Edited to add: This important contribution, and the controversy it has caused, appears still little-known in the English-speaking world, probably because Zwierlein and his critics write mainly in German. I have posted more in #6 below.
I am assembling info about the recent researches of Bonn classicist Otto Zwierlein, who maintains with erudition and philological acumen that the tradition of St. Peter's residence in Rome actually arose during the time of Hadrian, i.e. in the 130s or so C.E. Zwierlein has two books out on this topic. He has been vigorously opposed by many, and it remains to be seen how much their opposition is colored by dogmatic or other biases. On the other hand, his first book was reviewed positively in Bryn Mawr Classical Review
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html
and Zwierlein says that Walter Burkert, eminent authority on ancient religion, pronounced his first book "a remarkable triumph of philology"
http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/perso ... n_rome.pdf
I hope to post more info on this shortly. But do any of you veterans of the old Abrahamic text section of the old forum remember discussion of Zwierlein's controversial (but not new) contentions?
Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Last edited by ficino on Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Tenorikuma
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Another reason for me to work on my German, I guess!
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
I have never viewed Peter as ever being in Rome.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
There may have been a Peter who taught, but its much more likely some influencial figure was tagged with peters name due to his popularity.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
There may have been a Peter who taught, but its much more likely some influencial figure was tagged with peters name due to his popularity.
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
It is sane on the assumption that Jesus was really who he was in the Biblical gospels.outhouse said:
I have never viewed Peter as ever being in Rome.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Huh? According to the New Testament (except possibly Rev), it is "the Jews" who are the enemy -- not only the enemy of Jesus, the apostles, Paul, and the church, but indeed "all mankind" (1 Thessalonians). Early Christianity is inconsistent on just about everything but that.outhouse wrote:I have never viewed Peter as ever being in Rome.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Sounds like mythicist nihilism to me. I mean, if you cannot connect anything to the first century, then nothing's preventing you from thinking that Tertullian and Origen are also mythical.ficino wrote:I am assembling info about the recent researches of Bonn classicist Otto Zwierlein, who maintains with erudition and philological acumen that the tradition of St. Peter's residence in Rome actually arose during the time of Hadrian, i.e. in the 130s or so C.E. Zwierlein has two books out on this topic. He has been vigorously opposed by many, and it remains to be seen how much their opposition is colored by dogmatic or other biases. On the other hand, his first book was reviewed positively in Bryn Mawr Classical Review
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html
and Zwierlein says that Walter Burkert, eminent authority on ancient religion, pronounced his first book "a remarkable triumph of philology"
http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/perso ... n_rome.pdf
I hope to post more info on this shortly. But do any of you veterans of the old Abrahamic text section of the old forum remember discussion of Zwierlein's controversial (but not new) contentions?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
OK, here's more.
Denial that Peter came to Rome goes back at least to Erasmus, and it surfaced often in anti-papist polemic (e.g. in Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism). Now Bonn classicist Otto Zwierlein backs up this denial with in-depth research.
Why should we care? What is at stake? Well, for starters, there's our reconstruction of ancient history. Then there's the foundation of the Papacy! Tourism. Plus, the more the roster of historical proofs of Christianity is whittled down, the more its claims are weakened.
Zwierlein's first book has a long title, which I shorten to Petrus in Rom (DeGruyter, Berlin/New York 2009). He argued that Peter was never in Rome and that the tradition of his Roman residence and martyrdom arose in the time of Hadrian as the proto-orthodox church was combating gnosticism. Z. thinks that because it was believed that Simon Magus, who was seen as a founder of gnosticism, wound up in Nero's court, the story grew up later that Peter had gone to Rome to combat Simon Magus. A second motive was to justify the growth of the monarchic episcopate in the second century.
Now in reply to his critics, Zwierlein has a follow-up volume: Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom. Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten (Berlin/New York 2013: DeGruyter). I haven't seen it yet.
The best place to look first is at Zwierlein's own summary in English of his views and those of his critics:
website Philologie of Uni. Bonn:
http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/perso ... n_rome.pdf
I have read some of Zwierlein's 2009 book. Here are some notes I've taken from it, enclosed in dotted lines, no page numbers (sorry!):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. on the supposed tomb of Peter beneath the Vatican Basilica. No evidence that the so-called aedicula [cf. my thread on tomb of Peter] was constructed by Christians, no traces of cult of Peter connected to it directly. At time of Constantine, it was believed that under the aedicula with its niche had been the tomb of Peter. first references to Peter at the spot are late 3rd cent. [note: presumably these are Guarducci’s graffiti.] No one would have connected the aedicula with Peter’s tomb if we didn’t have Constantine’s structure built over it. There was a martyr cult of these two in or at catacombs on the Appian Way by c. 260, which may actually be the earliest cult of St. Peter in Rome. Graffiti from there mention Peter and Paul together and speak of their bones as though around there.
