31 October 2017 = 500th anniversary of Luther’s theses
This is why the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were included, as well as
the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, John’s Revelation and the letter collections of individual churches.
The authentic letter of Paul to Philemon and the inauthentic 3rd letter of John were included and are included in the canon because they emphasise the unity of the whole church from the social point of view (Philemon) and in questions of faith (3 John).
The four Apostolic church’s contributions to the canon:
church Gosp. Acts Letters Revelation
James Matthew James, Judas –
John John 1-3 John John
Peter Mark 1-2 Peter –
Paul Luke, Acts Paul’s letters, – Hebrews
The Bible can be so exciting, if we approach it with an enquiring mind instead of accepting the papal interpretation. As Martin Luther wrote in 1520 (in his open letter To the Christian Nobility…): Bible interpretation should not be the sole privilege of the (Pope’s) church with its priests and professors; on the contrary, all Christians, even lay people, should interpret the Bible.
I withdraw nothing, as Martin Luther stated on 18 April 1520 at the Diet at Worms, unless the Holy Scripture or rational argument prove me wrong.
The dominant master narrative about the origins of the New Testament canon states that in the first half of the 2nd century AD,
there were so many Gospels and Apostolic letters circulating among the communities that the churches had to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The only texts they adopted into the canon of significant texts for the Christian religion were those that they considered were written by one of the twelve Apostles or the Apostle Paul, or that were authorised by one of the Apostles; e.g. Luke’s Gospel, written by Paul’s companion Luke (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon 24), was authorised by Paul.
The new theses about the origin of the New Testament canon:
The New Testament canon was formed from writings from the three Palestinian Apostolic churches of James, John and Peter and the Gentile Christian church of Paul.
The criterion for the acceptance into the canon was the balance between the origins in the individual churches and the extent to which the writings supported the church’s unity.
Mark’s Gospel is the founding document of the united Christian church; it was classified as canonical
from the very start. In addition, the leaders of the three individual churches, James, John and Peter, are presented jointly in Mark’s Gospel as witnesses to the core statements of faith of all three single churches.
The writer of Mark’s Gospel adopted stories about Jesus handed down in the Jesus Groups
led by James, John and Peter. Cf. in detail Johannes Neumann, War Markus ein Dichter? in: Neumann.: War Jesus Statthalter von Galiläa?, p. 43-92, here p. 51-62.
The evangelist adopted stories about Jesus from Galilee that originated as oral traditions handed down in the individual churches. The Jesus stories from Jerusalem are based on interpretations of Jesus’ death by the individual churches and their cultic application.
Cephas, the later leader of Peter’s church, is not identical with Simon Peter. It was Cephas, not Peter,
who attended the Apostolic Council. Paul never met Peter personally; he only met Cephas. Paul differentiates in Gal. 1f precisely between the Jewish Apostle Peter and Cephas, one of the three pillars (Gal. 2:9) whom he personally met.
The deaths of James and Simon, continued (3): Did Peter survive? Did Luke have a motive for allowing Peter to survive
in his literary account? Yes: he needed Peter’s presence at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: Acts 15:1ff.
It is possible that the legend that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there may already have existed in Luke’s time.
The tradition that Luke found probably reported Peter’s death. After all, Luke only has very weak witnesses for his version that Peter was saved.
The doubt: Peter himself doubts; he believes he is seeing a vision rather than that he would actually be saved. The church community he approaches also doubts and initially refuses to open the door, because they think Peter is a ghost (his angel).
Luke’s only witness is Rhoda the slave. But women and slaves were bad witnesses in classical times, because it was assumed that they would always speak in favour of their husbands or masters. The fact that Luke quotes this witness shows how desperately weak his position is in this case.
According to the principle of Occam’s razor, Josephus’ version is the right one: Peter died with James and in the same way. This argument is also supported by the fact that Luke does not provide any more narratives about Peter after this event: the Peter tradition ends here.
And according to Paul in Gal. 2:9, it wasn’t Peter, but Cephas, Peter’s successor as leader of Peter’s church, who was present at the Apostolic Council.
Conclusion: Peter was crucified by the governor Tiberius Alexander in 46 AD alongside James.
Simon Peter was crucified in 46 AD alongside James by governor Tiberius Alexander.
Acts 12:1ff reports that only James was executed and Peter survived. This contrasts with Josephus’ report in Ant. 20.5.2, according to which both James and Simon were executed:
… the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain… The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.
This raises several questions. 1) Do these texts refer to the same event? 2) When and by whom was the sentence of death pronounced? 3) Did Peter survive? I assume that the simplest explanation is the correct one. The answers follow in the next theses.