it is a good explanation.
3. 2:7-8 has Peter being the apostle to the gentiles, but 2:8, again, spreads that commission among 3 apostles.
Thus, there is a clear intent on the part of the redactor to sanitize Peter, and to elevate him above the other Jerusalem apostles.
4. What is curious is that the Apostolicon, 2:8 has "Peter" as one of the three pillars, over against "Cephas" in the canonical recension. Why? Why did the redactor *change* 'Peter' to 'Cephas' in 2:8??
I speculate that the redactor didn't want to appear to be as ham-fisted as he actually is. It looks weird to elevate Peter, and then in the very next verse demote him to being an also-ran. But if you swap out "Peter" with "Cephas", the problem goes away.
Coherent with the my premise (that everywhere "Peter" occurs in a pauline epistle then the author was aware of the Gospel role of Peter as a mythical "founder"), then I have to conclude that the marcionite Galatians postdates a Gospel mentioning Peter.
Really, the view that Galatians is in the "mourning process" to accept the recent idea that Jesus had earthly disciples only in Jerusalem makes a lot of sense to me.
Something of similar to Aztecs knowing the first time that Quetzalcoatl was really an European.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:16 pm