The Berean Codex™Scripture Research Project
Research library · Reception history · Dependency analysis

Evidence audit — Identifying the continuing Petrine office specifically with the bishops of Rome requires another premise

A reusable research record with provenance and relationships kept separate from the presentation layer.

INTERPRETATION_AUDITAUDIT_INT_MAT_16_ROMAN_SUCCESSION
Interpretation Dependency Profile

Context Model Dependent

Premises mapped: 2 · Development threads: 2

Curated chronology: v57 curated corpus · Historical Origin Unknown

This profile distinguishes the current Archive evidence chain from historical origin. The earliest loaded witness is not a claim that the idea originated there.

Open complete dependency profile

Chronology boundary: “Earliest in the curated Codex corpus” is not a claim of historical origin. Missing earlier records cannot be treated as evidence that a premise did not exist.
Interpretive Evidence Audit

Tradition Dependent · Curated Pass With Limits

Audited target: Identifying the continuing Petrine office specifically with the bishops of Rome requires another premise

Inference depth: Multi Step

Original-meaning weight: Tradition Dependent

Support review

Textual: {"rating":"REVIEWED","notes":["Direct Matthew 16 wording was separated from added premises."]}

Linguistic: {"rating":"REVIEWED_WHERE_RELEVANT","notes":["Greek claims are limited to demonstrable lexical/grammatical observations; no Aramaic reconstruction is treated as extant wording."]}

Historical Context: {"rating":"SEPARATE_LAYER","notes":["Later doctrinal and patristic evidence is used as reception/development evidence unless independently relevant to original context."]}

Dependencies

Type: LATER_DOCTRINAL_PREMISE

Note: See the v57 dependency profile for explicit premise-by-premise analysis.

Inferential steps

A continuing Petrine office exists.
The continuing Petrine office is uniquely located in the Roman episcopal succession.

Counterevidence review

v57 has not yet completed the dedicated first-/second-century Roman succession evidence pass; absence from this release is not historical absence.

Strongest competing case

See linked serious Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, and patristic formulations where relevant; direct-text claims are not overridden by those labels.

Audit conclusion

Publish with the stated classification and boundaries. Reception records remain separate from original-meaning evidence, and later doctrinal arrows remain visible rather than being folded into Matthew 16.

What this audit does not establish

That Peter was not in Rome.
That Roman succession has no early evidence.
That a Roman succession line, if established, automatically proves universal jurisdiction.

What this does not establish

That Peter was not in Rome.
That Roman succession has no early evidence.
That a Roman succession line, if established, automatically proves universal jurisdiction.
Release Introduced
v57
Status
CURATED_PUBLIC