Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Ehrman & Allison

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Toseland <paul AT toseland.f9.co.uk>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Ehrman & Allison
  • Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:09:11 +0100

Dear David

I enjoyed reading your posts on the papers by Ehrman and Allison respectively.  They provide helpful synopses, and
you make some interesting points.

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.
 

Regards

Paul


  • Re: Ehrman & Allison, Paul Toseland, 04/21/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page