Loading...Several people have recently asked (in reference to that pop quiz I gave to my class this semester) whether it is in fact right that Peter was the first pope. I dealt with the question a few years ago, along with another interesting tradition about Peter. Here’s the question I got and my response.
QUESTION:
Is there any historical evidence that the apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and that he was martyred upside down on a cross?
RESPONSE:
Ah, I get asked this one (or these two) on occasion. I dealt with them both in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (which, by the way, was a blast to write). First I’ll deal with Peter in Rome – which will take a couple of posts; then the question of his martyrdom. Here is what I say about the first in my book
******************************
In some circles, Peter is best known as the first bishop of Rome, the first pope. In the period I’m interested in for this book, however, there is little evidence to support this view. On the contrary, several authors indicate that Peter was not the first leader of the church there and certainly not its first bishop. There are some traditions, however, that connect him with the Roman church long after it had been established.
Before examining these traditions, I should reiterate that there were other churches outside of Rome that claimed a special connection with Peter. His importance to such churches is no mystery: if Peter was
If you were a member of the blog you would get five posts a week like this, with archives going back to 2012. It costs little to join, and every dime goes to charity. So why not? Click here for membership options Jesus’ chief disciple and the first to affirm his resurrection, then any church that could claim him as their own would obviously improve its status in the eyes of the Christian world at large. The church in Jerusalem itself could certainly make some such claim, as it is clear that in the beginning months of the church, soon after Jesus’ death, it was Peter who took charge and began the mission to convert others to faith in Jesus. Some twenty years later the apostle Paul could still speak of Peter as one of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church, along with John the son of Zebedee and James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 2:9). As becomes clear from a range of sources, including Paul himself (e.g. Gal. 2:12), James was eventually to take over the leadership of the church in Jerusalem, possibly as Peter pursued his mission to convert Jews in other places. The second-century author Clement of Alexandria indicates that it was James who was the first bishop of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Church History, 2, 1).
We have also seen that Peter was present for a time in the large city of Antioch of Syria, where he had a confrontation with Paul over whether it was appropriate to abstain from eating meals with Gentile believers in view of the scruples of Jewish Christians who believed in the need to continue keeping kosher (Gal. 2:11-14). A later tradition indicates that Peter was actually the first bishop there (Eusebius, Church History 3, 36).
Peter was also significant for the church of Corinth. When Paul writes his first letter to the Corinthians, he is concerned that there are groups of Christians claiming allegiance to one Christian leader or another: some to him as founder of the church, some to Apollos as an apostle who came in Paul’s wake to build up the church, and others to Peter (1 Cor. 1:12). There is nothing to indicate that this allegiance to Peter was because he too had come to visit the church: a fourth group, for example, claims allegiance to Jesus himself, and it is certain that he had never been there. But it is clear that Peter’s reputation as the chief apostle made an appeal to him carry considerable weight.
These cities – Jerusalem, Antioch, and Corinth – contained three of the largest churches in the first two centuries. All three claimed some kind of connection with Peter. In a distant way, so did a fourth, the church of Alexandria, Egypt. According to Eusebius, it was the apostle Mark who first went to Egypt and established the (very large) church there (Church History 2, 15). This is the same Mark whom we met earlier as an alleged follower and secretary for Peter, and who, according to the second-century Papias, wrote his Gospel as a set of recollections that he heard from Peter’s sermons about the life of Jesus. In other words, through his right hand man, Mark, Peter is also closely connected with the Alexandrian church.
And so, of course, is the fifth of the largest churches in early Christendom, the church in Rome. We have seen a number of traditions already that presuppose that the church in the city of Rome was well established by the time Peter arrived there. The second-century Acts of Peter, for example, begins by discussing Paul’s work of strengthening the church in Rome (is the assumption that he too came after it had started?) and his decision to leave to take his mission to Spain. It is only because the vacuum created by his absence is filled by the agent of Satan, Simon Magus, that Peter is called by God to journey to Rome, to confront his sworn enemy. Peter then, according to this tradition, comes into a situation in which there had already been a large number of converts, many of whom had fallen away.
If Peter did not start the church in Rome, who did? As it turns out, our earliest evidence for the existence of a church in Rome at all is one of Paul’s letters, the letter to the Romans (written in the 50s CE). This letter presupposes a congregation made up predominantly, or exclusively, of Gentiles (Rom. 1:13). It does not appear, then, to have been a church established by Peter, missionary to the Jews. Moreover, at the end of the letter, Paul greets a large number of the members of the congregation by name. It is striking that he never mentions Peter, here or anywhere else in the letter. Interpreters are virtually unified, on these grounds, in thinking that when Paul wrote this letter in the mid 50s CE, Peter had not yet arrived in Rome.
