Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
The premise to uphold or debunk: (a) That the name of “Rock” was specially announced as a name for God in the Torah (Deut 32:1-4) and that (b) the name has been erased and/or lost in certain translations and thus (c) has had an effect on how Christians understand certain passages in Scripture.
Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4
We were hashing these things out on another thread here on the Religion Forum. But the thread is huge and has many sidebars and interest changed to more pressing matters – plus we were not on the “radar” of the forum as a whole. It is my hope that other posters here will have information and insight – whether Biblical archeology or theology or language – that will shed some additional light on the subject.
Translations: English from Hebrew (Masoretic)
[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar
English from the Greek (Septuagint)
As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.
English from Latin (Vulgate)
The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.
Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus
Background on the Hebrew:
Tzur is Hebrew for "rock". It is also used here:
Biblical and Talmudic Names for God Another common title of YHWH is "the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4,18, 1, 7; I Samuel 2:2; II Samuel 22:32; Isaiah 44:8; Psalm 18:32), thus comparing Him to a high crag on which one finds refuge and safety.
Nor has it been lost among Christians who have long used the King James Translation which was faithful to interpret literally the Hebrew word tzur to mean Rock instead of God or Mighty One as it is translated in the Septuagint. Ironically, the Christian hymn Rock of Ages is among their favorites. The name for God is used in several places in Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel 22 but also appears throughout the Psalms and in Isaiah.
In Isaiah 30:29 and Habbukak 1:12 it is translated in the King James Version to mean Mighty One like in the Septuagint - but everywhere else that I have found it is “Rock”.
The Vulgate omits the name altogether in Deuteronomy 32:4
Why is it important? From the Jewish perspective Of all the possible errors a translator could make, missing one of the names or titles of God has to be “right up there.” Rock is one of the common names for God but nevertheless important to Judaism.
Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood"). Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God. It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18
Jewish tradition holds that the Torah existed before the world, that every letter of it is a living creature and that altogether it, too, is a name of God. It is their – and by their hand to the world – greatest gift (since they don't receive Christ.) It is also their mission.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - John 4:22
To me, not translating tzur literally Rock in the Septuagint - is in fact "erasing" a name of God. Moreover, it is not in the Vulgate at all in Deu 32:4.
From the Christian perspective: The name of God is crucial to all Christians. It is our first plea in the Lord’s prayer:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:11-12 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
Surely the name “God is the Rock” will continue to be important in eternity. The Deuteronomy passage is in the “Song of Moses” which will be sung in heaven:
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4
And Christ used the term Rock in two very important passages. If one misunderstands the Rock to mean something common or someone other than God, then it can lead to error.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. – Matt 7:24-25 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18
Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8
To me, the most far reaching loss is in seeing Peter as the Rock in Matt 16:17-18 instead of God. Not that he isn’t “a“ rock but – at the very most, accepting that God is the Rock - his position in Christianity could be no more than Abraham’s in Judaism.
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2
Moreover, I assert that receiving the knowledge that “God is the Rock” can improve our understanding the Old Testament and increase our joy. As an example, consider the following passage understanding that God is the Rock, that Jesus was smitten, that the Living Water is the Spirit (John 4, 7:38):
Or perhaps this one:
And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. – Exodus 33:21-23
Here’s where the debate stands at this time:
Defense of the Vulgate/Septuagint:
The rebuttal so far is that the Septuagint chronologically precedes the Masoretic text, that the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated is no longer available (as far as we know to this date.)
I have not yet received a defense for why the Vulgate omits the term altogether.
Rebuttal to the defense
As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C. The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (LXX.) But as to the faithfulness of the Torah itself there is no question. As I have much personally testified, the indwelling Spirit authenticates Scripture and leads us into Truth. (John 14, 15):
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible) There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386). The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.
