Paul's Martyr

[Chris Weimer]

Where do Christians get the idea of the martyrdom of Paul? Acts ends with him sitting at his new home writing letters... I didn't see it in his letters anything about an upcoming stoning, so where does this come from?

[TheBigKahoona]

First of all, his "New home" was often prison. Second of all, I don't have the passage in front of me, but I seem to remember Acts ending with him about to plead his case before one of the Roman Emperors.

[Toto]

Good question. Basically, it is Christian legend, and you will notice that Christians do not provide an exact date or time or method - they assume that Paul must have been beheaded as would be appropriate for a Roman Citizen, and must have died during the Neronian persecution. But there is no contemporaneous record of that. There is an apocryphal Acts of Paul (http://earlychristianwritings.com/actspaul.html) which includes the Martyrdom of Paul, but it was composed about 170 CE.

It is not clear why Acts does not end with the death of Paul. but leaves him in prison in Rome, lightly supervised.

[fta]

It is not clear why Acts does not end with the death of Paul. but leaves him in prison in Rome, lightly supervised.

Conservative theologians will tell you this means Acts must have been written before Paul was executed. Liberals will say that "Luke" was anxious to portray Christianity as posing no threat to Rome, so he chose to keep quiet about the embarrassing fact that Peter and Paul had been exected by the Roman authorities.

[Chris Weimer]

But then there is no real verification behind it, is there? Paul probably, as was very common for nonviolent or nonthreatening criminals was made to pay a fine and promise not to do it ever again.

So once again, where did this come from? Someone metioned Acts of Paul, well, I'm guessing that such a late composition might have been already in keeping with the tradition of Paul as a martyr, am I wrong?

[Crazy Liz]

But then there is no real verification behind it, is there? Paul probably, as was very common for nonviolent or nonthreatening criminals was made to pay a fine and promise not to do it ever again.

True. However, what historical documents we have tell us many Christians refused to comply with such requests. They called the Romans' bluff. Some carried through on the threats of more severe punishment, and some didn't.

So once again, where did this come from? Someone metioned Acts of Paul, well, I'm guessing that such a late composition might have been already in keeping with the tradition of Paul as a martyr, am I wrong?

There are strong hints in Philippians that Paul anticipated his possible execution, being unsure whether he would be executed or released from prison. If you believe 2 Timothy is genuinely Pauline, it is more explicit that execution is anticipated in the near future. If Paul didn't write 2 Timothy, whoever wrote it after Paul's death seems to demonstrate an awareness of how he died, writing the letter as if it came from Paul just before his death.

[Benni72]

Isn't the word "martyr" or some its cognate applied to Peter and Paul in I Clement? Though, as suggested here, in Greek it may mean just testimony/sermon.

[Notsri]

Where do Christians get the idea of the martyrdom of Paul? Acts ends with him sitting at his new home writing letters... I didn't see it in his letters anything about an upcoming stoning, so where does this come from?
I think most conservative scholars argue that Paul was released after the Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts. According to this view, 1 Timothy and Titus were supposed to have been written during the subsequent period of freedom, while 2 Timothy was written at the time of the next imprisonment. It's said that Paul was likely referring to the previous imprisonment in 2 Tim. 4:16, which he calls his "first defense"; and to his release in v. 17: "I was rescued out of the lion's (i.e. Nero's) mouth." Some have also suggested that Paul's release was probably connected to the release of Timothy alluded to in Hebrews 13:23: "Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, etc." In any event, by the time of the second imprisonment, he is supposed to have known his end was near: "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come" (2 Tim. 4:6).

Evidence for Paul's martyrdom comes from something like the following sources (et al.):

1 Clement 5:7 (ca. 95): "[Paul] won genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West. Finally, when he had given his testimony (Gr. martyrhsas) before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place..."

The Martyrdom of Paul (in the Acts of Paul), mentioned already by Toto, says in 11:3 that "Paul [was] to be beheaded according to the law of the Romans." (It then goes on to give a really fantastic account of the actual beheading: milk spurts out from the wound!)

Tertullian refers to the beheading in Scorpiace 15. He doesn't offer any source for the info. there, but it seems probable that he did at least know the tradition from the Acts of Paul, since he appears to allude to the book in de Baptismo 17.

