Annotation CCLXXV

”I said to Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew,” etc. — Galatians 2:14

Oecumenius, in the Collectanea of explanations, in this place writes — from the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea in the first [book] of the Ecclesiastical History, and of Clement of Alexandria in the fourth volume of the Dispositions [Hypotyposes] — that this Cephas, to whom Paul withstood to the face, was not Peter the Apostle, but some other of the seventy disciples of Christ, who had the same name as the prince of the Apostles. Which opinion Oecumenius approves by this argument: that there was no need for Peter to withdraw himself from the banquet on account of the intervention [coming] of the Jews, since much before he had satisfied all [who were] expostulating [complaining] that he had had commerce [dealings] with the uncircumcised Cornelius — and had so satisfied [them], that they, the matter being known, concordantly gave thanks to God; especially since no mention of this matter is made in the Acts of the Apostles. But this opinion, as invented and frigid, Jerome strongly rejects — since the matter itself teaches that this whole discourse pertains to Peter and his colleagues. And he denies that any Cephas is known to us except the Apostle, who in the language of the Syrians is called Cephas, because with them “Cephas” sounds the same as “Peter” [does] to the Greeks and to us. Then [he says] it is no wonder if Luke omitted this, by whom so many other [things] besides are passed over — as that [thing], that Peter first sat at Antioch, [and] then transferred his see to Rome. Finally, [he says] that Porphyry the sycophant ought not to be of so great [account] to us, that for his sake we should feign a new Cephas: otherwise, if we should try to erase from the scriptures whatever is liable to the calumnies of heretics, many other [things] would have to be erased.