|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
01-18-2009, 02:03 PM
|
#71 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are: 1) Revelation 2) History Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut. The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?: 1) Is Peter mentioned? 2) Is he a claimed authority? 3) What is the nature of his authority? 4) Is he the most important authority? 5) Was he a witness to HJ? 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Not explicitly. Possibly by implication. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No. 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are: 1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul. 2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|
|
|
01-23-2009, 07:22 AM
|
#72 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are: 1) Revelation 2) History Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut. The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?: 1) Is Peter mentioned? 2) Is he a claimed authority? 3) What is the nature of his authority? 4) Is he the most important authority? 5) Was he a witness to HJ? 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Not explicitly. Possibly by implication. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No. 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are: 1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul. 2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 06:42 AM
|
#73 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are: 1) Revelation 2) History Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut. The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?: 1) Is Peter mentioned? 2) Is he a claimed authority? 3) What is the nature of his authority? 4) Is he the most important authority? 5) Was he a witness to HJ? 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Not explicitly. Possibly by implication. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No. 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are: 1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul. 2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2009, 09:43 AM
|
#74 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2009, 06:22 AM
|
#75 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are: 1) Revelation 2) History Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut. The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?: 1) Is Peter mentioned? 2) Is he a claimed authority? 3) What is the nature of his authority? 4) Is he the most important authority? 5) Was he a witness to HJ? 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Not explicitly. Possibly by implication. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No. 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are: 1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul. 2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias. c. 125 The Apology of Aristides http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical. Note the motivation for transition from revelation to historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2009, 06:50 AM
|
#76 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are: 1) Revelation 2) History Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut. The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?: 1) Is Peter mentioned? 2) Is he a claimed authority? 3) What is the nature of his authority? 4) Is he the most important authority? 5) Was he a witness to HJ? 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others. 3) What is the nature of his authority? Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Not explicitly. Possibly by implication. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? No. 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are: 1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul. 2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century). c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A (no authority mentioned) 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his witness to HJ documented? N/A c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Received the Gospel from Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? No. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Implication that he was: Quote:
No (he preached) 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A JW: Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Issued commandments as Apostle. 4) Is he the most important authority? Equal to Paul but mentioned first. 5) Was he a witness to HJ? No mention. 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? No mention. 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? No 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp would appear to be prior to Papias. c. 125 The Apology of Aristides http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm 1) Is Peter mentioned? No. 2) Is he a claimed authority? N/A 3) What is the nature of his authority? N/A 4) Is he the most important authority? N/A 5) Was he a witness to HJ? N/A 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? N/A 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? N/A Transition at this time from Revelation to Historical. Note the motivation for transition from revelation to historical argument. Revelation is used for the common man but historical is needed for human authorities (Kings). Papias is likely contemporary to The Apology of Aristides. c. 125 Papias http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm [Eusebius claiming to quote Papias] Quote:
1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source. 2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition. 3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order. 4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion. 5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative. 6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative. 7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus. Claimed individual: Peter. No mention of Paul. Heard that there was a writing with Peter as a source. Not familiar with it though. Not aware of any Gospel. Refers to individual historical Disciples of Jesus. First mention of an individual "Mark". First mention that Peter was behind written documentation of Jesus. Does not give a clear chain of identified witness going back to Jesus. At this point than, c. 125, claim of Historical source has developed to the Assertian that there was a written documentation of Jesus with Mark as an original source, who had Peter as a source. 1) Is Peter mentioned? Yes. 2) Is he a claimed authority? Yes 3) What is the nature of his authority? Implication that Peter was a historical disciple of Jesus. 4) Is he the most important authority? Yes 5) Was he a witness to HJ? Yes 6) Did he document his witness to HJ? Yes 7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified? Sort of. Wrote what he remembered about Peter's teaching's of what Jesus said and did. We have the clear split here between claims of Historical vs. Revelation as sources of Jesus information. Note that once Christianity converts to the historical claim here, Paul is exorcised as a source (Papias never mentions Paul). The development of Impossible Jesus must be as follows: 1) Creation of Impossible Jesus = Impossible for historical witness to create. Must be created by revelation. 2) Transition from claimed source of revelation to historical. Must wait until historical witness is not able to dispute = 2 generations = 80 years: 1) Paul creates Impossible Jesus from revelation c. 50 Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
||
|
|
|
02-10-2009, 10:20 PM
|
#77 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 11
|
It's difficult to imagine that Papias could have been more wrong. And, even though there's probably no way to prove it, it sounds to me as though Papias was referring to a different document. Then, later, others mistakenly took what we now refer to as Mark as the document referred to by Papias.
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 07:16 AM
|
#78 | |||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
Quote:
Clarification here. Papias is not "wrong" (I think you know that). As you say, it was subsequent Christianity that mistook what Papias wrote as referring to "Mark". SC (subsequent Christianity) did not find the history in what Papias wrote, SC "created " history out of what Papias wrote. The Tail Wagging the Dogma. I need to add to the above list of reasons why Papias did not refer to "Mark" that SC can not quote any reference to "Mark's" narrative in Papias while confessing to us that Papias was a prolific compiler of all things Jesus. The inescapable conclusion is that "Mark" did not exist at the time. Note that at this point in the Timelion Christianity is transitioning from Revelation claim to Historical claim for source. Papias is clearly all historical. He wants historical sources for Jesus and has no interest in Revelation sources such as Paul. Acts has not been written at the time so Paul's revelation has not yet been reconciled with Peter's supposed history. We see here the gradual development of SC claim of sources. Subsequent authors interpret based on what the predecessor wrote. Papias documents that Peter was the source for a writing, because that's what he wants, but he can not identify what it is and is unfamiliar with the details (he's never seen it and doesn't know anyone who has). Papias lays the groundwork for a later author to claim that something not written in Papias' time is what Papias was referring to. It's also clear that Papias never refers to "Luke" and "John", probably because they have not been written yet. They haven't been written yet because "Mark" has not been written yet. "Mark" may have been a reaction to the increasing historical claim of Peter as a source at the time that Peter was a historical witness of Jesus but did not understand Jesus. Understanding of Jesus came from a non-historical source, revelation, which reconciles with Paul. This agrees with Marcion, the first identified user of a Canonical Gospel, that Peter was a historical witness of Jesus but did not understand Jesus. Understanding of Jesus came from revelation in general and specifically from Paul. It's possible that the entire basic Jesus' narrative is coming from Paul. Paul has an implication that Cephas was a historical witness. When Christianity transitioned from revelation based to supposed historical based, the assertian that Peter/Cephas was the historical source may have come from Paul's writings rather than the historical Peter/Cephas. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
|||
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 09:36 AM
|
#79 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 10:58 AM
|
#80 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
