DCHindley

Because! <g>

Seriously, all the extensive postings about Hebrew/Aramaic spellings of KHFAS, etc, aside, mention has been made of the debate between Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison on just this subject. I obtained copies of the relevant journal articles, and made an analysis, which I offer here:

Introduction:

Back in 1990, Bart Ehrman wrote a provocative article called "Cephas and Peter" (JBL 109: 463-74), that argued that Paul may have known of BOTH a Peter AND a Cephas, on the basis of an analysis of Galatians 2.

The article generated a number of letters to the editors to the journal. Finally, in 1992, Dale Allison responded with "Peter and Cephas: One and the Same" (JBL 111, 489-95). The title says it all: To Allison, Peter and Cephas are the same person.

Conservatives and moderates embraced this defence of the traditional equation of Peter with Cephas. Even today, Allison's article is often said to have destroyed Ehrman's assertions, "point by point."

Having my own reasons for identifying Paul's Cephas with a different person than the Peter of the Gospels and Acts, I was not so ready to accept such a blanket assertion (which, by the way, is how I heard of the debate to begin with) without more than casual investigation. In the end I did not find this particular debate very helpful to my own cause, but I am better for having had made the investigation.

What's the hullabaloo about anyways?

In the GNT of Nestle & Aland, which is what many (mainly liberal) critical scholars consider the best reconstruction of the original text, Gal 2:7-8 are the only verses in the Pauline corpus in which Paul speaks of "PETROS" rather than "KHFAS." The reverse side of this puzzle is that the Gospels and Acts almost universally (153 times) call Jesus' disciple Simon PETROS, without elaboration, except in one place where KHFAS and PETROS are equated: "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)." (John 1:42)

This is complicated by the fact that the Received Text, which is preferred by the more conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars, has PETROS where the GNT has KHFAS (where H = eta/long "e" and F = phe/"ph") in several verses:

Verse N-A GNT

1 COR 1:12 KHFA
1 COR 3:22 KHFAS
1 COR 9:5 KHFAS
1 COR 15:5 KHFA
GAL 1:18 KHFAN
GAL 2:7 PETROS
GAL 2:8 PETRW
GAL 2:9 KHFAS
GAL 2:11 KHFAS
GAL 2:14 KHFA

Verse TR

1 COR 1:12 KHFA
1 COR 3:22 KHFAS
1 COR 9:5 KHFAS
1 COR 15:5 KHFA
GAL 1:18 PETRON
GAL 2:7 PETROS
GAL 2:8 PETRW
GAL 2:9 KHFAS
GAL 2:11 PETROS
GAL 2:14 PETRW

Note that these are standard ASCII transliterations of Greek characters. H = eta/long "e", F = phe/"ph", W = omega/long "o", all others are same pronunciation as English letters, K = kappa, P = pi, A = alpha, T = tau, R = rho, O = omicron, S = sigma.

On what authorities do these two critical texts base their readings?

Verse KHFAS
1 COR 1:12 ALL
1 COR 3:22 ALL
1 COR 9:5 ALL
1 COR 15:5 ALL
GAL 1:18 p46,01,02,03
GAL 2:7 ALL
GAL 2:8 ALL
GAL 2:9 01,03,04,018,020
GAL 2:11 01,02,03,04,015
GAL 2:14 p46,01,02,03,04,015

Verse PETROS

1 COR 1:12 ALL
1 COR 3:22 ALL
1 COR 9:5 ALL
1 COR 15:5 ALL
GAL 1:18 06,012,018,020
GAL 2:7 ALL
GAL 2:8 ALL
GAL 2:9 p46,06,012
GAL 2:11 p46,06,012,018,020
GAL 2:14 06,012,018,020

Where:

p46 (c. AD 81-96 [Kim]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD 200 [Aland])
p66 (c. AD 90-110[Hunger]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD200 [Aland])
p75 (c. AD 175-225 [Martin/Kasser]/c. AD 275-300 [Comfort]/III [Aland])
p106 (c. AD 200-250 [Comfort])
01 = Aleph (Sinaiticus, IV century)
02 = A (Alexandrinus, V century)
03 = B (Vaticanus, IV century)
04 = C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, V century)
06 = D (Claromontanus, VI century)
012 = G (Boernerianus, IX century)
015 = H (Euthalianus, VI century)
018 = K (Moscow, IX century)
020 = L (Rome, IX century)

The following are abstracts I made of the debate. At heart it is an attempt to resolve the problem of why Gal 2 contains both the names Peter and Cephas. Are they referring to the same person, as is generally held, or are these really two different persons? You decide for yourself.

