Introduction:

Back in 1990, Bart Ehrman wrote a provocative article called "Cephas

and Peter" (JBL 109: 463-74), that argued that Paul may have known of
BOTH a Peter AND a Cephas, on the basis of an analysis of Galatians 2.

The article generated a number of letters to the editors to the

journal. Finally, in 1992, Dale Allison responded with "Peter and
Cephas: One and the Same" (JBL 111, 489-95). The title says it all: To
Allison, Peter and Cephas are the same person.

Conservatives and moderates embraced this defence of the traditional

equation of Peter with Cephas. Even today, Allison's article is often
said to have destroyed Ehrman's assertions, "point by point."

Having my own reasons for identifying Paul's Cephas with a different

person than the Peter of the Gospels and Acts, I was not so ready to
accept such a blanket assertion (which, by the way, is how I heard of
the debate to begin with) without more than casual investigation. In
the end I did not find this particular debate very helpful to my own
cause, but I am better for having had made the investigation.

What's the hullabaloo about anyways?

In the GNT of Nestle & Aland, which is what many (mainly liberal)
critical scholars consider the best reconstruction of the original
text, Gal 2:7-8 are the only verses in the Pauline corpus in which Paul
speaks of "PETROS" rather than "KHFAS." The reverse side of this puzzle
is that the Gospels and Acts almost universally (153 times) call Jesus'
disciple Simon PETROS, without elaboration, except in one place where
KHFAS and PETROS are equated: "So you are Simon the son of John? You
shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)." (John 1:42)

This is complicated by the fact that the Received Text, which is

preferred by the more conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars,
has PETROS where the GNT has KHFAS (where H = eta/long "e" and F =
phe/"ph") in several verses:

Verse N-A GNT TR

1 COR 1:12 KHFA KHFA

1 COR 3:22 KHFAS KHFAS
1 COR 9:5 KHFAS KHFAS
1 COR 15:5 KHFA KHFA
GAL 1:18 KHFAN PETRON
GAL 2:7 PETROS PETROS
GAL 2:8 PETRW PETRW
GAL 2:9 KHFAS KHFAS
GAL 2:11 KHFAS PETROS
GAL 2:14 KHFA PETRW

Note that these are standard ASCII transliterations of Greek

characters. H = eta/long "e", F = phe/"ph", W = omega/long "o", all
others are same pronunciation as English letters, K = kappa, P = pi, A
= alpha, T = tau, R = rho, O = omicron, S = sigma.

On what authorities do these two critical texts base their readings?

Verse KHFAS PETROS

1 COR 1:12 ALL

1 COR 3:22 ALL
1 COR 9:5 ALL
1 COR 15:5 ALL
GAL 1:18 p46, 01, 02, 03 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:7 ALL
GAL 2:8 ALL
GAL 2:9 01, 03, 04, 018, 020 p46, 06, 012
GAL 2:11 01, 02, 03, 04, 015 p46, 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:14 p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015 06, 012, 018, 020

Where:

p46 (c. AD 81-96 [Kim]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD 200 [Aland])

p66 (c. AD 90-110[Hunger]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD200 [Aland])
p75 (c. AD 175-225 [Martin/Kasser]/c. AD 275-300 [Comfort]/III [Aland])
p106 (c. AD 200-250 [Comfort])
01 = Aleph (Sinaiticus, IV century)
02 = A (Alexandrinus, V century)
03 = B (Vaticanus, IV century)
04 = C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, V century)
06 = D (Claromontanus, VI century)
012 = G (Boernerianus, IX century)
015 = H (Euthalianus, VI century)
018 = K (Moscow, IX century)
020 = L (Rome, IX century)

The following are abstracts I made of the debate. At heart it is an

attempt to resolve the problem of why Gal 2 contains both the names
Peter and Cephas. Are they referring to the same person, as is
generally held, or are these really two different persons? You decide
for yourself.

=================================================

JBL 109: "Cephas and Peter", 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 his 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.

=================================================

Here is the outline of Allison's reply to Ehrman:

JBL 111 "Peter and Cephas: One and the Same" 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." [I think he is criticizing the
fact that this makes it look like Riddle uncritically equated Simon and
Peter, but I am not sure why, since it would appear that Allison also
makes this same - and probably correct - equation]

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)

=================================================

Comments:

Ehrman:

All in all, Ehrman's article 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."

Then 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.

I don't know why Ehrman so casually dismissed the possibility that Gal
2:7b-8 is an interpolation, which to me seems a natural explanation for
what, in the Nestle-Aland GNT, is an intrusive elaboration that uses
the name PETROS when otherwise he always uses Cephas:

Gal 2:7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been
entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, [[just as Peter had
been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked
through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also
for the Gentiles)]], 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given
to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave
to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to
the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Gal 2:7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been
entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, [[ ... ]], 9 and when
they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and
John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the
circumcised

Allison:

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.

IMHO, Allison either does, or does not, treat the following positions
of Ehrman:

Allison’s response to 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 any potential issues that the use of both
KHFAS and PETROS in Galatians might cause.

=================================================

David C. Hindley
dhindley@compuserve.com
Copyright 2003, 2007