Cephas (according to Paul)

[gryan]

Cephas from 1 Cor 15:5 is probably Cleophas, or Simon (son of) Cleophas from Luke 24:34. Same confusion is probably found in the Epistle of the Apostles:

We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and [Simon?] Cephas...
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Apoc ... e_Apostles

Hi AdamKvanta,

I'm pondering this list you shared:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Apoc ... e_Apostles

"John" is listed first among the writers. I take him to be the "John" of Galatians 2:9, and the brother of the "James" named fourth in the above list (James and John, the sons of Zebedee).

"Cephas" is named last. The first and the last on any list garner our attention. I take this to be the "Cephas" of Galatians 2:9 (James and Cephas and John), listed there together with John—"...Cephas and John."

The listing of both "Peter" and "Cephas" seems to indicate two individuals, contradicting the simple identification of Cephas in Galatians 2:8 with the Peter of Galatians 2:7-8 as found in the Western manuscript tradition (Codex 06 and the Old Latin).

I favor the Western textual identification of Cephas with Peter, partly based on John 1:42,

[Andrew] brought him to Jesus, [who] looked at him [and] said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter).

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος

It is interesting to note that in John 1:45, we see the story of "Nathanael," another name that appears in the list of apostles sending the letter. Notably, "Nathanael" is in the place where the canonical, and expected, name is "James son of Alphaeus," leading some to suspect that Nathanael is another name for James son of Alphaeus:

viewtopic.php?t=9325

I'm pondering all this.The author of The Epistle of the Apostles grapples with interpretive issues in Galatians in a way that parallels (and competes with) literary echoes of Galatians in the Gospel of John. My own project is to reconstruct the version of Galatians that influenced the New Testament writers, and while I take non-canonical works into account, I favor those literary echoes that became canonical as more likely indications of the version of Galatians they knew.

I'm of the opinion that the mention of "Peter" in Galatians 2:7-8 was due to interpolation of a marginal note, written in the early second century by someone other than Paul, but accurately reflecting Paul's view of the situation in Antioch. I think the note was composed with the assumption that ["Simon"] "Peter" (the inscribed author of 1 Peter)=Cephas, as the Gospel of John indicates.

Nevertheless, the naming of both Peter and Cephas in the Epistle of the Apostles suggests that the author of this epistle (mistakenly) understood Peter in Galatians 2:7-8 and Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (in a version of Galatians like ours, with the "Peter" Galatians 2:7-8 confusingly included without explanation) as two distinct people.

[AdamKvanta]

"Cephas" is named last. The first and the last on any list garner our attention. I take this to be the "Cephas" of Galatians 2:9 (James and Cephas and John), listed there together with John—"...Cephas and John."

I'm not sure I understand, do you think Cephas from Galatians is Simon the Zealot? If not, don't you think we are missing Simon the Zealot in that list if Nathanael is James, son of Alphaeus? I'm just asking.

[gryan]

"Cephas" is named last. The first and the last on any list garner our attention. I take this to be the "Cephas" of Galatians 2:9 (James and Cephas and John), listed there together with John—"...Cephas and John."

I'm not sure I understand, do you think Cephas from Galatians is Simon the Zealot? If not, don't you think we are missing Simon the Zealot in that list if Nathanael is James, son of Alphaeus? I'm just asking.

To the first question: "do you think Cephas from Galatians is Simon the Zealot?"
No.

To the second question: "If not, don't you think we are missing Simon the Zealot in that list if Nathanael is James, son of Alphaeus? "

I note that the Wikipedia page on Simon the Zealot says, "The second century Epistle of the Apostles (Epistula Apostolorum), a polemic against gnostics, lists him [Simon the Zealot] among the apostles purported to be writing the letter (who include Thomas) as Judas Zelotes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the ... te_note-21

The Epistle of the Apostles writes: "We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write"

If Nathanael=James son of Alphaes, and Judas Zelotes=Simon the Zealot, then this follows the Lukan order:

Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

— Luke 6:14–16

It is a puzzle.

[AdamKvanta]

If Nathanael=James son of Alphaes, and Judas Zelotes=Simon the Zealot, then this follows the Lukan order:

Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

— Luke 6:14–16

But then we are missing Judas the brother of James (or Thaddeus) so that explanation is not satisfying to me.

