Galatians 2 and the behaviour of Peter

[robert j]

Interesting post. ... I am still far from convinced of Marcan priority. I imagine your theory works equally well regardless the order of synoptic publication.

No. I’m not interested in participating in a discussion of Marcan priority or the order of synoptic publication, but IMO (and channeling a lovelorn soap opera actress) --- ‘It’s Mark, it’s only Mark, it’s always been Mark.’

I’ve posted a somewhat related essay on his forum ---
here --- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460

It’s Paul then Mark (ending at 16:8). IMO, everything else about Jesus Christ is further development, elaboration, and legend-building derived from those two.

[gmx]

my query was about how could someone who had experienced a risen Christ in the flesh and think it important enough to be in Antioch preaching the gospel to gentiles, be worried about such trivial matters?

How? Trivial? Hindsight is 20/20. If things went a little differently in the first century, not only would you not be asking this question, but you would also know that all Christians get circumcised, observe the sabbath, eat kosher, and uphold the law, viewing Jesus as a way for the gentiles to be brought into all of this. It doesn't became a settled matter without friction, debate, and development.

I'm saying its trivial in the context of experiencing a human male, on whose behalf you had forgone your previous existence, restored from death to bodily life, walking around with holes in his hands and feet, three days after being crucified...

[TedM]

gmx, I see your point but the wider context is that Peter was a Jew who was likely taught his whole life to live according to Jewish law in order to please God. How does knowing a risen Jesus affect that teaching/belief? It seems there was a high expectation that the early believers in Jesus' resurrection had that the kingdom of God would soon be restored to the Jews -- again singling the Jews out as special and different from Gentiles. The context, to me, makes issues like we see in Galatians very understandable -- especially when you consider that it may have been 10 years or so since Peter had had those experiences you mention.

[gmx]

gmx, I see your point but the wider context is that Peter was a Jew who was likely taught his whole life to live according to Jewish law in order to please God.

Sure, I get that... as I understand it these first century humans were intellectually commensurate with modern humans. I guess I'm comparing it to how major grievances at work become insignificant when the GFC hits and you're about to lose your livelihood altogether. It gives you perspective. A real, living, resurrected human being? Surely it trivialises almost anything and everything?

[JoeWallack]

Peter was called by Jesus to give up everything and follow him, which he did. He witnessed all of Jesus' public ministry, the transfiguration, miraculous feedings and healings, Jesus' arrest & resurrection... Peter was the rock on which Jesus built his church.

JW:
? The original Gospel narrative, GMark, is clear that Peter was a Jesus failure and makes a primary point that not only did Peter not witness a resurrected Jesus but Peter rejected the thought and never believed Jesus was resurrected.

You claim elsewhere (with no evidence) that GMark is not the original narrative but that's irrelevant here because you are just comparing GMark and Paul. You ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jewsy yet by an Act of Providence they all seem to be trying to lead to orthodox Christian assertions.


Joseph

[iskander]

Paul’s stories in Galatians with Peter/Cephas, James and John were primarily intended to demonstrate --- for the benefit of his Galatians --- that these men were NOT concerned about circumcision for Gentile believers. If one does not grasp that concept, then IMO, trying to understand the letter to the Galatians is futile.

My distinction about "who was circumcised or not" was not about circumcision but about Jews as distinct from Gentiles... as in "an apostle to the circumcision". I'm sure it's not meant literally, that God meant apostles should attend circumcisions. My line is that Peter is accused of changing his behaviour based on who was circumcised, and my query was about how could someone who had experienced a risen Christ in the flesh and think it important enough to be in Antioch preaching the gospel to gentiles, be worried about such trivial matters?

Circumcision was very important for Paul and Peter , and was also very important for Abraham , and it was a tragic imposition for the bridegroom of Dinah.
It was very important for G-d , who tried to kill Moses for failing to circumcise his son , as reported in exodus 4:24-26 ;
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him and tried to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’* feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ 26So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’

And it was also very important for the parents of baby Jesus, as reported in Luke 2:21;

Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.