Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Ehrman & Allison Pt 1 of 2

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: Ehrman & Allison Pt 1 of 2
  • Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:10:23 -0400


On Apr 3, 2000, Jim Hester (many moons ago) responded to a post by
Dave Hindley as follows:

>>In 1990 Bart Ehrman wrote an article in JBL (109: 463-74) arguing
that Peter and Cephas were two different people. 1n 1992 Dale Allison
responded, also in JBL (111:489-95), taking up and refuting every one
of Ehrman's claims.<<

I finally found the opportunity to review, and copy, the relevant
articles. Thanks!

If it is all right, I'd like to offer a critique of this exchange
between Ehrman & Allison, and offer my comments. I did not attempt to
minutely represent every statement made, but to capture the essence of
what it appeared to me that Ehrman was arguing.

JBL 109: 463-74 (1990): Ehrman wrote the article as a re-evaluation of
the question whether the Cephas and the Peter mentioned in Gal 2 could
have referred to two different individuals. The evidence from early
Church traditions for Cephas and Peter being different individuals is
reviewed and an interpretation offered:

E1 A distinction between Peter and Cephas, as individuals, is found
in a number of early Christian documents. He also notes that these
speculations fly in the face of the equation of Peter with Cephas in
John 1:42.

E2 That the variations between identifications of where these Peters
and Cephases fit into Church tradition about Jesus and his followers
suggest that a living tradition was at work rather than a direct
literary borrowing of earlier statements by later writers.

Ehrman reviews alternative explanations for the two names in Gal 2:

C1 The "most common" explanation is that it derives from an
apologetic concern to show that the person whom Paul opposed at
Antioch (Cephas of Gal 2:11) was not the great Apostle of the Church
(the Peter of Gal 2:7-8).

Ehrman counters that:

E(C1)a the fact that none of the authors of the Church documents
cited make an apologetic point of these identifications argues against
this explanation, and

E(C1)b that in some of these cases the two individuals are both
identified as Apostles, weakening an apologetic explanation.

Ehrman here offers his own reasons for

E3 assuming that two different individuals are indicated:

E3a This would be the plain suggestion if the passages in Galatians
are read without reference to John 1:42,

Although at this point Ehrman introduces a new section heading (III,
pg. 467), the reason outlined below (which is found in this section,
pp. 467-8), is clearly intended to support the explanation made near
the end of the preceding section (E.3).

E3b Paul's readers/audience would not necessarily be aware that the
Greek name Peter and the Aramaic name Cephas are rough equivalents in
meaning.

A second, recent, "popular explanation" is described:

C2 In Gal 2:7-8, Paul is citing some kind of officially transcribed
document of the Jerusalem conference mentioned in Gal 2:2. This
assumes that a) The document used the name Peter, and that b) in
Paul's "own language" and preference, he prefers to use the equivalent
name Cephas.

Ehrman counters that:

E(C2)a the whole account (of Gal 2:2-10) is in the first person,
without a hint that he is quoting an official document, and especially
as it would have strengthened his case to have done so, and

E(C2)b he notes that the wording of 2:7-8 is characteristic of other
writings in the Pauline corpus, inferring (without actually stating
it) that this would not then represent the wording of a document he
did not draft himself.

E(C2)c Any argument that the presence of the name "Peter" (in Gal
2:7-8) is itself proof enough that this passage likely reflects the
wording of a Jerusalem agreement, is a case of circular reasoning.

At this point Ehrman summarily dismisses all alternative explanations,
without elaboration, as

C3 "well known and frequently discounted for a similar want of
evidence and probability", and states that "for our purposes it simply
need be noted that if in fact there were two different persons, Cephas
and Peter, then the matter would be handily solved."

Ehrman now resumes by describing an observation of earlier
researchers, that:

C4 1 Cor 15:5 contains what some see as two parallel lists of those
to whom Jesus had "appeared":

vss 5-6 vss 7-8

Cephas - James
the Twelve - all the Apostles
500+ brethren - Paul

It is generally interpreted that Cephas is head of a group he was a
member of, the Twelve, and James is head of a similar group that he is
member of, all of the Apostles.

Ehrman objects (and I had a hard time following Ehrman here, as his
examples and explanations did not tie together very well, so the
following in E(C.4) is my own reconstruction of his intent):

E(C4) That the assumption of a parallel between James as head of the
Apostles and Cephas (assuming this is the same as Peter) as head of
the Twelve is weakened by the fact that elsewhere Paul does not
consider James, who here seems to be James the brother of the Lord, as
head of all the Apostles. Consequently, James must be considered
separate from "all the Apostles", and if the parallelism holds, then
Cephas must be considered distinct from membership in "the Twelve".
Since Peter is undoubtedly to be considered a member of the Twelve,
then Cephas must be different than Peter.

