Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Ehrman & Allison

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Ehrman & Allison
  • Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:05:09 -0400


Paul Toseland, in response to a post by Dave Hindley, said:

>>Allison's list of parallels between Cephas and Peter actually helps
your case (your ref. A8:1-10). For if Peter and Cephas were indeed
distinct, then the weight of these parallels would go a long way
towards explaining those early traditions (including the Western
variants that read PETROS for KEFAS in Gal 1:18; 2:11, 14) that
mistakenly identify the two.

Even five or six of the parallels listed by Allison might well be
enough to lead most people to jump to the conclusion that they were
the same. However, these parallels do indeed provide good grounds for
supposing that Peter and Cephas were indeed the same person. Of
course they do not amount to "apodictic certainty", but they do carry
a good deal of weight.

If you want to argue persuasively that Peter and Cephas were different
people, you will have to offer equally weighty positive evidence for
your hypothesis. You have, I think, successfully undermined some of
the arguments of those who oppose you; but without strong positive
arguments, it remains reasonable to hold to the traditional view,
simply because it is, prima facie, probably right.

In the end, it seems to me that the only substantial evidence you have
offered in support of your hypothesis is the presence of PETROS in Gal
2:7-8. This is a little puzzling, given that Paul nowhere else uses
the term, but I am not persuaded that your hypothesis provides the
only reasonable explanation. You are right that the presence of
"Peter" in Gal 2:7-8 does not prove that Paul is quoting an official
document from the Jerusalem conference; but I still find Betz'
argument, which you quote, that Paul may be paraphrasing the terms of
an agreement, perfectly reasonable.

With regard to the argument that using the presence of PETROS in 2:7-8
to prove the presence of a quotation (or paraphrase) of a document is
circular, this does not necessarily undermine the conclusion of the
argument. Linear, deductive argument is not the only valid form of
reasoning. What we have is a proposal that, underlying 2:7-8 is a
quotation from an official document. This makes good sense
exegetically, and explains why Paul may have chosen the term PETROS
rather than his familiar KEFAS: he was influenced by the language of
his source. The hypothesis works.<<

The review of the arguments put foreword by Ehrman and Allison was
undertaken solely for the purpose of my own education. While I do
personally hold the opinion that the Peter of the Gospels and Acts,
and the Cephas of the Pauline epistles are two unrelated individuals,
it does not hinge on Gal 2:7-8. I am of the opinion that the phrase
"just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
(for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised
worked through me also for the Gentiles)" (Gal 2:7b-8) was more likely
than not interpolated by a copyist, and not by my proposed redactor. I
also think, incidentally, that John 1:42 is likewise a copyist's
comment. But yes, I think that Ehrman would be right to suspect that
both these *copyists* thought Peter and Cephas were the same person.

It will be a while before I can present a systematic "positive" case
for my hypotheses that the Pauline epistles as they exist in the NT
are the remains of letters of a Paul, to Gentile associates of
Judaism, redacted and published as recruitment literature by a second
unrelated group. It is a work in development.

I am hoping to set up a web page that will contain the research as it
progresses (I plan to attack it in stages, much the way students craft
a class paper, but that too is under development), but all the
documents so far are in MS Word or Excel format, with extensive
tables, and will have to be converted to HTML format one at a time.
Then there is the issue of how I will represent the Greek text (do I
use an ASCII transliteration scheme, or the Windows symbol font? Will
the former be too hard to read and/or interpret? Will the latter limit
Mac users? etc). I also need to change my ISP as the access speed to
CompuServe is too slow (they still have not upgraded all their lines,
including those in a major city like Cleveland, to v.90 56K) and does
not provide enough storage space for the amount of data I'll need to
post.

Thanks, though, for the interest and comments! Feedback is very
important to me, and will indeed be taken into consideration.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA





  • Re: Ehrman & Allison, Paul Toseland, 04/21/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Ehrman & Allison, David C. Hindley, 04/21/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page