A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Post by austendw »

Ben C. Smith wrote:In verses 7-8 I have Peter, because I am not aware of any variants for these two instances. But I also take the part highlighted in yellow as an interpolation; this has been suggested before for many reasons, not least the weirdness of Paul switching back and forth between Cephas and Peter as names for the same man for no particular reason. The very lack of manuscript variations for the name of Peter in these two verses may point to this part having been added later than the other verses about Peter/Cephas, all of which contain such variants; the interpolation simply postdates the textual wars which produced those variants.
I think that vv 7-8 in their entirety are interpolated, including the phrase "but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good-news to the uncircumcised.." which more or less duplicates the the words "and when they percived the grace that was given to me" in verse 9.

When these verses are omitted the text makes complete logical and grammatical sense:
6 And from those who were renowned to be something – what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality – those, I say, who were of renown proposed no additions to me, 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, then James, Cephas and John, who were renowned as pillars, extended the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, so that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they [would go] to the circumcised; 10 only that we should remember the poor, which very thing I was diligent in doing.
In verse 9 it’s the “men of repute” who dole out the two missionary roles: the gentiles are given to Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews to James, Cephas and John. Cephas comes after James, and might therefore be considered marginally lower in rank. Verses 7-8 subtly alter this:
7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good-news to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the good-news to the circumcised 8 for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles,
These verses repeat the split in the missionary work but here turn it into a two-man show: moreover it isn't just the "men of repute" who delegate these roles - the wording now suggests that God himself has entrusted the Gentile mission to Paul, and the Jewish mission to Peter. It notably leaves James out of this divine election - which may be the precise point of the interpolation. This later interpolator has automatically adopted Peter’s Greek name, which was the name he had come to be famous by, rather than the Aramaic Cephas of the original text.
Call me Ishmael...
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Post by DCHindley »

robert j wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
robert j wrote:In Paul's day, how rare was the Greek name Peter (Πέτρος)?
I have done no research on this of my own, but Ehrman writes on page 16 of Peter, Paul, and Mary:

It was an auspicious moment in the history of names. Even though rock (Peter) was just a noun before this, it became a popular name in the early Christian period, on down, of course, until today.

Thanks Ben.

Does anyone have evidence that contradicts Ehrman here?
Dale Allison, "Peter and Cephas: One and the Same" (JBL 111 1992 489-95), which is a response to Ehrman's article "Cephas and Peter" (JBL 109: 463-74), asserted that known pre-Christian sources use Aramaic Kepa as a name only once, and PETROS not at all. He does quote C. C. Caragounis 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 maintains that he "can demonstrate pagan use of the name in the first and second centuries CE," he consequently thought it highly unlikely that there could be two men with such rare (sur)names.

So, they are both rare names before the 2nd century, although there are many words that derive from the nouns Petros (rock mass) or Kepa (stone, pebble) attested before then, none were cases of use of the nouns themselves as names. This lack of attestation could be a case of a false negative if taken as indication of non use of these nouns as names.

DCH
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Post by robert j »

Thanks DCH for the citation of C. C. Caragounis that, for PETROS as a name, "no examples of it before the Christian era have turned up as yet".

That doesn't prove the negative. But given the importance of the name, I suspect a great many investigators have poured over the ancient sources in search of examples.


ETA ---

Chrys C. Caragounis is Professor Emeritus of New Testament exegesis at Lund University, Sweden.

"Chrys Caragounis ... is an expert linguist and grammarian highly competent in and familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship as well as having Greek as his mother tongue..." -- J. K. Elliott, University of Leeds
Last edited by robert j on Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Post by robert j »

Bernard Muller wrote:"Cephas" & "Peter" were very rare names in those days.
Very rare names indeed. Ben and DCH provided the findings of three scholars on the subject in the posts above, in summary ---

Dale Allison asserted that known pre-Christian sources use Aramaic Kepa as a name only once.

And Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, and C. C. Caragounis agree that the Greek "Peter" (Petros, Πέτρος), as a name, has not been found in pre-Christian sources.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Post by DCHindley »

robert j wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:"Cephas" & "Peter" were very rare names in those days.
Very rare names indeed. Ben and DCH provided the findings of three scholars on the subject in the posts above, in summary ---

Dale Allison asserted that known pre-Christian sources use Aramaic Kepa as a name only once.

And Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, and C. C. Caragounis agree that the Greek "Peter" (Petros, Πέτρος), as a name, has not been found in pre-Christian sources.
Would historical sources have preserved "nick names" of famous people? The exception, of course, might be to present them in an unflattering light (as in Caligula = "little boot" implying he got his military training tagging along with his dad's legion when he was a wee laddie, all dressed up in his itty bitty soldier's uniform).

Today we have "Rock" Hudson, and I don't see how one gets that from "Roy Harold Scherer, Jr" aka Fitzgerald.

In one of the John Wayne movies (In Harm's Way, 1965 - and yes, we did have movin' pictures in them days, albeit in B&W in our country) John played fictional Admiral "Rock" Torrey, although his "real" familial name is Rockwell. However, I do not think that this is a play on "rock" so much as a family name based on some long ago characteristic of the locality where his family originated. He is "Rock" because he is tough as can be, and proved it by speeding full speed to intercept the Japanese aircraft carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor, despite the very real danger (his heavy cruiser was hit by a torpedo from a submarine, causing him to push paper until he was finally given a task force to take a vital Japanese held island in the Pacific). His future girlfriend says that the moribund American fleet in their less important than the Solomon Islands theater of war, will be turned around to victory with "Rock" Torrey at the command.

So I can see how ancients *could* have spun nick names to describe the character of key figures in Greco-Roman warfare (= politics), but in Ancient times?

The Hellenistic Greek kings liked nick names such as "Savior (of mankind from war and uncertainty)" "Illuminated (as the obvious choice in troubled times)" "Benefactor (of mankind)" etc. I can see Simon now, fighting his gorilla war against the Roman colonial occupation forces, known as the rock that smashes the clay feet of the enemy ... puff puff, that kind of crap is hard to come up with ... but really? I just don't know.

DCH
Post Reply