(14 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...I few days ago I started answering a question about Peter that came to me in two parts: was Peter the first pope and how did Peter actually die (crucified upside down)? I’ve taken two posts to deal with the first question and will deal with the second — more of a human interest story, I suppose — here in this one. The oldest account of Peter’s death by martyrdom is certainly odd, but is not widely known. Here is what I say about it in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
******************************
Peter as Martyr
The death of Peter by execution is already alluded to in the Gospel of John – which evidently, then, had been written after the event occurred. As Jesus tells Peter after the resurrection:
When you were younger, you girded yourself and walked wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will reach out your hands and another will bind you, and lead you where you do not want to go. (21:18)
The author concludes this quotation by noting “He said this to signify the kind of death he would experience to glorify God.”
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 (by it he will “glorify God”). Some interpreters have thought that the reference is more specific than that: that the author is indicating that Peter will be crucified. The argument is that the text speaks of the immobilization of the hands, which may refer to being nailed, or tied, to a cross.
Such an interpretation is possible, but it should be pointed out that the binding of the hands appears to occur before Peter is to be led off to be executed. And so the passage may simply refer to a martyrdom (by any means) yet to come.
In any event, by the end of the first and into the second century it was widely known among Christians that
Wanna keep reading? If you join the blog you get five posts a week like this: interesting and filled with information that most people simply don’t know about. It costs little to join, and every nickel goes to those in need. So why not?? Click here for membership options
Peter said “Let me be crucified upside down.” and the Romans replied “Where did you get the idea that it’s up to you?”
Dr. Ehrman. When Moses was about to die, he was led by the Lord to Mount Nebo. This was not the place he wanted to die. Moses wanted to lead the Israelites in to the Holy Land.
When Jesus was sentenced to death, the evangelists made two parallel stories – Peter’s denial and the High Priest’s fatal judgment.
As the Israelites were led out of Egypt and into the wilderness, their bodily lusts and desires began to burn like fire. In an attempt to extinguish the flaming desire, the Lord first caused the Israelites to receive Manna and Quails. Then water from the Rock.
A quail is a chicken bird that crows! The quails were to rain down late at night.
The miracle of the Quail is mentioned twice in the Torah. The same goes for the water from the Rock.
The incident where Moses struck the staff at the Rock was a fatal incident for Moses and Aaron. It was a betrayal of the Lord. The incident was crucial in that Moses and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Holy Land.
Moses struck the staff at the Rock first once. The next time he hit it twice. Moses had thus hit the Rock a total of three times. Moses had struck the staff that had turned the Nile into blood on the Rock three times.
Moses hit the Rock three times even before the quails had rained down on the camp – before the quails had begun to crow in the evening.
Moses had failed, Moses had allowed himself to be warmed by the flaming desires of the Israelites. Moses had not acknowledged the Lord, but allowed himself to be praised as the originator of the miracle.
That is why the place Rephidim was called “testing” or “speaking Evil”.
Peter’s denial is, in my opinion, an allegory over Moses. Peter stood in the courtyard of the high priest, warming himself to the flaming lust of the Israelites. Even before the Quails had rained down on the camp and began to crow, Moses’ betrayal had been done.
Dr. Ehrman. At the same time as Peter denied Jesus, Jesus was presented to the high priests.
It is only in the Gospel of Matthew that Caiaphas pronounces judgment on Jesus. Or, it is not really Caiaphas who pronounces the judgment either; “What do you think?” and they answered; ‘He is worthy of death!’ Here it is the congregation of the Elders that actually judges Jesus.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented to the high priest Annas, and Caiaphas has more of a supporting role.
Cephas and Caiaphas are two names of the same origin, meaning “Rock”.
Jesus was beaten by the high priests, and it is not unlikely that the guard who struck Jesus when he was with the high priest Annas was an allusion to Caiaphas.
