The Race is Run

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part VI

2012-01-22T05:16:58+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

Questions have been asked here on Catholica and elsewhere about the measure of importance Catholics today place on the truth or otherwise of the Papal claim to Universal Primacy and Apostolic Succession through the Apostle Peter.

All the prerogatives, the titles, the honours, all that the Church has ever claimed for itself hang from this one single thread.

What could be more important than to determine its truth or otherwise, not only for ourselves but for all our numberless ancestors who believed it absolutely, to the extent that some even died for it?

What if the Church is not the church of Jesus Christ by divine ordinance?

What if the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth by divine ordinance?

What if the Bishops are not the successors of the Apostles by divine ordinance?

What if the Church has never been the recipient of "divinely revealed truths" through the Holy Spirit?

What if, what if, what if...

I pursue this subject with such vigour because I believe that for every Catholic on earth, indeed every person on earth, nothing could be more fundamentally important. Consider the numberless millions of Catholics in Latin America, Africa, and Asia who believe that the Pope has the divinely ordained right to dictate to them about reproduction. Consider what overpopulation means for the future of this planet.

Having nailed my colours to the mast, I'll continue with our series.

The 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians...

Although it may be quite tedious for readers, I do think it important to deal with what is arguably the most important piece of alleged "evidence" upon which the Papacy relies for its claims to Universal Primacy through an early exercise of authority flowing from Peter's presence in Rome — i.e. the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians written circa 96-100 AD.

Catholic apologists call upon this Epistle time after time and it was recently given an airing by Pope Benedict XVI himself in this Zenit report from 2007:

"Already in the first century, popes exercised their primacy over the other Churches, Benedict XVI says.

The Holy Father explained this on Wednesday at the general audience, which he dedicated to Pope St. Clement of Rome, the third successor of Peter.

Speaking to some 16,000 people gathered both in Paul VI Hall and St. Peter's Basilica, the Pontiff began a new series of catecheses on the Apostolic Fathers.

Benedict XVI mentioned that Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was given "[a]n almost canonical characteristic."

The letter noted that the Church of Corinth was experiencing severe divisions. "The priests of the community, in fact, had been deposed by some young upstarts," the Holy Father said.

And quoting St. Irenaeus, he explained the context of Clement's letter: "[t]he Church of Rome sent the Corinthians a very important letter to reconcile them in peace to renew their faith and to announce the tradition, a tradition they had so newly received from the apostles."

Benedict XVI continued: "Therefore we could say that [Clement's letter] is a first exercise of a Primate of Rome after the death of St. Peter."

He added that the letter "opened to the Bishop of Rome the possibility for vast intervention on the identity of the Church and its mission." [1]

Pope Benedict makes two major claims in his address:

"Pope St Clement of Rome" was the third successor of Peter.

The 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians proves that in the first century AD, popes already exercised their primacy over other churches.

We have been dealing with Peter's alleged Roman ministry in other commentaries in this series, so we only deal with Claim 1 in the context of this Epistle.

A closer look at the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians...

Towards the end of the first century AD, an upsurge of factionalism in the congregation at Corinth caused a divisiveness and resentment that resulted in widespread embarrassment to other Christian congregations. The Roman congregation wrote a letter to the Corinthian congregation pleading that they settle their differences reminding them that the essence of the teachings of Jesus was love and humility.

Keep the following points in mind:

The Epistle is anonymous. Therefore we know nothing about its author. Later tradition asserts it was written by a man named "Clement".

The author is not named as head of the church in Rome.

Nowhere does the author assert the primacy of Rome over other churches. On the contrary, the author makes his appeal to the Corinthians on the values of self-abasement, humility and love, as did Jesus in his sermons. "For Christ is with them that are lowly of mind, not with them that exalt themselves over the flock" [1Clem 16:1]

The author does not appeal to his own authority, or to that of his congregation, but to Rome's and Corinth's mutually recognised authority of scripture, from which he quotes copiously to reinforce his arguments.

For the writer of I Clement, the presbyteral college form of church government is normative and proper. The restoration of the Corinthian presbyters so that the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching is secured is the most important purpose in writing.

There is a broad consensus among scholars that 1 Clement does not establish the Primacy of the Church in Rome, or the succession of bishops from the Apostle Peter.

I have chosen from amongst these scholars the following crucial observations from Peter Lampe's masterful work Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus:

"Before the middle of the second century in Rome, at no time did one single prominent person pass on the tradition: this was done by a plurality of presbyters ... at the time that Rome experiences the development of a monarchical episcopacy, a twelve-member list of names going back to the apostles is constructed ... the presence of a monarchical bearer of tradition is projected back into the past...

"The list of Irenaus [Haer.3.3.3] is with highest probability a historical construction from the 180's when the monarchical episcopacy developed in Rome. Above all, the framwork of "apostolic" twelve members [from Linus to Eleutherus] points in the direction of a fictive construction. The names that were woven into the construction were certainly not freely invented but were borrowed from the tradition of the city of Rome [for example "Clement" or the brother of Hermas, "Pius"]. They had belonged to presbyters of Roman church history. These persons, however, would never have understood themselves as monarchical leaders – especially Pius at the time of Hermas." [2]

Peter Lampe demonstrates that the purpose of this list was to anchor the then current doctrine with a successive chain of authorities back to the apostles and not to prove a succession of monarchical bishops. Peter Lampe's account makes fascinating reading.

It is important to keep in mind that the historical claims of the Papacy rest entirely on Peter's alleged death in Rome and the mention of both Peter and Paul in Chapter 5 of the Epistle has been put forward at times in support of these claims.

J.B. Lightfoot's translation of Chapter 5

"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

"There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."

In the words "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory," is found evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome.

Although the apostles are bracketed together, the Epistle makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West.

Only a determinedly preconceived motive could possibly extract from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians one shred of evidence that Peter died in Rome, or that the "Primate of Rome" exercised authority over other churches in the 1st Century. Even Benedict's use of the term "Primate of Rome" is anachronistic as the monarchical episcopate was not in existence at the time of writing, either in Rome or in Corinth.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Papacy continues to repeat the age-old mantra of Universal Primacy and Apostolic Succession through the Apostle Peter because Peter was allegedly martyred in Rome:

"In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia". From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom."[3]

To be continued...

Note: This Epistle is a sort of poisoned chalice for the Church. On the one hand, as a genuine piece of early correspondence from one Christian community to another, the Church must hang upon this slender thread its monumental claims to Papal Primacy. On the other hand, however, the Epistle reflects none of the Church's superimposed later dogmas. The author refers to "Jesus Christ the High Priest by whom our gifts are offered", and nowhere is Jesus considered to be divine, virgin-born, or part of any "Trinity". Jesus is always presented simply as a man of God.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Benedict XVI Highlights 1st Century Papal Primacy, Vatican City, March 8, 2007 (Zenit.org)
[2] Peter Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, Continuum Publishing, 2006, pp 405-406.
[3] The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church : Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect. Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998.

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part V

2011-11-24T15:22:05+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

30-50 AD

In Part IV, I said that:

"...it is reasonable to conclude that between 30 AD and 50 AD, between Pentecost and the Jerusalem Council, Peter had been pursuing his mission to the Jews and, according to Paul, his intention in 50 AD was to continue the way he had begun, as the Apostle to the Jews."

