Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
- I'm writing on a deadline, so I have less time than I'd like to engage in
this interesting discussion, but I'd differ with Ron and Jack on what the
evidence of Galatians establishes.
With his credibility and his relations with the churches in a whole region
on the line, Paul asserts that from the outset of his ministry the churches
of Judea recognized the gospel that he preached as the same faith to which
they adhered (Gal 1:23), he reports that he and the Jerusalem Pillars were
in agreement on the content of the gospel and mutually recognized one
another's apostolates (Gal 2:1�10), and he relates how he publicly opposed
Cephas over a matter of conduct, arguing from the faith in Christ they had
both adopted (Gal 2:11ff).
The Agitators in Galatia may well have had Jerusalem connections (perhaps to
the "false brothers" Paul mentions as distinct from the Pillars in Gal 2:4)
or appealed to Jerusalem authorities in making their case to the Galatians,
and even if not it's not at all clear that Paul had definite enough
knowledge of them to rule this possibility out. To make assertions about his
relations with Jerusalem which would not be confirmed by authorities there
would be to risk losing the Galatian churches needlessly. (And similarly
with what Paul asserts in 1 Cor 15:1�11 about Jerusalem-based apostles and
what he presupposes as the convictions of the Roman community in Rom 6:3�4
Austin Graduate School of Theology
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
> From: "Ronald Price" <ron.price@... <ron.price%40virgin.net>>
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:51 AM
> To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
> > Jeff Peterson wrote:
> >> Gal 2:14ff is evidence that Peter and Paul agreed on the unique
> >> soteriological significance of Jesus Christ and the eschatological
> >> reconstitution of the people of God through his death and resurrection.
> > Jeff,
> > I beg to differ.
> > I put it to you that the "gospel" to which Paul refers here was the
> > according to Paul. He may have wished his readers to deduce that Peter
> > agreed with his gospel, and his choice of words may have been designed to
> > foster that very deduction, but Paul does not actually state that Peter
> > accepted his gospel. Instead his reported verbal reproof of Peter quickly
> > morphs into a typical written Pauline presentation of this gospel.
> > Ron Price
> > Derbyshire, UK
> > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
> I agree with Ron. The use of Euaggelion ("good message") is used at its
> earliest in Galatians, Romans and Corinthians and did not refer to any
> written scripture but to the "proclamation regarding Jesus" from whomever
> was telling the story. Shymeon Bar Yonah had been a student of Jesus
> himself with some indication he enjoyed special status. It is likely that
> Jesus knew him and his brother for many years. Paul never knew Jesus, was
> not taught by him, never heard him speak, hence he made it up as he went
> along. Telling his audience "I sure told him (Peter) where to get off" was
> part of Paul's braggadocio.
> Jack Kilmon
[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