Martyrdom or Community Struggle: How Paul and Peter may have died
CONTENT WARNING: Talks of death, sexual violence, and martyrdom. If these bother you, caution is advised.
Okay… so… we have all heard the traditional tales of Christian martyrdom. It was a dark evening in Rome. And the fires came up, devestating the city, killing hundreds and burning buildings to the ground, until the streets were covered in ash and rubble, and black smoke lingered in the air. Jove had forsaken them. Meanwhile, Caesar Nero himself sat upon the balcony of his palace, looking down on the carnage that he himself had started. A fire he wished to happen so he could plan new architectural works and layouts for the city. But the people grew wise to him. They pointed fingers to the hated Emperor. Said one to the other, “He has burned his own people in their homes and in the streets for his vanity!”
Nero was in shock. How could they possibly have known? He spent some time lingering in thought, hoping against hope a solution could show itself which would alleviate the cry of treason and mass murder from the mouths of the masses. And then suddenly he knew the answers… a scapegoat. He gathered for himself information on a hated band of people, the Christianos, and declared that these superstitious and antisocial people, who hated the human race (odio humani generis), had started the conflagration in their bid to undermine Rome. In punishment, he administered torture and mass execution upon the Christians of Rome, even burning some as torches in his gardens.
In our traditional tales, Nero is so reviled and his presence so demonic that he even took it upon himself to execute two of the very apostles of Christ himself, Peter and Paul. Peter, not being a citizen, was crucified. But so as not to confuse anyone, and to make his own status known, he asked to be (and was) crucified upside down, so that they knew he was a servant of Christ. Paul, more fortunate as a Roman citizen, was beheaded it is said. Many hold that they were killed at the same time.
What a touching (?) story. But is any of it true? The reality of the situation is that the evidence for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul is exceptionally poor. In fact, I think it is unconvincing in just about every regard. The first explicit references to these events under Nero (or Agrippa as is the case with the earliest account of Peter’s death) are late at the end of the second century with the Acts of Paul and Thecla, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Other authors reference the witness and perseverence of Peter and Paul (e.g., Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 12; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 9). One of the earliest to mention their deaths is Dionysius of Corinth (apud Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.4). However, notably, Dionysius neither says that it took place specifically in Rome, nor under Nero, and in fact does not make any mention of who was responsible for their “martyrdoms” (ἐμαρτύρησαν). We will come back to this below. All of this is noteworthy in that Dionysius’ reference comes in the middle to late second century CE, if Eusebius is to be believed.
So… what is the earliest mention of their deaths? I am so glad you asked. That would be the author “Clement” (I put in scare quotes because the authorship of the letter is somewhat disputed by a few academics like Detering) in 1 Clement 5.3–7, which was written in the late first or early century second century CE (if Otto Zwierlein is followed). The text reads as follows (using Ehrman’s LCL translation):
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 (μαρτυρήσας) he went to the place of glory that he deserved. Because of jealousy and strife Paul pointed the way to the prize for endurance. Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith. He taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the limits of the West, bearing his witness (μαρτυρήσας) before the rulers. And so he was set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance.
Now that is literature. You will note I highlighted the term μαρτυρήσας in both places. This is because, and this is rather important, we need to establish something. This Greek word is a verb which comes from μάρτυς, where our own word “martyr” comes from. In our common understanding, the term “martyr” refers to someone who has been killed specifically for their faith. But this is not actually how this term is used in the earliest literature. To the contrary, the term is quite ordinary and boring meaning to “bear witness” or “testify” in some capacity. And, in fact, we find something pretty staggering in early Christian literature. The term is not explicitly used of someone dying for their faith until (A) a fictional text known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp and (B) the letter of Dionysius of Corinth as quoted by Eusebius from above. Notably, all of these occur quite some time after 1 Clement. What is 1 Clement’s more immediate and closer context like then? Well, basically, Christians are just using this as a standard term to denote someone who has given testimony or witness, including elsewhere in 1 Clement (1 Clem. 44.3, 63.3. Cf. Rev. 2:13; Ignatius, To the Trallians 12.3; Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 6.3, 7.2; Polycarp, To the Philippians 2.2, 4.3, 7.1).
This is pretty damning. Christians by this period did not yet conceptualize the “martyr” in those words yet. Instead, this word still carried its more normative meaning. So, when 1 Clement speaks of Peter and Paul giving μαρτυρήσας before the rulers, what is Clement speaking of? He is just speaking of their testimony. In fact, the language throughout 1 Clement is pretty doubtful when it comes to speaking of outsiders martyring anyone. Lots of terms are cited such as 1 Clement speaking of persecution (έδιώχθησαν), however, these terms are not inherently lethal in connotation (cf. Basil, Letters 266; John Damascene, Barlaam and Ioasaph 27.251). There are a few indicators here that does make it clear, however, that while μαρτυρήσας does not connote any lethal end, that 1 Clement does have such an end in mind. Specifically, 1 Clement speaks of persecution “unto death” (ἕως θάνατος) in 5.2 and he refers to other violent acts and deaths in chap. 6.