Moses’ father-in-law was Jethro, but Jethro was never one of the high priests of the Jews. It is therefore more likely that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas were symbols of the brothers Aaron and Moses. And what could be more theologically significant than that the Lord was treated as a scapegoat by Aaron and Moses, not by reading the text literally, but by reading it with inner spiritual eyes.
When Moses struck the staff at the Rock he said; “Listen, Israelites! Do you think WE can get water from the Rock?” As if he said; “Do not listen to God! Listen to me!”
The people were about to perish in the wilderness, and Moses was the one who was to save them. “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
Theologically, it could be said that Moses cared more for the nation of Israel than he did for the Lord. Moses had even offered to be erased from the book the Lord was writing, just to save the nation. Exodus 32:32
Reading the scriptures in shadows and types was important to the Christians. The story of Jesus before the high priests could actually be enriched, in shadows and types, with imaginary dialogues between Joseph and his brothers, when Joseph was handed over for money to Egypt.
Dr. Ehrman. I’m afraid to confess that to me the Gospels seems a bit anti-Jewish. Stephen accused the Jews of carrying the tabernacle of Molech.
The Jews led the Lord to Jethro the Gentile. Jethro was astonished at the works of the Lord.
The Jewish Passover was celebrated to commemorate the Exodus. For Christians, these events were only shadows of the true Passover. When the Easter lamb was slaughtered the first Easter, the Destroyer was released.
In a theological attempt to imitate the first Passover, the Gospels allow Pontius Pilate to give the Jews the choice between releasing either Jesus, the Son of God, or Jesus Barabbas. Jerome writes that Barabbas means “The son of their master.”
In the Gospel of John, it is the Jews who accused Jesus before Pilate, Not the high priests.
«Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.»(…) «It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.»
Only The High Priest had the authority to judge in such cases, not the average Jew.
But Jethro was able to give the Jews an extra paragraph to the Jewish law. Yes! Jethro added the Law that would give more authority to the Leaders of the Tribes.
But there seems to be a twist on all the events.
In the Jewish apocrypha, Jethro, Job, and Balaam were counselors to Pharaoh.
In the story of Joseph, we meet three servants of Pharaoh. The baker, the cup bearer and the captain of the guard, Potiphar. If the Christians considered these servants to be the same as the counselors, then what we read in the Gospels would make a lot more sense.
Joseph was handed over to Potiphar by his brothers. Potiphar was the one who pronounced judgment on Joseph. Why not assume that Jethro and Potiphar were one and the same person?
If we also assume that Caesar was a representation of Jacob, the patriarch, then the accusation of not paying tribute to Caesar would make sense.
Had Joseph placed himself higher than Jacob the patriarch? Joseph’s brothers could rightly accuse him of that, and Potiphar apparently had reason to fear it. What Potiphar thought was just an ordinary slave had turned out to be Jacob’s beloved son!
Maybe Potiphar should write a letter to Jacob and explain to him that it was really the Jews who were to blame?
I was told that story in early elementary grades by the nuns at the Catholic Parrish school.
BTW….Really enjoyed Peter, Paul and Marry. While reviewing it, I was wondering what your thoughts would be on the inspiration of 9.34 in the Gospel of Peter? It always made me think of the dancing mini-monoliths of Stonehenge coming to life and dancing on stage in the movie “Spinal Tap”. It is so clearly absurd that one wonders if this was an error of the scribe’s transmission of the text. Perhaps emend σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα, from “cross” to “crucified” so that it is no longer a wooden cross that comes bouncing out of the tomb but rather Jesus, the “crucified one” himself? Perhaps our scribe’s exemplar had the nomen sacrum στα and the scribe incorrectly assumed that it stood for σταυρόν. It would be an easy mistake to make, and it is quite reasonable to assume that the scribe’s source text might so abbreviate. I guess the emendation cannot work because Jesus has to be one of the “three men” coming out of the tomb, “the two supporting the one”, so that the cross is an additional figure, not identified with “the one”. Hmmmmm
Ah, the walking talking cross?! I think it is an image of Christ that is emphasizing that the message of the cross has been taken to those who had already died. A student of mine, Jason Combs, published an intriguing article over 15 years ago in the Journal Early Christianity, called “A Walking, Talking Cross: The Polymorphic Christology of the Gospel of Peter” He shows that in ancient Roman and Greek texts, the “symbol” of a divine being (for example, the club of Heracles or the shield of Athena) could represent the person and sometimes appeared along sith them at the same time, as here with the risen Jesus and the cross.
Among Jesus’s parables are some about seeds being planted (and leaven being put into dough) and growing into God’s kingdom–though I believe the main idea is to contrast tiny beginnings with enormous results.
Did the historical Jesus think he was the one planting the seeds; or that God was doing it separate from Jesus; or maybe some of both? How did the evangelists see Jesus’s role in planting seeds?
I know some scholars see one main purpose of many parables as being to surprise or shock people out of their normal thinking so that they are open to something new. While some interpretations along these lines may be over the top, is this often a helpful way to look at many of the parables?
I’m very attracted to the idea that Jesus’s main mission was to plant the seeds of God’s kingdom on earth and that our job is to cultivate those seeds as best we can. I realize that this is different from what the historical Jesus taught–which is that the kingdom was coming 2000 years ago. Still this notion should offer a lot of raw material for liberal Christian theologizing.
Jesus may have thought he was spreading his word and only some pepole were hearing it, and these though were very producdtive. Most people had a variety of reasons for not taking it to heart, though. The parable explains why most rejecdt the message of the coming Kingdom. The disciples appear to have seen this as a metaphor for their own evangelistic preaching.
Prof. Ehrman, I know this is off topic but with regards to the Gospel of Thomas I was wondering if you put aside the Gnostic sayings attributed to Jesus does the Gospel of Thomas contain some parables of Jesus that are closer to what the historical Jesus actually said? For example the Jesus Seminar decided that the parable of the tenants in Thomas 65 is more accurate to what Jesus actually said than the versions in the gospels.
I’d say it’s always extremely hard to know, and that a case has to be made saying by saying. My view is that when there is overlap of Thomas and any of the Synoptics, there’s no inherent reason that Thomas could not provide the older form of the text. But I don’t think there’s anyway to show it really one way or the other in most cases.
Do we have any credible information about what happened to Jesus’ disciples? Or are they all legendary accounts that are more about theology than history?
It appears that James, John, Peter, and Paul may all have met untimely deaths, based on hints in Mark, John, Acts, and 1 Clement. But we don’t have any of the details and for all the others all we have are later legends of very little historical value (but *fantastic* to read!)
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How reliable is John Shelby Spong’s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism?
Thank you!
It’s an important book by a knowledgeable person who was not himself a scholar. He died just this past week and I’m hoping to commemorate his death with a post.
Ah I cannot wait to read the book. I’ve read many quotes from him- totally profound! I look forward to the post. Thanks Dr Ehrman!
Oh my. I am the first one responding. Interesting question. Immediate response that comes to mind is “I do not know.” The second is , “who cares?” The question sort of is interesting in that we have a natural desire to complete our story narratives. I am happy to leave Peter in Antioch as he is last mentioned. The real question is why is he listed in the 4 lists of the apostles as the first? What picture is Luke [or whoever wrote that text] trying to give us of the transformation of Peter from scared disciple to bold proclaimer of “Jesus is Risen.” Peter fades away and Paul takes up the message. Why would a fisherman walk away from his profession to become an itinerant proclaimer in Jesus who he thought was Messiah. IF, IF he was killed for this faith in Rome whether as “an apostle” or the “organizer of the church in Rome” , why did he just not snap out of it and go back to the fishing hole. “I do not need to be in Church to be a Christian!” “Who do YOU say I AM?”
Randy MA theology student. Good lecture 09.21.21.
