Restoration
|
|
|
|
PETER IN CHAPTER VII The Fourth Century — Eusebius, Lactantius,
And Jerome We come now in our study to the time
when the traditions concerning Peter and It
is from the beginning of this century that we have the positive statements of
that most illustrious of all church historians, Eusebius. We also have Eusebius’ Latin contemporary, Lactantius, and later, Jerome. We will complete our study with these
writers, inasmuch as with them the evolution of tradition regarding Peter and
Eusebius It is Eusebius who is the first to
make any attempt to date Peter’s activities at And
coming to the city of He then introduces Peter: But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all
things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the Apostles, and the one
who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome
against this great corrupter of life.
He, like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the
costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those
who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which
brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven. [Ibid.] It is upon this statement that the
twenty-five year episcopate of Peter is based. Jerome refines this, as we shall see, to be
the second year of Claudius until the fourteenth and last of Nero — that is,
from 42 to 67 A.D. The dating of the Apostle Peter’s
coming to Zahn is equally emphatic that it was
Simon the Magician, not Simon Peter, who came at that early date: Eusebius was not the only writer —
perhaps he was not the first one — who was led by the Acts of Peter, through
the combination of the tradition of Simon Magus’ residence in It is sufficient to say that no
modern author would attempt to maintain Eusebius’ claim as to Peter’s coming
to Martyrdom Under Nero Eusebius’ recording of the deaths of
Peter and Paul at the hand of Nero is quoted below in its entirety in view of
its importance: When the government of Nero was now
firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed
himself even against the religion of the God of the universe. To describe the greatness of his depravity
does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded
his history in most accurate narratives, every one may at his pleasure learn
from them the coarseness of the man’s extraordinary madness, under the
influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many
myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not
spare even his nearest relatives and dearest friends, but destroyed his
mother and his brothers and his wife, with very many others of his own
family, as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths. But with all these things this particular
in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting,
that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the
divine religion. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: “Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first
that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when, after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Here for the first time we have the assertion
that “Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.” We are offered not the slightest proof,
only Eusebius’ word for it, and as we have already seen regarding the coming
of Peter to Let us also note that the quotations
that follow from Caius and Dionysius have nothing
to do with Nero! Eusebius simply makes the statement on his
own authority without a shred of evidence or proof. Caius’ proofs concern the cemeteries of
Peter and Paul, which he terms “trophies.”
What Caius meant by “trophies” is much disputed. [Oscar Cullmann, Peter
— Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1953), p. 118.] The word means “victory memorials” in the
Greek and could refer to simple memorials as well as graves, or the place of
execution with no reference to interment. Cullmann makes most interesting observations
about the “martyr relics” in the passage below: We should also emphasize that in the
first century not the slightest trace of a cult of martyr relics can be
found. The first testimony to that we
find only about A.D. 150, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In view of the expectation of the end of
the world in the immediate future, a concern for relics clearly constitutes
an anachronism in thinking of the sixth decade of the first century,
especially in those terrible days of persecution under Nero. [Ibid., p. 119.] How true! The preservation (indeed, adoration) of the
relics of the martyrs was not a product of the first century, but that such a
relic would have found its location in the garden of Nero on Vatican Hill
does seem preposterous in the extreme.
We are forced to conclude that this was an invention of a later time. Beside the validity of the cemetery
tradition, let us take notice of whom Eusebius quotes for proof, and whom he
does not quote. The authors he
cites are late. Caius is an ecclesiastical writer of the third century
whose personal history is veiled in obscurity. Dionysius of Corinth is somewhat earlier,
but as noted before, his conclusions reflect changes
in the original story. Eusebius was well acquainted with
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin
Martyr (of Obviously Eusebius was faced with
the same problem of historians since his day — the earlier authors could
not be used as proof of what Eusebius sought to prove, least of all that
Peter died under Nero, or little else in practical fact. Justin Martyr’s complete silence on
the whole subject of Peter and Rome is noteworthy for three reasons: (l) that he wrote prolifically from Rome
itself; (2) that he wrote early in
the second century (his death is given at 165); (3) that he mentions Simon Magus three Arguments from silence, while they
may be inconclusive, do cause us to ask searching questions. One especially worth asking is: Why do we not have more facts from earlier
sources closer to the site of the traditions? It does appear suspicious that we must wait
for those further removed in time and space to fill in the details, and then
with remarkable precision! 67 or 68? But we have seen no mention of the
exact year of Peter’s martyrdom in our quotations from Eusebius. How is it then that he is credited with
putting his death in the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign? The answer, significantly, is that in his Church
History, Eusebius makes no attempt at dating the event. He does so only in his Chronicle. Zahn’s analysis shows great insight: In his Church History, Eusebius
refrains fro He continues: In his Chronicum,
also, Eusebius shows that he has no more exact tradition at his command .
