(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I gave the evidence that in the early church there were writers who maintained that Cephas and Peter were *not* the same person, despite what is explicitly said in John 1:42. As some readers have noted to me, later authors *may* have differentiated between the two (saying they were not the same person, even though they were) for a very clear and certain reason: in Galatians 2 Paul confronts “Cephas” and blasts him for not understanding the Gospel. Could there have been a major rift between the two most important apostles of early Christianity (Paul and *Peter*)? Surely the apostles were more unified than *that*! Well, if Cephas was not the same person as Peter, it is a much, much smaller problem. So maybe that is what was driving early Christians to claim there were in fact two figures, the apostle Peter and the other person Cephas.
That post came from a scholarly article I wrote on the topic many years ago. I’ve decided not to give the entire article here – it gets increasingly technical and rather, uh, boring to general readers. But I will give here, below, one of the most important parts, where I begin to argue that there is good evidence in Paul’s own writings that Paul, who knew Peter, talks about him as being someone other than Cephas.
******************************
I have already shown that it cannot be argued, as one might be inclined to do otherwise, that this tradition (that Peter and Cephas were two different people) derives simply from the ignorance of Christians who did not realize that ”Kephas• and”Petros• are translational equivalents.
The most common view concerning the origin of this tradition is that it derives from an apologetic concern, namely to show that the person whom Paul opposed in Antioch was not the other great apostle of the early church, Peter, but an apostle of much lower standing, Cephas, one of the seventy. There is a good deal to be said for this view, given the circumstance that several of our sources state explicitly that Paul did in fact confront this otherwise unknown person in Antioch. At the same time, none of the sources that draws this distinction actually makes anything of it — i.e. none of them uses it for any explicit apologetic ends. Furthermore, it should be noted that in several of the representatives of this view, including our earliest, the Epistula Apostolorum, Cephas is not one of the seventy at all but is a member of Jesus’ original twelve disciples.
For these reasons, a simpler explanation for the tradition should perhaps be considered at greater length: it may have derived from a close reading of the NT documents themselves, particularly those in which “Cephas” is most frequently named — the writings of the Apostle Paul. We ourselves would do well to engage in a careful reading of Paul–the only author from the early church of whom we can say with some certainty that he actually knew Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9). And what is striking is that, although he also mentions Peter (Gal 2:7-8), he gives absolutely no indication that they are the same person. Quite the contrary,
Now HERE is a discussion I bet you’ve never heard before. Want to hear it? Join the blog!<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
What would you give to have a complete transcript of the Jerusalem Conference?
Depends. What’s the opening bid?
Depends. What’s the opening bid?
Bart when is the next group internet meeting? Since I’m a platinum member, I can interact right? We can discuss anything as long it relates to what you have mentioned. I’ve got so many questions and would like to hear what you know about it. It will be alot easier than posting a question everytime on your blog. Thanks Bart.
I haven’t set a date for the next Platinum meeting. These are not free for alls, but use a kind of webinar format, where I make a presentation and then take questions about it from those who come. It’s one of the perks of Platnium membershp!
Great! I’m loving the new membership thing. The blog has come along way. I look forward to the group meeting. From my understanding I can interact after your presentation since I’m a platinum member. Good vibes and talking about history, great stuff. I will keep an eye out if you set a date anywhere. Look forward to hear about CIA and other topics.
What, in your view, is the correct way to pronounce “Cephas”? To put it differently, when you read John 1:42 aloud in English translation, how do you pronounce it? I understand that it’s customary to Anglicize Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek names in the Bible, but when someone is assigning someone else a name (as in Matthew 1:21 or Mark 3:17), shouldn’t one try to acknowledge and preserve the original pronunciation– if only to remind English speakers that the Gospels were written in a “foreign” language?
By the way, I fully recognize that Matthew 1:21 is a problematic example since the name Joseph’s son is assigned, according to the text, is a Greek name rather than an Aramaic name.
It is pronounched SEE-fus. If you want it to sound like Aramaic, it’s pronounce KAY-fus.
