Paul and Jesus

Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the price of endurance . . . he gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place, the greatest example of endurance. (1 Clement 5:3–7)

This is a remarkable text. What Clement fails to say is as telling as what he seems to know, which is precious little. He mentions nothing about the manner of the deaths of either apostle: that Paul was beheaded, or that Peter was crucified. He does not even pair their deaths together in Rome, under Nero. Since Clement, as bishop of the Roman church, is presumably writing just a few decades after their deaths, one would expect some details about their martyrdom or the veneration of their tombs in Rome. One is tempted to wonder whether Clement knows any more about the deaths of Peter and Paul than one finds implied in the New Testament.² The only basis upon which he pairs them at all is in a context in which he is encouraging his readers to bear up under persecution so as to receive a heavenly reward.

Irenaeus, the late-second-century bishop of Lyons, mentions the tradition of “the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” as founders of the church at Rome, but he gives no details of their deaths under Nero.³ Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, knows of a late-second-century source, Gaius of Rome, whom he paraphrases: “It is related that in his [Nero’s] time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified, and the title of “Peter and Paul,” which is still given to the cemeteries there, confirms the story, no less than does a writer of the church named Gaius” (Church History 2.25.5–6). If Eusebius had had something more, or even a source that was more substantial than Gaius, a “writer of the church,” he would surely have made use of it.

Most scholars, including leading Roman Catholic ones, are agreed that given such sparse evidence, the tradition of Peter and Paul as founders of the Roman church, much less Peter as first bishop of Rome, is more likely a fourth-century tradition overlaid on a very flimsy factual foundation:

As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church—a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.⁴

The only thing we can say with any reasonable measure of possibility is that both Peter and Paul ended up in Rome during the reign of Nero and were executed, most likely following the fire that broke out in Rome the summer of A.D. 64 when Nero blamed the Christians and had many of them killed.⁵ If they were in Rome at the same time, the evidence might well indicate, as we will see, they were there as rivals, not as co-apostles and founders of the Roman church.

There were Christians at Rome long before Paul or Peter ever set foot in the capital. When Paul writes his letter to the Romans, around the year A.D. 56, it is intended to serve as his “calling card,” as he sets forth an exposition of what he calls “my Gospel” to introduce himself formally to them. He is neither their founder nor their spiritual “father,” and the tone of the letter is more formal and much less personal than when he is writing to one of his own groups. He gives greetings at the end of the letter to various individuals by name, indicating that he has connections with a few dozen of their community (Romans 16:1–16). He does not mention Cephas or Peter. He refers to groups meeting in various homes, so we should imagine a network of cell meetings, perhaps loosely organized, likely diverse in beliefs and practices (Romans 16:4–5). One of Paul’s main purposes in writing the letter was to make a plea for tolerance of different religious observances, including observing holy days and abstaining from certain foods—both clearly touchstone issues between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians (Romans 14:5–9). He also devotes a long section of his letter to his claim that the Jewish people, though temporarily cut off from God if they do not accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord, will soon come around to such a faith once they see the myriads of Gentiles who are turning to the God of Israel through their faith in Christ as a result of his work (Romans 9–11).