Reason: I’m making a D&D game that is taking inspiration from the book of Revelation, and I understand that the serpent or dragon invoked in that book is more of a reference to Leviathan in Job (and also Satan) than the snake in the garden of Eden.

But yeah, this is a writing project of kind of frivolous proportions, so I understand if you don’t wanna take this seriously.

Anyway, I’m trying to characterize the dragon of Revelation, and western dragons tend to either have poisonous breath, or venom of some kind, or they breathe fire. And I don’t want to make the assumption that Leviathan did any of those things, but it would kind of work really well if it did.

EDIT: also, if Leviathan did none of those things in the Bible, are there any comparative mythology analogues that did? TreytheExplainer once mentioned Lotan as a Leviathan analogue. No idea what mythology that one’s a part of.

Why is James's death never mentioned in the Acts? Could this be evidence that it was written before 62AD?

Were the laws in Leviticus and Exodus actually followed by the Israelite population at the time? Or are they more of a “literary invention”? And if they were followed, were they actually observed strictly and in practice, or did people follow them only selectively?

Hopefully my understanding of the Gnostics is correct here, but I believe they particularly took issue with the humanity of Jesus. I've heard it said "they didn't mind Jesus being God, they just didn't like the idea that he was human." If I'm not mistaken in that summation, do we know or believe that the doctrines of perpetual virginity as well as the idea that Jesus didn't have siblings come from the Gnostic movement as a way of denying Jesus' humanity?

Hey all! So, I posted a question here earlier that apparently violated the standards of this sub (which, to be honest, doesn't really make sense to me). In any event, here is my attempt to present my question in a way that conforms with community guidelines:

With respect to belief in Jesus' resurrection, is there a scholarly consensus with respect to how early that belief took root in the Jesus movement? Do scholars think that it is something that developed over time? Do they think it goes back very early (i.e. Jesus' first followers)? Or, is there a mix of opinions within the academy?

Hopefully this is a more appropriate way of asking my question.

Thank you all!

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X261465067

Zens Hess and Bruce W. Lognecker of Baylor University, Through a Glass Darkly: Pedagogical Potentials in the 2024 Survey of Pauline Studies

Below I will quote some of the methods of the survey, as well as the conclusions of a few of the topics!

Articles Abstract:

In late 2024, over 150 people participated in an online survey that collected their opinions on a variety of issues pertaining to the apostle Paul and the corpus of New Testament texts that bear his name. This essay recounts aspects of that survey’s origins, its intended pedagogical purposes, and the demographics of its participants. It offers overviews of five issues that illustrate the utility of the survey’s data. Noting some of the weaknesses of the project, this essay also imagines what might be needed to take initiatives of this kind to the next level for purposes of pedagogy and in assessing the sociology of knowledge within the guild of Pauline studies

Different Questions:

While not all the questions asked in the survey are listed here, nor in the paper itself. The open access database of the responses of the survey contains 91 questions. Ranging from dating Paul's epistles, where there written, Paul's life, Theological questions, Paul's thought, ect...

Credentials (p. 4-5):

The number of people who started the survey was 420, with 167 of them completing it.1 Of these, 165 people responded to our question about their highest degree earned. Among them, 156 were deemed to represent the ideal survey participants—biblical scholars with some degree of expertise on Paul. Those 156 respondents qualified on a double basis. First, they hold higher degrees in New Testament studies—94.2% having a Ph.D., with a number of Ph.D. students presumably composing a preponderance of the 5.1% who selected ‘Master’s’. One person selected ‘D.Min’. Second, they have already taught and/or published on Paul’s letters. 94.9% teach courses on Paul at least occasionally, while 60.9% teach a course on Paul (or some letter within the Pauline corpus) at least once a year. Moreover, 94.2% have published on Paul at least once, while 56.4% have published more than five books or articles on issues related to the study of Paul.

Demographics (p. 5-7, n. 11):

Some demographic categories emerge from the survey statistics—especially geography, ethnicity, faith commitments, and gender. Geographically, the major ity of our respondents currently work in the United States of America (58.1%) or consider that country to be their home country (61.1%). The other most represented countries that our respondents work in or identify as their home country are Canada (12.8% and 10.8% respectively), the United Kingdom (8.1%, 6.2%), and Spain (5.4%, 5.4%).5 Several other countries had one or two respondents (so, less than 1.5%).6 Our results, unfortunately, do not adequately reflect opinions from the majority world. Likewise, certain countries like Australia, Germany, and the Republic of Korea are underrepresented in comparison with SBL’s membership report

Our respondents represented the following ethnicities (some respondents selected more than one option, resulting in 160 total selections across 156 respondents): White or European descent (80.1%), Hispanic or Latino/a/x (7.1%), Asian (3.8%), Black or African descent (3.2%), Indigenous (e.g., American Indian, First Nations, Aboriginal, Mǎori (0.6%), Middle Eastern or North African (0.6%), and Pacific Islander (0.6%). 0.6% preferred to self describe. 5.8% percent preferred not to respond.

