Cephas / Peter

THE NAMES PETER AND CEPHAS

In Christian tradition the name Cephas is an alternative pseudonym for the disciple known as Peter or Simon Peter.

The assumptions are:

1. Cephas is the latinized form of the name Kephas which appears in the original Greek of the New Testament. It is usually taken as representing an Aramaic name Qepha meaning 'rock'.
   
   
2. Peter derives from the latinized form of Petros which also appears in the Greek New Testament.
   
   
3. The two names are cognate, Kephas representing a transliteration of the original Aramaic name Qepha and Petros a translation.

However is this a valid assumption?

Evidence from linguistics

The Greek transliteration Kephas is an excellent match for the Aramaic word for 'rock', Qepha. The addition of the final 's' merely signifies the nominative case as is usual in Greek transliterations. However the spelling Petros is not a precise match for the Greek word for 'rock', which is petra.

This does raise the question that if 'Peter' is supposed to be derived from a translation of Qepha why the name is not given in Greek as Petras. The ending 'as' would be a perfectly acceptable masculine ending as found in other male names, e.g. Andreas (Andrew).

There is a classical Greek word petros on which the name could be based assuming it was still current in the period in question. However petros does not mean 'rock', but 'stone', i.e., a fragment small enough to be thrown. If the name Peter is derived from this meaning of petros it might have the connotation of impediment (as in a stone on which one trips) or retribution (a stone that is thrown).

None of the above proves anything either way about the relationship between Peter and Cephas.

The translation of Qepha

Mark is usually (but not always) seen as the earliest Gospel. Even if this is not the case the reasoning below can be applied to whichever Gospel is taken to be the earliest.

In writing his Gospel, Mark would have had to have sources, some possibly oral, some written. The name Peter must have come down to him in some form or other.

If we accept the primacy of Mark, and the hypothesis that the other evangelists knew and made use of Mark, the other evangelists would naturally have used the Greek version they found in Mark. They would not necessarily even have been aware it was a translation.

There is no reason why Mark or any of the Synopic writers would have seen any potential problem with the name Petros as the letters of Paul were not known outside the Pauline communities until the late 1st Century. It is only John who appears to see any difficulty with the distinction between Peter and Cephas, but his Gospel is late. (See John 1:42 below.)

So is Mark copying a genuine name Petros which he found in his sources? Or copying a name which had already been translated into Greek? Or translating the Aramaic name Qepha he found in his sources? Or even deliberately obfuscating the real name by translating it in order to separate 'Simon Peter' from the real Cephas for theological reasons?

Clearly we cannot know the answer to those questions. However the fact remains that if Petros was a translation of Qepha it would have taken only one such translation to propogate the name Peter throughout the New Testament texts.

Evidence from Paul

Cephas is mentioned several times in Paul's letters but the name Peter occurs only once. That is in Galatians 2:7-8.

(6) And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those leaders contributed nothing to me. (7) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (8) (for he worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), (9) and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hands of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (10) They asked only one thing, that we should remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. (NRSV)

There has been a great deal of dispute over this passage, and although some suggestions are ingenious, there is no one explanation that is accepted by all. In brief, either the passage is genuine (in which case Paul is departing from his normal practice of using the name Cephas), or 7-8 is an interpolation, or the name Peter is a later alteration for Cephas.

My own view is that 7-8 is unlikely to be an interpolation as usually interpolations are relatively simple whereas here the text is complicated. However it is very unlikely that the text we have is as it was when Paul wrote it, and it is probable that the names have been changed.

To support this view it should be born in mind that in some of the Pauline manuscripts that have come down to us there are instances of Peter being used where the main manuscript tradion has Cephas. In producing the modern critical Greek texts (on which all recent translations are based) these readings have been rejected as later redactions. However the use of Peter in Galatians 2:7-8 has been allowed to stand because it appears in all known manuscripts. But the fact that there have been other changes from Cephas to Peter does point to a trend and adds weight to the possibility that a change also took place in Galatians 2:7-8.

However a name change from Cephas to Peter does not explain all the problems. If a redactor changed Cephas to Peter, presumably it was because he had not made the connection Cephas=Peter and in his view was correcting an error. So why did he leave in place the references to Peter's role being limited to 'the circumcision'?

Unfortunately one can only speculate as to what Paul actually wrote.

However the name Peter cannot be assumed to be original, and therefore the text does not provide proof that Peter and Cephas were distinct individuals.

Evidence from John

The only occurrence of Cephas in the Gospels is in John 1:42. Here John makes the explicit identification that Simon Peter = Cephas.

(40) One of the two who had heard John [the Baptist] speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. (41) He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Annointed). (42) He brought Simon [Greek: him] to Jesus, who looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John. You are to be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter). (NRSV)

John is probably one of the latest of the Gospels, if not the latest. Verse 1:42 demonstrates that John is aware of the tradition that Simon Peter is the same person as Cephas. However Cephas and Simon Peter were probably dead long before John was writing. John's text is based on tradition rather than fact.

Conclusion

None of the above evidence is conclusive, but it does not rule out the possibility that Cephas was Peter.

Essentially it comes down to a value judgement. Personally I find the following convincing:

1. In the New Testament Peter is portrayed as a weak character and something of a trimmer. At Gethsemane he falls asleep while Jesus prays, and he denies that he knows Jesus after Jesus has been arrested. This correlates well with the character of Cephas we find in Paul. In Galatians 2:12 Cephas infuriates Paul when he changes his attitude towards mixing with Gentiles under pressure from the men who came 'from James'.
   
   
2. The names James and John appear in both the Synoptics and the Pauline letters, but Cephas appears only in Paul. If Cephas was historically such a major player in the proto-Christian community, one would have expected to find his name in the Synoptics. Instead one finds the name Peter.
   
   
3. There are similarilites between Paul's Cephas and the Synoptics' Peter. Both are recorded as having witnessed the risen Jesus, and both are recorded as being married.
   
   
4. All references to both individuals show them in a Jerusalem context. They have the same sitz im Leben. (This is based on the assumption that Peter is not identical with Simon the brother of Andrew. See article Simon / Peter.)
   
   
5. I find it unlikely that a Jew in an Aramaic-speaking enviroment would choose to be known within religious circles by a Greek pseudonym. Outside of his own environment, say in Hellenistic circles, the answer may be yes, he might use such a name. But the traditions about Peter originate from a Jewish religious environment. Within these traditions, and especially Jewish-Messianic traditions, a meaningful Aramaic name such as Qepha would have real significance and be much more likely.
   
   

I therefore assume that Peter and Cephas are identical, that his real name was Qepha (or similar), and that Petros is a later translation made in a Gentile environment, probably by Mark or one of his sources.