I further said that:

"...there is sufficient data in Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians to situate Peter either in Jerusalem, or engaged on various missionary journeys in the regions of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, or finally in Antioch between 30 AD and 50 AD."

Before we attempt to discover Peter's possible whereabouts after 50 AD, we must first turn our attention to source material that militates against Peter being in Rome in the period immediately following the Jerusalem Council.

50-54 AD

In Part IV, we discovered that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia in late 52 AD. According to Acts 18:11, Paul resided for 18 months in Corinth before he was brought before Gallio. Therefore, we can date his arrival in that city to early in 51 AD.

In Acts 18:2 Paul meets Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth:

"There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

Priscilla and Aquila, Jewish Christians, were already present in Corinth when Paul arrived there, having "recently come from Italy".

According to the Roman historian Suetonius, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome". [Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 25:4] This expulsion of the Jews from Rome can be dated to 49 AD.

Most scholars agree that this statement does not refer directly to "Christ" or to an individual named "Chrestus", but most likely refers to Jewish Christian preachers who caused a disturbance among other Jews by proclaiming that "Jesus is the Christ". The edict probably did not apply to Gentile converts at all but, whatever the case, the expulsion order certainly applied to the Jewish Christians, Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul met in Corinth in early 51 AD. Just like Priscilla and Aquila, Peter was a Jewish Christian and, if he were in Rome at that time, then he would certainly have been expelled with them.

The expulsion edict would have gone out of effect at the death of Claudius in AD 54 and since the following emperor (Nero) did not renew the edict, those expelled could have returned to Rome after 54 AD.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Peter did not go to Rome after the Jerusalem Council of 50 AD because of the Claudian edict. It is also reasonable to conclude that the earliest possible time that he could journey to Rome was after 54 AD when the edict lapsed.

54 - 62 AD

Material that militates against Peter journeying to Rome after 54 AD can be found in Paul's letters and in Acts.

In Acts 2:9-10, we find that visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, were present at Pentecost and heard Peter preach that Jesus was their long-awaited Israelite Messiah. It is more than likely therefore that the gospel message was carried to Rome at a very early stage. However, on the question of when the Christian community in Rome was established, and by whom, the New Testament is silent.

When Paul writes to these Roman Christians circa 56-57 AD, it is at a time when Jewish Christians were trying to re-establish themselves in Rome after the Claudian edict had lapsed. We know, however, that the wider Christian community in Rome at that time was flourishing and well-established and, as Paul said, "...your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world" i.e. where the gospel has been proclaimed in the provinces of the Roman Empire. [Rom. 1:8]

Paul's purpose in going to Rome...

"I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong — that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles." [Rom 1:11-13]

In Romans Chapter 16,[1] we find a named list of Christians resident in Rome, including those of Priscilla and Aquila who must have returned to Rome after the Claudian edict had lapsed. Note that Paul does not directly greet these friends and co-workers, but rather has Christians pass on his greetings to one another. The purpose of this strategy is to establish contacts, build community support networks, and unify Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians as elsewhere in the letter it is obvious that there existed some contentious issues between the parties. Conspicuously absent from this list of names is the one person we would most expect to find included if he were present in Rome, a unifying force par excellence, the man who knew Jesus face-to-face — Peter the Apostle.

Westward Ho!

In Romans Chapter 10, Paul claims that he has been appointed by the God of Israel to preach to the Gentiles. He has already "fully proclaimed the good news of Christ" in the Eastern Mediterranean, having preached from "Jerusalem as far around as Illyricum", [north of Macedonia on the Adriatic] and he now intends to travel westwards to Rome and thence to Spain.

He must first, however, deliver to the "saints" in Jerusalem some poor relief resources collected from Christian communities in Macedonia and Achaia.

Paul arrives in Jerusalem circa 58 AD and meets with James and "all the elders" [Acts 21:17-18]. For our purposes, there is little to be gained by recounting Paul's subsequent tribulations, except to say that circumstances allowed him to witness to the gospel of the God of Israel before the Sanhedrin, before Roman Governors Felix and Festus, and before Herod Agrippa.

According to Acts, Paul was a Roman citizen by birth and this gave him the right to appeal directly to Caesar in any dispute over which he felt aggrieved. It was because Paul wished to avoid being handed over to his Judean opponents that he appealed to Caesar during his witness before Festus and Herod Agrippa in Caesarea Maritima. Festus and Agrippa both agreed that Paul was innocent of any crime and could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. But appeal to Caesar he had, so to Caesar he must go. By the time Paul was handed over to the custody of the Centurion Julius and had boarded ship for Rome, he had spent about 18 months in detention in Caesarea Maritima.

After a harrowing sea voyage, Paul eventually arrived at Puteoli on the Gulf of Naples circa 60 AD. Paul stayed in Puteoli for a week, enough time for word of his arrival to spread to Rome, about 200 km distant. Upon receipt of this news, a number of Christian converts set out from the city along the Appian Way to meet Paul. Some travelled as far as Appian Forum, about 65 km from Rome, while others travelled a lesser distance to the Three Taverns, about 50 km from Rome.

Paul was greatly heartened by his enthusiastic welcome and the entire entourage proceeded towards the city.

Paul and the Jews of Rome

Upon his arrival, Paul along with a guard settled in a house for which Paul paid. Then:

"Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: 'My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. But when the Judeans objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar — not that I had any charge to bring against my own people. For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.'"

"They replied, 'We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.'" [Acts 28:17-22]

We can see from verses 21 and 22 that the leaders of the Roman Jews had received only negative reports about Paul's "sect" and expressed a wish to know more.

"They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe..." [Acts 28:23-24]

Paul witnesses to these Jewish leaders for an entire day concerning the forthcoming Israelite religious/political theocracy to be established by Israel's Messiah Jesus whom the God of Israel had raised from the dead according to the Law and the Prophets.

Thus, prior to 60 AD, the Jews of Rome knew absolutely nothing about Paul's "sect", the "sect" which had been widely spoken against, resisted and rejected, the "sect" to which Peter also belonged.

Chapter 28, the conclusion of the Book of Acts, takes us forward to circa 62 AD, at which time Paul had been kept under "house arrest" for about two years at his own expense. During that period, he proclaimed the forthcoming religious/political theocracy [the Kingdom of God] and taught about the Lord Jesus Messiah unhindered. The Book of Acts ends on a positive note, claims Paul's preaching as a fulfilment of Scripture, still makes no mention of Peter, and lacks any hint of a coming Christian persecution at the hands of Roman authorities.

Life Expectancy...

Ascough and Malina[2] have this to say on the subject of life-expectancy in the first century AD:

"Mortality rates from antiquity are not easy to determine, particularly since the records we have are rather sketchy and are localised. The attempts that have been made paint a picture of life expectancies that are rather bleak. Although much of the evidence comes from the late Roman period and/or from Egypt, it is probably safe to assume that the overall conditions across the empire in the first century were not particularly better. We find that there was a very high infant mortality rate, especially up to age one, assuming that the child even made it past the threats of miscarriage and still-birth. One third of those who survived infancy were dead by age six and half of the children died by age ten. Nearly 60% of these survivors died by age sixteen and by age twenty-six 75% were dead. By age forty-six 90% had passed away, and less than 3% if the population made it to age sixty."

Ascough and Malina go on to say that a disproportionate number of deaths fell upon the lower rank residents of the villages and cities. We can see from this data that if Peter were still alive in 62 AD, as was Paul, he would have beaten the odds against him considerably.

