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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I posted some extracts from Galatians with accompanying textual apparatus on another thread, and would like to float a solution to the textual Peter/Cephas problem in that epistle which differs from the one which the modern critical texts settle on. I will present each relevant text in turn, including my selected option (Peter or Cephas) and my reasons for selecting that option. I am in no way committed to this reconstruction; it was just an idea which struck me, and I thought I would see how it fares.

The apparatus is from LaParola, but it seems to have skipped Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in one spot, and I have put them back, marked with a tilde (~).

1.

Galatians 1.18-19: 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

1.18
Κηφᾶν] p46 p51 ‭א* A B 33 424c 467 823 920 1739 1912 syrp syrh(mg) syrpal copsa copbo eth WH NR CEI Riv Nv NM
Πέτρον] ‭אc D F G K L P Byz ς ND Dio TILC

I select Cephas here because (A) our earliest (p46) and often most reliable (א B) extant manuscripts have Cephas and (B) I cannot think of a good reason to have turned Peter into Cephas here.

Marcion may have lacked this entire section, verses 18-24, however, so the choice here may not matter so much.

2.

Galatians 2.1-10: 2 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor — the very thing I also was eager to do.

2.9
Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης] ‭~א ~B Byz ς WH
Ἰάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης] p46 itr
Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης] D F G itd itg goth Marcion Origenlat Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Ephraem Marius Mercator

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.

3.

Galatians 2.11-14: 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

2.11
Κηφᾶς] ‭א A B C H P 33 103 104 181 263 424c 436 vg syrp syrh(mg) copsa copbo arm eth WH NR CEI Riv Nv NM
Πέτρος] D F G K L Byz syrh(text) goth Marcion Victorinus-Rome Chrysostom Marius Mercator ς ND Dio TILC

2.14
Κηφᾷ] p46 ‭א A B C H 10 33 88 255 263 424c 467 1319 2127 vg syrp copsa copbo arm eth WH NR CEI Riv Nv NM
Πέτρῳ] D F G K L P Byz itd itg vgmss syrh goth ς ND Dio TILC

These two instances have to go together in the text, for surely Paul is rebuking the same man he is opposing in Antioch. But here is where I am differing from the usual textual reconstructions in selecting Peter instead of Cephas. My reason is simply that Cephas seems to be the Alexandrian (א B) or Egyptian (p46) favorite for these verses, and we can be fairly certain that a debate over Cephas and Peter in this very context took place in Alexandria:

Eusebius, History of the Church 1.12.2: 2 Ἡ δ´ ἱστορία παρὰ Κλήμεντι κατὰ τὴν πέμπτην τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων· ἐν ᾗ καὶ Κηφᾶν, περὶ οὗ φησιν ὁ Παῦλος· « Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην», ἕνα φησὶ γεγονέναι τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν, ὁμώνυμον Πέτρῳ τυγχάνοντα τῷ ἀποστόλῳ. / 2 This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face," a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter.

This is Clement of Alexandria, of course. So the situation in 2.11, 14 is very much unlike the situation in 1.18, since here there is a clear and obvious reason why Peter might have been changed to Cephas: to spare him the wrath of the apostle Paul and pawn it off on the seemingly less important Cephas.

If this reconstruction is correct, then Paul went to visit Cephas (1.18, assuming for the sake of argument that this is part of the original text) in Jerusalem, and then went again to visit the three pillars: James, Cephas, and John. Later, however, in Antioch, he had a run-in with a different person, named Peter. If 1.18 is original, then both Cephas and Peter are known enough to the Galatians (at least) that they do not require a special introduction beyond their name alone (1.18; 2.11); if 1.18 is not, then Cephas is not necessarily that well known, as he is given a more proper introduction as one of the "pillars" in 2.9.

Again, I have no absolute commitment to this scenario; just throwing it out there, as it occurred to me recently and differs from the usual textual reconstructions. What do you think?

Ben.

ETA: Parking this here for future reference:

Bezalel Porten, Elephantine Papyri in English B42, lines 10-12, page 236 (Aramaic from Craig A. Evans, “A Fishing Boat, a House, and an Ossuary,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul, page 220):

10 The witnesses herein: Attarmalki son of Kilkilan; Sinkishir son of Shabbethai; Saharakab son of Cepha [בר כפא];
11 Nabushillen son of Bethelrai; Eshemram son of Eshemshezib; Varyazata son of Bethelzabad;
12 Heremnathan son of Paho; Eshemzabad son of Shawyan.

The papyrus in question is dated to around 416 BC. It is also known as BMAP #8, from the Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8016
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Could Peter be changed to Cephas merely to maintain consistency with the change in 2:11?

On the other hand, do the references go Cephas in 1 Corv support the idea that Paul spoke of one named Cephas?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:Could Peter be changed to Cephas merely to maintain consistency with the change in 2:11?
Do you mean changing an original Peter to Cephas in 1.18 and 2.9 just to be consistent with the new Cephas in 2.11 and 2.14? It seems to me that 2.9 would be the obstacle there: would a scribe who saw James, Peter, and John (or Peter, James, and John, as in some manuscripts) want to give Peter's status as a pillar to the same Cephas who just stepped in to textually rescue Peter's honor in 2.11? Maybe if the move were done purely mechanically, I suppose. But honestly, I have a hard time imagining an original Peter in 2.9 getting changed to Cephas.
On the other hand, do the references to Cephas in 1 Cor. support the idea that Paul spoke of one named Cephas?
The references to Cephas in 1 Corinthians, particularly the one in chapter 9, do seem consistent with the naming of a Cephas in Galatians, I think.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8016
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Could Peter be changed to Cephas merely to maintain consistency with the change in 2:11?
Do you mean changing an original Peter to Cephas in 1.18 and 2.9 just to be consistent with the new Cephas in 2.11 and 2.14? It seems to me that 2.9 would be the obstacle there: would a scribe who saw James, Peter, and John (or Peter, James, and John, as in some manuscripts) want to give Peter's status as a pillar to the same Cephas who just stepped in to textually rescue Peter's honor in 2.11? Maybe if the move were done purely mechanically, I suppose. But honestly, I have a hard time imagining an original Peter in 2.9 getting changed to Cephas.
Another idea is that the original read Peter throughout.

