Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 02-14-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Rather, they are propaganda pieces with the thinnest veneer of ostensible excuse, occasioned by a political need at the time of actual construction. Vague reference in this case is made to some kind of big-time conflict at Corinth. But the "letter" doesn't even get around to addressing the supposed point until book 44. Even then, not a word about the nature of the conflict. That is preposterous given that conflict arises over doctrine. How can we buy into this spurious piece when there is zero doctrinal discussion of the conflict?

I see no particular evidence that the conflict is over doctrine. It may simply be over whether or not church leaders can be deposed and replaced, without any allegation of wrongdoing but simply because they are perceived as out of touch with their congregation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

As I have alluded to earlier, one cannot be precise when initially fabricating a story close to the purported date of composition. It is too easily debunked. Later writers can come along with characters of legend and myth to perform some verisimilitude surgery.

On the whole the fact that a letter alludes without a detailed Info-Dump to matters that the recipients would have known perfectly well tends to support the idea that it is a genuine letter to real people.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 02-14-2005, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Generally, I am pretty well convinced that anything that mentions Rome and Christianity comes from the Third Century at the earliest. Anything that mentions the two before then is most likely a forgery or intepolation.

Well, I'm in general agreement. If you dismiss Ignatius as a later second century forgery, as Bernard Muller does so well, and see 1 Clem as a second century forgery as well, all the "evidence" for Peter's death in Rome dates from more than a century after the alleged event.

Muller also has some observations that bear on the Peter & Paul in Rome:

On the graves/bodies of the martyred P&P

"[circa.210! Why were they not found or reported before? Tertullian lived for years (circa.180) in Rome but did not say he saw these tombs himself!]"

and later:

"b) The existence of the early bishops is uncorroborated by '1Clement' (80-81) & 'Polycarp to the Philippians' (circa.135). And the Ignatian epistle 'to the Romans' (circa.135) ignores any bishop there."

As an aside, I'm in the process of going over Muller's website and reviewing it. You know, I've argued with him a lot, and then I found out when I when I read him closely that I agreed with him most of the time. A sharp and original thinker he is.

Looks like Phil has vanished from Infidels. I guess we gave him too big a headache.

Vorkosigan

Mathetes · 02-14-2005, 12:22 PM

As far as I know, 1 Clement doesn't say anywhere that Peter and Paul were martyred. It says that they "gave testimony" before dying. Nowhere it says that they died a violent death. Claiming otherwise is not knowing Greek.

Even if it did, we can get an idea of how reliable Clement's sources are from paragraph 25, which contains these insightful ornithological observations:

Quote:

Let us consider the marvellous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia. There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fulness of time it entereth, and so it dieth. But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun; and in the day time in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return. So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.

Do we have any reason to believe that his report of the "works and labours" or Peter and Paul is any more reliable than this naturalistic observations of the Arabian fauna?

Toto · 02-14-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

...

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

When 1 Clement was written is a matter of dispute. The end of the first century is the usual date. It is not said where Peter met his death. Paul's death is placed in Rome.

...
Vorkosigan

Earl Doherty has published this on the JM list (with the intent that it be reprinted here):

Quote:

Commenting on this passage/quote, [Vorkosigan] says: "Paul's death is placed in Rome."

Well, I'm afraid it isn't. I have no idea where the CE got the words "among us (en hemin)", but they are not in the Greek text, at least not the one used by the Loeb Classical Library edition. While there are a number of manuscripts extant, the Loeb commentator (Kirsopp Lake) says that "there is very little range of variation, and the readings which are in serious doubt are few, and, as a rule, unimportant." While he gives quite a number of these minor variants in footnotes, there is nothing appended to chapter v relating to an "en hemin". None of the three translations I possess reflect any such phrase, and the CE's "suffered martyrdom" is also misleading, as the verb "martureo" can simply mean "give witness to" in reference to declaring or preaching their faith, which is the way my two modern translations (Lake and Staniforth) take it. The 19th century Ante-Nicene Fathers (I, p.6)prefers the martyrdom sense, but acknowledges that other translators opt for the witness meaning.

(The CE also claims that the use of the phrase "en hemin" in chapter lv similarly refers to a Rome location, but the entire sense of that chapter does not bear out such an interpretation. It's pretty clear that the writer is talking about Christians in general who have sacrificed themselves for the benefit of others, not Christians living specifically in Rome. It's also pretty clear that the CE's "undoubtedly" conclusion about a Neronian persecution as the venue of Peter and Paul's martyrdom is completely self-serving.)

It is this sort of thing which creates wrong impressions, passed along unchecked, which are in turn used to make arguments for positions which are, as I've tried to point out on this particular subject, unfounded. . . .

Best wishes,
Earl Doherty

Chili · 02-14-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

Even if it did, we can get an idea of how reliable Clement's sources are from paragraph 25, which contains these insightful ornithological observations:

Do we have any reason to believe that his report of the "works and labours" or Peter and Paul is any more reliable than this naturalistic observations of the Arabian fauna?

Good enought for me and I love it! It is a great story and ever so true (?).

rlogan · 02-14-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I see no particular evidence that the conflict is over doctrine. It may simply be over whether or not church leaders can be deposed and replaced, without any allegation of wrongdoing but simply because they are perceived as out of touch with their congregation.

Hi Andrew. Churches are institutions of doctrine. There is nothing else for them to argue about. Deposing leaders is also a matter of doctrine, apart from the underlying issues about why anyone would go so far as to depose a leader.

You've struggled here to pooh-pooh the doctrinal gravity of the situation by saying that the leaders might be "out of touch" with the congregation. But in the first place, what the heck is that supposed to mean, exactly, in light of the text in question:

Quote:

1. By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.

1) The matters of dispute are in addition to the sedition.

2) The situation is one of madness and is reviled - not some ho-hum affair.

The author of this pseudo-letter has betrayed himself by claiming there are grave disputes underlying a revolt against the church leadership without one word about the nature of those disputes. Now about this:

Quote:

On the whole the fact that a letter alludes without a detailed Info-Dump to matters that the recipients would have known perfectly well tends to support the idea that it is a genuine letter to real people.

On the contrary, Andrew. There is a detailed info-dump. But it is upon everything except the purported conflicts underlying the schizm. It is beyond absurd. All kinds of things like the women doing right, how pious they were, blah blah blah. Pages of examples exhorting them to endure hardship and not be jealous.

Why is there no statement about what grave conflicts have come to his attention instead of all this smoke and bluster? Such a huge waste of iron age bandwidth. Why are all of the examples they are supposed to learn from so nebulous if there is actually a dispute over something? Is the leadership always right, even if they are butt-humping the choir girls? How can he be sure he is even addressing what the disputes are until they are set forth correctly?

How can we be so selective with this excuse and say it applies to the matters underlying the conflicts - but on the other hand the dispute over leadership will instead be addressed specifically? You can't have it both ways.

All that we can draw from this pseudo-letter is a falsity to begin with:

Quote:

44. And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons

These guys are so lame. There are misquotes of HB passages in this forgery too. Deception deception deception.

haw! The Corinthians were probably the last people to see such a pseudo-letter. It would be shown to others as a means of supporting the office of Bishop and Rome's authority.

PhilVaz · 02-14-2005, 06:41 PM

Yes, I'm still here, barely. :wave:

Vork << Since I have never explored this topic, I decided to have a look into the arguments for a Roman martyrdom of Peter and Paul. I don't have any strong opinion about this topic, so I thought it might be fun. >>

All right, let's take a look. You ended with:

Vork << I have no great problem with the idea that P & P were martyred in Rome. I just don't see any strong reason to commit to that point, however. >>

Here is the stuff I dug up about 10 years ago on the subject. The Catholic Encyclopedia btw was published between 1909 and 1913, although it is still a good source on many topics, it is dated. Did you mention something about "mainstream" and "modern" scholars? How about JND Kelly of Oxford? Mainstream enough for you?

KELLY: "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome." -- JND Kelly, THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POPES (Oxford Univ Press, 1988), p. 6

Or these guys?

SHOTWELL/LOOMIS : "The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on." -- THE SEE OF PETER (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59

OK, some conservative guys:

NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY: "In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire. By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome...The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)." -- NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY (Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham

Harnack, definitely more liberal:

HARNACK: "...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice." -- Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63

Bruce, another conservative:

BRUCE: "That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject....That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...." -- NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410

Lutheran Cullmann's study on Peter, moderate scholar:

CULLMANN: "It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a FACT which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however, with the self-evident caution that we have to use concerning many other facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large proportion of their contents." -- PETER : Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (1962) by Oscar Cullmann, p. 114

Another historian and moderate I think:

LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document." -- PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404

Pelikan, convert to Orthodoxy, author of many books on Church history:

PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism." -- THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37

And another big study on Peter I found:

O'CONNOR: "The almost complete silence of the New Testament, and in particular the silence of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Book of Acts, is NOT decisive evidence for or against the theory of a Roman residence of Peter. On the other hand, 1 Peter 5:13 IS plausibly interpreted as testifying to a Roman residence of the apostle...it does seem highly probable that Peter did visit Rome. As has been stated previously, the tradition is too old and too unchallenged in antiquity to be challenged with any force in the present...if the suggestions and implications which are drawn from certain of these early notices are studied with those of the later sources, there results a most persistent tradition which sets the martyrdom of Peter in Rome within the reign of Nero (most probably between A.D. 64 and 67)."

