Bart D. Ehrman (1990) - Cephas and Peter. Journal of Biblical Literature 109.3, Pp. 463-474

Cephas and Peter
Author(s): Bart D. Ehrman

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 109, No. 3 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 463-474
Published by: Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267052
Accessed: 15-11-2015 01:54 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical
Literature.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:54:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 109/3 (1990) 463-474
CEPHAS AND PETER

BART D. EHRMAN
Universityof NorthCarolinaat ChapelHill, Chapel,NC 27599-3225
Most ancient authors who discuss the relationship of Cephas and Peter
explicitly identify the two, or at least speak of Peter when referring to NT
passages that name only Cephas. This is not at all surprising, given the un-
equivocal statement of John 1:42: "Youare Cephas (which translated means
What is surprising is that other early Christian authors, all of whom
'Peter')."
also knew and used the Fourth Gospel, refused to make this identification
and asserted either explicitly or by implication that there were in fact two
different persons, one called Cephas, the other Peter?This dissenting opinion
is striking for both its antiquity and its persistence. How ancient is it?
I. Evidence from the Early Church

The idea of two separate persons first occurs in the first half of the second
century in the Epistula Apostolorum. The author of this pseudepigraph
opposes a docetic kind of Christology by penning a letter, ostensibly written
after Jesus' resurrection by the eleven remaining disciples, in which he
repeatedly affirms both the fleshliness of Jesus and the doctrine of the resur-
rection of the flesh. Since this author otherwise makes repeated use of the
Fourth Gospel, he must have known that "Cephas"and "Peter"refer to the
same person. This makes it all the more striking that in his own delineation
1 The matter has been given serious consideration by Kirsopp Lake, "Simon, Cephas, Peter,"
HTR 14 (1921) 95-97; Maurice Goguel, La Foi la rdsurrectionde Jdsus dans le Christianisme
primitif (Paris: Leroux, 1933) 272-75; Donald W Riddle, "The Cephas-Peter Problem, and a
Possible Solution,"'JBL59 (1940) 169-80; and Clemens M. Henze, "Cephas Seu Kephas Non Est
Simon Petrus!"Divus Thomas 61 (1958) 63-67. Not surprisingly,most modern discussions have
chosen to ignore or to slight the possibility. Oscar Cullmann, for example, is content simply to
dismiss it, without argument, as a "completely unfounded idea" (Peter:Disciple, Apostle, Martyr,
trans. Floyd V. Filson [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953] 18 n. 7).
2 See the article by H. Duensing in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New TestamentApocrypha
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 1. 189-227; for other literature on the dating, see Bruce M.
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament:Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1987) 180-82.
3 As scattered examples, see the allusion to John 1:13 in Epistula Apostolorum 3, the sum-
mary of John 2:1-11 in chap. 5, the quotation of John 10:38 in chap. 17, and of John 13:34 in
chap. 18.
463
464 Journal of Biblical Literature
of the eleven disciples he names Cephas and Peter as two distinct individuals
(Epistula Apostolorum 2).
Somewhat later in the second century, Clement of Alexandria expresses a
similar opinion. In book 5 of his Hypotyposes, a work now lost but cited for
us by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 1.12.2), Clement maintained that Peter was one
of the Twelve, who later became one of the three styloi of the church in
Jerusalem, whereas Cephas was one of the seventy disciples whom Jesus had
sent out in Luke 10. In construing the relationship of Cephas and Peter in
this way, Clement may well have initiated the tradition that is still preserved
in a number of ancient documents that list the names, and sometimes the
salient activities, of the early apostles. Many of these apostolic lists situate
Peter among the disciples but Cephas among the seventy; most of them
allege that it was Cephas whom Paul opposed in Antioch. The documents in
question span some eight centuries, and in some cases, but not all, they
evidence clear literary interdependence. Thus, in a third-century list wrongly
ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome, Cephas is named as the fifty-first of the
seventy apostles4 This is clearly not the same person as Peter, one of the
Twelve. Similarly,about a century later, Pseudo-Dorotheus makes Cephas the
fifty-first apostle and indicates that he became the bishop of Iconium after
being rebuked by the apostle Paul in Antioch? Essentially the same informa-
tion is provided at a later date, perhaps as late as the ninth century, in the
apostolic list of Pseudo-Epiphanius,6who in addition to naming Simon Peter
as one of the Twelve, cites as the forty-fifth of the seventy apostles Cephas,
"Peter's who was rebuked by Paul prior to assuming the bishopric
namesake,'
of Iconium. It is also worth noting that an appendix to this work cites the
opinion of Clement of Alexandria, previously reported in Eusebius, that
Cephas, "the namesake of Peter,' was one of the seventy.'
Later apostolic lists that perpetuate this tradition are found in the follow-
ing sources: (a) The Chronicon Pascale, a seventh-century sketch of history
from Creation to the twentieth year of the emperor Heraclius (629 CE). Here
Cephas is called Peter'snamesake and is said to have been confronted by Paul
over the matter of Judaizing. (b) The ninth-century Codex Sinaiticus
Syriacus 10? The list of the seventy apostles in this MSclaims to derive from
none other than Irenaeus. Here it is stated that Cephas, the fourth of the
seventy, was stoned to death in Antioch. (c) The tenth-century list wrongly
ascribed to the Byzantine hagiographer Symeon Logothetes.1 Cephas is
4"On the Seventy PG 10, cols. 956-57.

