“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned” (Galatians 2:11 NRSV). Hypocrite! “They were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14 NRSV). The New Testament gives us few glimpses into the interactions between Peter and Paul, but if Paul is to be believed, the two apostles were not always in accord. The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul traces how these apostles were made into friends—or at least allies—as their martyrdoms were narrated across the centuries. This literary “concordia apostolorum,” as Eastman calls it, and the literary traditions that develop this unified front between the fiery Paul and the self-condemned Peter have not been given the attention they should. In this book Eastman aims to remedy that.

In this erudite but accessible study, Eastman leads the reader through the abundant and diverse traditions relating to the deaths of Peter and Paul—in primarily Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts that date from the second to the seventh century—sometimes showing development of tradition over time and sometimes revealing that the evidence does not allow for an evolutionary analysis. The introduction sets the agenda for the book. Here Eastman examines the curious tradition of Peter's inverted crucifixion—found first in the Martyrdom of Peter—and the common interpretation of it: Peter did not consider himself worthy of being executed the same way Jesus was. Not all traditions transmit the unusual mode of crucifixion, though. Tertullian and Peter of Alexander indicate that Peter was crucified, but they mention nothing out of the ordinary about it. Those that do mention the inverted crucifixion explain the apostle's reasoning differently. The Martyrdom of Peter explains Peter's choice as a statement on the fallen nature of humanity. The late fourth-century Pseudo-Linus text Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle attributes Peter's upside down crucifixion to the apostle's humility. By the fifth century, this is the accepted explanation, but Eastman insists we not overlook or undervalue the earlier traditions. The book's analysis relies on social memory theory in privileging discourse over history: while we cannot know what really happened, we have ample evidence to investigate authors’ and communities’ interests and concerns in the ways they told the stories of Peter and Paul.

In chapter 1, “Unity in Death,” Eastman demonstrates how the earliest literary traditions relate the apostles’ deaths separately. In the Acts of Peter, for instance, Peter arrives in Rome, establishes the church there, and dies before Paul comes on the scene. Likewise, the Acts of Paul narrates Paul's martyrdom without mention of Peter's. By the fifth century, however, it becomes common for Peter's and Paul's deaths to be connected. Eastman argues that emphasizing a connection between the apostles’ deaths served the Roman church's needs at a time when its power was waning by comparison to Antioch and Constantinople. Peter and Paul dying together reminds readers of the primacy and glory of Rome based on its “joint apostolic foundation” (35).

Likewise, in chapter 2, “Justifying Death,” Eastman demonstrates that early traditions attribute the apostles’ death sentences to particular—and distinct—accusations: Peter dies because of his teachings on chastity and Paul dies as a political revolutionary. But, again, around the fifth century there is a shift in authorial interests. As the martyr narratives are brought together, the charge is also unified. Simon Magus takes center stage now as the chief rival of the apostolic duo and the one who ultimately brings about their deaths.

Eastman complicates the interpretation of martyr traditions in chapter 3, “Dating the Deaths,” by demonstrating that authorial interests in dating the martyrdoms cannot be framed chronologically. Rather, the differences are explained by liturgical practice. Similarly, in chapter 4, “Locating Death and Burial,” we see that although it comes to be accepted knowledge that Peter was buried at the Vatican and Paul on the Ostian Road, early Christian traditions do not transmit this information uniformly.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Eastman's study is found in chapter 5, “Confusing Peter and Paul.” Having established that early Christians desired to communicate concordia apostolorum, Eastman shows that, at times, this narrative effort led authors to confuse or conflate the apostles. Pseudo-Linus's Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle, for instance, places in Peter's mouth many of Paul's New Testament teachings. Further, in these texts, Peter never quotes the Petrine material associated with him in the New Testament. Eastman surmises that “the words of Peter seem to pale in comparison to those of Paul . . . so these authors simply have Peter speak with Paul's words” (150). This “robbing Paul to pay Peter” is important for us to recognize, Eastman observes, because it means that teachings we associate with Paul from his New Testament epistles may well have been attributed to Peter by certain early Christian communities (154).

In the final chapter, Eastman explores the larger question of where the true competition lies in these texts. On the surface, the apostles may be seen as the chief foes to Nero or Simon Magus, but this overlooks the theological role these villains play. Rather than being merely earthly foes, they are best recognized as theological rivals—not to the apostles but to Christ. At the narrative level, Nero and Simon may vie with the apostles, but they do so only insofar as the apostles represent Christ.

One would not be wrong, in this reviewer's opinion, to see in Eastman's monograph an intervention in scholarly conversations that too often minimize differences in literary traditions. If asked how Peter was crucified, most of us would rely on the Acts of Peter for our answer—even if we added the caveat that it is late and may be unreliable. But the ease with which we can answer the question proves Eastman's point: this (unwitting) distortion means we may be attentive to the theology inherent in the crucifixion for the author of Acts of Peter, but it simultaneously means we are inattentive to the theologies that drove other accounts. The book demonstrates that the apostles “died not one death, but many deaths,” and it challenges its readers to wrestle with these many deaths to understand better the history of tradition within specific communities (211).