Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... David, For the conclusion that 1 Peter was pseudonymous see e.g. : Duling & Perrin, The New Testament , 3rd. Edn. (Harcourt Brace, 1994), p.476, Udo
    Message 1 of 36 , Sep 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I had written:

      >> For those of us who acknowledge that the apostle Peter was not in any way
      >> responsible for either 1 Peter or 2 Peter,

      David Cavanagh replied:

      > Well, surely that should be "hold" rather than acknowledge. I'm
      > perfectly well aware that 2 Peter is generally considered pseudonymous,
      > but I had never heard that said of 1 Peter ...


      For the conclusion that 1 Peter was pseudonymous see e.g. :

      Duling & Perrin, "The New Testament", 3rd. Edn. (Harcourt Brace, 1994),

      Udo Schnelle, "The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings" (SCM,
      1998), pp. 400-401,

      Bart Ehrman, "The New Testament" (OUP, 1997), p.373.

      > ..... In the first generation "Christian" and
      > "Jew" were not contrasting labels.

      Admittedly the term 'Christian' may not have been widely known in the first
      generation. I'll rephrase my statement, trying also to take into account
      David Mealand's comment on 'son of God':

      There remains no evidence that Peter ever came to accept Jesus as the Son of
      God in the sense proclaimed by Paul (c.f. e.g. Rom 1:3-5; 1 Cor 15:3b-4; Php
      2:5-11), i.e. that he ever became what we would now call a 'Christian'.

      > I also wonder what interest the early
      > church could possibly have had in presenting Peter as a Christian and
      > indeed the first amongst the apostles if he was not.

      They would naturally have assumed he was a Christian because the synoptic
      gospels presented him as the leading follower of Jesus during his lifetime.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

    • Ronald Price
      ... Jeff, 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
      Message 36 of 36 , Oct 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > ..... Your "ordinary follower of Jesus" would
        > 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
        > did;


        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 a
        > 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) .....

        James and Peter were expecting the kingdom of God to come with power
        (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 to
        > 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 16:3–4; 2 Cor 9:4),

        Travel was indeed facilitated by the Pax Romana, and also by the widespread
        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 agreed
        > 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?"

        But as I indicated earlier in this thread, I don't think Paul claimed that
        the pillars agreed on the gospel.

        > ..... Peter and the
        > 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; 13:9–13; 14:9,
        > 27–28; 16:7).

        I don't see 9:9 or 14:9 as indicating eventual enlightenment.
        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 that
        > ascribed to Peter in 8:27–33 becomes untenable .....

        I agree. But my understanding of what transpired is that James, Peter et al.
        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

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.