Nevertheless, the Jews always understood their responsibility to keep the Torah:
Other resources for Lurkers:
The Hebrew Alphabet wrt the history of the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures. Ancient Hebrew Translation Project - wrt the translation of poetic form v mechanical v literal
1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock. Fragments of this book were found at Qumran and carbon date to about 200 BC. The scholars suggest these passages were added though in about 100 B.C. The scholars believe the original language was Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Testament of Moses which is supposed to be a summary of Deutoronomy, but is very fragmented and the parts which would address the name, the Rock, may be missing. The scholars dispute the age of the manuscript but put it somewhere between 168 BC and 135 AD. The bearing it may have (if any) to this discussion is that Moses instructs and assures Joshua to protect the Scriptures (last part of chapter 1) in a manner that suggests there will be another find like the Dead Sea Scrolls as we get closer the Christ’s coming:
… I am going to sleep with my fathers. But (you) take this writing so that later you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. You shall arrange them, anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which (God) has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the world, (a place) where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord will surely have regard for his people.
"But you do not see him as being above the others. He was just a leader and apostle in the early church."
No, not above the others, but, as I said, among the others. For this reason as well as the fact that "Old Rome" was the original seat of the Empire, the Ecumenical Councils decreed that the Bishop of Rome, as successor to +Peter, is the "first among equals" of the bishops of The Church. Orthodoxy takes that position to this day, but of course for now the Bishop of Rome is in schism from the Church in the East.
Well, I would argue that his having been bishop of Rome is questionable as well. But certainly among the apostles he was an equal, a peer, of a select group of men who were to fulfill a specific duty in the founding of the church. The apostles operated under direct revelation at times, and could be mentors to the fledgling churches as none other on earth could. They were eyewitnesses of Christ (either during His earthly ministry or in Paul's case after the resurrection). In Scripture, you don't see Peter being considered above but as you say, among. Peter's words in I & II Peter are as authoritative and no more so than Paul's or Matthew's or John's or James's. And all have their inspiration from the Spirit of the Living God.
Thank you for your help tonight Kolo
"Well, I would argue that his having been bishop of Rome is questionable as well."
Certainly there have been questions raised about that as well as about +Andrew, his brother, having established the Great Church of Constantinople (long before it was Constantinople). The Church has believed he (+Peter) did since the earliest days. I'm Orthodox and I believe it.
"Thank you for your help tonight Kolo"
You are as always very welcome.
How many of us begin a meditation or prayer contemplating names like these: I AM, Messiah, YHWH, Jesus Christ, The Rock, Immanuel, Rose of Sharon, Lily of the Valley, Bright and Morning Star, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai, HaShem, Almighty God, Word of God, Alpha and Omega, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and so on?
I assert that when we contemplate a Name of God, we are also worshipping Him through one of His revelations to us. He is the Rock, He is Alpha and Omega, He is the Word of God, He is God with us, He is the Vine, and so on.
Bumpworthy insights here! Thank you so much for including me in the ping!
(re: paragraph two in italics above: ME! Count me in that number!)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, with one small emendation. We certainly can see in Eliakim a type of Christ entrusted with the House of David. But David is also a type of Christ, right? So if you look at it that way, Eliakim as a regent entrusted with the keys of David is analogous to Peter as a regent entrusted with the keys of Christ. Does that sound reasonable?
I'm glad you brought up the 12 thrones, but again, I can't emphasize enough that the Petrine office is not an absolutist one separate from the Apostles. All of the Apostles share in the rulership here, but Peter is sort of the "head of the college" in a special way. All 12 are thrones, all 12 are part of the foundation of the Church, and among those 12, Peter alone holds the keys.
And yes, we can consider salvation one of the keys, and faith one of the keys etc. I don't have to tell you that many layers of meaning are possible here. But those layers do not then take away what is--IMHO--the fundamental meaning of this passage, which is that Christ invests Peter with divine authority.
I would say, though--(I am grateful for the opportunity to finally cite the Fathers--evidence that has been heretofore indamissible :)...that the Church Fathers promoted both interpretations--that the Rock was both Peter's Confession as well as Peter himself. Which is why I was careful earlier in the thread not to trumpet the latter at the expense of the former.
