JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

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


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.



Joseph

Toto

Ignatius's "authentic" letters probably contain a certain amount of orthodox interpolations. The passages above look a bit suspicious.

gurugeorge

AFAIK he talks about "Cephas", who was later interpreted as the "Peter a direct disciple of Jesus" in Acts and the gospels.

aa5874

Just take a look at Galations, this Paul wrote about Peter and the preaching of the gospel.

Galations 1.18 Galations 2.7-8

gurugeorge

Which is:

So no Peter here, but someone called "Cephas" who may or may not be "St Peter" we all know and love.

Yes there's a Peter in this passage. But: "Peter" is very rare in "Paul" generally, it's mostly "Cephas". There's a nice discussion of this subject in the archives here. What I was referring to was the idea that Cephas and Peter were either two different people or one figure morphed into another (in e.g. Mark).

(Dunno. But anyway, note: no implication of any guy eyeballed by this Cephas or Peter - in fact, "Paul" seems to be putting their apostleship on a footing - both "the work of the Lord", in seemingly the same sense, only one is moved to preach to the gentiles while the other is moved to preach to the circumscised. But let's keep our battle to the other thread )

Ben C Smith

Peter appears only in Galatians 2.7-8, which has accordingly been argued to be an interpolation.

Ben.

aa5874

Cephas is also very rare in "Paul", and even Paul and Cephas can be argued to be interpolations or forgeries.

Cephas is found only 5 times in the all epistles, exactly the same as Peter. Cephas is found 4 times in 1 Corinthians and once in Galations.

Now PETER is found 156 times, and CEPHAS only 6 times in the entire NT.

Now, it is vey significant to note that the single mention of Cephas in the Gospels, the author of John claimed that Jesus re-named Simon Peter and called him Cephas.

John 1.42 This may be an indication that the letter writers called Paul wrote after the gospel called John.

And it would appear that the epistles called Paul are a package of forgeries and interpolations.

aa5874

But you just destroyed your own argument. The Greek word for "stone" is being translated to either Peter or Cephas.

Cephas and Peter would then be regarded as the same person, which would coincide with John 1.42.

gurugeorge

Except that there are lists of names in some important letter somewhere (forget the one) that have both Peter and Cephas, so we can't be too sure of that - check the thread.

aa5874

Now, if Peter was also called Cephas, one might find both Cephas and Peter in the same letter. You will find Peter and Cephas in John 1. You find Jesus and Christ in the letters.You will find Saul and Paul in Acts.