Apostles,'
5See Theodore Schermann, Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae: Indices ApostolorumDiscipulo-
rumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio,Hippolyto, Allisque Vindicata (Leipzig: Teubner,1907) 141.
6 Ibid., 124.
7 Ibid., 128.
8 PG 92, col. 521.
9 Schermann, Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae, 219.
10 Ibid., 182.
Ehrman: Cephas and Peter 465
named as the forty-ninth of the seventy apostles and is said to have later
become the bishop of"Koloneias.' (d) An anonymous medieval Greek-Syriac
index of the apostles.1 This index makes Cephas the fourteenth of the
seventy apostles and specifies that Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius had
previously shown that this is not "the Great Peter" (6 tdyoca flrqpoq).
It should be noted that certain features of these apostolic lists suggest that
the distinction between Cephas and Peter was being perpetuated on more
than the literary level, that is, that the tradition existed outside of the lists
themselves. The lists all differ in numerous ways; rarely is Cephas assigned
the same number within a list, and in virtually every case something dif-
ferent, great or small, is said about him. These admittedly slight pieces of
evidence are in any case corroborated by the statements of several church
fathers, including Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom, who note the tradi-
tion of two persons, Peter the disciple and Cephas one of the seventy, only
in order to discount it. Jerome's comment can be cited as representative:
"Sunt qui Cephan, cui hic in faciem Paulus restitisse se scribit, non putant
apostolum Petrum, sed alium de septuaginta discipulis isto vocabulo nun-
cupatum" (Comm. Gal. 1.2). Probably to be included among these "others"
who make such a claim is none other than Eusebius of Caesarea. Here the
Greek-Syriac apostolic list mentioned previously serves to alert us to what
has otherwise been generally overlooked. Eusebius not only claims that
Clement of Alexandria differentiated between Cephas and Peter; he does so
in such a way as to indicate that he himself agrees.1'2
And that is not all. In addition to our earliest availablewitness, the Epistula
Apostolorum, there are other sources that distinguish Cephas from Peter
without, however, making him one of the seventy. Thus, the Egyptian Apo-
stolic Church Order, in a way that is reminiscent of the Epistula Apostolorum,
but independently of it, names Cephas as one of the Twelve along with
Peter.3 These two, together with the other disciples, present moral and
ecclesiastical advice to the church in a series of speeches delivered in turn.
All told, Peter delivers four short speeches and Cephas three. While this
document itself dates to the late third or early fourth century, A. Harnack
has demonstrated its reliance on earlier sources, including its list of the
Twelve which may well date to the second century14
A different kind of attestation altogether occurs in the Armenian Ecclesi-
astical Calendar, which mentions Cephas on March 25 and asserts that this
11 Ibid., 174.
12 In Hist. eccl. 1.12, Eusebius states that he has seen no catalogue of the seventy apostles,
although he has heard, from a variety of sources, that among them were certain individuals
known from other contexts: Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, and Thaddeus. He gives no
indication that he doubts any of these identifications.
~3 See Theodore Schermann, Die Allgemeine KirchenordnungFriihchristliche Liturgien und
Kirchen Oberlieferung,Erster Teil (Paderborn: Ferdinand Sch6ningh, 1914).
14 Adolf von Harnack, Lehre der Zwolf Apostel (TU 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1884) 193-241.
apostle was in fact a disciple of the apostle Paul (!).5 Somewhat more difficult
to construe is the interesting reference in the Pseudo-Cyprian tractate De
rebaptismate (late third century) to the earlier work known as the Praedicatio
Pauli (De rebaptismate 17). In an effort to discredit this apparently Gnostic
work, the author cites several of its aberrant traditions, including its report
that Paul and Peter came to be acquainted with one another in Rome, only
after the Apostolic Conference in Jerusalem, in which Paul and the other
evangelists met and decided how to proceed with the Christian mission.
Since the passage clearly refers to either Acts 15 or Galatians 2, and since
both chapters mention the role of Peter and/or Cephas in this conference, the
conclusion seems to be unavoidable that in the view of the Praedicatio Pauli
it was only Cephas who attended the conference, while Peter was unknown
to Paul until nearer the end of his life in Rome.
To sum up the evidence from the early church: From the early second cen-
tury on, a number of sources maintain that Cephas and Peter were two
different persons. Some of these sources claim that both belonged to the
Twelve, others place Peter among the Twelve and Cephas among the seventy,
yet others leave the matter unresolved. A natural question that now arises is
how or why this tradition came into being.
II. Explanations for the Tradition

