Very few readers have ever noticed that even though almost everyone (including the Gospel writers) assumes that Peter and Cephas are simply names for the same person (Simon Peter, Jesus’s disciple), Paul — our only author from antiquity who knew Peter indicates he was not the same person as Cephas. WHAT?
In my previous post I gave the evidence that in the early church there were writers who maintained that Cephas and Peter were *not* the same person, despite what is explicitly said in John 1:42. Some readers may point out that these later Christian authors *may* have differentiated between the two (saying they were not the same person, even though they were) for a very clear and certain reason: in Galatians 2 Paul confronts “Cephas” and blasts him for not understanding the Gospel. Could there have been a major rift between the two most important apostles of early Christianity (Paul and *Peter*)? Surely the apostles were more unified than *that*! Well, if Cephas was not the same person as Peter, it is a much, much smaller problem. So maybe that is what was driving early Christians to claim there were in fact two figures, the apostle Peter and the other person Cephas.
I continue the discussion here. I’ve decided not to give the entire article here – it gets increasingly technical and rather, uh, boring to general readers. But I will give here, below, one of the most important parts, where I begin to argue that there is good evidence in Paul’s own writings that Paul, who knew Peter, talks about him as being someone other than Cephas.
******************************
I have already shown that it cannot be argued, as one might be inclined to do otherwise, that this tradition (that Peter and Cephas were two different people) derives simply from the ignorance of Christians who did not realize that ”Kephas• and”Petros• are translational equivalents.
The most common view concerning the origin of this tradition is that it derives from an apologetic concern, namely to show that the person whom Paul opposed in Antioch was not the other great apostle of the early church, Peter, but an apostle of much lower standing, Cephas, one of the seventy. There is a good deal to be said for this view, given the circumstance that several of our sources state explicitly that Paul did in fact confront this otherwise unknown person in Antioch. At the same time, none of the sources that draws this distinction actually makes anything of it — i.e. none of them uses it for any explicit apologetic ends. Furthermore, it should be noted that in several of the representatives of this view, including our earliest, the Epistula Apostolorum, Cephas is not one of the seventy at all but is a member of Jesus’ original twelve disciples.
For these reasons, a simpler explanation for the tradition should perhaps be considered at greater length: it may have derived from a close reading of the NT documents themselves, particularly those in which “Cephas” is most frequently named — the writings of the Apostle Paul. We ourselves would do well to engage in a careful reading of Paul–the only author from the early church of whom we can say with some certainty that he actually knew Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9). And what is striking is that, although he also mentions Peter (Gal 2:7-8), he gives absolutely no indication that they are the same person. Quite the contrary, if one were to read Paul without prejudging the issue in light of John 1:42 and the overwhelming consensus of Christian opinion through the ages, one would be hard-pressed indeed to show that when Paul said Cephas, he really meant Peter.
Cephas and Peter in Paul
Whereas Paul mentions Cephas by name eight times in his letters, (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14), he mentions Peter only twice (Gal 2:7, 8). What is initially intriguing, and what has been most frequently observed in this connection, is that when he does mention Peter in Gal 2:7-8 he names Cephas in the same breath, and in such a way as to provide no indication that he is referring to the same person. Here is what he says:
When they [those ‘of repute’] saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 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…”
Since Peter is mentioned in vv. 7 and 8, one would naturally expect him to be named first in the list of v. 9, or at least to be called by the same name. While Paul may have had other reasons for naming James first, it is very difficult to see why he would suddenly call Peter by a different name without giving any indication to his reader that he had in mind the same person. Early Christian scribes, of course, recognized this problem and rectified it by changing the text of v. 9. “Cephas” has been changed to “Peter” in P46, D, F, G, 629, 1175, a, b, r, and several other witnesses.
Paul’s modus operandi here has proved to be an insoluble conundrum for commentators, resulting in explanations of Paul’s interchange of names that are as numerous as they are ingenious. Indeed it is safe to say that most commentators have simply overlooked, or rather chosen to ignore, what should seem rather obvious: whoever did not know that “Kephas” is a rough Aramaic equivalent of “Petros,” and who further did not realize that traditionally Cephas and Peter were identified as the same person, would never on the basis of this passage be led to make the identification themselves. On the contrary, any sensible reader would assume that they were different persons.
Among recent scholars, the most popular explanation for Paul’s use of the name “Peter” in Gal 2:7, 8 but “Cephas” in 2:9 is the view that was proposed independently by Oscar Cullmann and Gunther Klein. According to this view, Paul cites some kind of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem Conference in Gal 2:7-8. This document used the name “Peter” with reference to the great missionary to the circumcision. But when Paul reverts back to his own language, he uses the name he prefers, “Cephas.”
It is not surprising that such an idea occurred to no one for 1900 years. There is almost nothing in the text to suggest it and virtually everything to discount it. The passage is given entirely in the first person, so that even if it were embodying a formal decree of some kind, it has been seriously reformulated. And apart from the inherent improbablility that Paul has – without warning or indication — inserted a fragment of such a document, partly recalled (or discovered among his papers!) one should query what his purpose might be in doing so. Presumably it would be to lend authority to his claim that the Council in Jerusalem had simply affirmed his own position in its official decree. But if the citation were made to buttress his claim, he surely would have made it quite clear that he is in fact reproducing the original wording of the agreement. The wording of vv. 7-8 is in fact one of the chief problems with the theory. For as Ulrich Wilckens has demonstrated, these two verses are permeated by characteristically Pauline words and phrases. [HERE I GIVE THE DATA, IN GREEK] The only real exception to the Pauline character of these verses is the name “Peter” itself.
For Wilckens that is enough to establish the likelihood that Paul is citing the earlier agreement of the Jerusalem conference. But the issue at stake is precisely this, Paul’s peculiar alternation of names. It will scarcely do to construe our question as the primary evidence for the answer! In point of fact, unless we are somehow to think that the Jerusalem Conference lapsed into Pauline jargon when framing its conclusions, we must conclude, as is usually done, that Paul has not at all quoted the report verbatim, but expressed it in his own words. Once that concession has been made, however, one is back to the root problem of why Paul uses the name “Peter” in vv. 7 and 8 but “Cephas” in v. 9.
The other theories for this phenomenon are well-known, and are frequently discounted for a similar want of evidence or probability. For our purposes it simply need be noted that if in fact there were two different persons, Cephas and Peter, then the matter would be handily solved. Paul speaks as if Cephas were not Peter because in fact he was not. If this view seems too far-fetched for modern sensibilities, it can at least serve to explain the genesis and perpetuation of the tradition we have sketched.
This is a very interesting issue. I understand his statement (at least in the many English versions) as addressing two men. All the efforts to smooth over this or ignore it are changing Paul’s letter because he “made a mistake”. I find it very ironic that those who propose Paul’s message needs to be “fixed” are often the same people who say the bible is inerrant.
BTW – I clicked the 5-star rating at the top, and it was entered as 3-star. I was the second person to rate it, and I bet the first person’s 5-star ranking was also incorrectly logged as it was a 3-star.
When you became an agnostic atheist, did you have a sense of liberation from an extensive set of assumptions into which you had been trying to force your experience and knowledge?
Or maybe a sense of waking up from a dream?
In some ways this seems like the most compelling argument for atheism: relieving yourself of fairy tales and trying to see the world clearly and calmly.
Of course discarding anxieties about hell could have similar effects.
I’m not sure I had an immediate sense of liberation; but I did think that much of what I previously believed was wrong and that I had a better insight now intot the world.
I’d guess what most of us felt at that transition initially was abject dread. Now I feel liberated but then I was processing the knowledge that I was going to die and there was nothing after.
I suppose there are a number of contenders but would you say that belief in hell is probably the worst thing about Christianity?
I recently read something by Robert Ingersoll about this. It made me think that dedicating one’s life to the elimination of belief in hell might be one of the noblest purposes one could have.
On the other hand, I suppose, in order to be objective, one should start with an open mind about whether hell exists.
I’d say the horrible things that followers have done and still are doing to others in the name of Christ is right up there among “the worst things” of Christianity
Interesting that it seems to be the opposite of the tradition in your previous post. As in if we assume Paul actually is talking about two different people and only read his authentic letters, the “more important one” would be assumed to be Cephas (first resurrection appearance, visit in Jerusalem, pillar etc.) whereas Peter would only be mentioned in regard to the mission to the circumcised.
Greetings, Bart. Wondering if perhaps there may be an even simpler explanation for the for the Peter/Cephas conundrum. As it happens, I am blessed to have a group of male friends who have known each other at least 50 and some as many as 60 years. You will not be surprised to learn that all of us have nicknames. In our group, the most interesting nickname belongs to Steve who, for reasons lost to the fog of time, is known as “Vum.” Now, if you were to read an email exchanges between our group, you might find Steve referred to as “Vum” in one paragraph then, mere sentences later, referred to as Steve, but it’s always the same guy. Could it be that in his letters, rather than describing two distinct persons, Paul is simply toggling between two well-known and affectionate names for the Apostle Peter?
That’s what’s usually thought. My argument is that when you read the Galatians passage very carefully, it does not seem like that.
“Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or …”
Bill Saluga
This is a completely off topic question.
If the historical Jesus was all about forgiveness and not atonement, how do we reconcile Matthew 26:28 “for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
I got this question from a friend when I was trying to explain the atonement vs forgiveness positions and saying Jesus did not require atonement. Apparently, I didn’t do a good job.
Yup, it’s a good question. The answer is that I’m not talking about Jesus as he was portrayed by Gospel writers (with their own theological views) decades later, but about Jesus himself, the historical figure. To extablish what Jesus actually said (and did) is not a simple matter of quoting one verse or another, it’s about doing historical critical analysis of the text to establish what is probalby historical and what not. (Just as with other Gospels not in the NT)
Dear Prof Bart,
Wasn’t Peter a pillar of the church together with James and John? Who was this Cephas that Paul thought was a pillar if it is not Peter.
I’ll get to that. (Spoiler alert: he was a different person, resident in Jerusalem, not Peter, out on the mission field)
Perhaps Cephas remained Paul’s normal designation for Peter because it was the name by which he knew him personally and within the Aramaic-speaking Jewish-Christian milieu, while Petros had become an increasingly established Greek form of the name. In Galatians 2:7–8, Paul’s choice of Petros may therefore reflect more than simple translation: the Greek “rock” name may have been particularly appropriate to his discussion of Peter’s divinely assigned mission to the circumcision, especially given the developing association between Peter’s name and Jesus’ “rock” saying.
Do you think “Peter” become a theological name because of what happened in Matthew 16, or did Matthew’s wording exploit an already-existing name whose meaning had become significant? I’m especially interested in your take on the chronology of the name.
I’m relatively sure Jesus gave one of his discples the name “rock.”
Do you think Jesus gave Simon the name “Rock” (Cephas/Petros) in the context of his role in the foundation and leadership of the church? If Paul knows this tradition then when Paul is discussing Peter specifically in terms of his apostolic commission to the circumcised, he uses the Greek form Petros, “Rock,” because that name reinforces the point he is making about Peter’s authority and mission. But when Paul refers to Peter more generally (as an individual he knows and as a fellow apostle) he retains the Aramaic Cephas, the name by which Peter was ordinarily known in their shared Jewish/Aramaic environment?
No, I don’t think Jesus was thinking of a future church (thought that is entirely what it is about in Matthew 16). Paul gives no indication he knows about the tradition, which first appears in Mark’s Gospel. I don’t think you can map the two uses of the name onto the point Paul is making in varoius verses.
If Peter and Cephas are indeed two different people the automatic questions are
What happened to Peter?
Where did Cephas come from?
If not for Mark 16:7 even our earliest gospel leaves Peter out in the cold. You’ve commented that you don’t think Paul knew Aramaic so if he was talking about Peter why would he use a transliteration of an Aramaic name over a Greek name unless of course he meant two different people?
Yup! Stay tuned.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
What is your opinion on Paul’s Greek, translated as “Faith in Jesus” vs “faith of Jesus” (the faithfulness of Jesus in God’s plan?) There are a few verses this comes up in, including gospel material.
(I don’t know Greek, and I’m not a linguist or scholar, and I have basically no idea what I’m talking about. However, I’m told through literature and scholarship that the Greek seems to be able to go either way.)
Do you think it changes the meaning?
Having faith [IN] Jesus seems to make it more about us, and less about the free gift of God.
Whereas, if salvation is through the faith [OF] Jesus, it is less about us.
Although, if I understand him correclty, Paul does say that we can accept or reject this gift.
Thank you so much for all that you do!
Yes, that’s pretty much the difference (a key verse is Galatians 2:1)6. Is a person justified by the faith they have in Christ or by the faithfulness of Christ (in his dying for them). In Greek it could be read either way. the literal translation is “faith of Jesus” but “of” can be either (brace yourself) an “objective” genitive or a “subjective” genitive. If it is “objective” then Jesus is the “object” of the preposition, the one who receives the action of faith. So that would be faith “in” Jesus. If it is subjective then it is the “subject” of the preposition, the one who manifests the action of faith (or in English, faithfulness).
Traditionally it has been read as an objective genitive; Some thirty years or so ago, scholars — especially Richard Hays — argued strongly it was a subjective genitive. I have always strongly been of the view that it is objective, given how consistently Paul insists that a person needs to have faith in jesus to be justified before God.
Luke 24:34 says “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!”. And 1 Corinthians 15:5 says “…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”. Since these are the only accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing to a single individual it *seems* reasonable to assume they are the same person. In that case 1 Corinthians simply means Jesus appeared to Peter alone, and then again at a later time.
But if they are different people, then it *seems* that Cephas is the beloved disciple that John’s gospel doesn’t identify — (wink wink). John 1:42 could simply mean that Jesus has two disciples with the nickname “Cephas”. The whole idea of that nickname is that a person is reliable and can’t be changed, like a rock.
If Cephas was or wasn’t one of the seventy then we know that the caravan of Jesus and his followers wasn’t just 13 men and several women. Rather the caravan consisted of at least 70 disciples (more if the twelve aren’t counted in the 70) plus many women who attend to all the men in the caravan. Mark 15:41 makes it clear there were lots of women in the caravan.
Why then would two different close followers of Jesus both be call “Rock”??? That sounds a little implausible to me to have two men an such a small group to both have the same nickname.
I’ll be getting to that!
If we were to use nothing but Paul’s authentic epistles for historical information, and totally setting aside the Gospels and Acts, then in the context of Paul’s writings, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if Peter and Cephas were, in fact, two different people.
The only time this becomes an issue is when you start trying to say “it’s a fact that Cephas and Peter were the same, because the Gospels say so” that you get into a problem.
The disingenuity of that approach, though, is that only cherry-picked “facts” from The Gospels are agreed upon by scholars. So, why on earth should we presume that the Gospel claim of Peter and Cephas being the same person is “factual”? I’d say “we shouldn’t”.
I’d say it matters for some things even if we just look at Paul. It would mean, among other things, that Peter and Paul — early Chrsitianities two major apostles, did not have a major falling out. Peter and Cephas did.
If we’re not using the Gospels, then how would you know “Peter” was a major figure?
Several factors: Acts, Paul, the existence of 1 and 2 Peter, three apocalypes of Peter, other letters of Peter — all forged in his name. Also Acts of Peter and traditions of Peter in various other key sources.
I still lean toward them being the same guy. My proposal would be that it was the Gentile converts who gave him the semi-formal designation, “Peter, the apostle to the circumcision,” in order to contrast his ministry with Paul’s. Therefore, it is specifically when Paul refers to that designation that he switches from Cephas to Peter, even though as a Jew he normally preferred Cephas.