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

Re: [XTalk] 1 Cor 15 Kerygma, the historical Peter, and the transition from Jesus to Christ

Expand Messages
  • Daniel J. Gaztambide
    Tony Buglass wrote: Perhaps we need a "quest for the historical Peter"... That s exactly what I am trying to do! My current understanding of the
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 3 12:36 PM
      Tony Buglass wrote: "Perhaps we need a "quest for the historical
      Peter"..."

      That's exactly what I am trying to do! My current understanding of the
      material though, is that he can't be studied in isolation, as perhaps it
      has been done in Jesus studies so far. He needs to be studied in relation
      to Jesus, pre- and post- easter.

      Another source I intend on using is 1 Peter. Irregardless of whether it
      is an actual writing of Peter, it could still serve as a source which
      conveys a tradition of what Peter's thoughts where. Within it are
      constant allusions to the suffering character of Jesus, much like his
      speeches in the book of Acts.

      As for the Phillipians quote mentioned earlier, I don't currently
      remember its status as far as authenticity goes (is it a writing of Paul
      or pseudopigraphia), but it could still present another attestation to
      the tradition of Jesus becoming the Messiah via resurrection.

      As to the authenticity of the Peter sayings, I would for starters
      consider the Peter saying in Acts 2: 36 as historical, via the criterion
      of dissimilarity. Luke (like all the other gospels) argue that Jesus was
      the messiah during his lifetime. If Acts is indeed by the same author as
      Luke, then he is sort of writting against himself by allowing Peter to
      say that Jesus was the Messiah through death and ressurection and not
      throughout life and preaching.

      I would also throw the criterion of embarassment in there, since in Acts
      4: 1-13 the High priest listens to Peter's teaching (Jesus as the Christ
      risen from the dead), and considers them "unschooled, ordinary men, they
      were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus".
      The rising leader of the early church is portrayed as a simpleton who
      performed unschooled exegesis of biblical texts.

      But maybe I'm being too rough with the usage of such criterion. Actually,
      I should probably explain why I'm using criteria develop for historical
      Jesus study in "historical Peter" study, which I'll happily do after my
      psychology and religion exam today!

      Ciao!

      -Dan



      On Mon, October 3, 2005 7:58 am, Tony Buglass wrote:
      > Daniel wrote:
      > In a sense, my work tries to answer a certain set of questions: how
      > exactly was the Messiah perceived in the early Church? Did it consider
      > Jesus to have been the Messiah since before his death%2
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Tony, Thanks for the interesting summary! ... I agree. ... Stevan Davies in his book, Jesus the Healer, argues that Jesus was more the charismatic than the
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 3 12:51 PM
        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. ...

        Tony,
        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
        >systematic. ...

        I agree.

        >... 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'
        >ministry.

        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"...

        Indeed!

        Cheers,
        Bob


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.