Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Ehrman & Allison Pt 2 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 2 of 2
  • Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:10:29 -0400


Continuation of discussion

JBL 111:489-95 (1992): Allison's response to Ehrman's article is
interesting in its own right, if only for the rhetoric employed.

A.1 Allison begins by noting that Ehrman bases his analysis on the
research of K. Lake, M. Goguel and D. W. Riddle. However, he recaps
these scholars research as follows:

A.1.a "Goguel doubted the traditional identification but still held
it more probable than not."

A.1.b "Lake believed there was a Simon Cephas and a Simon Peter."

A.1.c Riddle's article was "confused and confusing", and seems to
"strongly imply" that "Galatians 2 indicates that there was a Peter
and a Cephas" in the beginning of the article, while seeming to
conclude "that there was a Simon and a Cephas."

Next, Allison proceeds to recap Ehrman's article (E1, E2, C1 and
particularly Ehrman's responses E(C1)a and E(C1)b).

Allison responds:

A(E(C1)b) He does not have difficulty imagining that apologists could
have wished to salvage Peter's reputation at the expense of tarnishing
that of the twelve. There was much debate in the 2nd & 3rd centuries
over Peter's theological and ecclesiastical heritage, but nary any
controversy over the heritage of the twelve.

A(E(C1)a) He separates the genesis of an apologetic tradition from
its subsequent use. The implication, which is really not stated by
Allison, is that an apologetic origin may still underlay these
statements, although the statements themselves are not used in a
polemical manner.

A(E1-2)a He lists several accounts in early Christian literature
where a polemical motive concerning Cephas' or Peter's heritage can
indeed be discerned.

A(E1-2)b He also notes that those traditions which speak of Cephas
and Peter as two different individuals do not seem to be aware that
they had "removed a great stumbling block".

A(E(C1)a,b) He first asks a rhetorical question: Even if those early
writers, by means of "careful reading of the NT", reached the same
conclusion as Ehrman, "were those Christians correct?" The
implication, of course, is that they were not.

Ehrman's thesis is then outlined (utilizing only E3b, which is
supported by E(C4), and E4a).

In response, Allison says:

A(E(C4)) "1 Cor 15:5 does not *exclude* the possibility that Cephas
was one of the twelve", as the text alone cannot settle the matter.

A(E4a) "Gal 2:8 cannot be proof that Peter never ministered to
Gentiles, just as it cannot be proof that Paul never occupied himself
with Jews." In support, he noted that Gal 2:9 states that Cephas is to
"go to the circumcised" while Gal 2:12 has Cephas eating with Gentiles
at Antioch, and which Ehrman did not treat.

A(E3b) That the use of multiple names for the same person is not as
unusual as Ehrman implies. Examples are given: 1) Joseph & Aseneth
22:2 (Jacob = Israel), 2) Mark 14:37 (Peter = Simon), 3) Luke 22:31
(Simon = Peter). Allison suggests that variations of names in these
examples can, at least in part, be ascribed as stylistic traits of the
authors.

A(E(C2)b)a The employment of characteristically Pauline language in a
description of the contents of a hypothetical "pre-Pauline text" at
Gal 2:7 was not a problem for H. D. Betz in his 1979 rhetorical
analysis of Galatians. Betz's reasoning is that "rather than 'quoting'
from the written protocol, Paul reminds the readers of the agreements
by using the terms upon which the parties had agreed" (i.e., he
paraphrased the terms of the agreement in his own language).

A(E(C2)b)b Allison suggests that the proposal that this verse as an
allusion to the material embedded in Matt 16:17-19 may "perhaps have
something to be said" for it, and notes that Pseudo Clementine
Homilies 17:19 combines clear allusions to Matt 16:18 and Gal 2:11 in
a manner consistent with this proposal.

Finally, Allison offers his own reasons for taking Cephas and Peter as
a single individual:

A1a The underlying meaning of the names Peter (stone, sometimes rock)
and Kephas (rock, stone) make the names near synonyms. Since known
pre-Christian sources use Aramaic Kepa as a name only once, and PETROS
not at all (although he notes that C. C. Caragounis stated that "in
view of the predilection of the ancients for names derived from
PETROS/PETRA ... it is only natural to suppose that PETROS was in
existence [in pre-Christian times], though no examples of it before
the Christian era have turned up as yet", and he "can demonstrate
pagan use of the name in the first and second centuries CE"), he
thinks it highly unlikely that there could be two men with such rare
(sur)names.

