This post is in response to Peacefulpete's interesting post from my King David thread, which I quote below:
Leolaia...If you look again at 1Cor you'll see Peter is not there only an ebionite named Cephas is. The only reference to "Peter" in any of "Pauline" works is Gal 2:7 and it is an interpolation made for the very reasons being discussed. The fact that all surrounding verses use "Cephus" (who was an early Ebionite) makes this awkward and an obviously distinct hand.
One reconstruction as I understand it is that the protognostic novel like source stories contained no Peter. his character was early on created to disguise the female roles in the tales. Much like the attribution of GJohn to a man. (bear with me as it gets messy) Is has been suggested that a female lover/wife of jesus was in fact the betrayer in the original tale. possibly over jealousy of his involvement with MM a very grateful convert. Her role was then assigned to a male, a trusted confidant to conceal his love interests. Perhaps in the Ebionite form of Matt he was named Peter but it seems more probable that this would have occured first in a Greek community. Either way he became known as Peter.
Later yet this was felt unbefitting the chosen leader of the new Orthodoxy so a 'Judas Ischariot' was invented to be the betrayer. (a character about whom nothing is known other than obligatory introduction of him and a motive inserted into the narrative) His expanded role in the orthodox mission was gradual. Even in Acts we find him second fiddle to James in some episodes. This is likely because of the assumption of Cephas into the Peter character.
I know it's not possible to prove any of this, but this reconstruction seems to adaquately explain the absence of Peter in Paul and the odd narrative stream. It also explains the multiple names given to this composite character, (Symeon,Simon, Cephas) The name Peter in greek (rock) also seems a bit too etiological to not be contrived. (a name not used by any other character).
The stickiest part is the how the Ebionite community understood the role of Peter. Or did their recension of Matt not use the name Peter? Did they like the Nazarites (apparently) interpret many things allegorically so that if Peter was in their story, he was not literalized? The Gnostics of course would have had no problem as Peter was not part of their tradition.
This sounds like a convoluted fringe theory that creates more problems than it solves and is only feasible by dispensing with a good deal of evidence. It appears to reject the extensive body of evidence on Peter's existence and role in early Christianity but favors the existence of a personage of whom there is virtually no evidence whatsoever. Although the claim is that this person was systematically erased from Christian history (a la Akhenaten) and replaced by the fictive Peter, this cannot be assumed a priori -- there has to be some "probable cause" to reason that this is the case and justify the rejection of otherwise relevant evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence on Mary Magdalene, slender though it is, and her relationship with Jesus, but that there was another woman?? Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like she exists only because Mary Magdalene cannot be posited as the person Peter replaces since the two are clearly distinguished in the gospel narratives. I know she is posited because she would be cast as the "betrayer" in the gospels, but that's a stipulation necessary to make the theory work that's not based on any external evidence. Even more serious is that the "betrayal" is taken as a historical matter of fact, which then forms the basis of claiming that the fictive character of "Peter" and then "Judas Iscariot" were invented to camouflage the identity of Jesus' actual historical betrayer, when historians recognize that (like most material in the passion narrative) the betrayal at the Last Supper is based on OT exegetical traditions (in this case, exegesis of Psalm 41:9) and is thus not historical. What is more, "Judas" is obviously original to the story because the betrayal is modelled on the story of Joseph's betrayal by his eleven other brothers in Genesis 37:26-28 wherein Judah (i.e. "Judas" in Greek) convinces his brothers to turn over Joseph to the Ishmaelites and they are paid twenty pieces of silver.