=================================================

JBL 109: "Cephas and Peter", 463-74 (1990): Ehrman wrote the article as a re-evaluation of the question whether the Cephas and the Peter mentioned in Gal 2 could have referred to two different individuals. The evidence from early Church traditions for Cephas and Peter being different individuals is reviewed and his interpretation offered:

E1 A distinction between Peter and Cephas, as individuals, is found in a number of early Christian documents. He also notes that these speculations fly in the face of the equation of Peter with Cephas in John 1:42.

E2 That the variations between identifications of where these Peters and Cephases fit into Church tradition about Jesus and his followers suggest that a living tradition was at work rather than a direct literary borrowing of earlier statements by later writers.

Ehrman reviews alternative explanations for the two names in Gal 2:

C1 The "most common" explanation is that it derives from an apologetic concern to show that the person whom Paul opposed at Antioch (Cephas of Gal 2:11) was not the great Apostle of the Church (the Peter of Gal 2:7-8).

Ehrman counters that:

E(C1)a the fact that none of the authors of the Church documents cited make an apologetic point of these identifications argues against this explanation, and

E(C1)b that in some of these cases the two individuals are both identified as Apostles, weakening an apologetic explanation.

Ehrman here offers his own reasons for

E3 assuming that two different individuals are indicated:

E3a This would be the plain suggestion if the passages in Galatians are read without reference to John 1:42,

Although at this point Ehrman introduces a new section heading (III, pg. 467), the reason outlined below (which is found in this section, pp. 467-8), is clearly intended to support the explanation made near the end of the preceding section (E.3).

E3b Paul's readers/audience would not necessarily be aware that the Greek name Peter and the Aramaic name Cephas are rough equivalents in meaning.

A second, recent, "popular explanation" is described:

C2 In Gal 2:7-8, Paul is citing some kind of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference mentioned in Gal 2:2. This assumes that a) The document used the name Peter, and that b) in Paul's "own language" and preference, he prefers to use the equivalent name Cephas.

Ehrman counters that:

E(C2)a the whole account (of Gal 2:2-10) is in the first person, without a hint that he is quoting an official document, and especially as it would have strengthened his case to have done so, and

E(C2)b he notes that the wording of 2:7-8 is characteristic of other writings in the Pauline corpus, inferring (without actually stating it) that this would not then represent the wording of a document he did not draft himself.

E(C2)c Any argument that the presence of the name "Peter" (in Gal 2:7-8) is itself proof enough that this passage likely reflects the wording of a Jerusalem agreement, is a case of circular reasoning.

At this point Ehrman summarily dismisses all alternative explanations, without elaboration, as

C3 "well known and frequently discounted for a similar want of evidence and probability", and states that "for our purposes it simply need be noted that if in fact there were two different persons, Cephas and Peter, then the matter would be handily solved."

Ehrman now resumes by describing an observation of earlier researchers, that:

C4 1 Cor 15:5 contains what some see as two parallel lists of those to whom Jesus had "appeared":

vss 5-6 vss 7-8

Cephas - James
the Twelve - all the Apostles
500+ brethren - Paul

It is generally interpreted that Cephas is head of a group he was a member of, the Twelve, and James is head of a similar group that he is member of, all of the Apostles.

Ehrman objects (and I had a hard time following Ehrman here, as his examples and explanations did not tie together very well, so the following in E(C.4) is my own reconstruction of his intent):

E(C4) That the assumption of a parallel between James as head of the Apostles and Cephas (assuming this is the same as Peter) as head of the Twelve is weakened by the fact that elsewhere Paul does not consider James, who here seems to be James the brother of the Lord, as head of all the Apostles. Consequently, James must be considered separate from "all the Apostles", and if the parallelism holds, then Cephas must be considered distinct from membership in "the Twelve". Since Peter is undoubtedly to be considered a member of the Twelve, then Cephas must be different than Peter.

