andrewcriddle

I agree the passage in Galatians is odd
I have sometimes speculated that Paul is quoting some official 'agreed statement' which used Peter, in contrast to Cephas which was Paul's normal usage, but this is obviously just a wild guess.

ALL the references to Cephas in Galatians are textually somewhat uncertain.

in chapter 1 verse 18 The Western and Byzantine texts read Peter and the Alexandrian including P46 read Cephas

in chapter 2 verse 9 P46 reads 'James and Peter and John' the Western texts read 'Peter and James and John' and the Alexandrian and Byzantine read 'James and Cephas and John'

in Chapter 2 verse 11 P46 is missing but the Alexandrian read Cephas while the Western and Byzantine read Peter

in chapter 2 verse 14 The Western and Byzantine texts read Peter and the Alexandrian including P46 read Cephas

IMO Cephas is clearly original in 1:18 and 2:14 and probably original in 2:11 but 2:9 may have originally read Peter not Cephas



I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

What I'm suggesting is that Clement claimed that the Cephas in 2:9 was not the leading apostle Peter but someone much less important with the same name, in order to avoid the embarrassing idea of Paul and the chief of the Apostles having a row. This embarassment is found in later Church fathers, where it is suggested for example that Peter and Paul had planned the whole thing beforehand to make a point to the congregation.

I think it is unlikely that Clement got it right here.

Returning to Galatians 2:9, other passages from Clement seem to indicate that he did regard the three leading apostles after ther resurrection as being James the Just, John and Peter. If this is ultimately derived from Galatians 2:9 as IMO is probable then it indicates that Clement (whatever his text) regarded 2:9 as referring to Peter.

(Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Book 2 chapter 1 quoting the Hypotyposes "After the Resurrection the Lord gave the tradition of knowledge to James the Just and John and Peter these gave it to the other apostles and the other apostles to the seventy of whom Barnabas was one....")

Andrew Criddle

spin

Who would have been an acceptible source to Paul for this "official 'agreed statement'"? I find this unlikely!

I think in the following, the name Cephas is somwhat the lectio difficilor and thus is more likely. Peter is after all the later mainstream tradition's preferred pillar and equated with Cephas, so it's easy to read Peter where there is Cephas and a scribe mightn't feel beyond his calling by inadvertantly using Peter for Cephas. The opposite would not be true.

The western form is already polemical, putting Peter first. P46 follows the Alexandrian form, thus supporting it. Obviously the Alexandrian order of names is correct. This also suggests that Cephas is also correct, though you have given the argument for Clement that he could have thought it must have been another person here, because of its bad reflection on the person.

What seems slightly odd in all this is that the Byzantine retained Cephas in 1:9. It's clear that the tradition has been fiddled with in the Byzantine/Western manifestation of it. This should speak against your hypothesis that it "may have originally read Peter not Cephas".

Throughout, in a church tradition which equated Peter and Cephas, though preferred using the name Peter, Cephas is the lectio difficilor and I think should be read as original in all the above cases.

(And thanks for the data.)

I'd suggest that such an interpretation would be extremely hard in 2:7-8 were present. I agree that Clement probably saw this Cephas in Gal as not being the Peter.

This comment of Clement seems to be derived from Acts, not Galatians.

Interestingly, in a further quote in Eus. EH 2.1 Clement goes on to use Gal.1:19,

Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

It would seem that the pillars, James, Cephas and John, of Gal 2 are not related to the Acts narrative for Clement.

Clement believes that there is a Cephas different from Simon Peter/Cephas. This is in accord with the Epistle of the Apostles. He sees that the Cephas at least in the latter part of Gal 2 is not Peter, which is hard to do if the earlier part of the chapter pointed to Peter, for he aknowledges that it was "a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter", yet how could he distinguish him as separate if Paul is talking about Peter and provides a cohesive link at the beginning of v.11, having talked about these pillars who were to go to the circumcised (v.9b). Yet he continues, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face... for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles". This links back to the pillars being supposed to go to the circumcised. Beside the grammatical link of "But when Cephas", which points back to the prior discourse, we have the link on the circumcision issue tying Cephas in with v.9. I find your reading of v.9 not to reflect the implications of the text, ie Cephas should be seen as original to it, which suggests that the mention of Peter to the circumcised in the previous two verses conflicts with v.9. It's an interpolation.


spin

Magdlyn

And that would mean: large rock, cliff, bedrock?

So, Angyson, what is the modern Greek word for pebble, small stone or gravel?

And what does petros mean, if it is still in the language?

spin

This modern Greek dictionary doesn't know the word.

And here's petra.


spin