Referring to his being bound to the cross.——Tertullian seems to have first suggested this rather whimsical interpretation:——“Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur.” (Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.) There seems to be more rhyme than reason in the sentence, however.
The rejection of this forced interpretation is by no means a new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter’s crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, with whom are quoted Semler, Gurlitt and Schott, utterly deny that a fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical idea to be based on it. The critical testimony of these great commentators on the true and just force of the words, is of the very highest value; because all received the tale of Peter’s crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he really was crucified. But in spite of this pre-conceived erroneous historical notion, their nice sense of what was grammatically and critically just, would not allow them to pervert the passage to the support of this long-established view; and they therefore pronounce it as merely expressive of the helplessness and imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every word coincide. But Bloomfield, entirely carried away with the tide of antique authorities, is “surprised that so many recent commentators should deny that crucifixion is here alluded to, though they acknowledge that Peter suffered crucifixion.” Now this last circumstance might well occasion surprise, as it certainly did in me, when I found what mighty names had so disinterestedly supported the interpretation which I had with fear and trembling adopted, in obedience to my own long-established, unaided convictions; but my surprise was of a decidedly agreeable sort.
The inventors of fables go on to give us the minute particulars of Peter’s death, and especially note the circumstance that he was crucified with his head downwards and his feet uppermost, he himself having desired that it might be done in that manner, because he thought himself unworthy to be crucified as his Master was. This was a mode sometimes adopted by the Romans, as an additional pain and ignominy. But Peter must have been singularly accommodating to his persecutors, to have suggested this improvement upon his tortures to his malignant murderers; and must have manifested a spirit more accordant with that of a savage defying his enemies to increase his agonies, than with that of the mild, submissive Jesus. And such has been the evident absurdity of the story, that many of the most ardent receivers of fables have rejected this circumstance as improbable, more especially as it is not found among the earliest stories of his crucifixion, but evidently seems to have been appended among later improvements.
PETER’S MARTYRDOM.
The only authority which can be esteemed worthy of consideration on this point, is that of Clemens Romanus, who, in the latter part of the first century, (about the year 70, or as others say, 96,) in his epistle to the Corinthians, uses these words respecting Peter:——“Peter, on account of unrighteous hatred, underwent not one, or two, but many labors, and having thus borne his testimony, departed to the place of glory, which was his due,”——(ὁυτως μαρτυρησας επορευθη εις τον οφειλομενον τοπον δοξης.) Now it is by no means certain that the prominent word (marturesas) necessarily means “bearing testimony by death,” or martyrdom in the modern sense. The primary sense of this verb is merely “to witness,” in which simple meaning alone, it is used in the New Testament; nor can any passage in the sacred writings be shown, in which this verb means “to bear witness to any cause, by death.” This was a technical sense, (if I may so name it,) which the word at last acquired among the Fathers, when they were speaking of those who bore witness to the truth of the gospel of Christ by their blood; and it was a meaning which at last nearly excluded all the true original senses of the verb, limiting it mainly to the notion of a death by persecution for the sake of Christ. Thence our English words, martyr and martyrdom. But that Clement by this use of the word, in this connection, meant to convey the idea of Peter’s having been killed for the sake of Christ, is an opinion utterly incapable of proof, and moreover rendered improbable by the words joined to it in the passage. The sentence is, “Peter underwent many labors, and having thus borne witness” to the gospel truth, “went to the place of glory which he deserved.” Now the adverb “thus,” (ὁυτως,) seems to me most distinctly to show what was the nature of this testimony, and the manner also in which he bore it. It points out more plainly than any other words could, the fact that his testimony to the truth of the gospel was borne in the zealous labors of a devoted life, and not by the agonies of a bloody death. There is not in the whole context, nor in all the writings of Clement, any hint whatever that Peter was killed for the sake of the gospel; and we are therefore required by every sound rule of interpretation, to stick to the primary sense of the verb, in this passage. Lardner most decidedly mis-translates it in the text of his work, so that any common reader would be grossly deceived as to the expression in the original of Clement,——“Peter underwent many labors, till at last being martyred, he went,” &c. The Greek word, ὁυτως, (houtos,) means always, “in this manner,” “thus,” “so,” and is not a mere expletive, like the English phrase, “and so,” which is a mere form of transition from one part of the narrative to the other.
