Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Who told the Galatians about Peter?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Who told the Galatians about Peter?
  • Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:04:13 -0600

on 2/21/05 12:04 AM, Richard Fellows at rfellows AT shaw.ca wrote:

> Almost everywhere Paul uses the name "Cephas", rather than "Peter" when
> referring to the apostle. Why did he largely avoid the name "Peter"? One
> possibility is that the meaning of the name "Peter" would have been evident
> to Paul's Greek speaking readers, whereas "Cephas" would probably not have
> been understood. He was given his name, "rock" or "stone", by Jesus and it
> represented his role as the bedrock on which the church was to be build.
> Paul would not have wanted Peter to hold such a status in his gentile
> churches, so he would wish to avoid the name 'Peter', in order to avoid
> drawing attention to the fact that Jesus had honoured him with such a
> significant name.

Mark replies:
I do not see how you can draw this conclusion. Paul creates the example we
read in his letter to Galatia, and he uses both names within the same
chapter, interchangeably. Moreover, he calls the apostles he met with
"pillars," which he need not do. Yes, he does ironically undermine whether
they are as strong as pillars ought to be, since shaky when challenged by
the inspectors, but nevertheless, they stood their ground, with Paul's
support, as pillars should do.

But the main point already, in terms of your argument, is that Paul did not
see the need to explain why the names were interchanged. Interpreters of
course have felt the need to. It is possible that Paul uses the Greek name
to make clear the meaning of the Aramaic name as rock, so that they can get
the picture Paul is trying to paint (I have suggested this in my own work,
but am aware that it has been suggested in various similar ways previously).

So far, I would say the strongest implication is that they do know about
Peter, and from Paul's earlier telling. In addition to the beginning comment
by Paul to this autobiographical narrative, where he states that they know
about Paul's earlier life, it makes sense to suppose that in the time he
spent with them he explained many of the things about the early developments
of this movement that we would love to know, but can only guess about.

>
> In any case, when Paul visited Galatia it is unlikely that he would have
> used both names to refer to Cephas-Peter.

Mark replies:
I do not see that you have established this, so it does not seem to me that
anything that springs from this assumption is warranted. I will cut out
here, except to reply to your comment about me at the end of your post.

> Mark Nanos has suggested that the Galatians had no outside influence. If
> that were the case, how did the Galatians learn that Cephas was The Rock?

Mark replies:
They had one outside influence of which we can be certain: Paul!

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page