Might it be related to the name “Caiaphas?” Just to stir the pot, what if Caiaphas became a convert, but a Judaizing one, that Paul had to confront?
Ah, interesting thought. But no, the names are not etymologically related.
What was the Jerusalem Conference? (unless I’m the only one who doesn’t know.)
YOu’re not! It’s the council referred to in Acts 15 and by Paul in Galatians 2, when Paul came to Jerusalem to discuss with the leaders there the legitimacy of his mission to the Gentiles. Acts and Paul portray the event differently; the key theme of Acts ios that everyone of significance absolutely agreed up and down the line with no friction among Paul, Peter, James, and the other apostles. Paul seems to suggest he had to twist some arms.
So far, I am very much with the Cephas and Peter were two different people scenario. By the way, Dr Ehrman, (and off topic) I enjoyed your discussion of the origins of the term ‘dog days of summer’ in your weekly round up. My favourite poem of Horace (Book III: Ode XIII), the one about the Spring of Bandusia, contains the phrase ‘hour of the blazing dog star’ which has stayed with me ever since my High school Latin days.
Do you think that Paul’s argument with Cephas is to be read literally and it is about proper(TM) practice and that there is really is no a difference in how Paul and Cephas (whoever he is) understand Jesus?
I ask this because I, being an “expert” who gets his info from Google U, had previously asked you if you thought Paul’s understanding of Jesus must be ~1:1 with what James, John and Peter thought of Jesus after meeting with him and OKing his mission to the gentiles. Because if they truly had a different Christology or a different understanding of the Way or what it meant to be in Christ he surely would have called Cephas out on his heresy. Your answers among your 37,000 Blog answers(!!) were compelling.
But man, when I read about the confrontation and it is all about circumcisions and keeping kosher and what a convert needs to do – not about pre-existing beings or baptism or the Way or what any of that means – I cant quite shake ideas a fundamentalist Preacher ca1920 would agree with.
I suppose we dont’ really know. Paul only mentions the dispute over whether Jewish followers of Jesus could eat meals with gentile followers. If they did have big differences in Christoloty, Paul doesn’t say anythign about it in his surviving letters; he rather indicates that they all agree on the basics (1 Cor 5:3-5; e.g.) BUt what we would give for some more Pauline letters to round out the details (to see if they had other disagreements)!!
If Cephas was perhaps one of “the Seventy” do you think “the Seventy” has a historical basis? Were there indeed historically two tiers of disciples of the historic Jesus (the Twelve and the Seventy)?
No, I really dont’. For Jesus to handpick 70 of his followrs in Galilee would presuppose that he had hundreds of people following him around, so that his mission was huge. I don’t see how that would have been possible in rural Galilee among people 99% of whom had to work full time 6 days a week (and not travel on the Sabbath) just in order to survive.
Professor Ehrman, what do you think of the claim by Dennis MacDonald that the New Testament copied Homer and other Greek Epics? What is the Consensus of secular scholarship regarding his claim?
He makes the case in his books: “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” and “Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero”
Dennis in one video interview wished that Ehrman would respond to his thesis. As it happens, Jesus Mythicists use his thesis to support their claims. For what it is worth, both I and Dennis reject Jesus Mythicism.
Dennis is an erudite and learned scholar of the New Testament, very bright and provocative. I do not, however, agree with his thesis about Homer. I think the evidence is far too thin. Of course HOmer was “in the air,” and many Homeric motifs and themes were very common. Many many people were highly influenced by him but very indirectdly, without everyhaving read him, let alone having tried to imitate him. On the upside, I hope that Dennis’s work provokes people to read Homer himself!
Bart: “Many many people were highly influenced by him but very indirectdly, without everyhaving read him, let alone having tried to imitate him.”
But Dennis and his followers are more specifically speaking of relatively well educated people who learned how to write Greek works such as the gospels. The evidence indicates that Homer was much more directly known among those who learned to write Greek fairly well. The authors of the gospels were indeed members of a rather well educated elite. Certainly not peers of Aristotle or Cicero, but nonetheless rather well educated.
