Peter's death

[vince2paul]

Is it written in the bible about Peter’s death?
I was asked how did Peter die? I know how but I don’t know where I learnt about it. Thanks.

 

[Pons]

John 21:18-19:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.”

Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God…

 

[vince2paul]

John 21:18-19:

But is it true that he was crucified upside down? or is it just my imagination?

 

[Pons]

According to Tradition he was.

 

[Spirithound]

But is it true that he was crucified upside down? or is it just my imagination?

The verse says “gird you”, which in some translations is rendered “put a belt on you”, and so i take that to mean he was also tied to the cross at the waist so he wouldn’t fall off.

 

[quasimodo]

According to Tradition he was.

make that “tradition” not “Tradition”

 

[Mrs_Mac]

I have been wondering this same thing myself. I’m not good at posting links yet, but Richard P. McBrien’s “Lives of the Saints” contains this paragraph concerning the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom:

“Clement of Rome describes Peter’s trial in Rome (1 Clement 5:4) and the historian Eusebius reports an ancient story about his crucifixion, upside down, just as he had requested (Ecclesiastical History 2.25.5,8). Tertullian also says that Peter was crucified. According to a very old tradition Peter was confined to the Mamertine prison, where the Church of St. Peter in Chains now stands. His place of execution is thought to have been the gardens of Nero, where many executions took place during his reign.”

Perhaps if you google the key terms in this paragraph you will get more detailed information from the ECF sources.

Blessings,
Mrs. Mac

 

[zagjames]

Interestingly enought the bones of St. Peter (if they really are his, we cant do a dna test obviously or anything like that, but the church believes they are his) have no feet.

The skelton is missing its feet. When the Romans crucified people upside down they would take them down off the cross by just chopping off their feet and they would flop off, litterally. So if that skeleton is St. Peter’s then it would seem to be pretty good circumstantial evidence for the upside down crucifixion.

Upside down crucifixion was pretty common, it was easier to take people down then, easier to put them up after nailing them on to it while the cross laid on the ground, because the weight is at the bottom so the soldiers could lift it into the hole easier.

 

[NotWorthy]

Interestingly enought the bones of St. Peter (if they really are his, we cant do a dna test obviously or anything like that, but the church believes they are his) have no feet.

The skelton is missing its feet. When the Romans crucified people upside down they would take them down off the cross by just chopping off their feet and they would flop off, litterally. So if that skeleton is St. Peter’s then it would seem to be pretty good circumstantial evidence for the upside down crucifixion.

Upside down crucifixion was pretty common, it was easier to take people down then, easier to put them up after nailing them on to it while the cross laid on the ground, because the weight is at the bottom so the soldiers could lift it into the hole easier.

The remains of the skeleton are supposed to be of a rather tall person. I understand Peter was abnormally tall for people back then as well.

Of course that’s why he was the Chief Apostle… Well, that and the fact that he had “big hair”. You see, the Dilbert Principle of Management applied even back then.

 

[Spirithound]

Interestingly enought the bones of St. Peter (if they really are his, we cant do a dna test obviously or anything like that, but the church believes they are his) have no feet.

The skelton is missing its feet. When the Romans crucified people upside down they would take them down off the cross by just chopping off their feet and they would flop off, litterally. So if that skeleton is St. Peter’s then it would seem to be pretty good circumstantial evidence for the upside down crucifixion.

Upside down crucifixion was pretty common, it was easier to take people down then, easier to put them up after nailing them on to it while the cross laid on the ground, because the weight is at the bottom so the soldiers could lift it into the hole easier.

Now that’s interesting, you indicate that an upside-down victim would be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground. Would this mean that those crucified right-side up would also be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground, like we see in The Passion, as opposed to what many people say about Jesus just carrying His cross-piece? It always seemed to me that it would be extremely awkward to lift up a fully-grown man nailed to a log, and then affix that log to another tree…(not to mention the possibility of getting kicked in the face for the foot-nailer!)

 

[zagjames]

Now that’s interesting, you indicate that an upside-down victim would be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground. Would this mean that those crucified right-side up would also be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground, like we see in The Passion, as opposed to what many people say about Jesus just carrying His cross-piece? It always seemed to me that it would be extremely awkward to lift up a fully-grown man nailed to a log, and then affix that log to another tree…(not to mention the possibility of getting kicked in the face for the foot-nailer!)

I have always understood that they nailed (or tied) people to crosses on the ground. But I don’t know for sure, but it seems to make the most sense.

 

[benedictgal]

Now that’s interesting, you indicate that an upside-down victim would be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground. Would this mean that those crucified right-side up would also be nailed to the cross while it’s on the ground, like we see in The Passion, as opposed to what many people say about Jesus just carrying His cross-piece? It always seemed to me that it would be extremely awkward to lift up a fully-grown man nailed to a log, and then affix that log to another tree…(not to mention the possibility of getting kicked in the face for the foot-nailer!)

But, according to the ancient sources, Peter requested that he be hung upside down because he didn’t consider himself worthy to die in a manner similar to our Lord’s crucifixion. From what I have read, the bones at St. Peter’s basilica are, in fact, those of St. Peter. I believe that as early as the time of Pope Pius XII, there was an archeological excavation (or, am I confusing that with the one at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls). In any case, I believe that there have been statements authenticating the bones located at St. Peter’s as those belonging to the Prince of the Apostles.

Nonetheless, regarding scriptural citations, the best that we can perhaps come up with is a previous poster’s citation of John’s post-Ressurection account (after Peter undoes his triple denial).

I would submit another observation which, although it has no concrete evidence, might seem plausible. John, the beloved disciple, wrote the fourth Gospel. Tradition has it that St. John outlived everyone else and died a natural death. It is possible (and don’t start thinking I’m crazy, but the question did make me think) that perhaps John inserted this interpretation (after Jesus’ statement) after St. Peter’s martyrdom. Again, this is not rooted in Tradition or theology; it’s just a hypothesis.

 

[NotWorthy]

But, according to the ancient sources, Peter requested that he be hung upside down because he didn’t consider himself worthy to die in a manner similar to our Lord’s crucifixion. From what I have read, the bones at St. Peter’s basilica are, in fact, those of St. Peter. I believe that as early as the time of Pope Pius XII, there was an archeological excavation (or, am I confusing that with the one at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls). In any case, I believe that there have been statements authenticating the bones located at St. Peter’s as those belonging to the Prince of the Apostles.

Nonetheless, regarding scriptural citations, the best that we can perhaps come up with is a previous poster’s citation of John’s post-Ressurection account (after Peter undoes his triple denial).

I would submit another observation which, although it has no concrete evidence, might seem plausible. John, the beloved disciple, wrote the fourth Gospel. Tradition has it that St. John outlived everyone else and died a natural death. It is possible (and don’t start thinking I’m crazy, but the question did make me think) that perhaps John inserted this interpretation (after Jesus’ statement) after St. Peter’s martyrdom. Again, this is not rooted in Tradition or theology; it’s just a hypothesis.

Well, many people think that a disciple of John’s wrote the last chapter of his Gospel. There’s a different writing technique in this section. So you may be closer to “urban legend” than you thought.

 

[snowfly]

Some info here on Saint Peters Death