. . . Eusebius himself knows no more than what he says, namely, that Peter
and Paul died under Nero, and does not intend that 67 shall be regarded as
the year preceding that Linus succeeded Peter as
bishop of This author feels it would be
unproductive, if not impossible, to pinpoint the year of Peter’s death based
only upon Eusebius’ evidence — or the lack of it. That “Eusebius himself knows no more than
what he says” is very likely, indeed.
In Church History, he says Peter and Paul died under
Nero and even that statement goes unproved.
One might go so far as to ask if Eusebius Eusebius as a historian was not
without his faults. McGiffert calls attention to one of these in his
introduction to Eusebius’ work: In the third place, severe censure
must be passed upon our author for his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters
of chronology. We should expect that
one who had produced the most extensive chronological work that had ever been
given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in that province, but in
truth, his chronology is the most defective feature of his work. The difficulty is chiefly due to his
inexcusable carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in the use of
different and often contradictory sources of information. Instead of applying himself to the discrepancies,
and endeavoring to reach the truth by carefully weighing the respective
merits of the sources, or by testing their conclusions in so far as tests are
possible, he adopts in many cases the results of both, apparently quite
unsuspicious of the confusion consequent upon such a course. In fact, the critical spirit which actuates
him in dealing with many other matters, seems to leave him entirely when he
is concerned with chronology; and instead of proceeding with the care and
circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he finds with the
unquestioning faith of a child. There
is no case in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at Therefore, let us not be too eager
to have Eusebius decide for us, once and for all, the chronological questions
of our study. How
Historical is Eusebius’ History? The sum of the matter is this: Eusebius’ statements as to Peter going to
Rome and later dying a martyr’s death there under Nero in the year 67 or 68
(depending on which version of the Chronicum
is cited) were seen by many — especially in earlier But a closer examination shows: 1.
that his statement regarding Peter’s coming to 2.
that the sources he quotes for proofs of his assertion that Peter died
under Nero err in the latter half of their testimony by saying Peter founded
and planted the Roman church, which testimony runs contrary to Biblical
truth; 3.
that these same sources say nothing of Nero or the time or manner of Peter’s death; 4.
that these sources are both late and obscure; 5.
that those sources closer to the actual
events in time and location are not, and cannot be cited inasmuch as they do
not substantiate the tradition that Peter died in While we may acknowledge that
Eusebius says Peter was crucified in Lactantius and Jerome The Latin writers of the fourth
century round out the development of the Petrine
tradition and are quoted below. Lactantius (260-330), Of the Manner in
Which the Persecutors Died: His Apostles were at that time
eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in
the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the
earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and
during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor
Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in
every province and city. And while
Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Jerome’s statements on Peter in Lives
of Illustrious Men differ slightly: Simon
Peter the son of John from the village of Bethsaida
in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the Apostle, and himself chief
of the Apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having
preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed
on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held
the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the
fourteenth, year of Nero. At his
hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his
head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was
unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord . . . . Buried at And later speaking of Paul, Jerome
adds, “He then in the fourteenth year of Nero on the same day with Peter was
beheaded at So we see that with Jerome we have
the complete tradition. Now after the
passing of over three centuries since the actual events, we are given all of
the facts: 1.
Peter came to 2.
He continued there twenty-five years until the fourteenth and last
year of Nero; 3.
He was crucified at 4.
He was martyred on the same day as the Apostle Paul. This fourth point is uniquely
Jerome’s and makes for a nice closing embellishment to an oft-embellished
story. One doubts that he had any more
difficulty adding this final touch than any of the earlier writers had in
sketching in the broader strokes of the Peter-in-Rome legend. |