Accepting the existence of two parallel lists, Ehrman then offers his alternative explanation for them, noting that any disparity between a Peter commissioned to evangelize Jews and a Cephas who evangelizes Gentiles is solved by considering them distinct persons.

E4a In Gal 2:8, taken at face value, Paul was committed to evangelizing Gentiles and Peter was committed to evangelizing Jews.

E4b In Gal 2:11 Cephas is associating with Gentiles at Antioch, and living like them (vs 13), evidently in the course of evangelization, which is at variance with a commission to Jews.

E4c In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul presupposes that his Gentile readers/hearers would be familiar with Cephas, which again suggests that Cephas was connected to efforts to evangelize Gentiles in Corinth.

In consequence to a conclusion that Cephas and Peter could not be the same person, Ehrman then concludes that:

E5 Some adjustments are necessary to commonly held "facts about Peter, namely:
1) Paul conferred with Cephas, not Peter, in his trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18-20),
2) Peter may not even have been present,
3) We know nothing about Peter being accompanied by his wife,
4) the confrontation at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) was not between Paul and Jesus' closest disciple and most avid Apostle, but between a Jerusalem and a Pauline form of Christianity, and
5) there would be no evidence of Peter's presence in Antioch to support church tradition that he was its first bishop.

=================================================

Here is the outline of Allison's reply to Ehrman:

JBL 111 "Peter and Cephas: One and the Same" 489-95 (1992): Allison's response to Ehrman's article is interesting in its own right, if only for the rhetoric employed.

A.1 Allison begins by noting that Ehrman bases his analysis on the research of K. Lake, M. Goguel and D. W. Riddle. However, he recaps these scholars research as follows:

A.1.a "Goguel doubted the traditional identification but still held it more probable than not."

A.1.b "Lake believed there was a Simon Cephas and a Simon Peter."

A.1.c Riddle's article was "confused and confusing", and seems to "strongly imply" that "Galatians 2 indicates that there was a Peter and a Cephas" in the beginning of the article, while seeming to conclude "that there was a Simon and a Cephas." [I think he is criticizing the fact that this makes it look like Riddle uncritically equated Simon and Peter, but I am not sure why, since it would appear that Allison also makes this same - and probably correct - equation]

Next, Allison proceeds to recap Ehrman's article (E1, E2, C1 and particularly Ehrman's responses E(C1)a and E(C1)b).

Allison responds:

A(E(C1)b) He does not have difficulty imagining that apologists could have wished to salvage Peter's reputation at the expense of tarnishing that of the twelve. There was much debate in the 2nd & 3rd centuries over Peter's theological and ecclesiastical heritage, but nary any controversy over the heritage of the twelve.

A(E(C1)a) He separates the genesis of an apologetic tradition from its subsequent use. The implication, which is really not stated by Allison, is that an apologetic origin may still underlay these statements, although the statements themselves are not used in a polemical manner.

A(E1-2)a He lists several accounts in early Christian literature where a polemical motive concerning Cephas' or Peter's heritage can indeed be discerned.

A(E1-2)b He also notes that those traditions which speak of Cephas and Peter as two different individuals do not seem to be aware that they had "removed a great stumbling block".

A(E(C1)a,b) He first asks a rhetorical question: Even if those early writers, by means of "careful reading of the NT", reached the same conclusion as Ehrman, "were those Christians correct?" The implication, of course, is that they were not.

Ehrman's thesis is then outlined (utilizing only E3b, which is supported by E(C4), and E4a).

In response, Allison says:

A(E(C4)) "1 Cor 15:5 does not *exclude* the possibility that Cephas was one of the twelve", as the text alone cannot settle the matter.

A(E4a) "Gal 2:8 cannot be proof that Peter never ministered to Gentiles, just as it cannot be proof that Paul never occupied himself with Jews." In support, he noted that Gal 2:9 states that Cephas is to "go to the circumcised" while Gal 2:12 has Cephas eating with Gentiles at Antioch, and which Ehrman did not treat.

A(E3b) That the use of multiple names for the same person is not as unusual as Ehrman implies. Examples are given: 1) Joseph & Aseneth 22:2 (Jacob = Israel), 2) Mark 14:37 (Peter = Simon), 3) Luke 22:31 (Simon = Peter). Allison suggests that variations of names in these examples can, at least in part, be ascribed as stylistic traits of the authors.

