Cephas of the Seventy and Peter

[MarcoPG]

I do not doubt Peter’s primacy. I merely suggest reasons why he was placed after James the brother of the Lord.

For me this is less of an issue; it would seem that, talking about the primitive Church, that is in Jerusalem, Paul mentions the current bishop first (James), precisely because he is the one in place, then his predecessor (Peter) only because he went away. Even if Peter never was bishop of Jerusalem technically. And this last fact is of help to show his primacy over all of the Apostles who would later found apostolic sees around the world:

If we compare this with the listing of the disciples in the Gospels, where no one leaves to establish the Church in a new city, but all the “potentiality of the sees” is in one place, Peter is listed first as the leader of the whole Church.
By potentiality of the sees I mean that we by knowing the story, know that for example Thomas would spread the Gospel in India and found an apostolic see there. Still, where the whole “college of bishops” is gathered, Peter is first and leader.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

For me this is less of an issue; it would seem that, talking about the primitive Church, that is in Jerusalem, Paul mentions the current bishop first (James), precisely because he is the one in place, then his predecessor (Peter) only because he went away. Even if Peter never was bishop of Jerusalem technically. And this last fact is of help to show his primacy over all of the Apostles who would later found apostolic sees around the world:

If we compare this with the listing of the disciples in the Gospels, where no one leaves to establish the Church in a new city, but all the “potentiality of the sees” is in one place, Peter is listed first as the leader of the whole Church.
By potentiality of the sees I mean that we by knowing the story, know that for example Thomas would spread the Gospel in India and found an apostolic see there. Still, where the whole “college of bishops” is gathered, Peter is first and leader.

This is the most accurate rendering of my position:

Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

 

[MarcoPG]

This is the most accurate rendering of my position:

Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

They were indeed local leaders, even if the mission was for all nations, because the Church was small yet and was growing. They had to start from Jerusalem, simply because the Church started there, and James, who was among the Twelve, indeed was bishop of Jerusalem. I agree with you otherwise. Peter was called to a worldwide mission, to be the leader of all the Apostles, therefore of all the churches who would be founded. For the time though, He was leader of all the Church, and the whole Church was in the beginning in Jerusalem. When he left Jerusalem as leader, James was appointed bishop. Like you, I think it is what Paul is talking about in Galatians.

 

[MarcoPG]

What wold interest me a lot at this point would be to find any evidence that the name Cephas was use before or in the time of SImon Peter. If it can be shown that this name didn’t exist before 30, then the theory that Cepphas was the bishop of Iconium would be even less likely.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

They were indeed local leaders, even if the mission was for all nations, because the Church was small yet and was growing. They had to start from Jerusalem, simply because the Church started there, and James, who was among the Twelve, indeed was bishop of Jerusalem. I agree with you otherwise. Peter was called to a worldwide mission, to be the leader of all the Apostles, therefore of all the churches who would be founded. For the time though, He was leader of all the Church, and the whole Church was in the beginning in Jerusalem. When he left Jerusalem as leader, James was appointed bishop. Like you, I think it is what Paul is talking about in Galatians.

Nope, have to disagree there. In the Book of Acts we already see Peter and John going on visits to the other churches such as in Samaria. Wouldn’t Peter have to appoint someone to take charge of the See of Jerusalem even though he was gone? James being the local leader of the Church basically solves everything, even though he was still subordinate to the Apostle Peter. Although the apostles stayed in Jerusalem at first, they all went to different places even though there were already bishops in those places. For instance, Peter went to Antioch even though a bishop was already appointed there. And James the bishop of Jerusalem was not of the Twelve.

 

[MarcoPG]

Nope, have to disagree there.

Although the apostles stayed in Jerusalem at first, they all went to different places even though there were already bishops in those places. For instance, Peter went to Antioch even though a bishop was already appointed there. And James the bishop of Jerusalem was not of the Twelve.

Ok, but this was after the writing of the epistle, most probably. And the fact that there is a bishop appointedin one place doesn’t mean that they were the first bishops there, since the Apostles were bishops.
James, not one of the Twelve? Well you will have to show me this, since he was indeed…

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Nope, have to disagree there. In the Book of Acts we already see Peter and John going on visits to the other churches such as in Samaria. Wouldn’t Peter have to appoint someone to take charge of the See of Jerusalem even though he was gone? James being the local leader of the Church basically solves everything, even though he was still subordinate to the Apostle Peter. Although the apostles stayed in Jerusalem at first, they all went to different places even though there were already bishops in those places. For instance, Peter went to Antioch even though a bishop was already appointed there. And James the bishop of Jerusalem was not of the Twelve.

Read my post again.

 

[MarcoPG]

Read my post again.

A re-reading doesn’t change much, especiallly on James not being one of the Twelve. What do you want me to see?

The hierarchy is: Apostle higher than bishop higher than priest higher than deacon. Where is the problem of Peter visiting another Church as apostle?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

A re-reading doesn’t change much, especiallly on James not being one of the Twelve. What do you want me to see?

The hierarchy is: Apostle higher than bishop higher than priest higher than deacon. Where is the problem of Peter visiting another Church as apostle?

Your position would have the Church in Jerusalem without a leader. If James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem prior to Peter going on trips, then that solves the problem.

James the Just may have either been one of the 72 disciples according to Hippotylus of Rome or he may not have been active in Jesus ministry because John 7:5 says that His brothers did not believe in Him.

 

[MarcoPG]

Your position would have the Church in Jerusalem without a leader. If James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem prior to Peter going on trips, then that solves the problem.

James the Just may have either been one of the 72 disciples according to Hippotylus of Rome or he may not have been active in Jesus ministry because John 7:5 says that His brothers did not believe in Him

My position doesn’t mention the appointment of James, but it assumes it before Peter leaves. Sorry if it was unclear.

On James, sorry but the Church regards James son of Zebedee as the James bishop of Jerusalem. HIppolytus’ opinion is not held by many.
On John 7:5, to say that his brothers didn’t believe in Him isn’t to say all of them. James as an apostle was out of this group of unbelieving brothers. But anyway, let us say all of them. Either way, James was bishop after the Lord’s resurrection and appearences to the Twelve, of which James was according to the Church.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

On James, sorry but the Church regards James son of Alphaeus as the James bishop of Jerusalem. Hippolytus’ opinion is not held by many.
On John 7:5, to say that his brothers didn’t believe in Him isn’t to say all of them. But anyway, let us say all of them. Either way, James was bishop after the Lord’s resurrection and appearances to the Twelve, of which James was according to the Church.

The Latin Church you mean. In the Eastern Catholic Church, James the Less has a different feast in Eastern Churches than James the Just. James the Less went into Arabia and ended his mission in Oskraine, Egypt where he was crucified

 

[MarcoPG]

The Latin Church you mean. In the Eastern Catholic Church, James the Less has a different feast in Eastern Churches than James the Just. James the Less went into Arabia and ended his mission in Oskraine, Egypt where he was crucified

I corrected my post above. The Church regards James son of Zebedee as bishop of Jerusalem. The bishop of Jerusalem was one of the Twelve. Now that this is settled, here is once again why James is listed before Cephas in this passage, because, listing the current leader of the Church in Jerusalem before the previous one (Cephas, even before Pentecost that is), Paul was giving them in chronological rather than another order. John is last simply because he wasn’t a leader in Jerusalem in comparison to Peter and John, in the sense that even as a member of the Twelve, he had been ministering elsewhere, so in the context of Jerusalem only, he would come after the ones in charge of Jerusalem.

 

[jcrichton]

True that it is a tradition. Yet the The Orthodox Church helds that some are mentioned in Paul’s Letter and Acts. Philipp, for instance, Sosthenes, etc. Well, mention is made of Cephas, and there was one in Iconium. That is why the Orthodox has feast days for him and others “of the Seventy” and thought Cephas wasn’t Simon Peter.

Since I am not aware of the Orthodox Church’s tradition I cannot argue on this point; further, I do not negate the possibility that there could have been another person name Cephas amongst the general disciples.

My issue is that there could not have been two Cephas, both name so by Christ Himself, in Jesus’ intimate circle (the Twelve). Further, I argue that, since hindsight is always 20/20, it is more likely that either Peter/Cephas/Simon is the one and only person but regarded from different perspectives or that the other Cephas not being part of the Twelve, only later became part of the inner group and could not had been held in higher regards than Simon Peter.

It would be interesting to see another example of someone calles Cephas other than Peter in History at that time.

That possibility is always there!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Well, remember that I don’t doubt Peter primacy. This being said:

on a) and c): knowing that Peter was in Antioch, in the passage where Paul mentions the Pillars of the Faith, he would be then talking about the Church in Jerusalem, Peter being bishop elsewhere, James having taken his place as the leader. Still, this wouldn’t make the theory of the 2 different people more credible, Because Cephas is a pillar and Cephas comes up to Jerusalem (presumably from Antioch or another place). Since there is no way to differentiate the supposedly two Cephas, It would be that Cephas is indeed Peter.

It could be that the Cephas of the Seventy was regarded as a pillar, since the text doesn’t say that James, Cephas and John were pillars, but were thought to be pillars.

9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Does this regarded as bears any weight? In the theory, I think it does, even if the whoe reasoning is based on shaky basis.

I think that too many times we look/find mysteries that are not there; a clear example is the argument that Jesus wrote down on the ground the sins of those that were accusing the woman of adultery (St. John 8:2-11)… as cool as that would seem, Jesus did not need to annunciate or enumerate their sins since He Penetrated their minds and hearts; further, unless they had better than 20/20 vision and committed only one sin per there could not have been enough visibility, vantage point, time, and space to carry out such task. Still, some are entering the mystical arena supposing that a group miracle happen, as during Pentecost, where every person would read his/her own particular sins… :doh2::hypno::juggle:

…as for the term used, the language and usage may have had a deeper understanding then than today; also, we must understand that the Church was beginning to flourish and while most things would be quite generic (familiar) there would be some sort of apprehension/caution in accepting anyone into an office, as attested by St. Paul himself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I corrected my post above. The Church regards James son of Zebedee as bishop of Jerusalem. The bishop of Jerusalem was one of the Twelve. Now that this is settled, here is once again why James is listed before Cephas in this passage, because, listing the current leader of the Church in Jerusalem before the previous one (Cephas, even before Pentecost that is), Paul was giving them in chronological rather than another order. John is last simply because he wasn’t a leader in Jerusalem in comparison to Peter and John, in the sense that even as a member of the Twelve, he had been ministering elsewhere, so in the context of Jerusalem only, he would come after the ones in charge of Jerusalem.

Small problem: James son of Zebedee was killed by the time that happened.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

• Peter was the leading Apostle at Pentecost also.
• If as some say Simon was first dubbed Kefa’/Petros by Jesus, perhaps the other one or ones adopted the name in sympathy (or had it bestowed on them by colleagues). I don’t know if much degree of formality was required for this. At any rate it would be commonplace to have more than one name. It’s also useful when common names come round again and again, like two Simons -
• and umpteen Jameses who have always been hotly debated though the debate around them doesn’t substantially change the essentials of New Testament values.

(If a source outside the NT says Cephas of Icomium had been among the 70 he may have habitually been called by his birth name at that time?)

Furthermore bishop and apostle were different ministries. Anyway the main thing is both Peter and one or more of the Jameses were pretty well leading in Jerusalem and Paul and Peter were both sent out Aapprovingly by the leaders in Jerusalem.