The notion that Cephas and Peter were different people does have some slender patristic support. According to the fourth century historian Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) in the fifth book of his Hypotyposeis claimed that "Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter," and later tradition by the fourth century Dorotheus of Tyre and others made him the bishop of Iconium or Colophon. Unfortunately, the Hypotyposeis has been lost and it is uncertain whether Eusebius was quoting or paraphrasing (accurately or inaccurately) Clement. It is generally thought that the designation of Cephas as someone other than Peter of the Roman church was motivated by the desire to distinguish the orthodox Peter from the "Judaizing" Petrine traditions of the Ebionites (which also circulated under the name of Peter, as Clement also attests), and also to smooth over the differences between the Paulinists and the orthodox followers of Peter -- especially in light of Paul's dispute with Cephas in Galatians 2. Galatians 2:7-8, which switches the name from Cephas to Peter, might well be an interpolation since textual evidence shows that the name elsewhere in the epistle varies between Cephas and Peter in the different manuscripts (1:18, 2:9, 11, 14), while in 2:7-8 the name is consistently Peter. The theory is that after the two verses mentioning "Peter" were added, later copyists tried to harmonize the other occurrence of Cephas with it -- producing the variation between the two names in manuscripts. Plus the content takes the form of a paranthetical gloss. The interpolation theory is quite plausible in this case but it does not show that Cephas and Peter were different people. First of all, the Cephas in Paul's apologia in Galatians 2:11-13 and the Peter in Acts 10:28, 11:1-18 and especially 15:1-12 (the "men from Judea" and "certain friends of James" being the same people who "insisted on circumcision" in both Acts 15:1-2 and Galatians 2:12) are almost surely the same person. Second, Cephas wasn't a small potato if Paul refers to "James, Cephas and John" as "these leaders, these pillars" (Galatians 2:9), and interestingly in Acts, Simon Peter is frequently paired with John (Acts 3:1-26, 4:1-31, 8:14, etc.) and once with James (15:1-21), just as Paul is paired with Barnabas in Galatians 2:9 and Acts 13:46, 50; 14:3, 12; 15:22. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) writing in 1 Clement 5:2-4 alluded to Galatians 2:9 when he referred to Peter as one of the "most righteous pillars [stuloi]," the same word in Galatians 2:9. This indicates that Clement understood that Cephas and Peter were the same person, just as the interpolator to Galatians 2 did as well. Third, the reference to Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 as the first to witness the risen Christ before "the Twelve" matches the account in Luke 24:34 which states that just before Jesus appears to the Eleven, the Eleven announce: "The Lord has risen and appeared to Simon." Although Mark does not have a resurrection appearance, Jesus promises Peter that "after my resurrection I shall go before you in Galilee" (Mark 14:28) and the messenger in Mark 16:7 again promises an appearance to Peter in Galilee. The appearance to Peter in Galilee in John 21 may also reproduce the same tradition, and though the ending is lost, the Gospel of Peter also introduces the same Galilee apperance and presents it as the first resurrection apperance (GPeter 14:58-60). 1 Corinthians 15:5 thus furnishes strong support for regarding Cephas and Simon Peter as the same person. Fourth, the independent tradition in John 1:42 explicitly identifies Cephas with Simon Peter. Fifth, there are minor details -- such as both Cephas and Peter being married (Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Sixth, most significantly and obviously, the names are virtual synonyms both meaning "rock" in Aramaic and Greek respectively (cf. Aramaic kaifa "rock," Greek petros "rock," as in English petroleum and petrify), and onomastic evidence shows that Cephas and Peter were execeedingly rare as names outside the Bible and so the probability that two separate people bore the same name, one in Greek and the other in Aramaic, is quite remote. It is a legitimate question of how much of "Peter" may be a legendary elaboration (in the gospels, in Acts, in later apocryphal works) of the historical Cephas, but I question on the basis of the above that "Peter" arose first as a separate personality from Cephas to mask someone else's identity.