A(E(C2)b)a The employment of characteristically Pauline language in a description of the contents of a hypothetical "pre-Pauline text" at Gal 2:7 was not a problem for H. D. Betz in his 1979 rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Betz's reasoning is that "rather than 'quoting' from the written protocol, Paul reminds the readers of the agreements by using the terms upon which the parties had agreed" (i.e., he paraphrased the terms of the agreement in his own language).

A(E(C2)b)b Allison suggests that the proposal that this verse as an allusion to the material embedded in Matt 16:17-19 may "perhaps have something to be said" for it, and notes that Pseudo Clementine Homilies 17:19 combines clear allusions to Matt 16:18 and Gal 2:11 in a manner consistent with this proposal.

Finally, Allison offers his own reasons for taking Cephas and Peter as a single individual:

A1a The underlying meaning of the names Peter (stone, sometimes rock) and Kephas (rock, stone) make the names near synonyms. Since known pre-Christian sources use Aramaic Kepa as a name only once, and PETROS not at all (although he notes that C. C. Caragounis stated that "in view of the predilection of the ancients for names derived from PETROS/PETRA ... it is only natural to suppose that PETROS was in existence [in pre-Christian times], though no examples of it before the Christian era have turned up as yet", and he "can demonstrate pagan use of the name in the first and second centuries CE"), he thinks it highly unlikely that there could be two men with such rare (sur)names.

A1b If Aramaic Kepa was a nickname rather than a birth name, it is to be expected that the Aramaic name will be translated for the benefit of Greek-speaking Christians. Examples are given: Acts 9:36 (TABIQA <transliterating Aramaic tabyeta> = DORKAS); John 11:16, 20:24, 21;2 (QWMAS = DIDUMOS <translating Aramaic toma>; Mark 3:17 (BOANHRGES = "sons of thunder"); and Luke 6:15/Acts 1:13 (hO ZHLWTHS probably translates Aramaic qan'an).

A2 The author of John 1:42 knew of a tradition in which one person, Simon, was also called "Cephas" and "Peter". Objections that the author of John 1:42 and/or his tradition may have conflated Peter and Cephas because the names mean the same thing are dismissed as "sheer speculation, and the more dubious given that John's tradition seems to have had independent and presumably reliable information about several of Jesus' first followers (e.g., Jesus drew disciples from the Baptist movement; Philip and Andrew and Peter were from Bethsaida; Simon was the "son of John"; see 1:35-36, 42, 44)." The implication is that he can be trusted here as well.

A3 While the present form of the gospels relate nothing about Peter being the first to see the resurrected Jesus, Luke 24:34, relating the experiences of the two unnamed disciples while on the road to Emmaus, has them tell the disciples "[t]he Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon". If the appearance to the women is discounted (and I will momentarily duck), and Simon is considered to be Simon Peter, then the author of Luke is giving Peter the same distinction that the author of 1 Cor 15:5 does to Cephas.

A4 The grouping of "James and Cephas and John" as "pillars" in Gal 2:9 is paralleled in Acts by the pairing of Simon Peter "with John (e.g., Acts 3:1-26; 4:1-31; 8:14), once with James (15:1-21); and the three men are clearly the dominant figures among the so-called "Hebrews" (1;13,15-26; 2:1-42; ..." just as were the "Pillars" mentioned in Galatians.

A5 If Peter is not Cephas, why "do the traditions in Acts have nothing at all to say about the latter?" The implication is that they should have, but do not, and thus cast doubt upon the idea. He asks how a person with the kind of authority ascribed to Cephas in Galatians, or who had important contacts with the Corinthian converts, could "manage to leave no sure trace of himself in the NT apart from Paul's epistles?" He implies that the only alternative to assuming Cephas and Peter are one and the same person is to assume that "apart from Paul's epistles, every tradition about Cephas came to be, through conscious or unconscious error, a tradition about Peter".

A6 "Paul says that Peter was an "apostle" entrusted with the mission to the circumcision (Gal 2:8). Paul says that Cephas was an "apostle" entrusted with the ministry to the circumcision (Gal 1:18-19; 2:9)."

A7 1 Clement, presumed by Allison to be an "early witness", while not directly equating Peter with Cephas, speaks of Peter using language that is drawn from language employed in Paul's writings as they relate to Cephas (1 Clem 47:3 from 1 Cor 1:12; and 1 Clem 5:7 from Gal 2:9).