A later tradition found in the writings of the late-second-century church father Irenaeus, however, indicates that the church in Rome was “founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3, 3, 2). As I have just argued, this cannot have been the case – since in Paul’s own letter to the Roman church, he indicates that he had never yet been there (Rom. 1:13). Irenaeus had a particular polemical point to make by his claim, for in his view, already here at the end of the second century, the church in Rome was the predominant church in the Christian world and its views of the faith were to be normative over all others. And so naturally this most important of churches must have been “founded and organized” by the two most important apostles, Peter and Paul (who were seen, therefore, in contrast to other writings we have observed, as being in complete harmony with one another).
The reality is that we do not know who started the church in Rome. It may well have been started simply by anonymous persons: since so many people traveled to and from Rome, it is not at all implausible that early converts to the faith (say, a decade or more before Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the 50s CE) returned to the capital and made other converts, and that the movement grew from there.
[/mepr-show
Heresy!
We all know that Peter was actually a rabbit.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Why was Jesus baptized in the first place? And why was John performing baptisms? What was the religious significance behind them?
Thank you!
John was expecting the imminent judgment of God against sinners. Those who were baptized had repented of their sins and the baptism showed that they had been cleansed in expectation of the coming judgment. Jesus was baptized because he was convinced that John was right and he wanted to join his movement.
What did having repented of one’s sins look like?
It meant stoppiong all the sinful activities one was typically engaged in.
Jesus didn’t “want to join” the movement. He *was* the movement, succeeding John who was savior before him. “*No one* born of woman greater than John” (Matt. 11:11) means Jesus was not greater than John. He was born of woman! Jesus would not have said this if it was not so. John says he isn’t worthy to undo Jesus’s sandal because he was HIS SUCCESSOR and wanted his own followers to follow Jesus now. “John was standing WITH TWO OF HIS DISCIPLES,” one who was Andrew — John 1:35. Luke 11:1 has ‘disciples’ of John, too. Why is this overlooked?
John 5:35 has Jesus asserting people were ‘rejoicing in his light’ — who has “light” but a Master, or Savior?
John also gives the “power to become children of God ” in John 1 — NOT JESUS. Jesus isn’t mentioned as Word in John until 1:14-15.
Until these traces are recognized for the astounding truth they present, no one will understand the Bible. Sorry! I’m just citing Scripture.
James then becomes successor, covered up by the Paulines in Acts 1 as ‘Judas.’ ‘Saul’ – Paul – kills James in Acts 7 as fictional ‘Stephen.’ (Pseudoclementine Rec. 1.70).
The key word here being “imminent”.
Why do you not acknowledge that John had disciples, just as Jesus? – John 1:35, Luke 11:1. And that Jesus praised John even beyond himself? – Matt. 11:11, John 5:35. And that HE, not Jesus, gave others ‘the power to become children of God,’ in John 1:6-13. Seems to be a simple reading comprehension problem. Read it anew without Christian blinders on.
Most of this can be easily understood as the ‘Son’ in JOHN. The idea that John the Baptist was more than a mere herald is clearly how the Masters see him (yes, there are living Masters. I’ve seen two of them in real time. At least one, Maharaj Charan Singh, wrote this about John).
Is there any historical information about churches established in Galilee during the time of the apostles? I assume there is not. It’s interesting to me how Jesus was seemingly so well known in Galilee (where he ostensibly performed many miracles), yet there were few (or none?) Galilean Christian churches post resurrection. Maybe this is an argument of silence.
Is it most likely because the concept of a crucified Christ was too much for the Galilean Jew? Or do you think this challenges the notion that Jesus may have not been as popular (esp in miracle working) in Galilee as the gospels portray him?
We have some later legends, but no, it does not appear that Galilee was much evangelized. My historical sense is that Jesus was not in fact a well known figure there, despite the Gospels where he has many many thousands of followers. Most Jews, Galilean or otherwise, simply could not countenance the idea of a crucified messiah.
Where is there any evidence of a thousand, a hundred, ten, or even ONE follower of Jesus outside of your precious fictitious Markan ‘Gospels’? The NT is self-serving propaganda for an unrepentant murderer (of James), Paul.
You want us to ask questions. But you can’t seem to handle the hard ones.
You seemingly can’t handle positions that counter your own preassumptions.
Maybe you feel legitimized by your knowledge of the real masters, of which we other merely mortals around here obviously lack.
But I have to state, that I came to this blog to learn about the historicity of the gospel and bible stories – especially NOT for being evangelized.
Is it possible to say when the Bishop of Rome actually became, in effect, ‘the Pope’ and pre-eminent Christian leader in the way the Catholic Church maintains Peter was? Apologies if the answer lies outside your period of expertise, Dr Ehrman, but I am very curious to know.
