The New Testament mentions Peter more than any other apostle, including Paul.1 All four Gospels list him among the first called to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16–17; Matt 4:18–20; Luke 6:12–16; John 1:40–42). Along with James and John (sons of Zebedee), Peter was in the inner circle of Jesus, but even within this select group he is clearly the leader. Thus, he was uniquely present at the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), the transfiguration (Mark 9:2–13; Matt 17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36), and Jesus’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42; Matt 26:36–46). He is regularly depicted as the spokesman for the Twelve (e.g. Mark 10:28; Matt 19:27; Luke 12:41). And in all three Synoptics, only Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ (Mark 8:29; Matt 16:16; Luke 9:20). Peter is also the primary character throughout the first 15 chapters of Acts.2 Paul corroborates the leading role of Peter in his letters as well (1 Cor 15:13; Gal 1:18; 2:9). The significance of Peter is further portrayed in the sheer number of pseudepigraphical works attributed to him.3 In light of these facts, Martin Hengel understandably considers Peter “the apostolic foundational figure of the church.”4
Although Peter denied Jesus three times, he became emboldened in his faith after the resurrection. Acts reports his willingness to suffer for proclaiming the Christian faith (Acts 4:1–2). After being threatened by the Jewish authorities, Peter and John say: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19b–20). When the apostles were arrested a second time and taken before the Sanhedrin, Peter responded: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). Morris Inch concludes: “Peter was willing to die at that moment for his faith—not a bad turnabout for a man who went from tilting at windmills to having the faith of a child. Fortunately, his time to die for his faith wasn’t for years to come.”5 Peter’s clear willingness to suffer for proclaiming his faith came from his belief that he had personally witnessed the risen Jesus. The fear that overtook Peter at the arrest of Jesus has been replaced with a newfound boldness.
Scholars disagree significantly over the fate of Peter. Arguably the most influential work defending the traditional view of Peter’s martyrdom during the reign of Nero is Oscar Cullman’s Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Cullman concludes that the martyrdom of Peter in Rome “is relatively though not absolutely assured.”6 More recently, Richard Bauckham claims that Peter’s crucifixion in Rome during the reign of Nero can be securely established with “high historical probability.”7 In contrast, F. Lapham believes the martyrdom tradition dates from the second century and is based on “the most slender of textual and archaeological evidence.”8
In order properly to evaluate the strength of the case for Peter’s martyrdom, we must evaluate each piece of evidence individually and then consider the overall strength of the case. This study focuses primarily on the literary evidence, since the archaeological evidence is far less conclusive. It is unlikely the bones discovered in the twentieth-century excavation at the Vatican actually belong to Peter. In any case, this cannot be proved.9 While the biblical book of Acts reports neither the death of Peter nor Paul, and while no other early ancient text states it directly, nevertheless, a host of indirect witnesses help us determine the likelihood of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome.
The book of Acts portrays Peter preaching and teaching in Jerusalem (2:14–41), Judea, Galilee, Samaria (cf. 9:31–32), and Caesarea (10:34–43). First Peter was written to exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1). It is by no means impossible that Peter was engaged in missions to these churches. James Dunn observes: “Since we know nothing of the beginnings of Christianity in Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, we can hardly exclude the possibility that 1 Pet. 1.1 provides evidence for beginnings during Peter’s life and mission.”10 Church tradition has Peter ministering in Syria, Greece, Anatolia, and Rome.11 Larry Helyer notes:
These traditions are not manufactured out of thin air. Paul’s letters give evidence that Peter was indeed in Antioch of Syria and almost certainly visited Corinth …. There is good reason to believe that Peter addresses the believers in Anatolia because he is in some sense their apostle. It may be that many of these people were members of Roman house churches before being forcibly relocated to the eastern fringes of the empire. This correlates with the tradition that the apostle Peter actively served the church in Rome for some years. In short, it is likely that Peter evangelized among Jews and Greeks in the western Diaspora, including Rome, over a period of at least sixteen or seventeen years and possibly more.12
If Peter was in Rome for this period, why did Paul not mention him in his letter to the Romans (AD 56/57)? Scholars have offered a variety of explanations.13 Yet regardless of the reason, Helyer offers an important perspective: “However we account for this omission, to pit an argument from silence against the widespread tradition linking Peter and Rome seems ill-advised.”14 At best, it seems one can only conclude that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote the letter. To make a further inference from this silence would go beyond the available evidence.
Much has been made of the “another place” that Peter went to after his escape from prison in Acts 12:17. John Wenham has argued that “another place” refers to Rome,15 which most scholars have rejected, as Rome would have been too distant since Peter soon returned to Jerusalem (Gal 2:7–9). Others have suggested that “another place” is a metaphorical reference to Peter’s death in prison in Jerusalem (c. AD 44).16 The majority of scholars have rejected this thesis for a variety of reasons.17 The point of the “another place” seems to be that while Agrippa martyred James, Peter escaped to a safe place. The specific location was unimportant to the larger narrative of Acts.
However, even if these critics were correct and “another place” refers to his death, this would not overturn Peter’s willingness to face martyrdom and suffer for his beliefs. F. Lapham suggests Herod Agrippa executed Peter shortly after the death of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2).18 If this were true, it would certainly undermine significant church tradition about Peter’s mission and martyrdom in Rome, but it would not overturn the premise that Peter died as a martyr for his faith. In fact, early execution in Jerusalem would still demonstrate the martyrdom of Peter.
First Peter 5:13 provides the earliest indirect evidence for Peter’s stay in Rome: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.” According to Richard Bauckham, all recent scholars recognize that “Babylon” refers to the church from which 1 Peter was written.19 The Old Testament city of Babylon was in ruins, so he could not have been referring to that city.20 Rather, it was a relatively common cryptic name for Rome, the enemy of God.21 Like the Hebrews exiled in the Babylon of the Old Testament, Christians in Rome felt themselves exiles in a foreign land, a sinful city that oppressed the people of God. This fits Peter’s earlier reference to their experience as “sojourners and exiles” (2:11). If conservative scholars are correct, this is a first-century reference to Peter’s presence in Rome, dating possibly as early as the 50s. If Peter is pseudonymous, then it dates to the 80s or 90s at the earliest, most likely in the early second century. Even at this later date, 1 Peter 5:13 would still qualify as good evidence that Peter was in Rome at some time.
A second line of indirect evidence lies in the likelihood that Mark wrote his Gospel based on the testimony of Peter while in Rome. Papias reports that Mark was Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately all that Peter remembered from his experience with Jesus.22 Although Eusebius recorded the writings of Papias at the beginning of the fourth century, these writings date from two centuries earlier and are likely reliable tradition (c. AD 110). Irenaeus, who likely wrote from the Roman archives, also reports that Mark recorded Peter’s experience with Jesus.23 The only exception among the church fathers was Chrysostom (d. AD 407), who believed Mark recorded Peter’s account while Peter was in Egypt.24 Internal evidence also indicates that Mark was written in Rome. For instance, numerous Latinisms in Mark suggest a Roman origin.25 Furthermore, the Roman “flavor” of the opening lines as well as the prominence of the centurion’s confession (15:39) are consistent with the Gospel originating in Rome.26 Paul’s passing reference in 2 Timothy 4:11, “get Mark and bring him with you,” as well as 1 Peter 5:13, where Mark sends his greeting, place Mark in Rome, most likely with Peter. Although not indisputable, this provides significant corroborative evidence that Peter did, in fact, go to Rome.
Since the middle of the second century, Christian writers unanimously concur that Peter visited Rome. In his Letter to the Romans (c. AD 106), Ignatius assumes that Peter had already ministered in Rome.27 In the Apocalypse of Peter (c. AD 135), Jesus commands Peter to go to “the city of the west,” which is undoubtedly Rome.28 Dionysius of Corinth wrote a letter to Roman Christians (c. AD 170) in which he claims that “Peter and Paul sowed among Romans and Corinthians.”29 And Gaius, Roman presbyter in the early third century (c. 199–217), claims that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church. Towards the end of the second century (AD 170s), Irenaeus says that Peter and Paul preached at Rome and laid the foundation of the church (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Finally, the Acts of Peter (AD 180–190) explicitly mentions that Peter went to Rome to challenge Simon Magus. In sum, early Christian tradition unanimously puts Peter, towards the end of his life, in Rome.
F. Lapham remains skeptical of the credibility of these accounts. He suggests that in order to have “superior authority and greater theological credibility,” the Roman church invented Peter and Paul as their apostolic founders.30 However, this seems very doubtful since Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Dionysius of Corinth were not even from Rome.31 While the specific date is conjectural, it is historically very probable that Peter was in Rome for at least some period of time.
The traditional view is that Peter was crucified in Rome during the reign of Nero in AD 64–67. A minority of scholars doubt this account.32 Since there is such a plethora of sources for the fate of Peter from the first two centuries, this investigation focuses entirely on the period of living memory. The place to begin is within the pages of the New Testament itself.
The earliest reference to the death of Peter is found on the lips of Jesus in John 21:18–19:
“Truly, truly I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God). And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
The cryptic nature of this passage makes it likely an authentic saying of Jesus.33 Some have considered John 21 to be a later addition to an already existing Gospel, but no manuscripts have been found lacking Chapter 21. Van Belle has made a solid case that Chapter 21 was part of the original Gospel.34
The context of this verse is important for proper interpretation. In verses 15–17, Jesus had just restored Peter from his threefold denial (18:15–18, 25–27). Three times Jesus asks Peter if he loves him, and after each response Jesus replies by commanding Peter to either “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” or “Feed my sheep.” The implication is clear—Peter, an undershepherd of Jesus, is called to care for the flock and sacrifice his life for them, just as Jesus did. Andrew Lincoln observes:
The force is that Peter will demonstrate the genuineness of his love by caring for those who belong to Jesus, the good shepherd. Jesus has already described what it means to shepherd the flock in 10.1–18, 26–8 and has proved his identity as the good shepherd in laying down his life for the sheep before taking it up again (cf. 10.15b, 17–18). Now Peter is charged with the privilege and responsibility of being the undershepherd who will protect, nourish, and tend the flock of the good shepherd himself.35
Peter had previously said that he would lay down his life for Jesus (13:36). But Jesus knew he was not ready, which his threefold denial evidences (13:38). Yet after the risen Jesus restores Peter for his failings, Peter, now truly ready to accept his role as shepherd of the flock, demonstrates his love for the flock by following Jesus even to the point of death (cf. 15:13). Gilbert Van Belle notes:
From Jesus’ prophecy and the evangelist’s aside in 21:19 it is clear that Peter as shepherd will follow Jesus, the good shepherd, to his death. Just as Jesus gives his life for those who follow him (10:11, 15, 17–18; 15:13) and glorifies God, Peter will follow Jesus and die for it, and thereby glorify God.36
Commentators unilaterally agree that this passage predicts the martyrdom of Peter. Bart Ehrman concludes: “It is clear that Peter is being told that he will be executed (he won’t die of natural causes) and that this will be the death of a martyr.”37 Most commentators agree that it incorporates a veiled reference to martyrdom by crucifixion.38 Yet there is significant minority who are skeptical.39 Bultmann has suggested that the prophecy of Jesus is an old proverb that merely contrasts the robustness of youth with the feebleness of old age: “In youth a man is free to go where he will; in old age a man must let himself be taken where he does not will.”40 In other words, at one time Peter was free to go where he desired, but in his old age he will unwillingly be led by another. Thus, according to Bultmann, this passage is not supposed to be taken as a prediction of the crucifixion of Peter.
Even though many have accepted this interpretation, his reasoning is unconvincing. In the ancient world, the phrase “stretch out your hands” frequently referred to crucifixion.41 Specifically, in the second century, certain Old Testament passages that involved the spreading out of arms or hands were often understood as prophetic types of Christ on the cross. For instance, in Exodus 17:12 Moses lifts up his hands in the battle against Amalek. The Epistle of Barnabas 12 and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 90–91 interpret this as a type of the crucifixion of Christ. Another example comes from Isaiah 65:2b: “I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people.” This was understood as a type of Christ in The Epistle of Barnabas 12, First Apology of Justin 35, and Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 79. The Odes of Solomon makes it clear that the stretching out of hands is a reference to crucifixion (27:1–3; 35:7; 41:1–2). There is also evidence that pagan authors considered spreading out the hands as a phase in crucifixion.42
Ramsey Michaels doubts the phrase “stretch out your hands” refers to crucifixion, and believes it is rather simply a gesture of helplessness before arrest and execution, first because neither Moses nor Isaiah literally died by crucifixion.43 The Johannine editorial aside in John 21:19a, however, clarifies for the reader that the context is specifically about the death of Peter. Michaels’ second reason is that, if it referred to crucifixion, the stretching out of the hands should come after Peter is taken where he does not want to go.44 However, Bauer has argued persuasively that the Roman crucifixion victim would have first been forced to carry the patibulum (cross beam) on his back while his arms were stretched out and tied to it, and then forced to walk to the place of crucifixion,45 precisely what happened to Jesus (cf. John 19:17).46 Thus, the order in John 21:18 matches the known means of crucifixion. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the form of crucifixion varied widely in the ancient world. No formula existed for how it was always done. Still, it seems the word order does not significantly undermine the likelihood that “stretch out your hands” is best understood as a reference to crucifixion. Even if this understanding is mistaken regarding Peter’s death by crucifixion, the narrator’s comments make it evident that it is a reference to Peter’s martyrdom nonetheless: “This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God (21:19a).”47
Jesus immediately followed his prediction of the martyrdom by simply saying to Peter, “Follow me” (21:19b), an allusion to a conversation between Jesus and Peter shortly before Jesus’s arrest: Peter had asked Jesus where he was going, and Jesus replied: “Where I am going you cannot follow me, but you will follow me afterward” (13:36). Peter had volunteered to follow Jesus, but failed, not understanding that following Jesus meant facing death, because he did not grasp that Jesus was going to his own death. Now, after the death and resurrection, Jesus and Peter are revisiting this conversation, but from the perspective that Peter is finally ready to truly follow Jesus. To follow Jesus now means to shepherd the flock as Jesus did, even to the point of crucifixion—or at least death. Peter is now able to do what he could not do before—to lay down his life in love. William Hendriksen sums up what Jesus meant: “Be my disciple and apostle, and as such follow me in service, in suffering, and in death (by being willing to endure affliction and even martyrdom for my sake).”48
Peter must now live his life with the full reality that he will face martyrdom, just as Jesus did. Whether by crucifixion, which is very probable, or by another means, and even though the passage itself provides no details of when or where, Peter’s coming death in this passage is undoubtedly the earliest reference to the martyrdom of Peter.
In 2 Peter 1:12–15, Peter provides his farewell address in the form of a testament. Death, the author knows, is pending, because of some sort of crisis. He desires, then, to leave a legacy of his core teachings. Scripture incorporates many such farewell speeches, including Jacob (Gen 49), Moses (Deut 31–32; Josephus, Antiquities 4.177–193), David (1 Kgs 2:1–9), Paul (Acts 20:17–35), and Jesus (Luke 22:24–38; John 13–17). Including a farewell address was also a common practice in Jewish literature.49 Although formal elements of a testament have been difficult to establish because of the variety within the available examples, Jerome Neyrey has identified five common elements, which can all be found in 2 Peter 1:12–15.50
Peter’s goal is straightforward—he is about to die, and wants to give a reminder to readers of what he has taught them:51
Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body [tent], to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body [tent] will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. (2 Pet 1:12–15)
The “tent” is a metaphor for the human body, which is common in Scripture (Isa 38:12; 2 Cor 5:1, 4; John 1:14). It indicates that Peter’s remaining time on earth is short. Daniel Keating observes: “The image of a tent always spoke of what was passing and transitory, looking forward to what was stable and permanent.”52 And the reference to “departure” (exodus) is a euphemism for death.53
Peter, aware his death is imminent,54 wants to stress early in the letter that his time for ministry is short and that Jesus directly revealed this to him (1:14). The key question is how Christ revealed this to Peter. And why did the author add this idea? It is impossible to rule out some unknown prophecy Peter received from Jesus, but this seems unlikely. Rather, Bauckham concludes: “The only plausible reason is that there was a well-known dominical prophecy of Peter’s death which the readers of 2 Peter would know, and so it is natural for the writer to add a reference to this prophecy.”55 So, what is the prophecy to which Peter refers? Four common explanations have been offered:56
1. John 13:36—In this passage, Peter asks where Jesus is going and Jesus replies: “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.” Although Peter had expressed his willingness to die for Jesus (v. 35), Jesus knew he was not yet ready. This passage is a prediction of Peter’s future martyrdom, but since it is before the death and resurrection of Jesus, and few details are given, most scholars reject it as providing the primary background for 2 Peter 1:14.57
2. Apocalypse of Peter—In this mid-second-century document (c. AD 135) Jesus says to Peter: “I have spoken this to you, Peter, and declared it to you. Go forth therefore and go to the city of the west and enter into the vineyard which I shall tell you of, in order that by the sufferings of the Son who is without sin the deeds of corruption may be sanctified.”58 This passage unmistakably offers a post eventum prophecy after the martyrdom of Peter. Bauckham writes: “Since it follows a passage which seems dependent on 2 Pet 1:3–11, and precedes a passages which is dependent on the accounts of the Transfiguration, including 2 Pet 1:16–18, it is probable that the prophecy is inspired by 2 Pet 1:14.”59
3. “Quo Vadis?” from the Acts of Peter 35—According to this story, Peter encounters Jesus while escaping arrest in Rome. Peter asks Jesus where he is going, and Jesus replies: “I go to Rome to be crucified.” Jesus then ascends to heaven and Peter returns to Rome rejoicing that he can be crucified. The story clearly has the marks of legend and is likely a historical fabrication.60 Furthermore, since the story is first attested in AD 180–190, even if it were historical, it is highly unlikely that it would be the source of revelation from Jesus in 2 Peter 1:14.
4. John 21:18—This is the most likely interpretation. As we have seen, this passage undoubtedly alludes to Peter’s martyrdom, and is very probably a reference to crucifixion. Some have questioned this interpretation since it vaguely refers to a future death for Peter but gives no indication of time. John 21:18 indicates, though, that the prophecy will take place when Peter is “old,” but no specifics are offered. “But,” Douglas Moo observes, “we can surmise that Peter found himself in a situation where persecution had arisen and that he had drawn the conclusion that the Lord’s prophecy about his death was shortly to be realized.”61 Peter has been living in the shadow of the prophecy for decades, yet now that he is substantially older, and persecution is likely increasing, he naturally infers the imminence of the prophecy.
If 2 Peter 1:14 is an allusion to the prophecy of John 21:18, then it is an indirect reference to the martyrdom of Peter. The author of 2 Peter portrays Peter as writing shortly before his death with full knowledge that his martyrdom is imminent. Even if 2 Peter were pseudepigraphical, it would be clear that the author portrayed Peter as likely going to die soon. And if it were written after AD 64, the Neronian persecution would have been well known. Thus, neither Peter nor another writer would need additional revelation, outside of the known tradition from John 21:18, to infer that Peter’s death was imminent. Bauckham captures the significance of this passage: “This makes 2 Peter an early evidence of the Roman church’s own tradition about Peter’s martyrdom. That Peter is represented in 2 Peter as writing, from Rome, in the knowledge that his death was coming soon, strongly suggests, even if it cannot quite demonstrate, that Peter was known to have died in Rome.”62
First Clement is the first non-canonical document that refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. While some scholars have denied this claim entirely,63 a significant number of scholars believe 1 Clement 5.1–4 provides early attestation for their martyrdoms, including Bart Ehrman.64
Standard dating puts the letter toward the end of the first century (AD 95–96), although some scholars believe it was written much earlier.65 This document has special significance because it is the only non-canonical document attesting the deaths of Peter and Paul within the first century, and it is written within one generation of the deaths of the apostles.66 As Bockmuehl has noted, the references, “in quite recent time” and “of our own generation,” refer to living memory.67
Early church tradition is unanimous that Clement of Rome is the author.68 First Clement was commissioned to the church at Corinth by a small group of presbyters in Rome for which Clement was the likely secretary, which explains why his name was associated with the letter. And yet, scholarly research has revealed little knowledge of the ethnicity of the author.