I really doubt if Mark was trained much in Homer, at least to the extent that he wanted in some way to use his epics as a model for his portrayal of Jesusl. Any more than lots of other story tellers did. (e.g., the novelists; of course there’s “influence” in some kind of broad sense, but that’ could be said about a lot of modern films in relation to Homer, by film makers who aren’t planning to produce a new Odyssey per se, e.g.). It’s not a hill I’m interested in dying on, in any event.
Can you tell me, who are among Dennis’s followers? I really don’t know.
I agree. I also don’t think that Mark’s gospel was specifically modeled on Homer, but Dennis and his followers seem to be correct in pointing out that imitation of Homer was part and parcel of education in Koine Greek writing, at least in the evidence we have of Greek education at the time. Matthew Ryan Hauge has a good summary of this evidence in his article, The Forgotten Playground, in the Festschrift for Dennis MacDonald, Christian Origins and the New Testament in the Greco-Roman Context.
Does Hauge agree with the view? I’d love to see some names of others who do, since offhand I havne’t heard anyone come out in support…. THat’s has no probative force, of course — I”m just interested in knowing whom he has convinced (since the Markan scholars I know and have read are not).
Bart: “Does Hauge agree with the view? I’d love to see some names of others who do, since offhand I havne’t heard anyone come out in support….”
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. Hauge definitely agrees with the view that imitation of Homer was part and parcel of education in Koine Greek writing, at least in the evidence we have of Greek education at the time.
That’s the only general view of Dennis MacDonald I’m referring to here. I’m not referring to more specific views about the gospel of Mark.
As for others who agree with this general view about the use of Homer in Greek education, I could put together a list, but I don’t think this is particularly controversial; is it? I attended Dennis’ seminar at SBL many years ago and certainly nobody there would dispute this general view.
AH, no, that’s not controversial. My issue is with Dennis’s thesis, that Mark is modeled on Homer in some very real and serious sense.
I recently watched the 1951 Hollywood film, Quo Vadis. From this movie, one gets the sense that there was no daylight between Peter and Paul. Prof. Ehrman, are you aware that the Great Courses has recently introduced a course, A Historian Goes to the Movies: Ancient Rome? And it starts off with none other than the 1951 Quo Vadis.
Yup, a great movie! Ah, the 50s biblical epics. NOw those were the dasys….
“James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars”
Assuming that Peter and Cephas were not the same person, why would Paul list an unkown Cephas among James and John as the pillars of the faith? And also leaving Peter out? That would be strange if Paul knew Peter irl as one of Jesus’ own apostels. What could be an reasonable explanation for this?
AH, you do write ENglish! Cephas would not at all have been an unknown. He was one of the major leaders of the church in Jerusalem.
But why would he leave Peter out as a pillar? That seems strange to me. I can see Cephas being included but why was Peter excluded as a pillar of the church?
Because Peter wasn’t a pillar. Cephas was. Of all the CHristians in the world at the time, there were only three pillars of the Jerusalem church.
Well, this “pillar”, this Cephas, was known only to Paul. Aside from John 1:42 every instance where this Cephas is spoken of is in Paul’s writings nowhere else in the NT.
No one else but Paul knows this Cephas?
Unfortunately, this Cephas, though a pillar, had his name besmirched by Paul with no record preserved of why he acted as he did. We have only Paul’s accusation against a man who must remain silent for all time.
This is the problem with the NT letters being viewed as inspired accounts, they are a one-sided conversation; the other side is never heard from.
Paul publicly humiliates a pillar of the Christian congregation to what end? To help the Galatians or to prove himself the better man?
In my opinion, obviously the latter.
Could it be that Peter was dead by the time Galatians was written? That might explain why he wasn’t a pillar then, whereas Cephas was.
Paul is narrating an event that took place long before. IN any event, Peter is usually thoght to have been martyred in 64 CE, after the writing of Galatians.
