Has anyone seen this yet, and if so, is it any good?
Eastman, David L. The ancient martyrdom accounts of Peter and Paul. Writings from the Greco-Roman world, 39. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. xxv, 469 p. $59.95 (pb). ISBN 9781628370904
Eastman on martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
Re: Eastman on martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
ficino,
Nice to see you back.
Academia.edu has a 2013 article by David L. Eastman, Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement (from ZAC 2013; 18(1): 34–53) here:
https://www.academia.edu/9266810/Jealou ... _1_Clement
The 2015 book may be an expansion of what he discusses in this article.
DCH
Nice to see you back.
Academia.edu has a 2013 article by David L. Eastman, Jealousy, Internal Strife, and the Deaths of Peter and Paul: A Reassessment of 1 Clement (from ZAC 2013; 18(1): 34–53) here:
https://www.academia.edu/9266810/Jealou ... _1_Clement
The 2015 book may be an expansion of what he discusses in this article.
DCH
Re: Eastman on martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
Fascinating article, David, thanks for posting it! It's been a very long time since I've read Clement of Rome. Much in this paper was new to me. What is ZAC - Zeitschrift fur Antike und Christentum?
After reading the article, two issues pop into mind:
1. Eastman takes no notice of Otto Zwierlein's and other's skeptical treatment of legends of Peter's (and Paul's) martyrdoms in Rome. I don't consider it proved that Peter, at least, was martyred there, and there are problems with his supposed tomb. We had threads on this a while back.
2. Eastman says that the Christians in Rome were too weak to pose a threat. Later he takes the Testimonium Taciteum at face value and believes that an "ingens multitudo" was killed under Nero. I guess there are ways to reconcile these two positions, but this problem needs to be confronted.
So, I'm not yet convinced. Eastman doesn't seem critical enough. But it's great to learn about Oscar Cullman's theory that internal jealousy could have been a factor (if the bare bones of the legend are factual).
After reading the article, two issues pop into mind:
1. Eastman takes no notice of Otto Zwierlein's and other's skeptical treatment of legends of Peter's (and Paul's) martyrdoms in Rome. I don't consider it proved that Peter, at least, was martyred there, and there are problems with his supposed tomb. We had threads on this a while back.
2. Eastman says that the Christians in Rome were too weak to pose a threat. Later he takes the Testimonium Taciteum at face value and believes that an "ingens multitudo" was killed under Nero. I guess there are ways to reconcile these two positions, but this problem needs to be confronted.
So, I'm not yet convinced. Eastman doesn't seem critical enough. But it's great to learn about Oscar Cullman's theory that internal jealousy could have been a factor (if the bare bones of the legend are factual).