This, however, is where I think there is a catch. Is he speaking of deaths that were caused by outsiders? If we are to speak of Peter and Paul suffering persecution and martyrdom under the Romans, we need to be sure he is speaking of Romans when he talks of their deaths, correct? Well, reading the entire passage in the fuller context of the letter, the impression is that he does not have outsiders in mind. The letter itself is an admonishment of Christians for their jealous tendencies, for their inner-conflicts. In fact, the only time that Clement speaks of outsiders he is specifically calling attention to the fact that Christian intra-conflicts have become so noticeable that even outsiders have clued in on the fighting. As Welborn remarks:
When Clement warns of the intervention of outsiders, it is not to censure the authorities but to deepen the sense of ‘shame’ […] of Christians who have shown themselves disloyal to their presbyters. (186)
Things only get darker from there, however. Eastman has likewise made lengthy comment on this letter and contends that Christian intra-conflicts possibly led to the Romans intervening and then executing a number of them, including leaders like Peter and Paul. I think Eastman is on the right track but I am going to take this one step further, because I think the context clarifies explicitly whom Clement thinks is responsible for the deaths of Peter and Paul. In 1 Clem. 6.1–3, Clement speaks about many horrors that Christians are facing on account of their own jealousy/envy and infighting. He first references the great multitude who have died as a result of these conflicts (1 Clem. 6.1), though he does not actually make it out that this was one single mass execution of a large number, and so cannot be linked to Tacitus, Annals 15.44 and his multitudo ingens as some have tried. In contrast, it seems to be accumulative, i.e., Peter and Paul are added to this multitude. This is one building up over time, not a reference to any particular event. Next, Clement references Christian women being made to imitate the Danaids and Dirces (1 Clem. 6.2), which probably is to evoke some kind of sexual violence against women (like rape). Clement then refers to the destruction of familial roles, i.e., the violation of the family itself as a result of this envy and jealousy (1 Clem. 6.3). All of these acts are caused by jealousy amongst Christians. Not because of outsiders, but insiders.
In short, Clement does not blame nor even involve the presence of outsiders except to shame Christians for having drawn some attention. In contrast, all the violent acts are all the result of Christian jealousy and envy of their own brethren. As he is opening this discussion, Clement clearly draws parallels to their sufferings and biblical tales, such as the Cain and Abel, Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery, Moses being forced to flee, Moses and Miriam being excluded from the camp, and more (1 Clem. 4). In fact, at times he even uses parallel language. Like Christians who have been persecuted (έδιώχθησαν), so too was Joseph (διωχθήναι, 1 Clem. 4.9).
This is my thesis… Paul and Peter were not killed by Romans. They were killed by fellow Christians. In fact, Clement seems to envision, in my interpretation, Christians engaged in quite substantial conflicts with each other. If what Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96 says is to be believed, they likewise by the second century were engaged in deliberately subversive acts against Roman law as well. In short, Christians were becoming more deliberately obstinate and even violent, both in acts against the state and against their own people, due to various theological conflicts and such. To be sure, this would not be the only time in history that such intra-community conflict would occur, not even remotely. Regardless, it seems to be that Clement has in his mind a fairly horrific image of early Christianities. They are engaged in violent conflict, so horrific that they even have killed the apostles with their own hands. At no point does Clement blame outsiders. Again, outsiders are only spoken of to shame current Christians for their behavior, as Welborn noted.
This hypothesis, in my view, has also some strong explanatory power. This would explain why Luke-Acts, which has a clear vested interest in presenting a more unified Christian front, would steer clear from mentioning how Peter and Paul died, even though the text appears to be building to this event. It would explain why no early Christians mention or only vaguely refer to the deaths of Peter and Paul, like Dionysius of Corinth. And further why the two earliest references to their deaths fail to make note of any outside involvement.
As I have argued elsewhere (along with Candida Moss and Brent Shaw), the Neronian Persecution likely never happened. But whether it did or not is somewhat tangential. One thing that the story of the Neronian persecution became a key way to re-contextualize the deaths of Peter and Paul. We see evidence of this build up. In my view, the germ of this myth started growing from Rome in the late first century. There is no clear reference to Nero as this mass persecutor of Christians until the late first or early second century (Tacitus, Suetonius, and Revelation, maybe, though Shushma Malik has raised issues there). Dionysius of Corinth himself knows of no violent actions taken by either Nero or Domitian, referring only to slanders that the elders corrected. It is not until the late second century CE that Christians fully formulated this idea… and then recontextualized the deaths of the apostles in it as well. It is only then that Peter’s and Paul’s deaths finally come to mean something with regard to outside persecution and martyrdom… only then.
In my view, this was probably because Christians just did not want to remember the truth of the matter… Peter and Paul died to the persecution of fellow Christians. This does not fit in the schema. Jesus said that others, the nonbelievers, shall persecute you (Mark 10:29–30; Matt. 10:16–18). Paul said the nonbelievers will persecute you (2 Thess. 1). Fellow Christians, however, are not part of that priming schema. The deaths of Peter and Paul under Nero, in my view, are later rationalizations, coverups, attempts to hide the uncomfortable past. Christians killed Peter and Paul. And likely committed other heinous acts in intra-community conflict with each other, leading Clement to lament this situation (and others to hide it in silence or faux images of unity). I do not think Roman intervention is at all necessary to explain their deaths.
That is today’s crackpot theory.
Secondary Sources
Detering, Hermann. Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? Des Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992.
Eastman, David L. “Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 18, no. 1 (2014): 34–53.
Ehrman, Bart, ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers. LCL 24; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Hansen, C. M. “The Number of the Myth: A Defense of the Ahistoricity of the Neronian Persecution.” Journal of Early Christian History (2023), doi: 10.1080/2222582X.2023.2208316 (online first)
Hansen, C. M. “The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus’ Information on Christians.” Journal of Early Christian History 13, no. 1 (2023): 62–80.
Malik, Shushma. The Nero-Antichrist: Founding and Fashioning a Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. London: Routledge, 2015.
Moss, Candida. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. New York: HarperOne, 2013.
Shaw, Brent D. “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution.” Journal of Roman Studies 105 (2015): 73–100
Welborn, L. L. “Early Christianity at Rome as Reflected in the So-Called First Epistle of Clement.” Pages 138–200 in The First Urban Churches 6: Rome and Ostia. Edited by James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021.
Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus in Rome: Die literarischen Zeugnisse. Second Edition. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
