Simon, Peter, and Cephas.

[iskander]

" three different men, later blended together into an amalgam:
Simon = Galilean disciple.
Cephas = Judean/Jerusalemite pillar.
Peter = Hellenistic/Diaspora apostle."

The apostolic career of that man could have inspired the Trinitarians as well as others. :
Father, Judean in the Holy Land
Son , Greek in the Land of Heroes
Spirit, Ubiquitous in Barbary

Later it was extended to the holder of an office:
Vicar of God, everywhere on earth
Absolute Monarch, in the papal states
Keeper of the Keys, in the kingdom of the dead

But , in Mark Peter is only a place holder to stand for the reception of the disciples to the new and disturbing teaching of their teacher; Peter is only a name.
The Cephas verses are a very late addition to the gospels and were added to elevate the Bishop of Rome to the level of psalm 118:22 with Jesus.

What is the probability of this statement being true? As Spin said:
"My cat also has problems with probability. Fortunately, she's given up worrying about it and now goes with the flow."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2753
Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Page 3, top of the page

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

But earnestly, I think you should ask the other way around. What Cephas might be in Greek and what is with Mark’s "rocky grounds" if there is a difference?

I do not think Κηφᾶς means anything in Greek.

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

But earnestly, I think you should ask the other way around. What Cephas might be in Greek and what is with Mark’s "rocky grounds" if there is a difference?

What do we think the exact connection to the parable might be? Was it written as a pun on Peter's name? Was it adapted or rewritten for that purpose? Did the parable come first, and Simon received his nickname from the rocky soil? How would this relationship help us to determine whether, long before Mark was written, Simon and Peter were actually two different individuals?

[Charles Wilson]

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?

You always have to respect Spin and his riffs. My question is, "Is there a passage that uses the Non-Cephas word in a manner that illustrates a Pun or a Word-Play?" If so, then there would be a reason for the name.

But earnestly, I think you should ask the other way around. What Cephas might be in Greek and what is with Mark’s "rocky grounds" if there is a difference?

The Mishmarot Priesthood was given various Settlements for each of the 24 Groups. The Lists of these Settlements exist and have been found in different excavated Settlements. The common Thread in all of this is the Hasmonean Dynasty. They evidently WERE that much of a threat that the Romans had to eradicate them as being "Divinely Chosen". The Hidden Varible in this (To me...) is whether the Remnant of the Priests who became the first Rabbis - Zakkai, f'rinstance. Did they write what I perceive as the Original Story? Who corrupted it? The Puzzle seems deeper than "The Romans did it". There is too much that made it into the Texts that would have been excised if the Romans knew.

The Law and the Prophets existed until John. The Romans are telling you how they are rewriting the Story. John was from Bilgah (Hence, the "Last"). The new character "Jesus" obliterates the Story of Immer. "Jesus" is from Nawt' - Sar - eth, "Guard-Town". The Mishmarot Communities are lost. The weekly rotation of the Priesthood is gone.

Something, however, is left. "Jesus" is Ritually Unclean by the Book of Numbers, which Zakkai studied intensely. You can calculate Mishmarot rotations from info given in the Gospels. Yet, we are looking for "Rocky Grounds" and we are being told what that means.

What do we think the exact connection to the parable might be? Was it written as a pun on Peter's name? Was it adapted or rewritten for that purpose? Did the parable come first, and Simon received his nickname from the rocky soil? How would this relationship help us to determine whether, long before Mark was written, Simon and Peter were actually two different individuals?

Atwill is pretty good here. The Empty Tomb makes sense only if the characters are multiple characters melded into one.
I note only that, as there are two Passover Stories with the Day of Preparation and the Passover Crucifixion (Leaving 2000 years of explanatory wreckage in its wake...) Simon, Simon Peter et.al. have been telescoped into a single story.

"Peter" is from Jabnit/Meiron, which is indeed "Rocky". Immer and Jehoiarib march to Jerusalem from these 'Burgs every 24 weeks and other times as well. That's the Story that hasn't been unpacked completely yet.

THNX,

CW

[Peter Kirby]

• Simon = Galilean disciple.
• Cephas = Judean/Jerusalemite pillar.
• Peter = Hellenistic/Diaspora apostle.

Overall, what does such an idea have going for it? What would it help to explain (if anything)?.

It's a lot better than it appears at first glance.

I mean, three Peters? Three? Even that rascal Bart Ehrman had to talk himself down off the ledge, from the number of two. It's madness!

But there are a whole bunch of manuscripts of Paul that weave the Greek Peter inbetween references to Cephas. Have you looked at that in any detail? We tend to assume that the references to Cephas are original, but if Paul chose different forms at different times, for different people, you're already 2/3 of the way there. The Epistula Apostolorum also clearly lists Cephas and Peter separately.

Then you just need to associate Simon with some other tradition, perhaps a Galilean disciple via Thomas or Q, or perhaps a revolutionary via references in the gospels and/or later tradition... and, bada boom bada bing, you got your three Peters.

[DCHindley]

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?

Not sure where this equation was made by spin.

In the Jewish Encyclopedia, Greek Kappa transliterates ג (Gimel) or ק (Qof), but it has nothing to say about כ (Kaf) as a stand alone letter, other than in compound, eg. כס (Kaf+Samekh) = ξ (Ksi), and גכ (Gimel+Kaf) = γχ (Gamma+Chi).

Per my old but very useful Young's Analytical Concordance, the relevant Hebrew word would be the plural form of כֵּף (kēp, with a Kaf), a ragged rock. In the Lxx this word is translated τὰς πέτρας, pl fem acc of πέτρα, at Jer 4:29 Lxx; and πετρῶν, plural genitive form of either πέτρος, a stone, or πέτρα, rock mass, but probably the latter, at Job 30:6 Lxx.

I do not know what this might signify.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

Not sure where this equation was made by spin.

I linked to his post in the OP.

[Ben C. Smith]

• Simon = Galilean disciple.
• Cephas = Judean/Jerusalemite pillar.
• Peter = Hellenistic/Diaspora apostle.

Overall, what does such an idea have going for it? What would it help to explain (if anything)?.

It's a lot better than it appears at first glance.

Well, thanks for that.

I mean, three Peters? Three? Even that rascal Bart Ehrman had to talk himself down off the ledge, from the number of two. It's madness!

I agree. Madness.

But there are a whole bunch of manuscripts of Paul that weave the Greek Peter inbetween references to Cephas. Have you looked at that in any detail? We tend to assume that the references to Cephas are original, but if Paul chose different forms at different times, for different people, you're already 2/3 of the way there. The Epistula Apostolorum also clearly lists Cephas and Peter separately.

Then you just need to associate Simon with some other tradition, perhaps a Galilean disciple via Thomas or Q, or perhaps a revolutionary via references in the gospels and/or later tradition... and, bada boom bada bing, you got your three Peters.

This whole notion on my part derives at least partly from the multifaceted nature of the Petrine material. It sometimes feels like this guy changed his entire lifestyle every decade or so:

1. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).
2. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?).
3. A globetrotting apostle, a student of Pauline theology (if 1 Peter is any guide) and Christian apologetics (if the Preaching of Peter is any guide), often named alongside Paul himself as a messenger to the Gentiles, ranging from Antioch to (his alleged martyrdom in) Rome.

We tend to assume that something big (like a purported resurrection) changed him from #1 to #2, and that something else (like the Gentile mission) changed him from #2 to #3. I want to test that assumption. The idea has already been floated that perhaps Cephas and Peter are not the same person, and to me it seems like the ties between either of those individuals and Simon are at best no stronger than the ties between Cephas and Peter, and potentially much weaker.

Also, the motivation for combining three such figures would be obvious: give Cephas and Peter eyewitness access to the Galilean ministry of Jesus, and give Simon, Jesus' principal disciple, founding authority over three of the most important churches in the Mediterranean basin: Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome; give one single man good reason to be hailed as the first Pope, over and against powerful claims such as those potentially made by admirers of (for example) James the Just.

So I wonder: was that kind of motivation succumbed to? Or was there really one fellow who really did all of those things in those three disparate arenas? I think it is worth asking the question, at least.

And I think you are right, Peter: those Pauline manuscripts are worth examining again for patterns in the names. I am also interested in how strong the ties between Simon the Galilean fisherman and Peter and/or Cephas really are. The name "Rocky", if indeed that is what Cephas means, is a powerful link. But, if spin is right, it would be no link at all.

[robert j]

This whole notion on my part derives at least partly from the multifaceted nature of the Petrine material. It sometimes feels like this guy changed his entire lifestyle every decade or so:

1. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).
2. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?).
3. A globetrotting apostle, a student of Pauline theology (if 1 Peter is any guide) and Christian apologetics (if the Preaching of Peter is any guide), often named alongside Paul himself as a messenger to the Gentiles, ranging from Antioch to (his alleged martyrdom in) Rome.

I think perhaps the first two make more sense if the order is reversed (with some edits and additions)---

1. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?). But wrongheaded. Paul said of him, "I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned ... The other Jews joined in his hypocrisy ... they are not walking in line according to the truth of the gospel ... " (Galatians 2:11-14), promting the author of gMark to portray him in his tale as ---
2. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).

[Ben C. Smith]

This whole notion on my part derives at least partly from the multifaceted nature of the Petrine material. It sometimes feels like this guy changed his entire lifestyle every decade or so:

1. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).
2. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?).
3. A globetrotting apostle, a student of Pauline theology (if 1 Peter is any guide) and Christian apologetics (if the Preaching of Peter is any guide), often named alongside Paul himself as a messenger to the Gentiles, ranging from Antioch to (his alleged martyrdom in) Rome.

I think perhaps the first two make more sense if the order is reversed (with some edits and additions)---

1. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?). But wrongheaded. Paul said of him, "I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned ... The other Jews joined in his hypocrisy ... they are not walking in line according to the truth of the gospel ... " (Galatians 2:11-14), prompting the author of gMark to portray him in his tale as ---
2. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).

If Mark is going by Galatians 2, then does not Mark already think of Cephas and Peter as the same person? Mark nowhere calls him Cephas, but uses the name Peter several times. This restores or confirms the equation of Cephas and Peter, in which case Cephas may as well mean rock, as per the usual reconstruction. If Mark is casting Peter/Cephas as Simon the fisherman, this completes the trifecta, and all three men are now one and the same again in a backwards variant of the usual reconstruction (Cephas to Simon instead of Simon to Cephas). That is fine, but I just want to point out that the usual interplay of the three names is still at work in this case (all three point to the same figure).

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