“Pope” just means “papa” — and was used of bishops of churches in various places in the third century. It first became restricted (by many users) to “the” bishop — that is the leader of teh entire church, the bishop of Rome — in the sixth century.
An unrelated question:
You have indicated earlier that the very first Christians, like James and Peter probably believed in some form of substitutionary atonement. However, you also said that they were probably still living by Mosaic law. How is that compatible? If they believed that their sins were washed away by Jesus, why follow the law? How did they probably see that?
Most of the MOsaic law is not about sacrifices for sins. So they followed those laws. And most of teh sacrifices are not made for “atonement” for other reasons. So Jewish Christians would not have seen a conflict between keeping the law and accepting the death of Christ for their atonement. The law wasn’t about having sins washed away. It was about following what God commanded in terms of how to worship and to relate to one another. For these Christians, God had not changed his mind about any of that.
Did they probably believe that following the law was necessary for salvation?
Jews did not put it that way. Salvation was provided to the Jewish people by the gracious act of God, who made them his own people. They didn’t earn their salvation by keeping the law. Since they were granted salvation, they eagerly did what God wanted them to do.
So salvation came from being a Jew (chosen by God)?
Yes, Jews were teh chosen people. God did not choose them because they earned it. He chose them, and then gave them directoins about how to live. Every Jewish child was born into the covenant as shown, with the boys, by circumcision.
What function did atonement for sins (jesus) have if they where already “saved” by being te chosen people (jews)?
So basically: for the early christians like James and Peter, what was the difference between atonement and salvation?
YOu could be on the good side of your best friend, but do something to offend her and have to apologize. In ancient religions, apologizing to God mattered, but often you had to do something to “pay the debt” off.
You indicated that salvation comes from being a Jew in the view of the earliest christians, following the mosaic law made them avoid sins and the substitutionary atonement helped them with the forgiveness of their sins. Which was important just for the sake of being forgiven (that is just morally good). My question then remains: what did they think of the inclusion of gentiles? Gentiles seem to be unsaved from the jerusalem church’ point of view. Even if Jesus accounts for their sins.
The earliest followers of Jesus assumed that anyone who wanted to accept the salvation brought by the Jewish messiah could absolutely do so. It meant joining the people of God — that is, convertig to Judaism. I think that went without saying.
You write” anyone who wanted to accept the salvation brought by the jewish messiah”, Isn’t that in contradiction with your earlier comments? Salvation is brought by joining the people of God; converting to Judaism. The Jewish messiah washes your sins away (which is just good for goodness’ sake, not necessary for salvation). True or not? Also, why did the Jerusalem church then accept Pauls’ gentile mission?
None of Jesus’ followers thought that salvation could be brought apart from believing in Jesus. As to why Jerusalem accepted Paul’s views, it’s hard to say. He may hve been convincing. He does suggest it took a bit of arm-twisting.
“None of Jesus’ followers thought that salvation could be brought apart from believing in Jesus.”
Oh, but how does that relate to the being Jewish part then?
Wasn’t being Jewish already providing salvation in the view of the earliest christians?
No. Otherwise Jesus would not have had to die. A person could just become a Jew.
What was the purpose of becoming Jewish then?
Just a necessary factor for accepting his sacrifice?
Do you mean why did gentiles convert to Judaism? To worship the true God properly. Or do you mean why would a gentile because a Jew to worship Jesus? Because it meant joining the Chosen People whose Messiah had come. Paul thought it wasn’t necessary. All the others assumed that it was obvious: God sent Jesus to fulfill the promises of SCripture to his chosen ones; so you had to be one of his chosen ones.
Would you recommend the Reader’s Digest version of the Bible for non-scholars/non-specialists who want to read the “whole” Bible but who, like me, get bogged down in the repetition, excessive detail, and genealogies, especially of the OT? For example I just slogged through Exodus’s two (almost?) identical descriptions of how to make the Ark of the Covenant, the priestly vestments, and various other implements used in divine sacrifice.
Many years ago when I first heard about the RD version I assumed it was superficial, sanitized, and primarily commercial in intent. Recently I read, online, what I take to be an old news article that makes it sound quite reputable. It’s based on the RSV and was endorsed by Bruce Metzger and whoever was president of Princeton Theological Seminary at the time, as well as by Oral Roberts.
I’m also wondering if it retains what many Christians might consider the more objectionable, embarrassing, and inconsistent parts of the Bible.
My mentor Bruce Metzger produced it, and in doing so he tried to get the most important and representative part of the Bible in. Yes, it is largely commercial. It’s OK if you want the Greatest Hits approach to the Bible, but not if you want to read it seriously.