II. literary key texts. The two oldest:
1. I Peter 5:13. The closing mentions “Babylon.” Z. dates the work probably in the range of 110-113 C.E. Many see “Babylon” as ref. to Rome, in line with its role in Revelation. Z. says that Babylon is never used so in a letter, only appears so in apocalyptic literature and then, fairly clear to reader that Rome is meant. I Peter 2:13-17 speaks of obeying the authorities, so the author doesn’t seem anti-Roman as to use Babylon for Rome. Because greetings in other epistles talk about being in the diaspora, i.e. in earthly exile (James 1:1, I Peter 1:1, etc.), Z. thinks that’s what’s meant by Babylon. Cf. the sojourners of the Diaspora in the beginning of the letter, I Peter 1:1, and the temporary residents and exiles theme at 2:11 (a theme also at Hebrews 11:13). [note: some of Z's critics attack this reasoning.]
2. I Clement 5-6. Z dates this work around 125, not 96 or so as the standard view has it. Z puts it here because it alludes to I Peter. The standard date of I Clement rests on assumptions that it alludes to a persecution of Christians under Domitian and that “Clement” is the first pope; neither has any support. The church situation in Corinth fits the second, not the first century.
I Clement speaks of Peter and Paul but does not say either was martyred in Rome, although scholars have assumed that its references presuppose a Roman martyrdom for both. This is to bring assumptions to the text, which are not based on the text. Although the participle marturesas is predicated of Peter and Paul, the verb martureo is used in the work only in the usual sense of “bear witness, testify,” not in the later, special sense of “undergo blood martyrdom.” The author says nothing about either apostle that can’t have come from the NT. If the martyrdoms had been known to this author, strange to allude so vaguely to them, esp. since tradition makes Clement Peter’s disciple and ordained as bishop by him. First explicit statement that P and P were together in Rome is in Dionysius of Corinth in 170, but this comes from misunderstanding I Clement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwierlein's thesis in reviews, which I shall link:
favorable: van der Horst in Bryn Mawr Classical Review:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html
lukewarm: James Dunn in RBL:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7189_7816.pdf
hostile: Tassilo Schmitt
http://www.sehepunkte.de/2010/09/16250.html
Schmitt and others sort of ganged up on Zwierlein in a conference, papers from which are reviewed here:
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v17/TC-20 ... kmuehl.pdf
As in many such controversies, there is more than one way to read a text. I doubt that consensus will be reached by all. I am very eager to see whether consensus of a sort is reached by scholars who do not have vested interests in defending conservative views of the NT and/or of the Catholic Church's Petrine claims.
Denial that Peter came to Rome goes back at least to Erasmus, and it surfaced often in anti-papist polemic (e.g. in Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism). Now Bonn classicist Otto Zwierlein backs up this denial with in-depth research.
Why should we care? What is at stake? Well, for starters, there's our reconstruction of ancient history. Then there's the foundation of the Papacy! Tourism. Plus, the more the roster of historical proofs of Christianity is whittled down, the more its claims are weakened.
Zwierlein's first book has a long title, which I shorten to Petrus in Rom (DeGruyter, Berlin/New York 2009). He argued that Peter was never in Rome and that the tradition of his Roman residence and martyrdom arose in the time of Hadrian as the proto-orthodox church was combating gnosticism. Z. thinks that because it was believed that Simon Magus, who was seen as a founder of gnosticism, wound up in Nero's court, the story grew up later that Peter had gone to Rome to combat Simon Magus. A second motive was to justify the growth of the monarchic episcopate in the second century.
Now in reply to his critics, Zwierlein has a follow-up volume: Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom. Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten (Berlin/New York 2013: DeGruyter). I haven't seen it yet.
The best place to look first is at Zwierlein's own summary in English of his views and those of his critics:
website Philologie of Uni. Bonn:
http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/perso ... n_rome.pdf
I have read some of Zwierlein's 2009 book. Here are some notes I've taken from it, enclosed in dotted lines, no page numbers (sorry!):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. on the supposed tomb of Peter beneath the Vatican Basilica. No evidence that the so-called aedicula [cf. my thread on tomb of Peter] was constructed by Christians, no traces of cult of Peter connected to it directly. At time of Constantine, it was believed that under the aedicula with its niche had been the tomb of Peter. first references to Peter at the spot are late 3rd cent. [note: presumably these are Guarducci’s graffiti.] No one would have connected the aedicula with Peter’s tomb if we didn’t have Constantine’s structure built over it. There was a martyr cult of these two in or at catacombs on the Appian Way by c. 260, which may actually be the earliest cult of St. Peter in Rome. Graffiti from there mention Peter and Paul together and speak of their bones as though around there.
