Were St Paul's letters before the Gospels?

[PPC]

That’s what I referred to. If you’ll notice, “Cephas” and “Peter” are presented as being two of the Twelve Apostles (along with a “Judas the Zealot,” who otherwise appears only in a handful of mss). Which conflicts with Clement et al.'s identification that Cephas is one of the seventy disciples.

Also, have you read the quotes I gave after that? If so, what do you think?
…
If we suppose that while in the other epistles Paul uses “Cephas” for Peter but in Galatians Paul was writing about a different Cephas, one of the question we could ask is: why doesn’t he elaborate on who this second Cephas is, but as in other instances simply drops the name with no comment?

So still, I think the tradition that the Cephas of Galatians and Simon Peter are one and the same has more weight to it than the tradition that they weren’t.

Apparently, James, one of the two apostles named James, had already died. Matthias is not listed either. Perhaps he had not been chosen yet or else he had died before this letter was written. Peter and Cephas are listed as two separate authors in this group letter.

In the original Greek manuscripts, Peter is stated to be the apostle to the circumcised in order to reassure the Galatians that Paul’s authoritative ministry to the Gentiles was God-given just as Peter’s God-given ministry was to the Jews. In this very same sentence Paul mentions persons named James, Cephas, and John. This would be a ridiculous thing to do if Paul was speaking about only one person named Peter instead of two different persons with the same name.

I would not ever write a letter to a group of people and mention one person by two different names in the same sentence. And, if I did do this foolish thing, I would certainly explain in this same letter that this one person is known by two different names and that is why I am calling him by two different names in the same sentence. Paul knew his audience and he knew that they all knew who Peter the apostle was and who Cephas the disciple was. That is why he did not have to explain anything at all about using the two different names. These names belonged to two different men and the Galatians knew of both men.

Galatians 2:9 (NKJV)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

These two disciples, also named James and John, were not numbered among the twelve apostles of which two were named James and one was named John.

These disciples James, Cephas, and John were reputed to be pillars of the church, but the three apostles, Peter, James, and John, were actually part of the foundation of the church. Two different callings for six different men who shared the same names:

Ephesians 2:19-21 NKJV
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of** the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles** and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,

The apostles are known as the foundation of the church and the disciples are known as pillars of the church.

---

Peter stands up to the Jews who criticize him for eating with Gentiles:

Acts 11:1-9, 16-18 (NKJV)
11 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” 4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:…16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

Why not take Eusebuis’ history and Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision to be factual instead of attempting to discredit them? Why not believe Acts 11? Peter boldly and effectively silenced his circumcised audience when they criticized him for eating with Gentiles.

Au contraire, there is a tradition, which existed as early as the late 2nd century (Origen and even Eusebius refer to it: cf. Hom vi. in Lucam; Church History 3.36), that Peter was indeed at Antioch -…

Great! They for sure know who Peter is then. And, they know exactly who this disciple Cephas is also.

1 Corinthians 9:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

Cephas was one of the disciples, otherwise he would not have been mentioned by name apart from the other apostles. Paul is comparing his rights as an apostle to the rights of the other apostles and he is comparing the rights of the disciple Cephas to the rights of the disciple Barnabas.

After the Resurrection, Peter was no coward. He had no fear of the Jews and he suffered martyrdom for his courage.

I cannot possibly agree with you on this issue, but I am sure that we will agree on many other issues in the future.

 

[patrick457]

In the original Greek manuscripts, Peter is stated to be the apostle to the circumcised in order to reassure the Galatians that Paul’s authoritative ministry to the Gentiles was God-given just as Peter’s God-given ministry was to the Jews. In this very same sentence Paul mentions persons named James, Cephas, and John. This would be a ridiculous thing to do if Paul was speaking about only one person named Peter instead of two different persons with the same name.

You’ve…never really read what I wrote, did you? Since I’ve no intention of repeating, I’ll be brief (I hope).

“The original Greek manuscripts” fluctuate at this point: some (which does include the best extant witnesses) have Kēphas in Galatians 1:18; 2:9, 11, but others - which includes mss of the Western text-type - have Petros, either within the text itself or as a marginal note. Take for example Codex Sinaiticus: in 1:18 the original hand wrote Kēphas, but a later corrector amended this to Petros. Again, the fact that such a variant could even exist shows us that much of the early audiences at least understood them to be the same person. If it was common knowledge that Cephas of Galatians ≠ Peter, why would many scribes even go to the trouble of turning the text into something which the majority does not even agree with?

I would not ever write a letter to a group of people and mention one person by two different names in the same sentence. And, if I did do this foolish thing, I would certainly explain in this same letter that this one person is known by two different names and that is why I am calling him by two different names in the same sentence. Paul knew his audience and he knew that they all knew who Peter the apostle was and who Cephas the disciple was. That is why he did not have to explain anything at all about using the two different names. These names belonged to two different men and the Galatians knew of both men.

And the other churches didn’t? (Assuming that the Cephas of the other epistles is Peter) Galatians 2:7-8 is the only place where Paul uses the name Petros, and yes, it is one of those mysterious passages in the Bible. As a result, there have been quite a number of theories put forward to this, all of them with their proper strengths and weaknesses: (1) 2:7-8 is actually a later interpolation, perhaps directed against the Marcionites, who held Paul to be the only true apostle. The idea was to refute this Marcionite idea by reasserting Peter’s equal status with Paul, consistent with the views of the Roman church and other communities elsewhere. This would explain the presence of the “Peter” variant, which here is assumed to have begun due to the influence of the use of Petros in verses 7-8; (2) Paul was quoting, or at least was using key words, from an official “protocol” agreed to at the council at Jerusalem. It is more likely though IMHO that Paul used Petros simply to flesh out the meaning of the name Kēphas (which was apparently already known to the Galatians): Cephas was the “rock” of the law-observant church in Jerusalem.

(To be continued)

 

[patrick457]

The promised continuation:

Galatians 2:9 (NKJV)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

These two disciples, also named James and John, were not numbered among the twelve apostles of which two were named James and one was named John.

These disciples James, Cephas, and John were reputed to be pillars of the church, but the three apostles, Peter, James, and John, were actually part of the foundation of the church. Two different callings for six different men who shared the same names:

IMHO, that complicates the problem further. I don’t think you need to get stuck on the “pillar” metaphor: Clement calls Peter and Paul “the greatest and most righteous pillars” of the Church. If we apply your reasoning then there must have been two Peters and Pauls running around. Personally I don’t see why it can be a both-and situation: the apostles could be described both as “pillars” in one place and the “foundation” in another. Nevertheless, I do agree in one thing, that the “James” Paul speaks of is probably not Zebedee’s son, but James “brother of the Lord,” who was the head of the church in Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 9:5-6 (NKJV)
5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

Cephas was one of the disciples, otherwise he would not have been mentioned by name apart from the other apostles. Paul is comparing his rights as an apostle to the rights of the other apostles and he is comparing the rights of the disciple Cephas to the rights of the disciple Barnabas.

Just to complement that, here is another passage from 1 Corinthians:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

 

[patrick457]

By the way, here’s what St. Jerome wrote on the identification. Read it and tell me what you think:

Some suppose that the Cephas whom Paul claims to have confronted is not Peter but one of the seventy disciples who went by the same name. They claim that there is no way Peter could have been capable of withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentiles. After all, he had baptized Cornelius. And when he had gone up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and asked, “Why did you enter the houses of uncircumcised men and eat with them?” After recounting his vision he answered their question directly: “’If God gave me the same grace to them as he did to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who am I to stand in God’s way?’ Upon hearing his words they fell silent and praised God, saying, ‘God has given to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.’” Most compelling of all is that the historian Luke was silent about this quarrel [in the Acts of the Apostles], and he also does not say that Peter was ever in Antioch with Paul. That blasphemer Porphyry scores a victory if it is believed that either Peter erred or Paul rashly rebuked the chief of the apostles.
Those who believe that Cephas and Peter are two different people can be refuted, first of all, by the fact that we do not know of any other person named Cephas besides the one who shows up in the Gospels and other Pauline letters, in some of which he is called Cephas, in others, Peter. It is not that “Peter” and “Cephas” signify different things, but what we call petra “stone”] in Latin and Greek, the Hebrews and Syrians call cephas because of the similarity of their languages. Secondly, the entire argument of the epistle, namely, its subtext about Peter, James, and John, militates against this interpretation. It is not surprising that Luke failed to mention this detail, seeing that there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which [Luke, invoking this] license as an historian, omits. There is no contradiction involved if one of them deemed an event worthy of being recounted while the other consigned it to oblivion. Furthermore, we accept that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Antioch and later moved to Rome–information that Luke altogether disregarded. Finally, if in our attempt to refute Porphyry’s blasphemy we invent another Cephas just so that we can acquit Peter of error, then we must purge from divine Scripture an untold number of passages that Porphyry calumniated because he did not understand them.

He then goes on to present his own interpretation (which admittedly also attempts to soften this hard passage somewhat - this degree of embarassment among Christians is all the more reason for me to believe that a tradition that ‘Cephas = Peter’ was primary and gave rise to a tradition that ‘Cephas ≠ Peter’ rather than the other way around), that Peter and Paul merely staged their dispute, “just as people who walk normally but pretend to limp do not have a problem with their feet, though there is a reason why they [pretend to] limp:” Peter, according to Jerome, was fully aware all along that circumcision or uncircumcision does not really matter, but avoids eating with gentiles for the sake of the commandment. Paul, meanwhile, goes in along with the game and criticizes Peter publicly, not so much for Peter’s sake but for those who followed him. This is also the interpretation favored by St. John Chrysostom:

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. …]

The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offense; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul’s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (οἰκονομίας) and not from anger.

Oh, and I think it’d be better if you contact COPLAND 3 - who knows a lot about the early Fathers - and ask him about the patristics on Galatians.

 

[PPC]

patrick457

Everyone has an opinion.

St. Jerome had at least one opinion that the church disallowed. I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn’t he believe the Book of James was not inspired because he did not think that it was written by James and therefore he thought it should not be included in the NT Canon? But, then, Moses probably did not write about his own death in Deuteronomy either and it is still included in the OT Canon. Perhaps St. Jerome never thought about Moses and Deuteronomy before he made his determination about James and the Book of James. After all, James did not write about his own death as did Moses in the Book that is attributed to him.

I’ll believe Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision for the present. I doubt that her secretary Clemens Brentano made a mistake about this when she was narrating her vision. She certainly knew what Peter looked like in her visions. She would certainly know that it was not Peter receiving the rebuke since she literally “saw” this incident in her visions.

Also, why doubt Eusebuis’ account that St. Clement of Rome wrote that it was not Peter the apostle? Different early church lists place St./Pope Clement/Cletus as either the second or third bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. This is evidence that he personally knew St. Peter since it is said that he and Linus were ordained by Pope Peter.

In the early Christian writing “Epistle of the Apostles” dated about 160 A.D. can be read:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and west, of the north and south… "

???

Two different men, one named Peter and one named Cephas. I suppose you are now going to tell me that this was only a copiest’s error. You are entitled to your own opinion, but then so am I entitled to mine.

Perhaps we will find out the truth about this incident after we depart this earth?

 

[Contarini]

Hi All

Having a faith wobble at the moment, and will be grateful for your help.

Does the Church teach that St Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels?

Should this matter, and what does it mean.

Thanks. Be grateful for some clear guidance, from the Catholic position.

I don’t think the Church teaches anything either way.

The scholarly consensus is that most or all of Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, yes, but that’s not 100% certain and not a matter of doctrine in any church I know of.

What do you think are the implications of this?

To me one of the main implications is that people who say “follow Jesus rather than Paul” aren’t making a lot of sense , since Paul is probably our earliest written witness to Jesus!

The Catholic tradition does emphasize the Gospels as the heart of the NT canon, and that’s with good reason, since they tell us the story of Jesus. When they were written isn’t as important. The Gospels, from a Catholic perspective, come from apostolic tradition (as do many of Paul’s teachings–see the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15).

Edwin

 

[jjtc]

The “Q” document is nothing but speculation with ZERO evidence to support it.

I find the concept of oral tradition to be much more plausible to explain the similarity in the synoptic Gospels than “Q.” The early Church did, after all, exist before the Gospels and even Paul’s writings.

I find the “Bismark and the four Gospels” document very interesting with regard to Markan priority.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer.htm

 

[patrick457]

I find the “Bismark and the four Gospels” document very interesting with regard to Markan priority.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer.htm

I’ll just caution you here: Markan priority does not equal Two-source hypothesis.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457

Everyone has an opinion.

St. Jerome had at least one opinion that the church disallowed. I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn’t he believe the Book of James was not inspired because he did not think that it was written by James and therefore he thought it should not be included in the NT Canon? But, then, Moses probably did not write about his own death in Deuteronomy either and it is still included in the OT Canon. Perhaps St. Jerome never thought about Moses and Deuteronomy before he made his determination about James and the Book of James. After all, James did not write about his own death as did Moses in the Book that is attributed to him.

Yes, St. Jerome did have some reservations about James, though he was quick to recognize that with time it had been universally admitted. He was not alone in this opinion: people like Theodore of Mopsuestia or Eusebius considered it as one of the Antilegomena or contested writings “which are nevertheless recognized by many” (Church History, 3.25; 2.23).

The dispute doesn’t have anything to do with authorship: it’s pretty much nearly universally accepted that the “James” of the epistle isn’t James the son of Zebedee (who after all died pretty quickly - the first of the apostles to be martyred), but another one, perhaps the James who was ‘brother’ of Jesus and head of the Church in Jerusalem.

I’ll believe Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision for the present. I doubt that her secretary Clemens Brentano made a mistake about this when she was narrating her vision. She certainly knew what Peter looked like in her visions. She would certainly know that it was not Peter receiving the rebuke since she literally “saw” this incident in her visions.

I’m very curious. Could you link or quote where Bl. Emmerich says this?

 

[patrick457]

Also, why doubt Eusebuis’ account that St. Clement of Rome wrote that it was not Peter the apostle? Different early church lists place St./Pope Clement/Cletus as either the second or third bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. This is evidence that he personally knew St. Peter since it is said that he and Linus were ordained by Pope Peter.

I think you’re confusing Clement of Alexandria (mid 2nd-early 3rd century), who wrote the now-lost Hypotyposes - Eusebius’ source for the idea - with Clement of Rome (late 1st century) here. And for the record, as I mentioned before Clement of Alexandria seems to identify the Cephas in 1 Corinthians at least with Peter in his Stromata:

How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food. And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. “He who does not eat,” then, “let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him.” Moreover, the Lord says of himself: “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner.”

Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?” (1 Corinthians 9:5) But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that “the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink,” not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, “but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John’s gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.

In the early Christian writing “Epistle of the Apostles” dated about 160 A.D. can be read:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and west, of the north and south… "

???

Two different men, one named Peter and one named Cephas. I suppose you are now going to tell me that this was only a copiest’s error. You are entitled to your own opinion, but then so am I entitled to mine.

No, I’ll tell you that even a cursory look shows that the Epistula Apostolorum doesn’t agree with the canonical gospels in the names of the eleven Apostles - which these personages named clearly are meant to be - nor with Clement of Alexandria’s identification with Cephas as one of the Seventy!

Perhaps we will find out the truth about this incident after we depart this earth?

May God give us the grace we meet His saints in Heaven.

And as a final obligation, I’ll link to this article by Dale C. Allison, and explain what the heck Ockham’s razor is.

Ockham’s razor is the priniciple that out of different competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the ‘simplest’ explanation is more likely to be accurate: “entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.” By no means perfect, but at least practical.

 

[PPC]

Yes, St. Jerome did have some reservations about James, though he was quick to recognize that with time it had been universally admitted. He was not alone in this opinion: people like Theodore of Mopsuestia or Eusebius considered it as one of the Antilegomena or contested writings “which are nevertheless recognized by many” (Church History, 3.25; 2.23).

The Catholic Church convenes councils to settle disputes such as this one.

The dispute doesn’t have anything to do with authorship: it’s pretty much nearly universally accepted that the “James” of the epistle isn’t James the son of Zebedee (who after all died pretty quickly - the first of the apostles to be martyred), but another one, perhaps the James who was ‘brother’ of Jesus and head of the Church in Jerusalem.

I do not think that it matters which James wrote the Book of James since Luke and Mark were not apostles either, but they authored two of the gospels. Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich stated that the James who was head of the Church in Jerusalem was James the Lesser.

I’m very curious. Could you link or quote where Bl. Emmerich says this?

Sure can:

Life of Jesus Christ …Volume III, page 5:
All the future Apostles were now in Capharnaum, with the exception of Matthias. A great many of Jesus’ discipIes and relatives, among the latter many women related to Him by blood, were present. Of the number was Mary Heli, Mary’s elder sister. She was now perhaps seventy years old, and together with her second husband, Obed, had come bringing an *** laden with presents to Mary. She dwelt at Japha, a little place an hour at most from Nazareth, where Zebedee once lived and where his sons were born. She was greatly rejoiced at seeing again her three sons, James, Sadoch, and Heliacim, all disciples of John. This James was as old as Andrew. He is the same that with two other disciples, Cephas and John, once disputed with Paul on the subject of Jewish circumcision. After Jesus’ death he became a priest, and was one of the oldest and most distinguished of the seventy disciples. Later he accompanied James the Greater to Spain, to the islands, into Cyprus, and into the idolatrous countries bordering the confines of Judea. Not this James, but James the Lesser, the son of Alpheus and Mary Cleophas, became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. (1.)

(1.)
This remark of Sister Emmerich throws light upon the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, and agrees with the tradition related by Eusebius. According to this tradition the Cephas of whom St. Paul speaks in this place was not St. Peter, but one of the seventy-two disciples. (Note taken from the first edition of the Life of Our Lord according to Sister Emmerich.)

 

[PPC]

I think you’re confusing Clement of Alexandria (mid 2nd-early 3rd century), who wrote the now-lost Hypotyposes - Eusebius’ source for the idea - with Clement of Rome (late 1st century) here.

OOPS! You are correct.

…
Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" (1 Corinthians 9:5) But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives…

I do not think that Paul was saying that he had a sister consort; he was simply answering the questions they asked him in their recent letter(s) to him.

1 Corinthians 7 (NKJV)
7 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:

1 Corinthians 9:3-6
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

Seems to me that Paul is comparing his own rights as an apostle to the rights of the other apostles which of course does include Peter and he is also comparing the rights of the disciple Cephas to the rights of the disciple Barnabas. Cephas is not one of the other apostles in addition to Paul. Barnabas is not an apostle either.

1 Corinthians 7:4-9 (NKJV)
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul was never married.

…Ockham’s razor is the priniciple that out of different competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the ‘simplest’ explanation is more likely to be accurate: …

Yes, it is practical.

The original copies of the Greek translation speak of two different men: one named the apostle Peter and the other named Cephas. There is no explanation given for using two different names for only one man in the same sentence.

It is apparent and practical to me that these two similar names refer to two different men. There was no need to explain because everyone to whom the letter was addressed already knew that these two similar names referred to two different men.

English: New American Standard Bible plus Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
Galatians 2
6. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
απο δε των δοκουντων ειναι τι οποιοι ποτε ησαν ουδεν μοι διαφερει προσωπον θεος ανθρωπου ου λαμβανει εμοι γαρ οι δοκουντες ουδεν προσανεθεντο

1. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
   αλλα τουναντιον ιδοντες οτι πεπιστευμαι το ευαγγελιον της ακροβυστιας καθως πετρος της περιτομης
2. (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
   ο γαρ ενεργησας πετρω εις αποστολην της περιτομης ενηργησεν και εμοι εις τα εθνη
3. and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
   και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις μεν] εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην

4. They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.

   μονον των πτωχων ινα μνημονευωμεν ο και εσπουδασα αυτο τουτο ποιησαι

5. But when **Cephas** came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

   οτε δε ηλθεν πετρος εις αντιοχειαν κατα προσωπον αυτω αντεστην οτι κατεγνωσμενος ην

6. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 
   προ του γαρ ελθειν τινας απο ιακωβου μετα των εθνων συνησθιεν οτε δε ηλθον υπεστελλεν και αφωριζεν εαυτον φοβουμενος τους εκ περιτομης

Peter the apostle was already boldly eating with the Gentiles in Jerusalem since the early days of Christianity. He immediately silenced the Jews who complained about it. Acts 11:1-18