How old would Peter have been in 62 AD? At the time he met Jesus around 28 AD, he was already married, was in a business partnership with Andrew, James and John, and was the owner of his own fishing boat. Even by the most generous estimates, Peter would have been at least in his late fifties and possibly much older in 62 AD so, given the terrible hardships of travel through the Mediterranean for anyone, let alone a person of advanced age by 1st century standards, I don't propose to go beyond this date in our quest for a Roman Peter.[3]

Where oh where?

We arrived at the reasonable conclusion in Part IV that prior to the Jerusalem Council of 50 AD, Peter had preached the gospel only to the Jews living in Judea, Galilee and Samaria. He had also signalled his intention to Paul to continue the way he had begun — as the Apostle to the Jews.

We have outlined above some objections to Peter's presence in Rome between 50 and 62 AD. So, if it were not westwards to Rome, where amongst the many communities of Diaspora Israelites would Peter have been most likely to go in furtherance of his personal commission by Jesus to preach the gospel to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel?"

In the next instalments we will finally attempt to provide a reasonable answer that question.

To be continued...

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part IV

2011-10-13T06:19:08+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

In Part II, I posed the question: "If Peter was never in Rome, then where was he?"

Now we will try to pinpoint Peter's location in places other than Rome at various times. This task requires us to glean every possible grain of information available to us from the New Testament and from the record of secular history.

Peter is recorded in Acts as being present in Jerusalem from the death of Jesus until the execution of Stephen. Thereafter, he is recorded as being either in Jerusalem or travelling on various missionary journeys throughout Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. This period extends from 30 AD to 50 AD.

A pinpoint in time from which we can establish more specific details, however, is given to us in Acts 18:12:

"While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court."

Gallio's original name was Lucius Annaeus Novatus. He was the son of the rhetorician Seneca the Elder and the elder brother of Seneca the Younger. He was adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio from whom he took the name of Junius Gallio. Gallio is mentioned in several Roman sources.

It is now possible to establish the exact year of Gallio's proconsulship through the discovery of the Delphi Inscription of the Emperor Claudius in which Gallio is referred to as the Proconsul of Achaia. By combining the date of the Claudius' Inscription with other historical factors, Gallio's proconsulship in Achaia can be precisely dated between late spring and late October 52 AD.[1]

Using this pinpoint in time, in combination with other information provided in Acts and in Paul's letters, we can now work backwards from this precise date of 52 AD to establish an early chronology of Paul's travels. For our purposes, we will focus only on those aspects of the chronology which enable us to fix Peter's presence with reasonable accuracy at various times and in various places.

Peter in Jerusalem : 30 – 33 AD

Peter confronts Jerusalem elites from Pentecost until the execution of Stephen, which took place before Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus. [see Acts 1- 7 and Galatians 1]

Peter in Jerusalem : 36-37 AD

"Then after three years [from his epiphany on the road to Damascus], I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:18-19. Read in conjunction with Acts 9:26]

Peter in Jerusalem : March-April 43 or 44 AD

Peter is jailed by Herod Agrippa I, King of Judea and Samaria A.D. 41-44, grandson of Herod the Great.

"It was about this time [the time of the famine reported in Acts 11] that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." [Acts 12:1-4]

Peter escapes before his trial is to begin and departs to "another place" [Acts 12:1-17].

Note: The parallels between the recounting of the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts 12:19-23 and Josephus' account of the same event [Ant. 19.343-52, cf.18.200] are quite striking.

Peter in Jerusalem : 50 AD

Jerusalem Council

The necessity or otherwise of circumcision for Gentile believers had caused conflict in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas, along with "some other believers", were appointed to go and discuss the issue with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. A decision was reached by the apostles and elders in the name of the whole Jerusalem church that the Gentiles should not be required to be circumcised, although they should still observe some Levitical laws regarding diet and morality. The elders and apostles send a letter to that effect to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. [See Acts 15:1-35]

The scholarly consensus is that the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 is the same meeting that Paul describes in Galatians 2. In verse 9 of Galatians 2 we read that:

"James, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."

By analysing all the above information, it is reasonable to conclude that between 30 AD and 50 AD, between Pentecost and the Jerusalem Council, Peter had been pursuing his mission to the Jews and, according to Paul, his intention in 50 AD was to continue the way he had begun, as the Apostle to the Jews.

Peter in Antioch

"When Peter came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." [Gal. 2:11-13]

Scholars are divided on the date of this incident. It can be narrowed down, however, to just before the Jerusalem Council or just after so it makes little difference for our purposes, which are to demonstrate that there is sufficient data in Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians to situate Peter either in Jerusalem, or engaged on various missionary journeys in the regions of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, or finally in Antioch between 30 AD and 50 AD.

As we have arrived in Antioch, it is perhaps noteworthy to point out that the Papacy is not the only claimant to Apostolic Succession through Peter.

The Syrian Orthodox Church claims an unbroken Apostolic Succession beginning with Peter founding the Church at Antioch and continuing to this day. They give the dates 37AD-67AD for Peter's Patriarchate.

Even though I place as little credence in their supposed line of succession as I do in that of the Papacy, there was a great deal of apostolic activity at Antioch and at least Peter was recorded in the New Testament as actually being in that city, whereas the only New Testament reference that supporters for Peter's presence in Rome can muster up is:

"She who is in Babylon salutes you and so does my son Mark" [1 Peter 5:13]

It is necessary to deal with this assertion at length so, once we have exhausted all the other sources, we will take a look at the Petrine Epistles.

To be continued...

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part III

2011-09-14T09:25:26+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

As I wrote in Part II, the fully fledged tradition of Peter's twenty-five year episcopacy and martyrdom in Rome reached its final form with Jerome.

This tradition is not only bereft of any evidence but is also demonstrably false as it contradicts statements from the New Testament and the events of secular history.

Evidentiary Sources

In Part II, I posed the question: "If Peter was never in Rome, then where was he?" The interplay between two sources of information — the New Testament and the record of secular history — may provide us with the answer.

This evidence falls into two categories: the ministries of Peter and Paul, and the presence or absence of Peter at certain times and in certain places.

Before the death of Jesus...

Peter and the other disciples were instructed by Jesus not to go into the "way of the Gentiles" or to enter "any city of the Samaritans". Before his death, Jesus' instruction was restricted to the area of his own ministry: Galilee and Judah.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6]

Take note that:

Jesus specified "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

In Part V of the Virgin Birth series, I drew attention to the fact that in Luke 1:32-33 the messenger Gabriel tells Mary that her son to be born would rule over the House of Jacob forever. We will, in due course, discuss the implications arising from these two statements.

The care of these same "lost sheep of the house of Israel" is committed to the care of Peter and the other disciples.

"Be the shepherds of the flock of God that is entrusted to you: watch over it, not simply as a duty but gladly, because God wants it; not for sordid money, but because you are eager to do it. Never be a dictator over any group that is put in your charge, but be an example that the whole flock can follow. When the chief shepherd appears, you will be given the crown of unfading glory." [1 Peter 5:1-4]

After the death of Jesus

The Great Commission:

In Matthew 28:18-19, Jesus says to his disciples:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples among all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'."

Because of Jesus' status transformation through being raised by God, his authority is now universal and the disciples are told to go to Israelites living "among all nations" and not just to the regions of "the house of Israel" living in Galilee and Judah, as in the former command of Matthew 10:5-6. [Note: It should be obvious that "nations" cannot be discipled. Therefore, the correct translation of this verse is not "go and make disciples of all nations" but rather "go and make disciples among all nations".]

