Jul 23, 2020
How Galatians 1 Proves That Cephas [Κηφᾶς] is Peter
When it comes to the discussion of the Roman Catholic concept of papal infallibility, Galatians 2 is one of the primary texts. It is significant because here Paul rebukes Peter and this would seem odd in light of the Roman Catholic claim that Peter had a sort of primacy of the other apostles. Many Catholics (and some sedevacantists) have tried to get around this by arguing that Cephas (the person referred to in Galatians 2, most notably Galatians 2:11). In this article, I hope to briefly a reason why Cephas is in fact the same person as the Apostle Peter.
There is scriptural evidence to think that "Cephas" is Peter
Consider these words we read from Paul in Galatians 1:18-19 :
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles [ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων] except James the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:18-19)
Right here, we can see clearly through logical inference that "Cephas" is classed as being among "the apostles". Here is a "chart" of points to illustrate this:
a) Paul went to see "Cephas"
b) Paul saw none of the OTHER apostles
c) "apostles" includes James the Lord's brother
Point c) further highlights the fact that "apostles" here refers to the 12 disciples, or apostles, of the Lord Jesus himself. The word "other" [ἕτερον] here indicates that Cephas is included in apostles. If Cephas wasn't Peter, why is the phrase "other apostles" even used here at all?
This is a good question that I would be interested in hearing a Roman Catholic apologist give an answer to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
This page contains a list of the articles I have written in particular subjects. The page is very big, so I have provided some jump links be...
-
[The following is taken from the Select Disputations , 5:277-339] Before I approach the Problems, I define both the "what" and t...
-
Robert Bellarmine Perhaps one of the best Roman Catholic scholars and apologists in history would be Robert Bellarmine. His tome De Contro...
6 comments:
I wrote a detailed post on this Galatians 2 text and Peter being identified as Cephas in this link:
https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/04/did-st-paul-really-rebuke-st-peter.html
The main problem in your post is that the Galatians 1:18 text has a textual variant, wherein many manuscripts say "Peter" here instead of "Cephas," so if "Cephas" was not actually used in this text, then your argument fails to prove Cephas is Peter.
My article above gives some very clear proofs for why Cephas in Galatians 2 should not be read as Peter, including the fact that it would not fit with Acts 15 and Peter's testimony at the Council in Jerusalem. If Peter had caved into Judaizing prior to Acts 15, then he had no business bearing witness at the Council for why the Gentiles don't need to be circumcised. Peter was well acquainted with being persecuted by the Jews throughout Acts, including when Peter first ushered in the Gentiles in Acts 10-11 and defended them against Judaizing there. So it would be strange if Peter suddenly caved into Judaizing out of some "fear". If Peter caved into Judaizing after Acts 15, then that is even more bizarre, because you now have to wonder why Peter would crumble over "certain men" coming from Jerusalem sent by the same James who wrote the Council Letter in Acts 15 exposing Judaizing.
My latest argument is that in Galatians 1:8, Paul says that if anyone preaches a false Gospel then they are anathema. If that's the case, and Peter preached a false gospel in Galatians 2, then Peter is anathema. Perhaps you think that scores a point against Catholicism, but in this case it refutes Eternal Security, so it's ultimately your underlying argument is the error of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hi, Nick. I hope you are doing well.
Regarding the textual variant in Galatians 1:18, it is a pretty easy one to figure out the original reading. Here is a website which has collated the manuscript evidence (simply search for Galatians 1:18, and you will see that the majority of manuscripts say "Cephas": https://greekcntr.org/collation/index.htm
Also, the church fathers/patristic literature do seem to indicate that the man in Galatians 1:18 is indeed St. Peter himself:
“What greater humility of soul could there be? For after so many conversions, having no need of Peter or of speech with him but being equal with him in honor—for I say no more at present—he nonetheless goes up to him as to one who is greater and senior … and he says not “to see Peter” but to visit Peter, as people say when acquainting themselves with great and splendid cities.” (John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians, 1.18, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23101.htm)
“He who had prepared himself for so long a time did not need any long instruction. And, though it seems excessive to some to investigate numbers in Scripture, yet I think it not beside the point to say that the fifteen days that Paul spent with Peter signifies [in late Judaic piety] the fullness of wisdom and the perfection of doctrine, seeing that there are fifteen psalms in a psalter and fifteen steps by which people go up to sing to God.” (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 1.1.18)
"Clement of Alexandria argued that another Cephas besides the apostle Peter is in view here! Origen defended the idea the that the confrontation was simulated, as did Jerome. But Augustine, in correspondence with Jerome, uncovered the weakness of such a view"" (Thomas R. Schreiner, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, pg. 145)
You may want to respond by insisting that the textual variant is the basis of these church father's assertion of Peter being the one in view here in this text, but I do think that Jerome is of considerable importance here. He gave us the Latin Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, and may have had a great awareness of these textual differences, yet still affirms that Peter is the one in Galatians 1:18
Some formatting setting on your blog has the text extremely small.
(1) The majority of manuscripts doesn't always mean oldest. I don't know enough about the manuscript traditions to be able to make an informed decision on this.
(2) You said the Church Fathers indicate Peter is the one in Galatians 1:18. That's not really a controversial claim, as I don't think anyone actually doubts that Peter is the one in Galatians 1:18. The only question is whether "Cephas" is the actual term in 1:18.
The issue of whether Cephas in Galatians 2 is the same as Peter is not really being addressed by appealing too heavily on 1:18. I have a link in my first comment showing where I cover a lot of ground, examining all the evidence. For example, did you know that in Galatians 2 we see Paul mention BOTH a person named Peter and one named Cephas, and talks about them in such a way that it wouldn't seem they aren't the same person?
Gal2: 7 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* worked also through me), 9 and when James and *Cephas* and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me...
Why does Paul mention Peter and Cephas if they are the same person? This and other details are what I consider in my main article on the subject.
I agree with Matt because he employs proper hermeneutics. Even the Roman Catholic New American Bible recognizes "Cephas" to be "Peter:"
[2:11–14] The decision reached in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3–7) recognized the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Jewish law. But the problem of table fellowship between Jewish Christians, who possibly still kept kosher food regulations, and Gentile believers was not yet settled. When Cephas first came to the racially mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:12), he ate with non-Jews. Pressure from persons arriving later from Jerusalem caused him and Barnabas to draw back. Paul therefore publicly rebuked Peter’s inconsistency toward the gospel (Gal 2:14). Some think that what Paul said on that occasion extends through Gal 2:16, 21.
Biblical figures often have multiple names, likely a Jewish and Roman name. Peter/Cephas, Mark/John Mark, Matthew/Levi, etc. It is not a reference to two different individuals, but simply a choice of wording.
Btw, I am not sure how to solve the issue of formatting on my blog, (it being really small, especially the comments). If y'all have an idea, please let me know. It kind of annoys me
Matt,
I think that you will have to click on the "Theme" tab in your blogger dashboard and then press "customize." That is where you can make adjustments to your blog formatting.
Post a Comment