hmike, its not simply a case of which is more accurate but rather these early views represent witnessses of a now lost tradition. Since we are discussisng the development of traditions the opinion held by influential writers like Eusebius is significant. He doesn't even seem to suggest a controversy about the identities. IMO since his opinion did not prevail there must have been a powerful motivation to merge the characters. As the Arian controversy (reshuffling of names of brothers and apostles to disguise humaness) and political establishment of the Catholic Church (founded upon Peter) were in the air we might have already found the needed motivation.
What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed
by yaddayadda 57 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
Oooooooooo, Narkisssos just found that the Shem-Tob version of Matthew 11:11 doesn't have the suspected addition. Here's a snipet from the article linked on another thread.
Howard argues that Shem Tov did not create the Hebrew Matthew himself (e.g., translating from the Latin) but had an existing Hebrew text to work with-as he sometimes comments on its scribal errors and strange readings. Matt 11:11 is a good case in point, as the Greek, Latin, and all other Matthean witnesses contain the qualifying phrase: "nonetheless, the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Shem Tov comments on the unique Hebrew version he is following, and how its lack of such a phrase implies that John is greater than Jesus. If he were translating from the Latin, Greek, or any other version such a comment would be meaningless.
-
hmike
OK, it looks like this is not about determining what events actually happened--it's about whose version became accepted by the majority as history, and why. Am I correct with that?
-
hmike
Since we are discussisng the development of traditions the opinion held by influential writers like Eusebius is significant. He doesn't even seem to suggest a controversy about the identities. IMO since his opinion did not prevail there must have been a powerful motivation to merge the characters. As the Arian controversy (reshuffling of names of brothers and apostles to disguise humaness) and political establishment of the Catholic Church (founded upon Peter) were in the air we might have already found the needed motivation.
Pete,
I found the reference of Eusebius you quoted earlier--about Cephas and Peter. All it seems to say is that one of the seventy disciples had the name Cephas, same as Peter. The only mention of Simon in the early history is of Simon Magnus, the sorcerer. Eusebius does mention Peter often.
So couldn't there have been a Cephas, a Cephas aka Simon aka Peter, and a Simon--three different men. I see no controversy there, nor do I see why they had to be merged into one figure.
It really doesn't matter which Cephas Paul refers to. If it was Peter, maybe Paul just had a preference for using that name for personal or cultural reasons. People of the time he was addressing would have known who he meant.
-
Narkissos
hmike,
Unfortunately PeacefulPete left the forum (see his last topic) so I'm afraid he won't see your last post(s).
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History I, xii reads:
1 The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from the Gospels. 188 But there exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples. 189 Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places, 190 and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. 191
2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote tothe Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. 192 This is the account of Clement 193 in the fifthbook of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, 194 a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face." 195
Traditional Protestant scholarship assumes that this is an artificial duplication of characters, meant to spare Peter the shame of being reproved by Paul. However, as Ehrman pointed out, such a motivation doesn't really appear in either Clement or Eusebius.
Simon Magus is certainly out of Eusebius' scope, but once you admit there was some tradition development upstream of the NT texts (as is pretty obvious imo in the case of James, for instance) you cannot avoid this kind of question.
-
hmike
I didn't check in for a while and I missed Pete's farewell. Even though our perspectives differed and I sometimes thought his line of reasoning was open to question, I did consider him a scholar, and I enjoyed his presence on the forum and the discussions I had with him. His departure seemed unexpected and his explanation strangely short for one who contributed much and often for a long time. It leaves me wondering what all has been going on with him, beyond what he disclosed.
Narkissos, thanks for picking this up. I didn't know that some have wanted to protect Peter's reputation, particularly among the Protestants. All the messages I've ever heard about Paul's confrontation of Cephas have indentified this Cephas as Peter and were used to demonstrate that even Peter was subject to lapses.
-
Narkissos
hmike,
I didn't know that some have wanted to protect Peter's reputation, particularly among the Protestants. All the messages I've ever heard about Paul's confrontation of Cephas have indentified this Cephas as Peter and were used to demonstrate that even Peter was subject to lapses.
I guess I was not clear enough. What I meant is that Protestant scholars used to dismiss Clement's and Peter's testimony, assuming that this testimony reflects an early Catholic tradition protecting the reputation of Peter as the "first pope" (i.e. Paul rebuked another Cephas, not Peter). Of course Protestant exegesis cheerfully identified Cephas as Peter.
I think peacefulpete is more busy professionally right now -- I'll e-mail him the link to your post.
-
hmike
Thank you. I know about the time demands of obligations. That's why it took so long for me to research and respond.
Pete's contributions here must have taken a lot of time and effort, which means he had interest and motivation. It doesn't seem like this interest is something a person can just turn off. I'm wondering what place he will give it from here on.
Thanks for the info on Cephas/Peter. If the Catholic church wanted to protect Peter by manufacturing text, it seems there's a lot more they could have done.