to see it, convinced that Simon chose death instead of punishment, “because he was not able to prove that he himself was that very famous Christ.”102 The emperor opens the basket and finds the head of the ram. Amazed, he tells the Senate what has occurred. On the third day after his supposed execution, Simon appears alive to Nero in the Senate chamber: “I am the one whom you ordered to be decapitated three days ago. Behold, I have been raised.”103 Nero is convinced that Simon is the Christ, because he has seemingly risen on the third day. He sets up a statue in honor of Simon and welcomes him into the palace. What Simon does not know, however, is that someone in the audience can challenge him—a relative of Pontius Pilate who had known Peter and Paul “when Pilate was governor104 in Judea.”105 At the time of Simon’s resurrection appearance in the Senate chamber, everyone is amazed and convinced except this one dissenting voice, and here we see the first narrative gesture toward exposing Simon’s true identity: The relative of Pontius Pilate said to him, “What is your name?” And Simon said, “I am the Christ, whom, after I was beaten with whips, the Jews handed over to be crucified.” That man, knowing full well that he was not the Christ but Simon the sorcerer, said, “You are lying, but you are Simon the sorcerer. I know you quite well, in fact. You previously 101 Gerard Luttikhuizen has described the narrative tension in the Simon accounts in this way: “The listeners or readers are aware that Simon used some trick to delude the Romans. But, as usual, they know more than the persons figuring within the story do.” Nevertheless, “the listeners are kept in suspense, for they are anxious to know how Peter will proceed against Simon, how his sorcery will be unveiled, and how the Roman Christian will react” (“Simon Magus as a Narrative Figure in the Acts of Peter,” in Bremmer, Apocryphal Acts of Peter, 44–45). 102 103 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 2. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 3. 104 Pilate was technically the prefect (praefectus) of Judea, but the text here follows the designation of governor (praesidatus) as in the Latin Vulgate. 105 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

201

used to follow the Christian way of life, but because you were defeated by that man Peter, who was truly a disciple of Christ, you departed from Judea.106 You are able to lie to everyone except me, because I know very well all the things that happened there.”107

The testimony of a member of the Roman senatorial class could seal Simon’s fate as not being the Christ. The sorcerer buys himself some time by telling Nero that Peter and Paul should be summoned, because they are in Rome. If they are the true disciples of the true Christ, then they will recognize him as such. The apostles, however, denounce Simon as a sorcerer, and he in turn denies that they are the real Peter and Paul. Nero sides with Simon, citing his numerous acts of power as proof, but the apostles allege that any apparent deeds were in fact works of deception.108 What the debate must come down to—and what the author has been foreshadowing for the audience—is a final showdown of supernatural power, the literary climax of the story. If Simon is the true Christ, then his power will prevail. If Peter and Paul represent the true Christ, then they will be victorious. Peter scores the initial point by raising from the dead a young man whom Simon had failed to raise,109 but then the sorcerer raises the stakes by claiming that he can fly over the city and into heaven, because he came from heaven. This will essentially be his ascension, a rival to the accounts of Jesus’ ascension.110 To the end of his life, Simon attempts to present himself as the true Christ by fulfilling, or at least equaling, the feats of Jesus in the Gospels—in this case the ascension into heaven. Simon’s planned ascension in the context of this final showdown with the apostles is recounted in several of the apocryphal acts, with each text contributing different details. In the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Peter charges that the delusional Simon truly

106 Acts 8:4–24, although Peter and John rebuked, rather than “defeated,” Simon in that encounter. The reference to Simon’s defeat and departure from Judea seems to come from the Acts of Peter, where Peter twice claims to have driven Simon from Judea because of his treatment of a woman named Eubula (Acts Pet. 17, 23). 107 108 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 4. Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 5–7. 109 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 8–9. 110 Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11. This dynamic of a rival ascension is made clear in the sixth-century Chronographia of John Malalas: “Through prayer the apostle Peter killed Simon the sorcerer, who had wanted to be taken up. For Simon had said to Peter, ‘You say that Christ your God ascended. Look, I also am being taken up’ ” (Chronog. 10.34).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

202

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

believes that he is the Christ and divine, for the apostle tells Nero, “Why do you not laugh at this worthless and insane man, who is made sport of by demons and believes that he is not able to be exposed? . . . Unless Simon sees the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, he will not believe that he is not the Christ.”111 The test of Simon’s attempt to ascend into heaven will show the truth: “Immediately you will know that we are the true disciples of Christ; this man, however, is not the Christ but a sorcerer and evildoer.”112 For Simon, on the other hand, his ascension will be his moment of greatest victory. Simon enjoys a fleeting moment of triumph as he starts to fly over the city, but he is quickly struck down by apostolic prayer. According to the Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Simon meets his final fate instantly: “And immediately he was dropped and fell onto the place called the Sacred Way.113 He was broken into four parts and turned into four stones, which remain to the present day as a testimony to the apostolic victory.”114 Not only is Simon shown not to be the Christ; his corpse is calcified as an enduring monument to the judgment of God on Simon for his blasphemy. In the Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul, however, Simon does not die right away but is left to linger and suffer for a while: “However, he was not killed immediately but lay there with his body broken and debilitated, so that he might be aware of his punishment and ruin. He was carried to the place which is called Aricia,115 and after a little while his soul descended with the devil into hell.”116 Pseudo-Abdias adds that Simon’s post-fall suffering is the answer to a specific prayer by Peter, who does not just want Simon to be defeated; he also wants Simon to suffer long enough to be aware of his defeat: “Lord Jesus, show your power, and do not allow the people who are going to believe in you to be deceived by these empty tricks. 111

Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 41–42. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 54. Parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 75. 113 The Sacred Way was the path of Roman triumphal processions, which began on the Capitoline Hill and passed through the Forum. 114 Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 56. Parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 77. 115 Aricia was home to a temple of Diana near Lake Nemi, “Diana’s Mirror,” where the goddess was honored with a three-day festival each August (Ovid, Fast. 3.263–64, 267–70). 116 Pass. Apost. Pet. Paul 11. Cf. Apos. Con. 2.14, where Simon is thrown to the earth after “flying in an unnatural way” (παρὰ ϕύσιν ἱπτάμενος). Arnobius of Sicca (Adv. nat. 2.12) claims that Simon tried to fly in a fiery chariot. Thrown down by the words of Peter, he broke his legs and soon after committed suicide. 112

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

203

Let him fall, Lord, so that while he is still alive he may know that he can do nothing against your power.”117 Peter calls upon the true Christ to bring about the humiliation and death of this would-be rival. As the apostles state plainly in the Passion of the Holy Apostles, “We are not the ones exposing him, but it is our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God—who Simon has falsely asserted that he is.”118 Simon proves not to be, as he had claimed, the Christ or the Son of God. He is a magus, a fraud whose pretentions to Christhood and divinity are justly punished by the true Christ with a painful death in this life and eternal torment in the life to come.119 For the authors of the apocryphal acts, Simon’s greatness serves as part of a rhetorical strategy of emphasizing the supremacy of the apostles and their activities specifically in Rome. Simon is presented as having power, albeit demonic, and demonstrates it in the very capital of the empire. But Christ is greater and grants his superior power to Peter and Paul. Not only is Christ greater than Simon, but now so are his apostles.120 Before the eyes of the emperor himself, Peter and Paul demonstrate that their master, the true Christ, will abide no rivals, and his apostles wield the metaphorical sword. They stand for Christ and in Christ’s place on earth, empowered to exercise his authority and judgment.

Separating Simon from Paul The linking of the apostles versus Simon also served another function by pitting Paul, alongside Peter, squarely against the sorcerer and thereby undermining any possible confusion caused by the PseudoClementine Homilies. The Homilies was introduced above and represents one thread of the reception of the life and preaching of Peter. The text also introduces a complex image of Simon, in part because it reveals a clear emphasis on concerns from a Jewish-Christian perspective and 117

Abd. Pass. Pet. 18. Pass. Holy Pet. Paul 51. Parallel to Acts Pet. Paul 72. 119 In the Acts of Peter the apostle predicts this fate for Simon: “You will be cursed, you enemy and corrupter of the way of truth of Christ, who will prove the sins you have committed with unquenching fire, and you will be in outer darkness” (Acts Pet. 5.12). 120 As Tuzlak has noted, “In the final analysis, for the heresiologists and the storytellers alike, Jesus’ miracles come from God and Simon’s do not” (“Magician and the Heretic,” 423). 118

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

204

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

expresses distaste for non-Jews. These dynamics are particularly evident in an appended, pseudepigraphical epistle from Peter to James (Epistula Petri). Here “Peter” claims that some Gentiles had rejected his preaching because they had been duped by the preaching of “the man who is the enemy.” This enemy on the one hand is Simon, but a close reading has suggested to some that there may be another layer to the story. Because the editor of the Homilies ascribes teachings to Simon that are considered anti-Petrine or generally anti-Jewish, some have read Simon in these cases as none other than Paul himself.121 This reading focuses particularly on a few passages. In Homilies 17, Simon and Peter engage in a lengthy theological debate over a range of topics. One matter of dispute is the source of knowledge of God. Simon undermines the physical world and all of its implications, including personal experience. Peter bases his teachings about God on what he learned from Jesus, so Simon argues that his knowledge is flawed, because it comes through unreliable physical experience: You say that you have very well understood the things of your teacher, because you saw him clearly in your presence and heard him. And you say that it is not possible for any other to have the same experience through a dream or vision. But I will show you that this is false. The one who hears someone bodily is not entirely assured about the things said, for his mind must consider whether or not the speaker is wrong, since he is a man when it comes to appearance. But a vision gives confidence to the seer at the time that it is seen, because it comes from a divine source.122

The conflict is between knowledge gained through the senses and knowledge revealed directly by God in a dream or vision.

121

See e.g. Ferdinand Christian Baur, Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen: Fues, 1863); Georg Strecker, “The Pseudo-Clementines: Introduction,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. M. Wilson, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 2:483–93. The suggestion that the Homilies may be associated with the Jewish-Christian group known as the Ebionites has received critique from F. Stanley Jones, “The Ancient Christian Teacher in the Pseudo-Clementines,” in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon, ed. D. H. Warren et al., BibInt 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 355–64. For a fairly balanced view of the anti-Pauline issue, see R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostollegenden 2.1 (Braunschweig: Schwetschke und Sohn, 1887), 28–69. 122 Ps.-Clem., Hom. 17.13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

205

There is no record of a visionary experience in the Simon tradition, so some have read this as an allusion to Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. Indeed, in Paul’s most contentious letter, Galatians, he appeals to this vision as the justification for his position and authority as an apostle: “I want you to know, brothers [and sisters], that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a person, nor was I taught it. I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”123 Paul’s gospel came from a direct divine visitation. It has not been subject to the possibility of human distortion or misunderstanding, so his teachings should not be questioned. One reading of the text suggests that the author’s true polemical target is Paul, and the author is simply inserting Simon—the catch-all figure for all kinds of false teaching—as a narrative substitute. As the extended debate continues, Peter directly attacks Simon’s authority based on a vision: If, then, our Jesus appeared also to you124 through a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is angry at an adversary. That is why he spoke to you through visions and dreams, or even through revelations that were from without. But is anyone able to be instructed for teaching through a vision? . . . For you opposed me, the one who is a solid rock, the foundation of the church . . . But if you say that I am condemned, you accuse God, who revealed Christ to me, and you cut down the one who said that I am blessed on account of the revelation.125 But if in fact you truly desire to work for the truth, then first of all learn from us the things that we learned from him. After becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.126

Simon’s vision was an adversarial one, not a blessing or revelation of divine truth. Simon is therefore self-deluded to believe that such an event renders him qualified to preach on behalf of Christ. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. For an author concerned with defending and perpetuating a form of Christianity that preserves Jewish practices, Paul’s gospel may have posed a threat. Simon, perhaps standing in for Paul, is wrong to claim authority through a vision, thus rendering useless the argument of Gal 1:11–12. Furthermore, Simon is guilty of opposing Peter and accusing him of being condemned. The language is directly reminiscent of 123 124 125

Gal 1:11–12. Cf. 1 Cor 15:8, where Paul states, “He appeared also to me” (ὤϕθη κἀμοί ). 126 Matt 16:17. Ps.-Clem., Hom. 17.19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

206

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

the tête-à-tête between Paul and Peter in Antioch, as recounted in Galatians. In the Homilies, Peter tells Simon, “You opposed me” (ἐναντίος ἀνθέστηκάς μοι). The verb ἀνθίστημι also appears in Gal 2:11, where Paul states that he “opposed [Cephas] to his face” (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην). Likewise, Peter reproaches Simon for indicting God by speaking harshly to Peter: “If you call me condemned (κατεγνωσμένον), then you accuse God who revealed Christ to me.” The verb “condemn” (καταγιγνώσκω) also appears in Gal 2:11, for Paul says that Peter “was condemned” (κατεγνωσμένος ἦν). In Galatians, Paul opposed Peter and declared his condemnation because the latter had stopped eating with Gentiles. His sensitivity to halakic practice, in Paul’s eyes, represented a violation of the gospel of freedom. Under the influence of divisive members of “the circumcision party,” associated with James, Peter and other Jews had become hypocrites. Paul has no hesitation about expressing his distaste for Peter’s actions. The Clementine Peter refers to a similar conflict with Simon. Simon had opposed and condemned him, and part of the conflict focused on preaching to the Gentiles. Simon, the “false prophet,” had led them astray through his preaching,127 and Peter had to come afterward to correct his errors. Finally, Peter tells Simon that if he really wants to work with the apostles, then he should place himself under their authority and learn from them, for they had actually learned directly from Christ. The issue is a charge of hubris against Simon, who believes he can go off and teach on his own based upon his visionary experience. This can be read as another implicit critique of Paul’s apostolic claims. While Paul does agree to abide by the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, he also states in Galatians that no other person can take credit for teaching and commissioning him. He has the authority of an apostle “not from men or from a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,” and his gospel “is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a person, nor was I taught it. I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”128 Later in Galatians, he reiterates this same point: But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were means nothing to me, for God shows no partiality—but those seeming to be something added nothing to me. Instead, when they saw that I had 127

Ps.-Clem., Hom. 2.17; 11.35.

128

Gal 1:1, 11–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

207

been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just at Peter had for the circumcised—for the one who worked through Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also worked through me to the gentiles— and when James and Cephas and John, those who seemed to be pillars, recognized the grace given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the gentiles, and they would go to the circumcised.129

Paul is not under the authority of Peter or James or the others. Perhaps they “seemed to be something” (ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι) and “seemed to be pillars” (οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι), but his authority came from God. Even these so-called pillars “added nothing” to Paul’s message and ultimately recognized the divine grace given to him. In Homilies 17, however, Peter states the exact opposite to Simon—or perhaps Paul as Simon. The parallels between the Paul of Galatians and the Simon of the Homilies are indeed striking as they relate to a tumultuous relationship with Peter. In Galatians Paul is convinced that he is in the right and must correct Peter, while the author of the Homilies (or, more correctly, its source text) may reverse the verdict against Paul and present his errors in the guise of Simon. On the matter of the Pauline legacy, the editor of the Homilies diverges sharply from the editor of the Recognitions. In the Recognitions, the “Simon as Paul” argument does not hold.130 Some of the prominent teachings ascribed to Simon Magus, for example the rejection of the resurrection and the sonship of Christ,131 cut sharply against the grain of Pauline theology. More to the point, Paul (here identified as Saul) appears in the narrative to denounce Simon. He raises a ruckus in the temple, because he believes that many Israelites had been led astray by those who had been deceived by Simon’s teachings: “What are you doing, oh men of Israel? Why are you so easily snatched away? Why are you led headlong by the most calamitous men and deceived by a sorcerer?”132 Saul is described as an enemy of the Simonian believers, and his agitation of the people 129

Gal 2:6–9. For a more detailed critique of the Simon as Paul theory, see Marcus N. A. Bockmuehl, The Remembered Peter in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate, WUNT 262 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 101–13. However, Bockmuehl’s argument does not adequately differentiate the perspective in the Recognitions from that in the Homilies. 131 132 Ps.-Clem., Rec. 1.54; 2.49. Ps.-Clem., Rec. 1.70. 130