 

[MarcoPG]

Since I am not aware of the Orthodox Church’s tradition I cannot argue on this point; further, I do not negate the possibility that there could have been another person name Cephas amongst the general disciples.

My issue is that there could not have been two Cephas, both name so by Christ Himself, in Jesus’ intimate circle (the Twelve). Further, I argue that, since hindsight is always 20/20, it is more likely that either Peter/Cephas/Simon is the one and only person but regarded from different perspectives or that the other Cephas not being part of the Twelve, only later became part of the inner group and could not had been held in higher regards than Simon Peter.

That possibility is always there!

Maran atha!

Angel

How do you reconcile in your mind that “you do not negate there can be more than one Cephas” and that “there could not have been two”?

On the tradition and feast day; I repost this: that it was Clement of Alexandria’s opinion, reported by Eusebius.

A quick search on the subject

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephas_of_Iconium

oca.org/saints/lives/2015/03/30/100948-apostle-cephas-of-the-seventy

oca.org/saints/all-lives/2015/12/08

orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Cephas

books.google.at/books?id=18ikU69I-TwC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=cephas+of+the+seventy&source=bl&ots=JZlVZqw0cy&sig=bSmbfHxSZT-9ddUHgvwqsz6_8rc&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-rrvl8zMAhWKPxQKHWW-CwYQ6AEIXzAI#v=onepage&q=cephas%20of%20the%20seventy&f=false

Now, all this is not to confirm the tradition, only to report there is one among the Orthodox. I am not aware of anyone in the Latin Church who kept following it.

And it seems in fact that the tradition emerged because some thought Paul rebuking Peter was problematic.

 

[jcrichton]

How do you reconcile in your mind that “you do not negate there can be more than one Cephas” and that “there could not have been two”?

On the tradition and feast day; I repost this: that it was Clement of Alexandria’s opinion, reported by Eusebius.

A quick search on the subject

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephas_of_Iconium

oca.org/saints/lives/2015/03/30/100948-apostle-cephas-of-the-seventy

oca.org/saints/all-lives/2015/12/08

orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Cephas

books.google.at/books?id=18ikU69I-TwC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=cephas+of+the+seventy&source=bl&ots=JZlVZqw0cy&sig=bSmbfHxSZT-9ddUHgvwqsz6_8rc&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-rrvl8zMAhWKPxQKHWW-CwYQ6AEIXzAI#v=onepage&q=cephas%20of%20the%20seventy&f=false

Now, all this is not to confirm the tradition, only to report there is one among the Orthodox. I am not aware of anyone in the Latin Church who kept following it.

And it seems in fact that the tradition emerged because some thought Paul rebuking Peter was problematic.

Hi, Marco!
I can see why you might perceive a conflict with my statement; however, notice that I am making a distinct argument: not two Simons names changed to Cephas by Christ as members of the Twelve. Hence, there could have been an actual person not named Cephas by Jesus Christ who, as part of the 72, was involved in the emergence of the Church.

…though I only searched the first link, here’s my take from it:

***It is assumed ***that he is the one who is mentioned by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:5)

…again, as the Church emerged the Disciples were under the threat of imprisonment, exile, and death. It would be necessary for the leadership to maintain a close nit circle and having two Cephas amongst them would prove some confusion… so there would almost organically be a reference to Cephas of “x” son of “xy,” to distinguish the second Cephas from Simon Peter in matters concerning authority and doctrine.

Still, as we are viewing the past with suppositions and agendas, it is not beyond possibilities that the second Cephas (if such person was actively involved with the Twelve) be acclaimed as known intimately by St. Paul and spoken of in 1 Corinthian 15:5 or Galatians 2:9. The problem I have is there is missing evidence in Scriptures of this second person named Cephas. Of course, this does not negate the fact that indeed there was that second Cephas; it only demonstrate that the Cephas of Scriptures always comes back to Simon Peter, Son of Bar-Jona, brother of Andrew.

…and as I suggested in a previous post, we must be careful not to jump into conclusions when reading Sacred Scriptures… for instance in that very passage (1 Cor 15) we are told that Jesus appeared first to Cephas then to the Twelve:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15:5-8–NIV)

5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. 6 Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. (1 Corinthians 15:5-8–DR)

…from this passage we could conclude that:

• Cephas, a person, outside of the Eleven, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness instead of the Eleven.
• Cephas, Simon Peter, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness before appearing to the Eleven.
• The account where Mary Magdalene arrives at the Tomb and is met by Christ and sent to the Eleven is not correct.
• The appearance of Christ to Cephas and the Eleven had a distinct function than that of His appearance to Mary Magdalene.
• Jesus appearance to the Eleven (James and the Apostles) had a double mention or that the appearance to “more than five hundred” had a greater importance than that of the Apostles.
• St. Paul is not an Apostle (“then by all the apostles.” The statement seems to clearly demonstrate that he himself was not part of the apostles).

Still, there is one more part of this passage that is open to a huge speculation… the passage states that Christ was seen by more than 500 at once… yet, it does not clarify if this huge number of Believers were gathered all in one place (which with the persecution would seem almost impossible for such a massive gathering to have taken place) or if Jesus actually appeared to them simultaneously as individuals or a mix of individuals and small groupings… something that could very well have taken place since Jesus was now in His Glorified Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi, Marco!
I can see why you might perceive a conflict with my statement; however, notice that I am making a distinct argument: not two Simons names changed to Cephas by Christ as members of the Twelve. Hence, there could have been an actual person not named Cephas by Jesus Christ who, as part of the 72, was involved in the emergence of the Church.

…though I only searched the first link, here’s my take from it:

…again, as the Church emerged the Disciples were under the threat of imprisonment, exile, and death. It would be necessary for the leadership to maintain a close nit circle and having two Cephas amongst them would prove some confusion… so there would almost organically be a reference to Cephas of “x” son of “xy,” to distinguish the second Cephas from Simon Peter in matters concerning authority and doctrine.

Still, as we are viewing the past with suppositions and agendas, it is not beyond possibilities that the second Cephas (if such person was actively involved with the Twelve) be acclaimed as known intimately by St. Paul and spoken of in 1 Corinthian 15:5 or Galatians 2:9. The problem I have is there is missing evidence in Scriptures of this second person named Cephas. Of course, this does not negate the fact that indeed there was that second Cephas; it only demonstrate that the Cephas of Scriptures always comes back to Simon Peter, Son of Bar-Jona, brother of Andrew.

…and as I suggested in a previous post, we must be careful not to jump into conclusions when reading Sacred Scriptures… for instance in that very passage (1 Cor 15) we are told that Jesus appeared first to Cephas then to the Twelve:

…from this passage we could conclude that:

• Cephas, a person, outside of the Eleven, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness instead of the Eleven.
• Cephas, Simon Peter, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness before appearing to the Eleven.
• The account where Mary Magdalene arrives at the Tomb and is met by Christ and sent to the Eleven is not correct.
• The appearance of Christ to Cephas and the Eleven had a distinct function than that of His appearance to Mary Magdalene.
• Jesus appearance to the Eleven (James and the Apostles) had a double mention or that the appearance to “more than five hundred” had a greater importance than that of the Apostles.
• St. Paul is not an Apostle (“then by all the apostles.” The statement seems to clearly demonstrate that he himself was not part of the apostles).

Still, there is one more part of this passage that is open to a huge speculation… the passage states that Christ was seen by more than 500 at once… yet, it does not clarify if this huge number of Believers were gathered all in one place (which with the persecution would seem almost impossible for such a massive gathering to have taken place) or if Jesus actually appeared to them simultaneously as individuals or a mix of individuals and small groupings… something that could very well have taken place since Jesus was now in His Glorified Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

The very reason that Paul places James before the small “a” apostles is that James is first among the 70.

 

[MarcoPG]

Hi, Marco!
I can see why you might perceive a conflict with my statement; however, notice that I am making a distinct argument: not two Simons names changed to Cephas by Christ as members of the Twelve. Hence, there could have been an actual person not named Cephas by Jesus Christ who, as part of the 72, was involved in the emergence of the Church.

…though I only searched the first link, here’s my take from it:

…again, as the Church emerged the Disciples were under the threat of imprisonment, exile, and death. It would be necessary for the leadership to maintain a close nit circle and having two Cephas amongst them would prove some confusion… so there would almost organically be a reference to Cephas of “x” son of “xy,” to distinguish the second Cephas from Simon Peter in matters concerning authority and doctrine.

Still, as we are viewing the past with suppositions and agendas, it is not beyond possibilities that the second Cephas (if such person was actively involved with the Twelve) be acclaimed as known intimately by St. Paul and spoken of in 1 Corinthian 15:5 or Galatians 2:9. The problem I have is there is missing evidence in Scriptures of this second person named Cephas. Of course, this does not negate the fact that indeed there was that second Cephas; it only demonstrate that the Cephas of Scriptures always comes back to Simon Peter, Son of Bar-Jona, brother of Andrew.

…and as I suggested in a previous post, we must be careful not to jump into conclusions when reading Sacred Scriptures… for instance in that very passage (1 Cor 15) we are told that Jesus appeared first to Cephas then to the Twelve:

…from this passage we could conclude that:

• Cephas, a person, outside of the Eleven, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness instead of the Eleven.
• Cephas, Simon Peter, was chosen by Christ to be His Witness before appearing to the Eleven.
• The account where Mary Magdalene arrives at the Tomb and is met by Christ and sent to the Eleven is not correct.
• The appearance of Christ to Cephas and the Eleven had a distinct function than that of His appearance to Mary Magdalene.
• Jesus appearance to the Eleven (James and the Apostles) had a double mention or that the appearance to “more than five hundred” had a greater importance than that of the Apostles.
• St. Paul is not an Apostle (“then by all the apostles.” The statement seems to clearly demonstrate that he himself was not part of the apostles).

Still, there is one more part of this passage that is open to a huge speculation… the passage states that Christ was seen by more than 500 at once… yet, it does not clarify if this huge number of Believers were gathered all in one place (which with the persecution would seem almost impossible for such a massive gathering to have taken place) or if Jesus actually appeared to them simultaneously as individuals or a mix of individuals and small groupings… something that could very well have taken place since Jesus was now in His Glorified Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

• The idea that there may have been another Cephas made me search for the usage of this name in the Ancient times, but I found nothing. It wasn’t really about changing one’s name to Cephas, but was Cephas even a name, since some say Cephas wasn’t used as a name before Peter was named so by Christ.
  Funnily, Bart Ehrman thought Cephas and Peter were different people…
• “It isassumed” is actually why it is a tradition with little t. I am not saying that because the Orthodox have this tradition, it must be true. Obviously, it is a sign of a belief anyway. It is true that it is unlikely that Cephas of the seventy would be in the middle of an epistle and not in the salutation in the beginning or the end (for instance, Sosthenes says hello, or say hi to Barnabas).
  If I had jumped to any conclusion, I would say Cephas is Peter. My only question is: “What is the Orthodox response or arguement” to what can be seen as a different Cephas? Not much. And I would like to find a way to show Cephas is indeed Peter even if any argument were to arise.
• Yes, your passage of 1 Corinthians agrees with my view as well.
  I find interesting that in your version of 1 Corinthians, it is said 5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. not the twelve. In other translations, there is the twelve as a name for the group of the disciples, were they with or without Judas.

That is why, also, saying “He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve” doesn’t necessarily mean (as Ehrman thinks) “to Cephas, then to Peter and the other Apostles” but “to Peter alone, then to the whole group”.