The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

Hi CMother,

The old prove a negative ploy,eh? OK Right after you provide proof that Peter was not in Brooklyn wearing a halo.

Little Les

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 02:36 PM'] Sorry DoJoGrant,

The 25 years Peter in Rome story was more than a century old. Eusebius wrote it around 325-350 A.D.

And the legend of the line in the sand drawn by Col Travis at the Alamo (1836) was in full swing by 1873 and was published in a Texas magazine. The trouble is that the survivors of the Alamo (wives, slaves, merchants) reported nothing of the sort. Even Travis' person slave who reported his death early on the last day did not recount this legend.

As I wrote earlier, I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome.

We already know he left his first successor bishop (Evodius) in Antioch. But for whatever reason, he didn't get to be Pope. Probably because Rome was a more important city than Antioch.

LittleLes [/quote]
I'm sorry, but you just looked over my point completely.

"A line in the sand" is nothing at all like "residence in a city for 25 years." People would not simply buy the fact that he was there when there was no circulating history of him being there. An apostle of Christ residing in a city for 25 years is not something people would forget, and it is also not something that you could get people to believe, when there would be oodles of city/Christian history that would either thoroughly support or throw out that notion.

No one at all contested that Peter was there when it began to be written that he was there.

[LittleLes]

One usually gets the apologetics' laundry list of legends provided by some of the Church Fathers to prove that Peter was the bishop of Rome. (Sometimes the text is even altered a bit or omitted to make the case, but we'll deal with that as we progress).

Lets take a look at a few. One of the biggest is Eusebius' claim c. 350 in his History of the Church that Peter was in Rome for 25 years and was martyred along with Paul. (Actually, it's probable that he picked this up from Jerome since he has a similar writing).

But there are some obvious chronological impossibilities between Eusebius' 25 year claim for Peter in Rome and with Acts, Galatians, etc.

(1) Paul was suppose to have been beheaded in 64 A.D.during the Herodian persecution. But lets give the benefit of the doubt and extend the date to cover the entire Herodian period. Thus 64 to 67 A.D.

(2) If Eusebius' History is correct than, Peter went to Rome in 39 to 42 A.D.

(3) Except, he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem who ruled from 43 to 44 A.D.

(4) Except, Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem 49 -51 A.D.

(5) Except, after that (date not certain) according to Galatians, he spend some time in Antioch where he was berated by Paul because he feared the response of James, the leader of the Jerusalem community.

(6) Except when Paul greets 23 prominent Christians in his Letter to the Romans (57-58 A.D.), Peter isn't among those at Rome.

(7) Except, according to whoever wrote the Epistle to Titus, just before his death, Paul stated "Only Luke is with me." Not Pater.

Eusebius' "evidence" can be dismissed as unworkable. Alternately, we can dismiss the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul as in error.

Which shall we pick.

Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:17 PM'] Hi CMother,

The old prove a negative ploy,eh? OK Right after you provide proof that Peter was not in Brooklyn wearing a halo.

Little Les [/quote]
you are trying the same silly tactic

[LittleLes]

Hi C-Mother,

Yes, to illustrate the point. Since you can't provide evidence that it was ever directly contradicted in scripture, I can maintain that Peter once lived in Borrklyn and had a halo.

I'll bet you can't present any evidence to the contrary.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote] I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome.[/quote]

St. Irenaeus listed the first 13 Popes in "Against Heresies", 3:3:3, 180 AD.

That would be 113 years.

St. Irenaeus says:
[quote]The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.  To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (St. Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:3:3)[/quote]

He also says earlier:
[quote]Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:3:2)[/quote]

Remember this was written a scant 113 years after the death of St. Peter.

Cam

Edited March 8, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Sorry Cam,

Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.

This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say.

And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?

As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote] And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.[/quote]

Give me a break. Do you speak Latin and Armenian? Because those are the original languages of the work I cited. That's right. By the way, I didn't pull that off the internet, I typed it from a book (that's right, with pages and all). I added or removed nothing.

Now, it is clear by the statements that he is speaking of Peter and Paul. It is also clear that the Church is Rome. However, you refuse to see that. Why?

[quote]Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop.[/quote]

I knew that one was coming....13 years too long is not "plenty" of time for legend to develop. Where is your proof against this statement, sir?

It is an authoratative document. You cannot disprove it by simply saying, "IT ISN'T SO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS SO."

I need you to cite proof against this teaching. If you cannot, it is to be taken as proof to affirm.

Cam

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Sorry Cam,

Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.

This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say.

And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?

As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today.

LittleLes [/quote]

Once again someone cites St Irenaeus and you reject it, based on what 13 years? As John McEnroe once said 'you cannot be serious!' Lets just drop the pretenses dude, even if Irenaeus had written 75, 50 or 25 years after the death of St Peter you still wouldnt accept it simply because you dont want to. Stop pretending to actually listen to people, as funny as it has become, its clogging up the forum. As St Irenaeus mentions in AH he was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John the beloved. If Polycarp was St John's disciple and he passed this tradition to Irenaeus then I would not doubt its authenticity. Moreover, as I've said in a previous post the Orthodox Church of Antioch insists on the truth of what you keep saying is Pseudo-History. How could it possibly be that the non Catholic Antiochene Church with an unbroken line of successor Bishops going back to St Peter--that is, if you choose to continue your selective reading of Eusebius--would not know their own history? What are you suggesting? That somewhere along the line someone swanned into Antioch with a copy of a history book and said: 'Sorry guys I know you've been handing down the episcopate Bishop to Bishop but I've gotta tell ya, they got it wrong. Somehow even though they were there when it happened, they got it wrong, Peter never left Antioch' :locosign: Your arguments are completely implausible and if not for their comedy value I really wouldnt bother monitoring the progress of your threads. God bless you LL you at least make me smile

Edited March 8, 2005 by Myles

[Cam42]

[quote]And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?[/quote]

The original languages of the document I cite were Armenian and Latin. Not Greek.

[LittleLes]

The Orthodox Church has a far better claim on the Papacy than does Rome. The first successor to Peter's first See was Evodius, the second bishop of the Church of Antioch.

And no, Iranaeus is too late a source and the translations of his writing too questionable to be considered reliable.

Could it be that there are no writings within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was in Rome nor anything in Acts or Paul's Epistles saying that he was in Rome for the simple reason that Peter wasn't in Rome?

If you read my post in response to Eusebius' claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years, you'll probably be able to infer from Acts, Romans, and Galatians just where he was. And these were all written within 100 years of his death. And then recall also that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews (east) not the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul in the west).

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

[quote]The Orthodox Church has a far better claim on the Papacy than does Rome. The first successor to Peter's first See was Evodius, the second bishop of the Church of Antioch.[/quote]

Incorrect, since St Peter was alive when Evodius succeeded him, hence St Ignatius does not list St Peter as the first Bishop of Antioch but Evodius. Whilst the Apostles were still alive they governed the Churches they founded via messengers as you see Paul doing with Sts Timothy and Titus. Moreover, as I continually stress LL the Orthodox Church of Antioch has never claimed 'the Papacy' as you phrase it. But, as is evidenced from the letter of St Ignatius from the Romans, and has was reconfirmed throughout Patristic history and is held even up until today they have always accepted that Rome has envied no one but others she has taught.

[quote]And no, Iranaeus is too late a source and the translations of his writing too questionable to be considered reliable.[/quote]

According to whom? I cannot recall hearing of any Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant ecclesiastical historians who shared this view. I am a theology student at Oxford University and come Friday I have an exam, a large part of which is devoted to 'Against Heresies' and specifically those parts of it that deal with refuting threats to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. But alas, evidently you know more than the scholars of this 1200 year old venerable academic institution. Tell me where did you get your patristics doctorate? Cambridge? Duke? Yale? How many of your peers support this thesis? When will it be published for review?

[quote]Could it be that there are no writings within 100 years of Peter's death saying that he was in Rome nor anything in Acts or Paul's Epistles saying that he was in Rome for the simple reason that Peter wasn't in Rome?[/quote]

Given the volume of evidence the various posters on this thread have provided against that idea. No.

[quote]If you read my post in response to Eusebius' claim that Peter was in Rome for 25 years, you'll probably be able to infer from Acts, Romans, and Galatians just where he was. And these were all written within 100 years of his death. And then recall also that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews (east) not the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul in the west).[/quote]

I apologise for being so abrasive but this is completely ignorant. There was a large community of Jews on the south bank of the Tiber and indeed when St Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles gets to Rome, he goes to them first! (cf. Acts 28:17-30) Acts of the Apostles itself completely debunks your theory as does the Annals of Tacitus and secular history upto today, which has always maintained the prescence of the Jewish diaspora at Rome and throughout the West in fact.

:shootme: Why d'you do it to yourself LL?

Edited March 8, 2005 by Myles

[peach_cube]

Less,

By your reasoning hardly any ancient history would fall under "reliable evidence".

No Herodotus, no Thucydides, no Tacitus, no Livy's Roman History, no Caesar's Gallic War. The earliest copy for all of those is about 900 years after the fact, using your reasoning then I would say that the bulk of Roman and Greek history never happened. Also, the best that these can offer is about 20 originals

Biblical writings date from 30-150 years after the fact with over 25,000 original manuscripts.

You can go on claiming what is and is not authentic, but you should a least be consistant. So here you go "There is no authentic evidence that places Julius Caesar in Rome, or anywhere." Sounds convincing doesn't it?

[LittleLes]

Hi Myles,

In explaining Eusebius it was shown that abundant testimony written during Peter's life and within 100 years of his death constantly put him in the the region of Palestine. 100 years after his death is was desirable to claim he was in Rome during this period (for 25 years according to Eusebius and Jerome!). The vast majority of Jews were at this time in Palestine, esp Jerusalem and also in the large Jewish colony remaining at Babylon. Some say Peter wrote an Epistle from there, but I doubt it. Yet that's where the apostle to the circumcised would logically be.

And I believe Peter and Paul died at least after Linus was made a bishop. But technically, it appears he was Paul's successor bishop. Where and indiviidual dies, is not the issue. It's when the see becomes vacant as did that in Antioch when Peter left.

And Hi Peach Cube.

I see you are attempting to make the either -or argument.

And there's a major difference between copying an existing writing and producing a new one.

If I write now a history of the civil war from legends I've heard, it will only be about 140 years after the fact. If I'm not copying an earlier work, would you consider it reliable.?

Little Les

[Myles Domini]

Yes the vast majority of Jews were in Palestine but the fact of the matter is, as Acts 28 shows there was a large Jewish population in Rome, just as there was in Antioch, and Alexandria. The Jewish nation had been scattered by the invasion of their nation by the Babylonians and the Macedonian army of Alexandria. Moreover, none of what you said refutes the claim of the Orthodox Church of Antioch that Peter left their city and went to Rome in 53AD. I ask again, are you going to tell the Church of Antioch what their history is? Or where Peter went? Moreover you misunderstand the governance of the Church in the Apostolic age, which was done mainly by letters. As you can see from the universal or cyclical nature of the Catholic epistles and the particular concerns shown by Paul for certain Churches i.e. Corinthians. It was only when the Apostles died that their liasons in the local churches took control and the episcopate developed. A Bishop does not need to reside in his See i.e. St Boniface and Sts Cyril and Methodius. If I thought you'd read it, I'd send you an article on this.
Just admit it LL your argument is little less than predjudice