Students of the Bible may be interested in this new study regarding religious traditions and how the walls of Jericho may have fallen:
https://www.sciencealert.com/biblical-story-may-have-been-inspired-by-this-ancient-city-obliterating-asteroid
Dr Ehrman,
I had a recent conversation with a friend after I sent him a link to that 3 min YouTube video on “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Heaven and Hell.”
One thing we both agreed in was this: It seemed you downplayed the negative aspects of eternal death from Jesus perspective in the last point. “Who doesn’t like a good sleep?” But this is not the vibe that I get when I read the statements of Jesus about death. Seems like he seemed to attach such ideas as weeping, shame, regret, punishment, judgment etc. So, it seems like Jesus implied there will be some kind of public judgment where people will feel incredibly regretful and shamed that their existence will be terminated forever and will not experience the joy of eternal life.
Yeah, maybe so. Jesus thought the process of *dying* would be bad — it would be a painful death; but there would not be eternal torment. I’ll take 20 minutes of burning to 20 trillion years of it any day….
Thank you for the last 2 answers you gave to my questions on this topic, Dr Ehrman. I found them very helpful and informative. Regarding the above post, which was very interesting, I can’t help remembering the scene in the film Quo Vadis, where Peter, played by Finlay Currie, on being told that he is to be crucified, expresses joy in the fact that he is to die in the same manner as ‘our lord’. A grinning Roman guard replies: ‘We can change that!’ Perhaps Hollywood’s version is not so far from the truth on this occasion 🤔
This is off-topic, and I am wandering into the middle of a debate that I have merely heard in a blog. But, regarding the question of whether we can conceptualize or recognize a higher form of being, I find a flaw in the argument that was claimed to be your argument, as was the proof offered as a rebuttal. I start with the assumption that all sentient beings experience life as a translation of their physical environment The brain translates electromagnetic waves into the color and shape beings experience. As brains evolve into greater complexity, this translated experience becomes more complex, to the extent that humans are able to envision places and times (and spirits) they have not actually encountered. But at all levels, these sentient beings exist in the same physical world. To hypothesize that a higher order of being can exist beyond our understanding in this same physical world as us is truly a great Leap of Faith, because we would see then, as the beetle can see a human. There may be higher beings elsewhere in the universe, but they cannot be present to us as universal masters (or Gods).
I don’t recall ever arguing a proof that there must be a god. Or a proof that there is not one. I don’t think the matter is susceptible of proof.
I thought that you had explained your agnosticism by offering an argument by analogy, saying that as we go from rocks to trees to beetles to animals to us, there is a limit to the ability to conceptualize the next higher order. My reaction was that my cat knows with certainty that I exist, even if it can’t get inside my human experience. What is the superior being/spirit that we know with certainty to exist, even if we can’t grasp its superior ability? Lacking the existence of a knowable being/spirit, atheism seems a more reasonable response than agnosticism. (It’s not that we can’t understand God’s mind; it’s that there is no shared proof that God even exists.)
Ah, that isn’t an argument that God doesn’t exist, but that if God DOES exist we may well not know it. But right, someone could use it to argue for agnosticism your counter would be one that she would need to respond to.
I have been going over some of your older posts and noted a comment (January 23 2014 – although I cannot now find it) re Jesus reading in the synagogue (Luke 4)
The comment said that L Michael White in his book ‘Scripting Jesus’ wrote that the passage given to Jesus to read was ‘actually a composite of two different passages from the Septuagint… Because the two passage are so far apart in the actual text of Isaiah, there is no way a person could see or read both of them at the same time if holding a scroll.’
The person commenting took from this that this story was concocted to make it appear that Jesus could read.
You replied to this ‘Yup, it’s a good point about Luke 4.’
I have now looked at both passages (Luke 4:18-19 & Isa 61:1-2) and they seem to match well enough i.e. the passage in Luke seems to be drawn directly from contiguous verses in Isaiah. Thus the point being made here does not appear to stand up.
Please are you able to comment and say if indeed the passage Jesus read was a manufactured from separate texts?
