I have  been reposting a thread from years ago about whether Peter and Cephas, almost universally “known” to be the same person (Peter is his Greek name; Cephas is the Aramaic equivalent) may in fact have been two different people with the same name.   I pulled all this from an article I wrote over back when I was young and foolish:  “Cephas and Peter,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 109 (1990) pp. 463-74.   It stirred up some controversy and some occasional animosity among colleagues.  But most, when they’d see me at a conference, would ask: “Were you serious?”

Ha!  I would usually tell them I was serious, but that at the end of the day I’m not 100% sure either way.  And that’s still true.  But I make the best argument I can in the piece.  Here’s a bit more of it, a bit in the weeds, but with some of the more boringly academic elements removed.

******************************

The evidence of Paul (that they were two different people) has not been exhausted by this consideration of Gal 2:7-9.  There remain the other references to Cephas in Paul’s letters, references that provide other points of interest.  Indeed what is striking is that in virtually every instance, Paul’s references to Cephas contain something that is difficult to explain if in fact he meant “Peter,” Jesus’ disciple, the one who had received the apostolate to “the circumcised” (Gal 2:8) just as Paul received that to the uncircumcised.

In some respects the reference in 1 Cor 15.5 is the most interesting.

In reciting the tradition he had received concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, Paul names Cephas as the first to have witnessed Jesus raised from the dead.  Here is the entire passage (1 Cor. 15:3-8):

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,  4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Scholars have long noted the highly structured character of this fragment, and concluded that it represents an early creedal formula. While there is some dispute concerning the extent of the creed itself, i.e. whether it ends at v. 5 or continues on through v. 7, most scholars agree that at least in Paul’s formulation of the tradition there appears to be an intentional parallelism between vv. 5-6 on the one hand and vv. 7-8 on the other, so that there are in effect two lists of witnesses to the resurrection.  Furthermore, there seems to be an intentional correlation of function between the two lists, so that each member of the first appears to be construed as a functional equivalent to its parallel in the second.  Leaving aside the precise nature of the first set of parallels, since that itself is our overarching concern here, it can at least be noted that each list begins with an individual to whom Jesus appeared: Cephas (v. 5) and James (v. 7).

The lists continue with references to groups of Jesus’ followers, groups indeed that were instrumental in the establishment of the Christian church: “the Twelve” in v. 5 and “all the apostles” in v. 7 (two groups with considerable overlap, of course, but by no means identical).  The lists conclude with witnesses that are perhaps to be construed as guarantors of the tradition: the five hundred believers, whom, Paul observes, are for the most part still alive, suggesting perhaps that they can still testify to what they have seen (v. 6), and Paul, who is doing just that (v. 8).

Given these clear parallels between the corresponding members of the two lists, what significance can be attached to their respective first members, Cephas and James?  Perhaps these two are singled out because of their importance in establishing the church in Jerusalem.  But in that case one wonders why John, the other “pillar” of the church, is not also mentioned.  More commonly it is suggested that they are similar in playing a leadership role among the groups mentioned subsequently, “Cephas” (i.e. Peter, in this view) among the Twelve, and “James” among the apostles.

This view has a good deal to be said for it, but is made difficult by Paul’s emphasis in the second list that the resurrected Christ appeared to “all” the apostles (v. 7).  Is James really the leader of all the apostles?  He certainly was not acknowledged as a leader by Paul at a later date nor, apparently, by Barnabas, earlier.  Perhaps then, as is more likely, he is being construed as a leader among the original apostles in Jerusalem.  But if that is the point the parallel no longer exists — for in fact it was Peter, not James, who led the original group of apostles.

Thus it may be that Paul has construed the parallel between Cephas and James in a different way altogether.  Here it should be observed that this James is decidedly not one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, but is, presumably, Jesus’ brother, whose conversion to faith and whose position of authority in the church were secured not on the basis of a personal association with Jesus while alive, but by a personal audience with Jesus after his death.  Could it not be that, given the parallel nature of the two lists, Cephas should be construed similarly, namely, as one who was not Jesus’ earthly disciple but who was thought to have had a personal revelation of Jesus and was, as a result, converted?  It may be significant, in this connection, that Paul is a third individual named in this list, another unbeliever who was granted a personal visitation from Jesus, resulting in his leadership role in the Christian community.

One other feature of this passage merits careful consideration.  There would be no reason to suspect that James is to be excluded from membership in the group of the apostles mentioned subsequently.  Quite to the contrary, since the second list states that Jesus appeared to James and then to all the apostles, there is every good reason to assume that James is one member of this larger group.  What about Cephas in the first list?  Strikingly, the wording is different here, so that Jesus is not said to appear to all the Twelve, after he had already appeared to one of them.  Rather, he “appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.”  Perhaps given the blinders we normally wear when reading a text like this, we have overlooked that there is nothing here to indicate that Cephas is being construed as an individual member of the group mentioned subsequently.  It can at least be stated with some confidence that anyone without any previous knowledge of the matter might well be led to suppose that James was one of the apostles, without at all being led to suspect that Cephas was one of the Twelve.