Yes, I was only curious whether you would respond in English or German. 😉 You have answered several questions of mine before (in English), thank you for that! 🙂
Concerning this question of mine about the arguments for Peter and Cephas being different persons: Ok, I see that Paul would mention Cephas as an important pillar of the faith among with James and John, but it’d be still strange that he’d leave Peter out, isn’t it? I understand the arguments you’ve laid out in the article above, but when considering this three-pillars-of-the-faith-point, it rather raises more questions than it solves, it seems to me.
I don’t think it would be strange for him to leave Peter out of the group of three pillars, since he wasn’t one of them. (Notice; “James” is not the disciple James — so it’s not the same Peter James and John trio as in the Gospels; and is John the same JOhn? I wish I knew. It was a common name.)
Luke 24:33-34 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to “*Simon*!”
Paul wrote at 1 Cor 15:5 “and that He appeared to *Cephas*, then to the twelve.”
There is no “Cephas” who Jesus appears to first before the other Apostles, only Peter in Luke above. Surely Paul must have known this.
Mark 14:37 And He came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour?
Jesus use of the name Simon here is a more personal and intimate name for his Apostle.
When Paul uses the name, Cephas, he is using a more personal and intimate name for Peter.
Interesting thing about Paul- before his conversion to Christianity he opposed the Jewish Christians; then after his conversion he STILL opposed the Jewish Christians.
He need to prove himself the BEST Jew, whether before or after conversion, is an aspect of his personality that should be kept in mind when reading his letters.
Linda,
If Luke had read Paul, though, that could explain the correlation.
Thank you for including these snippets of your scholarly work. I admit to having been curious as to whether or not I would find it boring as you suggest, or more specifically, if I would even be able to understand it. Yet this clipped out version provided a peek into how it might sound to my mind, and was absolutely fascinating. Sentences such as this one were profound to me:
“In point of fact, unless we are somehow to think that the Jerusalem Conference lapsed into Pauline jargon when framing its conclusions. . .”
I for one would like to encourage you to not conclude in advance we average readers would find it boring. Although I think we can agree it most definitely will be “over my head” but that is why I am here, to be challenged. And in that aspect, you have blown my mind.
Thank you for taking the time to include us in your scholarly journey, because after too many long years of being labeled as divisive, “Miriam”, etc., for simply asking a question of so called men of god, I feel I have found my home, and the answers to many of my questions.
Ah, I meant to say “enthralling.” “Boring” must be a sdcribal alteration of the text….
Reading Galatians and then Acts I sense a more sophisticated James and Simon Peter than their backgrounds would seem to warrant… Then again, I guess they could have learned a lot of Torah and tradition in the years since the crucifixion.
I’d say that is much more clear in Acts than Galatians (which, of course, relates to larger problems in Acts and the historicity of it’s portrayals.)
Absolutely !!!
Also the depiction of James in Josephus and in Jerusalem(?) bishop Hegesippus (in the words of Eusebius) is not that of a fisherman from rural Galilee.
Peter/Cephas has no mention at all in any non-christian source , from Galatians we know he was the ‘link’ between the Jerusalem church and that of Antioch, the “second” of the pillars as Paul said, but Gal 2:12 (“he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision ”) shows a Cephas that certainly was not so important. Did Paul exaggerate in Gal 2:12? Or did Paul exaggerate Cephas’ role because he was his only link with the Jerusalem church?
Perhaps the Peter/James/John trio , the inner circle of the apostles, was a Mark adaptation of Paul’s three pillars. In Mark gospel James lost both his first place and his condition of “brother of the Lord” because of Mark stress in a Jesus abandoned by all his relatives and finally by all the jews , starting with his own family. The historical Jesus had no problem with his brothers (1 Cor 9:5).
Dr Ehrman,
Was there ever a debate that Saul and Paul were 2 different people as well?
Not really. The only place we hear about Saul (using that name) is the book of Acts, which explicitly identifies him as Paul. Outside of that we don’t know that Paul acxtually ever did have that hame or that anyone else called hyim that (or if there was anyone else floating around early Xty with that name))
Your paper mentions “other theories”, and one strikes me right away. Could Gal 2:7-8 have been altered by a later editor, prior to our earliest copy?
I can imagine Paul only using the name Cephas, and originally writing “When they saw that I had been entrusted with the true gospel, and when they perceived…” or something similar. If, a generation later, it had been worked out through compromise that that Peter and Paul had been entrusted with separate missions to the circumcised and uncircumcised respectively, that sounds like the sort of clarifying statement a copyist might have added to the text. If the copyist used the name “Peter” (whether the copyist had know Cephas and Peter to be the same person or not), that would explain it.
Does this theory have any major problems that aren’t obvious to a non-scholar like me, and do you know if any actual scholars have proposed this as a solution?
Yes, it’s certaily possible. The biggest problem for the theory is that there isn’t any evidence of it, and if someone did make the change, it is hard to see why he would not have made it more consistently, or at least *somewhere* else. And so most scholars prefer not to accept a theory — even an intriguing and good one — if there is no evidence for it.
Though there is very early and good evidence for the alternative text where Galatians 2:9 might be read as ‘Peter’ rather than ‘Cephas’ – as you point out in your original post. Which would remove the most obvious clash of terminology – though Cephas remains as the subject of Paul’s ire later at Antioch.
All in all, the P46 reading does not carry conviction; but it does confirm that the whole narrative of Paul’s encounters with Cephas was seen as problematic throughout the early centuries of Christianity; which in turn supports the speculation that those fathers that sought to split Cephas into two persons could be working to a counterpart apologetic agenda. As equally, some fathers, as Jerome and Origen, who maintain the singularity of Cephas throughout, reconciled Paul’s account of the dispute as play-acting for the purposes of instructing onlookers.
Certainly, this passage was a favourite of ant-Christian polemics – specifically in those writings collected as ‘Porphry’ – as exposing unresolved fractures between the earliest Christian ‘pillars’, concealed by a public front of harmony. In response to which Christian writers contrived more or less convincing explanations and re-interpretations.
Quadell’s suggestion is the one that sounds more plausible to me, Bart’s statement “What is initially intriguing …” is so clear and straightforward that all ‘theories’ like that of Cullmann/Klein seem not convincing at all to me.
I understand Bart’s objections to the theory of the “altered” Galatians but i think it could be solved:
1) “it is hard to see why he would not have made it more consistently, or at least *somewhere* else”
This only change was enough to have a Peter and a Cephas as two different characters, why to make more changes? There is no need to also change V.9 as later scribes did.
With only Gal 2:7-8 changed we have Peter “ an apostle to the Jews” and Cephas “ “reputed to be a pillar” and so the Antioch incident did not involve Peter but Cephas whoever he could be.
2) “there is no evidence for it”
If the change was carried out “prior to our earliest copy” as quadell says we will never have this evidence.
I find it quite baffling that a scholarly view can obtain the status “most popular” even though it is based on absolutely zero evidence (ie. Cullmann / Klein’s proposed official transcript of the Jerusalem conference that supposedly used the name Peter).
Here’s a non-scholarly view similarly based on no evidence whatsoever:
One day a storm was brewing on the Sea of Galilee. Against all the advice of his colleagues our brash fisherman went out anyway and subsequently crashed his boat on the cliffs. From that day onwards he was mockingly known as The Rock.
And then there was this other fellow, a so-called Pillar, who like James was connected with the Temple, ie. the place where now stands the Dome of the Rock.
Well, I hope that my version can at least obtain the status “most imaginative” …
Yeah, I see your point. But they do *argue* for it as the most plausible explanation, based on the fact there was a conference and since there are two reports of it there must have been a record of it (as opposed to an explanation based on events that are *not* otherwise known).
Not only don’t we have any evidence at all about the existence of that “proposed official transcript of the Jerusalem conference that supposedly used the name Peter” that it would be weird because “Peter” is kinda a greek translation of Cephas.