I believe this person was pointingout that “to set free those who are oppressed” (the second to last line of teh quotation in Luke) appears to come from Isa 58:6 rather than Isa. 61:1-2.
Bart,
I’ve been reading and thinking about the very strange Zombies of Matthew episode and I have a few questions for you on that:
1 Is Matthew reworking Ezekiel 37.11-13 here ?
2 Did Matthew believe and want his readers to believe this rising of the dead who then walked into Jerusalem literally happened ie was a real historical event Christians should believe in ?
3 Looking at the Greek is it true the Greek language structures used for both this event and Jesus resurrection both imply bodily raising ?
4 Did Matthew want this to been seen, along with frequent earthquake imagery etc, to show what Paul would later call the “first fruits” rising of the dead at the end of times had begun?
Thank you so much – I really enjoyed being on the Zoom lecture on apologies the other day!
SC
1. I don’t know. 2. Apparently; 3. Yes, these are bodily raisings, but there is nothing to suggest they were “raised immortal”; presumably they would die again 4. For Paul it is Jesus alone who is the First Fruits (he doesn’t seem to know this story). The whole episode appears to be meant to show that at Jesus’ death the apocalyptic moment has now come with signs.
I just finished reading your book on heaven and hell, it is amazingly comprehensive and it captures to many different angles and is extremely well written!
But, the claim that Paul claims that Jesus alone is the ‘firstfruits’ does not appear to be correct. Christ is the ‘firstfruit’ singular, in 1 Cor. 15:20. But he lists Christ as the firstfruit, singular, in the context of addressing the claim that ‘how do some among you say that there is [present active indicative] no resurrection of the dead ones [plural]?’ Paul is teaching that the harvest is underway, and that the firstfruit, Jesus, is being followed by the firstfruits as a then-present harvest, which is to be completed in their lifetimes by the final harvest. The resurrection of Christ, as an individual, on the third day , is in fulfillment of the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:4), namely Hos. 6:1-2, that Israel will rise nationally. Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 15 is that Israel is (and her ‘dead ones’ plural are) presently rising, and that Christ’s personal and physical resurrection is proof. Christ is Israel in the form of an individual man, the suffering servant. His personal resurrection therefore implies her national resurrection.
Translators tend to avoid “first fruit” both because it can be taken to ahve very unfornuate connotations as a term of derogation (as the novelist Reynolds Price once emphatically pointed out to me, in reference to our gay friends) and because at the harvest there was not a single peace of fruit brought in for the opening celebartin, so it is first fruits.
It seems rather bizarre to think that biblical translators are concerned about obscure English slang in rendering ‘firstfruit’ or ‘firstfruits’.
But back to the point that you have apparently avoided: the ‘first fruit’ or ‘first fruits’ concept for the resurrection is applied by the New Testament writers — including Paul (Rom. 8:23; 2 Thes. 2:13) — for the spiritual resurrection of the first generation of Israelite Christians (Jam. 1:18; Rev. 14:4) which were then presently being harvested and born again before the great harvest judgement upon Israel would be completed. The ‘apocalyptic moment’ comes not with the signs that it is imminent or that the last days have merely commenced, but when it actually arrives in power, glory and judgement in fullness, technically the ‘synteleia’ (entire completion) of the age (Mat. 13:39-40; 23:3; 28:20).
Thus your commenter SC is actually correct: ‘what Paul would later call the “first fruits” rising of the dead at the end of times had begun’ — even though it was to be finished later in that generation at the harvest judgement of the enemies of the gospel, in fulfillment of the Is. 27 harvest of Israel.
The words we use make a big difference for readers.
“When you were younger, you girded yourself and walked wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will reach out your hands and another will bind you, and lead you where you do not want to go.”
I’m probably just imagining this, but that quotation seems to have the look and feel of some Gnostic sayings.
Gnostics certainly could have used it! But it appears to be referring to Peter being bound and taken off to be executed.
Isn’t John 21 best understood as a response to the death of Peter? and therefore chapters 1-20 written before?
