JoyJuice

Other than 2Peter, which is understood not written by Peter and as pseudopigrapha, do any of the alleged apostle books make any mention of Paul at all? There seems to be two accounts of Paul meeting and having interactions with them:

Acts 9:23
After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.
26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Yet given the claim that everyone knows of Paul, as Saul’s, past reputation, it would stand that while with the apostles he would have told them of his Road to Damascus vision, his blindness, and his healing. Oddly however given this powerful testimony we here not a peak about him from the apostles. Has anyone ever explained why this may be other than the “Thou doth protest too much,� when he Paul says: “I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.�

Toto

There are no writings that can be reliably attributed to the apostles.

JoyJuice

Thanks Toto, that's why I qualified it by saying "alleged." Do you know of any apologetic responses to this?

thx

Layman

Paul may be protesting too much, but you apparently have no idea what he is protesting. Here, Paul is desparate to downplay his connections with the Apostles. He is trying to establish his independence and authority as an apostle, not his connections to the other Apostles.

spin

Just a small complaint: the original text doesn't talk about Peter at all, but mentions Cephas. Cephas is the name used when Paul is talking in 1 Corinthians. Now I know later tradition tells us that Peter and Cephas are one and the same, considering that the names mean the same thing, "rock", and that's how the gospels relate the two names. Yet we cannot simply assume that they were the same in Paul, who was writing long before the gospels were written. We find, for example, in the Epistle of the Apostles that the two names are treated separately: "We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting . . ."

Strangely enough in Galatians after mentioning Cephas in 1:18, we next find in 2:7-8 the name Peter used twice in a clarification of Paul's role of spreading the gospel to the uncircumcised, ie the gentiles. Immediately afterwards, so as to confuse anyone who wasn't aware of the Cephas-Peter connection from the gospels, the text returns to talking about Cephas (2:9) as one of the acknowledged pillars, followed by a discussion of Cephas not setting a good standard before the gentiles of Antioch.

We recall though from 2:7-8 that Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, so what is Cephas doing encroaching on Paul's territory? The obvious conclusion is that this comment about Peter in 2:7-8 is an interpolation, using the name Cephas elsewhere we suddenly find Peter's name cropping up in a passage which disturbs various aspects of the text where it is now found. There is no reason to understand that Cephas and Peter were the same person without the hindsight of the gospel tradition and without that hindsight it should be clear that the passage mentioning Peter doesn't belong to Paul. It can now be seen as a harmonization of traditions. (There has been an argument on II about the Greek of this passage.)

We are left with wondering just what we know about the three pillars of the Jerusalem messianic movement. The only obvious thing is that Paul was in conflict with them -- and that they were happy to be rid of him. Beyond that Paul doesn't help us and there is no historical reason to insinuate gospel traditions into the account. We cannot assume that these James, Cephas and John were any figures in the gospels. Acts knows nothing about any three pillars. We therefore cannot presume to know anything other than what Paul tells us (and our analysis of his motivations). Are they apostles? Who can say? On what historical grounds?


spin

Amaleq13

We also have the additional factor that Peter in the Gosples is a nickname for a guy actually named "Simon". I've asked before if there is any linguistic indication in Paul's letters that he is using a nickname rather than a formal name but apparently there is none.

Simon (nicknamed Peter)

Peter

Cephas


How many men are we talking about? 1, 2, or 3?

spin

I can't help you too much. I've made a case for at least two though. Just looking to find how the names Peter and Cephas were used by the eearly church fathers, I found that only Clement uses "Cephas" in a clear allusion to 1 Corinthians. All the others know "Peter". Beside the Epistle of the Apostles, we next have to wait for Clement of Alexandria before we get another mention of Cephas, and that again is a direct reference to 1 Corinthians (9:5).

I should note that in the nt, beside the writings of Paul, the only place "Cephas" is found is in GJn 1:42.


spin

JoyJuice

Thanks and yes I understand. In saying “thou protest too much,� I meant in his claims that he probably didn’t meet them at all. I understand that none of the Gospels were written by who they are purported to have been. I was just inquiring if there are any Christian apologetics positions as why there is not one mention of Paul?

Amaleq13

I don't know that it qualifies as a "Christian apologetic" but Vinnie thinks Paul's popularity/influence was a later development.

Layman

No mention of Paul by whom?

Acts mentions him. So does 2 Peter. So does 1 Clement. So does Ignatius. Many see allusions to Paul's teachings of grace in the Epistle of James. So, in fact, Paul is pretty widely mentioned in early Christian literature.

You seem to be wondering why the gospels do not mention him. The answer is simple. Paul was not involved in the story at that time. The author of Luke obviously knew plenty about Paul, but saved all that for his sequel, the Acts of the Apostles.