Accepting the existence of two parallel lists, Ehrman then offers his
alternative explanation for them, noting that any disparity between a
Peter commissioned to evangelize Jews and a Cephas who evangelizes
Gentiles is solved by considering them distinct persons.

E4a In Gal 2:8, taken at face value, Paul was committed to
evangelizing Gentiles and Peter was committed to evangelizing Jews.

E4b In Gal 2:11 Cephas is associating with Gentiles at Antioch, and
living like them (vs 13), evidently in the course of evangelization,
which is at variance with a commission to Jews.

E4c In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul presupposes that his Gentile readers/hearers
would be familiar with Cephas, which again suggests that Cephas was
connected to efforts to evangelize Gentiles in Corinth.

In consequence to a conclusion that Cephas and Peter could not be the
same person, Ehrman then concludes that:

E5 Some adjustments are necessary to commonly held "facts about
Peter, namely:
1) Paul conferred with Cephas, not Peter, in his trip to Jerusalem
three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18-20),
2) Peter may not even have been present,
3) We know nothing about Peter being accompanied by his wife,
4) the confrontation at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) was not between Paul and
Jesus' closest disciple and most avid Apostle, but between a Jerusalem
and a Pauline form of Christianity, and
5) there would be no evidence of Peter's presence in Antioch to
support church tradition that he was its first bishop.

All in all, it was an interesting read. However, I encountered some
rhetorical language that made me wonder.

Initially, Ehrman's language is straightforward. However, starting on
page 467, Ehrman begins to suggest that those who propose the
traditional equation of Cephas and Peter have not given the NT
documents a "close" or "careful" reading, and suggests that this is
due to them "prejudging the issue in light of John 1:42." Ehrman
clearly employs the figure of Tragedy to describe the interpretations
of others, in that their prejudgment has not allowed them to recognize
the "simpler explanation" Ehrman champions.

This kind of rhetoric continues, in even stronger language, in point
E.3.b, where Ehrman states that "most commentators have simply
overlooked, or rather chosen to ignore, what should seem rather
obvious", reasoning that "any sensible reader [of Gal 2] would assume
that" Cephas and Peter "were different persons."

The Ehrman moved to the employment of Sarcasm in E(C2)a, where he
chides those that hold that Paul cites "some sort of officially
transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference in Gal 2:7-8" by
saying that "[i]t is not surprising that such an idea occurred to no
one for nineteen hundred years." This continues in E(C2)c where
employment of circular reasoning by Ulrich Wilckens to "establish the
likelihood that Paul is citing the earlier agreement of the Jerusalem
council" by reason of the mere presence of the name Peter, and in
spite of "characteristically Pauline words and phrases", "will
scarcely do".

Then, on page 471 (E(C4) above), Ehrman returns to Tragedy, in that he
implies that those who see the Cephas who heads one column of the
parallel lists theorized in 1 Cor 15:5 as the Apostle Peter, have not
given the issue as much "careful consideration" as he has. The answer,
to Ehrman, is "[s]trikingly" obvious, and again suggests that other
scholars have "overlooked" the answer due to "the blinders we normally
wear when reading a text like this". These blinders are caused by
their "previous knowledge", presumably, of John 1:42. In addition,
another motive is implied by Ehrman's assessment (in E5) that "[t]he
implications of this conclusion will be obvious to anyone who has
worked at any length with the NT materials". In other words, the issue
has been overlooked to avoid wholesale reevaluation of five
traditional assumptions used to evaluate theories related to early
Christian origins.

Tragedy conceives of individuals as engaged in a quest (to preserve
the traditional equation of Cephas and Peter) where final success is
eventually thwarted by the individual's own tragic personality flaw
(their blinders). Satire conceives of individuals as captives of their
world, and destined for a life of obstacles and negation (in other
words, those scholars who maintain the traditional position are
"kicking against the goads").

Deliberative Rhetoric has its place in NT scholarship, as otherwise we
could not convincingly present our cases. However, I did not see the
need to overstate such figures, and felt that doing so ultimately
detracted from an otherwise fine analysis. They tended to polarize
rather than persuade, and I think the article would have had greater
impact or at least acceptance had it been written in a less
confrontational manner.

Please forgive the length that I have gone in describing Ehrman's
article, but it will become important when analyzing Allison's
response in the following post.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA





  • Ehrman & Allison Pt 1 of 2, David C. Hindley, 04/20/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page