Death of Paul

[flaja]

Historians and Bible scholars generally assume that Paul died during the Neronian persecution of Christians. But the Book of Acts concludes with Paul living in Rome, a free man and very much alive.


Does the ending, with Paul alive, imply that the Book of Acts was written sometime before Paul died?

Does the conclusion that Paul lived 2 years in Rome imply that he died there of natural causes?

If the Book of Acts wasn’t considered Scripture until sometime after the 1st century, why didn’t anyone bother to update it to explain Paul’s death?

If the Roman Catholic Church really began with Peter as the 1st Pope and if the Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate church and both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, why doesn’t the Bible record either of their deaths at the hands of the Romans? Or is there something in the Roman Catholic Bible to explain their deaths?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The scripture is not about Paul it is about Jesus and our salvation.

For what it is worth we have writings regarding Paul's death and more...

 

[flaja]

The scripture is not about Paul it is about Jesus and our salvation.

For what it is worth we have writings regarding Paul's death and more...

I didn’t ask whom is Scripture about. I asked why the Bible doesn’t record the death of Paul and Peter, two people whom the Roman Catholic Church considers to be martyrs.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I didn’t ask whom is Scripture about. I asked why the Bible doesn’t record the death of Paul and Peter, two people whom the Roman Catholic Church considers to be martyrs.

Exactly. Why put that in there?

Does it provide anything additional to Jesus' gift to us?

 

[Lisa0315]

I think what the OP is asking is why it is NOT part of Scripture. We have records of other martyrdoms in the Book of Acts. Why conclude it when Paul was still alive. Perhaps the answer lies in when LUKE died rather than it is not worthy of recording.

Lisa

 

[flaja]

Exactly. Why put that in there?

You did: “The scripture is not about Paul it is about Jesus and our salvation”.

I didn’t ask what or whom the Bible is about because I already know. The Bible is about Paul and Peter because they are inextricably associated with Jesus.

Now answer my question: If Peter and Paul were martyred as the Roman Catholic Church claims (and the Roman Catholic Church is never wrong), why doesn’t the Bible say anything about their deaths?

Does it provide anything additional to Jesus' gift to us?

Yes. It provides a record of the church's earliest history.

 

[flaja]

I think what the OP is asking is why it is NOT part of Scripture. We have records of other martyrdoms in the Book of Acts. Why conclude it when Paul was still alive. Perhaps the answer lies in when LUKE died rather than it is not worthy of recording.

Lisa

Would Luke’s death have precluded someone else from either adding to the Book of Acts or simply writing II Acts? If Acts was considered to be Scripture in the early decades of Church history, its sacred status would likely have prevented anyone from adding to it.

Since the Book of Acts concluded after Paul’s 2 years in Rome were finished, the author of Acts either did mean to imply that Paul died and thus there was nothing else to add to the record of Acts, or for some reason or another the author had lost track of Paul and thus didn’t know how Paul’s story on earth had ended. And if Acts doesn’t imply that Paul had died after 2 years in Rome, then the fact that no one wrote II Acts tells me that no one really knew what had happened to Paul and thus what the Roman Catholic Church says about him (and Peter) is conjecture.

 

[marvmax]

The scripture is not about Paul it is about Jesus and our salvation.

For what it is worth we have writings regarding Paul's death and more...

Actually Acts is mostly about Paul, at least two thirds of it is. It is about Paul and how he went about teaching about Christ.

Does it provide anything additional to Jesus' gift to us?

Acts provides nearly everything that we know about the earliest christians and thus is very valuable. It shows us how Christ first effected the world.

I can't believe that you're even arguing that this is not a topic worth discussing. Paul is the second most influential Christian in history. Some argue that he started the Christian Church. Certainly the RCC claim to the primacy of the Pope is partly dependent on Paul, AFAIK.

 

[Lisa0315]

Would Luke’s death have precluded someone else from either adding to the Book of Acts or simply writing II Acts? If Acts was considered to be Scripture in the early decades of Church history, its sacred status would likely have prevented anyone from adding to it.

