TedM

Re: 1 Cor 15:4, I'd like to examine Price's article on it someday. IF if was interpolated the interpolator was smart to write "Cephas" instead of "Peter", assuming they were not considered two different people since that is the name Paul used whereas the gospel tradition which seems to have existed in part around the time of this creed (due to some of the similarities) would have tempted a less careful interpolator to write "Peter".

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't see anything in Galations that implies that Paul didn't recognize any of the 3.

True, but it would seem that Paul singled them out as reputable and making the final decision because they were the top 3.


ted

TedM

I agree that learning Bayesian Theory might be helpful. Would you agree that had Simon really been named Peter at birth and Cephas was a different person that it would be improbable for both to have become significant in the early Church? If so, would you agree that the parents who named Peter weren't randomly doing so? IF so, then in concept aren't we dealing with the same thing? I think that to apply probability to these kinds of issues (what name a person was given) you have to assume that conscious decisions ARE random. Otherwise you take all the randomness out. Once you do that, there is nothing left on which to apply your statistics.

Let's say that Jesus' choice of Cephas was highly probable given his desire to find something that sounded like a foundation for a Church. Then there is still a question that involves an assumption of randomness: What are the odds that one of the other prominent founders of the Church would have been named Cephas by his parents as opposed to something else? IF only 1 out of 10,000 parents named their kids Cephas, then it is reasonable to conclude that the probability that someone with this name would have been a founder/pillar would have been quite low, don't you agree?

Had there been no Simon Peter we would just say, "wow the odds are unusual that someone named Cephas would be a pillar, but since he is, that's cool and not debatable". However, since there was a Simon Peter we now can say "wow, the odds are unusual that when Jesus named Simon Peter it would have turned out that there was ANOTHER Cephas out there who was also prominent in the Church. BUT WE CAN"T SAY "that's cool and not debatable", because we don't know they really were two people. The very fact that it is debatable is what makes it unacceptable to just say "that's cool" and makes it APPROPRIATE to apply the odds. As such, it is also appropriate to conclude that it is most likely that that ISN'T what happened and they really were one and the same.

Does that help, or are you going to again say that I don't know what I'm talking about here with regard to probabilities? Maybe I don't, but it makes sense to me. IF it doesn't to you, I'd appreciate a simple explanation as to what you think I've written that is wrong.

Any comments from others here would be appreciated, because honestly the idea that it is somehow not unusual for two people with uncommon names to have played a similar role in early Christianity because Jesus made a conscious descision to surname one of them himself makes little sense to me.

ted

Solo

Yes, the presumed interpolator of 1 Cor 15:3-11 would have been smart enough to refer to Peter as Paul habitually had done.

Paul says the idea of his second visit to Jerusalem came to him in a revelation and went there to lay out his gospel lest he "run in vain". Gal 2 provides some quite shocking info about Paul and Jerusalem: they ignored each other for 17 years. Paul saw Peter for two weeks prior but no deal was struck then, no recognition was accorded to Paul. I believe also it was significant that Paul spent all his time during the first visit with Peter, and only "saw" James, "the Lord's brother", meaning that he was briefly introduced. Now, as I said, the incident with Cephas at Antioch later shows that James had power over Cephas, and was in all probability the undisputed leader in the Church. So, if Paul stayed away for all this time from the Jerusalem congregation, my reading of the initial "visit" is that Paul received cold shoulder from James.

Now, during the second visit, Paul and Barnabas, received a commission from James, Cephas and John (who is never mentioned by Paul elsewhere), who "seemed to be pillars" (hoi dokountes styloi einai). How come Paul did not know their church function or rank ? Why not "apostles" ? Again, one needs to read this as something put down on paper well after the visit. Paul still does not know for sure who is who in the Church. I have mentioned here previously that I have strong doubt that the James in the "pillars" is James the Just ("the Lord's brother" of Gal 1:19-20) and Paul's cluelessness makes me suspect that. I take it that James the Just was well known in Jerusalem as the leader of the Nazarenes. Would Paul have been so uninformed as naming him as just one of those who looked to him (by reputation) as senior members ? Even if did not know then he would have known later. He shows awareness in 1:19 and 2:12-13 that James the Just was boss of the church.

So, it may well be that the three "pillars" struck something of a deal with Paul preaching his Jesus gospel to the Gentiles, as a way to collect money for the "poor" (read the Nazarite circle around James), and making himself useful to the organization, the way the pillars presumably made themselves useful.

Jiri

TedM

I'm not sure I would use the word 'ignore' since those in Judea knew what he was doing and glorified God because of him, according to 1:23-24. It seems more accurate to just say that Paul didn't go to Jerusalem for some time (couldn't it have been 14 years, ie he went after 3 and then after another 11?.. Paul doesn't say "Then after ANOTHER 14 years").

Paul implies that Cephas was an apostle in 1:19. My bible says "reputed to be pillars". This changes the focus off of Paul's personal observation about the pillars (seemed) to his observation about what OTHERS thought of the pillars (reputed). If 'reputed' is the accurate translation then we can't conclude that Paul didn't know their church function. Logically too, I would think that Paul would problably have known their rank since he went there to talk to them, and had plenty of Jewish contacts who communicated with Jerusalem.