The problems Clement addresses in the church of Corinth in the 90s appear to be similar as in the 50s, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.69 After following Paul’s example of highlighting the positive aspects of a church before offering criticism, Clement shifts directly to the shortcomings of the church at Corinth:
From this came jealousy and envy, strife and faction, persecution and disorderliness, war and captivity. And so the dishonorable rose up against the honorable, the disreputable against the reputable, the senseless against the sensible, the young against the old. For this reason, righteousness and peace are far removed, since each has abandoned the reverential awe of God and become dim-sighted in faith, failing to proceed in the ordinances of his commandments and not living according to what is appropriate in Christ. Instead, each one walks according to the desires of his evil heart, which have aroused unrighteousness and impious jealousy—through which also death entered the world (3.2–4).
The core problem Clement addresses is jealousy (zēlos) among the people of God.70 In his first example, involving Cain and Abel, Clement concludes: “You see, brothers, jealousy and envy brought about the murder of a brother” (4.7). The main purpose of the opening chapters of 1 Clement is that jealousy among believers brings about division, persecution, and even death.
Clement offers additional examples of the results of jealousy from the Old Testament, including Jacob fleeing from Esau (4.8), Joseph being “persecuted to the point of death” and then entering into slavery (4.9), Moses fleeing Egypt as protection for his life (4.10), Aaron and Miriam being forced to sleep outside the camp in the desert wilderness (4.11), Dathan and Abiram swallowed by the earth as a part of Korah’s rebellion (4.12), and David fleeing for his life while being persecuted by King Saul (4.13). While not all of these conflicts resulted in death, Clement is particularly interested in cases that end that way, which is why he provides disproportionate detail in the first example of Cain and Abel. Clearly, Clement believes that jealousy amongst the community of God leads to the danger and threat of death. Whether death comes at the hands of a member of the Jewish or Christian community (for example, King Saul) or at the hand of a secular ruler (for example, Pharaoh),71 the point is clear: jealousy amongst members in the community of God leads to death.72 Clement cites these above examples without providing evidence they really happened. The reason is simple—he did not have to. He can safely assume they are common knowledge to the audience. He does the same for the fates of Peter and Paul—he assumes his audience is fully aware of their martyrdom accounts and accepts them as being true.
The context of the early chapters of 1 Clement helps us understand the particular passage that focuses on the apostles Peter and Paul:
But to stop giving ancient examples, let us come to those who became athletic contenders in quite recent times. We should consider the noble examples of our own generation. Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most upright pillars were persecuted, and they struggled in the contest even to death. We should set before our eyes the good apostles. There is Peter, who because of unjust jealousy bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having thus borne his witness he went to the place of glory that he deserved (5.1–4).
Clement tells that both Peter and Paul were persecuted and struggled in the contest “unto death.” This likely refers to their martyrdom, although grammatical considerations are inconclusive.73 Clement also says that Peter, after experiencing much hardship and persecution, had borne his “witness” and then went to the place of glory. It is possible, although unlikely, that “witness” is a reference to the death of Peter, since the term was not commonly used to mean a martyr’s death until the martyrdom of Polycarp in the middle of the second century.74 Bockmuehl is much more confident of what a grammatical analysis can reveal.75 Nevertheless, it can minimally be conceded that “witness” is more than “on the way to becoming the technical term for martyrdom.”76
While a grammatical analysis of 1 Clement 5:1–4 is favorable but inconclusive, the context strongly implies that Clement was referring to the martyrdom of Peter. First Clement 5 is part of the immediate context of the catalogue of examples in Chapters 4–6. Clement provides seven examples of jealousy from the Old Testament in Chapter 4, and then seven contemporary examples in Chapters 5–6. Of the final list, Peter and Paul are introduced as individuals, jointly in that order. Bockmuehl comments on the significance of this passage:
At least for Christians in Rome and Corinth, it seems, that these two apostles are, at this stage, the most obvious, uncontroversial recent examples of faithful endurance in the face of jealousy and persecution …. Rhetorically, the writer seems able to assume that this is known and undisputed, not just in Rome but among his Corinthian readers too.77
Thus, I agree with Bauckham that “Clement probably knew that Peter was martyred, not from any written source but simply as a matter of common knowledge in the church at Rome when he wrote.”78
Each example in Chapters 5–6 emphasizes the evil conclusions that come from jealousy between brothers and sisters. And yet the latter “contemporary” examples are distinguished from the first by their martyrological theme. Regarding the women Danaids and Dircae (6.2), Michael Holmes observes:
In ancient mythology, the daughters of Danaus were given as prizes to the winners of a race; thus it is likely that Danaids is a reference to Christian women being raped prior to being martyred. Dirce died by being tied to the horns of a bull and then dragged to death.79
Clement indicates that a significant number of other persecuted Christians also became examples because of their faithful witness through suffering.80 It seems highly doubtful Clement would have included Peter and Paul in this list if they were not martyred.81
Michael Goulder rejects that 1 Clement provides any evidence for the martyrdom of Peter in Rome. He finds it improbable Peter ever made it to Rome, and believes Peter likely died in his bed about AD 55.82 Goulder argues: “Peter was the prince of apostles, and if he was martyred at Rome, every Roman Christian would have known about it. If Clement shows knowledge of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, then he was martyred there. If Clement does not know about it, he was not so martyred.”83 Goulder finds it surprising how little Clement seems to know about Peter.
Goulder is right that if Peter had died in Rome, every Roman believer would have known about it. But the core problem with Goulder’s position is that it is an argument from silence. There is simply no way of knowing for sure the extent of what Clement knew about Peter. There is record of what Clement wrote, but this is not necessarily the same as what Clement knew. To make his argument, Goulder must assume both that he was privy to what Clement knew about Peter and that Clement revealed everything he knew. However, Clement likely knew much more about Peter than he reveals and had reasons for not writing it explicitly here. In fact, if it was common knowledge, as Goulder suggests it may have been, then Clement would not need to mention it—he could simply take it for granted. Cullman notes:
It is of course probable that not much was said of the particularly painful circumstances that contributed to those martyrdoms. The Christians who had caused the death of other Christians did not offer an edifying example for others …. Did the author, who wishes to show the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ, perhaps have scruples about speaking of this grievous and momentous jealousy?84
Further, O’Connor suggests that 1 Clement aims to promote better relations between the church and government, hoping to avoid future persecution: “Prudence may also have been a factor in the brevity of the notice; Clement may have refrained from mentioning details that would have endangered relations between Church and State.”85 It is not fair to assume, as Goulder suggests, that Clement knew merely what he revealed explicitly; clearly, Clement may have had strategic reasons for remaining reserved.
First Clement, then, provides strong evidence that the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul were part of the living memory of Christians in Rome, and likely in Corinth, towards the end of the first century. According to Bart Ehrman: “By the end of the first century and into the second it was widely known among Christians that Peter had suffered a martyr’s death. The tradition is alluded to in the book of 1 Clement.”86 Cullman further suggests that since Clement wrote from Rome, we have good reason to believe Peter was martyred in Rome during the time of the Neronian persecution.87 While this is possible, and certainly consistent with the other extant evidence, it seems to reach beyond what the text can deliver. Cullman also concludes that Clement reveals the place of martyrdom since he speaks of “among us” to the notice concerning Peter.88 However, the “us” may just as likely refer to both the Roman and Corinthian churches, which would indicate it is a larger reference to the body of Christ—or at least Christians alive at that time—rather than simply Roman Christians. I agree with Bauckham that the only fact we can confidently ascertain from 1 Clement is that of the martyrdom of Peter. Clement likely knew the specific time, location, and manner of his death, but he chose not to reveal it.89
Nevertheless, even if this interpretation is mistaken, 1 Clement makes it clear that Peter and Paul were willing to suffer deeply and even face death for their belief in the risen Jesus. Clement says these “pillars” were persecuted because of “jealous and envy … and they struggled in the contest even to death” (5.2). This does not mean they were persecuted as long as they were alive, but that the persecution ended in death. At the very least, this passage provides evidence that Peter and Paul were considered examples of faithful endurance for the Gospel, even in the midst of suffering, until their deaths.
Outside his letters and a few brief comments by Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9.1; 13.2), we know little about the life of Ignatius, an early second-century church father who, on his way to martyrdom in Rome, wrote letters to various churches.90 His letters focus on rooting out doctrinal heresy within the churches and emphasize unity and harmony among believers. Ignatius claims to be the bishop of Antioch of Syria (Letter to the Romans 2.2). Most scholars accept the “middle recension,” which includes seven letters to Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrneans, Trallians, and one to Polycarp (c. AD 100–118).91 There are two texts in the letters of Ignatius that are relevant for our investigation regarding the martyrdom of Peter—Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1–3 and Letter to the Romans 4.3.
This is another commonly cited passage regarding the possibility that Ignatius had knowledge of the martyrdom of Peter. It is the only letter from Ignatius not written to a church or bishop of Asia Minor. He shares his desire to be martyred so he can truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and then implores Roman Christians not to intervene (4.1; 6:1–2).
The key passage of interest is found in Letter to the Romans 4.3:
I am not enjoining you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned; they were free, until now I have been a slave. But if I suffer, I will become a freed person who belongs to Jesus Christ, and I will rise up, free, in him. In the meantime I am learning to desire nothing while in chains.
Ignatius, who willingly embraces his impending execution, distinguishes between his authority and the apostles—“I am not enjoining you as Peter and Paul did”—after pleading with the Roman Christians not to interfere in his martyrdom (4:1–2). Peter and Paul had authority to command Roman Christians simply because they were apostles; Ignatius, by contrast, is in chains and only becomes a full disciple through martyrdom.92 He is well aware that his writings have less authority than the apostles. He has no idealistic expectations that he can become an apostle like Peter and Paul, because they have a greater authority to command believers regardless of their martyrdoms.