"The move away from the region of Jesus' ministry to the wider reaches of the Roman Empire where countless Israelite émigrés lived, served to clarify and justify how Matthew's followers of an Israelite Jesus got to be his disciples although they did not live in the land of Israel. In the Gospel story, sayings such as 'I tell you, many will come from east and west and eat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven' [Matthew 8:11] refer to the many Israelites who would be gathered from east and west to feast in the forthcoming theocracy, to be located in Israel's promised land."[1]

The role of the Hebrew Messiah is Israelite-specific, a role undertaken on behalf of Israel. Hence, when the disciples are told to teach "all nations", it always means to teach Israelites living among "all nations".

A division of ministries between Peter and Paul

Following the instructions of Jesus, the gospel message carried by Peter and the other disciples was directed toward Israelites only. Paul, however, not being a disciple of Jesus, argued that if non-Israelites followed the teachings of Jesus and accepted Abraham as their "father", then they too could be grafted into the tree of Israel: they too could enter into a covenant relationship with the God of Israel. His convincing arguments from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, against the initial reluctance of Peter and other followers of Jesus, eventually carried the day.

Both Peter and Paul eventually agreed to a clear division of duties. Read about it in Paul's Letters to the Romans, Galatians, 2nd Timothy, and in the Book of Acts.

In Romans 15:15-16, Paul stated that:

"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

In 2 Timothy 4:16-17:

"At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it."

And in Galatians 2:8:

"For God who made Peter an apostle to the Jews also made me an apostle to the Gentiles. Recognising the favour bestowed on me, those pillars of our society James, Cephas (Peter) and John accepted Barnabas and myself as partners and shook hands on it."

This point of division of ministries is reaffirmed by both Peter and Paul many times in their writings; Rom. 11:13, 15:16-20, 1 Pet. 1.1. Paul always claimed his mission to the Gentiles to be directed by God and not a delegation from men; Acts 22:21, 23:11, 2 Tim 1:11. Equally, he denied several times that he built on other men's foundations or works; 2 Cor. 10:15, Rom. 15:20. It must be pointed out that Paul, however, not being restricted by any personal instructions from Jesus one way or the other, ministered to both Jew and Gentile wherever he found them.

This was not the case with Peter. Peter was personally instructed by Jesus to go only "to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" living among all nations. It is untenable to suggest that Peter, having denied Jesus three times before the crucifixion to save his own life, only to come face to face with Jesus later, would even consider disobeying the instructions of the man now demonstrated by God to be the Hebrew Messiah. Peter would not deny or disobey his risen Lord again.

To be continued...

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part II

2011-08-11T10:50:53+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

The Papacy : Unequivocal Assertions

Pope Benedict XVI

"I thank the Lord for allowing me, as the Successor of Saint Peter in the See of Rome, to make this pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint Edward the Confessor...This is the word of encouragement which I wish to leave with you this evening, and I do so in fidelity to my ministry as the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Saint Peter, charged with a particular care for the unity of Christ's flock." [September 17, 2010, Westminster Abbey]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

936: "The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth."[1]

883: "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff." [2]

The Second Vatican Council

There is a widespread view amongst Catholics that Vatican II heralded a new beginning for the Church, a breath of fresh air, a departure from the old hard-edged inflexibility. I do not ascribe to this view.

On the issue that really matters, the Papacy's understanding of itself, the conciliar document The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium[3]ensured that the old intransigence and inflexibility would continue.

Although the document was couched in appealing words and noble sentiments, and exuded an overall odour of sanctity, the steel fist in the velvet glove manifested itself in passages reaffirming Vatican I. The bottom line is that despite all the talk about collegiality, the Pope still retained sole Primacy and Infallibility, and thus we continue to witness the Papacy becoming ever more inflexible, centralised and monolithic.

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching [Vatican I] about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful." [LG:III:18]

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church." [LG:III:22]

"The religious submission of mind and will [of the faithful] must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." [LG:III:25]

The Apostle Peter: Unequivocal Assertions

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

"In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition — the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: 'Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia'. From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the See of his martyrdom."[4]

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course in martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman Capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded."

"The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter. St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies."[5]

It would seem from all the foregoing that the Papacy's unequivocal assertions about Peter, about its authority deriving from Peter, and about Peter's Roman ministry were historical certainties, able to be demonstrated and verified. These assertions, however, quickly unravel when tested.

Irreconcilable Inconsistencies

Traditions about Peter's presence in Rome only surfaced in the latter half of the second century, around the same period as the various apocryphal/pseudographical works and the Clementine literature, with its elaborate and fanciful tales about Simon Peter and Simon Magus, began to proliferate.

Elements from these fables crept into subsequent writings until the fully fledged legend of Peter's twenty-five year episcopacy and martyrdom in Rome reached its final form with Jerome.

It is a task of epic proportions even to attempt an analysis of all the afore-mentioned works from antiquity that led up to these assertions by Jerome.

Instead, we will focus on one crucial issue. It is Peter's alleged death in Rome that constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter. For Peter to have died in Rome, it is obviously necessary that he should have first arrived there. Yet the authorities cannot come up with any evidence, not even a consistent story regarding his arrival, his ministry, his sojourn, or his death in Rome.

The Dating Game

Did Peter's Pontificate begin in Rome in 32 AD as claimed in the Catholic Encyclopaedia Pope List?[6]

Or did it begin in 42 AD, the second year of Claudius, as claimed by Jerome?[7]

Or would it have been impossible for Peter to arrive in Rome before 62 AD as stated by the acclaimed Catholic Church historian Msgr. Philip Hughes?[8]

Msgr. Hughes has this to say on the subject of Peter's residence in Rome:

"...The precise date at which the Roman Church was founded we do not know, nor the date at which St. Peter first went to Rome. But it is universally the tradition of this primitive Christianity that St. Peter ruled the Roman Church and that at Rome he gave his life for Christ in the persecution of Nero." [p14]

Hughes goes on:

"...About the origins of Christianity in Rome we know nothing. It is already a flourishing church in 56 AD when St. Paul refers to it. Three years later he arrived in Rome himself, a prisoner, for the hearing of his appeal to Caesar." [p17]

"...St. Peter first appeared there apparently some three years later, about the time St. Paul, acquitted, had left the city." [p18]

According to Hughes then:

There was a "flourishing" Christian community in Rome when Paul first arrived there, as we already knew from the New Testament.

The earliest time he can place Peter in Rome is between Paul's two captive visits.

Peter, therefore, could not have arrived in Rome before 62 AD.

Even though Peter's alleged death in Rome constitutes the historical foundation of the claim by the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter, and even though it is asserted by then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger that "In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition — the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: 'Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia'," the authorities cannot produce one scintilla of evidence to support claims so monumental in their historical implications.

As Richard P McBrien, Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, states:

"Few, if any, traditions associated with the Papacy have anything at all to do with the Apostle Peter, or with the Lord himself for that matter."[9]

If Peter was never in Rome, then where was he? In Part III of this series we will begin to examine the evidence available to us.

To be continued...

The Myth of Papal Primacy : Part I

2011-07-03T17:07:12+10:00

Beginning a series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum.