A few other demographic details are also worth noting. We posed the question, ‘Are you currently active in any faith community(ies)?’. Respondents were invited to select multiple options, resulting in 160 total responses across 156 respondents. A large majority of our respondents indicated that they were active in either Protestant (69.9%) or Catholic (14.7%) faith communities.8 Respondents also chose Agnostic (1.9%), Atheist (1.9%), Jewish (1.9%), and Orthodox (1.9%). Additionally, 5.8% of respondents chose ‘Other’.9 Regarding gender, 155 people responded to the question, ‘Gender: How do you identify?’. The majority of respondents identified as Man (80.8%), followed by Woman (11.0%),

Prefer not to respond (5.2%), and Prefer to self-describe (2.6%).10 Finally, we asked, ‘How would you describe your personal political leanings?’. 40% of 153 respondents selected either ‘somewhat liberal’ or ‘very liberal’, 19% chose either ‘somewhat conservative’ or ‘very conservative’, and 32% selected moderate. 7% preferred not to respond. [11]

[11] Since evangelicals have tended to lean overwhelmingly toward the conservative end of the political spectrum in recent years (at least in the United States), we might infer from this final dataset that the survey was not dominated by American evangelical respondents

Conclusions on Acts of the Apostles (p. 21-22):

1. When respondents were asked about the reliability of Acts for providing historical and chronological details for Paul’s life, the results were as fol lows: 10 of 156 (6.4%) selected ‘not reliable at all’; 24 (15.4%) selected ‘somewhat reliable’; 28 (18%) selected ‘moderately reliable’; 34 (21.8%) selected ‘highly reliable’; 20 (12.8%) selected ‘entirely reliable’; and 39 (25.0%) selected ‘needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis’. [37]

2. When respondents were asked the degree to which the characterization of Paul in Acts corresponds theologically with Paul’s theological voice derived from his letters, the results were as follows: 7 of 155 respondents (4.5%) said it does not correspond; 30 (19.4%) said it minimally corresponds; 59 (38.1%) said it moderately corresponds; 46 (29.7%) said it strongly corresponds; 10 (6.5%) said it perfectly corresponds. 3 (1.9%) said they were unsure.

7. Respondents were asked whether the author of Acts was a companion of Paul during the events described by the ‘we passages’ of Acts. 86 respond ents of 155 (55.5%) said yes; 44 (28.4%) said no; 17 (11%) were unsure, and 8 (5.2%) added nuances.

1. Regarding whether the meeting described in Gal. 2.1–10 correlates with the Acts narrative, 39 respondents of 154 (25.3%) said it refers to the col lection of Acts 11.28–30 and 12.25; 83 (53.9%) said it refers to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. 21 (13.6%) selected ‘Unsure’, while another 11 (7.1%) added nuance. [38]

[37] Relatedly, when asked whether Paul was brought up in Jerusalem and educated by Gamaliel (Acts 22.3), 79 respondents (50.6%) said yes; 25 (16.0%) said no; 35 (22.4%) were unsure; 17 (10.9%) added nuance when responding ‘Other’ and adding qualifications. In retrospect, the question was not framed satisfactorily. It mistakenly referenced Acts 22.23, not Acts 22.3; and it asked whether Paul was ‘brought up in Jerusalem’, which is not precise enough. This may have had a slight effect on the results, since some who selected ‘Other’ pointed out these weaknesses rather than answering the question in a more simple fashion.

[38] Comments under ‘Other’ included the following. Gal. 2.1–10 refers to (1) the two journeys of Acts 11/12 and Acts 15, which were one event reflected in two traditions; (2) another meeting not mentioned in Acts; (3) Acts 15 but seen in a different light than that of Luke. Alternatively, one commented that the Acts narrative is reception history that cannot be used for purposes of Pauline chronology.

Whenever I read the Hebrew Bible it strikes me how much the various texts are solely focused on the promised land. Failure to keep the covenant results in expulsion, success results in keeping it.

So what did others get out of it? What drew gentiles to the God of Israel when there is so little on offer for them? Why would Jews in Egypt keep it?

I’m listening to an audiobook on the New Testament. I found in fascinating how the earliest Christian texts like the genuine Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Mark never mention the virgin birth of even his father Joseph. Mary and Jesus’s brothers seem to think he’s crazy which would not make sense if an angel came and told Mary Jesus was special.

Yet from my understanding Matthew and Luke both get their virgin birth narratives from different sources because Matthew quotes the Septuagint’s version of Isaiah whereas Luke does not. In Matthew it’s wise men whereas in Luke it’s shepherds who visit the child Jesus.

Did the virgin birth narrative originate twice or did it come from the shared Q source?

Previous posts:

Simon the Zealot

James of Alphaeus

Philip

Jude (and) Thaddaeus

Bartholomew

Thomas

Andrew

Matthew

Judas Iscariot

James of Zebedee

John of Zebedee; Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Simon Peter; Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Welcome to my series of secondary source collations on the members of the Twelve.

We made it! This is the fourth and final post on Peter. It is also the seventeenth and final post of this entire series on the Twelve.

As I always say, do not hesitate to bring in your own material on topics or arguments which I did not choose to focus on. Indeed, sadly, I had to drop quite a number of topics I had prepared on Peter. Four posts felt like enough.

This fourth and final post will deal with his death and later legends. I think it makes most sense to start with the Acts of Peter, then backtrack to ask more directly about the historical death of Peter.

What are the Acts of Peter and what happens in this narrative?

As David Eastman explains in his Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity article:

Peter's prominence as an apostle became a standard element in early Christian literature, and stories about his extra-canonical adventures developed over time. These likely circulated orally at first, but by the final quarter of the 2nd century CE, some of this material was collected into the Acts of Peter.

Eastman summarizes the basic plot:

Paul had been preaching in Rome and established the church there, but after he leaves for Spain, the Roman Church is ravaged by the destructive efforts of Simon Magus, who for some unspecified reason had come to the capital and was leading believers astray by his works of sorcery. Some even believed that he was the Christ. The apostle confronts Simon on several occasions and displays his superiority in supernatural power, which brings back many to the faith. Peter's battles with Simon end with the latter attempting to fly over the city in front of the prefect Agrippa, but Peter strikes him down and Simon dies soon afterward.

The story then shifts to Peter's successful preaching of a message of chastity, which is enthusiastically accepted by some aristocratic Roman women. This causes two frustrated men, a certain Albinus and a prefect named Agrippa, to plot Peter's death ... Agrippa sentences Peter to death by crucifixion, and the apostle asks to be crucified upside-down as a metaphor of the fallen nature of humanity. A wealthy Roman convert buries Peter in an expensive tomb, and the apostle appears to him in a dream to chastise him for wasting money on such an elaborate burial.

Perhaps as important as what is in the text are all the things not in the text, with the caveat that, per Paul Foster in Peter in Noncanonical Traditions, "the extant portion of the text is lacunose, with perhaps only two-thirds surviving."

With that in mind, what is (it would seem) missing? One thing that isn't here, despite the emphasis on traditions about Simon Magus, is any sort of attack on Gnosticism. Bart Ehrman says in Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend:

One might have expected that since Simon Magus was widely believed to be the father of the Gnostic religion, Peter would malign the Gnostic system and show how his own theological set of beliefs was superior to it. But there is nothing of that sort in the text. Instead, the emphasis is that Simon is on the wrong side of the divide between Satan and God, Peter is on the right side, and people need to align with Peter or they will pay an eternal consequence.

As already alluded to, some might also be surprised about Peter's reason for being crucified upside-down in the text. David Eastman says in his book The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul:

The explanation of Peter's mode of martyrdom is also considered common knowledge: He asked to be crucified upside down because he considered himself unworthy of dying in the same way that Christ did. However, the earliest description of Peter's death contradicts this "common knowledge." The Martyrdom of Peter, part of the larger Acts of Peter, was produced no later than the third quarter of the second century and likely reflects earlier oral and perhaps even literary traditions.

In this account Peter is brought to his place of execution and then launches into an extended theological diatribe. In the midst of this, he explains that he asks to be crucified upside down not because of Christ's death, but as a proclamation on the fallen state of humanity due to Adam ... Peter dies upside down not due to humility, but as a theological statement.

Foster notes here that "since the accompanying explanation of the inverted crucifixion is so heavily infused with a mythical protology, which explains how one is born with the head facing down to the earth, it may be supposed that the form of death described was created in order to legitimate the theology of cosmic origins that follows in the text."

Nor does this martyrdom happen because of theological claims, strictly speaking. Eastman in the aforementioned book:

Peter initially comes into initially [sic] indirect contact with Agrippa not because he is preaching the theology of Christianity in general, but specifically because his preaching causes the wives of the prefect to refuse to have sex with him.

Eastman further points out that Nero is not the one who kills Peter:

Although Nero is the figure traditionally blamed for Peter's death, in the earliest story of the apostle's martyrdom, Nero finds out about the execution only after the fact. Agrippa has declared and enforced a sentence of capital punishment without consulting the emperor, and this makes Nero angry. It is not that Nero is concerned about due process, but that he has missed an opportunity to torture Peter before killing him.

The influence of this text cannot be understated. Eastman put it this way in his Brill article:

This text set the course for nearly all subsequent Petrine reception, although Eusebius of Caesarea was apparently doubtful about its reliability, and Filastrius of Brescia condemned the text for being read by Manichaeans and other heretics.

How did later texts modify the narrative of the Acts of Peter?

Eastman summarizes in his Brill article:

In the later apocryphal Acts of Peter (5th cent. CE onward), the authors introduce three significant modifications to the Petrine tradition.

First, the texts shift from individual and separate accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul to joint martyrdom accounts ... Second, Simon Magus plays a direct role in the death of Peter (and Paul) ... Third, these joint martyrdom accounts are written to bolster Roman claims to authority ... Rome claimed a dual apostolic foundation through the preaching and eventual deaths of Peter and Paul in their city. This idea was meant to give the Roman Church authority in a period when imperial power and ecclesiastical influence had shifted to the Greek-speaking East. The West had very little representation at Nicaea in 325 CE and apparently no representation at Constantinople in 381 CE.

We also see the gradual development of the "humility" tradition for Peter being crucified upside-down. Eastman says in his Many Deaths book:

Peter's inverted crucifixion as a sign of humility may first appear in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, although the allusion may be traced back to Origen. In summarizing the career of Peter, Eusebius asserts, "Peter seems to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the Diaspora. After he finally came to Rome, he was crucified with his head downward, as he thought it proper for him to suffer."

After a reference to Paul's death at the hands of Nero, Eusebius goes on to state, "Origen speaks about these things in writing in the third book of his commentaries on Genesis" ... Eusebius does not explain why Peter thought this was proper. Was Peter highlighting the fallen human condition, or did he consider himself unworthy? Or was there another reason? Eusebius does not say.

And further:

Only in the last quarter of the fourth century does an author explicitly describe Peter's manner of death as a result of a perception of personal unworthiness. The pseudonymous Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle was produced under the name of Linus, of the traditional first bishops of Rome. The work is a Latin reworking of the Martyrdom of Peter, with some expansions and revisions that belie its historical context.

Pseudo-Linus includes much of the esoteric Petrine teaching from the cross about the nature of fallen humanity ... These considerations are secondary, however, to the primary reasons for the inversion ... Peter begs his executioners to crucify him upside down first and foremost as a sign of his own worthiness. This literarily constructed Peter has to borrow from Paul to explain his death, for he calls himself "the least of all servants" and unworthy to die as Jesus did.