The letter does not say Peter and Paul were in Rome, but this is clearly the assumption since he is writing to Roman Christians. Bockmuehl writes: “Neither Ignatius nor any other ancient writer suggests that Peter, like Paul, ‘instructed’ the Roman church in writing. The only other possibility therefore, is that Ignatius evidently appeals to a local memory of the personal presence, ministry and, by implication, the martyrdom of both apostles in the capital.”93 This claim gains strength from the mention of Peter and Paul that occurs in a context in which Ignatius is addressing martyrdom (4:1–2). The fact that Ignatius singles out Peter and Paul among the various apostles indicates that he may have been aware of traditions related to their deaths in Rome, the city to which the letter is addressed.94
Ignatius’s desire to be a “freed person” through his sufferings (4.3) and to realize “the things that constrain me” (6.3) have been taken by some to allude to his desire to share martyrdom with the apostles as well as ascend to heaven to be with them.95 Ignatius says the apostles are free, but considers himself a slave (4.3). Thus, according to this view, he would suffer and experience martyrdom as the apostles did and then share in their freedom. While this is a possible interpretation, not all agree. Schoedel provides a much more convincing explanation:
Surely Peter and Paul were thought of by Ignatius as “free” and capable of commanding obedience even apart from their martyrdom, and surely that is why the bishop recognizes his inability to speak to the Romans with the same authority as they (cf. Eph. 3.1; Tr 3.3). Ignatius differs from the apostles in that only through martyrdom can he become as they were.96
Ignatius certainly may have been aware of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, but Letter to the Romans 4:3 does not explicitly state so. At best, Ignatius assumes it.
The church at Smyrna and its bishop Polycarp were especially significant to Ignatius. Of all the cities and communities in Asia Minor, he chose Smyrna as his most prolonged visit en route to Rome. It is clear from this letter that Ignatius’s chief concern for the church at Smyrna was Docetism,97 although the primary interest is in 3:1–2:
For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them, “Reach out, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless daimon.” And immediately they touched him and believed, having been intermixed with his flesh and spirit. For this reason they also despised death, for they were found to be beyond death.
Ignatius adopts the canonical tradition of considering Peter the foremost apostle of the early church, both before and after the resurrection. Ignatius refers to “those who were with Peter,” a reference to the other apostles. While the story of Jesus requesting the apostles reach out and touch him is reminiscent of Luke 24:39, it seems more likely they both rely upon a common tradition, since Ignatius provides no additional evidence of reliance upon Luke.98 Thus, as Bauckham has observed: “He must have been able to assume, as common knowledge, that at least some of the twelve had died as martyrs.”99 It would be strange if Peter, the only apostle mentioned by name, were not one of these martyrs.
The fact that the apostles “despised death” indicates that Ignatius believed they were willing to suffer and even die for the belief that they had physically seen the risen Jesus. Ignatius mentions the apostles’ willingness to suffer and face death as evidence for the reality of the resurrection. While we cannot be certain where Ignatius got his information, his letter does presuppose the martyrdom of many of the apostles, including Peter.
The Apocalypse of Peter, a pseudepigraphal work that begins with Jesus sitting upon the Mount of Olives as he teaches Peter and the disciples about the end of the world, clearly presents Peter as the lead disciple, just as in the Gospels and Acts. It is generally agreed that the Apocalypse of Peter dates from the first half of the second century (c. AD 135).100
We should distinguish, though, between the various documents often referred to as apocalypses of Peter.101 Despite its shortcomings, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter, which provides the only complete text, is generally considered the best representation of the original.102 Still, we remain uncertain of some of the exact wording and content at different points of the Apocalypse of Peter.103 The passage that relates to the martyrdom of Peter is 14:4–6. A popular translation of the Ethiopic text:
I have spoken this to you, Peter, and declared it to you. Go forth therefore and go to the city of the west and enter into the vineyard which I shall tell you of, in order that by the sufferings of the Son who is without sin the deeds of corruption may be sanctified. As for you, you are chosen according to the promise which I have given you. Spread my gospel throughout all the world in peace. Verily men shall rejoice; my words shall be the source of hope and of life, and suddenly shall the world be ravished.104
Since this chapter is the most corrupt of the Ethiopic text, Buchholz has provided a translation with corrections from the Greek text (Rainer fragment):
Behold, I have shown you, Peter, and I have explained everything. And go into a city ruling over the west, and drink the cup which I have promised you at the hands of the son of the One who is in Hades in order that his destruction might acquire a beginning. And you … of the promise ….105
The “city ruling over the west” is likely a reference to Rome. The phrase “drink the cup which I have promised” is clearly a reference to martyrdom. Jesus used the phrase with martyrological connotations when the Zebedee brothers requested they reign with Jesus (Mark 10:35–39; Matt 20:20–23). Jesus also uses the same saying in preparation for his own death (Matt 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11). The author of the Apocalypse of Peter knew and used the Gospel of Matthew,106 so it is likely he took this phrase directly from Matthew 20:22–23 and fully understood its martyrological association.
Though somewhat odd, the expression “the son of the One who is in Hades” likely refers to Nero.107 In this statement, “in order that his destruction might acquire a beginning,” Peter’s preaching and martyrdom in Rome act as the channel through which God overcomes the power of Satan.108 Buchholz summarizes the significance of this passage:
This is possibly the oldest known unambiguous allusion to Peter’s death in Rome. It witnesses to the idea that Peter’s death must occur before Satan’s destruction can begin, or to the idea that Peter’s death must occur before Satan can really begin his (final) work of destruction (cf. 2 Th. 2:6–8). Either way, Peter’s death is seen as a sign of the End, and surely this must be a very early idea, one which would not have arisen too long after Peter’s (assumed?) death in Rome and one which would not be incorporated into new works at a date too far removed from that period of time.109
The Apocalypse of Peter provides additional early attestation for the martyrdom of Peter in Rome during the reign of Nero. It must be conceded that this is dependent upon the proper translation of the Rainer fragment, which is far from certain. Taken alone, the Apocalypse of Peter would provide modest evidence for the martyrdom of Peter in Rome. However, considered with the rest of the evidence, it is a significant piece of evidence for the traditional story concerning the fate of Peter.
We find another possible indirect witness for the martyrdom of Peter in the Ascension of Isaiah, an early second-century Old Testament pseudepigraphal apocalyptic text (c. AD 112–138).110 Jonathan Knight has argued that the Ascension of Isaiah aims to address the Christians who feared that Rome would implement similar policies against Christians, just as Trajan had adopted in Bithynia in the early part of the second century.111 According to Knight, the death of Isaiah for witnessing to Jesus (chap. 5) brings to mind Trajan’s policy of putting Christians to death who continued to proclaim the “name” of Christ. On the other hand, Greg Carey argues it is a polemic against the Jews for their ignorance and apostasy as well as a primary witness to Christ.112
The Ascension of Isaiah can be divided into two visions. The First Vision (chaps. 1–5) contains the narrative of the martyrdom of Isaiah. It includes the hope that the Beloved will return and destroy the oppressing forces (4.14–18). Beliar becomes angry with Isaiah and Manasseh has him sawn in two (5.1). The Second Vision (6–11) contains an apocalyptic account of Isaiah through the seven heavens, with a focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus and ultimate defeat of Beliar by the Beloved One (10).
The particular section often cited as a reference to the martyrdom of Peter is Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–3:
Then will arise Beliar, the great prince, the king of this world, who has ruled it since its origin; and he will descend from his firmament in human form, king of wickedness, murderer of his mother, who himself is king of the world; and he will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved shall have planted; one of the Twelve will be delivered into his hands.113
The context of this passage is the prophecy that the Beloved One will return from heaven and send Beliar (Satan) to Gehenna while providing rest for the godly (4.14–21). All those who had supported Beliar will be destroyed (4.18), and hope is provided for those currently facing persecution.
In this passage, “Beliar” clearly refers to Nero, the one who descends in human form. This passage picks up the idea regarding the myth of Nero’s return, which appears in other literature of the time.114 It would seem possible to interpret this passage as referring to the execution of James (Acts 12:2), except that Beliar is considered the “murderer of his mother,” which is a clear indication of Nero’s murder of his mother Agrippina.115 The image of Nero terrorized Christians and Jews, so he was considered a symbol for Jewish aversion to Rome. This is the symbolic sense in which the image of Nero is used in the Ascension of Isaiah.116
The claim that Beliar (Nero) will “persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved shall have planted” refers to the persecution of the church. The key question involves the identity of “one of the Twelve” who will be delivered into the hands of Nero. Paul cannot be in mind here, because the author uses the same phrase to refer to the “twelve disciples” in 3:17 and 11:22. In addition, the Ascension of Isaiah never mentions Paul individually; it is unlikely, then, that he would be referred to cryptically as “one of the Twelve.” Instead, the author has the same technical sense of “the Twelve” as in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Mark 3:14–19, both of which clearly refer to the 12 apostles Jesus chose to join him in ministry.
Daniel O’Connor captures the most straightforward way of understanding this text: “If the passage is read without prejudice, the most convincing interpretation is that ‘Beliar’ is a cryptic name for Nero; ‘the plant’ stands for the Church; and Peter is the one of ‘the Twelve” who is ‘delivered into his hands.’”117 The passage refers to an apostle who fell into Nero’s hands, which most obviously refers to Peter, the only other apostle for whom there is any tradition about his martyrdom under Nero. Just as the “Beloved One” throughout the Ascension of Isaiah is a reference to Jesus, the “one” of the Twelve likely refers to Peter.
Why would the author(s) not specifically mention Peter? First, even Jesus often spoke in generic terms about his betrayer: “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me” (Matt 26:21). Prophecy is often generalized and vague, and this passage, which is part of the First Vision, is likely no exception. Second, as Bauckham concludes, because The Ascension of Isaiah was written during the living memory of Peter, the tradition of Peter’s death in Rome under Nero would have been commonly known and easily identified by the first readers.118
Perkins argues, however, that the phrase “will be delivered into his hands” may not be a reference to martyrdom at all,119 citing Paul’s use of the same phrase in reference to a man who has sex with his father’s wife. The church was to “deliver this man to Satan,” which means they were to dismiss him from the fellowship (1 Cor 5.5). However, the phrase is a Semitism which often, although not always, implies destruction of the one who is handed over.120 The context of the Ascension of Isaiah is clearly the persecution of those who oppose Beliar. In a similar context, when Jesus foretells his own death, he uses the same phrase. Matthew 17:22 says: “As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.’” The author of the Ascension of Isaiah, then, likely used this phrase as a reference to martyrdom.
