|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cephas or Peter
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
All four gospels tell us that Simon was renamed by Jesus as Peter or Cephas (Peter being the Greek form and Cephas the Aramaic version).
Now only in John's gospel do we find the word "Cephas" - the other gospels (and Acts) just use "Peter", which might indicate that this was how he was known. So why does Paul, his letters to the Galatians and Corinthians, use "Cephas" instead of "Peter"?
Fours times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians. What makes it more puzzling is that Paul also used "Peter" in Galatians, in the midst of using "Cephas".
quote:
What I mean is that each of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." (1 Cor 1:12)
quote:
So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours,whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all belong to you, (1 Cor 3:20&21)
quote:
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (1 Cor 9:5)
quote:
...and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:4&5)
quote:
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; (Gal 1:18)
quote:
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 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles) (Gal 2:7&8)
quote:
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 hand of fellowship,(Gal 2:9)
quote:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
(Gal 2:11)
quote:
But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal 2:14)
So what do people think? Is Paul using "Cephas" to make a point? Or was this the way that "Peter" was actually called amongst his Aramaic speaking friends and companions?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was recently reading and noted a couple of interesting little snippets;
The word Κηφᾶς is a transliteration from aramaic (cephas). But then (maybe) so is Καϊάφας (Caiaphas) - which we mostly recognise as the nickname of Joseph the High Priest in the passion story.
But actual Greek name of Peter is Πέτρος (Peter), and the epistle in the name of Peter uses this rather than Cephas.
Galatians 2:8 uses Peter and the next line uses Cephas, suggesting they're not the same person. Perhaps a stretch to think it referred to the High Priest, but seems like it could have been almost anyone.
[ 05. February 2015, 20:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The theory is that the Greek word(s) were transliterations (makes sense to me) but there doesn't seem to be much doubt to me that Cephas and Petros are used in the same verse in Galatians. That seems like a very odd thing to do if it is talking about the same guy.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Though it can happen--I switch back and forth between "x" and "your Dad" when talking to my son, and I've heard conversations where my husband (who has about four names) gets referred to as A, B, and C at various points. Though it is odd, and confuses the hearers.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
So we're saying Peter was so regularly called both Petros and Cephas that Paul just mixed the words up? That seems to beggar belief - but of course YMMV.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
They are simply two different translations of the same nickname--In America he'd be "Rocky," if we hadn't had "Peter" already. In a multilingual community, yes, I can see how people might swap back and forth all the time. Even in my own community pretty much everyone has two names, one for Vietnamese and one for English. And if you are speaking in a context where the hearers are bilingual, it's not surprising when you hear both names used--even in the same conversation.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
If Paul had been utterly consistent in using "Cephas", I could understand that (although it wouldn't explain why everyone else seemed to use the Greek form rather than the Aramaic).
But it is the way that he switched between "Cephas" and "Peter" in a short passage of Galatians that especially puzzles me.
My initial (and rather tentative) explanation is that Paul (for whatever reason) preferred to use "Cephas" instead of "Peter". But in Galatians, in the midst of a rather heated section, he unthinkingly switched to "Peter" and then back again.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm not sure this is a resolvable point. As far as I'm concerned, the simplest explanation of the Galatians passage is either that Cephas and Peter are different people in the Galatians passage (which may or may not have some resonance on the other epistle uses you mention) - or that for some reason the word Cephas or Petros was added later.
Who knows.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So we're saying Peter was so regularly called both Petros and Cephas that Paul just mixed the words up? That seems to beggar belief - but of course YMMV.
Why not? Are you bilingual, by-the-way? For those of us who are, it's very easily done.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
When writing (or more likely dictating) a letter, you slip from using a name in one language to a name in another - even though there is no evidence that you do this in any of your other writing?
