Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 02-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

However, the only way we can infer that Cephas was a part of the Twelve is if we already know it, and how else do we know this but through the Gospels? This is one point that I think the gospels are fiction on - the names of the Twelve.

Luke and Mark have different lists thus Peter's name is multiply attested as a member of the twelve and there is no plausible reason to deny inclusion of Peter in the list of names. Its more probable than not that Peter was a member of the twelve.

Maybe you can have a 12 without Peter (contrary to my earlier statement) but I think they mutually support one another and the double listing is enough evidence for this incidental detail for me on historical grounds even if not "proven".

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-03-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I think it is relevant and problematic for your position that the same sources which inform us that Peter was part of "the twelve" (ie the Gospels) also tell us that the risen Christ only appeared to 11.

The whole Judas issue in Luke? Meier answered this in v.III (in response to Veilhaur (sp?) I think) and I am sure I reprinted it here quite a few times in the past!

Its not a major enough problem to cause any damage and has a more than adequte explantion. 11 occurs in later stages of development. See p. 140. Marginal v.III

Also mix in Sander's view about fluidity of membership (Hist.Fig. Jes.)

Vinnie

jakejonesiv · 02-03-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Its axiomatic that Jesus had followers and the twelve smells like history. I don't think they were an autorative group however. Just an enactment of the restoration of Israel by Jesus (part of why the numbers and membership was probably a bit fluid).

Vinnie

It smells to me like fiction.

The twelve apostles are nothing more than vague names in contradictory lists. It is evidence of a botched job, not history. Most of them are never fleshed out and just pad to the desired number.

The criterion of embarassment is a red herring that will not withstand scrutiny. If it were embarrassing to the author at the time, it would not have been written. But that is for another thread.

Thus the claim of multiple attestation? The only mention of the "twelve" in the Pauline material is 1 Cor. 15:5, which has been argued to be an interpolation.

Apocryphal Apparitions:1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert M. Price .

TRADITION ODER INTERPOLATION?
ANTIMARCIONITISCHE INTERPOLATIONEN IN 1 KOR 15, 1-11 , Hermann Detering

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer · 02-03-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Luke and Mark have different lists thus Peter's name is multiply attested as a member of the twelve and there is no plausible reason to deny inclusion of Peter in the list of names. Its more probable than not that Peter was a member of the twelve.

Maybe you can have a 12 without Peter (contrary to my earlier statement) but I think they mutually support one another and the double listing is enough evidence for this incidental detail for me on historical grounds even if not "proven".

Vinnie

But see, now you're conflating Peter with Cephas. What Pauline support do we have that Cephas and Peter were the same person?

jjramsey · 02-03-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But see, now you're conflating Peter with Cephas. What Pauline support do we have that Cephas and Peter were the same person?

There is this matter that Cephas and Peter are the Aramaic and Greek equivalents for "Rocky."

Chris Weimer · 02-03-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

There is this matter that Cephas and Peter are the Aramaic and Greek equivalents for "Rocky."

Yes, I do realize that. However, they never appear to overlap. Moreover, James, John, and Cephas are pillars, but Peter doesn't seem to be that honored in Paul...?

Amaleq13 · 02-03-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

There is this matter that Cephas and Peter are the Aramaic and Greek equivalents for "Rocky."

Doesn't that conflate Simon from the Gospels with these two names Paul mentions?

Julian · 02-03-2006, 12:16 PM

I think that Robert Price's article and the issues Chris Weimer has raised clearly point to a post-gospel interpolation into 1 Cor. Such a stance solves most of these problems.

Julian

jakejonesiv · 02-03-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But see, now you're conflating Peter with Cephas. What Pauline support do we have that Cephas and Peter were the same person?

None.

The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Galatians 2:7-8 by Ernst Barnikol.

Jake Jones IV

jjramsey · 02-03-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, I do realize that. However, they never appear to overlap. Moreover, James, John, and Cephas are pillars, but Peter doesn't seem to be that honored in Paul...?

Cephas doesn't seem to be that honored in Paul, either. Paul gets in his face in Gal. 2:11ff, his status as a pillar notwithstanding.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2006, 12:16 PM	#28
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I think that Robert Price's article and the issues Chris Weimer has raised clearly point to a post-gospel interpolation into 1 Cor. Such a stance solves most of these problems. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.