And even while this passage in Ascension of Isaiah does not explicitly state that Peter was martyred by Nero in Rome, when Beliar is identified as Nero, with the understanding that Nero’s persecution was confined to Rome, and the likelihood that the “one” refers to Peter, this most likely refers to Peter’s death in Rome under Nero. Cullman, therefore, may be right—the Ascension of Isaiah is likely the first and earliest document that attests to the martyrdom of Peter in Rome.
Most, but not all, scholars121 date the Acts of Peter to c. AD 180–190,122 which falls within the living memory of the life of Peter and thus may have some historical value for this investigation. The Acts of Peter clearly contains substantial legendary material from earlier oral tradition,123 and yet, despite the legendary accretions, as François Bovon and Eric Junod have observed, “their value as historical witnesses is not abolished.”124 Christine Thomas writes: “The mere fact that externally attested first-century individuals appear as protagonists in the pages of the Acts of Peter is sufficient to show that these narratives were not fictions completely divorced from historical memory.”125 She provides an important balance to the role of redactors in the Acts of Peter:
Like the storytellers in the first phase, the author of the continuous narrative had limits to creative license: the basic characters, Peter, Agrippa, Nero, Eubula, and Marcellus, were already part and parcel of the narrative. The basic outline of the story was also given. As suggested above, however, this author was not consciously attempting innovation, but was striving to collect and preserve as much of the story of Peter as possible.126
The writer(s) of the Acts of Peter did not simply invent material, but were bound by received tradition. We have reason to believe earlier pre-existing traditions, and in particular martyrdom traditions, have been incorporated into the text.127 The traditions behind the Acts of Peter trace back to the first century.128 And yet the Apocryphal Acts also reflect the situation of the churches in the second and third centuries from which they were written.129
The most commonly repeated genre for the Acts of Peter and other Apocryphal Acts is the ancient novel.130 While not disputing that the genre is novelistic in some capacity, Thomas says it should properly be called a “historical novel”:
The Acts of Peter embellish their characters using the same means as the novels, but the relationship to historiography differs considerably. The novels, both erotic and historical, avoid direct reference to commonly known historical events. Although the minor characters may be drawn directly from historical figures, neither the main characters nor the story refers to the events or public figures who populate historical discourse. In texts such as the Acts of Peter, however, the narrative focuses directly on figures of great public significance to the tradents. And it is precisely the most noteworthy events in the lives of the characters that become the province of the Christian writers and storytellers. This is certainly true of Simon and Peter, and even of secondary figures such as Marcellus. However historically worthless or distorted the information in the Actus Vercellenses may be, the objective is not to tell something that may have happened in the past, using history for décor, but to retell the most significant and well-known events from the public life of an individual; a narrative about noteworthy events of the past is the main objective. The Alexander romance provides the best generic parallel among the novelistic products of the Roman Empire. Alongside of the imaginative and improbable occurrences that form the fabric of the narrative, the romance also narrates all the best-known events of Alexander’s life.131
Since the Apocryphal Acts contain both historical memory and legend, the difficulty is deciphering between the two. Is there a historical kernel we can trust? Some of the events in the Acts of Peter are clearly embellishment. For instance, Peter performs multiple miracles132 that are narrative devices to prove that Peter represents the real Lord and that Simon is an impostor.133 The feats of Simon Magus are clearly exaggerations as well. Nevertheless, all of the various versions of the Acts of Peter134 tell a similar tale of Peter’s activity and martyrdom in Rome, incorporating precisely the same characters: Peter, Simon, Marcellus, Agrippa, and Nero. The consistent reference to the martyrdom of Peter, which finds support from earlier sources both canonical and extracanonical, indicates a fixed tradition by the time the Acts of Peter appeared at the end of the second century. Before this time, the martyrdom accounts are very reserved and provide only indirect hints that he died in Rome under Nero. “However,” says Perkins, “the later tradition quite strongly favors the fact of Peter’s martyrdom under Nero, so we may assume that the earlier hints do point to that event as a fact as well.”135 Since there are no other accounts of Peter dying anywhere except Rome, it is likely the tradition of his martyrdom in Rome was so well known at this point that the Acts of Peter was bound by this tradition. Thus, while the Acts of Peter does contain some stories that strain credibility, we should not ignore its testimony to the martyrdom of Peter.
The tradition surrounding his death by Nero, however, is less secure. Outside the Acts of Peter, only the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Peter allude, prior to the third century, to Peter’s death by Nero. And it is interesting that Peter’s arrest and death in the Acts of Peter have nothing to do with the Neronian persecution. No mention is made of the Roman fire or the blame Nero placed on the Christians. Nero only appears at the beginning of the narrative and briefly at the end, which indicates it could be a later addition to the text. In the Acts of Peter, Peter is arrested because of the jealousy of Agrippa and Albinus, whose wives and concubines will no longer have sex with them since their Christian conversions. Cullman believes this may be part of the historical core of the Acts of Peter, since 1 Clement reports that the deaths of both Peter and Paul were occasioned by jealousy.136 We remain uncertain how widely known the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom under Nero had spread by the late second century, but it is significant that the author(s) fail to link them together. Thiede seems to come to a fair conclusion: “As far as the existing evidence is concerned, the death of Peter during Nero’s fourteenth year cannot be ruled out, but neither, in the nature of the case, can it be proved beyond doubt.”137
Given both the early reference in John 21:18 and the fact that crucifixion was a common form of punishment for slaves and non-Roman citizens, the crucifixion of Peter is historically likely. However, the claim that Peter was crucified upside-down is open to doubt. In the Martyrdom of Peter, when Peter approaches the place of execution, he gives a speech to the people and the cross (36.7–8). He concludes by saying: “But it is time for you, Peter, to surrender your body to those who are taking it. Take it, then, you whose duty it is. I request you therefore, executioners, to crucify me head-downwards in this way and no other.” Peter gives a final speech while upside-down on the cross and then dies (40.11).
Many often assume that Peter’s request shows humility, in that he did not consider himself worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. But the text does not say this outright. Rather, Peter’s upside-down state symbolizes that fallen humanity has now been restored through the cross.138 The narrative indicates a turning point in cosmic history, in the cross of Christ as well as the cross of Peter.139 The world has been turned upside-down by sin, and so Peter can see the upside-down nature of the world clearly while hanging with his head downward on the cross. His speech makes clear that Adam, the “first man,” fell head-downwards and turned the cosmos upside-down, but only through Christ can the world be seen “upright.” Thus, the crucifixions of Jesus and Peter restore the creation, through the New Adam, to its intended functioning.140
Is the upside-down crucifixion of Peter a reliable tradition? The earliest church father to mention it, Origen, in Volume 3 of his Commentary on Genesis in the mid-third century (c. 230),141 makes no mention of Peter’s prolonged speech. It is uncertain whether Origen derived this from an independent tradition or from the Acts of Peter. We do have evidence Roman executioners varied their crucifixion practices for their own sadistic pleasure, however, so it is not intrinsically implausible Peter was crucified upside-down.142 Still, while it is possible the tradition preserves an early memory of Peter’s upside-down crucifixion, the evidence is simply inconclusive.
The Apocryphon of James is a pseudonymous text that describes the revelatory teachings of Jesus to James the brother of the Jesus, and Peter in the form of a letter to Cerinthus,143 550 days after his resurrection. The letter contains an apocryphon (secret writing) of teachings for James and Peter, but not the rest of the disciples. Unlike the four Gospels, the Apocryphon of James consists primarily of sayings delivered in parables and speeches. It was first discovered with other Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945. It contains a direct “prophecy” that James and Peter would be crucified for their faith:
Or do you not know that you have yet to be abused and to be accused unjustly; and have yet to be shut up in prison, and condemned unlawfully, and crucified without reason, and buried shamefully as I (was) myself, by the evil one? Do you dare to spare the flesh, you for whom the Spirit is an encircling wall? If you consider how long the world existed before you, and how long it will exist after you, you will find that your life is one single day, and your sufferings one single hour. For the good will not enter into the world. Scorn death, therefore, and take thought for life! Remember my cross and my death, and you will live!144
James and Peter are specifically told by Jesus that they will “be shut up in prison, and condemned unlawfully, and crucified without reason.” This passage was written specifically from Jesus to James and Peter, so it is likely the author was aware of their actual martyrdoms. Yet the text seems not to come from the tradition of their martyrdoms, especially since there is no known tradition that James was crucified, but on a creedal summary of the passion and death of Jesus.145
Our most pressing question involves the dating of this “prophecy.” Ron Cameron has argued that the Apocryphon of James should be dated between the end of the first century and the middle of the second.146 He essentially argues that the sayings in the Apocryphon of James are early and independent from the four Gospels, and in particular John. If so, this could be valuable early evidence for the martyrdom of Peter, even though there is no indication of when or where it took place. But not all scholars agree. Philip Jenkins writes: “Supposed parallels between the Apocryphon and the New Testament passages are tenuous, and it really takes the eye of faith to see these resemblances: often, passages cited as parallels are describing broadly similar ideas which were commonplaces of early Christian thought and rhetoric.”147 Rather than being an independent testimony to early Christian thought, Jenkins notes, the Apocryphon (and other secret texts) “could equally be seen as historical fictions which use the canonical gospels as a springboard for their speculative tales and theological discourses.”148
The Apocryphon of James is written as a “remembrance” of the teachings of Jesus to James and Peter, which was a common technical term used in the early church to indicate the passing on of living memory from Jesus to the disciples.149 Does this mean the Apocryphon of James contains early, independent sayings of Jesus? Not necessarily. Bockmuehl observes: “Here too we find an allusion to Peter’s crucifixion (5.9–20), but the document’s general tenor aims to subvert the traditional appeal to any apostolic memory of Jesus by appealing instead to Gnostic teachings.”150 Clearly, the author distinguishes himself from the wider Christian community by embracing certain Gnostic beliefs.151 While the document appeals to the living memory of Jesus, this is likely a later literary device to convince readers of its credibility rather than a genuine tradition tracing back to the historical Jesus. The claim that the letter was written to James and Peter is another literary device meant to garner credibility for the document. It is certainly curious that no early church father quotes from the Apocryphon of James. Although some would like to date the Apocryphon of James early, the only secure date is that it was written some time before AD 314, when the threat of martyrdom and persecution of the church officially ended.
