Thread by @PatrologyVotary

Thread:

One of the best examples I know, of how ecclesiastical tradition can be demonstrated to err, is that of the “2nd Cephas.”
As is well known Simon son of Jonah was renamed Cephas (Peter) by Jesus.
Over time, the early church began to feel uneasy about the fact that…

…two apostles, Peter and Paul, were at conflict with one another so openly and strongly, as recorded in the New Testament.
Most often, this was dealt with by fanciful (and false) interpretations of scripture, such as the popular one whereby Peter wasn’t *really* disagreeing…

…with Paul, he was only pretending to, for the sake of instruction.
Another less well-known way to absolve the apostles of this imperfection is spectacular; the early church invented another Cephas.
This imaginary man, they supposed, was one of the Seventy Disciples/Apostles.

In the Greek East he is known as the Apostle Cephas, commemorated on 30 March, and is claimed to have been the bishop of Iconium.
All of this is completely made up, and centuries downstream of the origin of this man.
But it is now time for history.
When did this 2nd Cephas arise?

The earliest extant reference I have been able to find is that of Eusebius in his Church History.
He tells us that he got this particular bit of info from Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD), specifically from the fifth book of a now lost work called the Hypotyposes.

Photius in the 9th century had access to it (he wasn’t very kind about it) but by the end of the Middle Ages it disappeared from the textual record.
Regardless, Eusebius relates that Clement said Cephas was one of the seventy, sharing his name with Simon Peter.

Other than this, there’s nothing to go on in the earliest centuries.
What seals the deal for me on this being blatantly made-up is the fact that contemporary Eastern Orthodox sources try to claim that this fake Cephas is the one Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:5.

You don’t have to be a scholar or an enlightened monk to see the plain meaning of the text as it relates to the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, particularly that of Luke, and the blindingly obvious fact that there was no other Peter.
Simon Peter is Cephas.

The custom of misinterpretation scripture in relation to this 2nd Cephas also originates from Eusebius, who claims that hen Paul says in Galatians that he resisted Cephas to his face, he was referring to this other Cephas, not Simon Peter.

I should add that there is a purported list of the Seventy by Hippolytus that includes a Cephas at number 51, but there are significant doubts about the authenticity of this text.
It was discovered in the 19th century + Eusebius makes no mention of it in connection to a Cephas.

No such text is ascribed by any ancient to him.
Eusebius was arguably one of the best historians of late antiquity, and he knew his documents.
If Hippolytus had mentioned a Cephas in a list of the seventy disciples very soon after the life of Clement, Eusebius would have told us.

Additionally, the primary manuscript of the text attributed to Hippolytus, dated to the 9th or 10th century, is a palimpsest and has a lacuna right at the point where the name Cephas is.
Further, it is part of a little-studied textual tradition derived from…

…the 8th century Hippolytus of Thebes, not the 3rd century Hippolytus of Rome, about whose life there has always been a lot of confusion in the east.
The Hippolytean tradition of the seventy apostles has received little in the way of scholarly attention.

There are a variety of manuscripts from the 10th century on, that are variously ascribed to Hippolytus of Thebes, an unspecified Hippolytus, and Hippolytus of Rome.
Sometimes there are conflations.
At best, these textual issues are cause for skepticism about the authenticity.

It is regrettable that so little in the way of textual criticism exists specifically on the Hippolytean textual line.
Hopefully further scholarship in the future will shed light on these matters.
The only recent study I know of was an introductory paper from a few years back.

So, the existence of this made-up Cephas came about because people were uncomfortable about Apostles butting heads, and is now propped up entirely by convention, and possibly the worst attempt at scriptural interpretation.
“I dunno, here’s a verse that has ‘Cephas’ in it.”

See attached the editorial note in the NPNF Volume 1 on Eusebius, summarising how the tradition became enshrined.

In conclusion, scripture alone is what we know dates back to the apostles + records what happened in the apostolic age with no errors.