Freethought & Rationalism Archive

capnkirk · 01-30-2004, 05:43 AM

While doing research on the early Xtian 'church' it came to my attention that while Paul's missionary trips were well documented, I have not been able to find ANY documentation of Simon Peter's missionary trips (other than biased testimonials from 'believers'. This absence of any independent data casts serious doubt on whether Peter ever visited Rome, much less was crucified there by Nero.

Since the members of this forum represent the largest and most informed group of independent 'scholars' (on the subject of NT history) that I have ever encountered, I am asking that if any of you HAVE found independent confirmation (like some surviving Roman record or commentary) that Nero actually DID execute Peter, please respond.

Interestingly, Tacitus, in his commentary of the events following Nero's burning (part of) Rome, then blaming the Christians for it, there is no mention of Peter in it. As Peter was such a high official of the Jerusalem Church, and therefore such a prize, the absence of his name is conspicuous.

capnkirk · 01-30-2004, 09:34 AM

Or...if you have tried to find such confirmation AND FAILED, I need to hear from you too!

Toto · 01-30-2004, 10:19 AM

There is little enough documentation of Peter. The Legend of Saint Peter is no longer commercially available, but is worth your while if you are interested in the subject. He makes a good case that the St. Peter reputed to have founded the Church in Rome was a legendary reworking of Mithraic legends. The Peter or Cephas mentioned in Paul's letters may have been a historical person, but the Peter of the gospels is all or mostly legend, and the St Peter who sits in heaven is a version of Mithras.

Quote:

"No doubt: the Christian Peter is nothing but a reduplicated and humanized Persian Petros or Mithra, who got that way into the Gospels. The papal Church is nothing but the immediate continuation or the Christian substitute of the old Petros cult. The Archigallus, the highest priest or pagan Pope of the Mithras-Attis cult corresponds to the highest or archpriest of the entire Catholic Christendom. He had his residence on the Vatican, worshipped the Sun as Saviour and in the Kybele the 'virgin'-Godmother, who would be represented sitting with a baby boy on her lap having the Virgin Mary as her Christian counterpart."

Paul's missionary trips are not exactly "well documented." We have his own letters, which might or might not be trustworthy in details, and we have Acts, which is not a reliable historical source. If you do trust Acts, there is some mention there of Peter, but he never gets to Rome. If you trust Paul's letters, Peter or Cephas was in Jerusalem, and not a traveling missionary at all as far as we know..

Neither Peter nor Paul made an impression on non-Christian historians.

The Evil One · 01-30-2004, 10:21 AM

My guess would be that if any hard evidence for Peter's "career" existed, Christian apologists would make damn sure we knew about it. God knows they make enough fuss about the two pathetic scraps from Josephus that might just possibly refer to Jesus.

Since apologists don't present any such evidence, I provisionally conclude that they don't have any.

capnkirk · 01-30-2004, 11:49 AM

Toto:

Thank you for your input. It confirms what I have learned/deduced, but when attempting to demonstrate that something doesn't exist, one has to go the extra mile to be confident that it hasn't just been overlooked. I will also look for the book you referenced, as my interest in this period is quite broad.

It is my contention that there probably was a historical Jewish messiah names Jesus who had a disciple named Peter and was crucified. That there was a historical Paul who was a pagan gentile (who may have converted to Judaism) but was never a Pharisee, but rather a Sadducee thug who after seeing in Jesus' purported resurrection the personification of the dying/resurrected savior Mithras-Attis of his native Tarsus had a mental breakdown on the Damascus Road where Jesus appeared to him in that context (As such, this event would actually be better described as Jesus' conversion to Paul's Christianity.). When he began to preach this new radical doctrine, he fell afoul of the Jerusalem Church (James, Peter, et al), was tried and expelled.

It is specifically my study of (Paulophile) Luke's portrayal of Peter in Acts (as a man with one foot in Judaism and the other in Christianity) that precipitated my further independent research on Peter. Your response confirms my conclusion that Peter was actually no such thing. Instead, he was in his own mind to be the Prime Minister of Jesus' new earthly kingdom of Israel, and was entirely at loggerheads with Paul and his vision-induced new dispensation. I have even found some evidence that Saul/Paul's real mission to Damascus was to kidnap Peter from sanctuary in independent Damascus and haul him back to the High Priest for trial as a seditionist against the Romans. Certainly 'this' Peter would have had to have been 'reinvented' to have had anything in common with St. Peter.

GakuseiDon · 01-30-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
I have even found some evidence that Saul/Paul's real mission to Damascus was to kidnap Peter from sanctuary in independent Damascus and haul him back to the High Priest for trial as a seditionist against the Romans. Certainly 'this' Peter would have had to have been 'reinvented' to have had anything in common with St. Peter.

That sounds interesting, if not a little incredible. What is the evidence?

Toto · 01-30-2004, 01:44 PM

The search for the Historical Paul - was he ever in Damascus? a thread started by moi.

There is no historical record that King Aretas IV ever had control of Damascus. The story of Paul traveling to Damascus is undoubtedly fiction.

From Qumran and Early Christianity

Quote:

The CD [Damascus Document] also tells of the Essene �camps� in the �land of Damascus�. Scholarly opinions vary as to what �Damascus� refers to. It may possibly have meant Qumran, or it may have meant the whole of Transjordan, but all are agreed that it did not mean the city in the Roman province of Syria. However, armed with the warrant of the High Priest Saul went with a gang of thugs to round up followers of the �Way� in Damascus. (Acts 9:2)

The NT of course here assumes the Syrian city, but we do not have to. No one has ever explained how the authority of the High Priest could possibly extend to a Roman province. Even Murphy-O�Connor concedes that �neither the High Priest nor the Sanhedrin had judicial authority outside the eleven toparchies of Judaea proper�. Nor has anyone explained why such an epic journey was necessary in the first place, simply to round up a few dissidents who were already outside the jurisdiction and out of the hair of the Judaean authorities. When we consider that Acts claims that Judaea itself was teeming with several thousand much easier targets, the matter is all the more bewildering. Murphy-O�Connor does not provide answers, but chooses, rather disloyally, to cast aspersions on Luke�s veracity!

As is well known, Paul was converted to the Way before he could complete his mission. He tells us that he did not go back to Jerusalem afterwards, pace the author of Acts, but went to Arabia, and later returned to Damascus, where he stayed for three years. The circumstantial connection with the three-year noviciate is hard to ignore, and if Qumran was an important Essene �camp�, then Paul�s sojourn there for training makes perfect sense.

capnkirk · 01-30-2004, 01:56 PM

GakuseiDon:

The evidence that Saul was traveling to Damascus to kidnap/arrest Peter, where he had fled following a persecution involving the near-murder of James, was found in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (i. 70 ff.), where the author is quoting material taken from Jewish Christian literature (the Ebionites).

While far from definitive, it reflects that some Ebionites (thought by others to be the remains of the Jerusalem Church after they fled Jerusalem in 68-69 CE) were convinced enough to thus accuse Saul/Paul.

capnkirk · 01-30-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
There is no historical record that King Aretas IV ever had control of Damascus. The story of Paul traveling to Damascus is undoubtedly fiction.

I too have read Qumran and Early Christianity and in general agree with your quote, but must take exception to your reference to Damascus as "the city in the Roman province of Syria". Au contraire, there is such historical record; to wit:

Aretas was the dynastic name of the Nabataean kings of Petra. The best-known Aretas was Aretas IV, 9 BCE-49 CE, ruler of S Palestine, most of Jordan, N Arabia, and Damascus. His daughter was married to Herod Antipas, who put her away in favor of Herodias. Aretas attacked (36 CE) Antipas and defeated him, but Rome took Antipas' part. Tiberius' death (37 CE) saved Aretas from the Roman army as his successor Caligula ceded Damascus and parts of the Trans-Jordan that same year.

Since Aretas IV's reign ended in 40 CE, this leaves just a three year window where Aretas IV ruled an independent Damascus, and narrows the timeframe for Saul's alleged trip substantially, but does not rule it out.

Toto · 01-30-2004, 02:38 PM

Pseudo Clementine Recognitions

From that site:

Quote:

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the class. The T�bingen school, finding here a real specimen of the influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature, naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of the origin of the Gospels.

What is your basis for treating this as history? (There may well be one, but it is not obvious.)

On Aretas IV:

From Doig New Testament Chronology

Quote:

Ethnarch is often translated "governor," implying that Aretas IV had some control over Damascus. Aretas IV, the Nabataean king, began his reign in Petra in about 9 BCE (Ant. XVI 11:9). His inscriptions and coins cease in his forty-eighth year, making his death in about 39 CE. However, there is no historical record that he ever had control over Damascus, which was long under the control of the Romans. Distinctive Nabataean pottery is virtually unknown north of the Dead Sea. The northern part of the Nabataean kingdom in southern Syria was not reached through the Transjordan, but through the Wadi Sirhan. However, pottery in the area of Damascus was of the same style as late Hellenistic Roman, more characteristic of Israel than Nabataea. The "ethnarch" may only have been the leader of the Nabataean colony in Damascus. The lack of confirmation during this period seems to rule out the possibility that Aretas did gain military control, or possibly was given control by the Romans.

. . .

There is a lack of specific proof to satisfy the Scriptures and fit into a chronology. Therefore, other suggestions have been previously made to establish the presence of a Nabataean ethnarch in Damascus:

. . .

4. The Roman government granted Aretas control of Damascus in about 37.[5] Under Tiberius (14-37 CE) the official policy for the eastern frontier was to encourage regularly organized provinces such as Syria, as opposed to client kingdoms such the Nabataea. In 36 Tiberius favored Herod Antipas over Aretas in a border conflict. The Syrian governor Vitellius and two legions were sent against Aretas in about May of 37.[6] They went by ship to Ptolemais and crossed through lower Galilee on the way to Petra. If Aretas had controlled Damascus at that time the Romans would likely have proceeded against it first. However, seizing the Nabataean capitol might have produced a better advantage, ending in the eventual surrender of Damascus. Whatever the Roman strategy, the attack was called off with the news of the death of Tiberius on March 16, 37. With the new emperor, Gaius (37-41 CE), the colonial policy was reversed, with a favoring of client kingdoms. Recorded are the granting of independence to Commagene in 37 and the area of Iturea in 38; in 37 and 39 Agrippa II received increases in his territory in Transjordan. Unrecorded is the granting of control of Damascus to Aretas IV, or anyone else. However, this position presumes that in about mid 37 Gaius gave control of Damascus to the former enemy of Rome, Aretas IV. It has been suggested that Gaius owed Aretas a favor. This position attempts to limit the possible departure of Paul from Damascus in mid 37 to 39, but this is only speculation with no supporting evidence. There is yet no evidence of Nabataean coins or pottery from that period.

{emphasis added}

01-30-2004, 05:43 AM	#1
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Simon Peter While doing research on the early Xtian 'church' it came to my attention that while Paul's missionary trips were well documented, I have not been able to find ANY documentation of Simon Peter's missionary trips (other than biased testimonials from 'believers'. This absence of any independent data casts serious doubt on whether Peter ever visited Rome, much less was crucified there by Nero. Since the members of this forum represent the largest and most informed group of independent 'scholars' (on the subject of NT history) that I have ever encountered, I am asking that if any of you HAVE found independent confirmation (like some surviving Roman record or commentary) that Nero actually DID execute Peter, please respond. Interestingly, Tacitus, in his commentary of the events following Nero's burning (part of) Rome, then blaming the Christians for it, there is no mention of Peter in it. As Peter was such a high official of the Jerusalem Church, and therefore such a prize, the absence of his name is conspicuous.

01-30-2004, 11:49 AM	#5
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Thank you Toto: Thank you for your input. It confirms what I have learned/deduced, but when attempting to demonstrate that something doesn't exist, one has to go the extra mile to be confident that it hasn't just been overlooked. I will also look for the book you referenced, as my interest in this period is quite broad. It is my contention that there probably was a historical Jewish messiah names Jesus who had a disciple named Peter and was crucified. That there was a historical Paul who was a pagan gentile (who may have converted to Judaism) but was never a Pharisee, but rather a Sadducee thug who after seeing in Jesus' purported resurrection the personification of the dying/resurrected savior Mithras-Attis of his native Tarsus had a mental breakdown on the Damascus Road where Jesus appeared to him in that context (As such, this event would actually be better described as Jesus' conversion to Paul's Christianity.). When he began to preach this new radical doctrine, he fell afoul of the Jerusalem Church (James, Peter, et al), was tried and expelled. It is specifically my study of (Paulophile) Luke's portrayal of Peter in Acts (as a man with one foot in Judaism and the other in Christianity) that precipitated my further independent research on Peter. Your response confirms my conclusion that Peter was actually no such thing. Instead, he was in his own mind to be the Prime Minister of Jesus' new earthly kingdom of Israel, and was entirely at loggerheads with Paul and his vision-induced new dispensation. I have even found some evidence that Saul/Paul's real mission to Damascus was to kidnap Peter from sanctuary in independent Damascus and haul him back to the High Priest for trial as a seditionist against the Romans. Certainly 'this' Peter would have had to have been 'reinvented' to have had anything in common with St. Peter.

01-30-2004, 01:56 PM	#8
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	The Evidence... GakuseiDon: The evidence that Saul was traveling to Damascus to kidnap/arrest Peter, where he had fled following a persecution involving the near-murder of James, was found in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (i. 70 ff.), where the author is quoting material taken from Jewish Christian literature (the Ebionites). While far from definitive, it reflects that some Ebionites (thought by others to be the remains of the Jerusalem Church after they fled Jerusalem in 68-69 CE) were convinced enough to thus accuse Saul/Paul.

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

01-30-2004, 09:34 AM	#2
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Or...if you have tried to find such confirmation AND FAILED, I need to hear from you too!

01-30-2004, 10:21 AM	#4
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	My guess would be that if any hard evidence for Peter's "career" existed, Christian apologists would make damn sure we knew about it. God knows they make enough fuss about the two pathetic scraps from Josephus that might just possibly refer to Jesus. Since apologists don't present any such evidence, I provisionally conclude that they don't have any.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.