I’m curious to know what, in early days of Christianity, a “bishop” was. In his letter to the Philippians (early- to mid- 50’s?), Paul refers to episkopos and diakonos, distinguishing them from the hagios en christos and suggesting that they held some position of authority in the church at Philippi. By the end of the first century, the authors of the letters to Timothy and Titus refer to episkope as an office or position one might aspire to, suggesting that the early church was in the process of formalizing those roles. What do scholars know about the role a bishop played in early churches, especially between, say, 40 and 60 CE? And how much later was the Bishop of Rome considered the undisputed leader of the Christian Church? Certainly not during Peter’s lifetime, right?
The word in the New Testament is the one we get “episcopacy” or “episcopal” church from; it literally means “over-seer.” so originally it was the person who oversaw the church — that is, the one who was ultimately in charge of things. It eventually did indeed become a church office with definite requirements, by the time of the pastoral epistles.
Dr. Ehrman, are our questions supposed to be related to the current post, or are we free to ask Biblical questions unrelated to said post?
You can ask any question you want and attach it to any post, whether relevant or not. I prefer just one questoin a day from each member, but it can be onmost anything involving the Bible or ealry Xty or related topics. So ask away!
Did it ever cross your mind that you could make a lot more money by writing a book ‘interpreting’ the Book of Revelation to predict an end in… oooh… ten years or so?
Oh yes. Lots of ways I could make money off of religion! My friends tell me that if I *really* want to make it rich, I need to re-convert to become a fundamentalist and then write my autobiography….
Dr. Ehrman, I disagree. According to Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (a colleague of that inimitable scholar Dan Brown), Peter not only founded the Church of Rome, he also founded the Club of Rome and the Roman Meal bread company. He also wrote the hit 1990 song “Roam” by the B-52s, although the spelling was mistranslated from Koine Greek.
Excellent seminar today on Revelation!
Ha!!
I recall reading somewhere that there was an intense animus between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles over doctrine, and that Peter came to Rome in order to supplant Paul and his influence. I think the author asserted that Peter won this debate, which is why Peter’s tomb was in Rome proper while Paul’s was outside the ancient city limits. Any sense that this ancient antagonism might have actually happened, or is this just uninformed speculation?
The idea of animus is largely based on Paul’s own statements in Galatians 1-2; the idea of Peter coming to Rome in Paul’s stead is found in the legendary Acts of Peter from the late second or early third century, but he comes not to supplant Paul but replace him once he left. My sense is that there was some antagonism, based on Galatians, but that it mainly focused on whether Jews and Gentiles could *equally* be members of the Christian church or were to be treated differently.
The goal was show a direct line of priestly ordination back to Jesus?
Ultimately, yes. That’s the idea of the “apostolic succession.” Starting in the second century, church leaders wanted to show that they could trace their views back to Jesus himself.
“The idea of animus is largely based on Paul’s own statements in Galatians 1-2”
You have not read the Dead Sea Scrolls. There, the Pesherim scrolls: the Damascus Document, the Community Rule and Habbakuk Pesher — all ooze with contempt for Paul, the Spouter of Lying, “who builds a worthless City ON BLOOD and an Assembly ON LYING.” Habb. Pesher X:10. This is PAUL. There is no conflict with the carbon dating! These pages are well within the margin of error for first Century C.E.
I don’t know what your problem with Eisenman is, but you need to reconsider what you say and think about him. He knows what he’s talking about. The Wicked Priest WAS ANANUS. He is right, Geza Vermes was WRONG. Ananus’s ‘corpse’ (not ‘body of his flesh’) was thrown over city walls for the dogs (Josephus).
The Righteous Teacher was James. Eisenman has many chapters drawing out the evidence. You’re a smart guy. If you read ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians,’ you will be convinced.
You say you’d like to know what scholars support Eisenman. You could be the first. It would rock. I’d consider that my contribution to science… 😉
“It may well have been started simply by anonymous persons: since so many people traveled to and from Rome, it is not at all implausible that early converts to the faith (say, a decade or more before Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the 50s CE) returned to the capital and made other converts, and that the movement grew from there.”
Yes. For example, Acts 2:10 (NRSV) says “and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes.” If this is correct, then anonymous Pentecost pilgrims from Rome went back and started the church in Rome. And they were converted during Peter’s first sermon. This links Peter to the first converts in Rome, but that does not make Peter the first Archbishop of Rome. Other travelers to or from Rome might also have started gatherings of believers, especially since the Roman Christians were mostly gentile.