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

208

The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul

draws the attention of James, the bishop. Their verbal exchange eventually turns violent. In the melee, Saul grabs a brand from the altar, strikes James, throws him down the steps, and leaves him for dead. The believers enjoy some respite only after Saul is sent to Damascus with a commission from Caiaphas, the high priest. This account presents Saul/Paul in a very negative light, at least in the preDamascus Road period. However, for our purposes it also clearly distinguishes Saul/Paul from Simon Magus. They cannot be the same person based on the narrative. The Homilies and Recognitions represent conflicting receptions of the relationship, if any, between Simon and Paul. Unfortunately, much previous treatment of these texts has attempted to identify a single position of the Pseudo-Clementine literature on this issue, but such a treatment lacks the necessary precision. The Homilies are strongly pro-Jewish and anti-Gentile, while the Recognitions present a more positive view of Gentiles. That said, the apparent identification of Simon with Paul in the Homilies must have impacted the perspective of some Christians in antiquity. The stories in the later apocryphal acts may be read as a corrective to the Homilies. Peter and Paul stand united in voice and action, not in conflict as in the Homilies. Paul does not accuse or condemn Peter, for they speak in unison on behalf of the true Christ. Simon stands opposite them, clearly distinct from Paul. The sorcerer is a deceiver who had misled many into believing that he was the Christ. Paul is not the figure behind the character of Simon; he is an apostolic agent sent to counter, defeat, and eventual contribute to killing Simon.

Constructions of Simon in Context None of the early Christian sources denies that Simon had power to do things that others could not do. He is consistently remembered and presented as a figure who could perform amazing deeds to astound the crowds, even if he did so through the despicable arts of sorcery or the help of demons, as Peter asserts in his prayers to strike down Simon. In his various, reimagined guises, Simon was formidable because he was powerful. In the earliest Christian centuries, when there existed a perceived threat of alternative Christologies, Simon is presented as the champion of “heresies” such as Modalism and Docetism. The authors of the later apocryphal texts, writing in a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

The Apostles versus Rival Christs

209

different cultural and ecclesiastical context, amend the earlier traditions and present a potent Simon in order to highlight the even greater power of the apostles. Peter and Paul confront and conquer this wicked, deceitful antichrist, the very embodiment of evil. It is the showdown of supernatural power and the death of Simon that provide the climax of the story and the resolution of the conflict, rather than the defeat of Simon’s theology per se. Paul and Peter stand side by side, not in any way to be confused as enemies of each other. Significantly, these determinative events occur in Rome, reinforcing not just apostolic authority in general, but in particular the apostolic authority of a Roman church founded by Peter and Paul and to which they “left the gospel sealed with their own blood” (sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerent).133 By the fifth and sixth centuries, Rome had become increasingly isolated and lost much of its influence vis-à-vis the prominent centers of Christianity in the East.134 The claims of apostolic victory over Simon in Rome should therefore also be read as part of a broader strategy of reminding Christians everywhere of the Roman church’s exalted past, in order to restore some of Rome’s glory and authority.

ANTICHRISTS AND NARRATIVE IRONY Nero and Simon are central figures in many of the martyrdom accounts. At first glance, it may appear that their antagonism toward the apostles is based upon the actions of Peter and Paul themselves. However, closer analysis shows that their actual rivalry is with the true Christ, whom they claim to be. Their ontological, functional, and political claims—presented in different ways in different texts—bring them into conflict with the messengers of the true Christ. This implicit reality in many of these texts is ironically subversive to the explicit focus on Paul and Peter. The apostles are not the real protagonists; that honor belongs to Christ. Peter and Paul, like Patroclus and Nero’s bodyguards, die as collateral damage in the ultimate conflict between Christ and antichrists. 133

Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.1. See e.g. David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 100–7. 134

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Conclusion In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and Paul play the lead roles. The impulsive fisherman from Galilee and the erstwhile persecutor of the followers of Jesus become the primary mouthpieces for this new movement among both Jews and Gentiles. Yet for all of Luke’s descriptions of the apostles’ travels and their deeds, he leaves large gaps in the overall narratives of their lives—gaps also not addressed in the letters ascribed to these apostles. For later Christians these biographical gaps needed to be filled. This gave rise to a robust corpus of literary and artistic traditions that drew inspiration from, and expanded freely upon, both the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Petrine epistolary traditions. These later authors and artists gave particular attention to the ends of these apostles’ lives, for their identification as martyrs further elevated their spiritual authority and gave special prominence to Rome, the city in which they had traditionally both preached and died. As this book has shown, however, these later versions of the stories deviated from each other at nearly every significant narrative point. In the Introduction we see divergent explanations for one of the most famous elements of the Petrine tradition, namely his inverted crucifixion. Chapter 1 demonstrates that some accounts focus on the unique death of each apostle as a reflection of that apostle’s individual authority, while others place the apostles together in death as a sign of apostolic unity. Chapter 2 examines the various explanations for the martyrdoms provided in the sources—the preaching of chastity, political sedition, or the murder of Nero’s favorite sorcerer. Chapter 3 reveals that some sources attempt to fix these events historically by providing the specific date(s) of the deaths, but these reckonings vary by over a decade. The analysis in Chapter 4 shows

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Conclusion

211

disagreement, uncertainty, or simply silence in the different sources concerning the locations of the martyrdoms and the fates of the bodies after death. Chapters 5 and 6 draw our attention to diversity concerning the presentations of the characters themselves. In a number of contexts, authors and artists conflate and/or confuse Peter and Paul (Chapter 5)—sometimes building a narrative Peter with Paul’s words, other times claiming a single voice, and in other cases reversing biographical details or representations of Paul and Peter in text or image. Chapter 6 accentuates the primary antagonists in the martyrdom accounts: Nero and Simon Magus. Both are presented as antichrist figures, yet never within the same text. Thus, different authors place more blame at the feet of one or the other for the death of one of both of the apostles—and yet these earthly executions are mere shadows of the ultimate conflict between these antichrists and the true Christ. Underlying the analysis in this book has been a fundamental insight of social memory theory—that individuals or groups “remember” and recount events based not on objective history but on the values and demands of their own contexts. I have attempted to apply this insight to the martyrdom accounts of Peter and Paul. There is no attempt to reconstruct the historical realities of the ends of the apostolic lives, for this is an impossible task; instead, this book proposes explanations of why and for what purposes these stories took shape as they did in the various contexts. The traditions about Peter and Paul in Rome will likely continue to govern the popular narratives of the ends of the apostolic lives. These stories serve a function for Christians as a whole and particularly for the authority claims of some within the Christian tradition. As historians, however, we must not allow such narratives to blind us to the nature of the evidence. There never was a single, agreed upon account of the death of either Paul or Peter—let alone both of them together. Different stories were told, all filtered through the lenses of those authors’ contexts, such that from a literary perspective each apostle died not one death, but many different deaths.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography Acerbi, Antonio. L’Ascensione di Isaia: Cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni del II secolo. Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1989. Adamik, T. “The Image of Simon Magus in the Christian Tradition.” Pages 52–64 in The Apocryhal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SAAA 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Agapius of Menbidj. Kitab Al-‘Unvan/Histoire universelle. Translated by Alexander Vasiliev. PO 7.4. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1911. Armellini, Mariano. Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX. 2nd ed. Rome: R.O.R.E., 1942. Assmann, Jan. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich: Beck, 2007. Baldwin, Matthew C. Whose Acts of Peter? Text and Historical Context of the Actus Vercellenses. WUNT 2/196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Bardenhewer, Otto. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1913. Barnes, Timothy D. “Legislation against the Christians.” JRS 58 (1968): 32–50. Barnes, Timothy D. Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Barnes, Timothy D. “ ‘Another shall gird thee’: Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter.” Pages 76–98 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” TZT 5 (1831): 61–206. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Tübingen: Fues, 1863. Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2007. Becker, Michael. “Μάγοι—Astrologers, Ecstatics, Deceitful Prophets: New Testament Understanding in Jewish and Pagan Context.” Pages 87–107 in A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment. Edited by M. Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2007. Bergmeier, R. “Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Act 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis—Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung.” ZNW 77 (1986): 267–75.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

214

Bibliography

Bernhard, Ludger. Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften. VOHDSup 14. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1971. Bettiolo, Paolo et al., editors. Ascensio Isaiae: textus. CCSA 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Beyschlag, Karlmann. Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis. WUNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. Bisconti, Fabrizio, and Danilo Mazzoleni. The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, Decoration, Inscriptions. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 1999. Boardman, John et al., editors. Lexicon Iconographum Mythologicae Classicae, vol. 7.1. Zurich: Artemis & Winkler, 1994. Bockmuehl, Marcus. The Remembered Peter in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. WUNT 262. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Bovini, Giuseppe. Ravenna. Translated by Robert Erich Wolf. New York: Abrams, 1969. Bratten, Benjamin P. Syriac Documents Attributed to the First Three Centuries. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871. Brown, Peter R. L. “Enjoying the Saints in Late Antiquity.” EMEur 9.1 (2000): 1–24. Brunt, Peter. “Marcus Aurelius and the Christians.” Pages 483–520 in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. Edited by C. Deroux. Collection Latomus 164.1. Brussels: Latomus, 1979. Callsen, Brigitta et al., editors. Das jüdische Leben Jesu Toldot Jeschu. VIÖG 39. Vienna/Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003. Cartlidge, David R., and J. Keith Elliott. Art and the Christian Apocrypha. New York: Routledge, 2001. Cassidy, Richard J. Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letter of St. Paul. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Cerfaux, L. “Simon le magicien à Samarie.” RSR 27 (1937): 615–17. Chadwick, Henry. “St Peter and St Paul in Rome: The Problem of the Memoria Apostolorum ad Catacumbas.” JTS.NS 8 (1957): 31–52. Chadwick, Henry. “New Sermons of St Augustine.” JTS.NS 47.1 (1996): 69–91. Chastagnol, André. “Sur quelques documents relatifs à la basilique de SaintPaul-hors-les-murs.” Pages 421–38 in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol. Edited by Raymond Chevallier. Paris: SEVPEN, 1966. Connell, Robert J. “When Saintly Fathers Feuded: The Correspondence between Augustine and Jerome.” Thought 54 (1979): 344–64. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Cook, John Granger. “Envisioning Crucifixion: Light from Several Inscriptions and the Palatine Graffito.” NovT 50 (2008): 262–85. Cook, John Granger. “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania.” NovT 54 (2012): 68–100.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography

215

Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 1/327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). Cooper, Kate. “The Martyr, the Matrona and the Bishop: The Matron Lucina and the Politics of Martyr Cult in Fifth- and Sixth-century Rome.” EMEur 8.3 (1999): 297–317. Correnti, Venerando. “Relazione dello studio compiuto su tre gruppi di resti scheletrici umani già rinvenuti sotto la confessione della Basilica Vaticana.” Pages 83–160 in Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica vaticana: una messa a punto. Edited by Margherita Guarducci. Rome: Coletti, 1967. Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. 2nd ed. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. London: SCM Press, 1962. Cureton, William. Ancient Syriac Documents Relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the Neighboring Countries. London: Williams & Northgate, 1864. D’Anna, Alberto. “Simon Mago Anticristo? Una nota sugli Atti di Pietro.” Pages 111–38 in L’ultimo nemico di Dio: Il ruolo dell’Anticristo nel cristianesimo antico e tardoantico. Edited by Alberto D’Anna and Emanuela Valeriani. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2013. Dehandschutter, Boudewijn. “Some Notes in 1 Clement 5, 4–7.” IP 19 (1989): 83–89. Delehaye, Hippolyte. Les origines du culte des martyrs. 2nd ed. SHG 20. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1933. Demacopoulos, George E. The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Divinations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Denzey, Nicola Frances. The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Simon Magus (Acts 8, 9–24).” ZNW 73 (1982): 52–68. Di Segni, Riccardo. Il vangelo del ghetto. Rome: Newton Compton, 1985. Dickie, Matthew W. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2001. Diefenbach, Steffen. Römische Erinnerungsräume. Heiligenmemoria und kollektive Identitäten im Rom des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. MillenniumStudien 11. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Döhler, Marietheres. Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2018. Donfried, Karl Paul. “Chronology of the Life of Jesus.” ABD 1:1015–16. Duchesne, Louis. Le Liber pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire. Paris: Librarie des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome: 1886. Eastman, David L. Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West. WGRWSup 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2011.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

216

Bibliography

Eastman, David L. “ ‘Epiphanius’ and Patristic Debates on the Marital Status of Peter and Paul.” VC 67.5 (2013): 499–516. Eastman, David L. “Paul: An Outline of His Life.” Pages 34–56 in All Things to all Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks and Romans. Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Eastman, David L. “Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement.” ZAC 18.1 (2014): 34–53. Eastman, David L. The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul. WGRW 39. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Eckhel, Joseph H. Doctrina numorum veterum. Vienna: Sumptibus J. Camesina, 1794. Edwards, Mark, Martin Goodman, Simon Price, and Chris Rowland, editors. Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Emmel, Stephen, editor. Nag Hammadi Codex III,5: The Dialogue of the Savior. NHS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Erbes, Carl. Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus und ihre römischen Denkmäler. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899. Fehl, Philipp. “Michelangelo’s Crucifixion of St. Peter: Notes on the Identification of the Locale of the Action.” ArtBull 53.3 (1971): 326–43. Ferrari, Guy, and Charles R. Morey. The Gold-Glass Collection of the Vatican Library: With Additonal Catalogues of Other Gold-Glass Collections. CMSBAV. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959. Ferreiro, Alberto. Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval, and Early Modern Traditions. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. Fichtenau, Heinrich. “Zum Reliquienwesen in früheren Mittelalter.” MIÖG 60 (1952): 60–89. Fiedrowicz, Michael. Apologie im frühen Christentum: Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2000. Filippi, Giorgio. “La basilica di San Paolo fuori le mura.” Pages 59–62 in Pietro e Paolo: la storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli. Edited by Angela Donati. Milan: Electa, 2000. Filippi, Giorgio. “Un decennio di ricerche e studi nella basilica Ostiense.” Pages 29–43 in San Paolo in Vaticano: La figura e la parola dell’Apostolo delle Genti nelle raccolte pontificie. Edited by Umberto Utro. Todi: Tau Editrice, 2009. Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr, 1985. Geary, Patrick J. Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Gero, Stephen. “The Stern Master and His Wayward Disciple: A ‘Jesus’ Story in the Talmud and in Christian Hagiography.” JSJ 25.2 (1994): 287–311.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography

217

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Strahan, 1783. Gnilka, Christian, Stefan Heid, and Rainer Riesner, editors. Blutzeuge: Tod und Grab des Petrus in Rom. Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner. 2010. Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: Macmillan, 1950. Grünstäudl, Wolfgang. “Hidden in Praise: Some Notes on 1 Clement 5.7.” Pages 375–89 in The Last Years of Paul. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Guarducci, Margherita. Le Reliquie di Pietro. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965. Guarducci, Margherita. Pietro ritrovato: il martirio, la tomba, le reliquie. 2nd ed. Milan: A. Mondadori, 1970. Guignebert, Charles. La primauté de Pierre et la venue de Pierre à Rome. Paris: É. Nourry, 1909. Günther, Otto, editor. Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae: inde ab a. CCCLXVII usqve ad a. DLIII datae. CSEL 35.1.2. Leipzig: F. Tempsky, 1895. Haar, Stephen. Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2003. Halbwachs, Maurice. La mémoire collective. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950. Hall, Robert G. “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity.” JBL 109.2 (1990): 289–306. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Harden, Donald B. Glass of the Caesars. Milan: Olivetti, 1987. Harley-McGowan, Felicity. “The Constanza Gem and the Development of Crucifixion Iconography in Late Antiquity.” Pages 214–20 in Gems of Heaven: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity AD 200–600. Edited by Christopher Entwistle and Noel Adams. BMRP 177. London: British Museum Press, 2011. Hartl, Martina. Leichen, Asche und Gebeine: der frühchristliche Umgang mit dem toten Körper und die Anfänge des Reliquienkults. Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2018. Heid, Stefan, editor. Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Heintz, Florent, Simon “le magicien”: Actes 8, 5–25 et l’accusation de magie contre les prophètes thaumaturges dans l’antiquité. CahRB 39. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1997. Herczeg, Pál. “Theios Aner Traits in the Apocryphal Acts of Peter.” Pages 29–38 in The Apocryhal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SAAA 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

