Galatians 2 and the behaviour of Peter

[gmx]

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.

It seems a bit unlikely in Galatians 2:14 that a man who only experienced Jesus through revelation would have the audacity to accuse Peter of "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel", and to lecture him about "faith in Jesus Christ". And it also seems a bit unlikely that a man with Peter's experiences would be worried about who'd been circumcised or not.

[TedM]

My reading of Paul has convinced me that his 'gospel' is one of salvation for ALL through faith in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah, as (he believed) was predicted in the OT scriptures. For Paul that greatly minimized the importance of holding converted Gentiles to having to follow Jewish customs and law. The 'gospel' of Paul had nothing to do with the 4 'gospel' books familiar to us.

It certainly could be argued that Peter was the rock upon whom Jesus built his church, if one were to accept Acts as historical or at least somewhat accurate in general, since Peter was the clear leader of the earliest Christian church, according to that book.

Paul was a very audacious and zealous believer, and since he saw an inconsistency in Peter's behavior with his (Paul's) 'gospel' of who and what Jesus/Christianity was all about, I don't see it as unlikely at all that he would call Peter out as behaving in a hypocritical manner.

I also don't see how anything you wrote about Peter leads you to make your last statement: Jesus, it appears from the gospel books, and early form of Christianity that Peter knew -- as portrayed in Acts, doesn't appear to have addressed in much detail the stance that believers should have toward Jewish-Gentile relationships as it pertained to conflicts with long-standing Jewish tradition and law. Peter may have been very much a Jew who felt that Jesus' kingdom was to be a continuation of sorts of the Jewish kingdom, laws included! That there WAS conflict is clear -- Acts addresses it with the James proclamation: Clearly as the word spread (via Paul and others) to the Gentiles there was Jewish disagreement and a lot of tension - and so I see the events Paul describes in Galatians 2 as completely believable and realistic EVEN IF Peter had experienced all of those things you mention early in your post.

[Doug Shaver]

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.

So say the gospels.

It seems a bit unlikely in Galatians 2:14 that a man who only experienced Jesus through revelation would have the audacity to accuse Peter of "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel", and to lecture him about "faith in Jesus Christ". And it also seems a bit unlikely that a man with Peter's experiences would be worried about who'd been circumcised or not.

That is one good reason (among many), in my judgment, to doubt the gospels' historical reliability.

[robert j]

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.

Ignoring these myths and legends from the Synoptics and moving on to Galatians ---

It seems a bit unlikely in Galatians 2:14 that a man who only experienced Jesus through revelation would have the audacity to accuse Peter of "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel", and to lecture him about "faith in Jesus Christ". And it also seems a bit unlikely that a man with Peter's experiences would be worried about who'd been circumcised or not.

Where does it say in Galatians that Peter was worried about who had been circumcised or not? Especially among Gentile believers?

Paul’s story of his dust-up with Cepahs in Antioch was about table ritual, not circumcision.

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.

[gmx]

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?

[robert j]

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.

... 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

We’re talking past each other here. You’re reading Galatians thru gospel-colored glasses --- that is, seeing Peter/Cephas in Galatians as Peter in the Synoptics that had experiences in early 1st C. Palestine with a human, god-man Jesus.

I see Cephas as a man that knew of Jesus Christ only through allegorical readings of the Jewish scriptures --- “according to the scriptures” --- the same way that Paul knew of Jesus Christ.

IMO, the only things we can possibly know about Cephas/Peter is what Paul wrote about him in Galatians and 1 Corinthians. And that’s assuming that we can take Paul at his word.

What evidence do we have of Peter beyond Paul’s use of him to further his own aims? Unless of course one buys Mark’s fictional tale --- Mark’s creative writing sourced from Paul’s letters, the LXX, and his fertile imagination.

All the rest is further legend-building from those.

[gmx]

You’re reading Galatians thru gospel-colored glasses

Well yes, but only to draw attention to the apparent disconnect that you attribute to Mark's "creative writing". So when did mark write, for what purpose, and how did his creative essay manage to usurp Paul's gospel in all the established Christian communities throughout the ancient world?

[robert j]

Well yes, but only to draw attention to the apparent disconnect that you attribute to Mark's "creative writing". So when did mark write, for what purpose ...

I posted an essay about that on this forum --- “Why Mark Wrote His Tale” ---
here --- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1399

So when did Mark write ... and how did his creative essay manage to usurp Paul's gospel in all the established Christian communities throughout the ancient world?

It's an amalgam, eventually. Evidence that the early proto-catholics incorporated Paul into their movement --- grudgingly or otherwise --- is writ-large in the Acts of the Apostles, the Pastoral epistles, 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.

They needed Paul, but first he had to be sanitized. Fortunately for us, they chose the propaganda above, and left the authentic five letters reasonably intact. Somebody else probably had some copies.

[gmx]

Interesting post. I read that book fifteen years ago, who wrote the new testament, but I was young and it didn't impress me much. Maybe armed with slightly broader knowledge it is worth another read. I am still far from convinced of Marcan priority. I imagine your theory works equally well regardless the order of synoptic publication.

[Peter Kirby]

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?

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.