So, Peter cannot have been the leader of the Church of Rome in the mid 50s because Paul does not mention him in Romans. So who WAS the leader at that time? Paul sends greetings first to Prisca, Aquila, and Epaenetus, perhaps because he had spent a lot of time with them. Next is Mary (Rom16:6). There is no hint that Paul had spent time with her. Paul gives no commendation of her from personal experience, and this silence would be insulting if he was well acquainted with her. So why is she mentioned so early in the list, even before the prominent apostles, Andronicus and Junia? It seems to me that she was the leader of the Church of Rome, at least before the recent arrival of Prisca, Aquila and Epaenetus. I doubt that Paul would snub the leader of the church by greeting Mary before him/her. People were very attentive to name order. Her name was rare in Rome (even among Jews), but very common in Palestine. The harder Mariam variant is unattested in Rome. She had therefore probably moved from Palestine to Rome and had founded the church there. Was this Mary, then, the first pope?
Was this Mary, then, the first pope? You have thrown in another possibility. My question then would be, how/ who would of given Mary authority to lead a church when, i thought at least, women were subserviant to the men in those times, their roles were significant but not to the extent of leadership positions, like pope?
In some early traditions Mary (Magdalene) was called “the apostle to the apostles,” since she was teh first to announce the resurrectoin ot the others. But no one treated her as a pope of Rome (in part because she never went there. But for other clear reasons too. She more ore less disappears from teh scene after the resurrection narratives).
Hi Bart, slightly off topic, does Jesus quote the book of Enoch often? Does Romans start with a quotation from the Wisdom of Solomon?
1 He never does. 2. Not that I’m aware of. Which words are you thinking of?
Hhhhmimmm.? Well, New MA Theology student commenting here. In the canon of the New Testament it appears that church organization was still rather “loose.” Elders [prebuteroi?] ; overseers [ episkopoi] ; and deacons [diakanoi?] . To apply the MUCH later term POPE meaning the Bishop of the MULTIPLE churches in Rome to the question could easily confuse new students [me included] to what was a “true development.” In Acts Peter is last seen in Antioch [I think]. He is then mentioned a few times in Paul’s letters. The New Testament then contains a letter which is certainly proposed to be the apostle and writing cryptically from “Babylon” which was a code word for Rome. If you are a proponent of Sola Scriptura then one could certainly say “NO WAY”, Peter was not in Rome and therefore could not be its leader. BUT if you see the church at Rome that Paul was writing to [before he had ever visited] you see exactly what you would or should expect. A loose gathering of believers. In this case, one could argue that when Paul and later Peter DO arrive in Rome they organize things. They had the gospel,yes! Randy
“I dealt with them both in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (which, by the way, was a blast to write). ” – It’s tempting then to guess that The Answer is Blowing In The Wind, but I won’t.
One reason it was a blast is that I could keep referring to PP&M songs!
Hi, Bart!
I just Audibled PPM and now am in Lost Christianities. I’m really very curious what you personally think about the historicity of Peter’s presence in Rome. For me, the Acts of Peter is too fantastic to take as historic. Any chance Irenaeus might have been misled into believing otherwise legendary accounts of Peter’s life and martyrdom in Rome? Wasn’t there too much at stake in establishing the primacy of the Roman church for Peter NOT to have been there to build the church, as Irenaeus claimed? Is there any archaeological proof of Peter in Rome? From your personal studies, do you think Peter was actually in Rome and acting in a significant manner among the Christians?
I have been listening to your books for over a year now. My fear is that I am will run them out. Then, I realized that I can listen to them all again. So, it’s cool…until you come out with another book, that is.
Thanks!
Julius
Yes, I don’t think these later legendary accounts have any credibility, and none of our early sources, including those coming from Rome (1 Clement; Justin) places Peter there. He almost certainly wasn’t there when Paul wrote Romans in the early 60s. So I kind of doubt he was there. And no, there’s no archaeological evidence that’s particularly relevant. I personally doubt if he was there, but in the end I don’t think we can know either way.
Is it imperative that the church in Rome was founded by a bishop? I would say evidence is to the contrary. Rather initially it appears earliest churches had no elders/bishops/presbyters etc.
Question: where was the author of 1 Peter writing from? “Babylon.” The actual authorship is immaterial to the question. The author intends to write from peters voice, and claims to be in “Babylon”.
Scholars of all stripes agree (yourself included) that Revelation uses the word Babylon as a cryptic way to refer to Rome. Is that the case with 1 Peter 5?
Thank you for your consideration and what you do.
My sense is that churches were never started by bishops in teh first few centuries; the bishops tended to be people who rose to a position of leadership within the church once it was established. “Babylon” in 1 Peter is almost always understood to be Rome.
Then it is easy to see why a connection to the church at Rome is made with Peter. Without regard to if or if not he ever actually was in Rome, we are certainly meant to think that he was, by that cryptic statement in 1 Peter.
