"Peter and James and John" (Gal 2:9) textual variant as "harmonization"

[gryan]

Galatians 2.1-21.

9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάνης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·

9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, Peter and James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

Great work Ben! Chapeau!

A question: Did I understand correctly, that the Marcionite version has "Peter" and not "Cephas"?

Thanks for the compliment.

That is a straightforward reading of Tertullian on this point: "Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul...." BeDuhn remarks in the note on this verse that several manuscripts (D, F, G, some Old Latin ones) and Ephrem attest to the names Peter, James, and John here, too.

He also points out, however, that this arrangement of names appear in the transfiguration. So has there been some harmonization?

Ben.

Re: Ben's question: "So has there been some harmonization?"

Yes. The authorial text of Gal 2:5 was probably "James and Cephas and John" (not "Peter and James and John").

Here is the manuscript evidence as presented in Carlson's dissertation, Text and History of Galatians:

Gal 2:9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ
Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι,

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς ×vg B א‎ 33 C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz

Ἰάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος P46

Ἰάκωβος A

Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος Marc D F G d b

---------------

I asked Chat GPT to explain what EDS means in this context and got this helpful reply:

"In the context of Carlson's "Text and History of Galatians," the acronym "EDS" stands for "external documentary support." It refers to the evidence for a particular reading or variant in Galatians 2:9 from external sources, such as early manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations. The acronym is used in contrast to "IHS," which stands for "internal harmonization support," and refers to the support for a particular reading or variant based on its fit with the surrounding context or with other passages in the same author's writings.

Based on the information provided in the excerpt, it appears that the reading "Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς" (James and Cephas) has strong EDS support from several manuscripts, including B, א‎, 33, C, 1241, and 1739, as well as from the versions and patristic citations. This is in contrast to variant readings such as "Ἰάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος" (James and Peter) or "Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος" (Peter and James), which have weaker or more limited EDS support."

That's a good place to start.

[mlinssen]

Galatians 2.1-21.

9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάνης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·

9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, Peter and James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

Great work Ben! Chapeau!

A question: Did I understand correctly, that the Marcionite version has "Peter" and not "Cephas"?

Thanks for the compliment.

That is a straightforward reading of Tertullian on this point: "Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul...." BeDuhn remarks in the note on this verse that several manuscripts (D, F, G, some Old Latin ones) and Ephrem attest to the names Peter, James, and John here, too.

He also points out, however, that this arrangement of names appear in the transfiguration. So has there been some harmonization?

Ben.

Re: Ben's question: "So has there been some harmonization?"

Yes. The authorial text of Gal 2:5 was probably "James and Cephas and John" (not "Peter and James and John").

Here is the manuscript evidence as presented in Carlson's dissertation, Text and History of Galatians:

Gal 2:9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ
Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι,

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς ×vg B א‎ 33 C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz

Ἰάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος P46

Ἰάκωβος A

Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος Marc D F G d b

---------------

I asked Chat GPT to explain what EDS means in this context and got this helpful reply:

"In the context of Carlson's "Text and History of Galatians," the acronym "EDS" stands for "external documentary support." It refers to the evidence for a particular reading or variant in Galatians 2:9 from external sources, such as early manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations. The acronym is used in contrast to "IHS," which stands for "internal harmonization support," and refers to the support for a particular reading or variant based on its fit with the surrounding context or with other passages in the same author's writings.

Based on the information provided in the excerpt, it appears that the reading "Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς" (James and Cephas) has strong EDS support from several manuscripts, including B, א‎, 33, C, 1241, and 1739, as well as from the versions and patristic citations. This is in contrast to variant readings such as "Ἰάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος" (James and Peter) or "Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος" (Peter and James), which have weaker or more limited EDS support."

That's a good place to start.

Just a short list, little from INTF on this:

"10046" gaNum="P46"
|κ̣[αι] γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ια[κω]βος και πετρος και ιωαννης οι δοκουντ̣[ες] [στυ]λοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμο̣ι κ̣α̣ι [βαρναβα] κοινωνιας ινα ημε̣[ις] ε̣ι̣ς̣ [τα] [εθνη] [αυτοι] [δε] εις̣ τ̣η̣ν περ[ιτομην]
"20001" gaNum="01"
-firsthand
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην
-corrector1
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις μεν εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην
"20002" gaNum="02"
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και ιωαννης· οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι· και βαρναβα κοινωνιας· ινα ημεις μεν εις τα εθνη· αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην·
"20003" gaNum="03"
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωανης· οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι. δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας· ινα ημεις εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην·
"20004" gaNum="04"
-firsthand
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυ ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις μεν εις τα εθνη· αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην
-corrector1
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις μεν εις τα εθνη· αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην
"30033" gaNum="33"
|και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην

P46, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Ephraemi - no Bezae for this one out of the Big Five

Yes, P46 has Peter, everything else says Kephas. And Alexandrinus has neither - LOL. But I don't see D (Bezae) containing any fonny stoff - where does this rumour come from? Bezae ends in the middle of Acts...