"In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: (1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. (2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. (3) He was remembered in the traditions of the Church and in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. (4) His body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later...came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave." -- PETER IN ROME : The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (Columbia University Press, 1969), by Daniel Wm O'Connor, p. 207-209

So I guess I can take Vork's opinion that most or all of the evidence is "worthless," or these scholars who say it is good evidence, and at least very probable or (according to some) certain that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The citations are accurate, I found them myself from USF library many years ago.

Phil P

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-14-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

KELLY: "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome." -- JND Kelly, THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POPES (Oxford Univ Press, 1988), p. 6

I'll stick to this one quote since all of your other citations are just reiterations of these same basic points.

1. It makes no difference where 1 Peter was written because 1 Peter was not written by Peter. It probably was written in Rome, but it's a pseudonymous letter from the 90's CE.

2. There is no case whatsoever for linking Peter with the author of Mark. That's a complete non-starter as an attempt to link Peter to Rome. The fable of Mark as a secretary to Peter is the purest 2nd century folklore.

3. The rest is just appeals to patristic tradition which really an appeal to Clement who (as Vork has noted) is worthless.

I realize that Vork made all of these points in his OP but since Phil seems to have missed them I thought I'd make them again.

PhilosopherJay · 02-14-2005, 07:46 PM

Hi Phil,

There is no serious evidence whatsoever that the character in the canonical gospel stories named Peter ever existed let alone any evidence that he traveled to Rome and founded a Church. If certain past scholars have stated or concluded that it is a fact then we may suggest that they have followed a certain type of institutionalized group thinking. In theological academies, one generation of scholars vigorously test the next generation to be sure that they will pass on their own prejudices and cherished beliefs.

The term "Babylon" as a reference to Rome was well known and any Christian who forged or reedited the 1st Epistle of Peter from the second to the fourth century could have used it. While we may agree with the scholars who say this is the strongest piece of evidence for Peter being in Rome, we may also note that this is no evidence at all.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

Yes, I'm still here, barely. :wave:

Vork << Since I have never explored this topic, I decided to have a look into the arguments for a Roman martyrdom of Peter and Paul. I don't have any strong opinion about this topic, so I thought it might be fun. >>

All right, let's take a look. You ended with:

Vork << I have no great problem with the idea that P & P were martyred in Rome. I just don't see any strong reason to commit to that point, however. >>

Here is the stuff I dug up about 10 years ago on the subject. The Catholic Encyclopedia btw was published between 1909 and 1913, although it is still a good source on many topics, it is dated. Did you mention something about "mainstream" and "modern" scholars? How about JND Kelly of Oxford? Mainstream enough for you?
{snip}

So I guess I can take Vork's opinion that most or all of the evidence is "worthless," or these scholars who say it is good evidence, and at least very probable or (according to some) certain that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The citations are accurate, I found them myself from USF library many years ago.

Phil P

PhilVaz · 02-14-2005, 08:25 PM

PhilosJay << There is no serious evidence whatsoever that the character in the canonical gospel stories named Peter ever existed let alone any evidence that he traveled to Rome and founded a Church. >>

Yes, I understand that it is your opinion that Peter didn't exist. Well course, I guess a non-existent person couldn't have died in Rome either. I get it.

Now why is it that the scholars and historians who represent the most "mainstream" and "modern" scholarly opinion on this subject (I've quoted them: Kelly, Harnack, Guthrie, Cullmann, Bruce, Pelikan, OConnor, et al) say you are dead wrong? Who should I believe, you or them?

The skepticism in here is too much for me. If this evidence is all "worthless" why doesn't Kelly, Harnack, Guthrie, Cullmann, Bruce, Pelikan, OConnor, et al, know this? Are they unlearned? (Hint: that would be a big No). Have they not studied the sources? (Hint: that would also be a big No). If it really is "worthless," why don't they say flat out "it is worthless." They do not.