While the author of the Apocryphon of James likely knew of Peter’s fate as a martyr, without convincing evidence for an earlier date, this text provides minimal corroboration for the martyrdom of Peter. At best, it shows that by the end of the second century at the earliest, the crucifixion of Peter was assumed by both Orthodox and Gnostic circles alike.
Dionysius of Corinth wrote to the Roman bishop Soter around the year AD 170. While his goal was primarily pastoral, Dionysius writes to bolster the position of Corinth against the power of Rome.152 In the letter, he mentions the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul in Rome. Eusebius considers this letter confirmation that both Peter and Paul died as martyrs under the reign of Nero: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.”153 The claim that Peter ministered in Corinth, while possible, is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. However, while it cannot be verified, it is certainly possible Peter visited Corinth as Dionysius suggests (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5).154
The statement by Dionysius does not say they ministered at the same time, but simply that they both “taught us in our Corinth.” Therefore, this claim is not intrinsically implausible that Peter visited and ministered in Corinth. However, the claim that both Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth and Rome seems more like “ecclesial polemic,”155 since only Paul is ever mentioned as the founder (1 Cor 3:10–15). Dionysius is also mistaken about Paul founding the church at Rome. This is verified by his letter to the Romans (AD 55–58), where he explicitly states that he had not yet visited Rome, much less been its founder (Rom 1:11–15; 15:20–29). In fairness, though, as Paul Maier writes: “Still, since both apostles were martyred very early in its history, it is understandable that they were quickly deemed honorable founders, so to speak.”156
Nevertheless, we should doubt that they “suffered martyrdom at the same time.” Since Dionysius may have been mistaken in his claim about the founding of both Corinth and Rome, we naturally ought to question his claim about the dual martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. This is unlikely since Peter and Paul would have been executed with different methods. Most likely Dionysius meant that they suffered martyrdom in the same era rather than the exact same moment. This is consistent with tradition, and certainly more plausible.
It is interesting that Dionysius is writing to Rome and states that both apostles were martyred there. Since this is well within the living memory of the apostles, the church at Rome could easily have corrected this if it were not true. Were Peter and Paul not known to have died as martyrs in Rome, Dionysius’s whole argument breaks down, yet he offers their place of martyrdom as known fact. The earlier hints of 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp that Paul was martyred in Rome under Nero are made more explicit in Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius).
Irenaeus wrote his most famous work, Against Heresies, at the end of the second century (c. AD 180), placing it within the range of living memory of the apostle Peter. His task was to refute Gnosticism, which had become a significant competitor for the church by the late second century. Irenaeus claims to have personally listened to Polycarp, who was one of the last followers of the apostle John, as a young man in Asia. Eusebius records a letter Irenaeus wrote to Florinus:
When I was still a boy I saw you [Florinus] in Lower Asia with Polycarp, when you had high status at the imperial court and wanted to gain his favor. I remember events from those days more clearly than those that happened recently—what we learn in childhood adheres to the mind and grows with it—so that I can even picture the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, his comings and goings, his character, his personal appearance, his discourses to the crowds, and how he reported his discussions with John and others who had seen the Lord. He recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and his miracles and his teachings—things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses of the Word of life and reported in fully harmony with Scripture. I listened eagerly to these things at that time and, through God’s mercy, noted them not on paper but in my heart.157
Irenaeus indirectly supports this claim elsewhere.158
Irenaeus provides a reference to the deaths of Peter and Paul in a section committed to defending the scriptural authority of the four Gospels:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure [death], Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.159
Some have contested that “departure” simply means Peter and Paul left Rome, but this is unlikely.160 Like the reference in Dionysius of Corinth, we do not know precisely what Irenaeus meant by Peter and Paul “laying the foundations of the Church.” If he meant that they founded the church, then he is mistaken. More likely, though, Irenaeus, like Dionysius, meant their deaths made them honorable founders.
Irenaeus mentions the deaths (“departures”) of Peter and Paul, but provides no further details regarding their fate. He does not mention where, when, or how they died. In fact, natural deaths for both of them would be consistent with the statement in Irenaeus. However, given the strength of the tradition at this time concerning the preaching and martyrdom of Peter in Rome, it seems most likely that Irenaeus was well aware of the accounts and felt it unnecessary to repeat.
Tertullian, who comes just after the close of the living memory and who is the last writer we will consider here, wrote The Prescriptions against Heretics and Scorpiace near the turn of the third century (c. AD 208). In The Prescriptions Against Heretics 36, Tertullian explicitly mentions that Peter was crucified like Jesus:
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s [the Baptist] where the apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and then remitted to his island-exile!161
It is true that this statement must be received with caution, especially since it occurs in the incredible story that John was plunged into boiling oil and emerged unhurt. Nevertheless, Tertullian is even more specific in Scorpiace 15, where he states, like the Ascension of Isaiah, that the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul took place under Nero:
And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.162
Tertullian is so confident of his claims that he tells his doubters to examine “the archives of the empire.” If there were no such public records, Tertullian would have automatically undermined his credibility. His appeal to them indicates his confidence that they existed and, if examined, would corroborate his testimony. Therefore, Tertullian was likely relying upon even earlier public records about the Neronian persecution and the fates of Peter and Paul.
The traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero in AD 64–67 has been carefully analyzed. Additional later material that further confirms this tradition will not be analyzed in depth, for this analysis has focused on the period of living memory.163
This close examination of the evidence indicates that the following points can be regarded to have varying degrees of confidence from works written within the living memory of Peter until c. AD 200:
1. The martyrdom of Peter—the highest possible probability (John 21:18–19; 1 Clement 5:4–5; Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1–2, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–3; the Acts of Peter; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15; lack of any competing narrative weighs favorably for the traditional view; the early and persistent tradition is that Peter was martyred for his faith.
2. The crucifixion of Peter—very probably true (John 21:18–19; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
3. Peter was in Rome—very probably true (1 Pet 5:13; 2 Pet 1:12–15; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–3; Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; Acts of Peter; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
4. Martyrdom during the reign of Nero, AD 64–67—more probable than not (Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
As seen, the individual components of the traditional view regarding the fate of Peter have varying degrees of historical probability. Yet when all the evidence is considered, the traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero stands on solid historical ground.
1 If the different names for Peter—Simon, Cephas, Peter—are taken into consideration, he is mentioned 75 times in the Synoptics and 35 times in John. He is mentioned a total of 181 times in the New Testament, which is four more times than Saul/Paul. See Martin Hengel, Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 10–11.
2 Peter takes charge of finding a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15). He regularly speaks publicly on behalf of the apostles (2:14–41; 3:11–26; 4:1–22; 5:29; 10:34–48; 11:1–18; 15:7–11). Peter performs powerful miracles after Pentecost (3:1–8; 5:15; 9:32–34; 9:36–43). And Peter becomes a spokesman for the universality of the Gospel (8:14; 10:31–48; 11:1–18; 15:7–11).
3 Many non-canonical texts carry Peter’s name, showing that Peter was considered the foremost apostle from the second to sixth centuries. These include the Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, The Acts of Peter, Preaching of Peter, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, Acts of Peter and Paul, Passion of Peter and Paul, Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Martyrdom of Peter.
4 Hengel, Saint Peter, 28–36.
5 Morris Inch, 12 Who Changed the World: The Lives and Legends of the Disciples (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 19.
6 Ibid., 114.
7 Richard J. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature,” in Rise and Decline of the Roman World, Part II, ed. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1992), 26:588.
8 F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 3.
9 The earliest statement that Peter and Paul were buried in Rome comes from Gaius (AD 200), as found in Eusebius: “I can point out the trophies [monuments] of the apostles. If you will go to the Vatican or the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.” Carsten Thiede considers this positive evidence tracing back to Peter’s martyrdom under Nero in Rome. See Carsten Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 193. In contrast, Cullman considers the reasons against early Christians actually burying the bones of Peter in the vicinity of Nero’s garden “almost overwhelming.” See Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011), 152–56. It is noteworthy, though, that Rome is the only place mentioned as the scene of Peter’s death and the repository of his body. While the exact burial spot may be debatable, Rome is likely the correct city.
10 James D.G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 2: 1152
11 Eusebius and Jerome place Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius (c. AD 42.). See Church History 2.14.16 and On Illustrious Men 1.
12 Larry R. Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 101–02.
13 For instance, see Hengel, Saint Peter, 63; Cullman, Peter, 79.
14 Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter, 103.
15 John Wenham, “Did Peter Go to Rome in AD 42?” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 94–102.
16 Guy M. Davis, Jr. “Was Peter Buried in Rome?” Journal of Bible and Religion 20:3 (July 1952): 168; Warren M. Smaltz, “Did Peter Die in Jerusalem?” Journal of Biblical Literature 71:4 (December 1952): 214; Donald Fay Robinson, “Where and When Did Peter Die?” Journal of Biblical Literature 64:2 (June 1945): 255–67.
17 One problem for this thesis is that it requires that the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) occur before Peter’s escape from prison (Acts 12:5–11). Second, the narrative in Acts 12 reads like a straightforward account of Peter’s departure away from Agrippa, not a metaphorical reference to death. Luke unequivocally cited the death of James (Acts 12:2), so why would he cryptically mention the death of Peter fifteen verses later? Third, there is early and consistent testimony that Peter visited Rome and was martyred there. Fourth, if Agrippa killed Peter, it is curious why Peter is mentioned three times in two chapters of Galatians without any indication he is dead (1:18; 2:6–10; 2:11–21). Even more troublesome is why Paul would have such harsh words about Peter if he were not alive (Gal 2:11–14).
18 Lapham, Peter, 248.
19 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 542.
20 Paul Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 353 n. 73.
21 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 722. At a later time, Jewish and Christian and Jewish apocalyptic texts identify Rome as the oppressor during the end times (Sibylline Oracles 5:143, 149; 4 Ezra 3:1–2, 28–31, 2 Baruch 11:1–2; Rev 14:8; 16:9; 17:5, 6; 18:2ff.). But the reference in 1 Pet 5:13 focuses on the exilic nature of their experience in a foreign land, similar to the Hebrews in ancient Babylon.
22 Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15.
23 Irenaeus says: “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1).
24 Chrysostom Homily on Matthew 1.7.
25 Hengel, Saint Peter, 40.
26 Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 162.
27 That Peter previously ministered in Rome is the assumption of Ignatius’s claim in 4:3: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles; I am free.” See Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 587–89.
28 Dennis D. Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 360.
29 Eusebius, Church History 2.25.8.
30 Lapham, Peter, 93.
31 I owe this observation to F.J. Foakes Jackson, “Evidence for the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome,” Journal of Biblical Literature 46 (1927): 77–78.
32 Arthur Drews and Frank R. Zindler, The Legend of Saint Peter: A Contribution to the Mythology of Christianity (Austin, TX: American Atheist Press, 1997); Lapham, Peter; Michael D. Goulder, “Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?” Scottish Journal of Theology 57 (2004): 377–96.
33 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 278.
34 Gilbert Van Belle, “Peter as Martyr in the Fourth Gospel,” in Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Antique Christianity: Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter, ed. J. Leemans (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2010), 288–89.
35 Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (New York: Hendrickson, 2005), 518.
36 Van Belle, “Peter as Martyr,” 295–96.
37 Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 84.
38 For instance, see George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1999), 408–09; Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, The New American Commentary, vol. 25B (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 338–39; D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 679–80; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1953), 489–90; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:1,237–38; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 599; Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 387; Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 366.
39 For instance, see Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel; Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010); Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 667; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospels and Letters of John, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 905.
40 R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare, and J.K. Riches (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, 1971), 713.
41 Carson, The Gospel According to John, 680.
42 Artemidorus, Onirocriticus 1.76; Epictetus, Diatribai 3.26.22; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 19.94; Seneca, Ad Marciam de consolitione 20.3; Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 7.69; Plautus, Miles gloriosus 2.4.7; Tertullian, De bono pudicitiae 22. See Van Belle, “Peter as Martyr,” 303.
43 Michaels, The Gospel of John, 1,048.
44 Ibid.
45 W. Bauer, Das Johannes-Evangelium (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr-Siebeck, 1933), 232.
46 William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (March 1986): 1,455–63.
47 Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, 519.
48 Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 490.
49 Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; 2 Baruch 78–87; Testament of Moses.
50 Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 164. First, the author predicts his pending death in 1:14, which is why he wrote 2 Pet. Second, he predicts a future crisis for believers, which will involve attacks through false teachers and false prophets (2:1–3; 3:1–7). Third, given the nature of the impending crisis, he exhorts the believers not to fall into sin but to live godly lives (1:3–11; 3:11). Fourth, a commission is implied, in that Peter desires his words to be a continual reminder to the people, even when he is gone (1:12–15). Fifth, he leaves a legacy of staying faithful to Jesus the end (3:17–18).
51 Ruth Anne Reese, 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 138.
52 Daniel Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 149.
53 Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 173.
54 Some commentators have suggested that the Greek word tachinē means “suddenly.” But tachinē is better translated as “soon.” There is no sense that an imminent, violent death was already occurring. Rather, Peter senses the prophecy is set to take place soon. See Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 79; and Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 62.
55 Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 199.
56 Some have also suggested the Letter of Clement to James as a possible source, but this writing is likely dependent upon either John or 2 Peter itself. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 201.
57 It seems that commentators who take 2 Pet as authentically Petrine as well as those who believe it is pseudepigraphal both agree that John 13:36–38 is not primarily in view here. Vinson, Mills, and Wilson, for instance, find this explanation unsatisfactory. They conclude: “Given our assessment that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphon, it is unlikely that the writer would rely upon part of the Petrine tradition that cast Peter in an unfavorable light, as is the case with John 13:36–38” (Richard B. Vinson, Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills, 1 & 2 Peter, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys], 312).
58 The Apocalypse of Peter, as cited in J.K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 609.
59 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 200. Bauckham observes that this need not imply there that The Apocalypse of Peter presupposed an earlier prophecy. It is possible this passage relays an earlier traditional saying of Jesus prophesying the martyrdom of Peter, but the form of the saying cannot be determined.
60 Peter consistently waffled in his faith throughout the Gospels. For instance, even though Peter promised to lay down his life for Jesus (John 13:37), he shortly denied Christ three times. Yet after Pentecost, Peter boldly proclaimed his faith and willingly faced persecution. The “Quo Vadis” seems contrary to the character of Peter at this stage in his life. It is difficult to believe Jesus would need to chastise Peter once again and remind him of his need to face martyrdom before ascending once again to the Father.
61 Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, 63.
62 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 553.
63 For instance, see Morton Smith, “The Report About Peter in I Clement V. 4,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 86–88. See also Goulder, “Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?”, 377–96.
64 Bart D. Ehrman, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 1:24.
65 See Thomas J. Herron, Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2008). If Herron is correct and 1 Clement can be dated as early as AD 70, then the testimony of Clement regarding the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul would be enhanced.
66 Internal evidence reveals that one generation had passed from the lives of the apostles. 1 Clement 44:2–6.
67 Markus Bockmuehl, “Peter’s Death in Rome? Back to Front and Upside Down,” Scottish Journal of Theology 60 (2007): 15.
68 The Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.4.3, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 2.1 (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 3.15–16; 4.22–23; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.17; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.2–3.
69 Paul reports a number of problems in the Corinthian church, including quarrelling among Christian brothers (1:10–12), jealousy and strife among them (3:3), sexual immorality, greed, drunkenness, idolatry (5:1–11; 6:18), lawsuits among believers (6:1–8), liturgical abuse (11), abuse of spiritual gifts (12–14), and heretical teachings (15:1–49). In Phil 1:15–17, Paul also writes of how some people preach from envy and rivalry, which causes him affliction in prison.
70 It is unclear precisely what the jealousy was that led to the death of Peter. Grant proposes that it may have been ultraconservative Jewish Christian missionaries who demanded circumcision and rejected the more moderate approach Peter had taken at Antioch, and denounced him to the Roman authorities. Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (New York: Scribner, 1994). Helyer concurs: “Since Peter championed Paul’s law-free gospel, he may also have encountered bitter Jewish Christian opposition. Is it going too far to suggest that some of these opponents informed on Peter’s whereabouts and were indirectly involved in his arrest and martyrdom?” (Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter, 274). This is in fact similar to what happened to Jesus by his fellow Jews. Mark 15:10 reports: “For he perceived it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.”
71 The threat of death is clearly present in each of these cases: Jacob fled for his life from Esau, who hated him and wanted to kill him (Gen 27:41). Joseph’s brothers originally wanted to kill him because of their jealousy, until Reuben has the idea to sell him into slavery (Gen 37:18–24). Moses had to flee Egypt as Pharaoh sought to kill him for murdering the Egyptian (Exod 2:11–15). For challenging Moses’s prophetic authority, Miriam’s skin was turned leprous. Aaron pleaded with Moses: “Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten” (Num 12:12a). Dathan and Abiram, as well as their entire family, “went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly” (Num 16:33). While David survived the attack on Saul, it is clear Saul was led by jealousy to kill David (1 Sam 18:11, 25; 19:1; 20:33; 23:15).
72 The theme of the destructive results of jealousy is carried up to chap. 14. In terms of how Christians should respond, Clement says: “For this reason we should obey his magnificent and glorious will and, as petitioners of his mercy and kindness, fall down before him and turn to his compassionate ways, leaving behind our pointless toil and strife and the jealousy that leads to death” (9.1). Clement then lists specific Old Testament figures that were spared death because they trusted God.
73 See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 366–68. Licona observes that “unto death” appears 16 times in the LXX and can mean dying or being on the verge of death. Jesus said, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.” (Mark 14:34; Matt 26:38), yet he did not die from this intense grief. A generation later, Polycarp used the same phrase in a manner that undeniably referred to the death of Jesus: “He persevered to the point of death on behalf of our sins” (Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 1.2).
74 Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Some Notes on 1 Clement 5, 4–7,” in Fructus Centesimus: Mélanges offerts à Gerard J.M. Bartelink à l’ccasion de son soixantecinquième anniversaire, ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst, and C.H. Kneepkens (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1989), 189–94. There are two possible earlier exceptions: first, Rev 2:13, “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness [martyrs], who was killed among you, where Satan dwells”; second, 1 Tim 6:13, “I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Jesus Christ, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession.”
75 He says: “The aorist participle, in both cases used of their ‘witness’ (martyrēsas), is clearly understood to mean their martyrdom; it falls under the heading of persecution and struggle ‘unto death’ (1 Clem. 5.2) and is the mode and means by which the apostles passed from this world to their place of glory” (Markus Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012], 110).
76 Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, vols. 2, 3, trans. Melancthon Jacobus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909), 71.
77 Ibid., 109.
78 Ibid., 560.
79 Michael W. Holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 53.
80 Tacitus also speaks of a “great multitude” in Annals 15:44. This is why many believe Peter and Paul were martyred during the reign of Nero, AD 64–67.
81 Cullman makes an additional point worth noting: The context of 1 Clement 5 reveals that the examples of Peter and Paul are constructed in a quite similar way (even though the account of Paul is much longer). The account reveals that they both witnessed to their faith, and then provides a euphemistic portrayal of their deaths (“went to the place of glory” for Peter and “up to the holy place” for Paul). Parallelism in the account makes it clear that if one was martyred, the other must have been as well. Since it is universally recognized that Clement speaks of Paul’s death, he must also speak of the death of Peter. See Cullman, Peter, 95–96.