After nearly two thousand years, it's time — more than time — for Rome's claims of Apostolic Succession through the Apostle Peter to be subjected to that particularly harsh light of robust enquiry free from the clouds of sanctity and incense that have hitherto successfully repelled territorial invaders.

The most common beliefs held by Catholics are:

that Peter was the first to preach the gospel in Rome;

that Peter founded the Church in Rome;

that as a result of his residence in Rome, Peter passed on his primacy to his successors the Popes, as Bishops of Rome.

These beliefs are neatly summed up by the Very Rev. Joseph Frà Di Bruno. ¹

"St. Peter was the first to preach the gospel in Rome, and owing to his sanctity, zeal, prudence and power of working miracles, it was not long before he made many converts.

"The number of Christians increasing steadily each year, he chose the most distinguished among them and sent them as bishops or priests to different parts of the world as recorded in the Roman Martyrology...

"St. Peter having fixed his See in Rome to the end of his life and having died there a martyr, it follows as a matter of course, that his heirs and successors in that See should enjoy the prerogatives of that episcopate, that is, the supremacy which St. Peter received."

It is only natural that we Catholics should believe without question what the Church has claimed for so many centuries. Unfortunately, when these common beliefs are examined, they prove to be no more than a mixture of errors, confusions, and downright deceptions.

What Catholics are required to believe...

It will perhaps come as a great surprise to many Catholics but they are not required to believe that Peter either went to Rome, or that he established his church there.

Any doctrine of faith or morals which is necessary for all Catholics to believe at all times is classified as a dogma de fide. All de fide dogmas are listed in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott. ²

There is no dogma de fide about Peter's residence in Rome. Catholics must simply believe that:

"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his primacy over the whole church and for all time." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma p.282)

"The successors of St. Peter in the primacy are the Bishops of Rome." (p.283)

And from Sacred Canon Law, which binds all believing Catholics:

"The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church the Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the Universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power." (Canon 331)

An interesting quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article "The Pope" where the Papal Primacy is defined under pain of anathema for doubters and disbelievers:

"The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution Pastor Aeturnus:

1. "If any one shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."

2. "If any one shall say it is not by the institution of the Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema."

So we have established that although many Catholics believe that Peter travelled to Rome and established the church there, they are under no obligation to do so.

Sacred Canon Law, the Constitution Pastor Aeturnus, and Dr. Ludwig Ott all claim that the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy from Peter by a divine ordinance. How this primacy was transferred from Peter to the Bishop of Rome is left totally unexplained. Dr. Ott merely states that he records "the more usual theological viewpoint". From this it follows that Catholics are simply required to believe that Peter passed on the primacy to the popes, and the authorities are under no obligation to produce evidence by way of explanation or substantiation.

Asserting Peter's ministry in Rome would surely imply that the required historical evidence is available. In Part II, we will examine what evidence the 'authorities' can produce.

FOOTNOTES:
1. Catholic Belief: Or A Short And Simple Exposition Of Catholic Doctrine, Very Rev. Joseph Frà Di Bruno, D.D, Benziger Brothers, printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1884.

2. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, Mercier Press Ltd, Cork, Ireland, 1955.

The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth Part VI

2011-05-17T00:06:00+10:00

In Memoriam
E.P. (Ted) Wixted
17 May 2001

The Gospel of Luke Part III

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum...

As demonstrated in the Gospel of Luke Part I, in ancient Greek usage, a "parthenos" was just an unmarried woman, whether she be a physical virgin or not.

If proponents of the Virgin Birth doctrine insist that "parthenos" means physical virginity then they are still confronted with an insurmountable problem because at the time of the angel's visit there had, as yet, been no conception. That Jesus was not conceived until some time after the angel's departure is confirmed in 2:21.

"When eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called Jesus, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb."

Luke 1:38

"Mary said, 'Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; let it happen to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her."

Luke used the Greek word γένοιτό (genoito) in the aorist tense "let it happen." If Luke had wished to signify that conception happened at the word of the angel then he would not have used the word γένοιτό (genoito).

As one of the most renowned and respected exegetes of New Testament Greek, Frederick Godet, points out:

"The evangelist shows his tact in the choice of the aorist γένοιτό. The present [tense] would have signified, "Let it happen to me this very instant?" The aorist [tense] leaves the choice of the time to God." ¹

You will see that Godet's statement is correct if you look at the other sixteen New Testament occurrences of γένοιτο, none of which refer to something to happen/not happen instantly but at some indeterminate time in the future.

Luke tells us that after the angel's departure, Mary left "with haste" to travel to Elizabeth's house, a journey of four or five days [1:39] and that by the time Mary reached Elizabeth's house, she knew that she was pregnant, knew that the angel's promise of a son entitled to sit on the throne of David was already in the process of being fulfilled, enabling her to exclaim "he that is mighty has done to me great things." [1:49] If it were a miraculous conception, the only way Mary could possibly know any of the above would be by the continued absence of menstruation. We know that only a few days had passed between the angel's visit and her arrival at Elizabeth's house - not enough time for pregnancy to be confirmed by these means.

Mary's state of knowledge could only be the result of an encounter which took place on the journey to Elizabeth's house, and which led to Mary's conviction that she had already become pregnant.
Briefly and bluntly put, Luke tells us that conception took place by normal means, after the angel's visit but before Mary arrived at Elizabeth's house, through an encounter with a descendant of David who could father a son entitled to sit upon David's throne, and who Luke names in 3:23. All of the angel's promises to Mary and to Israel have been fulfilled - that is the whole point of the story.

Luke's gospel is a private letter and, as such, contains private and confidential information. We are indeed fortunate that this letter has been preserved. Some may find offensive what I am about to reveal here but Luke found it necessary to reveal the same information to Theophilus because he considered it more important to stress that God keeps his salvation promises regardless of the means employed to do so, or whether man agrees with those means or not.

Matthew of course tell us precisely the same. Even though Matthew does not name the biological father of Jesus, he also found it necessary to stress that God's salvation plan for Israel has often been achieved through strange and unusual circumstances. If you refer back to the stories of the four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy - Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba - you will find that all of them took decisive steps vital to the fulfillment of God's purposes for Israel, regardless of whether their actions had contravened normal social relationships or whether they were "outsiders" - non-Israelites. For Israelites, the names of these women would have evoked memories of the inscrutable yet saving purposes of God, which have never been constrained by biology, social norms, or ethnicity. (See Ruth 4:17.)

The Translation Games

Translators have played games with Luke 3:23 which begins the genealogy of Jesus.

A Selection of English Translations -

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." [KJV]

"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli..."[ESV]

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli..."[NIV]

In these English versions, translators have destroyed the meaning of the verse by inserting parenthesis and commas in sincorrect place and by also inserting words which do not appear in the Greek texts - "which was the son" or "the son" immediately preceding "of Heli..."

It was very surprising and disturbing to me to discover that scholars of the Catholic Church have actually known and recorded the truthful translation of Luke 3:23.

The Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia article entitled 'Genealogy' ² has the following to say:

"St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli.

This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli."

So, the Encyclopaedia's translation of 3:23 is:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years old, being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph, but really) of Heli."

In his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,³ renowned exegete and scholar of Biblical Greek, Frédéric Louis Godet, inserts dashes in the text and says:

"The text, therefore, to express the author's meaning clearly, should be written thus: "being a son - as was thought, of Joseph - of Heli, of Matthat..."