For the theory to work:
1) We have to think Paul had a copy of that “proposed official transcript” and most strikingly …
2)He did not use that “copy” in his arguments, he even transcribed some part of it but never mentioned a document that would be enough to settle down the argument that caused the composition of Galatians !!
Another problem is the very existence of the so-called “Jerusalem conference”.
That is what Paul says, but the unknown visitors to the Galatian churches seem not to know a word of it.Why do we have to trust Paul and not the others ?
Paul says in the same letter “ the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:11-12) . That is simply a LIE . This was his only lie in Galatians?
Furthermore, it should be noted that in several of the representatives of this view, including our earliest, the Epistula Apostolorum, Cephas is not one of the seventy at all but is a member of Jesus’ original twelve disciples.
Looking at an English translation of the EA, it doesn’t say anywhere that the letter is coming specifically from the twelve. It just says: “We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas” There are 11, not 12 names (if it were really written by the apostles, you’d think it would have been composed after Matthias was elected to the body). So maybe it’s 10 of the 12 and 1 of the 70.
Wish we could have access to Anicetus who staked a claim to Peter in his pissing match with Ploycarp about dating Easter. At least he knew where Peter was “buried” with Helena-style intuition.
Re: Matthew’s Petros Latin pun. What language is Jesus speaking as the pun breaks down in the Greek? I guess the holy carpenter used clever Greek to ‘unlearned and ignorant’ Aramaic fishermen?
So if Jesus is speaking Aramaic to refer to Cephas as shown in John 1:40, what on earth did Jesus use to express ‘church’, ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’? For example, ekklesia has no equivalent in Aramaic. There was nothing like ecclesia known to the Jews. Similarly, ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ are late Christian constructs. And the terms ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ are suspicious, being drawn from jurisprudence not theology.
Matthew’s pun is in Greek as it turns out. I”m not sure what terms he used, though semitic languages do have a word for “heaven” (it’s the same word for sky); none of these languages had a term for what we today would call hell, except Greek terms like Tartarus.
Could this not be explained through the way memory works with names and language evolution? If he was called Cephas and later Peter you can expect at times that Paul would unintentionally still call Peter, Cephas.
We see this all the time today when two people get married, and generally speaking the woman changes her surname to her husband’s surname. For a period of time we get it wrong and call them by their old surname.
We even see this in the Hebrew Bible with the term ‘assembly’ where both Edah was used primarily in older pre-exilic literature and by the time of the exile (Ezekiel) we see both Edah and Qahal being used interchangeably, and then by time Chronicles is written, Edah is virtually gone.
It’s possible. But as I point out, he says different things about them, and as we’ll see in the next post, the differentiation makes good sense of the other things he says about Peter.
So how do you view John 1:42? Did John get two separate people mixed up in his mind? Was he merging two people into a composite character like some movies do from time to time when covering historical events?
People living later simply didn’t realize there were two people with the same name.
Hi, Bart.
Elaine Pagels was recently on Mythvision podcast where she hinted that 2 Cor 11:4-6 may be talking about Peter. What are your thoughts?
Others have proposed that, but I think it’s highly unlikely. The opponents of Paul in Corinth take almost the *opposite* line to what Peter is normally thought to have taken: they are not focused on keeping the ways of Judaism; as “super-apostles” they are much more heavily inflenced by Greek ways of thinking…
” Paul mentions Cephas by name eight times in his letters, (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14), he mentions Peter only twice (Gal 2:7, 8).”
For me, the problematic Cephas reference (for the theory that there were two Cephases) is 1 Corinthians 15:5
” For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Paul specifies Cephas as being the one named in the common tradition handed on to him, as the first apostle to witness the resurrection; before even the Twelve together.
Whereas in Mark 16:7, the first resurrection appearance is predicted for ‘the disciples and Peter”; while in Luke 24:33, the risen Jesus appears first to ‘Simon’ and then to the eleven (and others). In John the first witnesses are the ‘beloved disciple’ and ‘Peter’.
So, might Cephas be the ‘beloved disciple’; or otherwise, might Paul be misrepresenting the common tradition as he had received it?
I”ll be talking about it in the next post. Note the parallel to James and “all the apostles.” This, of course, is not the son of Zebedee, the disciples. Parallel constructions; more parallel if both individuals were not a member of the group named next.
The problem with Paul is that his writing is very unreliable.
He himself admits that lying ‘ad maiorem Dei gloriam’ is perfectly moral and lawful, and that since he was more astute, he easily deceived those who listened to him.
We also know that, in addition to lying and inventing events to make it clear to the proto-Christians around him that he was a direct envoy of God, he adorned his stories and had a great literary fanatasy.
Perhaps one of the examples of this far-fetched and exuberant imagination is the scenic description of what is known as the prophecy of the “rapture of the church”
I have always considered Peter and Cephas to be the same person. My reasoning is that the name, Peter, had already taken on theological significance. Sine he and Paul were at odds, Paul used the alternate name to convey that Peter’s name doesn’t deserve such reverence.
To me, it’s like the name,Jesus (albeit a Greek translation, is revered today but was just a common name in his time.
I know people who get upset with baseball players named Jesus.
Leovigild,
Matthias is fictional. He covers James in Acts 1. Judas is fictional. He, too, covers James in The Betrayal. It is more probable than not, same with Jesus. The New Testament is nothing more than a coverup of the mastership succession of James. Paul hated James, and he won the battle for supremacy. According to Apocrypha (Pseudoclementine Recognitions 1.70) he KILLED James. That is why Stephen was created in Acts 7 as another cover for James, as shown by Dr. Robert Eisenman in his ‘James the Brother of Jesus.’ Paul is implicated in his death at the final verses. Paul, the quintessential perfect disciple. Read Eisenman.
Only living Masters can save (John 9:4-5, 14:6-7). Only living disciples of the time can BE saved (John 6:40, 13:1, 17:11). Read red-letter passages only. New Testament narrative is Church propaganda. Even so, the corruptions are many, and require diligent study (see Bart’s book on Orthodox corruption).
Real saviors (‘Masters’) are always in the world. Always. I saw one yesterday.
Rssb.org
Scienceofthesoul.org
Seems implausible that Paul elevate secondary figure (Cephas) to the level of Christ and Paul himself.
1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: “Individuals among you are saying, ‘I follow Paul,’ ‘I follow Apollos,’ ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ.'”
Your quote has similar issue “… 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…”
And here in the first part of your above quote we see Peter as of central importance: “When they [those ‘of repute’] saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised …”
Cephas, not Peter, a pillar of the church?
Looks to me that Paul regularly referred to Simon Peter as Peter, and in that one clause he switches to Aramaic spelling for familiarity of the grouped names, ” James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars” — Cephas the name familiar to Jews, but Peter the more common when speaking to gentiles; the grouped names “James and Cephas and John” a match by ethnicity.
I guess he eleveated Apollos to that level. Or rather, ,he didn’t elevate anyone to that level. Some of the Corinthians did.
Galatians 1:18 tells of Paul and — Cephas’s — historic first meeting in Jerusalem. Paul is without a doubt referring to Peter. Then 14 years later he has another historic meeting with — Peter — (Acts 15:6).
Soon after this meeting, in Galatians 2:7 Paul tells the important agreement that — Peter — is entrusted to preach to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles.
It can only be the same Peter who Paul met on these two trips to Jerusalem. If you are in disagreement I would be interested in your opinion on which of the two above, Cephas or Peter, is the real head of the Church.
The thing is, there is no person of significance called Cephas outside of Paul. Cephas cannot possibly be a separate person. It is same person, “the rock” in two languages (as you noted).
I’m yet more convinced, upon reviewing the applicable parts of Galatians, that Paul purposely interchanged “Cephas” and “Peter” because he was speaking to a Jewish AND gentile audience and wanted to be sure that both groups understood who he was referring to, particularly given that the terms represent the same name (rock) in the different languages. The Galatian churches would have already known this from Paul’s first visits there, and any confusion from a new member would have been cleared up by other members.