Establishing Peter's Priority

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Establishing Peter's Priority

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:11 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:51 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:58 am
Power is a circumlocution for God. Combined with saying King of Israel instead of King of the Jews puts gPeter closer to Christianity's Palestinian roots.
I don't know. I think it's a similar idea to the Angel in Exodus who possess the name of God, or Simon Magus having the Power, εξουσία, of God.

Yes, it's equating the Angel and Simon with God, at least in a Two Powers sense. Saying "My Power, My Power" is equivalent to saying "My God, My God" but with the added protection of adding an additional hedge around the commandment not to blaspheme the name of God.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Establishing Peter's Priority

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:21 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:11 am
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:51 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:58 am
Power is a circumlocution for God. Combined with saying King of Israel instead of King of the Jews puts gPeter closer to Christianity's Palestinian roots.
I don't know. I think it's a similar idea to the Angel in Exodus who possess the name of God, or Simon Magus having the Power, εξουσία, of God.

Yes, it's equating the Angel and Simon with God, at least in a Two Powers sense. Saying "My Power, My Power" is equivalent to saying "My God, My God" but with the added protection of adding an additional hedge around the commandment not to blaspheme the name of God.
The Mark and Matthew writers still use ἐλωι and θεός for their respective texts, so I don't think it would matter much. The Gospel of Peter could be Separationist.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Establishing Peter's Priority

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:51 am

Something I find surprising in GPeter, is the continue insistence on the way Jesus is called in the third person: the Kyrios.
United to his clues of docetism, this remembers me a polemical passage of Ignatius:

If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.

(Phil. 6:49b-50a)

Already prof Robert M Price advanced the hypothesis that Luke merged GPeter (Herod killer of Jesus) with Mark (Pilate killer of Jesus) by his expedient of the ping pong.

But I wonder if the scene of Pilate who sent someone to Herod was not an expedient of Luke to merge the different sources, but was original in GPeter.

For in GPeter we have Pilate who sent Joseph to Herod. Joseph, not Jesus, being the latter already in the hands of Herod.

And Pilate, having sent [Joseph] to Herod, requested his body. And Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning. For in the Law it has been written: The sun is not to set on one put to death.'

And he gave him over to the people before the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread.

Until here, nothing of new.

But I would like to remember that in Mark we have a Pilate who sent someone, also. Not only Joseph (to take the corpse of Jesus). Pilate sent someone living. He released another Jesus: "Jesus Bar-Abbas" (Son of Father).

Since in Mark, the episode of Barabbas is a parody against adorers of Jesus Son of Father (a Jesus Son of Father who, according to his adorers, was the true victim on the cross), then the implication is that, before GMark, there was a gospel where Pilate sent a Jesus Son of Father (a Father who is not the creator) to death.

But did Pilate send Jesus directly to death, or via Herod?

Assuming that Pilate didn't know that Jesus was the "king of Jews" from his answer (after all, that was a judaizing interpolation) then, if he had sent Jesus to Herod, it was a way to secure that Jesus was not "king of Jews" but one subject to Herod, the true "king of Jews" (in the eyes of Pilate).

Hence Jesus is called "Galilean" as a subtle way to say that he is not the King of Jews, but a subject to Herod true king of Jews.

My suspicion is that the Gnostics had euhemerized Jesus on earth as a victim of Herod. They were interested in Herod as killer just in the same measure as the Judaizers were interested in Pilate as killer.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Establishing Peter's Priority

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:01 am

But I would like to remember that in Mark we have a Pilate who sent someone, also. Not only Joseph (to take the corpse of Jesus). Pilate sent someone living. He released another Jesus: "Jesus Bar-Abbas" (Son of Father).
That's a nonsequitur.

Unless you want to admit my position that Barabbas and Joseph of Arimathea are symbolic for the transmigration. In which case it doesn't matter the sent/released.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Establishing Peter's Priority

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:08 am

You are correct, it is not the same thing, to send and to release. But about the reason Jesus was called "Galilean" and as such sent to Herod (in opposition to "king of Jews") I am on something. But as usual with GPeter, even my speculations have to arrest themselves.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply