At 01:58 AM 10/3/2005, Tony Buglass replied to Daniel thusly:
>Re your thesis - yes, I agree that there is a strong Peter connection. It
>seems to be the general consensus that Paul's 1 Cor.15 paradosis is
>15:3-5, and that 6-8 is his own addition and update of the list. The
>question is where he got the paradosis in the first place, and it is not
>unlikely that he got it from Peter.... So Peter was probably Paul's main
>point of access to both his knowledge of the historical Jesus and his
>receiving of the early paradosis.
>The next question is whether the theological development of eg Rom.1:4 is
>Paul's own reflection on the implication of resurrection for Jesus' status
>as Messiah, or whether it is earlier tradition. ...
Thanks for the interesting summary!
>What I suspect this shows us is that the different christologies can be
>traced back into the earliest traditions, when theology was anything but
>... What was it about Jesus of Nazareth that made people remember these
>stories *before* his death and resurrection? Jimmy Dunn argues ("Jesus
>Remembered", or if you want the short form "A New Perspective on Jesus")
>that the disciples had faith in Jesus before his death, that there was a
>pre-Easter faith (obviously not the same as post-Easter faith) which led
>to the remembering and preservation of the oral traditions about Jesus'
Stevan Davies in his book, Jesus the Healer, argues that Jesus was more the
charismatic than the flat words of the Gospels are able to convey. I
suspect that it was his charisma that made him memorable, and it is that
"which led to the remembering and preservation of the oral traditions about
Jesus' ministry." Of course, we can then begin arguing about which of the
charismata he displayed, etc. What I suspect is that when eyewitnesses
talked about the charisma of Jesus, words failed them. When their scribes
attempted to write what the eyewitnesses were saying, it came out flat, or
as fabulous, even by their standards. So instead what they did was to try
to rationalize what was memorable about him, and to see him through the
eyes of their own sacred literature. In a sense, Crossan's contrast between
"History remembered" vs. "prophecy historicized" is a false choice: When
they read their sacred literature, they "saw" Jesus in it, or it helped
them "remember" Jesus.
>...To add a further twist, what about the possibility that Peter became a
>representative, a cipher for the disciples in later tradition. For
>example, there are issues about his place in the resurrection appearance
>traditions as opposed to Mary Magdalene - that he was inserted into the
>tradition in her place. Was he a strong leader, and the NT traditions
>reflect his authority in the church? ...
We wrestled with that question here on XTalk some time ago. I can't
remember a good key word to use in searching the archives, other than
"Peter." What we were struck by is that all of the Gospel writers seemed to
have mixed feelings about Peter: On the one hand, he seemed to be something
of a fumbler and a stumbler, if not an outright block head. But on the
other hand, it seemed clear that he had some special status going right
back to Jesus (yes, the historical one) that they could not deny. It seemed
that everyone knew that they were stuck with Peter, for better or worse,
and no one was completely happy about it. At least, that's what I remember
as the general consensus of that discussion.
>Perhaps we need a "quest for the historical Peter"...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]