It seems as if later authors took the ball and ran with it, as you cited the episode with Simon. My money is that indeed he was in Rome at some point, and that perhaps he indeed was one of the elders there, i have no reason to believe that he was the only one. again i appeal to 1 Peter 5 in the opening statements of that chapter. At least this is what the author of this book intends us to believe, and i assume that his connection in Rome was understood at least by the audience of this book and probably more.
Furthermore, 1 Clement opens by appealing to the fact that the book was written in and from Rome to the church at Corinth. This suggests that the church at Rome spoke with authority.
What exactly is the meaning of the phrase “unworthy heir” with respect to the bishop of Rome?
Yes, 1 Clement was written by someone in Rome to the congregation in Corinth. It does mention Peter’s and Paul’s deaths, but does not say they died in Rome (or even hint at it). I’m not sure what you mean by “unworthy heir.” Are you quoting someone?
It was first introduced to me by a western civ professor at Okla st. As I remember, he said that subsequent bishops of Rome were unworthy heirs of the position of authority held by Peter. Of course they appeal to passages like Matthew 16:18. I’ve never really heard anyone else refer to it that way though. Evidently you haven’t either?
What does the writer of Matthew intend us to do with the whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven passage? As you know, the pronoun is singular- Peter is being addressed individually. Does the writer of Matthew intend us to think that Peter does have more authority than the rest of the apostles?
I he is seen as the leader of the apostolic band and as such is the “head” of the church. Or it may be that he is seen as the representative of all those who make this kind of confession (see 18:18 where almost the same saying occurs with plural “you”)
Do we have evidence(s) that Peter himself showed signs of “pope-like” character/behavior such as infallibility, primacy among the apostles, early church leadership, etc.?
If there are such evidences, what are those?
If Peter was not the first pope, who do you think was the earliest pope/bishop (of Rome) that the Catholic church can rightfully claim and that we can verify?
No evidence of that at all. The only surviving author who actually knew him who talks about him calls him a misguided hypocrite (Paul, in Galatians 2). We can’t know who the earliest leaders of the Roman church were. “Pope” doesn’t come to be applied to the bishop of Rome for several centuries.
The Catholic church often claims that it is the one true church founded by Jesus himself through the apostolic succession of Peter. If this is really not the case, who was the real founder of the Catholic church?
Like many institutions, it didn’t have a single moment in which it was founded by a single individual, but evolved and grew and developed over time.
If Peter were alive today, which “closest” religion/denomination would you think he will belong into?
How about Paul? If he were alive today, which “closest” religion/denomination would you think will he belong? It seems that Paul talks and acts like a Protestant.
I think they would have found all the options incredibly bewildering.
I am curious whether Jesus really appointed a legitimate successor who would manage his movement while he was away. Who do you think was the person who acted as the highest leader of the earliest Christian church?
It seems that Paul, Peter, and James had that kind of leadership. So which of these people was the esteemed highest leader?
I don’t think Jesus appointed anyone to succeed him. In his view, there wouldn’t be a successor. The Kingdom of God wold come adn he wold be made the king.
From the New Revised Standard Version: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” -Matthew 16:18
Would that verse indicate that Jesus…
(a) built a church?
(b) Peter had a special role on that church (which some would interpret as leader/successor)?
a. For Matthew, yes; b: Yes, for Matthew.
Question 1: Do you mean that the historical Jesus did not originally utter the words of Matthew 16:18?
Question 2: The author of Matthew just “made-up” or “invented” the statement in Matthew 16:18?
1. Yes I do; 2. My guess is that he heard it in the tradition.
Peter was the main host of Jesus and his followers in Galilee, and church hosts were often given new names. Indeed, the author of John’s gospel seems to have understood that Peter was given his name for the support that he would provide to Jesus in Galilee, because Jesus decides to go to Galilee the day after (and the verse after) he predicts that Simon will be named Peter. Otherwise the chain of cause an effect in John 1:19-43 is broken. So, it seems to me that in Matt 16:18 Peter is named not for his role as future pope, but for his present role as host. The verse is therefore not as anachronistic as it appears.
1. What are your evidences that the historical Jesus did not originally utter the words of “Matthew 16:18”?
2. What are your evidences that the author of Matthew only heard “Matthew 16:18” in the tradition?
1. a. It is not found in any other Gospel account; b. it does not correspond with anything else we can establish with relative certainty about what the historical Jesus said; c. in fact it runs counter to the consistently attested view of Jesus that the kingdom was coming soon to earth, not that he would establish a church; d. it uses vocabulary for a group of Jesus’ followers (“church”) that cannot be attested for the historical Jesus e. it embraces precisely the views of Christians after Jesus death. In other words, it fails all the criteria we have. 2. There’s no option, unless one thinks the author heard Jesus say it, which is almost never considered an option (for solid reasons) by biblical scholars.
