Ben C. Smith wrote: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?
That's basically how I see it and how I got there.
The problem we face is to know which came first, the name Paul provides as Cephas already aligned with Peter (and hence the "rock" etymology) or the name before any Peter connection (allowing the possibility of a false etymology linked to it).
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Who (What) is the "rock" in the Christian Liturgy?
Regarding the "rock", the ancient Roman liturgy uses the following collect for the vigil of the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul: http://brewiarz.pl/latin/2202/sexta.php3
ORATIO
Orémus. Præsta, quæsumus, omnípotens Deus, ut nullis nos permíttas perturbatiónibus cóncuti, quos in apostólicæ confessiónis petra solidásti. Per Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.
Grant, we beseech You, almighty God, that we, whom You have made firm upon the rock of apostolic faith, may not be shaken by any distresses.
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi , So one of the oldest collects in the Roman liturgy shows us that the "rock" is the apostolic faith.
This doesn't fully address Ben's inquiry, but it is an interesting summary by the current Anglican Archbishop of Sydney on a book on Peter, and thus an outline of Peter per se, by a distinguished lecturer, author and scholar, Bishop Paul Barnett, -
"Bishop Barnett’s ...exploration of the complexity of the [narratives about] apostle Peter, with all his ups and downs: from his coming to full realisation of the identity of Jesus to his rebuking Jesus for contemplating suffering and death; from his betrayal of Jesus during his trial to his leadership of the church on the day of Pentecost.
"However, the paradox of Peter as Barnett describes it is that, after such a triumphant contribution to the opening pages of Luke’s second account to Theophilus, Peter seems to disappear from view after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) – which raises the question as to what Luke meant when he enigmatically declares that Peter “left for another place” (Acts 12:7).
"Paul Barnett explores this paradox in great detail and provides a helpful guide to the travels of Peter from Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee and then to Antioch and Corinth, his memoirs as recorded by Mark in the compilation of the second Gospel, his conflict with Paul as recorded in Galatians, his two canonical letters and, finally, his martyrdom in Rome. Helpful dating of each of these events enhances the telling of Peter’s story. Where the evidence is scanty to fill in the gaps, Bishop Barnett is a reliable guide even when speculation is called for in order to make sense of the chronology.
"I found the book easy to read, engaging and insightful. Bishop Barnett rightly highlights the way in which Jesus was prepared to trust Peter to be the leader of the Twelve, despite his obvious weaknesses.
"He challenges the reader to reflect upon the change of leadership from Peter to James in Jerusalem and the way in which this apostle to the Jews complements Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles ..."
MrMacSon wrote:This doesn't fully address Ben's inquiry, but it is an interesting summary by the current Anglican Archbishop of Sydney on a book on Peter, and thus an outline of Peter per se, by a distinguished lecturer, author and scholar, Bishop Paul Barnett, -
....
"However, the paradox of Peter as Barnett describes it is that, after such a triumphant contribution to the opening pages of Luke’s second account to Theophilus, Peter seems to disappear from view after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) – which raises the question as to what Luke meant when he enigmatically declares that Peter “left for another place” (Acts 12:7).
Yes, that "other place" in Acts 12.7 is pretty weird. It is as if the author just could not be bothered to explain (or figure out) what is going on with Peter here. I recall that some of the old conservative commentators thought that this is when Peter sailed to Rome and founded the church there, but that just raises the uncomfortable question: did Luke "yada yada" Rome??
spin wrote:...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?
Is there no one willing to go to bat for Team "Cephas = Rock" here? Does anyone have a good reason why Κηφᾶ(ς) is better rendered as כאפא than as קיפא?
I am starting to lean toward considering the connection between Simon Peter and the pillar Cephas to be a phantasm. Does no one wish to talk me down off the ledge?
"However, the paradox of Peter as Barnett describes it is that, after such a triumphant contribution to the opening pages of Luke’s second account to Theophilus, Peter seems to disappear from view after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) – which raises the question as to what Luke meant when he enigmatically declares that Peter “left for another place” (Acts 12:7).
Yes, that "other place" in Acts 12.7 is pretty weird. It is as if the author just could not be bothered to explain (or figure out) what is going on with Peter here. I recall that some of the old conservative commentators thought that this is when Peter sailed to Rome and founded the church there, but that just raises the uncomfortable question: did Luke "yada yada" Rome??
Yes, it is weird on a few fronts. It makes one wonder if the 'other' or 'another place' was a place here on earth. I also wonder if there really was a church established in the city of Rome in the first century.
Since kefa usually means small stone that can fit in your hand it isn't like to have the meaning ascribed to it in the orthodox tradition. There is a Hebrew term for 'rock' (Deut 32:4) and it is never rendered as kefa. It has messianic significance in the Samaritan tradition where Marqe even goes so far as to take the Aramaic meaning of the term (= form, symbol) צור. Can't get there from kefa
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
God himself is referred to as צור, “Rock” six times (Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37) in addition to the wilderness rock mentioned in Deut 32:13. But notice Paul identifies Christ as the צור not Peter. I think the LXX only translates צור as πέτρα only twice. Not sure what this does for the theory.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