So Godet's translation of 3:23 is:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years old, "being a son - as was thought, of Joseph - of Heli, of Matthat..."

Although Frédéric Godet [and the RCE] assert that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, i.e. Jesus, [Mary], Heli, Matthat, etc. to maintain the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, Godet's arguments as to the original geneaological information provided by Luke and the correct translation of the passage remain overwhelmingly convincing.

The one issue upon which these scholars are united is that the name of Joseph does not belong in the original genealogy.

Jesus is the biological son of Heli, a direct descendant of King David and, therefore, entitled by birth to the title "Messiah." God's promises to David have been fulfilled.

Without any evidence whatsoever, and despite the fact that Luke has clearly identified Mary as a Levite, some translators, scholars and ecclesiastics continue to claim that Luke is tracing Mary's descent from David. This assertion is quite ludicrous and totally ignores ancient Hebrew culture where tribal affiliation and family genealogy could only be traced through the patrilineal line. It is a clumsy attempt to conceal the stark reality of the very point that Luke is making and conflicts with every other New Testament statement about the birth of Jesus.

As Longnecker ⁴ quite rightly observes:

"It need not be supposed that the church's ascription of messiahship to Jesus made him a descendant of David in their eyes when in fact he was not. Neither the acclaim of Jesus as "son of David" on the part of the people not the Evangelists' recording of that fact are plausible 'had it been believed that he did not satisfy the genealogical conditions implied by the name. And, as Dalman has further pointed out:

"As the scribes held to the opinion that the Messiah must be a descendant of David, it is certain that the opponents of Jesus would make the most of any knowledge they could procure, showing that Jesus certainly did not, or probably did not, fulfil this condition. And there can be no doubt that Paul, as a persecutor of the Christians, would be well instructed in regard to this point. As he, after mingling freely with members of the Holy Family in Jerusalem, shows that he entertained no sort of doubt on this point, it must be assumed that no objection to it was known to him. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a single trace of conscious refutation of Jewish attacks, based on the idea that the derivation of Jesus from David was defective."

As we can now see, the endlessly-discussed 'conflict' between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke is simply an illusion necessitated by adherence to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

This manufactured 'conflict' has been used by many who seek to destroy the veracity of the gospels. Its negative impact, therefore, can hardly be overestimated.

It is time for us, in this 21st century, to enquire without fear into the explanation about the biological father of Jesus that Luke has provided for us. God moves in mysterious ways and it is not our function to question God. God is a god of truth. Commitment to truth is the hallmark of those who would be followers of Jesus. When Jesus was questioned by Pilate, he said:

"For this reason was I born,
And for this purpose came I into the world,
That I should bear witness to the truth,
Those that are of the truth shall hear my voice." (John 18:38)

Long ago I had to accept this truth even though, at the time, it conflicted with my personal feelings, everything I had hitherto been taught, and meant permanent estrangement from the Church in which I had been raised. I had to empty my mind of all the doctrinally imposed images of the Christ and instead bow my head in humility and simply marvel at God’s purposes to search hearts and minds.

To illustrate, I recall that many moons ago I pointed out to a member of the Christadelphian religion that Luke names the biological father of Jesus. His response rings in my ears to this day:

"God would not have a bastard as his Messiah."

This display of breathtaking self-righteous arrogance is precisely how God searches the human heart and mind. This Christadelphian judged himself out of his own mouth. As well as confirming that he himself would discriminate against a child because of the parents' marital status he also presumed to know the mind of God. A similar self-righteous arrogance has been the hallmark of the Church from time immemorial.

The crucially important fact that Mary was of the tribe of Levi has been completely overlooked by theologians intent on promulgating the doctrine of Virgin Birth. These theologians, knowing that the New Testament states many times that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and of the "seed of David", and knowing that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, erroneously assert that it is through Mary that Jesus can claim Davidic sonship.

NOTES: The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 1889, page 95.
[2] Catholic Encyclopaedia article Genealogy [The article goes on to provide the Greek text which, it says, most textual critics prefer but, as Godet uses the same 'preferred' Greek text, the intent of the verse remains the same.]
[3] Professor Frédéric Louis Godet's 1889 classic Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [pages 195-204]. Godet's commentary is frequently referenced to this day as a reliable source for the study of Luke's Gospel. It is one of the most significant studies of Luke from the 19th century and is respected for its exegetical style and ability to address the authenticity and origins of Luke's Gospel with precision..
[4] Richard N Longnecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, Regent College Publishing, 1994, pp 110-111.

Bizarre Bedfellows

2011-05-07T18:54:19+10:00

Note: I recently received a communication from Mr. Irvin Mermelstein of the Jewish Survival Blog who shares my concerns about the bizarre associations and activities of a person who features prominently in the campaign to canonise Pope Pius XII. On the subject of the canonisation of Pope Pius XII, Mr. Mermelstein publishes material similar to mine and has kindly provided me with a copy of a Magazine from 2007 including remarks by this apologist, Mr. Michael Hesemann. A copy of the "UFODATA" Magazine can now be downloaded. Download Hesemann and UFO's pdf.

Communications between myself and Mr. Mermelstein have inspired me to continue to publish articles about this subject so I have decided to begin by re-posting an article I wrote in May 2009. As I said to Mr. Mermelstein, I think the issue of the eventual canonisation of PPXII is of paramount importance as it is connected in subtle ways to other disturbing activities of the current Pope such as his recent re-communication of the Holocaust-denying Bishop of the Society of St Pius X and his attempts to "christianise" the Holocaust.

The article below originally appeared under the title "Extraterrestrials and the Lady of Fatima."

The cause for canonisation of Pope Pius XII has been underway for the last twenty-five years but is now gathering steam as various apologists for this Pope and his role during World War II are popping up all over the place. Make no mistake, just as with the recent re-communication of the holocaust-denying Bishop of the Society of St Pius X, the cause for canonisation of Pope Pius XII is intended to provoke and distress the Jewish people, sanctimonious papal mouthings notwithstanding. [See The Holy Games : Jew-baiting]

There is a pattern to the canonisation effort and any cursory Google search will reveal that most apologists refer to the same set of statements by the same set of persons, including Jews, lauding Pope Pius XII's efforts to save other Jews from the Holocaust.

Two persons make regular appearances on the apologist show:

GARY KRUPP

Gary Krupp is a Jewish-American gentleman from New York who runs the Pave the Way Foundation, an organisation which works to "promote dialogue between religions."

Last September, Mr. Krupp and the Vatican convened a conference in Rome featuring speakers who defended Pope Pius XII's wartime behaviour. According to the Jewish Daily Forward, the conference was attacked by a variety of Jewish leaders, liberal Catholics and historians for its pro-Pius XII bent.

"This was a one-sided campaign rally rather than a serious intellectual inquiry," said Michael Marrus, a history professor at the University of Toronto who declined to attend.

Mr. Krupp is certainly an interesting personage who, strangely enough, is also a Papal Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, an honour bestowed on him by Pope John Paul II in 2000.

MICHAEL HESEMANN

A much-praised associate of Gary Krupp is a certain Michael Hesemann. Mr. Hesemann has been variously described as an "eminent German historian," a "cultural anthropologist," an "advisor of the Pave the Way Foundation," a "relic hunter," a "UFOlogist," a "respected religious scholar," a "Vatican insider," and an "accredited Holy See Press Officer."

