stephan huller

I have always puzzled about the way Acts ends with Paul appearing in Rome alone with no mention of Peter and Peter basically disappearing in the text. The Roman tradition already at the time of Irenaeus was that of Peter and Paul appearing together in Rome and the concordia apostolorum occurring there rather than at Antioch. This is a separate tradition from Acts and probably older. All of which makes me wonder about the sudden introduction of Timothy with the spurious Pastoral epistles. Could it be that 'Timothy' was invented to disguise the original pairing of Peter and Paul?

I know many atheists at this forum are driven to simply disprove ever belief of Christianity. But I some times think this approach is stupid, like the guy who finally gets a chance with the girl he has longed for all his life and then is only concerned with satisfying himself. The truth is the gift which keeps giving. Make the truth happy and you can keep coming back for more.

To this end, instead of simply 'disproving' Acts which I think we all know is pretty much bullshit, it might be better to figure out what it was trying to obscure. The simple answer is of course Marcionitism. It's probably also the right answer but we don't have a road map for what Marcionitism is so that's almost useless again.

Our only hope as far as I see it is the fact that we have pre-existent traditions at Rome and Alexandria which are ignored or obscured by Acts. The first of course is the idea that Peter and Paul preached together as a pair in Rome. The second that Peter and Mark formed a pair and Mark went off to Alexandria to found a not entirely separate tradition there.

Of course I already see a Paul = Mark formula emerging. Yet for the sake of this exercise I will not talk about. Instead I wonder if the same author or same tradition which was responsible for creating Luke-Acts also wrote the Pastorals and thus introduced 'Timothy' the companion of Paul as a way of obscuring Peter's relationship with Paul as his 'partner.'

Under this scenario 'Timothy' was a title rather a name developed from τιμάω which means to honour or to set a price. The name means 'honoring God' and it is a pre-Christian name. A famous musician was named Timotheos of Miletus whose writings have survived and is mentioned in Aristotle.

Yet the act of honoring God shows up outside of the synoptics in an ignored passage from John:

The material can clearly be read as foreshadowing the raising of Lazarus. Thus it could be argued that the one 'honored by God' is Lazarus. But I have always been convinced that Secret Mark is legitimate and that the youth in the narrative is Peter (as Clement says that Peter was baptized by Jesus in an unknown and lost passage in his gospel).

More to follow but I think there is something here. In other words, the author(s) of Luke, Acts and the Pastorals aren't just 'making up shit' but obscuring the original relationship of Peter and Paul as an inseparable or indominable pair. This heretical idea hasn't even been considered because many of you are simply raping the tradition.

stephan huller

Oh I forgot to mention the other bit. τιμάω is used in the LXX to translate kabad in the Hebrew text which is the root of the term 'glory' in the Exodus narrative - you know the term to describe Jesus leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Timothy = the glory Lord of the Pauline letters.

Of course a case could be made that Jesus was Paul's syzygos but that misses the point of the ancient Christian interest in developing human 'yoke-fellows' where one person was the embodiment of Christ.

Oops, I've probably already lost my audience.

stephan huller

Interesting also is the fact that when Exodus in the English translation that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, the Hebrew uses the same word kabed. In other words, his heart was made heavy. Odd, that there is a 'glory' in the sky and a 'heaviness' that affects the heart of Pharaoh. Clearly this is related. I should look into this.

Also the word for 'yoke' in Hebrew is related or make heavy. 1 Kings 12:10,14 2Chronicles 10:10,14; Isaiah 47:6 elliptical with עַל Nehemiah 5:15; a chain Lamentations 3:7; pledges, with עַל Habakkuk 2:6.

sotto voce

By the time of Irenaeus, the imperial administration had discovered two things. One was that Christianity was incompatible with its smooth running, even its existence; the other was that it wasn't going to go away, not by persecution, open or clandestine. It was therefore vital to establish in the popular mind an association of Peter with the capital. This was because Peter could be said, with gargantuan leaps of the imagination, via Mt 16:18, to have been the monarch of the Christians; and monarchy of Christians was by far the best way, and probably the only way, to keep them under control. Or rather, apparently under control, because, as we know, no Christian could regard the concept of a Christian papacy as other than almost a contradiction in terms. So the empire fostered its own bastard church, pretending it was Christian, when it was actually the same old Roman religion, with just the nomenclature adjusted.

sotto voce

It's not at all difficult. When someone takes something too seriously, we say, "He came on a bit heavy." Or, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother." But we also respect the 'heavyweights' of an organisation or movement, and dismiss 'lightweights'.

And of course, a heavy object is unresponsive, which is the application in the case of the Pharaoh.

Toto

Why do you think it is older?

The idea that the author or final editor of Luke Acts also wrote the Pastorals is familiar (E.g. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. But this essay notes some differences - Acts tends to downplay Paul's status as an apostle, while in the Pastorals he is clearly in charge.)

It's an interesting idea, but why do you see the Peter-Paul relationship as early rather than later?

stephan huller

Because of Irenaeus's curious reference to it in Book Three. There is a single apostolic succession but it is from Linus (a disciple of Paul) not Peter after a reference to 'Peter and Paul' founding the Roman see. People smooth over the difficulty be noting the same names are used later as 'successors of Peter.' But when Irenaeus uses it is 'Peter and Paul.' The 'Peter and Paul' pairing continues to be used in Rome and has no grounding in Acts or any other canonical source. It is derived from something native to the tradition. There is also the bit about Gaius - a name which doesn't appear in the list of successors of Peter or Irenaeus being identified as a 'bishop of the Gentiles' in a note that Photius preserves. When we notice that Hippolytus opposed the legitimacy of Gaius and Callixtus it would seem we had many bishops in Rome. I think there is a high probability there were two apostolic succession lists. The Alexandrian list probably made up by Eusebius.

sotto voce

Paul was the apostle actually responsible for Rome, the church there being mostly Gentile. Acts tells us that he went there, and had very good reason to do so. For Peter, none of this applies, so Irenaeus is probably trying to rub off some of Paul's kudos onto Peter. He's a liar, anyway, because there was a church in Rome, with several bishops, long before either of these guys got there; and Peter probably never did.

It's very curious that canonical material is discredited without sensible reason, yet egregious garbage, that was anyway never canonised by even its most enthusiastic supporters, is given serious consideration.

stephan huller

But Gaius is reported to have been the bishop of the Gentiles at the time of Zephyrinus. The Liber Pontificalis mentions special rules having been put in place to deal with Jewish converts in late second century.

Also there are countless intimations of two churches and two gospels in Rome. An example is the legend of Praxedes and Pudentiana one associated with Novatus who founds a separate Church into the fifth century.

stephan huller

Also this from Wikipedia:

According to Jacobus de Voragine's The Golden Legend, Praxedes was the sister of Saint Pudentiana; their brothers were Saint Donatus and Saint Timothy. During one of the periods of persecution, they buried the bodies of Christians and distributed goods to the poor. De Voragine's brief account states they died in 165, "in the reign of Emperors Marcus and Antoninus II."[notes 1][1]
Sabine Baring-Gould, in the entry for Saint Novatus, states that the "holy virgin" Praxedes was a daughter of Saint Pudens, sister of Saint Pudentiana, and that her brothers were Saint Novatus and Saint Timothy. Novatus is said to have died in 151.[3]