Since the Book of Acts concluded after Paul’s 2 years in Rome were finished, the author of Acts either did mean to imply that Paul died and thus there was nothing else to add to the record of Acts, or for some reason or another the author had lost track of Paul and thus didn’t know how Paul’s story on earth had ended. And if Acts doesn’t imply that Paul had died after 2 years in Rome, then the fact that no one wrote II Acts tells me that no one really knew what had happened to Paul and thus what the Roman Catholic Church says about him (and Peter) is conjecture.

I don't agree and I will tell you why. What was written was very secretive. There may not be any mention of Peter and Paul so as to not divulge certain things to harm them or provide evidence against them. Who knows?

I am just saying that I don't think the absence of these things tells us anything. I think the presence of the letters do.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Another clue and especially why Luke's death preceding Peter's and Paul's death is possibly important.

The Apostle Paul did write one letter by his own hand that we know of. However, he suffered from some kind of optical disorder which caused it to be very difficult for him. So, most of his letters were probably scribed.

The same goes for just about every other letter from Peter or Paul. It is unlikely that any of the Apostles with the exception of Paul had the education in which to read and write.

Now, that is not to say that they were not supernaturally empowered with being able to read and write, but considering the fact that oral tradition was predominant, I am not convinced of that.

Lisa

 

[marvmax]

The ending of Acts is always jarring to me even though I know that it is coming.

I've never really considered why it ends the way it does though. I guess that I've always kind of considered that something happened to Luke so that he was unable to finish it. When Acts closes Paul was not exactly a free man. He was under house arrest so to speak. That is why people came to him instead of him going first to the Jews then to the Gentiles. Things might have drastically changed.

Of course there are accounts of what happened to Paul. Probably many. The fact is that none of these accounts were accepted enough to make it to the level of scripture by the early Church. As for II Acts, you must remember that Luke is writing Luke and Acts as a personal account for Theophilus (whoever that is). I've wondered if Luke is in Heaven surprised that his account is now considered scripture down here. No one probably thought to write a personal account that could be II Acts, or if they did it didn't reach the level of scripture. As for Paul, perhaps no one wanted to admit to the great apostles ending being something like this. Nero started putting the nails to the Christians and so threw Paul in a dungeon and didn't let anyone see or talk to him for two years until he beheaded him, or whatever happened.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Actually Acts is mostly about Paul, at least two thirds of it is. It is about Paul and how he went about teaching about Christ.


Acts provides nearly everything that we know about the earliest christians and thus is very valuable. It shows us how Christ first effected the world.

I can't believe that you're even arguing that this is not a topic worth discussing. Paul is the second most influential Christian in history. Some argue that he started the Christian Church. Certainly the RCC claim to the primacy of the Pope is partly dependent on Paul, AFAIK.

Acts is written by Paul with Luke as the scribe. It shows the acceptance of Gentiles as children of God and allowances made for their entry into Christianity. These are teachings of the Apostles, about Jesus and the Church and unltimately God.

The New Testament is Apostolic Tradition...

I believe it was up until about the late 4th century there were about 250 + books being used by churches around the world. The Church as a whole (Universal Church) needed to decide on which of these 250+ books were inspired by God and they chose 27 of them. Of the 27 some were widely disputed. One of these books was the Apocolypse or Revelation.

Of course there were books that spoke of things like Peter and Paul being Martyred in Rome. Of Mary being assumed in to Heaven. And many man more...

But the Universal Church (Catholic Church) deicided ultimately on 27 books. That is what the Church has held as sacred scripture ever since and is part of the deposit of Faith.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The ending of Acts is always jarring to me even though I know that it is coming.

I've never really considered why it ends the way it does though. I guess that I've always kind of considered that something happened to Luke so that he was unable to finish it. When Acts closes Paul was not exactly a free man. He was under house arrest so to speak. That is why people came to him instead of him going first to the Jews then to the Gentiles. Things might have drastically changed.

Of course there are accounts of what happened to Paul. Probably many. The fact is that none of these accounts were accepted enough to make it to the level of scripture by the early Church. As for II Acts, you must remember that Luke is writing Luke and Acts as a personal account for Theophilus (whoever that is). I've wondered if Luke is in Heaven surprised that his account is now considered scripture down here. No one probably thought to write a personal account that could be II Acts, or if they did it didn't reach the level of scripture. As for Paul, perhaps no one wanted to admit to the great apostles ending being something like this. Nero started putting the nails to the Christians and so threw Paul in a dungeon and didn't let anyone see or talk to him for two years until he beheaded him, or whatever happened.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm


Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points:

• Paul suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place.
• The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome).
• According to the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on the same day as Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian, says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time" or "about the same time".
• From time immemorial the solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul has been celebrated on 29 June, which is the anniversary either of their death or of the translation of their relics.

We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 18) that even in his time there existed paintings representing Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul's features have been preserved in three ancient monuments:

• A diptych which dates from not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul", 1874, frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol. II, 210).
• A large medallion found in the cemetery of Domitilla, representing the Apostles Peter and Paul (Op. cit., II, 411).
• A glass dish in the British Museum, depicting the same Apostles (Farrara, "Life and Work of St. Paul", 1891, 896).

We have also the concordant descriptions of the "Acta Pauli et Theelae", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas (Chronogr., x), and of Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., III, 37). Paul was short of stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits" (anthropos tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish beard, fair complexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in the Expository Times", July and Sept., 1904), but despite this painful and humiliating infirmity (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Galatians 4:13-14) and although his bearing was not impressive (2 Corinthians 10:10), Paul must undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical strength to have sustained so long such superhuman labours (2 Corinthians 11:23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in P. G., LIX, 494-95), considers that he died at the age of sixty-eight after having served the Lord for thirty-five years.

 

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm


Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points:

• Paul suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place.
• The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome).
• According to the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on the same day as Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian, says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time" or "about the same time".
• From time immemorial the solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul has been celebrated on 29 June, which is the anniversary either of their death or of the translation of their relics.

We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 18) that even in his time there existed paintings representing Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul's features have been preserved in three ancient monuments:

• A diptych which dates from not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul", 1874, frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol. II, 210).
• A large medallion found in the cemetery of Domitilla, representing the Apostles Peter and Paul (Op. cit., II, 411).
• A glass dish in the British Museum, depicting the same Apostles (Farrara, "Life and Work of St. Paul", 1891, 896).

We have also the concordant descriptions of the "Acta Pauli et Theelae", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas (Chronogr., x), and of Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., III, 37). Paul was short of stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits" (anthropos tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish beard, fair complexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in the Expository Times", July and Sept., 1904), but despite this painful and humiliating infirmity (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Galatians 4:13-14) and although his bearing was not impressive (2 Corinthians 10:10), Paul must undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical strength to have sustained so long such superhuman labours (2 Corinthians 11:23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in P. G., LIX, 494-95), considers that he died at the age of sixty-eight after having served the Lord for thirty-five years.

Thank you for that!!!!

Lisa

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thank you for that!!!!

Lisa

You are very welcome. I am glad someone appreciated it.

 

[flaja]

I can't believe that you're even arguing that this is not a topic worth discussing. Paul is the second most influential Christian in history. Some argue that he started the Christian Church. Certainly the RCC claim to the primacy of the Pope is partly dependent on Paul, AFAIK.

Unless you are counting Jesus Christ Himself as the 1st, I would say that Paul was the most important Christian and that Peter would be 2nd at best. The Bible doesn’t give any indication that Peter was ever in Rome and he did most of his work in Judea and maybe the surrounding regions. Since the Bible does say that Paul was in Rome, I don’t see how the Roman Catholic Church can call Peter the first Pope.

 

[flaja]

Another clue and especially why Luke's death preceding Peter's and Paul's death is possibly important.

The Apostle Paul did write one letter by his own hand that we know of. However, he suffered from some kind of optical disorder which caused it to be very difficult for him. So, most of his letters were probably scribed.

The same goes for just about every other letter from Peter or Paul. It is unlikely that any of the Apostles with the exception of Paul had the education in which to read and write.

Now, that is not to say that they were not supernaturally empowered with being able to read and write, but considering the fact that oral tradition was predominant, I am not convinced of that.

Lisa

Matthew had been a tax collector for the Romans; he certainly could read and write.