[ETA]

Ah. "Paris, National Library Greek 107, 107 AB. The famous Codex Claromontanus (not to be confused with the even more famous, or infamous, Codex Bezae, also designated D) -- so-called because Beza reported that it had been found at Clermont."

Anyway. So Peter is Chrestian, Kephas is Christian

[gryan]

...So Peter is Chrestian, Kephas is Christian

mlinssen, thanks for those quotations from various manuscripts!

Re: "So Peter is Chrestian, Kephas is Christian"

I asked Chat GPT what this comment meant. This is the answer, which sounds about right to me.

"It's difficult to say exactly what the author meant without more context, but there is a possibility that they were referring to a historical debate about whether the early followers of Jesus called themselves "Christians" or "Chrestians." Some scholars have suggested that the term "Chrestian" (meaning "good" or "useful") was an earlier and more widely used term among the followers of Jesus, and that the term "Christian" (meaning "Christ-like") became more popular later on. However, this is a debated topic and there is no consensus among scholars."

Please say more about this if the AI explanation missed some part of your point? Specifically, I'm wondering if you are implying that, in your opinion, Peter/Chrestian, is the earlier text.

[gryan]

Re: "So has there been harmonization?"

"In the context of textual criticism, the term "harmonization" refers to the intentional or unintentional modification of a text to make it conform to other related texts. This can happen when scribes or copyists encounter differences or inconsistencies in the manuscripts they are copying or when they are trying to reconcile a text with their own beliefs or the beliefs of their community. In the case of the variant reading in Galatians 2:9, if the names "Peter, James, and John" were added to the text, this could be seen as an attempt to harmonize the text with the account of the Transfiguration in the Gospels, where these three apostles are specifically mentioned as being present. However, it's also possible that the original author of Galatians may have had this group of apostles in mind when he wrote "those reputed to be pillars" in Galatians 2:9, and that the later manuscripts simply clarified their identities by adding their names. The question of whether or not the variant reading is an intentional harmonization or a genuine original reading is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate.

In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there is a story known as the Transfiguration, where Jesus takes three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, up a mountain and is transfigured before them in a divine light. This event is considered to be a significant moment in the life of Jesus, and it's possible that the mention of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 was added later by scribes or copyists who wanted to harmonize the text with this well-known story. By adding the names of Peter, James, and John to the list of apostles mentioned in Galatians 2:9, the scribes could have been attempting to emphasize the importance of these apostles as key figures in the early Christian movement, or to establish a connection between the events of the Transfiguration and the events described in Galatians.

However, it's also possible that the mention of Peter, James, and John in Galatians 2:9 is original to the text and not a later addition. The fact that some early manuscripts, such as P46, include the names of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 suggests that this variant may have been present in some of the earliest versions of the text. Additionally, some scholars argue that the mention of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 is consistent with the author's overall message and themes, and that it's unlikely that later scribes would have added these names without good reason. Ultimately, the question of whether or not the variant reading is an intentional harmonization or a genuine original reading is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate."

Chat Gpt.

[mlinssen]

...So Peter is Chrestian, Kephas is Christian

mlinssen, thanks for those quotations from various manuscripts!

Re: "So Peter is Chrestian, Kephas is Christian"

I asked Chat GPT what this comment meant. This is the answer, which sounds about right to me.

"It's difficult to say exactly what the author meant without more context, but there is a possibility that they were referring to a historical debate about whether the early followers of Jesus called themselves "Christians" or "Chrestians." Some scholars have suggested that the term "Chrestian" (meaning "good" or "useful") was an earlier and more widely used term among the followers of Jesus, and that the term "Christian" (meaning "Christ-like") became more popular later on. However, this is a debated topic and there is no consensus among scholars."

Please say more about this if the AI explanation missed some part of your point? Specifically, I'm wondering if you are implying that, in your opinion, Peter/Chrestian, is the earlier text.

Check!
The bot beat you to it, it would seem

9 occurrences in the NT

John 1:42
(BSB)
[Andrew] brought him to Jesus, [who] looked at him [and] said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter) .
(THGNT)
ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου· σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
1Cor 1:12
(BSB)
What I mean [is] this: Individuals among you are saying, “I [follow] Paul,” “I [follow] Apollos,” “I [follow] Cephas,” [or] “I [follow] Christ.”
(THGNT)
λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλώ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ χριστοῦ.
1Cor 3:22
(BSB)
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or [the] world or life or death or the present or the future. All [of them] [belong to] you,
(THGNT)
εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε Ἀπολλὼς εἴτε Κηφᾶς εἴτε κόσμος εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα, πάντα ὑμῶν,
1Cor 9:5
(BSB)
Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as [do] the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
(THGNT)
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς;
1Cor 15:5
(BSB)
and that He appeared to Cephas [and] then to the Twelve.
(THGNT)
καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα.
Gal 1:18
(BSB)
Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days.
(THGNT)
ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε·
Gal 2:9
(BSB)
And recognizing the grace [that] I had been given, James, Cephas, and John— those reputed to be pillars— gave me and Barnabas [the] right hand of fellowship, so that we [ should go ] to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
(THGNT)
καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν,
Gal 2:11
(BSB)
When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed [him] to his face, because he stood to be condemned.
(THGNT)
Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
Gal 2:14
(BSB)
When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of [them] all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
(THGNT)
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων· εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν;