In our cultures, we do not normally meet people with different names in different languages, but I think this is a pretty unlikely explanation of what happened here.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Snow
Shipmate
# 16363
|
Posted
F.F. Bruce:
Why this change to" Peter" when" Cephas .. has been used in
the preceding narrative and is used again in the following
narrative? The most probable answer to this question is that
suggested by O. Cullmann and E. Dinkler, that the passage
containing the name " Peter" is an extract from a more or less
official record of the conference,3 the reference to Paul being
changed tothe first person singular so as to integrate the quotation
into the contextual construction. This suggestion is not free
f(om difficulties, but it is more free from them than any counter~
suggestion. If we accept it, then Paul repeats the gist of the
quotation in his own words in verse 9 :
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bjrl/problems-5_bruce.pdf
--------------------
http://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/
Posts: 62 | From: S. Dak./ Romania | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
That's just a guess. I think the simpler explanations are those I suggested above.
Even if there is an official name used in an official document (of which, of course, there is no actual evidence that it ever existed), I don't think you would naturally change names in the same sentence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<cross-post with about half a dozen posts!>
Simon bar-Jona was first called "Kepha" in Aramaic by Christ, which then in a Grecized transliteration became "Kephas" for dominantly Greek-speaking followers of Christ, and which finally was translated into the Greek "Petros" by meaning, and from there became a common name by virtue of the popularity of the apostle. From a linguistic point of view this chain makes perfect sense. Evidence that "Petros" was indeed the same Simon comes directly from Acts 10:5, and from 2 Peter 1 if you believe the attribution of authorship. Furthermore, the split of duties mentioned by St Paul in Galatians 2:7-8 for "Petros" is reaffirmed in Galatians Galatians 2:9 for "Kephas" and provides the very basis for the famous confrontation of St Paul and "Kephas" in Galatians 2:11. All this makes perfect sense if "Petros" and "Kephas" are the same person, namely Simon bar-Jona.
Anyhow, best I know the name "Petros" - rather than using this word used to indicate some kind of "stone" - did not exist in Greek prior to Christian usage. Or at least it was such a rare name as to not have been documented in our Greek sources. (I'm happy to be corrected on this one though, I haven't found a strong affirmation from an authoritative source on the quick.) Furthermore, the very fact that a transliteration "Kephas" was used strongly suggests that "Petros" as name was uncommon. Otherwise it would have been the obvious Greek choice. Therefore, the suggestion that we have a second high profile Christian, of whom we know nothing but that he has the same name as Christ invented for Simon, which either just had been translated into Greek or was a lucky match to a very rare name, is just not believable at all.
The most obvious explanation is indeed what Lamb Chopped said, namely an easy moving between different names in different languages for the same person among multilingual people. That this occurs is also my experience (mostly with Asians). Another possibility could be that St Paul intentionally switched to a different version of Simon's "nickname", which may have just been gaining popularity among Greek-speaking Christians. The point could then have been exactly the opposite of what is being suggested here, namely to make sure that everybody understands that St Paul is talking about one and the same person. The switch to "Petros" from "Kephas" then would be intended for the hearers who have started to prefer the former over the latter. That's possible, though I think LC's comment is more likely. At any rate, I consider it exceedingly unlikely from all available evidence that St Paul is talking about two different people here.
[ 06. February 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip>So what do people think? Is Paul using "Cephas" to make a point? Or was this the way that "Peter" was actually called amongst his Aramaic speaking friends and companions?
It is pretty clear from the other contexts in which Paul refers to Cephas, that he identifies that name with the same person we usually know as Peter, so unless we have some reason for believing the person referred to in Galatians 2 is another Peter, then Paul is talking about the same person. This is the only place where Paul describes him as Peter. (In Acts he is never described as Cephas.)
It isn't easy to discern any unequivocal rhetorical reason for this from the text. We're into the realms of pure speculation. Perhaps it is nothing more than a slip of the tongue on Paul's part, or a slip of the pen on the part of the amanuensis, and if it is a distinction without a difference, then there was no reason to 'tidy it up' for the sake of uniformity.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
