Diogenes the Cynic

You have not quoted mainstream scholars, you have quoted apologists.

That kind of appeal to specious authority is not going to help you here. You actually need to address the substance of the arguments.

All of the "evidence" you've presented has been shown to be no evidence at all. Virtually the entirety of contemporary schoalrship rejects traditional authorship for Mark and the Epistles of Peter. If 1 Peter was not written by Peter (and it was not), you have no case for Peter in Rome. None.

PhilVaz

Also, is it your serious studied scholarly opinion that neither Peter nor Paul ever existed? Which I guess follows from the non-existent Jesus. Am I getting it now? No Jesus, No Mary his mother, No Joseph, No Peter, No Paul, No apostles.

It is a little hard arguing "early Christianity" with folks who believe neither Jesus nor Peter nor much of anything ever existed, and the "evidence is all worthless." There isn't much common ground with which to argue anything. What's the point of arguing any of this if one is so skeptical?

With Protestant Fundies or evangelicals at least there is some common ground there.

Phil P

Toto

Obviously, opinions differ on the worth of the evidence.

Obviously, opinions differ as to the value of the evidence from the early church. Those early church men were known to invent stories. Christians want to believe the stories, and accept them uncritically, or with less skepticism than they would apply to a rival religious text.

Richard Carrier has this to say about Blomberg:

That sums it all up, doesn't it?

PhilVaz

<< You have not quoted mainstream scholars, you have quoted apologists. >>

So JND Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan and Oscar Cullmann and OConnor are apologists now, is that it? They have written some of the largest books on the subject of Peter that I know about. If you have someone else who has written more on Peter, suggest a source.

The "substance of the arguments" so far for "Peter not existing" or "Peter not dying in Rome" has been "all the evidence of the early Church is worthless." Not much of an argument. All the mainstream scholars (not apologists) I have quoted says that "opinion" is dead wrong.

Even if Peter did not write the epistle, it still says the letter was written from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13) which is a code name for Rome. Or is 1 Peter 5:13 an "interpolation" dating from the 8th century or something? I see someone in here dating the letter to at least 90 AD.

I don't see much "substance" in here only extreme skepticism.

I am waiting for your strong and convincing evidence that either (1) Peter didn't exist, and (2) Peter didn't die in Rome. ALL the evidence we have says he did. I'll stick to that.

Phil P

Diogenes the Cynic

If you're asking me, then I would say that Paul existed if he is simply defined as the author of seven authentic Pauline Epistles. As to the rest, I am agnostic. I am not a mythicist, exactly. I think a historical Jesus could have existed. There is a middle ground, you know, between total mythicism and total historicism. I don't know if there was a Pete but I can tell you there isn't any PROOF that there was a Peter. I can also tell you that if there was a Peter, there is not any good evidence at all that he was martyred in Rome or that he ever even went to Rome. That tradition is late and is not found in the NT. Paul may or may not have gone to Rome but there isn't any evidence he was martyred there. And saying that there is no evidence for something is not the same as making a positive assertion that it didn't happen. My verdict is simply that the martyrdom traditions are UNPROVEN. I am not taking it any further than that.

Toto

We can never know much about ancient history with any degree of certainty. The question of the existence of a figure from 2000 years ago comes down to probabilities and how much uncertainty you are comfortable with, and where you place the burden of proof.

I suspect that Paul existed, but the stories about him in the Book of Acts are deliberate fiction, never meant to be anything other than an uplifting moral tail.

I suspect that the "Peter" described in the gospels was a fictional character, but there may have been an early church father behind the legend.

I am fairly agnostic about Jesus. I don't think that there is any valid historical evidence that he existed, and there are a lot of indications that Christianity started with the worship of a mythical Christ, not a human Jesus. But there is the possibility that there was a preacher named Jesus who had disciples and inspired some of them to continue, but who wasn't significant enough to make an impression on history. Which means that he was not divine.

PhilVaz

quoting Carrier << I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. >>

Fine, the Gospels may not be "completely reliable." Neither the Gospels, nor the unanimous writings of the early Church (from 1 Peter forward) that all (at least those who speak to the subject at all) state Peter ended up in Rome have to be inerrant (free from all error) or even "completely reliable." But when all the early evidence says "Peter died in Rome" I think we should go with that rather than this "its all worthless" business. And yep, Kelly, Pelikan, Harnack, Bruce, OConnor, Cullmann (historians or biblical scholars, not apologists) all agree with me, and have written the most extensive material on Peter.

Phil P

Toto

We keep trying to say, there isn't any really early evidence. All of the evidence is late, and we treat it skeptically because of the possible biases of the writers.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's correct. They are least very traditionalist and faith oriented. They take a lot of tradition at face value and they do not represent mainstream scholarship.

I used one of Pelikan's textbooks in college, incidentally. I found that he was pretty useful as a historian of Christian theology, but completely uncritical as to historical Christian origins.
I'm not sure why you think this is meaningful but I assure it is not. Writing a lot about a legendary character does not make the character less legendary.
I don't think anyone has stated this so categorically. It has only been pointed out that Peter's existence cannot be proven. Please be careful not to caricaturize what has been stated.
It has been explained to you why the evidence is worthless. Would you like to hear it again? The fact that your apologists have faith in these debunked traditions does not make them any more credible.
No, it was probably written from Rome. So what? The whole reason the letter is cited is because traditionalists believe it represents a sort of "postcard" from Peter in Rome. But if the letter was not written by Peter (which it was not) then it has nothing to tell us about Peter. The postcard was from somebody else, not Peter.
The "substance" must come from those making the assertions. We are only pnting out that your evidence does not prove what you are asserting.
Backwards burden. I have made no such claim and I make no assumptions. If you want to argue that a legendary character existed, it's uo for you to prove it. My position is that there is no PROOF that Peter existed. I am not asserting categorically that he couldn't have.
As above
All WHAT evidence? Which piece of evidence are you sticking witj? 1 Peter? Clement? The alleged Roman connection to Mark? Or are you just falling back on a faith in conservative Christian scholars who base their opinions on that exact same valueless evidence?

Steven Carr

Why was Rome likened to Babylon, which had destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple?