Loading...I have received a number of emails asking me about the Cephas and Peter article I started giving a couple of posts ago, and most of the questions, as it turns out, are answered in the *second* half of the article, which I had originally planned not to provide here on the blog. So now I’ve decided, well—why not?
And over the next two posts I’ll provide the rest of the argument for anyone who is interested. As with the rest of the article, I have not included any of the footnotes, where I give some of the logic and evidence for my sundry points. But here are is some of the argument itself. If you don’t buy it, fair enough. If you do, fairer still!
******************************
The evidence of Paul 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.
Here I’ll be offering a reading of some key passages that has never occurred to most people. Want to see what I have to say? It’s simple to join the blog, and costs very little. And every penny you pay goes to charity. So why not?<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
Fascinating argument; Bart.
But not addressing the key question of how the prominence of Cephas as a witness to the resurrection in Paul’s list – which he asserts as being the common tradition of the early followers of Jesus – are to be reconciled with the absence of Cephas/Other in counterpart narrations of the resurrection traditions in the four gospels. We find in the Gospels (but not in Paul) accounts of Jesus appearing first to the women at the tomb (which seems not to have been repeated in the common tradition that Paul learned) – but otherwise, there is a clear common theme of Jesus appearing first to Simon (or Peter), and to the ‘twelve’ or to the ‘disciples’.
So, if Cephas/Simon is a different Cephas from the one that was recorded in the common tradition as the earliest witness to the resurrection when Paul heard it; it appears that Cephas/Simon *is* the Cephas who was recorded in the common tradition as the earliest witness to the resurrection for Mark and Luke (in otherwise independent narratives).
What happened to Cephas/Other? Did he blot his copybook; or was the tradition silently ‘reallocated’ after Paul heard it?
Yes, it’s an interesting question about the other resurrection narratives. But I probably don’t need to point out that this is true of other highly significant “witnesses” Paul mentions, his brother James and the 500 brothers!
I agree with your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15 as two parallel lists; one beginning ‘Cephas, then the Twelve”, the other beginning “James, then the apostles”. But I think I read these differently, in that I see Cephas as being implied as the ‘first fruits’ of the Twelve, and James as the ‘first fruits’ of the apostles – noting that Paul is always insistent that he is fully an ‘apostle’, while not one of the ‘Twelve’.
But that would imply that the ‘Cephas’ in the tradition that Paul is here quoting, should be understood as a member of the Twelve. Which is fully consistent with the traditions that you have proposed as underlying the ‘Epistula Apostolorum’, but not with some other patristic traditions, and nor with your interpretation of Paul’s other Cephas references.
So it would seem to me, that if you are advancing both the ‘Epistula Apostolorum’ and the other patristic references as supporting the theory of multiple ‘Cephases’, you are implicitly requiring a third ‘Cephas’ as a commonly recognised nickname for one of the Twelve (other than Simon) who is otherwise known by a different given name. Lets call him ‘Cephas/Third’.?
Yes, that’s right. THat would be the traditional way of reading Cephas = one of the twelve; James = one of the apostles.
I am not actually using the later references to two persons as “evidence” that there were two persons. I”m using them as a spring board into asking where the tradition came from and querying if it’s possible that it comes from a historical situation.
In Acts, Paul is a Roman Citizen. Do we know if this was historically accurate?
We can’t know for certain, but there is nothing in his letters that suggests he was — and in fact, apart from Acts, asbolutely no reason to think he was, and some good reasons for thinking not. It can’t be overlooked that Acts is out to celebrate the importance of Paul. It seems highly unlikely, historically, that an actual citizen would suffer corporal punishment repeatedly in synagogues, e.g.
But it seems highly probable that Lazarus was raised from his tomb, thousands (of men, not counting the rest, as you say!) were fed from a few loaves and fishes, water became wine, pigs ran like lemmings to the sea, somebody walks across water, and a guy gets identified by a kiss when everyone already knows who he is! That’s not just possible, but highly likely.
We have enough trouble, Bart, with people believing fake news. In fact, now, it has begun killing us. Could we all agree to get on the same page about the lunacy of the New ‘Testament’? After all, as a special someone once said, we all have “work” to do, “while it is day.”
With deep respect, Bart.
There is such a thing as OVER THINKING a matter. A bunch of could be’s, what if’s, maybe’s etc.
Jesus named Peter, Cephas. Paul does not qualify his Cephas as NOT being Peter. Why?
Most of the time the plain reading of the text is the best reading of the text.
Respectfully.
I feel the same as Linda.
What she calls OVER THINKING I called it “digging too much” in relation with interpretations of visions in Revelation that for me were too complex for the christians in the seven churches to understand.
Sadly I was misunderstood as claiming that there was no need to make any search at all in trying to understand ancient texts ..
I don’t know if “Most of the time the plain reading of the text is the best reading of the text.” but I think that “many times ” it is .
In the case of Cephas/Peter I think the evidence is overwhelming in the sense that they actually were the same person but at the same time many of Bart arguments are very
interesting and good for “Engaging Discussions about Early Christianity”, others, well , I found like over thinking, with all respect.
1. “the Twelve” in v. 5 and “all the apostles” in v. 7 (two groups with considerable overlap, of course, but by no means identical).
Are we saying that the Twelve were all apostles but there were also apostles that were not part of the Twelve?
2. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…
Do you think the more than five hundred is historical, that more than 500 actually thought they had a vision of Jesus risen?
3. “appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.”
So Peter is part of the Twelve but Cephas is not, correct?
1. Seems like it; 2. No, I don’t think so — surely they would have been mentioned elsewhere; there’s no *problem* with 500 having a vision of Christ. Easily that many today have visions of Mary (all at once). but Paul is our only source for this. No telling where he got it from. 3. POssibly. I’ll be saying more aobut it.
I was reading another blog’s take on this question and the author referenced Eusebius’ claim that Clement considered Cephas “a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter”
But then the blogger states: “This was Clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150 AD to 215. He likely had access to records that no longer exist, so this is historical documentation indicating that this Cephas was not Peter.”
First it is interesting how we get from a 4th century historian quoting a late 2nd century church leader to an “historical document”
But seriously, how should we take the assertions that certain ancient authors “had access to records that no longer exist”?
I would not say that it’s “proof” that Peter and Cephas were different; but Eusebius’s refernece to Clement is probably itself accurate, and it wouldn’t be surprising if CLement was basing his view on lost documents, since 99% of the ealry CHristians documents are lost. All this reference would show, though, is that CLement had reason (good, bad, or different) for thinking the two names referred to different people.
Or–“the second list states that Jesus appeared to James and then to all the apostles” could be rephrased as “Jesus appeared to James, and then Jesus appeared to the apostles, all of them.” At least in the English translation, it is not so clear that James was one of the apostles, based on the quote. But this is confusing and I might be confused. Wouldn’t be the first time…
If indeed it is true that they were different people it doesn’t really make a difference for the situation of the early church (also in relationship to Paul) since Cephas is the one pointed to as being the important person by Paul all the time. He was the first person to whom Jesus appeared and a pillar of the church, he was also the one in the conflict of Antioch. Peter then seems to be a pretty minor figure in some sense. Right?
See my next post on this! (But Peter would have been the head of the mission to the Jews; that would have been important, I should think)
TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE TO BE A COINCIDENCE
From Paul’s letters we know about “James, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars”
From Mark Gospel we know that Jesus “did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James”
Now:
-Cephas was a nickname that comes from an aramaic word for “rock”, and Peter also comes from a greek word for “rock” (petra , petroleum “rock oil”)
-Mark’s James is not the brother of the Lord (as in Paul) but another James, James son of Zebedee.
Two “”trios”, two James and two “Rocks” ?
I think there was only one “trio” , James the brother of the Lord, Cephas and John, as Paul, our earlier source, wrote.
The author of Mark created “Peter,James and John” out of Paul’s pillars and made them “fishers of men” , perhaps they never casted a net in their lives.
Absolutely fascinating. This Cephas material is a total paradigm shift for me and is blowing my mind and preconceived notions. Thank you for these fascinating posts.
I also think this verse is fascinating regarding Judas, one of the twelve. I have started to question some of my preconceived ideas on him as well. I know your position on Judas and I think it’s a good case. But I think a case could also be made in these verses that Paul believed “the twelve” including Judas presumably, had a resurrection experience of Jesus. I also think the gospel narratives about Judas are too convenient and bear strong similarity to the later Christian message of Jews betraying their own Messiah. It would be convenient for them to have a personified scapegoat in the character of Judas in these narratives. I can see it both ways with regards to the criteria of dissimilarity. Am I (and others) way off track with this? I would love to see a scholarly debate with you and Paula on this point (rather than mythicists or fundamentalists). I need more data to come to a firm conclusion either way. Regardless, thanks again for making scholarly work accessible. Much appreciated!
Watching a video on “Christianity’s Most Toxic Idea”, where Genetically Modified Skeptic talks about the proto-Orthodox (in your sense of the word) and suggests that they believed that heresy was a choice. That according to the pO the heretics *knew* that their position was false but held on to it because they wanted to sin. Or at least that’s the root of a Christian conception of atheists – that atheists know there is a God and that we choose not to believe in him because we want to sin. Do you think this sounds reasonable?
YEah, I’d say so.
What can we extrapolate from some of the accidental information gathered as historical identity criteria? For example, the en passant info of both Cephas and Peter as both being married (1 Cor. 9.5 and Matt 8:14 respectively) – Coincidence of traveling believing missionary spouses?
I”m not sure that would count as *much* of a coincidence since most men were married, including the Christians.
Psych! They were married to each other.
The resurrection stories in the Gospels specify Peter or Simon, not Cephas, as a witness; hard to believe a separate person named Cephas would be credited as the first witness in a creed without that person being mentioned in the Gospels. But my real question: the 500: where in the early days would Jesus find 500 disciples? Granted Acts reports 1000s of converts but that doesn’t seem realistic. Do any early Christian sources say anything about the who, where and when of the 500?
Dr.Ehrman,
Is there any mention of Cephus being a seperate person from Peter,in early church writings?
Also: Would you recommend reading Dr.Paula Fredricksen’s books on the historical Jesus?
YEs, that was my first post on the topic, showing where the tradition shows up in early Christian writings.
Yes, absolutely.
Although somewhat off-topic, I was curious your thoughts about whether the appearances to Cephas and the Twelve and to James and all the apostles represent rival traditions? Particularly the meaning of the “all” in “all the apostles” (v. 7). Many think the reference is to the larger group of missionaries, including, Andronicus and Junia, as well as the narrower circle of the Twelve. Some think “all the apostles” excludes the Twelve, since the latter were not regarded as apostles until the second century when Luke melded the two categories together. In all this there would indeed be no polemic. But what if, “all the apostles” means to exclude James but to include Peter and the rest of the Twelve? Then the sense would plausibly be construed as a polemical counter to the “Cephas, then to the Twelve” formula. The point would be that the Risen Christ appeared first to James, and only then to the apostles, including Peter. Not Peter first, followed by his colleagues, but rather James first, followed by Peter and the rest. Seen this way, it becomes obvious that the James formula is the later of the two, since its very wording presupposes the Cephas formula.
IT’s possible that they were rival traditions, but since this is the only reference to them and nothing in the reference itself seems especially polemical, the rivalry would have to be posited rather htan concluded.
I guess the trouble with positing a post-Pauline interpolation of 1 Cor. 15:3-11 , can we really allow the presumably long process of sectarian evolution, factional polemics, and tradition-formation that must lie behind assumed rival formulas — already by the time of Paul? But if we grant the split, the harmonization of possible competing traditions seem to be the affair of a later generation, not the conflation of Paul. On the assumption that Paul wrote it, there wouldn’t have been enough time, so one would need to search for some other exegesis. But if this bit of tradition post-dates Paul then there would seem to be plenty of the time required for it to serve the catholicizing purpose I think you might reject.
I think you may also dismiss the notion of a catholicizing harmonization because of its incompatibility with Pauline authorship, but I regard the opposite course to be the better: since the harmonization of the two lists is what I see as apparent, why not rather concede that its redactor was an “early catholic” like Luke, not a man of the age of Paul? And scarcely Paul himself.
I’m almost convinced that Peter and Cephas were two quite separate individuals except for the fact that their names both mean ‘Rocky’, albeit in different languages. Perhaps compare this situation to Judas Didymus Thomas whose last two names mean the same thing, ie. twin in Greek and Aramaic respectively. Isn’t saying that Cephas and Peter were two different people like saying that Didymus and Thomas were two different people?
I’d say it’s a bit different, since in fact we know of a number of ancient people called both Didymus and Thomas. (The second twin to come out of the womb would be called Thomas or Didymus, including the church father I wrote my dissertation on, Didymus the Blind!)
The number of ancient people called Thomas or Didymus is irrelevant. You need to show that names meaning rock were common. They were not. There are some 6000 named male Jews in Ilan’s volumes, and not one is called Cephas or Petros (other than the NT character(s)). I suppose you could hypothesize that Jesus gave the name “Cephas” to both Simon and Andrew (compare the Boanerges brothers), but even Andrew seems to be too minor a figure to be the Cephas of Galatians.
Early editors of manuscripts identified the Cephas of Galatians as Peter. For example, P46, Tertullian, D F G substitute Πετρος for Κηφας at Gal 2:9.
Do you have a view on what scriptures Paul is referring to when he says Jesus was raised on the third day “in accordance with the scriptures?” I know apologetic writing tabs the Jonah story and maybe some Hosea. Do you have a sense if he would he have cited them as well, or something else, if it were possible for someone to ask him on his blog?
Yes, usually HOsea 6:3 is the verse people think of, though I”m drawn to the idea that Jonah may have been involved as well. My sense is that since Paul is *reminding* the Corinthians what he taught them, he actually discussed the relevant texts at that earlier time, and so didn’t need to repeat them in this context (since they would have known what he was talking about).
If you read the plain language of the verse (Hosea 6:2 in the Hebrew original), its use of first person plural makes it obvious that it refers to Israel as a whole. Centuries later, Rashi provided a metaphorical interpretation in which the first two days refer to the defunct first two temples and the third day to a future third temple where redemption would finally be achieved.
The early Christians, on the other hand, taking holy writ out of context, claimed it as a prophecy of the messiah’s resurrection on the third day without a shred of justification anywhere in the whole chapter, let alone that specific verse.
But what I find most interesting about the Christian use of that passage is that its near neighbor is another verse, Hosea 6:6, that explicitly contradicts the idea of redemption via sacrifice: “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.” So much for the “Lamb of God” idea, or for justification by faith rather than works, for that matter!
Yes, the early Christians, like other Jews of the time, did not restrict themselves to what an author of the Hebrew BIble may have meant in his own historical context. (YOu find the same thing in the commentaries in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, and in later Rabbinic writings). Interesting point about 6:6.
Hosea 6:6 is THE END of the Christ myth. Christianity cannot coexist with Hosea 6:6. Period. I don’t understand why such an improbable, silly idea as sacrificial salvation still holds such fascination in a modern world. It’s much like Trump still holding away over 10’s of millions of ardent followers when he is clearly delusional and certifiably commitable.
The New Testament is merely literature! It isn’t history at all. Anyone ever thought of that? It is out of step completely with the truth of mastership succession. (To wit: First and Second Apocalypses of James!)
“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,”
This is the interesting part to me. James, the brother of the lord, doesn’t “see” Jesus until all the other brothers have.
I’ll guess you’ve never noticed that all the “James” in the likely original Gospel narrative have a context of physical brothers:
1) James, brother of John.
2) James, brother of Jesus.
3) James, brother of Joses.
Oh wait, what about James of Alphaeus? You’re faded. An earlier Levi of Alphaeus. Implication of same person (father). 4).
Very indirect sure, but I have faith that it is intentional contrivance supporting Paul’s “James, brother of the lord.”
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
The Epistula Apostolorum likely was influenced by Gal 2:11-14, since it names Cephas last. Name order mattered.
Yes, Paul refers to “Peter” and “Cephas” in the same text, but this kind of name switching was common in the ancient world, and Paul does it elsewhere. On 312 occasions Cicero switches between different names for the same person in the same document, without indicating that the same person was in view, and often for no apparent reason. When Timothy and Sosthenes endorse Paul’s letters (2 Cor 1:1 and 1 Cor 1:1) Paul adds weight to those endorsements by using their leadership names. But when Paul wants to show that he and Timothy do not lord it over the Corinthians’ faith (2 Cor 1:24) he switches to Timothy’s praenomen (Titus), which does not carry authority. Similarly, when he wants to avoid honoring Sosthenes for being baptized by Paul, he calls him by his birth name (Crispus). Acts 18:8, 17 does the same name switch.
Evidence that Paul and Luke freely switched between different names for the same person in the same text is published here: Fellows, “Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts” Tyn Bul (2016), which is online here:
https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/67=2016/Fellows-22.pdf
Also see the rebuttal of your paper by Bockmuehl (The Remembered Peter 149) and, of course, Allison.
You will need to engage with all this scholarship in your final post.
THanks for this. Could you summarize for us how you explain the name switch in Galatians 2? THat is, WHY does Paul shift from Cephas to Peter?
Good question. It could just be for reasons of style, or fatigue, but another explanation presents itself.
Translation names were very rare at the time, both among Jews and Gentiles. However, they were common, it seems, among the early Christians who had received new names. Consider Thomas-Didymus, Tabitha-Dorcas, James Δικαιος, and the translation of names in the NT (Boanerges, Barnabas, Elymas). When early Christians received a new name from Jesus or from the apostles, that name was often translated into Greek because its meaning was important. It therefore was likely quite an honour to have one’s name translated. To call Cephas “the Rock” (πετρος) is to endorse him as the rock on which the church was to be built, and as worthy of his name. This may explain why Paul calls him “the Rock” only at 2:7-8, where Peter’s authority enhances Paul’s own authority. Here Paul reports that the pillars endorsed his authority as equivalent to Cephas’s, so Paul affords Cephas the title “the Rock”. At 2:9 Paul is again calling the pillars “the ones seeming”, so he reverts to “Cephas”.
OK, thanks. Cephas is the name he normally uses, so the question is why he then shifts to Petros, and I can’t think of a good reason for it. It’s not clear to me how or why calling him that enhances Paul’s authority.
The rumour that Paul refutes in Galatians is that he is preaching Gentile liberty only to please the Jerusalem apostles. Paul makes exaggerated claims throughout the letter to try to convince his readers that he is sincere and is not just writing to please the Jerusalem apostles. The Galatians will not take him literally (e.g. in 5:12), for they understand that he is making exaggerated claims to try to convince them of his sincerity (whether they believe him or not). See my 2018 article in Biblica. So, while Paul needs to give Peter high authority at 2:7-8, he needs to limit that authority to the mission among Jews. Therefore he words 2:7-8 accordingly. These verses are rhetoric, not history. Peter likely preached to Gentiles too. The Galatians would not have taken Paul literally here.
I don’t see how Paul makes any effort to please the Jerusalem apostles in GAlatians. I would say that it is quite the opposite, he shows no indication of wanting to pleae them at all.
I am saying that in Galatians Paul takes every opportunity to show that he is NOT writing to please the Jerusalem apostles. Bart, you have completely misunderstood me. Clearly you have not read my 2018 Biblica article, and I recommend that you do so. If you do not have access I will send you a copy.
The name switching at Gal 2:7-8 could have been for any of the reasons that I gave (or others). The onus is on you to show that Paul did not indulge in such name switching. Another example is the switch between Gaius (1 Cor 1:14) and Stephanas (1:16) (see my 2016 Tyn Bul paper). There are fewer intervening words between “Gaius” and “Stephanas” here than there are between “Peter” and “Cephas” in Gal 2:8-9.
Perhaps I was not clear. “Rock” is a title that recognizes Simon’s authority. Gal 2:7 reads, “they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised just as Rock had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised.” By calling him “Rock”, Paul emphasizes Simon’s high authority among the circumcised, and implies that he (Paul) had an equally high authority among the uncircumcised.
YEs, I think I maybe did misunderstand what you said in your note, since when I read it, my summary was what it looked like what you were saying. In any event, I wasn’t referring to your published views. But even as you say it here, I’m not sure I get it. On one hand, I don’t think calling Cephas the Rock shows that Paul too is authoritative. Apart from that, could you explain to us the more basic issue of why calling someone “Rock” connotes authority? Today, if we call someone “Rocky” we usually mean something more like he is a tough guy; or a solid guy, since ruggedness and solidity are attributes of boulders. In what sense is “authority” an attribute of a boulder? (Without that connection, I don’t see the basis for saying it is why he switched names in midstream).
There’s no need for us to argue it out to win the debate. I’m happy just for you to air your iews for everyone to see, and like everyone else I’ll be happy to change my mind. THis ain’t a hill I”m willing to die on…
Thanks for the clarifications. Yes, the word Πετρος, without context, does not signify authority.
Matt 16:18-19 clearly connects the naming of Peter with his appointment to leadership. A big part of Peter’s leadership role was to host the Jesus movement in his house. The hosts of Paul’s congregations were their leaders too, and Paul gave them new names (see Tyn Bul 2016), including, presumably, in Galatia. The Galatians also knew Joseph-Barnabas and Titus-Timothy, who were also recipients of leadership names. I imagine that the Galatians would have been interested in where this habit of giving leadership names came from, and Paul and Barnabas would have explained that when Jesus entrusted the gospel to Simon, he gave him the leadership name “Cephas” and that it meant Πετρος. The Galatians would therefore have understood Πετρος as a reference to Cephas and specifically to his appointment to leadership. It is no coincidence that only at Gal 2:7-8 does Paul refer to Peter’s commissioning and only there does he call him Πετρος. Initially the word “Πετρος” may have been connected with Cephas only in discussion of his commissioning/naming. After Paul it may have evolved fully into his alternate name. 200 word limit reached.
1) Between Acts 18:8 and 18:17 we have 18:11 “So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God” so it’s not a good example for the switch of names in Galatians.
2) I found very interesting your reference to “Timothy’s praenomen (Titus) “
I always wondered why Titus is never mentioned in Acts and I “feel” there could be a link I can’t fully grasp between:
Gal 2:3 “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek”
and
Acts 16: 1-3 “where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek..Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area”
Since I consider Acts a work that try to show alternative “readings” for Paul letters (among other goals) this relation may have a special meaning.
Do you know of any serious work about Titus being the same as Timothy?
Concerning Titus-Timothy, my 2018 Biblica article is a good place to start. “Was Titus Timothy?” JSNT 2001 gives a lot of evidence from the Corinthian correspondence.
Thanks a lot !
I finally read your paper and found a reference on Gal 2:3 vs Acts 16: 1-3 !
I have the “theory” that many “weird” passages in Luke/Acts can be explained as the author trying to “fix” some rumours/legends spread in his own times. For instance, the alternative Judas’s death in Acts 1: 16-19 (“he fell headlong, his entrails poured out”) was invented as an explanation of a possible origin for the legend (“Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”) about Juda’s faith that Papias recorded in his lost books
In the case of Acts my “theory” was that there was a “rumour” that Timothy being greek was circumcised, that obviously was at odds with Gal 2:3, so Luke had to explain that Timothy’s mother was Jewess and for that reason he was circumcised.
But after reading your paper I have to consider the possibility of Timothy being Titus , the problem remains with the fact that , following Acts , the “Jerusalem Conference” is in chap 15 and Timothy appears in chap 16.
About the evidence on 2 Cor about Timothy=Titus I have to re-read that letter and then back to your paper.
The Cephas of Galatians is one of the top leaders of the church of Jerusalem. Paul would not have mentioned him otherwise, for Paul’s purpose is to convince the Galatians that his preaching is not influenced by the powers that be. Cephas is one of the three “pillars” and is named head of John, and name order is important. Only Peter would rank ahead of John. If this Cephas is not Peter, then it is surprising that he is not named in the gospels and Acts, and it is also surprising that Peter is not listed among the pillars.
Both “Cephas” and “Peter” were very very rare names and had the same meaning. It would be an unbelievable coincidence to have two people with such names among the top leaders of the church at the same time and place.
Interesting argumentation, and it just goes to show how little I know about the field given this is the very first time I’ve heard anyone dispute that Peter = Cephas!
How common a view is this among scholars? Not that scholarship is a popularity contest, but I’m just curious if this view has made headway.
Not common at all! In fact, remarkably uncommon!
Has anyone pointed out that the use of the phrase “the twelve” contradicts the gospels since there would have been only eleven disciples who would have seen Jesus due to Judas’ suicide?
Ah yes, it’s a big issue. Some thing “the twelve” is simply the moniker for Jesus’ closest group of men disciples, not a literal number necessarily. Kinda like the Big Ten football conference. There are fourteen schools in it.
What are your thoughts that there were never 12 men in Jesus’ closest followers but that the 12 is going back to the idea of 12 tribes?
I think Jesus did choose the 12. And that he did so because these were the new leaders of the new people of God, like the leaders of the 12 tribes.
Ah yes, it’s a big issue. Some thing “the twelve” is simply the moniker for Jesus’ closest group of men disciples, not a literal number necessarily. Kinda like the Big Ten football conference. There are fourteen schools in it.
I accept Allison’s argument that Cephas and Peter are probably one and the same.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1992_allison.pdf
It could a pre-Pauline formula. Nevetheless, I am willing to admit that Galatians 2:7b-8 fits poorly in the context. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1992_allison.pdf
If the choice is between Cephas and Peter being two different people, vs Galatians 2:7b-8 being a Non-Pauline Interpolation (as argued by WILLIAM O.WALKER, JR, CBQ 2003), I prefer the interpolation hypothesis. Given the strong textual support, it has to be a very, very early interpolation.
1) Bart observations about the implausibility of a name change in Gal 2:7-9 are clear and all efforts to explain it (the transcript of a document of the Jerusalem Conference, the fact he address a jew-greek audience so he uses both names, the use of two names by Cicero or in Acts, etc etc) seems no compelling at all to me.
2) Outside this passage in Galatians , all points to the fact that Cephas=Peter and Bart’s efforts to show they were not the same based on the fact that Peter fits more an “apostle to the Jews” role than Cephas did not convince me at all.
So, I also “prefer the interpolation hypothesis. Given the strong textual support, it has to be a very, very early interpolation.”