We have already shown that it cannot be argued, as one might be inclined
to do otherwise, that this tradition derives simply from the ignorance of
Christians who did not realize that Kephasand Petrosare translationalequiv-
alents.6 All of the sources we have discussed, beginning with the Epistula
Apostolorum, are fully cognizant of the Fourth Gospel, in which the iden-
tification of Cephas and Peter is made unequivocally.
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 other-
wise unknown person in Antioch. At the same time, none of the sources that
draws this distinction actually makes anything of it-that is, 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
15
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul'sEpistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1890) 30.
16 That they are not precise equivalents is well known. For details concerning the probable
derivation of the two epithets, see Cullmann, Peter, 17-20.
'7 In addition to the more recent commentaries, see, e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 128-30.
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 on this point, particularly when
we bear in mind that Paul is 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).
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 to 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.
III. 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:
7Whenthey [those "ofrepute"]saw that I had been entrustedwith the
gospel to the uncircumcised,just as Peter had been entrustedwith the
gospel to the circumcised8(forhe who workedthroughPeterfor the mis-
sion to the circumcisedworkedthroughme also for the Gentiles),9and
whentheyperceivedthe gracethatwasgivento me,JamesandCephasand
John,who were reputedto be pillars,gave to me and Barnabasthe 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. 918 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 ingenious19 Indeed,
18
"Cephas"has been changed to "Peter"in P46, D, F, G, 629, 1175, a, b, r, and several other
witnesses.
19 See the positions enumerated by Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979) 96-97.
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 Kephasis 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 identifica-
tion themselves. To the contrary,any sensible reader would assume that they
were different persons.
Among recent scholars, the most popular explanation for Paul'suse of the
name "Peter"in Gal 2:7, 8 but "Cephas"in 2:9 is the view that was proposed
independently by Cullmann and Erich Dinkler and developed subsequently
by both Dinkler and Giinther Klein.Y 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 nineteen
hundred 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. Apart from the inherent improbability that Paul
has-without warning or indication-inserted a fragment of such a docu-
ment, partly recalled (or discovered among his papers!),21 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 was 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
20 See
Cullmann, Peter, 18; Erich Dinkler, "Die Petrus-Rom-Frage,"TRu n.F 25 (1959) 198;
idem, Signum Crucis:Aufsaitzezum Neuen Testamentund zur christlichen Archiiologie(Tiibingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1967) 279-82; Giinter Klein, "Galater 2, 6-9 und die Geschichte der Jeru-
salemer in Rekonstruktionund Interpretation:Gesammelte Aufsaitzezum Neuen
Urgemeinde,'
Testament(Munich: Kaiser, 1969) 106-7, 118-19.
In addition to these studies, the view has been accepted, with some reservations, by Betz,
Galatians, 97; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (14th ed.; Kritisch-exegetischer
Kommentar fiber das Neue Testament 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 77; and
in part by Ulrich Wilckens, "Der Ursprung der Oberlieferung der Erscheinungen des Aufer-
standenen: Zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Analyse von 1. Kor. 15,1-11,":' in Dogma und Denk-
strukturen (ed. Wilfried Joest and Wolfhart Pannenberg; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1963).
21 Paul, of course, does incorporate a number of creedal and hymnic fragments in his
writings, as well as other materials that are clearly "traditional"'But the former are readily
discerned by their balanced cadence, their unusual vocabulary and construction, and, often,
their non-Pauline theological slant (e.g., Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 15:3-5). The latter are
patently marked as such (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23-26). Naturally,Paul can never be shown to quote an
earlier source in a passage that is thoroughly Pauline in vocabulary, construction, and thought.
has demonstrated, these two verses are permeated by characteristically

Pauline words and phrases: with the accusative occurs only in the
enet?•aeur•?t
Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 9:17; 1 Thess 2:4; and, from the Pastorals, 1 Tim
1:11;Titus 1:3);22 the contrast between &xpopuo?aor and is with only
npt~p•t'O
one exception in the writings of Paul and his followers,23 as is the term
C&toato and the term and its cognates permeate the Pauline
,1;24 evepy•tv
corpus (34 times), occurring outside of it but twice, once in a tradition shared
by Mark and Matthew and once in James.25
The only real exception to the Pauline character of these verses is the name
"Peter"itself.26 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 Con-
ference lapsed into Pauline jargon (e.g.,
etE•GtsEU tL) when framing its con-
clusions, 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 probability27For 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
farfetched for modern sensibilities, it can at least serve to explain the genesis
and perpetuation of the tradition we have sketched.
But the evidence of Paul has not been exhausted by this consideration of
22
Wilckens, "Der Ursprung der Uberlieferung,"'72 n. 41.
23 The exception is Acts 11:2-3.
24 With the
exception of Acts 1:25.
25 Mark
6:14; Matt 14:2; Jas 5:16.
26 Apart from the phrase
"'tOeU~yyiE'ov tij &xpoua-ro; . . . [TOe•ayyiXtov] TJ;77rUptCoEjl?,"
which is sometimes interpreted as referring to "gospels"of different contents and therefore taken
to be non-Pauline, or rather anti-Pauline, in character. (As is contended, e.g., in Klein, "Galater
118 n. 3.) But clearly this is not what the phrase means to Paul, as if he suddenly forgot what
2,'
he had written in 1:6-7; and there is no reason to assume it ever meant that. Naturally,a Chris-
tian proclamation to pagans would include information and emphases different from that
preached to Jews: no Jew would have to be persuaded to "turn from lifeless idols to serve the
living and true God" (1 Thess 1:10)!But this does not in itself require a "different"(meaning "con-
trary")gospel.
It should be noted also that the words of the phrase in question are themselves Pauline, as
is the sharp contrast of &xpopudratand It will hardly do to claim that since the words
7reptro•t.1.
are never combined elsewhere in Paul that they thereby evidence his dependence on an earlier
source. What strange results would accrue if all thirty-one hapax legomena found in Galatians
were made to bear such a burden!
27 See Betz, Galatians, 96-97.
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 some-
thing 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:
3ForI deliveredto you as of first importancewhat I also received, that