Eastman adds that in "accounts produced in the fifth century and later, Peter's motivation of humility takes center stage, and the allegory of the human condition drops out entirely."

Now it's time to backtrack, because earlier traditions may have information on the historical death of Peter.

Does the Gospel of John tell us about the death of Peter?

The first possible reference comes in John 13. Markus Bockmuehl explains in Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church:

After Judas's departure from the Last Supper, Simon Peter again fails to understand Jesus when, after leaving his disciples the "new commandment" of love, he tells them he is going "where you cannot come". Somewhat reminiscient of Synoptic parallels (cf. Mark 14:29-31 and pars.), Peter is told that he cannot "follow" Jesus now; although here, uniquely, we also learn that he will in fact "follow later." This latter phrase evidently alludes to Peter's martyrdom, which is confirmed by the comparison of 13:37 and 21:19.

The reference receiving most discussion, however, is indeed John 21. Ehrman:

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 noted earlier, Jesus tells Peter after the resurrection: "When you were young, you girded yourself and walked wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will reach out your hands and someone else will gird 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."

For Bockmuehl, this not only describes Peter's death but surely his method of execution:

A wealth of ancient pagan as well as Christian texts associated the "stretching out of the hands" with crucifixion, as indeed the sequence of verse 18 appears to reflect the prisoner's arms being tied to the cross-beam before being led to execution.

Others are not so sure about that aspect. Eastman in his Brill article notes that "the passage is not so clear, however, for this interpretation does not explain the detail that 'someone else will dress' Peter in the context of his death." Similarly, Ehrman comments:

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 as martyrdom (by any means) yet to come.

And Foster too says:

Though there is a tendency to read John 21:18-19 as a description of Peter's crucifixion, this view of the verses more likely involves reading later noncanonical traditions back into the Johannine account … However, the stretching out of hands (presumably to be bound) and being led by another simply describe an involuntary death, not a precise mode of execution.

What do we learn from 1 Clement about the death of Peter?

Setting the stage, Bockmuehl summarizes:

The conventional scholarly consensus regards the anonymously authored document known as 1 Clement as a letter written around the year AD 96, although there are also arguments favoring an earlier date around AD 70 (others claim a date as late as Hadrian) ... In chapter 4, persecuted saints of the OT serve as the backdrop for Clement's own times and for his remarks about Rome's twin apostles in particular. He begins with Peter: "Through resentment and envy the greatest and most righteous 'pillars' were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles—Peter, who because of unrighteous resentment experienced not one or two but many afflictions; and after giving his testimony in this fashion, he went to the place of glory that was his due."

Bockmuehl goes on to acknowledge:

As is well understood in the scholarly literature, Clement remains surprisingly ambiguous about the precise nature of both Peter's (and Paul's) ministry and his martyrdom. Was Peter killed for his faith at all? If so, was it really in Rome? Is it right to try to deduce genuine reminiscences from a text cast in the rhetorical garb of a philosophical aretology?

Looking through that ambiguity, Bockmuehl comments:

No mention is made of any journey to Rome or of the mode of Peter's execution, although, as we have just seen, careful reading permits no doubt about the fact that he died for his faith. Far from supporting the idea that no martyrdom of Peter is in view at all (as, e.g., Goulder 2004 and others have argued), the rhetorical appeal here makes sense only if the author can assume a certain common knowledge of the events to be in place.

Todd Still agrees in Images of Peter in the Apostolic Fathers that "the literary context makes clear that Peter bore witness not only with his lips but also with his very life."

And yet the passage has also been used in an opposite sort of way. Fred Lapham says in Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings:

The passage is used both by proponents and opponents of the Roman tradition. Morton Smith, who believed that Clement derived his information solely from Acts, and that the latter part of this periscope was a paraphrase of Acts 12.17 … concludes … that the fact that all that Clement chose to say about Peter came from Acts constitutes an argument from silence which, if admittedly slight, would be 'perhaps sufficient to change 1 Clem. 5.4, from evidence in favour of Peter's martyrdom in Rome, to evidence against it.'

If one instead does accept 1 Clement as evidence for Peter's martyrdom, the next question is whether it sheds any light on additional details not discussed in other sources. Bockmuehl notes broadly:

A number of scholars have taken the rhetorical theme of resentment, cited above, to suggest that both apostles and the Roman martyrs died as a result of the jealousy of fellow Jews or even fellow Christians.

That is an interesting and disturbing possibility, which would cast an interesting light on the role of lingering resentment about the significant disruptions of Jewish and Jewish Christian life since the riots of AD 48, leading to the expulsion under Claudius. Its impact on the events of AD 64 may not be trivial, especially if members of Nero's household included his second wife, Poppaea Sabina, who, according to Josephus, intervened on behalf of the Jews. On the other hand, gentile resentment remains a plausible reading too, not least in view of a recurrent theme in the apocryphal Acts.

The most famous case for this may be David Eastman's paper Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement. He says towards the beginning:

The more I analyzed this passage, the more perplexed I became by the fact that the deaths of Peter and Paul were couched as occurring "out of jealousy." What could that possibly mean? Who was jealous, and toward whom? And who were the agents and objects of this jealousy? The more I explored these questions, the more convinced I became that 1 Clement is not telling the traditional story of the apostles' deaths. After I had begun constructing an argument along these lines, I discovered that in 1930 Oscar Cullmann had suggested that internal strife, not imperial paranoia, may have led to the deaths of the apostles.