[gryan]

"10046" gaNum="P46"
|κ̣[αι] γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ια[κω]βος και πετρος και ιωαννης οι δοκουντ̣[ες] [στυ]λοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμο̣ι κ̣α̣ι [βαρναβα] κοινωνιας ινα ημε̣[ις] ε̣ι̣ς̣ [τα] [εθνη] [αυτοι] [δε] εις̣ τ̣η̣ν περ[ιτομην]
"20001" gaNum="01"

Re: "The fact that some early manuscripts, such as P46, include the names of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 suggests that this variant may have been present in some of the earliest versions of the text." Chat Gpt posted by me (not a bot).

mlinssen: Are you in agreement with this?

[mlinssen]

"10046" gaNum="P46"
|κ̣[αι] γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ια[κω]βος και πετρος και ιωαννης οι δοκουντ̣[ες] [στυ]λοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμο̣ι κ̣α̣ι [βαρναβα] κοινωνιας ινα ημε̣[ις] ε̣ι̣ς̣ [τα] [εθνη] [αυτοι] [δε] εις̣ τ̣η̣ν περ[ιτομην]
"20001" gaNum="01"

Re: "The fact that some early manuscripts, such as P46, include the names of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 suggests that this variant may have been present in some of the earliest versions of the text." Chat Gpt posted by me (not a bot).

mlinssen: Are you in agreement with this?

Yup. Papyri are early. I don't necessarily with the conclusion, but the analysis is correct - because it just repeats what it says LOL

Other than that, it's yet another nail in the coffin of early epistles

[gryan]

"10046" gaNum="P46"
|κ̣[αι] γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ια[κω]βος και πετρος και ιωαννης οι δοκουντ̣[ες] [στυ]λοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμο̣ι κ̣α̣ι [βαρναβα] κοινωνιας ινα ημε̣[ις] ε̣ι̣ς̣ [τα] [εθνη] [αυτοι] [δε] εις̣ τ̣η̣ν περ[ιτομην]
"20001" gaNum="01"

Re: "The fact that some early manuscripts, such as P46, include the names of these three apostles in Galatians 2:9 suggests that this variant may have been present in some of the earliest versions of the text." Chat Gpt posted by me (not a bot).

mlinssen: Are you in agreement with this?

I agree with the Wm Walkers argument that Gal 2:7b-9 was probably an interpolation [see bracketed portion]:

On the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted {to preach} the gospel
ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

[to the Gentiles, just as Peter [ had been ] to the Jews.For [God], who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the Jews, was also at work in my [apostleship] to the Gentiles.]
[τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη]

and knowing the grace I had been given, James, Cephas, and John— those reputed to be pillars— gave me and Barnabas [the] right hand of fellowship, so that we [ should go ] to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν

------------

Wm Walker's argument that Galatians 2:7b-9 is likely an interpolation, with the bracketed portion being added later, is compelling. Removing this proposed interpolation restores a single sentence with "seeing" and "knowing." Additionally, without the interpolation, it appears that Paul consistently referred to "Peter" as "Cephas." It's possible that the scribe who produced P46 changed the original reading of "James and Cephas and John" to "James and Peter and John" in response to the use of the name "Peter" in the interpolation, or to emphasize Peter's role.

The fact that the interpolation with the named "Peter" appears in all extant manuscripts makes the reading of "James and Cephas and John" the more difficult reading, and thus more likely authorial. The support for the "James and Cephas and John" reading in some of the best, if not earliest, manuscripts also suggests that it is likely the authorial reading. The common ancestor of א and B is probably older than P46, Tertullian, and Marcion."

[mlinssen]

The fact that the interpolation with the named "Peter" appears in all extant manuscripts makes the reading of "James and Cephas and John" the more difficult reading, and thus more likely authorial. The support for the "James and Cephas and John" reading in some of the best, if not earliest, manuscripts also suggests that it is likely the authorial reading. The common ancestor of א and B is probably older than P46, Tertullian, and Marcion."

Honey, the best are the best because they are the earliest complete volumes - but what comes before that is earlier, and thus better. Hence P46 beats the Big Five

And if you start going down this road LOL, allow me to counter:

P46, Tertullian, and Marcion are guaranteed to be older than א and B

P46, Tertullian, and Marcion are probably older than the common ancestor of א and B

The common ancestor of P46, Tertullian, and Marcion is as good as guaranteed to be older than the common ancestor of א and B

Etc

[gryan]

The oldest manuscript of Galatians we have is P46, but it contains many errors.

'Lectio difficilior potior' (Latin for "the more difficult the reading is the stronger") is one of my principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior