TedM

Jake, to me that isn't a case against Peter-Cephas unity at all. Rather, it is a case FOR unity simply because the names mean the same thing! IF they were different people AND the name was not common, we would not expect two such names NOR the absence of mention of the OTHER one for clarification.

One could certainly argue that the gospel Peter was some mythological construction out of Paul's Cephas, but that is a different argument then claiming they were two DIFFERENT actual individuals.

ted

jakejonesiv

I see what you mean. Good point. But, in that case, the allegedly fictional Peter did not exist in Cephas' time. They would be two different characters, albeit one developed from the other.

hatsoff

Except that we would expect some historical elements to be incorporated into the Gospel accounts. So Paul's Cephas would have been real, and Mark's Peter would have been an exaggeration of Paul's Cephas.

And of course it still permits us to use "Peter" and "Cephas" interchangably in the King's English.

TedM

True, if Peter was a fictional morph out of Cephas. Myth development would take time. Everything we know about Cephas can be said to be known about the 'real' Peter also:

In this case,
Cephas, the 'real' Peter based on only Paul:

1. Was the first to see the resurrected Jesus (if 1 Cor 15:4 wasn't interpolated)
2. Was considered an apostle, perhaps by virtue of having 'seen the Lord'.
3. Knew at least one of the 'brothers of the Lord', James.
4. Spent 15 days with Paul 3 years after Paul's conversion.
5. Was one of the 3 pillars of the church, along with James and John. Peter knew them both and helped in the goverment of the church.
6. Resided in Jerusalem, at least some.
7. Spread the gospel to the Jews, if 2:7-8 wasn't entirely interpolated.
8. Approved of Paul's mission at least in some respects.
9. Traveled on missions, and was known as far away as Antioch and Corinth.
10. Lived like a Gentile in some respects, eating with them in Antioch.
11. Had followers in Corinth, whom he possibly had baptized.
12. Had a wife.

What Cephas did (or maybe did) BEFORE all of this is the subject of the Gospels as Simon, surnamed "Cephas", or "Peter".

ted

hatsoff

I don't think we should rule out the entire Gospel tradition just because it includes mythological elements, and especially not post-Resurrection narratives like Acts.

jakejonesiv

Not quite. St. Peter, the one upon which it is written in Matthew that Jesus would build his church, is in no wise the Cephas of the Pauline writings. Cephas doesn't have the mythological motiff of having the keys.

TedM

Well, one of the top 3 isn't bad! Cephas was prominent. His faith in the resurrection--being the FIRST to see it--made it into the creed of 1 Cor 15, and his early following as far away as in Corinth can be positively compared with the Peter of the gospels upon whose faith the Church was built, I would think. Paul doesn't mention John's or James' followers far away, but he does mention Cephas'.

In terms of early influence, Paul's Cephas has similarities to Peter in Acts.

ted

Amaleq13

Yes and your use of it doesn't appear to have improved (you still want to treat conscious decisions as though they are random) so I'm going to save myself the headaches this time.

Seriously, you should study Bayesian Theory because I think it is exactly what you want to be able to do.

hatsoff

That doesn't make him a different person. It's just that his true history has been partially (but not wholly) fabricated.

Solo

And it's a big "if".

or "the Son of man coming on clouds" that Jesus proclaimed.

whatever 'brother of the Lord/in the Lord' actually meant originally. Paul also tells us Cephas was subordinated in the Church hierarchy to James (this is given by Peter changing his behaviour before James emissaries/spies).

but did not see him again until fourteen years later, at which point Paul still relied on third parties in identifying the Jerusalem church dignitaries (or the church' Jesus "specialists")

We don't know how many "pillars" the church had; Cephas was on of the three identified to Paul.

That is a "safe" assumption not just on those two verses.

the monetary ones, for sure

the laxity in observances may point to Cephas' Galilean origins and group subculture instituted by Jesus.

...supported her by living off his flock ? (1 Cor 9:7)

Jiri