In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by Charles Wilson »

I have a digitized copy of Lit. Or. of John if you want to read what he actually wrote

CW

PS: The Reviewer of the book on Amazon is our old Poster "Adam".
He was definitely NOT negative on Teeple.

PPS: https://archive.org/details/literaryoriginof00teep
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by gryan »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:55 pm I have a digitized copy of Lit. Or. of John if you want to read what he actually wrote

CW

PS: The Reviewer of the book on Amazon is our old Poster "Adam".
He was definitely NOT negative on Teeple.

PPS: https://archive.org/details/literaryoriginof00teep
Yes, Thanks. Please send me a digitized copy via PM.
I had trouble with the archive.org copy.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:19 am Parallel namings of "Peter" by Jesus in Matt and John (and interpolated Galatians)

Matt 16:17-18
Jesus replied,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah... And I tell you that you are Peter,
Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ... κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος
and on this rock I will build my church...
καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

Ehrman has written a fascinating essay on the meaning of the Greek words: Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ (“petros” in Greek is a masculine word meaning, a small stone, a pebble; and, “petra” is a feminine word meaning is a large crag, an enormous rock).

Ehrman writes:
If Jesus renamed Peter “Rock” he would have done so in his native language, Aramaic, not Greek. And Aramaic does not have two similar sounding words for “rock.” So Jesus would have said “You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church.” Only when the tradition got translated into Greek were two different words used (where the feminine Petra could not used as the name of a man).
https://ehrmanblog.org/finally-cephas-a ... lly-think/

Cf. John 1:42
Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος).

So, given that background for Matt, was John interacting with Matt on the etymology of Cephas/Peter?

I'm thinking maybe the author of John had Matt (which has Jesus naming Peter "rock") and Galatians (which features a "Cephas", who is named "Peter" in what I regard as an interpolation which may have been added after the writing of Matt and John) on his writing desk and he also had a working knowledge of the translation issues described by Ehrman. And from those sources he constructed his etymology.

On the other hand, maybe the author John had access to an older Aramaic sayings of Jesus tradition which was known also to the author of Matt. After all, if John had known Matt, would he have changed "son of Jonah"to "son of John"?

I think whoever authored the "Peter" interpolation in Galaitans may have known Matt/John or the tradition behind both:

Gal 2:7-9 with a set of dots indicating the omission of the proposed interpolation, the text reads smoothly:
"...ἰδόντες [discerning] that I have been entrusted with the gospel… and γνόντες [knowing] the grace having been given to me, James and Cephas and John, the ones recognized to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, in order that we go to the Gentiles; but, they to the circumcision."

Gal 2:7-9 with the proposed interpolation [[shown in brackets]], the flow of thought seems choppy, and redundant:
"...ἰδόντες [discerning] that I have been entrusted with the gospel [[“of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision, for the One having worked in Peter for apostleship of the circumcision did also in me toward the Gentiles]] and γνόντες [knowing] the grace having been given to me, James and Cephas and John, the ones recognized to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, in order that we go to the Gentiles; but, they to the circumcision."
Insight:

If all we had was the "Peter" GMark and the "Cephas" of Gal (especially without the "Peter" interpolation) it would be nearly impossible to identify Peter with Cephas.

GMatt makes the link, but implicitly so.

Only GJohn's etymology of Peter/Cephas makes the link explicitly.

Even with the "Peter" interpolation present in Gal, it is possible to doubt that Cephas is Peter (unless the GJohn etymology is accepted). It is for this reason that in 1990, Society of Biblical Lit published an article by Ehrman arguing that, GJohn etymology notwithstanding, the historical Cephas was not Peter. (Ehrman, Bart D., Cephas and Peter, JBL, Fall 1990) Currently, Ehrman pretty much admits that his argument was refuted in this article:
Allison, Dale C Jr., Peter and Cephas: one and the same, JBL3 Fall 1992

Hypothesis: GJohn provides the most explicit etymology of Peter=Cephas because GJohn is the last Gospel written, and this was at a time when knowledge that Peter=Cephas could no longer be taken for granted.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:43 am If all we had was the "Peter" GMark and the "Cephas" of Gal (especially without the "Peter" interpolation) it would be nearly impossible to identify Peter with Cephas.