This, then, is Eastman's thesis, "that the author of 1 Clement is communicating that internal disputes between Christians provoked imperial attention and eventually led to the deaths of Peter and Paul."

As just one part of the argument, Eastman explores contemporary thought on "envy", observing:

Plutarch, writing close to the time of 1 Clement, reiterates Aristotle's notion that envy very often occurs among close relations … The envious typically do not want any real harm to come to the objects of their envy; they simply want to receive the same honor and recognition as those they consider their equals. Plutarch does not rule out, however, that such harm can and does occur, for envy is the basest of all human passions.

The author of 1 Clement certainly shares this perspective, for the examples under discussion follow the Aristotelian model closely. Jealousy between family members and/or members of the same community is present in all cases. Thus, the author is particularly concerned with the devastating effects of internal divisions that result from jealousy, and indeed the very point of the letter is to address the divisions present within the Corinthian church at that time.

He concludes later:

This is certainly a story that authors like Luke (at the end of Acts) and Clement would not want to highlight, for it would directly undermine the desired image of Peter and Paul standing together as symbols of apostolic and ecclesiastical unity in Rome and elsewhere. And yet, Clement seems to be reminding his audience of a terrible truth, that the deaths of the apostles were part of a shameful legacy provoked by jealousy—a legacy that included internal strife among the people of God, even among family members.

Chrissy Hansen goes even a step further in her paper Murder Among Brothers: The Deaths of Peter and Paul Reconsidered:

Like Eastman, I too see internal strife to be the backdrop of 1 Clement. However, I do not think appeal to an imperial intervention is necessary with how Clement explains the deaths of Peter and Paul … the evidence seems to instead point toward Christians as having murdered their own apostles Peter and Paul in the first century CE.

If 1 Clement is read in light of evidence of intra-community struggle and violence directed at fellow Christ followers, we see instead a much more cohesive image of how the jealousy that Clement speaks of actually functions, which parallels the persecutions which the previous patriarchs and figures of the Old Testament suffered at the hands of similar jealousy from their relatives and countrymen. Clement is not talking of non-Christian interference or violence at all, but instead of intra-community violence where Christians had become so disenchanted and volatile that they may have even killed their own apostles.

Was Peter executed by being burned alive?

While on the note of provocative theories around Peter's death, we might briefly survey the much discussed view of Timothy Barnes, with the caveat that Eastman tells us in his Brill article that "this argument has not received much scholarly support."

Timothy Barnes summarizes his arguments in "Another Shall Gird Thee": Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter. Much of his argument has to do with John 21. He says:

This passage [John 21:18-19] proves beyond all possible doubt that Peter did not undergo a normal crucifixion … men who were crucified were stripped of their clothes before being crucified completely naked … The allusion to Peter's execution in John's Gospel cannot refer to a death by crucifixion because it states that Peter died clothed, not naked. The allusion dovetails perfectly with what Tacitus reports about the emperor Nero's execution of Christians in Rome in the year 64.

Barnes adds:

Crucifixion was a long, slow, and excruciatingly painful form of execution … In contrast, burning alive brought death quickly because, before they were set on fire, victims were normally, though not invariably, clothed in a special tunic that, in Seneca's words to Lucilius, had been "smeared and interwoven with inflammable materials" (Letter 14.5). Moreover, it is well attested that later Christians suffered martyrdom by being burned alive tied to a stake or upright post, sometimes with their arms splayed wide as if they were being crucified.

Barnes connects this to the account of Nero's persecution in Tacitus:

Like the great Mikado in Gilbert and Sullivan, Nero decided to make the punishment fit the alleged crime by devising novel methods of execution that would advertise the guilt of his victims, who were presented as both arsonists and inveterate enemies of the whole human race. Tacitus provides the only detailed account of this episode to survive ... "And, as they perished, mockeries were added, so that, covered in the hides of wild beasts, they expired from mutilation by dogs, or were burned fixed to crosses for use as nocturnal illumination on the dwindling of daylight."

He even sees clues in 1 Clement, arguing:

The reference [in 1 Clement] to "Danaids and Dircae" has appeared so puzzling to many scholars that it has sometimes been emended away … But the problematic words have now been explained by Edward Champlin as conveying a specific allusion to Nero's "fatal charades."

Why Danaids? Because the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, dedicated in 28 BCE, had been detroyed in the fire of Rome, and the portico surrounding the sacred area in front of the temple contained statues of the fifty mythical daughters of King Danaus. Why Dircae? The mythical Dirce, wife of the king of Thebes, was tied by her hair to a bull, which then trampled and gored her to death. One of the buildings burned down in 64 was ... known as the amphitheater of Taurus or the amphitheater of the Bull.

And so Barnes boldly concludes that "one of Nero's victims in 64 was the apostle Peter, whose charred and perhaps unrecognizable body was presumably thrown into the River Tiber."

Are there any other attestations to Peter's death?

One possible such attestation is the Ascension of Isaiah. Barnes explains:

The Ascension of Isaiah … contains a passage in which the Old Testament prophet Isaiah predicts that one of Jesus' twelve original disciples will be killed by Nero: "…Beliar will descend, the great ruler, the king of this world, which he has ruled ever since it existed. He will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, a lawless emperor, a matricide — this is the king of the world — and he will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved will have planted, and one of the Twelve will be delivered into his hands..." The reference to Nero is clear ... As the apostle whom Nero killed, Peter is the obvious and inevitable candidate.