Eusebius says in Church History 2.22 that Paul was released after the Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts, then "journeyed on the ministry of preaching," and later "set foot for the second time in [Rome, and] was perfected in his martyrdom." He goes on a bit to add: "Now we have made these statements in proof of the fact that Paul's martyrdom was not accomplished during the stay at Rome which Luke has recorded."

Jerome says in Lives of Illustrious Men 5, that "in the fourteenth year of Nero...[Paul] was beheaded in Rome for Christ's sake."

Incidentally, just to add something in closing, aside from the apparent evidence for Paul's release from the NT, conservatives usually adduce some of the following: the Roman epistle 1 Clement says that Paul had traveled to the "farthest limits of the West," i.e. Spain (which obviously was not recorded in Acts); the Muratorian Canon says that Paul had gone from Rome, and "proceeded to Spain"; Eusebius says in Church History, as already indicated, that Paul had been released, then continued in the ministry, and later was imprisoned a second time in Rome; Jerome says in Lives of Illustrious men that Paul had been released after the first Roman imprisonment, "that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West"; John Chrysostom says in his Homilies on Hebrews (proem, 2) that Paul had gone to Spain; Theodoret of Cyrrhus alludes to the trip to Spain in his Commentary on Romans (15:30-1); etc., etc.

Regards,
Notsri

[Johann_Kaspar]

Paul is as fictitious as say... Superman or Tarzan.

[LeeBuhrul]

Conservative theologians will tell you this means Acts must have been written before Paul was executed. Liberals will say that "Luke" was anxious to portray Christianity as posing no threat to Rome, so he chose to keep quiet about the embarrassing fact that Peter and Paul had been exected by the Roman authorities.

or a liberal one for that matter? and how do they differ?

[Mathetes]

Isn't the word "martyr" or some its cognate applied to Peter and Paul in I Clement? Though, as suggested here, in Greek it may mean just testimony/sermon.

Yes, this is translated wrongly almost everywhere. The only thing that Clement says is that both Peter and Paul gave testimony or were witnesses of Christ, not that they were killed.

[rlogan]

Paul is as fictitious as say... Superman or Tarzan.


heh. I'd say it's more like mother goose, and the letters are the "nursery rhymes".


Been having my doubts about Paul for some time. Once we've broken the back of the historical Jesus premise, the repercussions radiate outward in every direction.

If no Jesus, then there is no Mary or Joseph, no 12 disciples, no Judas, and etc. There is no brother of Jesus (James) for Paul to have met in the so-called "Jerusalem group". So would it not reasonably follow that Paul is also suspect as a literary device and not real?

We do have an emerging "Christ" movement, where at some point down the road, Pauline "authorship" is used as a pseudonym for contrived authority in more than a dozen documents. That is where the parallel to Mother Goose's nursery rhymes comes into play.

There may be a handful written by the same person: Romans 1&2, Corinthians, Galatians, and maybe Philemon, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. But from these we do not construct the Paul of legend.

Who really was this individual?

[Toto]

Even if there was no historical Jesus, there still was an early Christian church, and probably a preceding Jewish sect that became the Christian church.

This early church might well have included someone named James who had the title "Brother of the Lord" and someone named Cephas, and a missionary named Paul or Saul or something like that. ("Paul" translates to "Shorty" or Runt".)

The Paul depicted in Acts might as well be a fictional character, but I assume that there was someone named Paul who wrote some letters, but the letters were probably "improved" by later commentators.

[TheBigKahoona]

Whether or not you believe in a historical Jesus, most scholars (Jews and Christians alike http://www.onhigh.org/PaulTheApostle.htm) have always accepted the fact that Paul existed and was influential to the early church. What was made up concerning his life and death by later generations is another story, and, as I said earlier, his sanity has also been called into question.

Here is a good site that deals with the question although, as you may notice, the site is not exactly complete. However, it sets a good groundwork for the evidence of a historical Paul.

http://kevin.davnet.org/articles/paul.html#Conclusions

[Roland]

Conservative theologians will tell you this means Acts must have been written before Paul was executed. Liberals will say that "Luke" was anxious to portray Christianity as posing no threat to Rome, so he chose to keep quiet about the embarrassing fact that Peter and Paul had been exected by the Roman authorities.

I always love the logic in the Christians' case here.

That would be like saying that Mark wrote his gospel on early Easter morning because it doesn't show any of Jesus' appearances later that day...or Matthew, Luke and John wrote their gospels before Jesus' ascencion 40 days later because they don't mention that pivotal event in the story!