Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Church of Corinth claimed that it was created by Paul and Peter, when really it was created by Paul only.

Idem for the Gospel of Mark. It was claimed in connection someway with Peter, when really it is so completely pauline and anti-petrine.

There is clearly a pattern at work, here.

Hence the absolute certainty of the title of the thread.

I feel cheated. I spent a good click on this, and I didn't read anything about why Papias chose to lie.

Which is the difference between the title of founder of a Church (so old) at Corinth and the title of writer of a Gospel (so old) as Mark?

Please, explain me the difference and only then I can answer.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:11 am Which is the difference between the title of founder of a Church (so old) at Corinth and the title of writer of a Gospel (so old) as Mark?

Please, explain me the difference and only then I can answer.

Why is a raven like a writing-desk? (... It's your riddle, you explain it.)

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:03 am I feel cheated. I spent a good click on this, and I didn't read anything about why Papias chose to lie.

If you're passing this through Google translate or something, here is what I said: I was joking a little. I said that I didn't see an explanation of the process by which Papias made the decision to write what he did.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:18 am an explanation of the process

It is not an explanation. It is a pattern.

Again and again Paul is attacked with a Peter, not only in Corinth.

If I doubt about the connection of Peter with Corinth, then why should I believe in the connection of Peter with Mark?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:22 am The Church of Corinth claimed that it was created by Paul and Peter, when really it was created by Paul only.

Idem for the Gospel of Mark. It was claimed in connection someway with Peter, when really it is so completely pauline and anti-petrine.

There is clearly a pattern at work, here.

Hence the absolute certainty of the title of the thread.

The mentions of Cephas in 1 Corinthians

So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

implies, (if Cephas is to be identified with Peter), that Peter was involved in the origins of the church in Corinth.

Andrew Criddle

Acts 18:1-8 doesn't mention Peter among the founders of Corinth's community.

But even if Peter was the founder, what may persuade me in this sense is the quote above from 1 Corinthians, surely not the so-called "Tradition". Have we something of similar for Papias's claim about the link Mark/Peter and Mark/Paul ? And even if we had that link, was that Mark chosen as the only assistent "shared" by the two apostles (hence working as ideal trait d'union between two rivals) or because he was really the author of a Gospel?

As strained as I find it to accept a historical "Paul", I'm much more strained to conceive of a historical "Peter". If a group associated with something called Marcionites (after the fact?) contrived of "Paul" as the author of a group of letters it fronted as authentic, and the Proto-Orthodox were in contention with this 'rival' group, then it seems to me that they fabricated "Peter" to one-up and usurp authority away from "Paul" (while in reality doing so to usurp authority from the Marcionites or whomever may have originally penned the letters). It may be that all references to Peter (by any name) within the "Pauline" letters are later Proto-Orthodox insertions. And likewise that all references to Peter within the Gospels, or the Epistles bearing his name, are likewise Proto Orthodox fabrications.