spamandham

I would say it's up to the person making the claim that they are the same person to prove that to be the case. The fact that these names mean the same thing does not imply they are the same person. Galatians certainly reads as if they are 2 different people, and so I see no reason to assume Peter=Cephus. If Paul does not provide reason to presume Peter=Cephus within his writings, and the text in question makes more sense if they are seperate people, then why would I add an assumption about what Paul 'meant' that complicates the issue?

But Peter is not one of the pillars unless Peter=Cephus, which hasn't been shown.

spamandham

oooh. Thanks!

TedM

I am of this opinion for these reasons:

The names mean the same thing and from what I recall it was not a common name. It is unlikely therefore that there would have been two significant figures in early Christianity with the same uncommon name.

That's it. For me that is the be all and end all about the matter.


As for Paul's writings, I think 2:7-8 is either an interpolation or a sloppy change by a later writer of Cephas into Peter. Why he wouldn't have changed the other references is beyond me. If I recall correctly, Paul doesn't refer to a Peter anywhere else, but does reference Cephas in 1 Cor a number of times. It also seems unlikely that Paul would reference this significant Cephas figure several times in letters (and as having been the first to see the resurrected Jesus AND as having had followers!) and never this later gospel Peter who was portrayed in very much the same way in the gospels and in Acts as Paul portrays Cephas had there been both a Peter and a Cephas. Common sense must rule here.

SO, to me, Cephas existed and the gospel references to Peter were talking about that same Cephas person. It appears to me that the PRIMARY reason to think they were 2 different people is the fact that Galations refers to each name without qualification, and that is NOT sufficient to overcome the improbabilities mentioned above.

ted

hatsoff

Just for clarification to anyone reading this, even if the word "Peter" appears only in an interpolation (and I am not yet agreeing it was an interpolation), the Apostle Peter is mentioned elsewhere in Galatians and also in 1 Corinthians.

spamandham

Peter does not appear anywhere among the authentic Pauline writings outside the two mentions in the early part of Galations. We're talking about a total of two sentances that refer to Peter in all of the writings of Paul. In other places, it is simply assumed that Cephas=Peter, including 1 Corinthians.

But as far as I know, there is no basis for assuming that Paul's Cephas was the same person as Paul's Peter.

jakejonesiv

The mention of Peter in Gal. 2:7-9 is indeed an interpolation.

The link to
The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Galatians 2:7-8 by Ernst Barnikol has already been mentioned above. This is an English translation of 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).

A more recent (and in English) study arrives at the same conclusion.
William O. Walker, Jr., "Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation," CBQ65 (2003): 568-87.

There are also ancient traditions that Cephas and Peter, despite similarity of names, were not the same individual.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi hatsoff,

Again, I will refer you to Barnikol who examines the textual evidence and concludes that, in the Pauline corpus, Cephas was the original name in all Pauline passages except Gal 2:7-8.

Perhaps you are relying on an English translation for finding Peter in 1 Cor. 15:5. But even the NIV admits that the underlying Greek is Cephas. Click this Link.

Jake Jones IV

hatsoff

I'm quite sure there are reasons to believe they are the same. I am currently investigating to see if those reasons are convincing when compared to the opposite argument.

hatsoff

On the basis of internal evidence alone, I find the interpolation unlikely (at first glance). We have three possibilities:
1) Paul alternated between Cephas and Peter, leading to copyist confusion, and thus the present state of textual evidence. (This seems most likely to me.)
2) Paul used Cephas, and some copyists chose to translate it to Greek rather than keeping the Aramaic form. This led to confusion, which led to the state of textual evidence today.
3) Paul used Peter, and some copyists chose to back-translate it to Aramaic, possibly to maintain continuity with 1 Corinthians. (This seems least likely to me, but remains a possibility.)
4) Scribes inserted two verses which used Peter, leading to copyist confusion, and thus the present state of textual evidence.

That I would very much like to hear more about. Can you provide specific ancient quotations?