According to a Catholic News Agency Report, Mr. Hesemann has been given access to that section of the Vatican Archives dealing with the papacy of Pope Pius XI, the immediate predecessor of Pius XII.

"Each time he [Hesemann] enters the archive," Krupp said, "he comes out with an "astounding" document about Pius XII fighting anti-Semitism or saving Jewish lives."

Mr. Hesemann has certainly written some "astounding" books:

The Cosmic Connection: Worldwide Crop Formations and ET Contacts

The Fatima Secret

UFOs: The Secret History

Beyond Roswell: The Alien Autopsy Film, Area 51, & the U.S. Government Coverup of UFOs

The First Pope [a work describing the "astounding" story of the discovery of Peter's tomb under St.Peter's Basilica]

Titulus Crucis [a work claiming authenticity for the relics of the cross of Christ kept in the Roman Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem]

The Pope Who Defied Hitler

The Truth About Pius XII

Produced some "astounding" films:

UFOs: the Secret Evidence

UFOs: Secrets of the Black World

Ships of Light: the Carlos Diaz UFO Experience

Made some "astounding" claims:

That warnings give to us by such Marian apparitions as the Lady of Fatima are similar to the warnings received from UFO visitors.

Maintains an "astounding" E-Bay site:

Items for sale include reliquaries containing "relics of the True Cross and the Twelve Apostles."

Truth is indeed stranger and more astounding than fiction, isn't it?

We will hear much more from Papal Knight Krupp and will also have the opportunity to study yet more fruits of relic-hunter Hesemann's "astounding" research as he now claims to have discovered the "Holy Grail" in Spain. He also will no doubt continue to favour us with his insights into yet more Christian Relics, the Lady of Fatima, Miracles, Crop Circles, Extraterrestrial Life, UFO's...

PHOTOS:
Top: Papal Knight Krupp receives a birthday kiss from Benedict XVI
Bottom: Michael Hesemann handing Benedict XVI the fruits of his latest research

The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth Part V

2011-04-18T09:22:41+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum...

The Gospel of Luke : Part II

The Promise to King David

"And when your days be fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your offspring after you, who shall come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." [II Sam 7:12-13]

Imminent Fulfillment

Luke 1:32b -1:33

Gabriel announces the imminent fulfillment of this Davidic promise:

"...and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." [See Note below]

At this time, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of David. As we have already seen in the Gospel of Matthew : Parts I and II, Joseph's line had been debarred forever from sitting on the throne of David - by God himself.

It is important to note here that Luke has already identified Mary as a Levite and that her relative Zacharias served in the temple. The Levitical priesthood kept the genealogical records, paying particular attention to those of the Levites and to those of the descendants of King David. As such, Mary would have been well acquainted with Joseph's genealogy. [Josephus, in his autobiographical Life, refers to the "public registers" from which he extracts his own genealogical information.]

Knowing that her betrothed could not father a child entitled to sit on the throne of David, Mary asked the angel the most logical of questions -

Luke 1:34

"...How shall this be, seeing I don't know a man"?

Even though proponents of the Virgin Birth doctrine assert that the word "know" [ginóskó] here refers to knowing sexually, the correct view is that Mary did not know - did not have knowledge of - a man who could father a child entitled to sit upon the throne of David. The seven New Testament occurrences of ginóskó - know - all refer to a state of knowledge and confirm that the assertion made by Virgin Birth advocates is completely without foundation.

As we have seen, the angel has made some startling promises concerning the child to be born - promises that cannot be fulfilled if Joseph is to be the father.

So what was Gabriel's response to Mary's question?

Luke 1:35a

"And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you..."

An underlying Hebrew parallelism is evident here (Expressing the same thought twice using equivalent words). The "Holy Spirit" is synonomous with the "power of the Highest."

It is this divine power, the "Holy Spirit," which will "overshadow" or protect Mary. The image of the Spirit "overshadowing" Mary is drawn from the image of Boaz covering Ruth with the "wings" of his garment and from the Hebrew theme of overshadowing protection which is found in the Psalms. "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler." (Psalm 91:4)

Luke 1:35b

"...Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you..."

There is nothing singular or exclusive about the word 'holy' in reference to Jesus. At the time of his birth, every first born male that opened the womb had to be called 'holy' [sanctified] according to the Law of Moses.

A comparison of texts will place the matter in its correct perspective:

"And while they were there (in Bethlehem) Mary brought forth her first born son." (Luke 2:7)

"And YHVH spoke unto Moses saying, Sanctify unto me all the first born, whatsover openeth the womb among the Children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine." (Ex.13:1-2)

"...the males that openeth the womb shall be YHVH's." (Ex.13:12)

"And when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called 'holy' to the Lord)." Luke 2:22-23

Luke 1:35c

"...shall be called the Son of God."

As demonstrated exhaustively in the Gospel of Luke : Part I, the appellation "son of God" is not exclusive to Jesus. For a comprehensive list of other sons of God see here.

Luke 1:36-37

"And Elizabeth your kinswoman, she has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren. For no word from God shall be empty of power."

Just as God had ensured the conception of the aged and barren Sarah [Gen 18:14] so has God now ensured the conception of the aged and barren Elizabeth. These conceptions were of a far more "miraculous" nature than the relatively simple task of finding an eligible man to father a child with the young and obviously fertile Mary.

Luke 1:38

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her."

A suitable descendant of King David was found. The New Testament goes on to record the fulfillment of the promise made to King David and then to Mary:

"...concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh... "(Rom 1:3-4)

"Of this man's [David] seed has God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. (Acts 13:23)

"Has not the scripture said that the Anointed one comes of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? "(John 7:42)

"Remember Jesus Anointed, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." (2 Tim 2:8)

NOTE: One important point that should not be overlooked is that Gabriel promises that the child to be born will reign over the "house of Jacob." The term "house of Jacob" signifies the whole twelve tribes of Israel, whereas the "house of David" signifies just two tribes - those of Judah (David's own tribe) and Benjamin (with a sprinkling of Levites).

A little background is necessary to understand Luke's intent here. The Kingdom of David originally included the entire twelve-tribed Israel - the twelve sons of Jacob. After the death of Solomon, David's son, the Kingdom split into two parts: the northern Kingdom of Israel consisting of 10 tribes, and the southern Kingdom of Judah consisting of two tribes. Around 721 BC, the Assyrians invaded the northern Kingdom. The Assyrians had a policy of removal and replacement of native populations so they removed a fair proportion of the Israelites and replaced them with another group of captive people. These replacement people later became known as the Samaritans. Around 604 BC, the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, invaded the southern Kingdom of Judah, destroyed the temple of Solomon, and carried off the leading citizens to Bablyon. These people became knows as "Jews" (Judahites). Some returned from Babylon, and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. The descendants of these returnees and those who had always remained in the land are the people we meet in the New Testament. Of the entire New Testament, only Luke makes mention of a descendant of the ten northern tribes - Anna of the tribe of Asher. [Luke 2:36]

Luke's purpose in mentioning "the house of Jacob" and Anna the prophetess of the "tribe of Asher" [Luke 2:36] is to reinforce the memory that Messianic promises were made to the entire people of Israel - all twelve tribes. We will see when we come to a future commentary on Apostolic Succession why this is important.

to be continued...

Doctrine of the Virgin Birth Part IV

2011-02-26T06:51:21+10:00

Continuing the series first posted by me on the Catholica Forum...