A1b If Aramaic Kepa was a nickname rather than a birth name, it is to
be expected that the Aramaic name will be translated for the benefit
of Greek-speaking Christians. Examples are given: Acts 9:36 (TABIQA
<transliterating Aramaic tabyeta> = DORKAS); John 11:16, 20:24, 21;2
(QWMAS = DIDUMOS <translating Aramaic toma>; Mark 3:17 (BOANHRGES =
"sons of thunder"); and Luke 6:15/Acts 1:13 (hO ZHLWTHS probably
translates Aramaic qan'an).

A2 The author of John 1:42 knew of a tradition in which one person,
Simon, was also called "Cephas" and "Peter". Objections that the
author of John 1:42 and/or his tradition may have conflated Peter and
Cephas because the names mean the same thing are dismissed as "sheer
speculation, and the more dubious given that John's tradition seems to
have had independent and presumably reliable information about several
of Jesus' first followers (e.g., Jesus drew disciples from the Baptist
movement; Philip and Andrew and Peter were from Bethsaida; Simon was
the "son of John"; see 1:35-36, 42, 44)." The implication is that he
can be trusted here as well.

A3 While the present form of the gospels relate nothing about Peter
being the first to see the resurrected Jesus, Luke 24:34, relating the
experiences of the two unnamed disciples while on the road to Emmaus,
has them tell the disciples "[t]he Lord has risen indeed, and has
appeared to Simon". If the appearance to the women is discounted (and
I will momentarily duck), and Simon is considered to be Simon Peter,
then the author of Luke is giving Peter the same distinction that the
author of 1 Cor 15:5 does to Cephas.

A4 The grouping of "James and Cephas and John" as "pillars" in Gal
2:9 is paralleled in Acts by the pairing of Simon Peter "with John
(e.g., Acts 3:1-26; 4:1-31; 8:14), once with James (15:1-21); and the
three men are clearly the dominant figures among the so-called
"Hebrews" (1;13,15-26; 2:1-42; ..." just as were the "Pillars"
mentioned in Galatians.

A5 If Peter is not Cephas, why "do the traditions in Acts have
nothing at all to say about the latter?" The implication is that they
should have, but do not, and thus cast doubt upon the idea. He asks
how a person with the kind of authority ascribed to Cephas in
Galatians, or who had important contacts with the Corinthian converts,
could "manage to leave no sure trace of himself in the NT apart from
Paul's epistles?" He implies that the only alternative to assuming
Cephas and Peter are one and the same person is to assume that "apart
from Paul's epistles, every tradition about Cephas came to be, through
conscious or unconscious error, a tradition about Peter".

A6 "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)."

A7 1 Clement, presumed by Allison to be an "early witness", while not
directly equating Peter with Cephas, speaks of Peter using language
that is drawn from language employed in Paul's writings as they relate
to Cephas (1 Clem 47:3 from 1 Cor 1:12; and 1 Clem 5:7 from Gal 2:9).

A8 Allison lists 10 parallels between Peter and Cephas:

Peter-Cephas

1) Both mean "rock" (A1)
2) The lord appeared first to both of them (A3)
3) Both were Jews and prominent leaders of the primitive Jerusalem
community (A4)
4) Both were associated with James and John (also A4)
5) Both participated in the Gentile mission (A6)
6) Both were married (Mark 1:30 & 1 Cor 9:5)
7) Both were of "fickle character" (Mark 14 & Gal 1-2)
8) Both knew Paul personally (Acts 15 & Gal 1-2)
9) Both were itinerant missionaries (Acts 1-15 & 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22,
etc)
10) Both came into conflict with Jerusalem Christians over eating with
the uncircumcised (Acts 11 & Galatians 2)

Allison is polite enough, and makes no effort to misrepresent Ehrman's
position(s) as far as I can see. Like Ehrman, he employs some
rhetorical figures, notably Tragedy (in an Ironic sort of way) to
describe Ehrman's quest (A1) to revitalize a position that has already
been, in Allison's eyes, discredited. The implication is that Ehrman,
through his own tragic flaw, is championing a lost cause. Later, in
the section where he offers his own evidence for the equation of
Cephas & Peter, he indirectly belittles Ehrman's presumed response (to
A2) by Satirically characterizing it as "mere speculation" and
"dubious". It looks like Allison has turned Ehrman's characterizations
of scholars holding the traditional positions back upon Ehrman
himself, although in a somewhat more subdued manner.

Of Ehrman's positions, Allison treats the following:

Allison - Ehrman

YES - E1
YES - E2
YES - E(C1)a
YES - E(C1)b
NO - E3a (What is "obvious", although Allison does chide him about
what is "obvious" from reading the NT, and this is hardly an argument
that requires a refutation)
YES - E3b
NO - E(C2)a (Gal 2:7-8 is in the first person, but perhaps I'm
missing it somewhere)
YES - E(C2)b
NO - E(C2)c (Use of "Peter" as proof that a document underlies Gal
2:7-8, as circular. This is apparently an argument that Allison did
not have a response for.)
YES - E(C4)
YES - E4a
NO - E4b (Except perhaps indirectly through A(E4a)
NO - E4c (Except perhaps indirectly through A(E4a)
NO - E5.1-5 (I do not begrudge Allison for not dealing with E5.1-5 as
these presume Ehrman's position is correct, and Allison does not
accept it).

As for Allison's own arguments (A(E3b), and A1-8), I found his
evidence to be flawed.

In A(E3b): Israel is a surname for the proper name Jacob, and Peter is
a surname for Simon. We are not then comparing Gal 2:7-8 with possible
stylistic uses of two surnames, but of possible stylistic uses of a
surname with a proper name. It may be a subtle difference, but we
cannot rule out the possibility that it is a significant difference.

A1: In the examples given, both forms are associated by an
explanation. This is not the case in Gal 1-2.

A2: "Sheer speculation" goes both ways. Whether the traditions about
Jesus' followers truly derive from "reliable" information, is just as
much a speculation as is one that assumes that traditions about two
individuals, Peter and Cephas, could have been conflated in the minds
of some later Christians. Is this a case of "my speculation is better
than your speculation?" For one party to call another party's
assumption "speculation" in a pejorative manner while not
acknowledging that theirs is also speculative, is not a good practice,
as there is no good way to weigh probabilities in historical cases
such as these.

A3: Why discount Jesus' appearance to the women? Why should we
automatically assume that "Simon" *has* to mean "Simon Peter"? Because
it confirms what we already assume? The alternatives are not being
discussed, because they do not support the contention. That is not a
good thing to do either.

A4 & 6: Both Ehrman and Allison have completely disregarded any
possibility that Gal 2:7-8 could be in whole or in part interpolations
(by copyists, redactors, etc). Interpolation theories can offer
alternative answers to these associations. I do not like to see
evidence manipulated like this. If a whole class of options is not
considered, and the whole discussion gets reduced to competing
theories that both uphold the text as we have it, then the argument is
rigged. Again, not a good thing to do...

A7: This presumes that 1 Clement is a unaltered letter from
antiquity, which is certainly not a sure thing. I will even concede
that the language used of Peter in 1 Clement is drawn from passages in
Galatians and 1 Corinthians relating to Cephas, but I will not so
easily concede that 1 Clement, and these two passages in particular,
are from "Clement's" own late 1st century hand. But this is another
matter.

A8: Allison himself says "I freely concede that they [i.e., his
parallels in A8.1-10] do not, in the strict sense, prove that Peter
was Cephas." By extension, all his arguments against Ehrman's
positions are not "proved".

To Allison, whether he or Ehrman has proved anything "matters little,
for apodictic certainty is beyond our reach: as historians we trade
only in probabilities." And that is true, but I would like to see more
acknowledgment of the *other* possibilities when so much effort is
channeled into academic discussions. Allison's responses were adequate
and appropriate, but do not disprove Ehrman's position(s). IMHO, both
these scholars seem more concerned with preserving the text of Gal
2:7-8 than solving the problem.

Sorry to go on so. I just find debates like that very frustrating.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA





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

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page