In the similar passage of Clemens which refers to Paul, there is something in the connection which may seem to favor the conclusion that he understood Paul to have been put to death by the Roman officers. His words are,——“and after having borne his testimony before governors, he was thus sent out of the world,” &c. Here the word “thus,” coming after the participle, may perhaps be considered, in view also of its other connections, as implying his removal from the world by a violent death, in consequence of the testimony borne by him before the governors. This however, will bear some dispute, and will have a fuller discussion elsewhere.
But in respect to the passage which refers to Peter, the burden of proof may fairly be said to lie on those who maintain the old opinion. Here the word is shown to have, in the New Testament, no such application to death as it has since acquired; and the question is whether Clemens Romanus, a man himself of the apostolic age, who lived and perhaps wrote, before the canon was completed, had already learned to give a new meaning to a verb, before so simple and unlimited in its applications. No person can pretend to trace this meaning to within a century of the Clementine age, nor does Suicer refer to any one who knew of such use before Clement of Alexandria (See his Thesaurus; Μαρτυρ.) Clement himself uses it in the same epistle (§ xvii.) in its unquestionable primary sense, speaking of Abraham as having received an honorable testimony,——(εμαρτυρηθη;) for who will say that Abraham was martyred, in the modern sense? The fact too that Clement nowhere else gives the least glimmer of a hint that Peter died any where but in his bed, fixes the position here taken, beyond all possibility of attack, except by its being shown that he uses this verb somewhere else, with the sense of death unquestionably attached to it.
There is no other early writer who can be said to speak of the manner of Peter’s death, before Dionysius of Corinth, who says that “Peter and Paul having taught in Italy together, bore their testimony” (by death, if you please,) “about the same time.” An argument might here also be sustained on the word εμαρτυρησαν, (emarturesan,) but the evidence of Dionysius, mixed as it is with a demonstrated fable, is not worth a verbal criticism. The same may be said of Tertullian and the rest of the later Fathers, as given in the note on pages 228–233.
An examination of the word Μαρτυρ, in Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, will show the critical, that even in later times, this word did not necessarily imply “one who bore his testimony to the truth at the sacrifice of life.” Even Chrysostom, in whose time the peculiar limitation of the term might be supposed to be very well established, uses the word in such applications as to show that its original force was not wholly lost. By Athanasius too, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are styled martyrs. Gregory Nazianzen also speaks of “living martyrs.” (ζωντες μαρτυρες.) Theophylact calls the apostle John a martyr, though he declares him to have passed through the hands of his persecutors unhurt, and to have died by the course of nature. Clemens Alexandrinus has similar uses of the term; and the Apostolical Constitutions, of doubtful date, but much later than the first century, also give it in such applications. Suicer distinctly specifies several classes of persons, not martyrs in the modern sense, to whom the Greek word is nevertheless applied in the writings of even the later Fathers; as “those who testified the truth of the gospel of Christ, at the peril of life merely, without the loss of it,”——“those who obeyed the requirements of the gospel, by restraining passion,” &c. In some of these instances however, it is palpable that the application of the word to such persons is secondary, and made in rather a poetical way, with a reference to the more common meaning of loss of life for the sake of Christ, since there is always implied a testimony at the risk or loss of something; still the power of these instances to render doubtful the meaning of the term, is unquestionable. (See Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, Μαρτυρ, III. 2, 5, 6.)
Perhaps it is hardly worth while to dismiss these fables altogether, without first alluding to the rather ancient one, first given by Clemens Alexandrinus. (Stromata, 7. p. 736.) and copied verbatim by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 30.) Both the reverend Fathers however, introduce the story as a tradition, a mere on dit, prefacing it with the expressive phrase, “They say,” &c. (Φασι.) “The blessed Peter seeing his wife led to death, was pleased with the honor of her being thus called by God to return home, and thus addressed her in words of exhortation and consolation, calling her by name,——‘O woman! remember the Lord.’” The story comes up from the hands of tradition rather too late however, to be entitled to any credit whatever, being recorded by Clemens Alexandrinus, full 200 years after Christ. It was probably invented in the times when it was thought worth while to cherish the spirit of voluntary martyrdom, among even the female sex; for which purpose instances were sought out or invented respecting those of the apostolic days. That Peter had a wife is perfectly true; and it is also probable that she accompanied him about on his travels, as would appear from a passage in Paul’s writings; (1 Corinthians ix. 5;) but beyond this, nothing is known of her life or death. Similar fables might be endlessly multiplied from papistical sources; more especially from the Clementine novels, and the apostolical romances of Abdias Babylonius; but the object of the present work is true history, and it would require a whole volume like this to give all the details of Christian mythology.