Simon, Peter, and Cephas.

[robert j]

Why, in your estimation, does Mark give Cephas/Peter the name Simon?

Honestly, I don't think I have given the issue adequate study to address that.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why, in your estimation, does Mark give Cephas/Peter the name Simon?

Honestly, I don't think I have given the issue adequate study to address that.

Thanks for your candor.

[spin]

Secret Alias and Charles, what do you make of spin's position that Cephas more likely started with a qof, not a kaf (and thus had nothing to do with rocks), in its Semitic origin?

Don't expect them to get off their asses and check for themselves. It's such a difficult task. You know... looking through—say—BDB, noting all the names beginning with KAF and QOF and seeing how they are transliterated into Greek. This research business is just so hard.

I'm coming to agree with the neuro-linguist George Lakoff, who explained that logical argument and evidence has very little to do with getting people to understand the concepts you present. If it doesn't comfortably fit into a pre-existent frame*, the ear becomes a linguistic trampoline: ideas don't penetrate, they bounce back. How many times have I tried to explain the difference in the use of kurios as demonstrated in "the lord says to my lord"? It doesn't matter, the same dull uncomprehending responses just keep showing the explanatory time was wasted. I've given quite a few examples regarding KAF/QOF, but it was just pissing into the wind. I didn't expect Bernard to understand, but I had hoped it might penetrate other readers' noggins. I don't want people to believe me, but to look at the evidence and evaluate it. That's where Lakoff indicates that I'm going about it all wrong. It doesn't work the way I go about it. It's like the Brecht play about Galileo with priests refusing to look through the telescope. You have to provide a value-added reason for the priests to look. Why else should they go against all their training and predispositions?

This is a drive-by. I've basically given up any hope of conviviality. I just get dragged into useless conflicts—something that I get into too easily.

---

* For Lakoff "frame" is a technical term for the aggregation of thoughts around a specific notion. An example of a frame is the "hospital" frame, which links doctor, nurse, patient operation, scalpel, cut examine, diagnose, ward, bed, emergency, admit, release, consult, check charts, run tests, visit a patient, uninteresting food, etc. A whole array of ideas are yoked together into a frame. We have very many frames that we use regularly. Politicians try to manipulate frames so as to change or reinforce people's opinions and voting habits. To change a frame requires persistent retraining: that's why you hear politicians using snappy phrases over and over, phrases that often repackage an idea so that it sounds better, more appealing. It's not a matter of just hearing and understanding: the brain's wiring needs to change and that happens outside your consciousness and over time. "War on terror" sounded like a needed thing with a noble end, rather than a grubby resource push. Terror is not something we do. They do it. Terror is bombing hospitals, though not when we do it. The war against Iraq was badged in the frame concerning terror and our role to fight it. Lakoff was enamored with the phrase "tax relief", which overlaps two frames, the one about taxes and the other about hardship (and the relief of it), so taxes get categorized as something we have to struggle against, but conservatives can provide relief! No sense of civil duty to pay taxes here! Frames, you must understand how they work.

[Charles Wilson]

Don't expect them to get off their asses and check for themselves.

Hey! I Did.

[MrMacSon]

• later blended together into an amalgam

• as one entity: Peter? of the NT (the Pauline epistles and the Synoptics and other texts)?

As one entity: Peter/Cephas/Simon, seen as an apostle to the Diaspora (1 Peter 1.1), a pillar in Jerusalem (Galatians 2.9), and a disciple of Jesus (Mark 3.16), but in reality three different individuals combined into one (for reasons rather easy to imagine: to make the apostle an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, for example).

1 Peter 1:1-3
"1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead..."

2 Peter 1,2
"1 Simeon/Simeon-Peter, a doulos/servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

1 Peter has been aligned with Polycarp to the Philippians -

The epistle known as Polycarp to the Phillipians has numerous allusions to NT epistles, making it likely that the author had some kind of collection available to him. There is a list of NT parallels available online. But the one epistle that the author seemed to have liked to use most was First Peter. The use is clearly evident, as shown in these examples.

"Therefore, girding your loins, serve God in fear" (Polyc 2:1 / I Pet 1:13)
"believing on him who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave him glory" (Polyc 2:1 / I Pet 1:21)
"not returning evil for evil or abuse for abuse" (Polyc 2:2 / I Pet 3:9)
"every passion of the flesh wages war against the Spirit" (Polyc 5:3 / I Pet 2:11)
"who bore our sins in his own body on the tree, who committed no sin, neither was guile found on his lips" (Polyc 8:1 / I Pet 2:24)

Yet despite his fondness for I Peter, the author does not provide the slightest allusion to II Peter.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

I'm not sure if that is Peter Kirby's commentary, but the commentary goes on -

..nowhere does Irenaeus quote or mention a second epistle of Peter, which is quite odd if Irenaeus' collection included this epistle, for it has so much juicy material that Irenaeus would not hesitate to use against his heretical opponents. Irenaeus would have many occasions to use II Peter in his extensive refutations ...