218

Bibliography

Horbury, William. “A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Jeshu.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1971. Horn, Friedrich W. “The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26: Response to Heike Omerzu.” Pages 201–12 in The Last Years of Paul. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Horsley, Richard A. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus. London: Bloomsbury, 1999. Huskinson, Janet M. Concordia Apostolorum: Christian Propaganda at Rome in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. BARIS 148. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1982. Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. BibInt 65; Leiden: Brill, 2003. Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “Main Topics in Early Christian Apologetics.” Pages 85–111 in Critique and Apologetics: Jews, Christians, and Pagans in Antiquity. Edited by David Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and Jörg Ulrich. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009. Jeffreys, Elizabeth. “Malalas’ Sources.” Pages 167–216 in The Sixth Century: End or Beginning? Edited by Pauline Allen and Elizabeth Jeffreys. ByzAust 10. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jones, F. Stanley. “The Ancient Christian Teacher in the Pseudo-Clementines.” Pages 355–64 in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Edited by David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao. BibInt 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Jones, F. Stanley. “From Toland to Baur: Tracks of the History of Research into Jewish Christianity.” Pages 123–36 in The Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity: From Toland to Baur. Edited by F. Stanley Jones. SBLHBS 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Karakolis, Christos. “Paul’s Mission to Hispania: Some Critical Observations.” Pages 507–20 in The Last Years of Paul. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Karasszon, István. “Agrippa, King and Prefect.” Pages 21–28 in The Apocryhal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SAAA 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Kassidy, Richard J. Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Kelley, Nicole. Knowledge and Religious Authority in the PseudoClementines: Situating the “Recognitions” in Fourth Century Syria. WUNT 2/213. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Keresztes, Paul. “Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?” HTR 61 (1968): 321–41. Kessler, Herbert L. “The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome: An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood.” DOP 41 (1987): 265–75.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography

219

Klauser, Theodor, and Friedrich W. Deichmann. Frühchristliche Sarkophage in Bild und Wort. Olten: Urs Graf-Verlag, 1966. Klein, Richard. “Die neugefundenen Augustin-Predigten aus der Mainzer Bibliothek.” Gymnasium 100 (1993): 370–83. Klein, Richard. “Die neugefundenen Augustin-Predigten aus der Mainzer Bibliothek.” Gymnasium 102 (1995): 242–62. Kumsar, Halil et al. “Historical Earthquakes that Damaged Hierapolis and Laodikeia Antique Dities and their Implications for Earthquake Potential of Denizli Basin in Western Turkey.” BEGE 75.2 (2016): 519–36. Kyle, Donald G. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge, 2001. Lanciani, R. A. Pagan and Christian Rome. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin, 1899. Lendle, Otto, editor. Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Sermones II.10.1. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Levine, Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2006. Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. JSJSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Lietzmann, Hans. Petrus und Paulus in Rom. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927. Lincicum, David. “F.C. Baur’s Place in the Study of Jewish Christianity.” Pages 127–66 in The Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity: From Toland to Baur. Edited by F. Stanley Jones. SBLHBS 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Lipsius, R. A. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostollegenden. Vol. 2.1. Braunschweig: Schwetschke und Sohn, 1887. Litwa, M. David, translator. Refutation of all Heresies. WRGW 40. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Liverani, Paolo. “La basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano.” Pages 55–58 in Pietro e Paolo: la storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli. Edited by Angela Donati. Milan: Electa, 2000. Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Translated by William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Lønstrup, Gitte. “Constructing Myths: The Foundation of Roma Christiana on 29 June.” ARID 33 (2008): 27–64. Lüdemann, Gerd. “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis.” NTS 33.3 (1987): 420–26. Luttikhuizen, Gerard. “Simon Magus as a Narrative Figure in the Acts of Peter.” Pages 39–51 in The Apocryhal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SAAA 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

220

Bibliography

MacDonald, Dennis R. “Which Came First? Intertextual Relationships among the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 11–24 in The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives. Semeia 80. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. MacMullen, Ramsay. The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200–400. WGRWSup 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2009. Marcovich, Miroslav, editor. Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium. PTS 25. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1986. Meeks, Wayne A. “Simon Magus in Recent Research.” RelSRev 3.3 (1977): 137–42. Minns, Denis, and Paul Pervis, editors. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. OECT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Mitchell, Margaret M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Mohrmann, Christine. “À propos de deux mots controversés de la latinité chrétienne: Tropaeum—Nomen.” VC 8.1 (1954): 154–73. Mommsen, Theodor, editor. MGH.AA 9 Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892. Moss, Candida R. The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Müller-Kessler, Christa, and Michael Sokoloff, editors. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Vol. IIB. Groningen: Styx, 1998. Nau, François. Martyrologes et ménologes orientaux I–XIII. PO 10. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1915. Newman, Hillel. “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature.” JTS 50 (1999): 59–79. Nicklas, Tobias. “ ‘Let the Dead Bury their Own Dead’ (Matt 8:22 par. Luke 9:60): A Commandment without Impact for Christian Ethos?” Pages 75–90 in Biblical Ethics and Application: Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts in Ethical Discourse. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert. KNNE 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Nicklas, Tobias. “Milch statt Blut.” Pages in 500–8 in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 2: Die Wunder der Apostel. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Munich: Gütersloh, 2017. Omerzu, Heike. “The Roman Trial against Paul according to Acts 21–26.” Pages 187–200 in The Last Years of Paul. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Painter, K. “Frammenti di coppa.” Pages 279–81 in Vetri dei Cesari. Edited by Donald B. Harden. Exposition Catalog: Milan, 1988. Penna, Romano. “The Death of Paul in the Year 58: A Hypothesis and Its Consequences for His Biography.” Pages 333–51 in The Last Years of Paul.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography

221

Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Peppard, Michael. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Perlmann, Moshe, translator. The History of al-Tabarī Volume 4: The Ancient Kingdoms. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. Pope Benedict XVI. “Pauline Year Proclamation.” Basilica Papale San Paolo Fuori le Mura Press Office 28 June 2007. Porter, Stanley E. “Magic in the Book of Acts.” Pages 107–21 in A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment. Edited by M. Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2007. Porter, Stanley E. When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Poupon, Gérard. “Les ‘Actes de Pierre’ et leur remaniement.” ANRW 25.6:4363–83. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1988. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. “Paul’s Missionary Activity during His Roman Trial: The Case of Paul’s Journey to Hispania.” Pages 469–506 in The Last Years of Paul. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech, John M. G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey. WUNT 352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Rebillard, Éric. Greek and Latin Narratives about the Ancient Martyrs. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Reinhartz, Adele. “The Vanishing Jews of Antiquity.” Marginalia 24 June 2014. http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/vanishing-jews-antiquity-adelereinhartz/. Richardson, E. C. Hieronymus Liber de viris inlustribus. TUGAL 14. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896. Riemer, Ulrike. “Fascinating but Forbidden: Magic in Rome.” Pages 160–72 in A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment. Edited by M. Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2007. Roberts, Michael J. Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: The Liber Peristephanon of Prudentius. RLLTC. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Robinson, Thomas A. Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish–Christian Relations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009. Rockwell, William Walker. “The Latest Discussions on Peter and Paul at Rome.” AJT 22.1 (1918): 113–24. Rousseau, Adelin, and Louis Doutreleau, editors. Irénée de Lyon Contre les hérésies livre 1. SC 264. Paris: Cerf, 1979. Rubinstein, Jeffrey L. Stories of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. Rudolph, Kurt. “Simon—Magus oder Gnosticus? Zum Stand der Debatte.” TRuNF 42 (1977): 279–359.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

222

Bibliography

Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. Translated and edited by R. McL. Wilson. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 1983. Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. WUNT 2/310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Schmidt, Carl, editor. Pistis Sophia. NHS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, editor. New Testament Apocrypha. Rev. ed. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Schonfield, Hugh J. According to the Hebrews. London: Duckworth, 1937. Scopello, Maddalena. “Simon le mage, prototype de Mani selon les Acta Archelai.” RSER 37 (1987–1988): 67–79. Semler, Johann Salomo. Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon. Halle: Carl Hermann Hemmerde, 1775. Slingerland, Dixon. Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. SFSHJ 160. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Snyder, Glenn. Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/352. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Spät, Eszter. “The ‘Teachers’ of Mani in the Acta Archelai and Simon Magus.” VC 58 (2004): 1–23. Spera, Lucrezia. “Aquae Salvias, Massa.” Pages 147–48 in vol. 1 of Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae: Suburbium. Edited by Adriano La Regina. Rome: Quasar, 2001–2006. Steinby, Eva Margareta, editor. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. 5 volumes. Rome: Quasar, 1996. Stoops, Robert F. “If I Suffer . . . Epistolary Authority in Ignatius of Antioch.” HTR 80.2 (1987): 161–78. Strecker, Georg, editor. Die Pseudoklementinen II: Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung. 2nd ed. GCS 51. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Sullivan, Ruth W. “Saints Peter and Paul: Some Ironic Aspects of Their Imaging.” AH 17 (1994): 59–80. Tajra, Harry W. The Trial of St. Paul: A Judicial Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles. WUNT 2/35. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. Tanner, Norman P. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990. Theissen, Gerd. “Simon Magus—die Entwicklung seines Bildes vom Charismatiker zum gnostischen Erlöser: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Gnosis.” Pages 407–32 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments; Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Klaus Berger et al. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Thomas, Christine M. “Word and Deed: The Acts of Peter and Orality.” Apoc 3 (1992): 125–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Bibliography

223

Thomas, Christine M. The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Thurn, Ioannes, editor. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia. CFHB 35. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Toland, John. Nazarenus: Or, Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity. 2nd ed. London: Brotherton, Roberts, and Dodd, 1718. Turner, Cuthbert H., editor. Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima. Oxford: Clarendon: 1899–1939. Tuzlak, Ayse. “The Magician and the Heretic: The Case of Simon Magus.” Pages 416–26 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Van Dam, Raymond. Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. von Harnack, Adolf. Militia Christi: Die christliche Religion und der Soldatenstand in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1905. Vopel, Hermann. Die altchristlichen Goldgläser: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte. Freiburg: Mohr, 1899. Vouaux, Léon, editor. Les Actes de Pierre. Introduction, textes, traduction et commentaire. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1922. Waldstein, Michael, and Frederik Wisse, editors. The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. NHMS 33. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Walsh, J. E. The Bones of St. Peter. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Waszink, J. H., editor. Tertullianus Opera II: Opera montanistica. CCSL 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Wehr, Lothar. Petrus und Paulus, Kontrahenten und Partner: Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse. Munich: Aschendorff, 1996. Weis-Liebersdorf, Johannes E. Christus- und Apostelbilder: Einfluss des Apokryphen auf die ältesten Kunsttypen. Freiburg im Breisbau: Herder, 1902. Wilson, R. McL. “Simon and Gnostic Origins.” Pages 485–91 in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie. Edited by J. Kremer. BETL 48. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. Zwierlein, Otto. “Kritisches zur römischen Petrustradition zur Datierung des Ersten Clemensbriefes.” GFA 13 (2010): 87–157. Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse. UALG 96. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen zeugnisse. UALG 96. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom: Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten. UALG 109. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

Scripture Index Gen 12:6 191–92 Gen 14:17 191–92 Gen 28:11–22 191–92 Exod 3:14 199 Isa 43:10 175–76 Isa 44:6 175–76 Isa 52:6 199 Ps 51:7 125 Ps 91:11–12 197–98 Ps 97:10 22 Ps 110:1 166–67 Matt 4:5–7 197 Matt 4:18–22 72–73 Matt 8:22 106–8, 110–11 Matt 9:13 42 Matt 16:17 205 Matt 19:11–12 41–42 Matt 22:21 49n.38 Matt 26:53 198 Matt 27:29–44 197 Matt 27:57–59 107 Matt 27:60 111–13 Matt 28:1 128n.82 Mark 1:16–20 72–73 Mark 2:17 42 Mark 10:37–39 15 Mark 12:17 49n.38 Mark 15:29–32 197 Mark 15:42–46 107 Mark 16:1–3 128n.82 Mark 16:19 201 Luke 4:9–12 197 Luke 5:1–9 72–73 Luke 5:32 42 Luke 9:60 106–8, 110–12 Luke 20:25 49n.38 Luke 23:35–37 197 Luke 23:50–54 107 Luke 23:53 111 Luke 24:1 128n.82 Luke 24:50–53 201 John 7:44 197 John 8:24 199 John 8:58 199 John 9:9 199

John 10:39 197 John 13:36–38 15 John 14:6 198–99 John 15:15 190–91 John 18:36 45–46 John 19:30 13 John 19:38–42 107 John 19:39–40 107 John 19:41 111 John 21:18–19 15 John 21:18–19 3–4 Acts 1:9–11 201 Acts 8:9–24 25, 55, 180–83 Acts 8:10 194–95 Acts 12:1–11 80–81 Acts 15:4–31 206 Acts 16:1–3 158n.73 Acts 17 28–29, 136–37 Acts 17:28 147–48 Acts 18:2–3 14n.11 Acts 20:7–12 44–45 Acts 21:27–33 155 Acts 23:12–15 155 Acts 24:1–9 93–94 Acts 28 13–14, 31–32, 53 Acts 28:17–29 156 Acts 28:30–31 99–100 Rom 1:8–15 14 Rom 5:12–21 146–47 Rom 12:10 152–53 Rom 13:5–7 53n.56, 152–53 Rom 15:19 152–53 Rom 15:23–28 14 1 Cor 2:9 147–48 1 Cor 3:5–9 143–44 1 Cor 7:1–40 151–52, 160 1 Cor 15:20–23 146–47 1 Cor 15:45–49 147 1 Cor 15:8–9 6n.10, 72–73, 145–46, 205 2 Cor 6:10 152–53 2 Cor 9:7 145–46 2 Cor 11:23–27 74 Gal 1:1–12 152–54, 156, 159, 205–6 Gal 2:1–21 25 Gal 2:11–14 155, 205–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2019, SPi

226 Gal 2:6–9 153–54 Gal 6:14 145 Eph 3:8 6n.10, 145–46 Eph 5:22–28 148–49, 152–53 Eph 6:1 152–53 Eph 6:4 152–53 Eph 6:5–6 152–53 Eph 6:9 152–53 Phil 1:21–26 143–45 Phil 4:22 92–93, 161 Col 1:15 152–53 Col 3:18–19 152–53 Col 3:20 152–53 Col 3:22–24 152–53 Col 4:1 152–53 1 Thess 4:3–5 43n.18 2 Thess 2:3 175n.2 2 Thess 2:15 145–46 1 Tim 1:5 152–53 1 Tim 1:17 152–53 1 Tim 6:8 152–53 1 Tim 6:17 152–53

Scripture Index 2 Tim 2:22 152–53 2 Tim 4:16–17 90–91 Phlm 1–25 152–53 1 Pet 1:14–16 150–51 1 Pet 2:9 149–50 1 Pet 2:11–17 149–51 1 Pet 3:1–6 150–51 1 Pet 3:13–4:2 149 1 Pet 4:2–3 150–51 1 Pet 4:12–19 149 1 Pet 5:9–10 149 2 Pet 1:5–8 150–51 2 Pet 1:13–14 149 2 Pet 2:4–14 150–51 2 Pet 3:15–16 159 1 John 2:22 175n.2 1 John 4:3 175n.2 2 John 1:7 175n.2 Rev 1:17 72–73 Rev 13:1–18 175 Rev 17:7–18 175 Rev 22:13 72–73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

General Index 1 Clement 16–17 Abdias of Babylon. See Pseudo-Abdias Abū Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarīr al–Tabarī 164–65 Acestus, centurion 84–85 Acts of Paul 11–12, 15–16, 21, 23–24, 35, 44–47, 51–52, 59, 67, 83–84, 122–24, 151–52, 168–69, 178–79 Acts of Peter 1–3, 11–15, 21, 23–24, 35, 38–41, 43–44, 46, 55–56, 59, 67, 79–83, 105–9, 120–21, 150–52, 161–63, 203n.118 Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul 24, 57–63, 115, 120–21, 128–31, 139n.120, 149–50, 152–60 Adam 1–2, 6 Agapius of Menbidj 164–66 Agrippa, Roman prefect 25–26, 38–41, 43–44, 57, 59, 61–62, 79–83, 105, 109, 114–16, 145–46, 150, 161–62 Agrippina, mother of Nero 79, 175–76 Agrippina, wife of prefect Agrippa 38–39, 43–44, 59, 150 Albinus, friend of Nero 39–40, 43–44, 150, 161–62 Ambrose of Milan 70, 75–76 Ansus, bishop of Rome (probably variation of Linus) 34–35, 132–33 antichrist figures 41n.10, 56–57, 85, 174–79 Apocalypse of Peter 15 Apocryphon of John 194–95 Apollinaris of Hierapolis 51–52 Apostolic Constitutions 61n.78 apostolic succession 34–35 Appian Road, joint apostolic cult site and Basilica of the Apostles (now Saint Sebastian) 35, 69–70, 120–21, 132–34, 138–41 Apsethus of Libya 187–89 Aquae Salvias (as site of Paul’s death) 128–30 Aquila and Priscilla 14n.11, 20n.42, 47 Arator 71–72

Aricia 56, 63–64, 106, 202 Arnobius of Sicca 61n.78 Asterius of Asamea 6–7, 23–24 Athenagoras 43n.18, 50–52 Augustine of Hippo 72–77 baptism 123, 125–26 Bardaisan 51–52 Basilica of the Apostles, Rome. See Appian Road Beliar (as Nero) 78–79, 175–76 Book of Pontiffs 140–41 Burying of the Martyrs 69–70, 120–21 Caius (ecclesiastical writer) 110, 124, 138–39 Caligula 101–2 Cassius Dio 47, 50n.42, 87–88, 97–98, 109 Castor the sorcerer 56 Catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter 168–69 Cescus, centurion (probably same character as Acestus) 123–24 chastity 38–44, 57, 59, 62, 64–65, 67, 79–81, 150–52, 160–62, 210–11 Church of Santa Maria in Scala Coeli, Rome 128–29 Church of the Three Fountains (Tre Fontane), Rome 128–29 Chronicon Paschale 101–2 Claudia Octavia, wife and stepsister of Nero 87–88 Claudius 14n.11, 47, 90, 92–93, 101–2, 184–85 Clement, bishop of Rome 16n.23, 33n.90, 189–90 Clement, Roman prefect 28, 64–65, 100–1, 119 Clement of Alexandria 34n.96, 43n.18 Commodus 50–51 concordia apostolorum 25–31, 33–38, 57–58, 62–63, 65, 67, 72–74, 130–34, 142, 153–55, 169–73, 208–11 Constantina, empress 139–40 Constantine 109–10, 120–21, 127, 133

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

228

General Index

Cornelius, bishop of Rome 140–41 creeds Nicea 325 6n.11, 36–37 Constantinople 381 6n.11, 36–37 crowns (as symbols of martyrdom) 29–31, 33, 70–71, 73–74, 76–77, 90, 93–95, 170–71 Damasus of Rome 36–37 date of apostolic deaths December 28 77–78, 93 June 29 68–70, 72–78, 90–91, 93, 95–97, 99–102, 120–21, 135–36 Dialogue of the Savior 194–95 Dionysius of Athens 28–29, 136–37 Dionysius of Corinth 21–24 Dioscorus (man killed in Paul’s place) 157–58 Docetism 185–88, 190–95, 208–9 Doctrine of the Apostles 20–21, 82, 162–64 Doris, wife of prefect Agrippa 38–39, 43–44, 150 dreams and visions 12–13, 29–30, 41, 52–53, 64, 80–85, 106–8, 110–12, 121–26, 204–6 earthquakes/natural disasters 87–88, 138–40 Epiphanius of Cyprus 192–93 Epistle of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite to Timothy concerning the Death of the Apostles Peter and Paul 28–30, 136–37 Epistula Petri 203–4 Erastus, disciple of the apostles 162–63 Euphemia, wife of prefect Agrippa 38–39, 43–44, 150 Eusebius of Caesarea 4–5, 21–22, 34n.96, 83, 91–92, 110, 120–21, 124, 131 Fabellius, bishop of Rome 137 female characters 12 Galba 84, 86–87, 89 Gemellus (Marcellus?), follower of Simon Magus 116–17 Gentile Christians 25, 58, 92–93, 134, 148–50, 155–57, 159–60, 167–68 Gessius Florus 98–99 Gnosticism 180–81, 189–90, 194–95

gold glass 168–73 Gregory I, bishop of Rome 128–29, 139–40 Gregory of Nyssa 77–78 Gregory of Tours 9, 71–72 Helena, consort of Simon Magus 186 Hephaestus the Galatian, bodyguard of Nero 178–79 Hera 176–77 Herod Agrippa I 80–81 Herod Agrippa II 98–99 Hippolytus/“Hippolytus” of Rome 187–89, 193 History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles 8, 32–33, 92–93, 114, 120–21 History of the Holy Apostle Paul my Lord Paul 21, 33, 92–96, 130–34, 161–62 Holy Spirit 55, 75–76, 110–12, 125–26, 180–82, 185, 188, 191, 199 Ignatius of Antioch 17–18 Ikaria, wife of prefect Agrippa 38–39, 43–44, 150 images of the apostles 168–73 imperial household/court 15–16, 29–30, 32–33, 40–41, 44–45, 59, 79–80, 83–84, 92–94, 160–62, 178–79, 209 Irenaeus of Lyons 18–19, 34n.96, 184–86, 194–95 James 206–8 bishop of Jerusalem 190, 207–8 Jerome 6–7, 22–24, 72–73, 89–94, 113–14, 120–21, 179n.25 Jerusalem 191–92 fall of 98–99 visitors to Rome 26, 62–63, 115–18 Jesus Christ 12–13, 15, 40, 42, 64, 76, 154, 166–68, 170–71, 174, 189–91, 195–99, 203, 209 death of 1, 3, 5–9, 13, 107, 111–13, 127–28, 145–49, 185–86, 197–98, 200–1 rival king to Nero 44–46, 49, 52–55, 67, 83–84, 122, 124, 178–80 Jewish Christians 25, 47, 58, 92–93, 134, 148–50, 167–68 Jewish opponents of the apostles 58–59, 91, 94–95, 134, 148–49, 155–60, 166–68

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

General Index John Chrysostom 18, 35–36, 77–78, 93–94, 160–61 John Malalas 9, 99–100, 201n.109 John the Baptist 3, 18–19 John the evangelist 182, 184–85, 206–7 Joseph of Arimathea 107, 112–13 Josephus 80–81, 98–99 Justin 41–44, 49–52, 183–84 Justus, bodyguard of Nero 178–79 Lactantius 4, 20, 48n.35, 85–86 Lemobia (pious matron) 29–30, 136–37 Liber Pontificalis. See Book of Pontiffs Linus as author. See Pseudo-Linus Linus, bishop of Rome 32–33, 130–32. See also Ansus liturgical calendar 22–24, 28–29, 68–78, 96–97, 102, 120–21 Livia, wife of Nero 59, 160–61 Livy 87n.77 Longinus, centurion (probably same character as Longinus, prefect of Rome) 123–24 Longinus, prefect of Rome 84–85, 124 Lucina, pious matron 127–28, 140–41 Luke 15–16, 20–21, 34, 99–100, 123–27, 134–35 Macarius of Magnesia 6n.12 Mamertine Prison 11 Marcellus 13, 24, 62–63, 106–21, 127–28, 131–33, 193–94 as author. See Pseudo-Marcellus Marcus, Roman prefect 116 Marcus Aurelius 50–52 Mark 34, 134–35 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 15, 78–79, 175–76, 179 Martyrdom of Paul. See Acts of Paul Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of his Severed Head 34, 95–97, 134–36 Martyrdom of Peter. See Acts of Peter Martyrdom of Polycarp 75–76 martyrs of Lyons and Vienne 51–52 matrons converted by apostles 38–40, 43–44, 57, 59, 67, 150, 160–61 Marvels of the City of Rome 128–29 Megistus, prefect of Rome 84–85, 124 Melito of Sardis 51–52 Menaeus, disciple of the apostles 162–63

229

Menander, successor of Simon Magus 194–95 Miltiades 51–52 miracles/signs 44–45, 55–56, 59–60, 62, 85, 134–36, 166–67, 175–77, 184, 201 Modalism 185–88, 208–9 Mount Gerizim 191–92 Naumachia 25–26, 61, 109, 114–15, 117–19, 138 Nero 3–4, 6–7, 9, 11, 14–16, 18–23, 25–28, 31–34, 40–41, 44–49, 51–54, 56–67, 71–72, 78–102, 109, 114–16, 119, 122, 124–27, 130–31, 150, 152–54, 157–58, 160–66, 195, 198–201 antichrist figure 41n.10, 56–57, 174–80, 209–11 death of 84–87, 89, 99 redivivus 79, 85–86 wife of. See Livia Nicodemus 107 Origen of Alexandria 4–5 Orion the Cappadocian, bodyguard of Nero 178–79 Orosius 6n.12, 87–89 Ostian Road (as site of Paul’s death) 25–26, 28, 69–70, 73–74, 91, 110, 115, 120–21, 124–25, 127–31, 135–36, 138–41 Passion of St. Sebastian 127–28 Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul 8–9, 26–28, 63–65, 100–1, 119–21, 193–96, 199–202 Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul 7–8, 24–26, 57–63, 86–87, 114–21, 128–31, 137–39, 148–50, 152–56, 158–60, 193–99, 201–3 Patroclus, cupbearer of Nero 15–16, 44–46, 52–53, 83–84, 178–79, 209 Paul burial of 34–35, 103–4, 110, 122–28, 131–41, 210–11 Church of (Rome, Outside the Walls) 11, 73–74, 103–4, 122, 127 comparison with Simon Magus 181–82, 203–8 confused with Simon Peter 166–68, 172–73, 210–11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

230

General Index

Paul (cont.) crucified upside down 164–66 decapitation of 3, 18–19, 21–23, 25–26, 28, 32–34, 45–46, 52–54, 61, 64, 71–72, 83, 87, 91, 96–98, 100, 122, 124, 126–27, 130–31, 162–66 imprisonment 11, 17n.25, 32–33, 74, 91, 94–95, 99–100 missing head 135–37 political threat 44–47, 52–55, 59, 62, 64, 67, 160, 178–79, 210–11 preaching of 13–19, 21–22, 25, 28–29, 31, 33–36, 44–45, 53–54, 58–59, 65–66, 82, 93–96, 126–27, 151–52, 160–62 relics of 134 visit to Spain 14, 16–17, 33, 90–91, 93–95 Paulinus of Nola 75–76 Periodoi Petrou 189–92 Perpetua, pious matron 30n.82, 62, 128 Peter accusation of murder 25–26, 28, 61–62, 64–65, 100, 114–15, 210–11 attempted flight from Rome 40, 64, 100, 106, 143 bishop of Antioch 90 bishop of Rome 32–33, 90, 92–93, 101–2, 163, 189n.56 burial of 34–35, 103–21, 130–41, 210–11 crucifixion of 1–9, 12–13, 18–23, 25–26, 28, 31, 34, 40, 61, 64, 82–83, 85, 87, 90, 92–93, 97–100, 105–7, 109, 115, 130–31, 134–35, 145–47, 162–66, 210–11 death by the sword 20–21, 82, 162–66 imprisonment 4, 11, 19, 41n.10, 57, 80–81 opponent of the Jewish law 155–56, 158–60, 166–67 political threat 59 preaching of 1–6, 12, 14–15, 18–19, 21–22, 25, 31–36, 38–39, 54–57, 59, 62, 64–67, 82, 90, 92–93, 143–52, 160 relics of 104–5, 134 speaking with Paul’s words 143–55, 172–73, 210–11 Peter of Alexandria 4, 19, 72–73 Philip the evangelist 182–83 pilgrim tokens 168–73

Pistis Sophia 194–95 Plautilla, pious matron 16, 30n.82, 125 Pliny the Elder 97–98 Pliny the Younger 47–48 Plutarch 87n.77 Polycarp of Smyrna 17–18, 51–52, 75–76 Pontius Pilate 26–28, 45–46, 200 Pontius Pilate, relative in Rome 26–28, 200–1 Pope Benedict XVI 103–4, 122 Pope Francis 104–5 Pope Paul VI 104–5 Pope Pius XI 104–5 Pope Pius XII 104–5 posthumous appearances 13, 16, 29–30, 52–53, 80–85, 106–8, 110–12, 121–26 prefects of Rome. 116, 161–62. See also Agrippa, Clement [prefect], Longinus, Marcus, Megistus Prudentius 35–36, 70–74, 130–31, 169–70 Pseudo-Abdias Passion of Saint Peter 8, 30–31, 65–67, 82, 112–14, 117, 120–21, 193–95, 197–98, 202–3 Passion of Saint Paul 31–32, 53–55, 72, 126–28, 131, 140–41 Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 189–92, 203–8 Recognitions 189–92, 207–8 Pseudo-Linus 35, 54–55 Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle 5–6, 14–15, 21, 56–57, 81–82, 109–12, 116, 120–21, 143–48, 177–80 Martyrdom of the Blessed Apostle Paul 16, 21, 52–53, 84–85, 124–26 Pseudo-Marcellus 24, 57–64, 86–87, 118–19, 193–94. See also Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul Rachel, mother of Simon Magus 190–91, 194–95 Ravenna 171–72 relic thefts 138–40 Roman church, authority of 3, 18–19, 21–22, 24, 35–37, 62–63, 65, 171–73, 208–11 Romulus and Remus 69n.2, 70, 76n.38, 86–87, 130–31, 169–70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/3/2019, SPi

General Index Santa Maria Maggiore 168–69 Senate 52–53, 89, 124, 157, 199–1 sexual abstinence. See chastity Sibylline Oracles 176–77, 179 Simon the Sorcerer/Magus 9, 25–26, 28, 31, 38, 55–67, 86–87, 90, 116–18, 152, 154, 157–58, 177 antichrist figure 174, 180–209, 211 death of 56, 60–67, 100, 106, 114–15, 119, 180–81, 202–3, 208–9 flight over Rome 55–56, 59–61, 63–64, 66, 106, 181–82, 197–98, 201–3 statue in Rome 183–85, 199–200 Sixtus I, bishop of Rome 135–36 Sixtus II, bishop of Rome 135–36 soldiers, conversion of 15–16, 45–46, 59, 64–65, 123–27, 178–79 sorcery 59–60, 106, 117, 184–85, 188–89, 193, 195, 197, 208–9 Suetonius 47, 86–89, 97–98, 109, 174–75 Sulpicius Severus 6n.12, 97–99 Sylvester I, bishop of Rome 36–37 Tacitus 48–49, 87–88, 97–98, 107, 174–75

231

Teaching of Shimeon Kepha 34–35, 92–93, 132–33 Tertullian 3–4, 18–19, 21, 34n.96, 35–36, 50n.42, 82–83, 186–87, 208–9 Tertullus, opponent of Paul 93–94, 162–63 Thecla 151 Themistius 50n.42 Thundering Legion 50n.42 Tiberius 80–81, 101–2 Timothy 20–21, 28–29, 91, 158n.73, 162–63 Titus 15–16, 123–27, 158n.73 Toledot Jeshu 166–68, 172–73 Trajan 47–48, 109 Vatican 11, 28, 69–70, 73–74, 103–6, 109–10, 112–15, 117–21, 127, 130–31, 138–41 Vespasian 98–99 Visions. See dreams and visions Xanthippe, Roman matron 39–40, 43–44 Xystus, bishop of Rome 135–36 Zeus 176–77