Cesc

Personally, I lean towards dating the Pauline corpus before the four Gospels.

I dont see any immidiate problems in the synoptics using "Petros" instead of (the possibly original) "Cephas" considering that they did write the whole thing in Greek.

Interesting.


Btw, aren't there theories that give the Johannine writings priority? Is there some obvious simple reason that this note is ridiculous? Why couldn't gMark "depend" on gJohn? But thats another off-topic question, of course.

aa5874

'Leaning" has no evidential value. You must mean you are guessing and that you are really not sure when the letter writer wrote his letters.

Just show me where it is clear that a letter from the writer called Paul was written before any Synoptic.


But, if the author of Mark or Matthew read in a letter or gJohn that "Peter" was actually called "Cephas" by Jesus then I think it is likely that they would have also wrote about that.

And Acts of the Apostles place Saul/Pau's conversion after Peter was already preaching and converting thousands to Jesus, sometimes thousands in a single day. There is just NO information anywhere that the writer called Paul wrote anything before the Synoptics, even from internal apologetic sources of antiquity.

lycanthrope

come to think of it, why is it that scholars say that the gospel of mark was the first gospel in circulation predating the other 3 gospels?

Cesc

"Guessing" is perhaps the wrong word, but obviously I'm not really sure of anything like everyone else. But from what I've learned so far, there are various things that point to the Pauline corpus pre-dating the Gospels instead of the other way around. Thats a lengthy discussion though, and I'm not sure what the truth is or whether I'd change my current postition after studying the case in details. I'll get there some day, but right now I'm not in a position to dispute you, which I actually dont.

I think it would depend. On who the intended audiences were. On whether there was some sort of known "Cephas/rock/cornerstone" tradition connected to this figure already early on in some circles. On whether the respective Gospel writers knew this or on whether the "Petros" figure was already 'generally' known as "Petros" at the time of the writing of the Gospels. We dont even know who wrote the Gospels or where or when. What if the writer of this or that gospel were part of a community where the character of "Petros" was well-known. How can we rule any of that out.

The more interesting question is, I think, why he's called "Cephas" in the Pauline corpus? That wasn't a common name, was it? And does it even translate directly to "stone/rock" from Aramaic?


I dont see how this makes the case that the Pauline corpus was written after the synoptics?

aa5874

Perhaps, guessing is the right word.
You are not in a position to dispute me right now?

Aren't you really guessing? You are not in a position to know if you are guessing?

It is known that Cephas is not found in the Synoptics. Cephas is found in later writings like gJohn and guess what, the Diatessaron, assumed to be written in 2nd century by Tatian.

The Diatessaron is a complitaion of what appears to be the four gospels and although the word Cephas is not found in the Synoptics, Tatian used the word Cephas in his Diatessaron.

For example where the word Peter is in gLuke 6.14, Tatian has the word Cephas in the Diatessaron section 8.

Anywhere "Cephas" is used instead of 'Peter" may postdate the Synoptics.

Cesc

Perhaps it is the right word, who cares. Perhaps its a "qualified guess". No, I'm not in a position to dispute you as long as I havn't read a lot of scholarly works on the subject and havn't studied the case in detail. But tbh, I'm beginning to be a little confused about what exactly your position is. When would you date the earliest of the four Gospels? Before 70 AD?

Yes, I see that. But I still fail to see how the use of the word "Cephas" proves a text to be written after the synoptics. There could be a whole lot of reasons, as I see it, as to why someone would use "Cephas" instead of "Petros" and vice versa.
I still contend that it depends on alot of unanswered questions, such as the ones I wrote above.

Or it may not. It depends.
Why dont you read some books on the subject by some serious scholars. And try to refute them instead of me?

aa5874

I put the Gospels after the writings of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, or after or around 92 CE.


I did not use the word "prove". I wrote that use of the word Cephas instead of Peter MAY postdate the Synoptics.

I read the sources that "some serious scholars" also read. And "some serious scholars" are in a conflict of interest situation where they expect Jesus to give them eternal life in heaven when they are dead. I really can't take some scholars seriously.

Cesc

And you would then place the Pauline corpus after 92 CE?


My mistake. So do you think the name "Cephas" hadn't been applied to anyone, either in writing or in reality, prior to 92 CE?

Surely, there are some scholars who have written on this subject that you can take seriously.

aa5874

Of course. Right now, I am looking for evidence or perhaps, looking at evidence, to place them as late as the 4th century.



My dating of the Gospels is not primarily due to the word "Cephas", it is based on information found in the Gospels and the writings of Josephus. It would appear to me that the writers of the Gospels were not Jews and had to depend upon some credible Jewish writer to fabricate their Jesus story with John the Baptist.

Josephus seems the perfect candidate. He lived in Galilee, wrote about John the Baptist, about three persons who were crucified where one survived and Pilate, just to name a few events.

Only when they seriously consider and examine the evidence that Jesus of the NT was fiction.

You don't have to take scholars seriously to realize Homer's Achilles was a myth, and gMatthew's and Mark's Jesus are almost the same, the offspring of the gods or their holy spirits.

andrewcriddle

The Diatessaron is a Syriac work, (which survives in Arabic). Like other Syriac versions of the Gospels, (eg the Peshitta), it uses the Semitic Cephas to represent the Greek Peter.

Andrew Criddle