Leaving aside for a moment the implausible notion that Peter was an early Eastern creation to obscure the identity of Jesus' betrayer, Eastern evidence is quite decisive against the idea of "Peter" as purely a Western, orthodox creation. The Gospel of Thomas attests the name "Simon Peter" as one of the Twelve (cf. GThom 13:2, 114:1) who ranks among Matthew, Mary, Salome, and Thomas as the disciples who converse with Jesus and to whom Jesus dispenses his secret wisdom. The Apocryphon of James knows "Peter" (cf. Apoc. Jas. 3:10; 9:1), the proto-docetic Gospel of Peter knows "Simon Peter" (GPeter 14:60), the Fayyum Fragment attests "Peter," and the Gospel of the Ebionites refers to "Simon whose surname was Peter" (GEbi 1). Even more interesting is the fact that Tatian the Syrian's gospel harmony, the Diatesseron (c. A.D. 170), refers to "Simon Cephas" (54:23) -- representing a separate Syrian tradition identifying Cephas with Simon. The Kerygmata Petrou is a second-century commentary on traditional Jewish-Christian teaching that was preserved by Clement of Alexandria and originated most likely in Syria. The Jewish-Christian outlook is strongly Ebionite, viewing Jesus as a prophet recommending limited levitical observance and castigating Paul as an "enemy" of the Church. This is an important source for understanding the significance of Peter in the Ebionite communities of Syria and their esteem of the Petrine tradition over the Pauline. And though the Peter of the Gospel of Thomas and the later Gospel of Mary serves somewhat as a foil for orthodox authority, he also appears as an authority figure in Eastern non-orthodox Christianity and the simplest explanation is that the primitive Jewish-Christian traditions of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt knew him as well. And what motivation would the gnostics, the Jewish Christians, and others had to replace some shadowy female personality with Peter when they were the very ones who rejected inherent male authority and looked to Mary and Salome as important sources of revelation? With their esteem for female revelation, would they have been more likely to preserve the original female identity of Peter -- or even hint at it? Instead, the Gospel of Thomas has Peter asking Jesus: "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life" (GThom 114:1). The rivalry between Peter and Mary in the Gospel of Mary also has a sexist basis when Peter questions why "the Savior has spoken secretly to a woman and not openly so that we would all hear? Surely he did not wish to indicate that she is more worthy than we are?" (GMary 10:3-4). How indeed could these Eastern gnostics base their critique of Western male dominance on a figure who was known to be a female as well -- unless that knowledge had been replaced very early on, even before the early traditions found in the Gospel of Thomas which reflect a time when James the Just was viewed as the central figure of authority. Moreover there is absolutely no trace of the idea that the "Peter" of the gnostic and Jewish-Christian gospels had anything to do with Jesus' betrayal. This should be surprising since (1) their conceptions of the apostles drew less on orthodox characterizations and more on their own traditions and (2) they knew nothing of Judas Iscariot. Indeed, the reference to resurrection appearances to the Eleven in Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14 (the non-Markan addition), Luke 24:9, 33, Acts 1:26, 2:14 and not the Twelve is dependent on the secondary Betrayal story, but earlier statements such as that by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Jewish-Christian gnostic works like Gospel of Peter 14:59 and the Apocryphon of James 2:1-2 mention the Twelve instead -- indicating a possible unfamiliarity with the Betrayal story.
The evidence from the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Ebionites, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and 2 Peter all attest the compound "Simon Peter" or "Symeon Peter," suggesting that Peter and Simon referred to the same person as well -- the "Simon bar-Jonah" of Matthew 16:17, the Gospel of the Nazoreans 16, and other Jewish-Christian sources. Symeon is also identified with Peter in Acts 15:14, and it simply is a more literal rendering of the Jewish name Shim'on, with the 'ayin indicated by the vowel alternation in the second syllable. This is the form of the name in the LXX (cf. Genesis 29:33), while "Simon" is a preexisting Greek name (attested in Aristophanes' The Clouds, written in 419 BC) that because of its similarity with Shim'on was more popularly used to represent that name as well. Considering the rarity of Peter as a name outside Christian tradition and the stories of nicknames of other apostles (cf. Mark 3:17; Luke 6:15; John 11:16, 20:24), the best explanation is that Peter, or originally Cephas, was a nickname that Simon bar-Jonah had, possibly given by Jesus as Mark 3:16, Matthew 16:18, and John 1:42 claim. The translation of Aramaic names like Cephas into Greek is well-attested in the NT. In addition to the example of Peter, we have the nickname Didymus which is the translation of Aramaic tauma or Thomas "twin" (John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2), Huioi Brontes which is a loose translation of Aramaic bene regez or Boanerges "sons of wrath" (Mark 3:17), Ho Zelotes which translates Aramaic qan'an "the Zealot" (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13), and Dorkas which translates Aramaic tabyeta or Tabitha (Acts 9:36).