A8 Allison lists 10 parallels between Peter and Cephas:

Peter-Cephas

1) Both mean "rock" (A1)
2) The lord appeared first to both of them (A3)
3) Both were Jews and prominent leaders of the primitive Jerusalem community (A4)
4) Both were associated with James and John (also A4)
5) Both participated in the Gentile mission (A6)
6) Both were married (Mark 1:30 & 1 Cor 9:5)
7) Both were of "fickle character" (Mark 14 & Gal 1-2)
8) Both knew Paul personally (Acts 15 & Gal 1-2)
9) Both were itinerant missionaries (Acts 1-15 & 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22, etc)
10) Both came into conflict with Jerusalem Christians over eating with the uncircumcised (Acts 11 & Galatians 2)

=================================================

Comments:

Ehrman:

All in all, Ehrman's article was an interesting read. However, I encountered some rhetorical language that made me wonder.

Initially, Ehrman's language is straightforward. However, starting on page 467, Ehrman begins to suggest that those who propose the traditional equation of Cephas and Peter have not given the NT documents a "close" or "careful" reading, and suggests that this is due to them "prejudging the issue in light of John 1:42." Ehrman clearly employs the figure of Tragedy to describe the interpretations of others, in that their prejudgment has not allowed them to recognize the "simpler explanation" Ehrman champions.

This kind of rhetoric continues, in even stronger language, in point E.3.b, where Ehrman states that "most commentators have simply overlooked, or rather chosen to ignore, what should seem rather obvious", reasoning that "any sensible reader [of Gal 2] would assume that" Cephas and Peter "were different persons."

Then Ehrman moved to the employment of Sarcasm in E(C2)a, where he chides those that hold that Paul cites "some sort of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference in Gal 2:7-8" by saying that "[i]t is not surprising that such an idea occurred to no one for nineteen hundred years." This continues in E(C2)c where employment of circular reasoning by Ulrich Wilckens to "establish the likelihood that Paul is citing the earlier agreement of the Jerusalem council" by reason of the mere presence of the name Peter, and in spite of "characteristically Pauline words and phrases", "will scarcely do".

Then, on page 471 (E(C4) above), Ehrman returns to Tragedy, in that he implies that those who see the Cephas who heads one column of the parallel lists theorized in 1 Cor 15:5 as the Apostle Peter, have not given the issue as much "careful consideration" as he has. The answer, to Ehrman, is "[s]trikingly" obvious, and again suggests that other scholars have "overlooked" the answer due to "the blinders we normally wear when reading a text like this". These blinders are caused by their "previous knowledge", presumably, of John 1:42. In addition, another motive is implied by Ehrman's assessment (in E5) that "[t]he implications of this conclusion will be obvious to anyone who has worked at any length with the NT materials". In other words, the issue has been overlooked to avoid wholesale reevaluation of five traditional assumptions used to evaluate theories related to early Christian origins.

Tragedy conceives of individuals as engaged in a quest (to preserve the traditional equation of Cephas and Peter) where final success is eventually thwarted by the individual's own tragic personality flaw (their blinders). Satire conceives of individuals as captives of their world, and destined for a life of obstacles and negation (in other words, those scholars who maintain the traditional position are "kicking against the goads").

Deliberative Rhetoric has its place in NT scholarship, as otherwise we could not convincingly present our cases. However, I did not see the need to overstate such figures, and felt that doing so ultimately detracted from an otherwise fine analysis. They tended to polarize rather than persuade, and I think the article would have had greater impact or at least acceptance had it been written in a less confrontational manner.

I don't know why Ehrman so casually dismissed the possibility that Gal 2:7b-8 is an interpolation, which to me seems a natural explanation for what, in the Nestle-Aland GNT, is an intrusive elaboration that uses the name PETROS when otherwise he always uses Cephas:

Gal 2:7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, [[just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles)]], 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Gal 2:7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, [[ ... ]], 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Allison:

Allison is polite enough, and makes no effort to misrepresent Ehrman's position(s) as far as I can see. Like Ehrman, he employs some rhetorical figures, notably Tragedy (in an Ironic sort of way) to describe Ehrman's quest (A1) to revitalize a position that has already been, in Allison's eyes, discredited. The implication is that Ehrman, through his own tragic flaw, is championing a lost cause. Later, in the section where he offers his own evidence for the equation of Cephas & Peter, he indirectly belittles Ehrman's presumed response (to A2) by Satirically characterizing it as "mere speculation" and "dubious". It looks like Allison has turned Ehrman's characterizations of scholars holding the traditional positions back upon Ehrman himself, although in a somewhat more subdued manner.

