Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
- On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Ronald Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
> For those of us who acknowledge that the apostle Peter was not in any wayGal 2:14ff is evidence that Peter and Paul agreed on the unique
> responsible for either 1 Peter or 2 Peter, there remains no evidence that
> Peter ever came to accept Jesus as the unique Son of God, i.e. that he ever
> became a Christian. Therefore the best working hypothesis is that Peter
> remained a Jew all his life.
soteriological significance of Jesus Christ and the eschatological
reconstitution of the people of God through his death and resurrection.
These convictions supply the premise of the argument with Peter that Paul
reports in vv. 14ff. The report of this argument runs at least through v.
18, as indicated by the verbs in the 1st person plural, which vv. 15�16
define as Jews who have trusted on Jesus Christ for eschatological
The 1st person singulars of v. 19�21 may well be exemplary rather than
exclusive, and the only unambiguous indication that the report has concluded
is the address to the Galatians in 3:1; if vv. 19�21 are included in the
report, then Paul's appeal to Peter and the other Jews in Antioch to resume
mixed table fellowship depended on the status he ascribed to Jesus as Son of
God, whose faith (or less plausibly, faith in whom) saves and into whose
life Paul had now been incorporated (v. 20). Appeal to this difficult notion
is a peculiar argumentative strategy if Paul's Jewish Christian audience in
Antioch (the "all" of v. 14) didn't already subscribe to it.
Austin Graduate School of Theology
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
> ..... Your "ordinary follower of Jesus" wouldJeff,
> have found it just as difficult to believe that while the Pillars didn't
> understand how followers of Jesus should conduct themselves at table, Paul
What I'm trying to say here is that one can accept a hero who has minor
flaws, such as the earnest but fallible Peter who emerges from a casual
reading of the gospel of Mark. But a follower of Jesus can't accept a hero
who is fundamentally on the wrong track christologically. So Paul could not
have portrayed Peter in this way without upsetting many of his Galatian
> I think the reality described by 1:11 is more complex than Paul having had aJames and Peter were expecting the kingdom of God to come with power
> visionary experience which included a command to "Preach this," with a list
> of propositions appended. Rather, as persecutor he had already heard what
> Jesus' followers were proclaiming about him (viz., the crucified Messiah had
> been raised and enthroned with God, inaugurating the age of deliverance
> promised in Scripture) .....
(Mk 9:1, derived from logia saying C12), i.e. the overthrow of the Roman
occupiers and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. This clearly
hadn't happened when Paul came on the scene. Paul's supporter, Mark, had to
replace the hopes of the original disciples for the establishment of a new
Israel (saying C21, c.f. Mt 19:28) with a reward in the life to come (Mk
10:29-30). This echoed Paul's promise of eternal life (e.g. Rom 6:22-23).
The idea that the kingdom had been inaugurated by the coming of Jesus arose
after the deaths of the original disciples when it began to look as if the
return of Jesus was delayed and might be delayed a lot longer.
> Your last sentence [regarding the ability or otherwise of the Galatians toTravel was indeed facilitated by the Pax Romana, and also by the widespread
> check Paul's claims] neglects the extent of travel in the early Empire, and
> the use made of this mobility to connect early Christian communities;
> ..... We know that Paul organized Corinthians and Macedonians for an
> embassy to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:34; 2 Cor 9:4),
Roman roads. But it was still slow. Your example above concerns a journey
which Paul regarded as most important. Travelling several days merely to
check on the truthfulness or otherwise of Paul's assertions in Galatians
would have been a lot less palatable.
> It was very shortsighted of Paul to maintain that he and the Pillars agreedBut as I indicated earlier in this thread, I don't think Paul claimed that
> on the gospel if contact with their followers was a real possibility for his
> converts, and if the reaction of a Jerusalem Christian to an acclamation
> like "Praise be to the God and Father of our crucified Messiah Jesus, who
> raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand" would have been,
> "Come again?"
the pillars agreed on the gospel.
> ..... Peter and theI don't see 9:9 or 14:9 as indicating eventual enlightenment.
> other disciples are depicted as uncomprehending regarding Jesus' impending
> death and resurrection during his ministry, but their eventual enlightenment
> and proclamation of these events is clearly anticipated (9:9; 13:913; 14:9,
> 2728; 16:7).
As for 14:28 and 16:7, I take these verses as early interpolations designed
to rehabilitate Peter. They are quite inconsistent with the rest of the
> In historical terms, once Jesus is executed, a Christology like thatI agree. But my understanding of what transpired is that James, Peter et al.
> ascribed to Peter in 8:2733 becomes untenable .....
changed to a 'Son of Man' christology (see my reconstruction of the logia),
Paul faced up to the inconsistency by glorying in the crucifixion (e.g. 1
Cor 1:23 : "we proclaim Christ crucified"), but playing down the belief in
Jesus as messiah by (for the most part) using "Christ" merely as a sort of