Cephas - not Peter - rebuked by Paul?

[Zeldarocks]

Eusebius’ Church History - Book I

Chapter 12. The Disciples of our Saviour.

1. The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from the Gospels. But there exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples. Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of whom the Acts of the Apostles makes mention in various places, and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.
2. They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.” Galatians 2:11
3. Matthias, also, who was numbered with the apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being made a candidate with him, are likewise said to have been deemed worthy of the same calling with the seventy. They say that Thaddeus also was one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an account which has come down to us. And upon examination you will find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep; but the majority were still living at the time he wrote.
4. Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, who was one of the so-called brethren of the Saviour. But, since in addition to these, there were many others who were called apostles, in imitation of the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds: “Afterward he appeared to all the apostles.” 1 Corinthians 15:7 So much in regard to these persons. But the story concerning Thaddeus is as follows."

I wanted to provide the entire chapter for contextual reasons. As such, I ask: Did Paul rebuke a different Peter in Galatians 2:11?

 

[Bookcat]

It was Peter.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Some of the Fathers believed so, but many considered it to be Peter.

 

[Bookcat]

Regarding Peter:

"His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11: 1-18; Gal 2: 11-14). "

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060607_en.html

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I trust Pope St. Clement on this matter. He was only the fourth Pope and may well have been old enough to have met him personally when he was young.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is the footnote from the Aquinas Study Bible on that verse, since it has caused people trouble that Paul confronts Peter

2:11 I withstood him to his face: Paul must be admired because he believed that truth must be honored before everything, and for it he did not hesitate to oppose the most excellent and distinguished of the Apostles to his face. But Peter must be admired because, granted that he appeared to be convicted, nevertheless he remained quiet, bearing it all with silence. Though he was capable of asserting his primacy on the basis of many considerations, he treated his own affairs as of no importance and thought that people should honor truth above all. But their agreement in the time that followed has demonstrated that their dispute did not cause any division.
(Theodore of Mopsuestia) Because he was to be blamed. It may be asked whether Peter was really blameworthy and was actually blamed by Paul. For many years there was a sharp dispute on this point between St. Jerome and St. Augustine, as may be seen in their epistles. Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baronius answer in the negative, and hold that the rebuke was only theatrical. They argue that Peter, who had lawfully followed the Jewish customs at Jerusalem among Jews, lived as a Gentile among Gentiles at Antioch; when, however, the Jews arrived who had been sent to Antioch from Jerusalem by James, he withdrew from the Gentiles in favor of the Jews, lest he should offend those who had been the earliest to receive the faith (see ver. 9), and also that he might at the same time give Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, an opportunity of rebuking him, that by yielding he might teach the Jews that the time for Judaising was past. On the other side St. Augustine maintains that Peter was really blameworthy, and was blamed by Paul, as the record distinctly declares. (Cornelius a Lapide)

thus confessed that he was in fact reprehensible, not only would Jews think faith was useless without the Law but Gentiles would as well. (St. Bruno)