That Wikipedia page also says, "Certain Old Latin translations of the Gospel of Matthew substitute 'Judas the Zealot' for Thaddeus/Lebbaeus in Matthew 10:3." So if we take Matthew order and substitute "Judas the Zealot" for Thaddeus/Lebbaeus then we have all 11 apostles:

"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus Judas the Zealot; Simon the Cananaean [Zealot], and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

- Matthew 10:1–4

[gryan]

If Nathanael=James son of Alphaes, and Judas Zelotes=Simon the Zealot, then this follows the Lukan order:

Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

— Luke 6:14–16

But then we are missing Judas the brother of James (or Thaddeus) so that explanation is not satisfying to me.

That Wikipedia page also says, "Certain Old Latin translations of the Gospel of Matthew substitute 'Judas the Zealot' for Thaddeus/Lebbaeus in Matthew 10:3." So if we take Matthew order and substitute "Judas the Zealot" for Thaddeus/Lebbaeus then we have all 11 apostles:

"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon the Cananaean/u][/b], and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

- Matthew 10:1–4

I suppose in the mind of the author of Epistle of the Apostles, the one named Cephas in gJohn was Simon Peter (Peter in Gal 2:7-8).

Then he [Andrew] brought him [Simon, his brother] to meet Jesus. Looking intently at Simon, Jesus said, "Your name is Simon, son of John--but you will be called Cephas" (which means "Peter"). (Jn 1:42)

And also, in the mind of the author of Epistle of the Apostles, the Cephas (of Galatians) named last in the list of the 12 is gMatt's Simon the Cananaean.

Correct? Would you care to elaborate on the implications of this?

[AdamKvanta]

So, in that scenario, the author of Epistle of the Apostles, interpreted Peter and Cephas in Galatians as two different members of gMatt's 12: Simon Peter and Simon the Cananaean.

Is that what you are saying?

I don't know if the author of Epistle of the Apostles even knew about Galatians. But it is my interpretation that Peter (brother of Andrew) from the Epistle of the Apostles and Cephas in Galatians are the same person. And I think Cephas from the Epistle of the Apostles was meant to be Cleophas (from Luke) but it got corrupted to Cephas. And I identify Cleophas (or his son) with Simon the Zealot.

If so, I suppose in the mind of the author of Epistle of the Apostles, the one named Cephas in gJohn was Simon Peter (Peter in Gal 2:7-8), not Simon the Cananaean/Cephas.

Yes, I think, Simon Peter, the brother of Andrew, was called Cephas in gJohn and this is also the Cephas of Galatians.

So, in the mind of the author, the Cephas named last in Epistle of the Apostles is Simon the Cananaean, aka Judas of James/ Thaddeus/Lebbaeus. And he is also the Cephas of Galatians!

Correct?

That is not correct in my opinion. I agree that Cephas named last in Epistle of the Apostles is Simon the Cananaean. But I don't agree that Cephas is Judas of James/Thaddeus/Lebbaeus. It seems obvious to me that Judas Zelotes is Judas of James/Thaddeus/Lebbaeus (because both are Judas). And as I said previously, I think Peter is the Cephas of Galatians.

[John2]

And I think Cephas from the Epistle of the Apostles was meant to be Cleophas (from Luke) but it got corrupted to Cephas. And I identify Cleophas (or his son) with Simon the Zealot.

I think you might be on to something here. I've never known what to make of this reference to Cephas in the Epistle of the Apostles, but your suggestion "feels" right. Otherwise Simon the Zealot would be missing from the list and we'd have to keep explaining why Peter and Cephas are different people here unlike everywhere else (more or less). It just seems simpler to say it's a corruption of Cleophas, that something was lost in translations into Coptic and Ethiopic.

[AdamKvanta]

I think you might be on to something here. I've never known what to make of this reference to Cephas in the Epistle of the Apostles, but your suggestion "feels" right. Otherwise Simon the Zealot would be missing from the list and we'd have to keep explaining why Peter and Cephas are different people here unlike everywhere else (more or less). It just seems simpler to say it's a corruption of Cleophas, that something was lost in translations into Coptic and Ethiopic.

Thanks, you summarized it perfectly. What do you think about my other proposition that the same corruption of Cleophas to Cephas happened in 1 Cor 15:5?

[gryan]

.

Peace be with you all! What I personally sorely miss is a middle position that accepts 1 Corinthians and Galatians as authentic and the text without interpolations, but classifies the Gospels, Acts, and other early writings on Cephas/Peter as late literary legends without sufficient historical value.

So I would very much like to read a scholar's work on Cephas based solely on the Paulines. Does such a thing exist?

In any case, I would like to explore the question here, although unfortunately there is not much to investigate. I will also say what seems to me the most reasonable explanation for why Paul chose the name "Petros" instead of "Cephas" in Galatians 2:7,8.

This thread is exploring a middle position that accepts:

1) 1 Corinthians and Galatians as authentic (the text without interpolations).

2) The Gospels, Acts, and other early writings (for example, Epistle of The Apostles)--on Cephas/Peter--as late literary legends without historical value.

3) Cephas based solely on the Paulines.

What is the most reasonable explanation for why
Paul chose the name "Petros" instead of "Cephas" in Galatians 2:7,8?

[gryan]

.
Thanks to everyone for contributing material, opinions, arguments ... It takes a little time to organize everything sensibly and to respond, but I'll come back to it.

As mentioned in the OP, I'm more interested in the question of what can be read from Paul's letters about Cephas if I ignore all other writings. Even though it's certainly difficult to erase "Simon Peter" in my head.

At first glance, this question seems somewhat boring, but I think that some points are actually quite interesting if you emphasize them explicitly and become aware of them.

I'll start with the first:

The material about Cephas in Paul's letters is not very extensive and only consists of a few verses. These points nevertheless concern several cities and places that geographically span a large area from Asia to Europe: Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, Corinth.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul only mentions “Cephas,” from which one can safely conclude that the Corinthians knew which person was meant by this name. One could, for example, ask whether this name is primarily Paul’s own word usage and whether the Corinthians knew who was meant but were actually thinking of “Petros” the whole time.

But that does not seem to be the case if one takes Paul’s words literally.

1 Cor 1:12
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

The Corinthians themselves are said to have used the name “Cephas” when talking about this person. In Europe, this person was named "Cephas" at that time.

Paul then mentions in chapters 3 and 4 that he is the founder of the community in Corinth. He planted and Apollos watered. Paul and Apollos were therefore personally in Corinth. Cephas is not mentioned in this context. This may indicate that, according to Paul's knowledge, Cephas was not yet in Corinth and that the majority of Corinthians probably do not know Cephas personally.

Nevertheless, some Corinthians see this "Cephas" as a more important leading figure than Paul or Apollos. He must have been very famous.

Kunigunde, your insightful analysis of Cephas in Paul's letters raises fascinating questions about his identity and influence. Building on your observations, I'd like to explore a hypothesis regarding the name change from Cephas to Peter.

Galatians 2:11 states, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned."

What if, in the window of time between the Antioch incident and the writing of Galatians, the "self-condemned" Cephas had penned a letter in support of Paul and signed it "Peter"?

Could it be that the name change in Galatians 2:7-8 refers to Cephas in his identity as the letter writer, "Peter"?

Galatians 2:7-8
"...seeing 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 his apostolic ministry to the circumcised
worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),

and knowing the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, the ones recognized to be pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

This picture of "Peter" seems generally positive, aligned with the right hand of fellowship from Cephas to Paul. There is a sense of a division of labor and mutual affirmation between Peter and Paul. This makes sense if their relationship had warmed up subsequent to the incident in Antioch.

In support of interpreting "Peter" as the pen name of Cephas, we have the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter, written in a tone very supportive of Paul's gospel. The second epistle even speaks of Paul explicitly as a letter writer and "beloved brother."

There is no need to suppose Cephas wrote these exact letters quickly, but he very well could have written letters that became the rough prototypes for the subsequently re-written, refined letters signed "Peter."

So, in this reconstruction, Galatians 2:7-8 gives a glimpse of the occasion when Cephas became more widely known as Peter—the first letter Cephas wrote in support of Paul's gospel was signed "Peter".