(Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    1/11

    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 TR

    1 COR 1:12 KHFA KHFA

    1 COR 3:22 KHFAS KHFAS

    1 COR 9:5 KHFAS KHFAS

    1 COR 15:5 KHFA KHFA

    GAL 1:18 KHFAN PETRON

    GAL 2:7 PETROS PETROS

    GAL 2:8 PETRW PETRW

    GAL 2:9 KHFAS KHFASGAL 2:11 KHFAS PETROS

    GAL 2:14 KHFA 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?

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    2/11

    Verse KHFAS PETROS

    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 06, 012, 018, 020

    GAL 2:7 ALL

    GAL 2:8 ALL

    GAL 2:9 01, 03, 04, 018, 020 p46, 06, 012

    GAL 2:11 01, 02, 03, 04, 015 p46, 06, 012, 018, 020

    GAL 2:14 p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015 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

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    3/11

    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

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    4/11

    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,

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    5/11

    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 wherea 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

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    6/11

    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 examplescan, 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 useof 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

    = DORKAS); John 11:16, 20:24, 21;2

    (QWMAS = DIDUMOS ; Mark 3:17 (BOANHRGES =

    "sons of thunder"); and Luke 6:15/Acts 1:13 (hO ZHLWTHS probably

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    7/11

    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)

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    8/11

    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 NTdocuments 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 otherscholars 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.

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    9/11

    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) bySatirically 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:

    Allisons response to Ehrman

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    10/11

    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 acceptit).

    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 beingdiscussed, 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

  • 8/8/2019 (Hindley) is Peter & Cephas Same Man

    11/11

    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

    [email protected]

    Copyright 2003, 2007