IMHO, Allison either does, or does not, treat the following positions of Ehrman:

Allison’s response to Ehrman

YES - E1
YES - E2
YES - E(C1)a
YES - E(C1)b
NO - E3a (What is "obvious", although Allison does chide him about what is "obvious" from reading the NT, and this is hardly an argument that requires a refutation)
YES - E3b
NO - E(C2)a (Gal 2:7-8 is in the first person, but perhaps I'm missing it somewhere)
YES - E(C2)b
NO - E(C2)c (Use of "Peter" as proof that a document underlies Gal 2:7-8, as circular. This is apparently an argument that Allison did not have a response for.)
YES - E(C4)
YES - E4a
NO - E4b (Except perhaps indirectly through A(E4a)
NO - E4c (Except perhaps indirectly through A(E4a)
NO - E5.1-5 (I do not begrudge Allison for not dealing with E5.1-5 as these presume Ehrman's position is correct, and Allison does not accept it).

As for Allison's own arguments (A(E3b), and A1-8), I found his evidence to be flawed.

In A(E3b): Israel is a surname for the proper name Jacob, and Peter is a surname for Simon. We are not then comparing Gal 2:7-8 with possible stylistic uses of two surnames, but of possible stylistic uses of a surname with a proper name. It may be a subtle difference, but we cannot rule out the possibility that it is a significant difference.

A1: In the examples given, both forms are associated by an explanation. This is not the case in Gal 1-2.

A2: "Sheer speculation" goes both ways. Whether the traditions about Jesus' followers truly derive from "reliable" information, is just as much a speculation as is one that assumes that traditions about two individuals, Peter and Cephas, could have been conflated in the minds of some later Christians. Is this a case of "my speculation is better than your speculation?" For one party to call another party's assumption "speculation" in a pejorative manner while not acknowledging that theirs is also speculative, is not a good practice, as there is no good way to weigh probabilities in historical cases such as these.

A3: Why discount Jesus' appearance to the women? Why should we automatically assume that "Simon" *has* to mean "Simon Peter"? Because it confirms what we already assume? The alternatives are not being discussed, because they do not support the contention. That is not a good thing to do either.

A4 & 6: Both Ehrman and Allison have completely disregarded any possibility that Gal 2:7-8 could be in whole or in part interpolations (by copyists, redactors, etc). Interpolation theories can offer alternative answers to these associations. I do not like to see evidence manipulated like this. If a whole class of options is not considered, and the whole discussion gets reduced to competing theories that both uphold the text as we have it, then the argument is rigged. Again, not a good thing to do...

A7: This presumes that 1 Clement is a unaltered letter from antiquity, which is certainly not a sure thing. I will even concede that the language used of Peter in 1 Clement is drawn from passages in Galatians and 1 Corinthians relating to Cephas, but I will not so easily concede that 1 Clement, and these two passages in particular, are from "Clement's" own late 1st century hand. But this is another matter.

A8: Allison himself says "I freely concede that they [i.e., his parallels in A8.1-10] do not, in the strict sense, prove that Peter was Cephas." By extension, all his arguments against Ehrman's positions are not "proved".

To Allison, whether he or Ehrman has proved anything "matters little, for apodictic certainty is beyond our reach: as historians we trade only in probabilities." And that is true, but I would like to see more acknowledgment of the *other* possibilities when so much effort is channeled into academic discussions. Allison's responses were adequate and appropriate, but do not disprove Ehrman's position(s).

IMHO, both these scholars seem more concerned with preserving the text of Gal 2:7-8 than solving any potential issues that the use of both KHFAS and PETROS in Galatians might cause.

=================================================

David C. Hindley
dhindley@compuserve.com
Copyright 2003, 2007

spin

I'm still reading this post, DCHindley, and it is quite interesting, as I favor Gal 2:7-8 as marginalia that has been treated as an omission by a scribe.

