Sunday, September 27, 2009
Peter and Paul at Antioch
Yesterday morning's session at the Jesus Seminar on the Road was:
"Peter and Paul: Face-off in Antioch. ... When Peter visited the church in Antioch, Paul accused him of hypocrisy to his face at a congregational meeting. What was this confrontation about? What was at stake? Did Paul win or lose this argument?"
Somebody asked, how was it? Off the top of my head, I wrote:
I need to go back and read Galatians again. I didn't realize the disagreement between them was so deep, and that Barnabas even left Paul to take Peter's side. You know, as much as we venerate these peeps, they were still just peeps.
Peter is depicted in Acts as getting more inclusive in his thinking. But I take Acts more and more for what it is: historical fiction for a purpose (not that there's anything wrong with that, ha). But at least when Paul and Peter were duking it out, Peter was holding his Jesus card real close to his Jewish chest.
Paul gets slammed a lot, unfairly, I think, because his inclusiveness doesn't seem to go far enough to suit some people in 2009, which is "presentitis," of course, and relies too much on pseudo-Paul.
I have a renewed appreciation for Paul at the moment. If Peter had had his way, the Jesus movement probably would have been stillborn.
Oh, and it looks like Peter and Paul went their separate ways, Peter an apostle to the Jews, Paul an apostle to gentiles. No reconciliation.
--ER
"Peter and Paul: Face-off in Antioch. ... When Peter visited the church in Antioch, Paul accused him of hypocrisy to his face at a congregational meeting. What was this confrontation about? What was at stake? Did Paul win or lose this argument?"
Somebody asked, how was it? Off the top of my head, I wrote:
I need to go back and read Galatians again. I didn't realize the disagreement between them was so deep, and that Barnabas even left Paul to take Peter's side. You know, as much as we venerate these peeps, they were still just peeps.
Peter is depicted in Acts as getting more inclusive in his thinking. But I take Acts more and more for what it is: historical fiction for a purpose (not that there's anything wrong with that, ha). But at least when Paul and Peter were duking it out, Peter was holding his Jesus card real close to his Jewish chest.
Paul gets slammed a lot, unfairly, I think, because his inclusiveness doesn't seem to go far enough to suit some people in 2009, which is "presentitis," of course, and relies too much on pseudo-Paul.
I have a renewed appreciation for Paul at the moment. If Peter had had his way, the Jesus movement probably would have been stillborn.
Oh, and it looks like Peter and Paul went their separate ways, Peter an apostle to the Jews, Paul an apostle to gentiles. No reconciliation.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
You know, one semester I had the choice between a seminar on the Colonial era of the U.S. and a seminar on Kristallnacht.
I should have done Kristallnacht.
Post a Comment
I should have done Kristallnacht.
<< Home