Aside from your personal skepticism of everything in the early Church, what is your evidence that "Peter never existed" and that Peter (and Paul) didn't end up in Rome, when all the evidence we have from the early Church says they did? :down: Stick to that point which is the topic of the thread.

I am re-reading Blomberg's book Historical Reliability of the Gospels and will get to Doherty, Price, and the other Infidels.org articles as well. I am interested if you guys really do have good evidence backing up what you say.

Phil P

02-14-2005, 06:41 PM	#17
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	more views on Peter and Paul Yes, I'm still here, barely. :wave: Vork << Since I have never explored this topic, I decided to have a look into the arguments for a Roman martyrdom of Peter and Paul. I don't have any strong opinion about this topic, so I thought it might be fun. >> All right, let's take a look. You ended with: Vork << I have no great problem with the idea that P & P were martyred in Rome. I just don't see any strong reason to commit to that point, however. >> Here is the stuff I dug up about 10 years ago on the subject. The Catholic Encyclopedia btw was published between 1909 and 1913, although it is still a good source on many topics, it is dated. Did you mention something about "mainstream" and "modern" scholars? How about JND Kelly of Oxford? Mainstream enough for you? KELLY: "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome." -- JND Kelly, THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POPES (Oxford Univ Press, 1988), p. 6 Or these guys? SHOTWELL/LOOMIS : "The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on." -- THE SEE OF PETER (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59 OK, some conservative guys: NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY: "In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire. By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome...The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)." -- NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY (Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham Harnack, definitely more liberal: HARNACK: "...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice." -- Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63 Bruce, another conservative: BRUCE: "That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject....That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...." -- NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410 Lutheran Cullmann's study on Peter, moderate scholar: CULLMANN: "It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a FACT which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however, with the self-evident caution that we have to use concerning many other facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large proportion of their contents." -- PETER : Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (1962) by Oscar Cullmann, p. 114 Another historian and moderate I think: LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document." -- PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404 Pelikan, convert to Orthodoxy, author of many books on Church history: PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism." -- THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37 And another big study on Peter I found: O'CONNOR: "The almost complete silence of the New Testament, and in particular the silence of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Book of Acts, is NOT decisive evidence for or against the theory of a Roman residence of Peter. On the other hand, 1 Peter 5:13 IS plausibly interpreted as testifying to a Roman residence of the apostle...it does seem highly probable that Peter did visit Rome. As has been stated previously, the tradition is too old and too unchallenged in antiquity to be challenged with any force in the present...if the suggestions and implications which are drawn from certain of these early notices are studied with those of the later sources, there results a most persistent tradition which sets the martyrdom of Peter in Rome within the reign of Nero (most probably between A.D. 64 and 67)." "In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: (1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. (2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. (3) He was remembered in the traditions of the Church and in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. (4) His body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later...came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave." -- PETER IN ROME : The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (Columbia University Press, 1969), by Daniel Wm O'Connor, p. 207-209 So I guess I can take Vork's opinion that most or all of the evidence is "worthless," or these scholars who say it is good evidence, and at least very probable or (according to some) certain that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The citations are accurate, I found them myself from USF library many years ago. Phil P

02-14-2005, 08:25 PM	#20
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	Peter didn't exist huh? PhilosJay << There is no serious evidence whatsoever that the character in the canonical gospel stories named Peter ever existed let alone any evidence that he traveled to Rome and founded a Church. >> Yes, I understand that it is your opinion that Peter didn't exist. Well course, I guess a non-existent person couldn't have died in Rome either. I get it. Now why is it that the scholars and historians who represent the most "mainstream" and "modern" scholarly opinion on this subject (I've quoted them: Kelly, Harnack, Guthrie, Cullmann, Bruce, Pelikan, OConnor, et al) say you are dead wrong? Who should I believe, you or them? The skepticism in here is too much for me. If this evidence is all "worthless" why doesn't Kelly, Harnack, Guthrie, Cullmann, Bruce, Pelikan, OConnor, et al, know this? Are they unlearned? (Hint: that would be a big No). Have they not studied the sources? (Hint: that would also be a big No). If it really is "worthless," why don't they say flat out "it is worthless." They do not. Aside from your personal skepticism of everything in the early Church, what is your evidence that "Peter never existed" and that Peter (and Paul) didn't end up in Rome, when all the evidence we have from the early Church says they did? :down: Stick to that point which is the topic of the thread. I am re-reading Blomberg's book Historical Reliability of the Gospels and will get to Doherty, Price, and the other Infidels.org articles as well. I am interested if you guys really do have good evidence backing up what you say. Phil P

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.