1. Do you think there is evidence that Peter was buried in his namesake, St. Peter’s Basilica?
2. Do we even have a verifiable account on his death and burial in the first place? People claim that he was crucified upside down.
3. If there is no such account, then “how and when” did the idea that Peter was buried in the Basilica came to be believed?
1. No 2. No, the first account comes from the Acts of Peter, late second century 3. I’m not sure of the history of the tradition, but there are many, many such traditions — if you ever have a guided tour of Israel you’ll here tons of them (this is where Jesus did this, this is where he did that, etc.)
Bart, why do you suppose that the author of Matthew’s gospel (and Jesus?) are not just referring in Matt 16:18 to the gatherings of Jesus and his disciples in Peter’s house in Galilee, before Easter? Gatherings of believers were probably called ἐκκλησία by the time Jesus’s Aramaic term would have been translated into Greek, so the use of this word in Matt 16:18 is not surprising, is it? Is there another word that you would have expected for meetings in Peter’s house?
Well, I would say that no one to my knowledge has ever taken it that way, given what we know about Matthew’s Gospel; and I don’t see anyway to trace the saying back to Jesus? (Which meetings in Peter’s house are you thinking of, btw?)
The idea that ἐκκλησία in Matt 16:18 refers to the community of disciples in Peter’s house is consistent with the idea that the saying goes back to Jesus, but it does not require it. It is also possible that the author of Matthew’s gospel or his predecessors imagined (probably rightly) that Peter must have been named because of his role as host, since those receiving new names in the early church were generally the hosts and benefactors of the churches (see Fellows 2016).
You assume “what we know about Matthew’s Gospel”, and I take your point, but we should be careful to avoid circularity.
On the importance of Peter’s house as a base for Jesus and his disciples, see Gehring “House Church and Mission”, and the recent and intriguing “Tout en Commun” by Jonathan Cornillon, who tightens the arguments, suggesting that Peter’s house was not generally referred to as “Peter’s” house, since property was held in common. Gehring and Cornillon cite e.g. Mark 1:29-35; 2:1-2; Matt 17:24-27. Jesus was clearly based in Capernaum, and he spends the night in “Peter’s” house there. It is unlikely that Jesus moved between multiple houses in Capernaum, given Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4; 10:7-8; Matt 10:11.
Perhaps another theory to consider is that Irenaeus knew of two traditions; that Peter founded the church in Rome and Paul organised it – and Irenaeus blundered by combining the two together (as you point out, Paul did not found the Church in Rome).
What’s your view of Suetonius’ account of Roman Jews creating disturbances in the city at the instigation of Christ in the late 40s? On the face of it, it seems that Christianity had arrived and was boldly rubbing up against the non-Messianic Jews, which in turn created enough friction to have them expelled in 49. Perhaps an apostolic visit to the city in the 40s could account for this?
The problem is that Suetonius doesn’t say that it was at the “instigation of Christ.” He says it was at the “instigation of Chrestus” (which was a common slave name). As a result, the passage is very much disputed by both Roman and early Christian historicans.
I shall take your word for Chrestus being a common slave name, but it was also a fairly common alternative spelling for Christ (Christus). I would argue that with other evidence that points towards Peter embarking on a mid-40s missionary journey to Rome, that this tilts the balance of probabilities that Suetonius is referring to Christ.
On the matter of the slave name, was it common among all slaves (inc Jewish), or more common among Jewish slaves?
It’s possible that Christ is meant. But I don’t know of any evidence of Peter going to Rome in teh 40s. It’s not mentioned in the Acts of Paul, e.g. The name was common among all slaves; there was nothing Jewish about it. We do know of a Jewish slave of that name who served the emperor Claudius; earlier there was a gentile one who was owned by Cicero.
Three fairly early sources have knowledge of a tradition that circulated in the early Church that the apostles were instructed by the risen Jesus to embark upon missionary journeys outside of Israel after 12 years had elapsed. They appear independent of one another as the wording is so different, as are some of the details:
Preaching of Peter (I date to c68, but the majority opinion is c100-150)
Acts of Peter (c100-150) – which states Peter went to Rome after 12 years.
Apollonius of Ephesus (c200)
Eusebius (323) says Peter went to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Jerome (393) says Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (42).
There’s also a persistent tradition (The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle, Jerome, etc) in ancient sources that Peter was the Bishop of Rome for 25 years. 42 and 25 brings us to the year 67, a common date used for Peter’s execution.
By the end of the second century, yes. I don’t know how the Preaching of Peter can be dated that early.
On how I date Preaching of Peter. There’s a line from the text that has Peter criticising Jews who do not take part in certain forms of worship: “Neither worship ye him as do the Jews, for they, who suppose that they alone know God, do not know him, serving angels and archangels, the month and the moon: and if no moon be seen, they do not celebrate what is called the first sabbath, nor keep the new moon, nor the days of unleavened bread, nor the feast (of tabernacles?), nor the great day (of atonement).”