I don't know all of your arguments on this issue of James the pillar not being James the Just, but my comment above about the word 'reputed', and the fact that Paul doesn't qualify that suddenly in 2:12 he is referring to James the Just as a different James than 3 verses prior, Nor that 2:9 James differs also from the James the Just of 1:19 as well as the fact that in ALL THREE mentions of James Cephas is included--strongly imply to me that all three James' are the same James and that Paul was quite aware of who this pillar was--the leader of the Church, James the Just.

But, maybe that's just me...
ted

Amaleq13

Assuming it was a rare name? I would think the odds fairly slim that our small sample would randomly happen to include two. Do we actually know that this was an uncommon name?

Obviously, but that would hold true regardless of how I answered the first question. It makes no more sense to ask what the probability was of the parents choosing the name "Peter" than it does to ask what the probability was of Jesus choosing the nickname "Peter". You have absolutely no realistic way of knowing anywhere near the amount of information necessary to suggest even the most remotely reliable prediction in either circumstance.

No, the first involves an assessment of random probability while the second involves trying to predict the non-random choices of people.

Yes and since that assumption is patently idiotic, we should abandon such an effort with haste.

I certainly agree that you would need MUCH more information to even approach making any sort of realistic prediction. This may be news to you, Ted, but people are often difficult to predict and especially when you don't know very much about what they think, value, detest, fear, etc.

No, this time I'm going to say you don't know what you are talking about with regard to psychology.

Sane people don't often make conscious decisions randomly, Ted. Often, people outside those people's heads don't understand why they made the decisions they did and even the people, themselves, might not always know why they made the decisions they did but the decisions are rarely, if ever, the result of random chance.

TedM

Let's start with this one..

You believe it is inappropriate to try and predict any one particular person's behavior based on the average behavior of a larger group of people, because every person's behavior is a result of many factors--and those factors can vary tremendously from person to person.

It seems to me that you therefore don't believe in applying probability to behavior. Is this correct?

To give an example, even if we knew that 99 out of 100 people smile at a stranger every day (if only), you would refuse to compute the odds that any random particular person--some stranger on the street perhaps--smiled at a stranger today. Because, of course, we don't know anything about THAT person. Is this correct?

I, of course, would say that the chances are very high that a person chosen at random smiled at a stranger today based on the 99/100 example. I would feel comfortable with such an assumption even though it certainly could be completely wrong because I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THAT PERSON"S CONSCIOUS (or unconcscious) CHOICES. I've chosen to treat him as 'average'. Do you really reject this kind of reasoning? If not, please explain.

I'm turning in,

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
A further complication is that in the Original Gospel, "Mark", per the Author, Simon Lost his surname of "Peter" at Gethsemane:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:37

"And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour? (ASV)"

In his brilliant Mark's Story Of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), Werner Kelber writes on Page 76:

"On his first return to the three disciples Jesus singles out Peter and criticizes him for his inability to stay awake (14:37). Significantly, this last time Jesus speaks to Peter, in the wake of their disagreement (14:29-31) and after finding him asleep, Jesus reverts to Peter's old name. Jesus' reproach is addressed to Simon, not to Peter. As the bestowal of the new name at the appointment of the Twelve had signaled Peter's ascendency to leadership position, so the one and only recurrence of the old name signifies his demotion."

By The Way, Kelber will be speaking at SBL and unlike The Masses of Theologians masquerading as Bible Scholars as well as Christian Familiars, Kelber is, as they say, worth the price of AdMission.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solo

Perhaps you are right, perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. :huh:

The important word in the phrase, 'dokountes' derives from 'dokeo', which is translated by BB as 'to be of the opinion, to think, to suppose, to seem, to be accounted, reputed'.

FYI, there are some scholars (e.g. Garry Willis) who think the manner Paul describes the three implies disrespect. This would stand or fall with how one reads 2:6 and interprets the interpolation of 2:7-8.

Make of it what you will.

I don't know about 'logically', but textually he went to talk to them (about his gospel) because they were pointed out to him (as presumably the team who had authority to make pronouncements on views held on Jesus).

I am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion Paul had "plenty" of Jewish contacts who were in touch with Jerusalem. He says in 1:22-24 that the Jesus folks in Judea did not know his face (like they wouldn't if he took part in the persecutions attributed to him in Acts 8). They only knew of him.


...me neither ; it's just an idea I have been toying with. Not married to it yet.

Fair enough.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

That is a perceptive interpretation. And, if it is true that Mark 14.37 indicates a Petrine demotion with the old name, then Mark 16.7 must indicate a Petrine restoration with the new:

[The young man continued:] But go, tell his disciples and Peter: He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.

Either that or this perceptive young man was unaware that Peter had been demoted back to Simon.

Furthermore, the narrator continues to use Peter, not Simon, in 14.54, 66, 67, 70, 72. Perhaps, as I have argued before, the narrator is in fact aware that Peter was restored to faith.

I think that you, Joe, would be well worth the price of admission.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Depends on the behavior being predicted and the information being used to make the prediction. General behavior is more reliably predicted than specific. I would change "inappropriate" to "ill-advised" with the addition of my first statement.

Not for the behavior you are describing (choosing names), no.

No, I would consider that to be a legitimate, albeit pointless except as a social psychology paper, use of probability to predict general behavior. You would be able to say it is likely that a given person will smile at a stranger on a given day.

I reject that it has any relevance to attempting to establish a probability estimate for parents choosing the name of their child or a leader choosing a nickname for a follower.