DaBuster

Am I missing something here? I’m no expert, but I’m pretty certain that there’s at least a passing mention in one or more of the Gospels to Peter being a relatively close companion of Jesus.

Toto

If you think (along with most religious liberals) that the gospels are later mythologized or fictionalized religious literature and that Paul's letters are the closest we can get to early Christianity, it is signficant that Paul does not say anything about Peter being a close companion of Jesus.

DaBuster

You’re right, of course –- my flippant response to Didymus’ post obviously didn’t begin to cover all the nuances of HJ vs MJ and the reliability of the gospels. I myself would never argue against the idea that the gospels are mythologized or fictionalized religious literature, but I tend to side with those who believe that underlying the gloss of myth is a historical apocalyptic prophet named Jesus (or, if you prefer, Yeshua) who had a small but intensely loyal following. Where one draws the line between myth and reality is the big question, but the wide variety of opinions on that question is what makes this forum so damn entertaining. Given that Peter is mentioned in Paul’s epistles and figures rather prominently in the Gospels, from my amateur’s perspective it seems likely that there was a historical Peter who was a close companion of Jesus.

And as for why Paul didn't mention Peter's close association with Jesus, particularly in his discussion of the confrontation at Antioch, that could be related to the subject of my original post -- i.e. it wasn't mentioned because it represented a competitive advantage that Peter had over Paul.

Didymus

So the rivalry between Paul and eyewitnesses to Jesus' earthly ministry is evidenced by the lack of evidence for it?

Another version of this argument is floated by apologists from time to time. It goes something like this: Paul didn't say much about Jesus' life on earth. That was because his congregations knew all about Jesus' life. How do we know they knew? Because if they didn't, PAUL WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM ABOUT IT!

ba-da-BOOM!

Didymus

DramaQ

Would Paul being silent about this be a good solution to that advantage?

If Paul was really seeking a way to trump Peter’s advantage, wouldn’t he have just done so? Pretending the “competition” isn’t there is hardly a good approach. On the other hand, Paul could easily have dwelled on the superiority of his relationship with the “risen” Christ over Peter’s. Or he could turn Peter’s advantage into a disadvantage by claiming Peter, of all people, should know better. “Peter doesn’t even get it! And he was THERE!”

The bottom line is, you’re looking for ways to retrofit later gospel material into the epistles. The more likely reason it’s not there is because it wasn’t there.

DQ (aka Mark)