Christdied for our sins in accordancewith the scriptures,4thathe was
buried,that he was raisedon the thirdday in accordancewith the scrip-
tures, 5andthat he appearedto Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Thenhe
appearedto more than five hundredbrethrenat one time, most of whom
are still alive,thoughsome havefallenasleep.7Thenhe appearedto James,
then to all the apostles.8Lastof all, as to one untimelyborn,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.s Although there is
some dispute concerning the extent of the creed itself- that is, 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 that were instrumental in the establish-
ment 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 iden-
tical). The lists conclude with witnesses that are perhaps to be construed as
guarantors of the tradition: the five hundred believers, who, Paul observes,
are for the most part still alive, which suggests 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
28
For the following discussion, in addition to the more recent commentaries, see Reginald H.
Fuller, The Formation of the ResurrectionNarratives (New York:Macmillan, 1971);and John E.
Alsup, The Post-ResurrectionAppearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition(Calwer Theologische
Monographien 5: Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975) 55-64, and the literature cited there.
two lists, what significance can be attached to their respective first members,
Cephas and James? Perhaps these two are singled out because of their impor-
tance in establishing the church in Jerusalem. But in that case one wonders
why John, the other is not also mentioned. More commonly it is
a•5Xog,
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.9 This view has a good deal to be
said for it, but it is made difficult by Paul'sinsistence 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.0
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, con-
verted? 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 indi-
cate that Cephas is being construed as an individual member of the group
mentioned subsequently. It can at least be stated with some confidence that
29
Thus, e.g., Wilckens, "Der Ursprung der Oberlieferung,' 70-72.
30 Another point to be considered against assuming that the parallel between the first two
members of these respective lists, the individuals Cephas and James, consists in their relation-
ship with the groups mentioned subsequently, is that the parallel between the second members
of the lists (the "Twelve"and "allthe apostles") do not reside in their relationship with the third
members (the five hundred and Paul).
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.
What now of Paul'sother references to Cephas? Here the one thing that
cannot be overlooked is that, taken at least on face value, they appear to stand
somewhat at odds with what we know about Peter's role in the early Christian
church, at least as Paul describes it in Galatians. There Paul states explicitly
that Peter was entrusted with the "apostolateto the circumcised,"just as he
himself had been given the apostolate to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:8). This
must mean that as Paul was committed to evangelizing Gentiles, Peter was
committed to evangelizing Jews (whether in Palestine or abroad). This makes
Paul's other references to Cephas curious indeed, if in fact they are to be
taken as references to Peter.
Consider first the situation, puzzling as it has proved for interpreters over
the ages, that occurred in Antioch: the confrontation of Paul and Cephas.1
Whatever the precise nature of the dispute, and whether it was Paul or
Cephas who got the better of the argument, it is perfectly clear from what
Paul tells us that Cephas was in Antioch associating with Christians who had
been converted from paganism. Why he was doing so Paul does not say. But
in any case it seems to be an unusual thing to do for someone who was
dedicated to evangelizing non-Christian Jews. Why is he not in the Jewish
mission field rather than among Gentile churches?32 And why would it
require a delegation from Jerusalem to inform him- him, the PalestinianJew
trying to win Jewish converts - that eating with Gentiles might compromise
his mission? Would a Jew seeking Jewish converts "live like a Gentile" and
"not like a Jew" (Gal 2:13) while doing so? I doubt whether we will ever have
a fully satisfactory answer to these questions, but I cannot help but note that
if in fact this person is not the one entrusted with the apostolate to the cir-
cumcised, there is no problem as to why he does not seem to be doing what
he had been appointed to do.
Somewhat less persuasive, but nonetheless worthy of note, is Cephas's
possible relationship with the converted pagans who comprised the church
in Corinth. Whether Cephas had actually visited Corinth, of course, has been
hotly debated. Here it is not necessary to delve into all the problems asso-
ciated with the party slogans of 1 Cor 1:12 and 3:22, "I am of Paul, I am of
Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ:' It is enough to note that of the three
Christian leaders mentioned here, two of them, Paul and Apollos, had clearly
ministered among these converted pagans.Tomy mind, there is no compelling
reason to doubt that the third had as well. The Corinthians certainly seem
31 In addition to the commentaries, see, e.g., George Howard, Crisis in Galatia (Cambridge:
University Press, 1979) 21-28, and the literature he cites there.
32 This is not to
question, of course, whether the church in Antioch was a mixed congregation.
It clearly was. The issue, however, is why Cephas as a missionary to non-Christian Jews would
be spending his time with converts from paganism.
to know something about Cephas's activities. This much can be assumed on