The last three forms of worship listed are temple-based, and it’s difficult to imagine a post-70 author inventing this teaching: why invent a saying criticising Jews for failing to worship at a temple that doesn’t exist? It’s possible the text could have been composed after 70, but only if it were referring to actual sayings of Peter, rather than someone putting these words on his lips. My guess is that after Peter met his demise in Rome in the 60s, Mark returned to Alexandria (the favored location for this work) and composed it in an attempt to preserve the teachings of his mentor.
In the Talmud the Temple is discussed as if it still exists, and the sacrificial system in it practiced — but these texts are centuries later.
Apologies in advance for citing Wikipedia, but according to its entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodashim) on this subject “Although the subject matter was no longer directly relevant to life in the Babylonian academies, the Gemara was motivated by the idea that the study of the laws of the Temple service is a substitute for the service itself. Also, the rabbinic sages wanted to merit the rebuilding of the Temple by paying special attention to these laws.”
Does this accord with your understanding of why the Babylonian Talmud contained this section on the temple?
Often when talking about ancient texts that discuss religious traditions and institutions, later readers will use the present tense to say how they are to be performed and what they are supposed to mean, even though the traditions and institutions are no longer around in their own day. Christian authors also sometimes talk about the temple as functioning after it was destroyed, or or practices that are no longer practiced inthe present tense.
Thank you – that’s useful to know.
I wish to propose that in this case, the purpose of the saying of Peter is not an exposition of temple ceremony, but instead to level a criticism at some Jews for their attitude to worship. They are serving angels, and only worship God according to lunar observation. My specific interest is where Peter then lists the three temple-based ceremonies that are being neglected.
If the author is writing in the early 2nd century and their purpose is to have a pop at the Jews for their attitude to worship, then I further propose that not only does the criticism work well enough without the final line on temple worship, but the inclusion of temple worship has the effect of undermining the criticism itself. The Jews no longer have their temple, so how can they satisfy the critique of the text?
If my proposal is correct, then I would argue we are likely looking at either a pre-70 text emulating Peter or an authentic saying of Peter (possibly preserved post-70), either of which would mean the text or the saying can be dated pre-70.
Dear Bart,
I’ve been thinking more about the Chrestus problem, and I’d like to ask – do you know if it was only known as a slave name, or were free citizens also naming their sons that name?
I don’t think we know of any.
In that case, how likely is it that a slave would be able to get away with agitating the Jewish roman population to such an extent that instead of arresting the slave or addressing the matter with his master, the Emperor decides to expel the Jewish population from the city?
I’m struggling to think of a credible set of circumstances where the authorities would be reluctant to remove the slave (or his master) from the chessboard, and decided instead to remove the more numerous (and presumably more powerful) Jewish population.
Claudius was friends with Agrippa and urged peace in Alexandria so the Jewish population was treated kindly. I believe he also reaffirmed the rights and freedoms of Jews across the empire, so it’s difficult to imagine he had an anti-Jewish agenda in Rome.
Can you think of how a slave could get away with agitating the Jews in Rome, so that they (and not him or his master) are expelled?
The idea is not that he riled the population but riled the Jewish population leading to Romans getting rid of the whole lot of them. Slaves could be highly placed intellectuals wiht a public presence — not like slavery iin the American south.
Yes, I was only referring to the Jewish population throughout my question.
If this Chrestus was a bright slave with a public presence, my question still stands – why would the Emperor expel the Jewish population rather than arresting the slave? Some of these Jews would have been citizens, some wealthy and influential, they would run businesses and make use of other businesses – it seems a drastic move that would at least slightly harm the economy of Rome, not to mention Claudius’ relationship with Agrippa, so why expel them over the interests of an intelligent slave?
The only people I can imagine getting away with this would be someone with a high public rank such as a general or senator. Even if the slave was super intelligent and well connected, they would nonetheless still be a slave. Do you know of any comparable instances where a Roman governor or Emperor sided with a slave over a significant section of their population?
The idea is that fights had been publicly breaking out among different Jewish communities and the emperor said to hell with all of you. That would be true whether it is debates over Christ or debates instigated by someone named Chrestus. Suetonius, of course, says the latter.
The New Testament is chockablock with infighting. Not once is Peter called in to settle things. In fact the only time in the NT that someone acts like our idea of a Pope, is at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and it’s James, not Peter, who listens to the arguments and pronounces judgment.
Peter does address the Apostles in Acts 1 (with unlikely eloquence) and proposes how they would fill Judas’s vacancy. But this seems more like a ministerial act. He does not name the new apostle himself; Matthias is chosen by lot.