Then the change happened at 2:11,14 and the reference in 1:18 represents the hand of an interpolator.

Then the question is, why Peter in Galatians and Cephas in 1 Corinthians. Different people?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Could Peter be changed to Cephas merely to maintain consistency with the change in 2:11?
Do you mean changing an original Peter to Cephas in 1.18 and 2.9 just to be consistent with the new Cephas in 2.11 and 2.14? It seems to me that 2.9 would be the obstacle there: would a scribe who saw James, Peter, and John (or Peter, James, and John, as in some manuscripts) want to give Peter's status as a pillar to the same Cephas who just stepped in to textually rescue Peter's honor in 2.11? Maybe if the move were done purely mechanically, I suppose. But honestly, I have a hard time imagining an original Peter in 2.9 getting changed to Cephas.
Another idea is that the original read Peter throughout.
This is what I thought you meant the first time, which is why I said that I thought 2.9 would be the main obstacle to overcome. It would have to be a scribe really, really interested in consistency to remove Peter from his pillarship and replace him with the Cephas whom Paul is now rebuking in 2.11, would it not?
Then the change happened at 2:11,14 and the reference in 1:18 represents the hand of an interpolator.
That part would not be too difficult.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
If this reconstruction is correct, then Paul went to visit Cephas (1.18, assuming for the sake of argument that this is part of the original text) in Jerusalem, and then went again to visit the three pillars: James, Cephas, and John. Later, however, in Antioch, he had a run-in with a different person, named Peter.
If Cephas and Peter are two different people, it would be easier for me to imagine Peter waffling and being rebuked by Paul than the pillar Cephas, especially when one of the other three pillars (James) sent people to check on the situation in Antioch. Would a pillar really ever "live like a Gentile and not like a Jew," as Paul says in 2:14? That seems weird, now that I think about it.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote:Ben wrote:
If this reconstruction is correct, then Paul went to visit Cephas (1.18, assuming for the sake of argument that this is part of the original text) in Jerusalem, and then went again to visit the three pillars: James, Cephas, and John. Later, however, in Antioch, he had a run-in with a different person, named Peter.
If Cephas and Peter are two different people, it would be easier for me to imagine Peter waffling and being rebuked by Paul than the pillar Cephas, especially when one of the other three pillars (James) sent people to check on the situation in Antioch. Would a pillar really ever "live like a Gentile and not like a Jew," as Paul says in 2:14? That seems weird, now that I think about it.
That does seem a bit weird, now that you mention it. I mean, weird things sometimes happen in history, but it is worth noticing it in this case, where the text is suspect and we are not sure what is going on.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8016
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Yeah I am just posting from my phone while still in the middle of a big move up to the Bay Area. I am not surprised if my first suggestion didn't make a lot of sense.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

It would be surprising that Cephas is not the same person than Peter because Cephas, as an important apostle and one pillar of the church of Jerusalem in Paul's epistles, would be ignored by the author of Acts, as one of the preeminent members of the church of Jerusalem.
And "Cephas" (English transliteration of a Greek transliteration) of the Aramaic/Hebrew for various kinds of rock/stone (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767&hilit=cephas%2F#p61694), then two early apostles being named "rock/stone" would be too much of a coincidence, more so in view that "Cephas" & "Peter" were very rare names in these days.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:It would be surprising that Cephas is not the same person than Peter because Cephas, as an important apostle and one pillar of the church of Jerusalem in Paul's epistles, would be ignored by the author of Acts, as one of the preeminent members of the church of Jerusalem.
Not ignored at all. Just combined with Peter. Whatever Cephas is or does, that is Peter; whatever Peter is or does, that is Cephas, too, according to someone who thinks they are the same person.

It is no different than people who think that Mary Magdalene is the same as Mary of Bethany and also the anonymous woman in Luke 7.36–50. When they combine these figures, they are not ignoring any one of them. It is just that, every time any of these women comes up, such people think that it is the same person always coming up.
And "Cephas" (English transliteration of a Greek transliteration) of the Aramaic/Hebrew for various kinds of rock/stone (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767&hilit=cephas%2F#p61694), then two early apostles being named "rock/stone" would be too much of a coincidence, more so in view that "Cephas" & "Peter" were very rare names in these days.
I still have not seen your argument for this. The word for a rock/stone/pebble is כפא, with a kaph. The Caiaphas inscription has קפא or קיפא, with a qoph. If Cephas (Κηφᾶς) means "rock" (basically "Rocky" as a name), then an initial kaph got transliterated as an initial kappa. How often does that happen? Does not an initial kaph usually get transliterated as an initial chi, as with כבר getting rendered as Χοβαρ in Ezekiel 1.1? I know spin has spun off quite a few examples of initial kaph becoming chi (doubtless because of the aspiration native to initial stops/plosives), and I am interested in examples to the contrary, of initial kaph becoming kappa. Do you have some? If not, then it would look very much like Κηφᾶς should derive from קיפא, correct?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply