hatsoff

I admit I am new to this subject. Why, it was just this past Monday I realized the two names were also different in the original Greek. Anyway, here's what I see:

1) Peter is the Greek word for "rock;" Cephas is the Greek transliteration for the Aramaic word for "rock."
2) Paul tells us Cephas was the first of the Twelve to see Jesus risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:5); Mark tells us Peter was meant to be the first of the Twelve to see him (Mark 16:7).
3) I can't find any ancient testimony which differentiates Peter from Cephas

So, what's the case against Peter-Cephas unity?

Ben C Smith

The Epistula Apostolorum (middle of century II) distinguishes between Peter and Cephas. It reads in section 2:

We -- John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas -- write to the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, declaring and imparting to you that which concerns our Lord Jesus Christ.

Eusebius writes of Clement of Alexandria in History of the Church 1.12.2:

Η δ ιστορια παρα Κλημεντι κατα την πεμπτην των υποτυπωσεων εν η και Κηφαν, περι ου φησιν ο �*αυλος· Οτε δε ηλθεν Κηφας εις Αντιοχειαν, κατα προσωπον αυτω αντεστην, ενα φησι γεγονεναι των εβδομηκοντα μαθητων, ομωνυμον �*ετρω τυγχανοντα τω αποστολω.

And there is a story from Clement in the fifth of his Hypotyposeis in which he also says that Cephas, concerning whom Paul says: But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples, one who happened to have the same name as Peter the apostle.

Hence the debate.

Ben.

hatsoff

Okay, so is it just me, or does it seem *much* more likely that those two authors were simply confused by the transliterated usage of the Aramaic than that there were two important Christians named "stone/rock"?

TedM

For me, if it can be shown that the name was quite uncommon, then the debate is over, because it would be unlikely to have TWO significant figures in the early church with an uncommon name. I recall reading once here that the name WAS uncommon.

ted

Amaleq13

According to the Gospels, it was a nickname for Simon (something not mentioned anywhere by Paul) so that would mean there was one prominent Christian named "Cephas/Peter" and one nicknamed "Cephas/Peter".

S.C.Carlson

For more information about this topic, please see:

Bart D. Ehrman, "Cephas and Peter," JBL 109 (1990): 463 - 474.

Dale C. Allison, "Peter and Cephas: One and Same," JBL 111 (1992): 489 - 495.

James M. Scott, "A question if identity. Is Cephas the same person as Peter?" Journal of Biblical Studies 3,3 (2003) pdf online.

In my view, the later patristic evidence for Peter and Cephas as separate individuals is part of an effort to come up with names for the 70 disciples mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

TedM

Sorry, but I don't see how this is relevant.

Amaleq13

I have to assume you haven't given it much thought, then.

One is a name that was presumably given at birth while the other allegedly resulted from the individual's participation in the "cult". That these different origins of the name should influence any attempt to estimate the probability of two such names occurring in the same "cult" should be obvious.

Two babies given the same possibly rare name joining the same "cult" vs one baby given a possibly rare name joining the same "cult" as a man who was given that possibly rare name as a nickname due to his devoted following of the leader. Clearly, these two scenarios would involve different calculations if one were to actually attempt to derive probability statement.

TedM

Oh no, not probability again! I guess one would need to look at how probable it would be for the leader of a cult to give someone an uncommon nickname as opposed to one of the many other appropriate common nicknames AS WELL as the probability that ANOTHER prominent leader of the cult ALREADY had this nickname and NO ONE early on--none of the gospel writers NOR PAUL commented on such a strange situation having existed NOR that there were even two such individuals.

SO, to me, even though there may be a different probability that parents as opposed to a cult leader would choose a particular uncommon name, it still seems like such a choice as well as the absence of early corroberation that there was ALREADY a different prominent member with such a name seems quite unlikely.

ted

jakejonesiv

Aside from Gal. 2:7-8, Peter (Petros) is never mentioned in the Pauline epistles. In all other cases a certain Cephas (Kephas) is mentioned.

Since Gal. 2:7-8 is a likely interpolation *, this leaves zero references to Peter in the Pauline material.

In the gospels, we have Peter and never Cephas.

*William O. Walker, Jr., "Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation," CBQ65 (2003): 568-87.

Ernst Barnikol, Der nitchtpauline Urspung des des Parallelisms der Apostel Petrus und Paulus (Galater 2.7-8), Forshungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums, des Nueun Testaments und der Kirche (Keil: Muhlau, 1931).
English transalation here.

Barnikol's study concludes with the following
Jake Jones IV