II. literary key texts. The two oldest:
1. I Peter 5:13. The closing mentions “Babylon.” Z. dates the work probably in the range of 110-113 C.E. Many see “Babylon” as ref. to Rome, in line with its role in Revelation. Z. says that Babylon is never used so in a letter, only appears so in apocalyptic literature and then, fairly clear to reader that Rome is meant. I Peter 2:13-17 speaks of obeying the authorities, so the author doesn’t seem anti-Roman as to use Babylon for Rome. Because greetings in other epistles talk about being in the diaspora, i.e. in earthly exile (James 1:1, I Peter 1:1, etc.), Z. thinks that’s what’s meant by Babylon. Cf. the sojourners of the Diaspora in the beginning of the letter, I Peter 1:1, and the temporary residents and exiles theme at 2:11 (a theme also at Hebrews 11:13). [note: some of Z's critics attack this reasoning.]
2. I Clement 5-6. Z dates this work around 125, not 96 or so as the standard view has it. Z puts it here because it alludes to I Peter. The standard date of I Clement rests on assumptions that it alludes to a persecution of Christians under Domitian and that “Clement” is the first pope; neither has any support. The church situation in Corinth fits the second, not the first century.
I Clement speaks of Peter and Paul but does not say either was martyred in Rome, although scholars have assumed that its references presuppose a Roman martyrdom for both. This is to bring assumptions to the text, which are not based on the text. Although the participle marturesas is predicated of Peter and Paul, the verb martureo is used in the work only in the usual sense of “bear witness, testify,” not in the later, special sense of “undergo blood martyrdom.” The author says nothing about either apostle that can’t have come from the NT. If the martyrdoms had been known to this author, strange to allude so vaguely to them, esp. since tradition makes Clement Peter’s disciple and ordained as bishop by him. First explicit statement that P and P were together in Rome is in Dionysius of Corinth in 170, but this comes from misunderstanding I Clement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwierlein's thesis in reviews, which I shall link:
favorable: van der Horst in Bryn Mawr Classical Review:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html
lukewarm: James Dunn in RBL:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7189_7816.pdf
hostile: Tassilo Schmitt
http://www.sehepunkte.de/2010/09/16250.html
Schmitt and others sort of ganged up on Zwierlein in a conference, papers from which are reviewed here:
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v17/TC-20 ... kmuehl.pdf
As in many such controversies, there is more than one way to read a text. I doubt that consensus will be reached by all. I am very eager to see whether consensus of a sort is reached by scholars who do not have vested interests in defending conservative views of the NT and/or of the Catholic Church's Petrine claims.
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
Actually, the "Babylon = Rome" thesis is only tenable within one document only, Revelation.ficino wrote: 1. I Peter 5:13. The closing mentions “Babylon.” Z. dates the work probably in the range of 110-113 C.E. Many see “Babylon” as ref. to Rome, in line with its role in Revelation. Z. says that Babylon is never used so in a letter, only appears so in apocalyptic literature and then, fairly clear to reader that Rome is meant. I Peter 2:13-17 speaks of obeying the authorities, so the author doesn’t seem anti-Roman as to use Babylon for Rome.
It Christians were at all concerned about using code language for Rome, then we should have Paul's "Epistle to the Babylonians."
1 Peter mentions "Babylon" because the author wanted to sound Biblical. It has no connection to reality.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
-
A_Nony_Mouse
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
I think it was perfectly reasonable for Peter to have taught in Rome to the masses who spoke only Latin and didn't think much of non-Romans back when he along with the rest had the gift of tongues and the wisdom of the holy spirit.outhouse wrote:I have never viewed Peter as ever being in Rome.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
There may have been a Peter who taught, but its much more likely some influencial figure was tagged with peters name due to his popularity.
However since those things went away and there is no indication Paul invited him as a celebrity guest star it has not made sense that an uneducated illiterate peasant talking in heavily Aramaic accented learners' Latin could have accomplished anything.
Once you take away the magic all the previously beliefs which required magic also go away.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Re: Peter never in Rome - blockbuster by Zwierlein
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I think it was perfectly reasonable for Peter to have taught in Rome to the masses who spoke only Latin and didn't think much of non-Romans back when he along with the rest had the gift of tongues and the wisdom of the holy spirit.outhouse wrote:I have never viewed Peter as ever being in Rome.
To think a Galilean peasant would have ever taught in their enemies homeland is just not altogether sane.
There may have been a Peter who taught, but its much more likely some influencial figure was tagged with peters name due to his popularity.
However since those things went away and there is no indication Paul invited him as a celebrity guest star it has not made sense that an uneducated illiterate peasant talking in heavily Aramaic accented learners' Latin could have accomplished anything.
Once you take away the magic all the previously beliefs which required magic also go away.Have you ever heard the term, translator? Or is it blind hatred for the subject matter that prevents you from keeping an open mind?
To become fully human is divine.