POST TWO OF TWO
B) During this time period, the church is experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than a church in a “steady state).
It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).
C) It is difficult to imagine that the apostle Peter would not have given many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.
D) It is equally difficult to believe that there would not continue to be a concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the church took root both in Rome and among differing culture and countries and that a Peter, acting as a “general Bishop” would not send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).
E) It is inconceivable to me that Peter would not have offered Doctrinal guidance in a textual form to make corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.
F) Peter would have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions.
G) It is incredible that Peter or his administration would not have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.
H) I believe that the miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.
I) It is inconceivable that there would be no textual records associated with the organization of and adminstration of and direction of a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task, (Certainly many more ordinations than Clement alone)
J) Invariably, at least some of these texts sent out to different countries and congregations would have been highly valued and retained. It is very unlikely that all copies of such documents would have undergone destruction.
6) THE DEPTH OF INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.
For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.
For example:
A) It is inconceivable to me that the ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would not have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mention something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there.
What are the chances, given the roman’s record keeping ability, that THEY would not have found SOMETHING or that they would have lost all such records concerning Peter?
B) It is inconceivable to me that the ENEMIES of Christianity would not have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done.for years. Why would the Jewish and Pagan leaders have not continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” and no records of such complaints be extant?
C) What are the chances that none of the period historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew vespacian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men”
doesn’t mention Peter (though it included poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for historians?
D) It is inconceivable to me that at least ONE of the members of the Roman church would not write about Peter in a diary or secular text about Peter.
For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other member discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.
I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote a text and whether a single small text was written in Rome or not. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.
Thus, until we can find period-appropriate data (rather than later century "back claims") the lack of evidence that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and the absence of Apostolic authority in post-apostolic churches still stands.
Mr. Emu, I am VERY interested in the quotes you say exist. I appreciate your diligence in providing the requested references. I am intrigued and ready to find out something I didn't know about this specific issue of this time period. If the quotes you say exist; really DO, in fact exist and, if they say what you claim they say in proper context, then this would be a marvelous discovery and change things for many scholars who are unaware of such texts.
Clear
VIDRNEMN