GMatt makes the link, but implicitly so.

Only GJohn's etymology of Peter/Cephas makes the link explicitly.

Even with the "Peter" interpolation present in Gal, it is possible to doubt that Cephas is Peter (unless the GJohn etymology is accepted). It is for this reason that in 1990, Society of Biblical Lit published an article by Ehrman arguing that, GJohn etymology notwithstanding, the historical Cephas was not Peter. (Ehrman, Bart D., Cephas and Peter, JBL, Fall 1990) Currently, Ehrman pretty much admits that his argument was refuted in this article:
Allison, Dale C Jr., Peter and Cephas: one and the same, JBL3 Fall 1992

Hypothesis: GJohn provides the most explicit etymology of Peter=Cephas because GJohn is the last Gospel written, and this was at a time when knowledge that Peter=Cephas could no longer be taken for granted.
Two points (which I think I got from Allison, but I may need to re-read it):

1) Cephas is a Hellinization (i.e., a rendering in Greek with Greek letters) of the Aramaic Kepa 'rock, stone', so we have an independent reason to think that Petros ('rock') and Cephas ('rock') might be the same.

2) We do not have any earlier record of anyone being called Peter/Petros ('rock') in Greek. The NT Peter is the first, and as he was by all reports a Judean/Jew, it would make sense (i.e., it is at a minimum consistent with the evidence) to think his name came from the Aramaic Cephas/Kepa.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by gryan »

@ Ken

Re: " Cephas is a Hellinization (i.e., a rendering in Greek with Greek letters) of the Aramaic Kepa 'rock, stone'"

I read the Allison article today, but I do not recall seeing this obvious point articulated as such! Thanks!
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:07 pm @ Ken

Re: " Cephas is a Hellinization (i.e., a rendering in Greek with Greek letters) of the Aramaic Kepa 'rock, stone'"

I read the Allison article today, but I do not recall seeing this obvious point articulated as such! Thanks!
gryan,

It's the first of the eight points he enumerates [pp. 492-493, in Dale Allison, 'Peter and Cephas: One and the Same, JBL 111.3 (1992) 489-495].

There's also his point 6:

6. 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).

And the whole list of correspondences between Peter and Cephas in point 8, which I won't try to reproduce here.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:57 am
6. 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).
Yes, and neither he nor Ehrman, nor Carlson regard Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation. I regard it as interpolation, but nevertheless, useful information, more or less in keeping with the meaning Paul's original text (unlike οἷς οὐδὲ in 2:5 which I regard as the direct opposite of the meaning of Paul's original text).

I'm curious, do you find the non-Pauline interpolation argument for Gal 2:7b-8 persuasive?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:45 am I'm curious, do you find the non-Pauline interpolation argument for Gal 2:7b-8 persuasive?
No, I'm not persuaded Gal. 2.7-8 is a non-Pauline interpolation. I'm aware of Ernst Barnikol's argument. Is there a better one?

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 9:40 am Is there a better one?
William O Walker Jr. wrote:

"Barnikol argued that Gal 2:7b-8 (beginning with της άκροβυστίας) was an antiMarcionite insertion, dating from the late second century... To my knowledge, no one has subjected his proposal to detailed scrutiny or attempted to answer the rather cursory arguments advanced against it, or, indeed, asked whether there might be additional reasons for viewing Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation."

With this, he introduces his argument of this essay: Galatians 2:7b-8 as a non-Pauline interpolation, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 65 no 4 Oct 2003

PS.

Walker wrote:
"Various scholars have noted that the deletion of v. 8 would highlight the striking parallelism between two
participial clauses, ίδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον (ν. 7) and γνόντες την χάριν την δοθεισάν μοι (ν. 9), which appear to be virtually synonymous in meaning. Indeed, with the removal of both v. 7b and v. 8, vv. 7a and 9 would read smoothly as follows:

άλλα τουναντίον
ιδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον καί
γνόντες την χάριν τήν δοθεισάν μοι,
'Ιάκωβος και Κηφάς και 'Ιωάννης, οί δοκούντες στύλοι είναι,
δεξιάς εδωκεν έμοί καί Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας,
ίνα ημείς είς τά έθνη, αυτοί δε είς τήν περιτομήν.

In short, as Dinkier notes, one can eliminate the material in question "without causing a break in the characteristic style of the sentence."

I agree. My argument is that Paul was lifting up the pillar James is a model of "having discerned" and "having known" his particular gift.

The proposed interpolation distracts from the authorial emphasis on the strong bond of "knowing" (a gnostic bond, if you will) between himself and the pillar James (Cf. 1 Cor 15:5-10 and Acts 15).
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Peter and Kephas

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:35 am William O Walker Jr. wrote:

"Barnikol argued that Gal 2:7b-8 (beginning with της άκροβυστίας) was an antiMarcionite insertion, dating from the late second century... To my knowledge, no one has subjected his proposal to detailed scrutiny or attempted to answer the rather cursory arguments advanced against it, or, indeed, asked whether there might be additional reasons for viewing Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation."

With this, he introduces his argument of this essay: Galatians 2:7b-8 as a non-Pauline interpolation, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 65 no 4 Oct 2003

PS.

Walker wrote:
"Various scholars have noted that the deletion of v. 8 would highlight the striking parallelism between two
participial clauses, ίδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον (ν. 7) and γνόντες την χάριν την δοθεισάν μοι (ν. 9), which appear to be virtually synonymous in meaning. Indeed, with the removal of both v. 7b and v. 8, vv. 7a and 9 would read smoothly as follows:

άλλα τουναντίον
ιδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον καί
γνόντες την χάριν τήν δοθεισάν μοι,
'Ιάκωβος και Κηφάς και 'Ιωάννης, οί δοκούντες στύλοι είναι,
δεξιάς εδωκεν έμοί καί Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας,
ίνα ημείς είς τά έθνη, αυτοί δε είς τήν περιτομήν.

In short, as Dinkier notes, one can eliminate the material in question "without causing a break in the characteristic style of the sentence."

I agree. My argument is that Paul was lifting up the pillar James is a model of "having discerned" and "having known" his particular gift.

The proposed interpolation distracts from the authorial emphasis on the strong bond of "knowing" (a gnostic bond, if you will) between himself and the pillar James (Cf. 1 Cor 15:5-10 and Acts 15).
I've now read Walker's papers in CBQ 65.4 (2003) and JBL 123.4 (2004) and, while I agree that the material in Gal. 2.7b-8 could be removed and leave an intelligible text, I am not convinced by Walker's reasons for doing so. Also, in the JBL 2004 paper, he points out the apparently carefully constructed parallelism in the two parts of v. 7 'when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised', and argues that v. 8 (only) was interpolated, before giving his actual opinion that 2.7b-8 were interpolated in the conclusion and citing his 2003 work. It's sort of a weird shift in the paper.

Anyway, we could debate Walker's reasons for identifying 2.7b-8 as an interpolation (which would remove all mention of 'Peter' from the Pauline corpus). But I think for purposes of the question we're currently discussing, whether Peter and Kephas are the same person, removing 2.7b-8 would actually remove the basis for distinguishing between them. We'd have a Paul who speaks only of Kephas in Gal. and 1 Cor., then a bunch of NT references to Peter, and then John 1.43, which identifies Kephas as Peter, and our knowledge that Petros means 'rock' in Greek as Kephas does in Aramaic. Peter would then simply be the Greek name, along with some later idealization, of the person called Kephas in Paul. I think Ehrman's case for arguing that Peter and Kephas are different depends on them both appearing in Galatians.

ETA: What Ehrman wrote on his blog:
I also showed that there are grounds for thinking this. Even though John 1:42 explicitly identifies Cephas and Peter as the same person, the much earlier writer Paul, the only surviving author who actually knew Peter, or Cephas, or both, seems to indicate they were separate people. He doesn’t actually SAY so, but that appears to be the implications of what he does say, when he speaks of them both in the same breath.

And so I concluded that maybe they were in fact two different people.

https://ehrmanblog.org/finally-cephas-a ... lly-think/
Best,

Ken
Post Reply