the basis of 1 Cor 9:5, in which Paul does not appear to be giving his readers
new information about Cephas but rather to be presupposing that they
already knew that he was accompanied on his journeys by his wife. Had he
made a stop among the Corinthian congregation? If so, it must have been an
influential visit, if indeed some members of the congregation are claiming a
personal allegiance to him as a leader or teacher over the one who estab-
lished their church. But if this is the case, it is again puzzling that the one
thing Paul says about the ministry of Peter is that it focused on evangelizing
non-Christian Jews, while every time he mentions Cephas it is in association
with converts from paganism.
IV. Summary and Conclusions

The tradition that Cephas and Peter were two different persons is both
very ancient and remarkablypersistent. The tradition is explicitly attested in
the early second century and may well have been derived from our earliest
sources for the life and work of the apostles, the NT documents themselves.
Using these writings, an early Christian could have concluded that among
Jesus' followers were two with similar epithets: Cephas, one of the pillars of
the church in Jerusalem, and the disciple Peter, later an evangelist among the
Jews.3 What, though, about the historical question: Was Cephas Peter?
None of the witnesses that deal with the issue from the second century
down to the Middle Ages can be construed, of course, as primary evidence,
one way or the other. But in point of fact there is only one primary witness:
the apostle Paul, the only writer from antiquity whom we know beyond
reasonable doubt to have been personally acquainted with Cephas. Paul's
testimony must be construed as prima facie evidence and cannot be dis-
counted because of what is said in later sources, written by those who did
not know that may seem to attend to
Cephas,34or by general improbabilities
33 An obvious objection to our thesis, that the NT documents themselves can account for the
tradition that Cephas and Peter were two different persons, is that one of these documents, the
Gospel of John, actually identifies the two. But even a close reading of John 1:42 does not
necessarily preclude the possibility that we have two persons going under the same epithet
among Jesus' early followers. This is manifestly demonstrated by Origen in his commentary on
John. Origen notes that it is difficult indeed to reconcile the Johannine account of Peter's call
(chap. 1) with that found in the early part of Mark (Comm. Jn. 10.8.31).He observes not only
that the accounts themselves are radically different but also that in Mark Peter does not
recognize Jesus' identity and receive his nickname until halfway through the narrative,whereas
in John all this transpires in his very first encounter with Jesus. For Origen, of course, this kind
of literary tension did not require some kind of historical resolution, such as the view that
Cephas and Peter were in fact two different persons. Rather, it showed the need to go beyond
the literal to a spiritual interpretation of the divinely inspired text. All the same, it bears noting
that a careful reading of the Fourth Gospel does not in itself require the view that there was
only one person named Cephas/Peter.
34 For example, the Fourth Gospel. Although I agree with J. Louis Martyn ("Glimpses into
the case?5 Although it may be unfortunate that Paul did not explicitly differ-
entiate between Cephas and Peter, he could hardly have been expected to
do so, any more than he could have been expected to state that James, one
of the two other Jerusalem ai6Xot, was not the son of Zebedee?6 All the same,
we can no longer afford to overlook the peculiar results of this study. When
Paul mentions Cephas, he apparently does not mean Simon Peter, the dis-
ciple of Jesus?7
The implications of this conclusion will be obvious to anyone who has
worked at any length with the NT materials. For those who have not, we can
simply mention the following: (1) Paul would not have gone to Jerusalem,