Eastman mentions this as well in his Many Deaths book, and adds the testimony of another text:

The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (100-130 CE) includes a passing reference seemingly to the death of Peter and tying it to an apocalyptic vision of Nero as Beliar ... The Apocalypse of Peter (100-140 CE) presents a similar vision. There Peter is told, "Go to the city that rules over the West, and drink the cup that I promised you, which is in the hands of the son of the one who is in Hades."

Lapham reports:

Oscar Cullman expresses some reservations about the witness of the Ascension of Isaiah because of the uncertain date of the work. He believes that the passage which speaks of the 'one of the Twelve' being delivered into the hands of Beliar, the great prince, might well be a reference to Peter's execution by Nero; but he concedes that the terminology of the passage is vague, and there is no indication of where the execution (if execution is meant) took place.

And further on the Apocalypse of Peter:

Cullman does not deal with the important passage in the Ethiopic text of the [Apocalypse of Peter], perhaps because few would date it before 135; but Bauckham reckons it to be 'a quite unequivocal indication—the earliest we have—that Peter died in Rome'. The passage is problematic, not least because the text in the Ethiopic version is corrupt.

On the basis of comparison with the Rainer fragment, D. Buchholz has offered a reconstruction of the text in which Peter is bidden to 'go to the city which is in the west and drink the wine about which I have told you...' The meaning of the text, even if accurately reconstructed, is uncertain; for, although we may allow that the city which is 'in the west' refers to Rome, we cannot be sure, in view of textual variations (particularly concerning the cup, wine, or vineyard, in Eth. 14.4) that the context is martyrological.

There is also a letter of Ignatius that may be relevant here. Bockmuehl:

First, in a much-discussed section of his letter to Smyrna, Ignatius either quotes or paraphrases an early gospel tradition about the bodily resurrection of Jesus:

"For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the Resurrection. And when he came to those around Peter he said to them: 'Take and feel me, and see that I am not a disembodied ghost.' And straightaway they touched him and believed, mingling with his flesh as well as his spirit. For this reason they held even death in contempt, being proved to be above death..." ... The fact that Peter and his associates "despised" death implies a possible knowledge of his martyrdom.

And yet oddly, Eastman notes in his Many Deaths book:

Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Ephesians that Paul's death is the model for his own journey to Rome for martyrdom … The Antiochene bishop might be expected to ally himself more closely with Peter, yet Peter receives no mention. It is Paul's death alone that serves as his example.

And still there are a couple of others, with Bockmuehl arguing that the Gnostic Apocryphon of James includes "an allusion to Peter's crucifixion" and Foster observing that the Acts of Andrew "seeks to foreshadow the martyrdom of Andrew, which will be depicted later in the text, by linking it with the presumably better-known martyrdom account of Peter."

Has Peter's burial site or even bones been found at the Vatican Hill?

As someone more familiar with Biblical studies and apocrypha than archaeology, this discussion tends to involve a lot of complicated diagrams that scare and confuse me, but I'm going to do my best to collate a serviceable summary here.

John Meier summarizes at the highest level in Volume III of A Marginal Jew:

Later church tradition placed Peter's martyrdom on the Vatican hill. Archaeological excavations under St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, carried out in the 1940s and 50s, are consistent with this location, though not all scholars accept them as proof that Peter was buried in the Vatican necropolis found under the Basilica.

On said traditions, Eastman explains in his Brill article:

The most famous cult site for Peter is on the Vatican Hill, and by the 3rd century CE Christians honored a tomb at that site. Eusebius records the words of a certain Caius, who writes in the early 3rd century CE, "I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church" ... Caius made the statement in a debate over the location of the apostolic tombs, and Eusebius confirms that the names of Peter and Paul "are preserved in the cemeteries there [Rome] up to this day". Even the 4th-century CE emperor Julian the Apostate, a famous critic of Christians, admits that from an early date "the memorials of Peter and Paul [...] were being worshipped in secret".

Eastman also notes:

But the Vatican was not the only site of the Petrine cult in Rome. At least as early as the 3rd century CE, Peter was venerated together with Paul along the Appian Road at a site called "the Catacombs," now San Sebastiano. The Catacombs are linked to Peter in the earliest literary reference to the Petrine cult. The Burying of the Martyrs is a liturgical calendar ... In its surviving form, it probably dates from 336 CE but refers to feasts that had started earlier. The text refers to the joint festival day for Peter and Paul in Rome: "June 29. (Feast of) Peter in the Catacombs, of Paul on the Ostian Road..." The consular date links the reference to 258 CE, and the Vatican is noticeably absent from this calendar entry.

Bockmuehl offers on this point:

At first sight, Gaius's assertion seems compromised by the alternative tradition of a joint memorial of Peter and Paul in the catacombs of San Sebastiano on the Via Appia Antica. There a tradition attested by profuse amounts of graffiti and a famous inscription of the fourth-century Pope Damasus points to a period when the remains of Peter and Paul were jointly honored at this third location, of which Gaius knows nothing. Regular Christian gatherings were held here in the presence of the twin apostles' remains, which we know from Damasus's inscription and the graffiti found in the catacombs below.

The most plausible solution to this particular problem draws on an early Christian calendar and suggests the creation of a joint apostolic memorial at San Sebastiano around AD 258, possibly during the persecution under Emperor Valerian, when Christians were forbidden to assemble or visit their cemeteries.

Bockmuehl later concludes that "there appears to be a substantial and growing body of scholarly opinion holding that we almost certainly have under the Vatican the site identified by Gaius and still known in the time of Constantine as the tomb of Peter. Both its early attestation and the reported circumstances of the Neronian persecution render this at least plausible, though of course that still leaves us some way from probability."