Furthermore, considering the emphasis that Jews now put on being able to read, for the sake of being able to read the Torah, it is unlikely that any of the Jewish Apostles were illiterate.

If Thiede's hypothesis is correct, the oral tradition likely didn't last very long. Paul and Peter may have outlived it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Unless you are counting Jesus Christ Himself as the 1st, I would say that Paul was the most important Christian and that Peter would be 2nd at best. The Bible doesn’t give any indication that Peter was ever in Rome and he did most of his work in Judea and maybe the surrounding regions. Since the Bible does say that Paul was in Rome, I don’t see how the Roman Catholic Church can call Peter the first Pope.

Check out this thread: http://foru.ms/t4788498-a-lineage-of-popes-in-unbroken-succession.html

Should be informative enough to answer you.

 

[flaja]

The ending of Acts is always jarring to me even though I know that it is coming.

I've never really considered why it ends the way it does though. I guess that I've always kind of considered that something happened to Luke so that he was unable to finish it. When Acts closes Paul was not exactly a free man. He was under house arrest so to speak. That is why people came to him instead of him going first to the Jews then to the Gentiles. Things might have drastically changed.

Of course there are accounts of what happened to Paul. Probably many. The fact is that none of these accounts were accepted enough to make it to the level of scripture by the early Church. As for II Acts, you must remember that Luke is writing Luke and Acts as a personal account for Theophilus (whoever that is). I've wondered if Luke is in Heaven surprised that his account is now considered scripture down here. No one probably thought to write a personal account that could be II Acts, or if they did it didn't reach the level of scripture. As for Paul, perhaps no one wanted to admit to the great apostles ending being something like this. Nero started putting the nails to the Christians and so threw Paul in a dungeon and didn't let anyone see or talk to him for two years until he beheaded him, or whatever happened.

What do you base this house arrest on? According to Acts Paul was living in a house that he was paying for and he could freely see any visitors he wished to. What purpose would house arrest have served if not to silence Paul? If Paul was not silenced, how could he have been under house arrest?

Since Acts emphasizes that Paul was paying for his house, I would take it as emphasizing that Paul was a free man.

As a working hypothesis I would be willing to consider the possibility that Peter never saw Rome and that Paul may have died during the fire that took place under Nero, but due to the confusion caused by the fire it was just assumed that Paul died in Nero’s persecution, but no one at the time really knew what happened with any certainty so no one tried to leave a definitive record of what happened.

It is commonly assumed that the Gospel of Luke is really Peter’s memoirs of Jesus and Luke was just a ghost writer. If we assume that this is true, that Peter is the source for this Gospel, do we have any tangible evidence that Luke wrote the Book of Acts? If so, what was the source for the information in Acts? If Luke and Peter were pals while the Gospel was being written, were Luke and Paul pals while Acts was written? I find it odd that Luke and Peter could have been partners while writing the Gospel, but then Luke didn’t know anything about Peter’s death. I reiterate at this point that the conclusion of Acts is written in the past tense- meaning that Paul’s 2 years in his own house were finished before Acts was written, so I doubt that the author of Acts died before Paul did.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Matthew had been a tax collector for the Romans; he certainly could read and write.

Furthermore, considering the emphasis that Jews now put on being able to read, for the sake of being able to read the Torah, it is unlikely that any of the Jewish Apostles were illiterate.

If Thiede's hypothesis is correct, the oral tradition likely didn't last very long. Paul and Peter may have outlived it.

John lived to 100 AD...

John was the last of the Apostles (The Twelve) to die.

It is also believed that some of the Apostles that Jesus chose were unable to read and write.

But I agree that Matthew was literate and it is believed he wrote a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew for the Jews. Some consider the Greek copy we use for the Bible to be a copy of Matthew's gospel but translated.

The Jews back in 30 AD were speaking Aramaic and accustommed to the cultures of that time. It was only the priest and some others that were educated. The Priest not only spoke Aramaic and probably Greek but they would need to keep the Hebrew tongue as well. Many of the Jews of that day were like all the others of that time, only about 10 to 20 percent could read or write.

Luke who wrote for Paul was a physician I believe. very educated is my point. But Peter was a fisherman right? How educated do you suppose he was?