three years after his "conversion"(Gal 2:18-20), in order to learn more about
the life of Jesus from one of his closest disciples, Peter. Instead, he would have
gone to confer with Cephas, a leader of the Jerusalem church, perhaps con-
cerning missionary strategy. (2) Peter may not have even been present at the
Jerusalem Conference in which Paul's Gentile mission was approved and
sanctioned (Gal 2:1-10). (3) No longer would we know if Peter was accom-
panied by his wife on his missionary journeys (1 Cor 9:5), nor whether he
visited Corinth. (4) The confrontation at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) would not
have been between Peter and Paul, that is, between Jesus' closest disciple and
his most avid apostle. It would have been between a Jerusalem and a Pauline
form of Christianity,pure and simple. (5) Finally, there would remain no NT
evidence of Peter's presence in Antioch, where tradition ascribes to him the
first bishopric (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.36).
the History of the Johannine Community,"in L'Evangilede Jean: Sources, ridaction, thdologie
[ed. M. de Jonge; BETL 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977] 149-75; reprinted in his Gospel of John
in Christian History [New York:Paulist, 1979]) that John 1:42 is embedded in a pericope that
goes back to the earliest stages of the Johannine community, there can be no doubt that the
verse as it has come down to us, with its Greek translation of Aramaic terms, is a much later
composition, made any time down to the final redaction of the Gospel, perhaps as late as the
end of the first century.
35 Viz., the improbability that two of Jesus' closest followers were given the same nickname,
a nickname that is previously unattested. This problem can be accounted for on other grounds.
See especially Riddle, "The Cephas-Peter Problem"; see also n. 38.
36 The natural tendency to think of Galatians' three pillars-James, Cephas, and John-in
terms of the Gospels' "inner group"of disciples - "Peter,James, and John"- may itself have con-
tributed to the popular identification of Cephas as Peter in Gal 2:8-9.
37 It is impossible, of course, to reconstruct the events that would have led to two of Jesus'
early followers sharing an unusual nickname. But there is one other curious piece of evidence
to consider: the tradition presupposed by the author of 2 Peter,who calls himself "SimeonPeter":'
What is odd, of course, is that the proper name is given in its Aramaic form, whereas the
nickname is translated into Greek. Why is it not "Simeon Cephas" or "Simon Peter" (as in fact
several MSShave made it!)? Admitting the hypothetical nature of any suggestion, it could be that
the nickname of Jesus' disciple Simeon (Simon, "the brother of Andrew")was not bestowed on
him until after the death of Jesus, perhaps among the Hellenistic Jews he had converted in his
mission "to the circumcised" In this case "Kephas"would have been the nickname of one of
the three styloi of the early Jerusalem church, a man converted to faith in Jesus soon after the
crucifixion by some kind of vision of the resurrected Lord (1 Cor 15:5).

Bart D. Ehrman (1990) - Cephas and Peter. Journal of Biblical Literature 109.3, Pp. 463-474

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bart D. Ehrman (1990) - Cephas and Peter. Journal of Biblical Literature 109.3, Pp. 463-474

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cephas and Peter

Author(s): Bart D. Ehrman

CEPHAS AND PETER

I. Evidence from the Early Church

4"On the Seventy PG 10, cols. 956-57.

II. Explanations for the Tradition

III. Cephas and Peter in Paul

it is safe to say that most commentators have simply overlooked, or rather

has demonstrated, these two verses are permeated by characteristically

3ForI deliveredto you as of first importancewhat I also received, that

to know something about Cephas's activities. This much can be assumed on

IV. Summary and Conclusions

You might also like