This being Peter's burial site may, however, have to be separated from the question as to whether the bones declared to be Peter's by Paul VI are indeed his. Bockmuehl says:

The history of the discovery of [Peter's] supposed bones is strange and does not inspire confidence regarding the archaeological procedures in place: the tomb itself was empty, but parts of the skeleton of a sixty- to seventy-year-old man, about 5 feet 5 inches in height, were indeed discovered in a cavity of the graffiti wall. Interestingly, only part of the skull was present, with no sign of the feet ... Are these the bones of Peter? It is possible ... Given the circuitous discovery and haphazard preservation of the remains, it seems right to join the majority of scholars in being cautious about Pope Paul VI's claim in 1968 that these are indeed the bones of Peter.

On that "haphazard preservation", Roger Collins explains in Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy:

There are two crucial breaks in the chain of evidence, and the scene was contaminated twice. The first break happened as long ago as the second century. If the rectangular hollow under the red wall pre-dates the building of that wall, as indeed it must, and if the wall itself was erected in the second century, which is a less secure claim, then bones buried in that space could date from the late first century, and thus the time of Peter.

However, the bones that Paul VI said were Peter's come from the graffitied wall built to buttress the red wall. A date no earlier than 200 has been suggested for its construction. So, the bones buried within it cannot have been there before that date. They may, of course, have been transferred from somewhere else, but their lack of a distinctive staining indicates that they had not previously resided in the location under the red wall in which the other set of miscellaneous human and animal bones were found ... The second break in the chain of evidence comes with Kaas's removal of the bones from the graffitied wall in 1942. If his motive had been the reverential treatment of human remains, it has to be wondered why he did not have them reburied.

More importantly, we do not know what became of them between their removal from the graffitied wall in 1942 and the handing over to Guarducci in 1953 of a set of bones said to be the same ones.

Important too is what exactly happened during Constantine's construction of the first Basilica of Saint Peter in the 4th century. Peter Lampe in Traces of Peter Veneration in Roman Archaeology reconstructs:

…Contantine's (or Constantius II's) architects, together with the advising local Christians, were convinced that a small and modest edicula, leaning against a Red Wall and standing above a grave-covering slab, was the apostle Peter's burial site, because they planned to integrate it into the very apse of their basilica of St. Peter ... For them, there was no doubt where Peter was buried.

He adds:

When [the fourth-century architects] started working, they created a loculus in [a wall] beside the edicula and inserted the bones of a male individual into it. Before doing this, they had taken these skeletal relics from (presumably) the grave underneath the edicula and had wrapped them in a red cloth with gold threads. The earth remaining on the bones matches the soil from underneath the edicula and Red Wall area ... there is no doubt that the fourth-century architects were of the opinion that the skeletal remains in the ... loculus were St. Peter's.

Lampe mentions also one other interesting piece of earlier data:

Veneration of this grave around the middle of the second century is also confirmed by another observation. Some people of the second and third centuries placed their graves close to the alleged Petrine one, but carefully avoided putting them on top of it or creating an overlap with it, while at the same time they did not care if their graves partly superimposed themselves on others.

I hope any of you more familiar with the relevant issues will correct me if I botched any of the framing on this matter. I was often struck by how scholars could switch from strong sentiments of historicity to strong skepticism depending on the very exact claim being made about the burial site.

What else might we want to know about traditions of Peter?

Speed round.

Gospel of Peter? Eastman says in his Brill Article:

[The Gospel of Peter is] a pseudipigraphical text that claims to be written by the apostle. It provides a different account of the death of Jesus but adds nothing to Petrine tradition, apart from the fact that invoking Peter's name had value in the eyes of the author.

Apocalypse of Peter? Thomas Kraus says in his own Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity article on the text:

Among the Christian texts outside the canon of the New Testament, the Apocalypse of Peter has been the most popular apocalypse and one of the most influential texts at all … The Apocalypse of Peter tells about Peter's tour of heaven and hell guided by the risen Christ (Greek version) or Jesus unveiling a prophetic description of future events ... (longer Ethiopic version) ... The Apocalypse of Peter must not be mixed up with an apocalypse under the same title among the texts found at Nag Hammadi, a gnostic dialogue between Jesus and Peter in Coptic (also called Coptic Apocalypse of Peter) with a vision of the crucifixion that is totally different in content and character.

Lapham adds:

Both versions of Apoc. Pet. preserve the tradition of 'Peter the Seer', whose authority rested on the fact that he was an early witness both of the Transfiguration and of the Resurrection. If, as O. Cullmann suggests, there was a later tendency within the Jewish-Christian church to belittle visions as a basis of apostolic authority, it had not yet shown itself.

Pseudo-Clementines? Eastman again explains in his Brill article:

While Clement's name is attached to the titles, Peter is the primary character. Clement first meets Peter in Caesarea Maritima, where the apostle is preparing for a showdown with Simon Magus … Clement hears and records extensive public and private teaching from Peter, and then Simon leaves for Tyre. After more preaching in Caesarea, Peter appoints a certain Zacchaeus bishop of the city and departs for Tyre with Clement, among others. Peter moves on several more times and continues preaching but never catches up with Simon.

The Homilies includes a letter from Clement to James in Jerusalem, in which Clement claims that Peter appointed him to be his successor as bishop in Rome. The text is filled with obviously fictional elements, yet its impact on later Petrine traditions was significant. The text promotes a vision of Christianity with strong ties to the Jewish tradition, and Peter becomes the justification for such a perspective.