And now that you're here I also want to ask you about tauth petra...admittedly my Greek is not very good, but does that "taute" at all have the force of "same", e.g. "this same rock"?
Blogger, again...I accept the "Peter's confession" interpretation totally. What I do not accept is promoting it at the expense of Peter himself. The keys were given to Peter, not to Peter's confession. So basically what I'm arguing for is the preservation of both interpretations, but neither one at the expense of the other.
BTW, I don't have any problem with this formulation. Being a Roman Catholic doesn't necessitate being an ultra-montanist! :)
If we mean "not above" as meaning he had no special role to play within the College of Aposles, that I cannot accept because Scripture and the Fathers flatly contradict it.
But if "not above" admits that he did have a special role which was not one of monarchism but rather one of service to the universal Church (whoever is greatest among you must be the servant of the rest, as Alamo-Girl cited earlier), that is pure orthodoxy right there.
I wouldn't either necessarily, but when folks don't see the value in Holy Tradition and firmly believe that it does nothing but "nullify" the word of God, it doesn't do much good to quote it.
Rest assured, if the interest and opportunity arises to quote the Church Fathers, and how they viewed this passage, I will do so. :)
But what are the keys?
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation. The Church Fathers weighed in on it - sometimes in opposition to one another.
I do not accept that Peter had an "extraordinary role" above the other apostles to play. I do not see it in Scripture (contrary to your assertion). I see him having the same role as the other apostles. His word was no more or no less authoritative. The only area in Scripture we really see him as "lead" is at Pentecost. At the Council of Jerusalem, he was one of several voices speaking with the final decision being made by the apostles elders "and the whole church."
The Church Fathers are not Scripture. They provide some insight into what some were thinking then, but they should not be used for doctrinal purposes. Doctrine is derived from Scripture.
" And now that you're here I also want to ask you about tauth petra...admittedly my Greek is not very good, but does that "taute" at all have the force of "same", e.g. "this same rock"?"
I don't think so, no.
"that the Church Fathers promoted both interpretations--that the Rock was both Peter's Confession as well as Peter himself."
Indeed, here and there one does see a Father speaking of the "rock" as being +Peter, though the consensus would indicate otherwise. I think the reason it isn't really an issue among the Fathers is that until very, very late in the patristic period, that interpretation was not used to justify ultramontanism. That's why I say its always dangerous to proof text the Fathers to support ideas which came up after they wrote. That isn't to say that it can never be done. Its done all the time and quite properly so; we just have to be careful to first determine the consensus patrum and then do the proof texting.
In this case I personally think that +Peter received a special commission unlike that of the other apostles. It was a commission to primacy. The rub of course is what does that mean. So far as I can see, that special commission has to carry with it some "power" or "authority" which allows the special commission to be real, to have a real effect within The Church. Again personally, I think we need to look to The Church of the Seven Councils to see how it worked in a united Church. I'll suggest that one sees something "like" it in the role the EP plays in Orthodoxy today but that said, the Petrine Office is clearly more than that. But even there we will see a tension between the claims of the Bishop of Rome and the positions of his brother bishops. We see it as early as Pope St. Leo the Great. The Church however, functioned, and functioned well, with that tension. +Leo is a saint for us Orthodox, no matter what he claimed his role to be. For centuries in the exercise of the authority they had, Bishops of Rome were the bulwarks of Orthodoxy in the face of heretical teachings by eastern Patriarchs and bishops, something for which we Orthodox are eternally grateful. So it can work, it did work but then it didn't, because we in the East were disobedient, as the Latins would say or because Rome went too far as we would say. Whatever the cause, the results in the West were dramatic, nothing less than the rise of Protestantism.
"If we mean "not above" as meaning he had no special role to play within the College of Aposles, that I cannot accept because Scripture and the Fathers flatly contradict it."
Agreed!
Post #106 has an explanation. The keys are symbols of authority: "what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation.