I will briefly discuss Wallace's points. Despite the hopeful allusion-hunting of Picirilli, Polycarp and Irenaeus show that II Peter wasn't known in the second century church although I Peter was. The self-identification of the author as "Symeon Peter" provides no evidence one way or the other. II Peter does indeed show signs of hellenization as mentioned by Kummel above, and in any case Jewish Christians were not obliterated c. 70 CE. The construal of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" as presenting a significantly lower christology than "our Savior and God Jesus Christ" borders on the absurd. Both expressions refer to Christ with the terms Savior and God, and thus the christological expressions are equivalent. Indeed, critical scholarship recognizes the appelation of Jesus as Savior or as God to be a second century phenomenon, and thus this lends further weight to the case that II Peter is to be dated firmly in the second century. Wallace sees "a humility, a pathos" in the statement that there are things in the collection of Paul's letters that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction. If there really is such, it is the affectation of the pseudipigraphist. Wallace relies on the supposition that the apostle Peter was actually informed of his martyrdom by the risen Christ as described by the redactor of John 21 in order to explain the comment in II Pet 1:14. Wallace even proposes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in selecting the books of the canon lends support to the authenticity of II Peter. It is clear, then, that any scientific approach to the NT demands that II Peter be regarded as spurious.

As to dating, Perrin suggests (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 262): "He is probably the latest of all the New Testament writers, and a date about A.D. 140 would be appropriate." Nearly all scholars would agree with a date sometime in the second century, probably in the second quarter.

The author of II Peter knew the epistle of Jude, I Peter, the synoptic account of the transfiguration, the Johannine appendix wherein Christ predicts the martyrdom of Peter, and a collection of Pauline letters. Finally, there seems to be a literary relationship of II Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter. Loisy judged II Peter to be dependent upon the Apocalypse, while some scholars today would judge the dependence to be in the reverse direction. I do not know of any data that would resolve this issue one way or the other.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

As wikipedia notes

Second Peter quotes from and adapts Jude extensively,[2] identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the anticipated Second Coming of Christ had not yet occurred. It is the only New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture.


Composition
The date of composition has proven to be very difficult to determine. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160. Many believe that it was written between 65-68 A.D. because Peter was martyred around 68 A.D. by Nero, and also because Peter references his approaching death in 2 Peter 1:14 ("since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me").

Chester & Martin say scholars consider the epistle to be written between c AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[9] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between AD 80–90 as most probable.[10] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[11] Zahn,[12] Spitta,[13] Bigg,[14] and Green.[15] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

---

2 Albert E. Barnett, The Interpreters' Bible, 1957, volume 12, p. 154 "The incorporation of Jude as its seconed chapter" (2nd or 'seconded'?)


8 Chester, A & Martin, RP, (1994), The Theology of the letters of James, Peter & Jude, CUP, p.144

9 Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354

[Secret Alias]

Don't expect them to get off their asses and check for themselves. It's such a difficult task.

Hey asswipe. I did check the Aramaic possibilities for the substitution you mention. Couldn't find anything and noted it accordingly. Coagulated meat, jelly just didn't do anything for me - https://books.google.com/books?id=10Wtz ... ew&f=false

[spin]

Don't expect them to get off their asses and check for themselves. It's such a difficult task.

Hey asswipe.

Impressive banter!

I did check the Aramaic possibilities for the substitution you mention. Couldn't find anything and noted it accordingly.

Just demonstrates my point. Won't do the research, makes a half-assed look through some secondary sources and gives up. Net result is nothing, because you won't engage with the easily obtainable primary sources.

Here look at the Greek of these:

(using a = alef, e = ayin)
kbwl Jos 19:27
mkbnh/mkbny 1 Chr 2:49, 12:14
kbr Eze 1:1,3
kdrlemr Gen 14:1
(kwb Eze 30:5, name missing in LXX)
klkl 1 Chr 2:6
(kwn 1 Chr 18:8, name missing in LXX)
kwnyhw 2 Chr 31:12 ykwnyh Jer 27:20
ykyn Gen 46:10
(nkwn 2 Sam 6:6, best match in LXX A.)
kwr$ Isa 44:28 (almost certainly not a transliteration, but the pre-existing Greek form)
kw$ Gen 10:6
kzyb Gen 38:5
kzba 1 Chr 4:22
kzby Num 25:15
akzyb Jos 15:44, 19:29 (1st mainly uses kappa ["kezib"], second chi)
kydn 1 Chr 13:9 (missing, but see Lucianic)
kywn Am 5:26 (name missing)
klab 2 Sam 3:3
klb Num 32:12
klwb 1 Chr 4:11
klwby 1 Chr 2:9

This list is the first 20 names beginning with KAF in BDB. I've checked a lot more and found the same result, but you won't believe me and I don't expect you to. I do however think you should seriously check out the primary evidence before posting comments on the subject.