The Gospel of Luke : Part I

As we discovered in the previous commentaries on the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, here, here and here, there is absolutely no justification for asserting that the doctrine is based on either Isaiah 7:14, or on the Gospel of Matthew. Now we will see if there is any justification for asserting that the doctrine is based on the Gospel of Luke.

The Preparation

Luke begins his gospel by assuring Theophilus that he has done his research...that he has “investigated everything carefully from the beginning.”

As we shall presently see, one of the most important of his discoveries is that he has verified the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. This is, for him, a cause of great celebration. He can demonstrate that Jesus has a claim by right of birth to sit on the earthly throne of David.

Luke first sets out to prove to Theophilus his claim to have investigated everything carefully from the beginning by describing the circumstances surrounding the birth of John the Baptist. He establishes his credentials by going into great detail about the priest Zacharias, even going so far as to identify Zacharias as belonging to the priestly “course of Abia.”

One of Luke's major purposes here is to identify Zacharias' wife Elizabeth as “one of the daughters of Aaron.” Thus, husband and wife both belong to the tribe of Levi.

He is laying the groundwork, painting an intimate and detailed picture of a priestly family, so that when he goes on to describe the events in Nazareth, Mary will appear no stranger to Theophilus: as a “suggenes” (tribal kin) of Elizabeth, she will fit neatly into the framework he has already set out.

The crucially important fact that Mary was of the tribe of Levi has been completely overlooked by theologians intent on promulgating the doctrine of Virgin Birth. These theologians, knowing that the New Testament states many times that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and of the “seed of David,” and knowing that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, erroneously assert that it is through Mary that Jesus can claim Davidic sonship.

Luke's infancy narrative lays particular emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic promises, as we can clearly see in the Canticles of Mary, Zachariah and Simeon, and in the response of Anna the "prophetess." (Note that the emphasis on David and Israel and the frequent mention of "our fathers" rule out the assertion that these hymns of praise in Luke were originally products of a Gentile Christian community.)

It is therefore ludicrous to assert that he would attempt to portray Jesus as a descendant of David through the matrilineal line, a totally invalid proposition as tribal affiliation and family genealogy could only be traced through the patrilineal line.

The Annunciation

Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, had been regarded as barren but had conceived a child and was six months pregnant when the angel appeared to Mary.

Luke 1:26-27

"Now in (Elizabeth's) sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin (parthenos) betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."

Luke testifies that, at this time, Mary was a "parthenos." (In ancient Greek usage, a "parthenos" is just an unmarried woman, whether she be a physical virgin or not.)

Whether Mary was a physical virgin or not, however, it is of critical importance to realise that there had, as yet, been no conception. That Jesus was not conceived until some indeterminate time after the angel's departure is confirmed in 2:21.

"When eight days were fulfulled for circumcising him, his name was called Jesus, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb."

Luke, writing these words to Theophilus, having no personal knowledge but having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, nevertheless was able to specify that the conception took place after the Annunciation. Perhaps because the early church was male-dominated, it seems to have completely escaped attention that every young woman is a virgin before she first has a sexual relationship. It also seems to have escaped attention that Mary was the only person who could possibly know these intimate details, therefore Luke's source derived in whatever chain of transmission from Mary herself.

Luke 1:28

"And he came in to her, and said, Hail: You are highly favoured, the Lord be with you."

Note that it was the same Gabriel who told Daniel that he was also highly favoured (Dan. 9:23, 10:11,12,19). "The Lord be with you" was a standard form of Jewish greeting.

Luke 1:29-31

"But she was greatly troubled at the saying and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.

"And the angel said unto her, 'Fear not Mary for you have found favour with God: And behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus.'"

At first, we are told that Mary could not understand the angel's greeting for, unlike Zacharias, she had made no supplication to God.

Luke 1:32a

"He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High."

The Sons of God

The disciples expected the Messiah to be born from the seed of David the King. The term Son of God designated a human being especially related to God and imbued with God’s spirit. That it would in future come to imply the “divinity” of Jesus would have been profoundly shocking to the disciples, or to any Jew. Can we imagine that Judas knew he was betraying his God? Did the disciples believe that God was washing their feet at the Last Supper? Or when Peter cut off the soldier’s ear, did he think that that God was incapable of defending himself?

The concepts of Hebrew Sonship and Fatherhood must be the most misunderstood and misused in all of human history. To regard God as a Father and to naturally then be called a "Son of God" carries no suggestion whatsoever of "divinity." These related concepts were applied to the anointed kings of ancient Israel and to the whole House of Israel long before the time of Jesus:

"His name shall be Solomon . . . he shall build a house for My name and I will be a Father to him and he will be a son to Me." [ I Chron. 22:9-10]

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son." (II Sam. 7:12-17)

"You are my father, my God, the rock of my salvation.” (Psalm 89:26)

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” (Hosea 11:1. See also Exodus 4:22)

And the appellations "son of God" and “son of the Most High" would be applied by Jesus himself to others:

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God," and again: But love your neighbours and do them good, and lend, never despairing, and your reward shall be great, and you shall be sons of the Most High." (Matt. 5:9, Luke 6:35)

Adam is called the "son of God" because he was created in God's image (Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26-29).

Those followers of Jesus who have received the Holy Spirit are made "sons of God" and Jesus is the "firstborn of many brethren” (Rom 8:14-17; 29-30).

The author of Hebrew speaks explicitly of the many "sons of God" who are to come (Hebrews 2:10). For John, those who are united with Jesus become "children of God." (John 1:12-13).

In late 2nd Temple Jewish writings, a devout follower of God is said to be his "son." (Wisdom of Solomon 2:16-18; 5:5; Sirach 4:10). The patriarchs Noah, Lamech, and Shem are addressed as "my son" in 1 Enoch.

The essential difference between Jesus and all these other "sons of God" was that he was also the promised deliverer.

When the term "son of God" is used in reference to Jesus, it is synonomous with the term "Messiah" as we can see in Mark, John and Acts where the two concepts of "son of God" and "Messiah" are merged into the one person of Jesus, thus proving they are interchangeable terms in the New Testament.

"But Jesus was silent and made no reply. Then the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mark 14:61)

“...so that you may believe that Jesus is the anointed (Messiah), the Son of God.” (John 20:31)

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, (the promise of a deliverer) that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."(Acts 13:33)

Note that one of the creedal pillars is the assertion that Jesus is the “eternally-begotten son” of the Father. This single statement by Paul, that Jesus became the “only-begotten” son of the Father on the day of his resurrection, should be more than enough to consign the creedal formulations of “eternally begotten not made” to the rubbish bin of theology because there was a time before Jesus was “begotten.” To say that he was begotten from all eternity is a self-contradiction and absurd in the extreme. Eternity has no “beginning.” Sonship supposes time, generation and Father - time before the generation.

We read in Luke 2:48-50 about Mary and Joseph's search for Jesus

" 'What made you search?' he said. "Did you not know that I was bound to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he meant."

Thus, Mary, who supposedly had undergone a virgin conception and the travail of child-birth, did not know what Jesus was talking about when he called YHVH his Father. Her amazement would be that a child born in such lowly circumstances would call God his Father. Such sentiments were reserved for the nation as a whole, or Kings.

The above evidence demonstrates that to regard God as a Father, and to thereby be called a "son of God" carries with it no implication whatsoever of "divinity." Any assertion to the contrary is to read texts according to the demands of Christian theology.

to be continued at Luke 1:32b...