If chapters 1-20 were written after his death what would have prompted chapter 21 to be written?
Yes, ch. 21 is often seen as a later addition to the text. It is added to provide a fuller account of Jesus’ post-resurrectoin appearances.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What does Jesus mean when he says that no one comes to the father but through him? Through him in what way did he believe people to reach the father?
Thank you!
That’s only in teh Gospel of John and is essential to its teaching. John thinks that Jesus came into the world to reveal the father and no one can know the father but by seeing how he is revealed in Jesus. When you understnad (for John) that Jesus came from above to provide the truth that brings salvation then you can indeed have that salvation and experience a heavenly birth yourself.
And in John’s eyes, how is the father revealed through Jesus? through his death and resurrection or through his teachings, through baptism? What is that truth that brings salvation?
Thank you!
Apparently he reveals the father through who he is, which includes his teachings and his crucifixion.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Is all of the information in Jesus Apocalyptic Preacher of the New Millennium, contained in The Historical Jesus by the great courses?
Thank you!
No, but a lot of it is in both.
Any chance Xanthippe is a reference to the more famous Xanthippe?
The wife of Socrates? It obviously couldn’t be a reference to *her*;or are you asking if the hame was meant to make you think of her? Who knows!?
The latter. I was curious that the Roman matron had the same name as Socrates’ wife, and wondered if that was because at that point if it was common for Romans to use Greek names, Xanthippe had positive connotations since Socrates wife must also be virtuous, or the author making a snarky reference based on Plato’s unflattering portrait.
I’ve never looked up to see if it was a common name or not. Maybve someone can tell us!
What do you make of the (relatively) early Xtan belief in Peter’s burial place on Vatican Hill? Seems pretty strong that ~171 there is a extant Xtan belief/tradition that they know where his tomb in Rome is.
You have laid out the possibility that Jesus didn’t get taken down and laid in a tomb. So, why would Peter have been? On the other hand, no one said Jesus was crucified in Rome, so why would not only stories but an actual shrine site for Peter spring up, kind of early in the wrong city? I would guess you would say it was a Joseph of Arimathea tours England legend/situation – I get that.
But doesn’t the tradition along with archeological evidence (+/- a century after the events) showing some Xtans believed Peter was in Rome, give you any pause? You seem all in on no way was Peter in Rome & while it is, as always, an argument well reasoned and well laid out, I find it a tiny bit surprising how sure you are.
Where are you getting teh 171CE date from? My view is that a view that first emerges over a century later is not compelling in itself, but needs some kind of supporting evidence. As you know all *sorts* of places came to be associated with apostles that ewre simply locals trying to claim a famous figure for their own church and tradition. The problem is that 171 seems so LONG ago to us that surely with that kind of age behind it it must ahve a strong claim. But I don’t think 171 seem partricularly close to 64 in, say, 172.
Texts: Dionysius of Corinth ~171 mentions his grave or so Eusebius tells us centuries later. That is how I came to it. Tertullian also mentions it and Peter preaching in Rome 140 years later.
Archeology: Zander, Pietro (2009). The Necropolis Under St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Dates the first shrine to ~167 (or “about 100 years later”). I assume you would find the Archeological work of the people working directly for the Vatican suspect whether or not their work was peer reviewed.
I get all your points. I understand what you are saying. I appreciate the reply.
Other than the charge of arson for the Great Fire of Rome, what was the legal basis for Nero’s persecution of Christians?
Arson itself was not a legal issue; Rome did not have mcuh by way of criminal law. There as a lot of civil law, but offenses were typically dealt with on an ad hoc basis by authorities who had the right to render judgment and punishment as they saw fit.
I don’t know what would happen you were sentenced to be crucified by Roman authorities and you said, “OK, but can you crucify me upside down, please?”. But one thing’s for sure — you would not be giving any speeches.
♫ The world is such a cheerful place when viewed from upside down, it makes a rise of every fall, a smile of every frown ♫
(Culture points if you know which song those lyrics are from.)
I score high.