However, I wonder if the following is correct?
Shouldn't the 1 Cor examples each be "NONE"? -- just as the following should?
Perhaps I didn't understand what you were showing, but I thought that these were the manuscripts which support the particular readings in the verses cited and ALL cannot support both readings at the same time.

{The fact that Q)P) is not the most convincing source for the Greek transliteration was aimed at dealing with an argument of the ilk of Allison's A8.1, Cephas = Petros by meaning, the only of his arguments for equating which has any weight if one doesn't accept his textual assumptions.}


spin

spin

Can someone explain to me exactly who the twelve are in 1 Cor 15:5? (We know who the twelve are in Mark, but by the time of the resurrection appearances one of them was no longer amongst them.)


spin

DCHindley

I knew I'd screw it up. It was a table in an RTF document and the formatting didn;t translate into the message formatting. I tried to doctor it up as much as I could, but evidentally not good enough.

Let me try a different tack:

Verse KHFAS

1 COR 1:12 - ALL
1 COR 3:22 - ALL
1 COR 9:5 - ALL
1 COR 15:5 - ALL
GAL 1:18 - p46, 01, 02, 03
GAL 2:7 - None
GAL 2:8 - None
GAL 2:9 - 01, 03, 04, 018, 020
GAL 2:11 - 01, 02, 03, 04, 015
GAL 2:14 - p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015

and ...

Verse PETROS

1 COR 1:12 - None
1 COR 3:22 - None
1 COR 9:5 - None
1 COR 15:5 - None
GAL 1:18 - 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:7 - ALL
GAL 2:8 - ALL
GAL 2:9 - p46, 06, 012
GAL 2:11 - p46, 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:14 - 06, 012, 018, 020

Hopefully, that will finally be right!

Dave

Ben C Smith

What if we remove Galatians 2.7-8 from the text as a late insert? Granted that this move does not help us identify Peter with Cephas, does it actually help us separate Peter from Cephas? Or is it neutral with respect to that question?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

I think it does help separate Peter and Cephas. We are left with only John 1:42 where the identity is asserted. St. Peter was mythical. As for Cephas, who knows?

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Galatians 2.7-8 does not assert the identity of Peter and Cephas. Removing Galatians 2.7-8, therefore, does not bring the total number of passages making this assertion down from 2 to 1. There was only 1 to begin with. The rest of the evidence, whatever its explanatory power, has always been indirect.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Conservative view: The 12 in 1 Corinthians 15.5 (as well as Ascension of Isaiah 4.2-3 and others) are the eleven that we find in the synoptic gospels, plus Matthias, elected to replace Judas precisely in order to fill out the sacred number twelve again so as to facilitate just these kinds of references to that group.

Liberal view: The presence of the 12 in these postresurrection texts presupposes that either there was no such disciple as Judas or he was not one of this group; or this group of 12 had nothing to do with the ministry of Jesus until the gospels threw them into it.

My view: Undecided.

Ben.

John Kesler

Why couldn't this passage be an example of ampliatio--retaining a name even after the reason for it has ceased?

Euphen

In my view Cephas and Peter being separate people presents several problems. First of all, it would mean that the Jerusalem church was headed by two people (perhaps three, since the John named by Paul is not necessarily the apostle John) who were not disciples of Jesus. James' prominent role can be explained by his blood relation to Jesus, but why Cephas? It seems unlikely that it was simply because Cephas had a vision of the resurrected Jesus, since similar status was not afforded to Paul. Second, it doesn't explain Peter's prominent role in Mark, in which the author goes to great lengths to portray him in a negative light, as it does James and the other relatives of Jesus (Mark 3:21, 31-35). Galatians 2:7-8, if authentic, shows Peter in a compartively minor role.

If Galatians 2:7-8 is authentic, then an objective reading of this passage strongly suggests that Paul is talking about two different people. If, on the other hand, it is an interpolation, then we have Peter in the synoptic gospels and Cephas in Paul's letters. Maybe Paul used Cephas because he had actually met him, unlike Jesus, and the people around him obviously would have called him Cephas rather than Peter. It makes sense that Mark would translate the name, since he is writing for a Greek speaking audience and would want them to understand the meaning of that name. Of course for mythicists the explanation is simple.