FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-20-2008, 07:03 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

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

Quote:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus [This is one of the authentic ones?]
...
Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

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

Quote:
Chapter 9. Reference to the history of Christ

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.
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
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 07:46 AM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Ignatius's "authentic" letters probably contain a certain amount of orthodox interpolations. The passages above look a bit suspicious.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 08:46 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Revelation Paul wrote that he was aware that Peter was preaching the gospel,

AFAIK he talks about "Cephas", who was later interpreted as the "Peter a direct disciple of Jesus" in Acts and the gospels.
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 10:47 AM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Revelation Paul wrote that he was aware that Peter was preaching the gospel,

AFAIK he talks about "Cephas", who was later interpreted as the "Peter a direct disciple of Jesus" in Acts and the gospels.
Just take a look at Galations, this Paul wrote about Peter and the preaching of the gospel.

Galations 1.18
Quote:
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see PETER and abode with him fifteen days.
Galations 2.7-8
Quote:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of circumcision was unto PETER; for He had wrought effectually in PETER to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 11:30 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:


AFAIK he talks about "Cephas", who was later interpreted as the "Peter a direct disciple of Jesus" in Acts and the gospels.
Just take a look at Galations, this Paul wrote about Peter and the preaching of the gospel.

Galations 1.18
Which is:

Quote:
epeita meta tria eth anhlqon eiV ierosoluma istorhsai khfan kai epemeina proV auton hmeraV dekapente

Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to ask after Cephas (mod.English: Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days.
So no Peter here, but someone called "Cephas" who may or may not be "St Peter" we all know and love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Galations 2.7-8
Quote:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of circumcision was unto PETER; for He had wrought effectually in PETER to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
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 )
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 11:53 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
But: "Peter" is very rare in "Paul" generally, it's mostly "Cephas".
Peter appears only in Galatians 2.7-8, which has accordingly been argued to be an interpolation.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 12:28 PM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
But: "Peter" is very rare in "Paul" generally, it's mostly "Cephas".
Peter appears only in Galatians 2.7-8, which has accordingly been argued to be an interpolation.

Ben.
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
Quote:
And he (Andrew) brought him (Simon Peter) to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shalt be called CEPHAS.
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 is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 12:55 PM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

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

Galations 1.18
Which is:



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

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Galations 2.7-8
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).
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 04:13 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

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.
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.
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 04:50 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

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.
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.
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.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.