Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Petros/Cephas in Galatians (was Pauline and Jesus Movements) <LYR86769-47687-2000.04.03-13.25.49--ekrentz#lstc.edu@franklin.oit.unc.edu >

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Petros/Cephas in Galatians (was Pauline and Jesus Movements) <LYR86769-47687-2000.04.03-13.25.49--ekrentz#lstc.edu AT franklin.oit.unc.edu >
  • Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:37:08 -0500


David Hindley wrote:

> The relationship between the Peter of the Gospels and the Cephas of
> Galatians is textually very tenuous. In the Textus Receptus,
> PETRON,PETROS/PETRW appears in Gal 1;18; 2:7,8,11,14, and KHFAS
> appears in 2:9 (and 1 Cor 3:22; 9:5; and as KHFA in 1 Cor 1:12 &
> 15:5). However, W-H and the GNT (NA26 at least) have one or another
> form of KHFA/KHFAS/KEFAN *except* at Gal 2:7,8 (which use PETROS and
> PETRW respectively), and these verses are regularly (although not
> universally) regarded as a bona-fide interpolation. Otherwise, the
> only other place we find a form of "Peter" is in the Gospels and Acts
> (except KHFAS in John 1:42).


It is difficult to trace the change of uses to Judean versus Antiochene sources because the inconsistency of use is regarding the Jerusalem meetings of 1:18 and 2:1-10, and the switch is among them, even within one comment if Cephas textual tradition followed for 2:9, but Cephas is consistently used when relating the Antioch Incident.

I have considered another view that I plan to include in forthcoming work on the Antioch Incident. If perhaps the addressees know Greek but not Hebrew/Aramaic, then it may be the pun intended on rock/pillar that is communicated in the undermining of the Jerusalem apostle's importance (or anyones for that matter) on human terms of consensus, although in this case these pillar (and the rock) did agree with Paul, recognizing God's work in him just as in their own ministries. Otherwise he refers to Peter in Hebrew transliteration as Cephas on either side of this ironic comment (1:18 + 2:11, 14 use of Cephas framing 2:7-9 use of Petros [although some manuscripts have Cephas at 2:9). [footnote here the comments of Rudolf Pesch, "Peter in the Mirror of Paul's Letters," in Paul de Tarse, p. 304, whose suggestion, slightly different, got me thinking about this possibility].

One might also wonder here--with Jim Hester--whether this change indicates the different hands of Paul and his secretary in crafting the letter.

Regards,
Mark Nanos




  • Re: Petros/Cephas in Galatians (was Pauline and Jesus Movements) <LYR86769-47687-2000.04.03-13.25.49--ekrentz#lstc.edu AT franklin.oit.unc.edu >, Mark D. Nanos, 04/04/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page