davidmartin wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:37 am
Why was it was perfectly logical for the author of acts to omit Peter's later career?
"Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law,' to whom we gave no commandment"
Maybe the "Some who went out" teaching this is Peter and James themselves and Acts is trying to pretend this didn't happen and they accepted Paul
But we know from Paul in Galatians that he was accepted by Jewish Christian leaders and that it was "false brothers" who advocated for Gentile circumcision (like the ones in Acts 15:1 and 5).
If Peter followed Paul to Rome he'd have been opposing him, which is what the Clementine writings say happened
That is an interesting thing to consider (even setting aside the Clementine writings). If Peter did go to Rome, I can imagine his "opposition" to Paul as being more of a reproval though considering that he sided with the people James sent to Antioch and James reproves but does not reject Paul in his letter.
I look at Paul as a being on the opposite extreme of the Christians he calls "false brothers," with Jewish Christian leaders taking the middle road between them. Just because the views of Christian "extremists" didn't prevail with Jewish Christian leaders doesn't mean they "opposed" or rejected those Christians. But I can imagine that the author of Acts wouldn't have cared to highlight any reproval of Paul by Peter in Rome any more than they appear to have regarding Paul's reproval by those sent from James in Antioch. So maybe that's the reason for the "omission" of Peter's later career in Acts, all the more so if the author was a follower of Paul, as I suspect.
In other words there are 'Ebionite' style Christians in the author's day telling a different story with Paul as the bad guy
But Acts is quite open about Jewish Christian opposition to Paul too, to the extent that it caused a riot in Jerusalem and led to Paul's arrest. I call those Jewish Christians "proto-Ebionites" and I think they are behind the hostile view of Paul in the Clementine writings. And I suppose they were entitled to their views, just like Paul was entitled to his, but neither of their views appear to have prevailed with Jewish Christian leaders.
If Acts had placed Peter in Rome it would be supporting the argument of these present day opponents, better to leave him in Jerusalem
Not necessarily, given that Peter sided with those sent by James to Antioch and James reproves but does not reject Paul in his letter and neither did Nazarenes.
The later tales of Peter being in Rome have him opposing Simon Magus not Paul, so this probably was based on the stories of these opponents with of course Simon Magus being Simon Magus not Paul.
I'll need to think about that.
But I think it's naive to suggest Peter and James are somehow the 'original Christians' all it suggests is there was a Torah observant branch of early Christianity that has an uncertain role in the origins of the movement. Maybe they were original, maybe they were a derivative movement themselves which i think is more likely all it means is they might well have existed and not been of the same sentiments as Paul.
Well, they are presented as being leaders
of Jewish Christianity by all accounts, but most importantly by Paul himself in Galatians.