Double names, such as in the case of Levi Matthew, may genuinely represent conflation of different personalities. But in the case especially of Greek names such as Peter or Dorcus, it was not uncommon for Jews in the disapora to have two or more names. The best known example is that of Saul of Tarsus, who after his conversion adopted the Greek name Paul (< Gk. paulos "small"). Like Peter, Saul was primarily known among the Gentiles under his Greek-derived name, but Luke -- writing of a time long after Paul's conversion -- still refers to the apostle as "Saul who was also known as Paul" [Saulos de, ho kai Paulos] (Acts 13:9), a construction that is reminiscent of "Simon who is called Peter" [Simona ho legemenos Petros] in Matthew 10:2 (cf. Acts 10:18) and especially "Thomas who is also called Didymus" [Thomas ho kai Didumos] in Acts of Thomas 1. Paul gives another example in Colossians 4:11 where he sends the greetings of "Jesus who is also called Justus" [Iesous ho legomenos Ioustos], again an instance of a Semitic name paired with a Greek nickname. The ultimate example of this, incidentally, is that of "Jesus, who is called Christ" [Iesous ho legemenos Khristos] (Matthew 1:16). The predominant use of a nickname like Peter or Cephas by Simon bar-Jonah is also totally understandable since Simon was one of the most common names of the time among Jewish males.
The thing that clinches it for me, I think, is the parallel with Judas Thomas. Like the case of Peter, we have an original Jewish name (Simeon, Judas) that receives an Aramaic nickname (Cephas, Thomas), that is then rendered into Greek (Peter, Didymus). The Gospel of Thomas 1:1 thus refers to "Didymus Judas Thomas," the Acts of Thomas refers to "Judas Thomas" (10, 11), "Judas Thomas the apostle" (54), "Judas who is also called Thomas" [Ioudas ho kai Thomas] (20, 21), and "Judas Thomas who is also called Didymus" [Ioudas Thomas ho kai Didumos] (1), John 11:16 refers to "Thomas who was called Didymus" [Thomas ho legomenos Didumos] (cf. also John 14:5, 20:24-28, 21:2), and finally the Syriac translation of John 14:22 reads "Thomas" in place of "Judas, not Iscariot," understanding "Judas" as Thomas' given name. Conflation with another Judas is possible in later stories that designate Judas Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus (Acts of Thomas 11), on the basis of a Judas being the brother of Jesus and James in Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55 and the mention of "Judas the brother of James" in Jude 1, suggested especially by the existence of a separate tradition that makes Thomas the twin brother of Thaddeus.
So in short, I'm extremely skeptical of the hypothesis that Peter was originated to cover up the identity of Jesus' betrayer and wife (who, if Jesus had one, would have probably been Mary), and while the notion that there were two people named Cephas or Peter holds more water I am ultimately persuaded that the Cephas Paul knew was the same figure as the Peter of the Gospels. A more plausible theory, in my opinion, is that Simon Peter's mission was mainly to Syria and Asia Minor, overlapping somewhat with Paul, and some people sided with Paul and others with Peter (1 Corinthians 1:12). Peter's teaching was more traditionally Jewish-Christian than that of Paul, and was more under the conservative influence of James the Just than Paul (Galatians 2:11-14). One possibility that this Peter visited Rome as Paul did and was caught up in the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Another possibility is that one of Peter's disciples adopted his teacher's nickname and became an early leader of the Roman Church (this is on partial analogy with John the Presbyter and Apostle John, who both lived in Ephesus), and he was the one responsible for 1 Peter (which postdates the Neronian persecution) and the Roman Petrine tradition. Then, just like in the cases of Apostle John and John the Presbyter and Apostle Philip and Philip the Evangelist, this second Peter was confused with the apostle and was used to ideologically establish the authority of Western orthodoxy. The Syrian Jewish-Christian churches, among whom the original Peter had evangelized, reacted to this by either emphasizing the name of Peter as the source of their tradition (such as in the Kerygmata Petrou) or emphasizing their founder as someone distinct from the Roman Peter. This is just a hypothesis, but it explains a lot more than the other theory -- especially how the those in the Eastern churches identified Cephas with Simon and promulgated Ebionite Cephas-type traditions under Peter's name.
The Matthean tradition in Matthew 16:17, which was used be the Western churches to assert their priority, likely originated in this same Syrian context where Q and proto-Matthew developed. The story, when viewed in a Jewish-Christian context, actually means something other than what the orthodoxy purports it to mean. It is drawing on the same exegetical tradition of Numbers 23:9 as found in later rabinnical literature, which states: "Upon Abraham as top of the rocks God said I shall build my kingdom" (Mishnah Yalk. 1.766). The tradition also occurs in Hebrews 11:8-10 which relates that "it was faith that Abraham obeyed the call to set out for a country ... [living] in tents while he looked forward to a city founded, designed, and built by God." The likening of Abraham to the rock on which Zion was built (cf. "from the tops of rocks I see [God]," Numbers 23:9) was ultimately inspired by Isaiah 28:16 where Yahweh promises to rebuild the Temple and "lay in Zion a stone of witness, a precious cornerstone, a foundation stone" (cf. 2 Chronicles 3:1). This notion, and the figurative application to the words "temple" and "foundation stone" to certain people, finds its expression elsewhere in the same Gospel where Matthew has Jesus cite this Isaiah 28:16 to refer to refer to himself (21:42) and Jesus then mentions figuratively the rebuilding of the Temple in 26:61. Like Abraham, those with true faith and righteousness serve as the foundation stones, walls, and pillars of the Kingdom of God and the formation of a following of believers of the Kingdom is like the building of a Temple where God may dwell with his believers as he dwells in the literal Temple (Matthew 23:21). It is exactly in this same sense that the Qumrun Community Rule refers to believers as "the temple for Israel and ... Holy of Holies ... the tested wall, the precious cornerstone whose foundations shall never be shaken nor swayed" (8:5-9). Matthew has Jesus declare Simon bar-Jonah as "the rock" right when he confesses Jesus as the Christ -- it is his faith that turns him into a foundation stone. The story may have itself originated in an Aramaic-speaking context, where the words "I shall build" (ybny) in Matthew 16:18 probably constitute a pun on "stone" (bn) -- a pun that was lost when the story was written in Greek.
The story thus declares Simon Peter as a believer, and in its current form delegates authority to Peter by giving Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (16:19). This focus on authority, especially the giving of the keys of heaven, is probably a secondary feature of the pericope. In the Gospel of Thomas version of the same story, Jesus gives secret wisdom to the confessor -- not authority (13:1-8). The focus on authority probably developed later on as it became more important to appeal to apostolic authority. The saying on "binding and loosing" is separately attested in Matthew 18:18 and here it is given to all the disciples and has nothing to do with a particular individual's authority but refers to the authority of the whole body of followers to permit and forbid what they see fit. "Binding and loosing" is actually a rabbinical term that refers to the power to "forbid and permit" and conceptually derives from the belief of the Law tying up or releasing a forbidden object from divine censure. It was used by the Sanhedrin to express their authority over interpretation of the Law. Rejecting the authority of such "official" law-givers, Jesus instead declares that his followers have the authority to discipline and forgive others, regardless of the official penalties. But Jesus makes absolutely clear that this authority does not exalt any particular follower over others:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, and every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my midst, there am I in the midst of them....Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger....But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant, whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 18:15-20; 23:1-12)
It does not appear likely, then, that the original meaning involved an exaltation of Peter. There is some evidence that the earlier story about the naming of "Peter" had a different context. The naming story in Matthew 16 occurs in a sort of competition among the disciples to best characterize Jesus and Peter is singled out by his faith -- this gives him precedence over the disciples. John's version of the naming story however occurs in an altogether different context: Peter was named at his conversion, and he and his brother Andrew were among the very first discples of Jesus (John 1:40-42). This context fits even better with the "cornerstone" motif -- Peter, as one of the very first disciples, is declared the foundation stone simply because he is the forerunner of those who would later join the movement. It is quite possible, then, that the earlier version of the naming story had Jesus declare Peter his "foundation stone" because he was one of the earliest followers, and later this story was dislocated, embellished, and moved to a point later on in Jesus' ministry in order to exalt Peter as the foremost of the apostles Jesus had chosen. This earlier version may itself be unhistorical and the name could have arisen from the fact that "Cephas", the "Rock," was the first or one of the first to witness the risen Christ and thus had a significant role in getting the "Church" started; on this view, Peter might have been given his nickname by his converts who saw him as the foundation of the new, growing Church -- in much the same way as Paul calls Cephas one of the "pillars" of the Church (Galatians 2:9). But of course, the reasons behind the name are probably lost to history.