82 Goulder, “Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?”, 377–92.
83 Ibid., 384.
84 Cullman, Peter, 104.
85 Daniel W. O’Connor, Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 81.
86 Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary, 84. Ehrman also says 1 Clement “refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul” (Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 24).
87 Cullman, Peter, 97.
88 Ibid., 108.
89 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 562.
90 Ignatius was likely arrested with a group of Christians who were persecuted in Antioch and sent to Rome under guarded supervision. He was able to meet Polycarp while traveling through Smyrna. He also met representatives of many other churches, who came out to support him, and he wrote letters to them in return.
91 Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 270.
92 Letter to the Ephesians 1:2, 3:1; Letter to the Romans 4:1–2; Letter to Polycarp 7:1.
93 Markus Bockmuehl, “Syrian Memories of Peter: Ignatius, Justin, and Serapion,” in The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature: Papers Delivered at the Colloquium of the Institutum Judaicum, Brussels 18–19 November, 2001, ed. P.J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2001),140, emphasis in original.
94 Carl B. Smith, “Ministry, Martyrdom and Other Mysteries: Pauline Influence on Ignatius of Antioch,” in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 39.
95 Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter, 276.
96 William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985), 177.
97 Letter to the Smyrneans 1.1, 2; 2.1; 3:1–3; 5.2; 6.1; 7.1; 12.2.
98 Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 226–27.
99 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 563.
100 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, ed. and trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:622.
101 There is the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter, the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter, the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (discovered in the Nag Hammadi library in 1945), and the Akhmim text (Greek). There are some theological differences between some of these versions. For instance, the Coptic version, which is more Gnostic, sees martyrdom negatively when compared with the Ethiopic and Greek texts. See Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened, 7–9.
102 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 594.
103 Terence V. Smith, Petrine Controversies in the Early Church (Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985), 44.
104 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 609.
105 Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened, 345.
106 Smith, Petrine Controversies, 46–48.
107 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 573. Bauckham observes that this is likely a relic of an early Christian reference to Nero as the antichrist, which is specifically related to the persecution of the church and Peter’s martyrdom.
108 Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 135. There is uncertainty about the exact meaning of this phrase.
109 Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened, 360.
110 The Ascension of Isaiah is known through only a dozen Ge’ez manuscripts, with the Ethiopic version being the primary witness because of its completeness. There is a possible further copy that belongs to the monastery of Dabra Bizen in Eritrea, but the political situation makes it unlikely this will surface any time soon. See Ted Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (February 2013): 95–97.
111 Jonathan Knight, Disciples of the Beloved: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 33–39.
112 Greg Carey, “The Ascension of Isaiah: An Example of Early Christian Narrative Polemic” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 9 (1998): 65–78.
113 Robert Henry Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (London: A. & C. Black, 1900), 95.
114 The Sibylline Oracles identifies Nero with Beliar, as does the Ascension of Isaiah: “Then Beliar will come from the Sebastenoi, and he will raise up the height of mountains, he will raise up the sea, the great fiery sun and shining moon, for men. But they will not be effective in him. But he will, indeed, also lead men astray, and he will lead astray many faithful, chosen Hebrews, and also other lawless men who have not yet listened to the word of God. But whenever the threats of the great God draws nigh and a burning power comes through the sea to land it will also burn Beliar and all overbearing men, as many as put their faith in him” (3.63–74).
115 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 1:378. The incident of Nero killing his mother is recorded by Tacitus, The Annals 14.3–8; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Nero 34; Dio Cassius, Roman History, Epitome of Book 61.12–13; Plutarch, Antony 87.4.
116 Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One, 190.
117 O’Connor, Peter in Rome, 69.
118 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 568.
119 Perkins, Peter, 139.
120 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 568.
121 Matthew C. Baldwin, Whose Acts of Peter? Text and Historical Context of the Actus Vercellensus (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
122 Jan N. Bremmer, “Women, Magic, Place, and Date,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1998), 17–18.
123 Richard A Norris, Jr. “Apocryphal Writings and Acts of the Martyrs,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 31.
124 François Bovon and Eric Junod, “Reading the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” Semeia 38 (1986): 163.
125 Christine M. Thomas, The Acts of Peter: Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 47.
126 Christine M. Thomas, “The ‘Prehistory’ of the Acts of Peter,” in The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, ed. François Bovon, Ann Graham Bock, and Christopher R. Matthews (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 55.
127 The mention of four soldiers in Acts of Peter 36 and four times four in Acts 12 suggests, according to István Czachesz, that both accounts of the arrest of Peter derive from a common pre-existing tradition. See István Czachesz, “The Gospel of Peter and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in Das Petrusevangelium als Teil antiker Literatur, ed. T. Nicklas and T.J. Kraus (Berlin, Germany: W. De Gruyter: 2007), 248, 261. Furthermore, Ralph Novak observes that “it is rather curious that the traditions concerning the deaths of Peter and Paul would have been preserved by orthodox Christians while the Acts containing the traditions were rejected, if the traditions first appeared in these two Acts” (Ralph Martin Novak, Jr., Christianity and the Roman Empire [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2001], 27).
128 Thomas, The Acts of Peter, 49.
129 François Bovon, “Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of Apostles,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (Summer 2003): 184.
130 See Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 7–10.
131 Thomas, The Acts of Peter, 88–89.
132 Peter performed a number of miracles, including paralyzing half the body of Rufina, the adulterer (1.2), bidding a dog to condemn Simon (4.9), restoring a shattered statue of Caesar (4.11), ordering a dead tuna fish to come alive and swim again (5.13), giving a seven-month-old baby a voice to condemn Simon (5.15), and raising the son of the prefect (8.26), the widow’s son (8.27), and Nicostratus from the dead (8.28). I am not adopting a naturalistic bias that assumes supernatural events must be legendary. Rather, the quantity and quality of the miracles sets them apart from the canonical Gospels and Acts and indicates they (as a whole) serve a literary and theological purpose and are not meant to be taken as historically veridical.
133 Magda Misset-Van De Weg, “‘For the Lord Always Takes Care of His Own’: The Purpose of the Wondrous Works and Deeds in the Acts of Peter,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1998), 97–101.
134 Various versions of the Acts of Peter include the Actus Vercellensus, the Linus Text, Pseudo-Hegesippus, and the Marcellus text.
135 Perkins, Peter, 146.
136 Cullman, Peter, 109.
137 Thiede, Simon Peter, 191.
138 Monika Pesthy, “Cross and Death in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1998), 130. Pesthy notes that there is only one contemporary parallel with this account: the 23rd Ode of Solomon, where the Logos descends down to a wheel, understood as the cross, and the head and feet are reversed.
139 Jonathan Smith observes: “Rather than dealing with an exercise in humility, we have here an act of cosmic audacity consistent with an expressive of a Christian-gnostic understanding and evaluation of the structures of the cosmos and of the human condition …. For Peter to request to be crucified upside down was to deliberately dehumanize himself, to reverse the natural order, and to make of his death an act of rebellion against his manhood and the cosmos” (Jonathan Z. Smith, “Birth Upside Down or Right Side Up?”, History of Religions 9 [1970]: 286, 293).
140 Richard Valantasis, “Narrative Strategies and Synoptic Quandaries: A Response to Dennis MacDonald’s Reading of Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1992): 238.
141 Recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1.
142 Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 22–26.
143 The text is illegible, but it is typically taken to be Cerinthus, an early Christian heterodox teacher. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.27–28.
144 Translation by Francis E. Williams in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, rev. ed. (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1990), 35.
145 Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 581.
146 Cameron concludes: “The Ap. Jas.’s freedom in the use of sayings, the role given to James and Peter as authority figures in the transmission of the tradition, and the use of the technical term for ‘remembering’ strongly suggest that the composition of this non-canonical gospel dates from the first half of the second century” (Ron Cameron, Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James, Harvard Theological Studies [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004], 34:123–24).
147 Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 97–98.
148 Ibid., 98.
149 Other early Christian writings, such as Acts 20:35, John 15:20, and 1 Clement 13:1–2; 46:7–8, use the same technical term for “remembering,” which was used to collect, compose, and transmit traditions of and from Jesus. Papias also used it to claim that Mark “remembered” the teachings of Peter and recorded them in his Gospel. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.
150 Bockmuehl, Simon Peter, 51.
151 The audience of the letter likely rejected the doctrine of the atonement, ignored the second coming of Christ and the general resurrection, and desired to ascend without “flesh” to heaven, which they held to be within themselves. See Francis E. Williams, “The Apocryphon of James (I, 2),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1977), 29–30.
152 Richard I. Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 145–47.
153 Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, Church History 2.25.4.
154 Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 47. He observes that the Cephas faction (1 Cor 1:11–13) likely arose from personal contact with Peter, since this was likely the case with Paul and Apollos. Further, the church at Corinth was probably familiar with Peter since Paul mentions that Peter’s wife accompanied him on his missionary journeys (9:5).
155 Perkins, Peter, 42.
156 Paul Maier, in Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), 79 n. 29.
157 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20
158 In Against Heresies 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, but the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). He goes on to explain that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, Luke was an associate of Paul who recorded Paul’s experience in his Gospel, and how John, also a disciple of the Lord, published a Gospel while in Ephesus in Asia.
159 Iranaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1.
160 As Bauckham observed, there was sufficient precedent for the term “departure” to mean death in early Christian documents. In response to the claim that “departure” could simply mean leaving, Bauckham concludes: “Since not even later traditions provide the possibility of a time, which Irenaeus could have had in mind, when both Peter and Paul had been in Rome but had left, we must conclude that he meant to refer to their deaths” (Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter,” 585–86).
161 Tertullian, Against Heresies 36, as cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 3:260.
162 Tertullian clearly understands John 21:18 to be referring to the crucifixion of Peter.
163 For instance, see the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 200); Teachings of the Apostles (c. third century); (Pseudo-)Hippolytus 1; Letter of Clement to James (fourth century); Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (c. AD 313); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1 (c. AD 324); Aphrahat, Demonstration XXI: Of Persecution (§ 23); Macarius Magus III.22 (early fourth century); Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 1 (c. 392).