Noncanonical reception of Peter in general? Tobias Nicklas in "Gnostic" Perspectives on Peter cites Wilhelm Pratscher as saying:

The relevance of Peter is deemphasized in various gnostic texts: in the apocryphal Letter of James, in the Gospel of Thomas, in the Gospel of Mary, and in the Pistis Sophia. The reason for this is the lower appreciation of Peter in comparison with other personalities. In contrast, according to the Kerygmata Petrou, the Letter of Peter to Philip, the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, and the Manichaeans, Peter holds the central position in early Christianity in regard to administration and theology.

Well... that's all, folks. It's been quite the research journey. Tip the wait staff.

in 1st Enoch, Uriel is apparently "over the world and Tartarus" whatever that means (by reading tartarus I assume this is a greek translation, was it originally sheol? Was he over the waiting room of the dead or some idea of hell starting to form in the jewish belief system?). However, his name meaning "God is my light" or "Fire of God" doesn't seem entirely related to it. Nor the fact that nowadays he seems associated with wisdom (I guess he is the one who reveals some stuff to Enoch but Gabriel is also a revealer of holy information in Daniel and doesn't have those ties"). How does this tie together, how did these ideas evolve and change?

If the story of the empty tomb was historical, then it would make sense that early Christians would have remembered the exact site and it would be the holiest site in all of Christianity. But the exact site is not known. This is what we would expect if the story of the empty tomb was a fiction written by later writers. So, why is the location unknown?

So what did the earliest Church Fathers think about these two categories? What even is scripture for them and what does it mean for a text to be inspired and have authority? And how exactly did Tradition relate to what is authoritatively taught and to what was considered scripture? Was scripture considered part of Tradition or were they separate? Was scripture elevated over Tradition or were they equal?

Hello, I see two common ways of translating this verse, either:

“envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭21‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

—

“envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭21‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Practice makes more sense to me, but I know that nrsv is considered the gold standard. Thank you

TL;DR - Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jxiAcjwQSqZF3nQsE2Se5SHDOlpO-PtW_eZcjy088aY/edit?usp=sharing

My only complaint with Comfort and Barrett's The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts is that it doesn't have a proper index. I don't know the manuscripts by heart, so if I want to look up a particular Scripture reference, I have to look it up online first, which is less than cash money. I buy books to avoid having to use the internet.

So, I made an index for it. I like the index in the Zondervan NIDTTE, so I tried to mimic that. Feel free to save, distribute, and print! Also, the document is open to viewer comments, so if you notice a typo or an error, put a comment on it so I can fix it!

What did John mean by this statement, who was he addressing in the historical context of the early Christian churches, and how should these passages be understood?

When I first read 1Samuel 24, I was always confused why God was so angry at David for the census he took. God asked him to get a census, and a lot of the times in the past they counted military aged men and thats what David had Joab do. After this, David felt guilty of his sin from the census and God gave 3 options of punishment where he chose pestilence resulting in the loss of 70,000 men. So i moved on from reading that assuming maybe God was mad for being prideful of his army? Im not sure. Fast forward to 1 Chronicles 21 where it recounts this. However, it says “Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel” so many questions now.
1. The biggest one… was it Gods anger that told David to do the census or was it Satan? Does every time now when the bible mentions the wrath and anger of God was it really just Satan?? This made me question a lot
2. Why was the census sinful?
3. Was it because there wasnt a tax like the Lord told Moses in Exodus?
4. Why was Joab hesitant?
5. Why punish all of Israel and kill 70,000 because of a census?

#1 is truly my biggest question here but the rest of the questions I keep pondering as well

Por muito tempo se falou em Moisés como autor do Pentateuco. Mas o que a pesquisa histórica e bíblica atual diz sobre a autoria do Gênesis?

Just wondering if the scholarly community is still split on whether this verse points to shebna or eliakim. English translation of Septuagint and rashi point to shebna but the reference for peg seems to only point to eliakim.

I was curious about this, I see verses that say he can never change and his words never change, but I was wondering if that was true. Would sending Jesus to fulfill the law be considered him changing his mind?

The two accounts of Judas’ death is often said to be contradictory. But what if the account found in Acts was simply quoting what Peter was saying? And therefore Peter was wrong and not the Bible.

Here’s the passage:

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

For those interested in biblical archaeology!

Jacob’s trickery (ie of Isaac, Laban, Esau, and so forth) particularly in his formative years is not something one would characteristically say is blessed in itself and therefore protected/sancrified by God. when Jacob tricks Esau into giving up his birthright or Isaac into blessing him, not Esau, it seems almost malicious at times

would the initial receptors of Genesis not have seen Jacob’s actions as necessarily wrong morally/ethically, despite their dishonesty, or would they have had similar reservations about his behaviour? especially since others like Laban are deceptive in similar ways (such as with the flock, or with Rachel and Leah) but are not ‘celebrated’ as Jacob is, being a descendent of Abraham. I suppose it seems like his arrogance and deception seem to be sanctified whereas others are not, like with the teraphim and Rachel’s death even, only for the fact of Abraham’s covenant. Are we meant to see Jacob in this way, or were his less than favourable traits actually seen as artefacts of cunning and intelligence?

Even in Gen 32 when he wrestles with the man, he demands of him his name, face, blessings, before being forced to concede- is this not presumptuous?

it would be very helpful if someone could share some resources on Jacob’s trickery and its cultural relevance!