Indeed! And I have gone through great pains on this thread to keep it on a purely Scriptural level. I have only mentioned the Fathers with Kolo because he's Orthodox and that's a language we speak together. If you want, we can go there, but only if you are prepared to accept that--even though they are not Scripture (you're right there)--their opinions cannot simply be ignored, especially when they all agree on a topic. And I think you will find that there is not such wild disagreement among them as you think on the interpretation of this passage.
Bottom line, and I will repeat this until my fingers fall off. The grant of Peter's authority is taught plainly in Scripture. What exactly that authority *entails* is a different matter. And I'm sorry that you "do not accept it", but I'm sure you will understand that I cannot make your non-acceptance the basis of my exegesis.
I'll grant this to you if it'll help you see it better...all that is *still* a long way from the Papacy as we understand it. You can accept this grant of Peter's authority *without* believing Christ passed it on to other bishops (apostolic succession), you can accept this grant of authority *without* believing that it protected him against error (infallibility). There are any number of gradations on how you see Peter/the Bishop of Rome/the Pope as *some* kind of head of Christianity. So if you are worried that I am forcing you to accept the whole enchilada here, rest easy.
But to imply that such authority was not given to Peter--no way. Scripture is very very clear on that point.
I do not accept Peter as being given any primacy in the church. Peter was given authority in Matthew 16 to bind and loose. This binding and loosing is the keys to the kingdom but was not exclusively given to Peter. Rather, it was a power given to the disciples of Christ (who are more than just the Apostles but were the followers of Christ -i.e., all of us) two chapters later Matthew 18:18-19.
The church fathers can be helpful. I do believe that they can be ignorred however and even rejected when their views go against the teaching of Scripture. I base this upon the Bereans and Paul. If Paul were to speak something anti-Scriptural, they would have been right to ignore him. Paul says if he or an angel of anyone else were to come preaching another gospel, ignore them. So, while I believe the Church Fathers are instructional they must also be measured against the rule of Scripture. Where they say something extra-biblical that is not concerning an essential (essentials being salvation, the triune nature of God, the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin), then most often a certain amount of liberty is warranted. If however, their statements can end up being distorted to where they are affecting a matter of essential doctrine - then I believe that their extra-biblical statement should be rejected and we should go no further than what Scripture says.
I do not see Peter as Pope/bishop of Rome. He was probably in Rome when he died (though I can't be adamant on that), but we see his ministry in several places in Scripture none of which is Rome. Acts doesn't mention him with any primacy in Rome. Acts mentions him as a key leader, but not THE key leader.
I am not implying that Peter wasn't given a specific authority apart from the rest of the apostles. I am declaring that he was not. He had no more authority than the apostles on any matter. Yet he had all of the authority entailed in apostleship.
I seek not to demote Peter from his rightful place in church history. If he truly was the bishop of Rome, I don't really have a problem with that as I do not see Rome being given any primacy. But I also do not wish to elevate him above where I believe Scripture teaches he was. He was a key leader. But he was not the prime leader of the church and his words counted no more and no less than the other apostles. He could be questioned and rebuked, and was. He could be lauded and recognized as one having authority - and was. But he was not prime.
Jesus alone is the head of the church. We have direct access to Him according to the Scripture. He alone is our mediator to the Father. Peter was one of His key men, but He was not vicar. In other words, this statement from the catechism is unbiblical:
For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.""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."
Peter did not have this power over the other apostles and neither do those deemed his successors have such authority over the whole church.
Israel is God's portion and as such, God alone is ever the king of Israel. David being a man after God's own heart, was allowed to rule temporily. God has taken it back and Jesus occupies the throne. No one rules Israel other than Jesus, since Jesus. Peter was given no earthly throne, nor was any other apostle or disciple. Moreover, Peter was never an apostle sent to gentiles, so he would have no work in Rome. Paul was that emissary.
My remark was not intended at all as any criticism of your participation, which has been helpful, in the conversation. It was just a weary, jaded, pessimistic observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.