Coagulated meat, jelly just didn't do anything for me - https://books.google.com/books?id=10Wtz ... ew&f=false

Do you think this is a reasonable reaction given the "Caiaphas" inscription? I don't.

Waiting for the dodge. <

[Secret Alias]

But you've confused two things. I can think of many or at least some examples of the kaf and qof switch. For instance the most common etymology of the name Marcus (mrqs) in Syriac literature is the verb 'to polish' which has a kaf not a qof. That's not the limit of the discussion. I can agree with you there. However your aged brain still thinks in an old (and outdated) historicist paradigm. Sure, Ben asked if it was possible that there were three different people with three different names. So if we are trying to get back to 'real history' yes. But Cephas is a name that Jesus gives to Simon. If we are going to throw out the context of the name Cephas as a nickname or personal name given to the disciple by Jesus. It works. I was trying to stay faithful to the context of Jesus naming a disciple with something that resembled Cephas but with a qof. Couldn't find anything.

[spin]

But you've confused two things. I can think of many or at least some examples of the kaf and qof switch. For instance the most common etymology of the name Marcus (mrqs) in Syriac literature is the verb 'to polish' which has a kaf not a qof. That's not the limit of the discussion. I can agree with you there. However your aged brain still thinks in an old (and outdated) historicist paradigm. Sure, Ben asked if it was possible that there were three different people with three different names. So if we are trying to get back to 'real history' yes. But Cephas is a name that Jesus gives to Simon. If we are going to throw out the context of the name Cephas as a nickname or personal name given to the disciple by Jesus. It works. I was trying to stay faithful to the context of Jesus naming a disciple with something that resembled Cephas but with a qof. Couldn't find anything.

That has almost nothing at all to do with the issue. Besides, the gospels weren't written before Paul, so they are a red herring for understanding the Cephas conundrum. Here's the question: Is it likely that a KAF gets transliterated in Greek as a kappa? The obvious answer is "no, it is highly unlikely." In fact, there seem to be no examples of such clear transliterations—except in the claim regarding Cephas, of which we have no way of checking the putative source, because we only have the Greek trajectory. Anyone who cares to check the data will find that the QOF gets routinely transliterated as a kappa while the KAF ends as a chi. Hebrew names in Greek are a good resource for understanding the relationship between the two phonologies.

In fact we have evidence of a Hebrew name in an inscripion as QYPA, for which Khfa(s) makes a good transliteration.

[Ben C. Smith]

But you've confused two things. I can think of many or at least some examples of the kaf and qof switch. For instance the most common etymology of the name Marcus (mrqs) in Syriac literature is the verb 'to polish' which has a kaf not a qof. That's not the limit of the discussion. I can agree with you there. However your aged brain still thinks in an old (and outdated) historicist paradigm. Sure, Ben asked if it was possible that there were three different people with three different names. So if we are trying to get back to 'real history' yes. But Cephas is a name that Jesus gives to Simon. If we are going to throw out the context of the name Cephas as a nickname or personal name given to the disciple by Jesus. It works. I was trying to stay faithful to the context of Jesus naming a disciple with something that resembled Cephas but with a qof. Couldn't find anything.

That has almost nothing at all to do with the issue. Besides, the gospels weren't written before Paul, so they are a red herring for understanding the Cephas conundrum. Here's the question: Is it likely that a KAF gets transliterated in Greek as a kappa? The obvious answer is "no, it is highly unlikely." In fact, there seem to be no examples of such clear transliterations—except in the claim regarding Cephas, of which we have no way of checking the putative source, because we only have the Greek trajectory. Anyone who cares to check the data will find that the QOF gets routinely transliterated as a kappa while the KAF ends as a chi. Hebrew names in Greek are a good resource for understanding the relationship between the two phonologies.

In fact we have evidence of a Hebrew name in an inscripion as QYPA, for which Khfa(s) makes a good transliteration.

I think the ossuary inscriptions are:

• יהוסף בר קיפא
• יהוסף בר קפא

Correct? Putting קפא or קיפא into Greek would yield something like Κηφᾶ(ς) effortlessly, would it not? Especially if it really does represent the name rendered in the gospels as Καϊάφας, with that initial kappa.

And, if that is the case, the principal linguistic plank for identifying Peter with Cephas vanishes. Does anyone have a positive argument in favor of Cephas as "rock" which is better than Cephas as the name on the ossuary inscription?