Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

this info makes me think about the J.M.Robertson's view that the 12 apostles were 12 because 12 were the emissaries of the temple of Jerusalem sent in the Diaspora to collect tributes for the temple.
There is some coherence in the implication that the first of them had to be called "Cephas" (Caiaphas was a high priest and in addition Caiaphas meant "stone", an apt label for the "founder" in any culture).

The point as described in the own words of J. M. Robertson:


(my bold)

Hence:

just as 12 emissaries in the Diaspora were coordinated by Caiaphas in the real History, so the 12 apostles were coordinated by Simon Cephas in the Gospel fiction.



An independent confirmation of the my (and Robertson's) thesis comes from the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians:


Cephas is not included among the Twelve, just as, rightly, correctly, justly, the high priest Caiaphas has to be not confused with the 12 Jewish emissaries in the Diaspora.

As the dispersed Jewish synagogues were co-ordinated ... by means of Twelve Apostles ...

What's the source of this besides Robinson?

PeterC wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:57 pmThere is no translation of the Aramaic word קפא, which could be represented either as Κηϕας or Καιϕας, because it is a title with no known or obvious origin.

I am just an amateur hobbyist, so pardon the question. On the one hand, assuming Paul wrote first, I guess you could argue Paul could write the name in Greek however he wanted without worrying about conflicting with previous narratives. On the other hand, Paul was pretty good with Greek, and wouldn't Caiaphas have been a known name in Greek? If Paul meant to say Caiaphas, wouldn't that have been clear? Or do we not have any firm idea of how Caiaphas was regularly written in Greek at the time?

Mrvegas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:24 pm Eusebius references Clement of Alexandria on this point I believe.

In 1 Clement, there is a mention of Peter and Paul, and later in the same letter, Paul and Cephas:

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance.

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

------------------
1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

1Clem 47:4
Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were
partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved
in their sight.

-----------
B. Ehrman wrote:
I. Evidence from the Early Church
"The idea of two separate persons first occurs in the first half of the second
century in the Epistola Apostolorum.
The author of this pseudepigraph
opposes a docetic kind of Christology by penning a letter, ostensibly written
after Jesus' resurrection by the eleven remaining disciples, in which he
repeatedly affirms both the fleshliness of Jesus and the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. Since this author otherwise makes repeated use of the
Fourth Gospel, he must have known that "Cephas" and "Peter" refer to the
same person. This makes it all the more striking that in his own delineation of the eleven disciples he names Cephas and Peter as two distinct individuals
(Epistula Apostolorum 2).
Somewhat later in the second century, Clement of Alexandria expresses a
similar opinion. In book 5 of his Hypotyposes, a work now lost but cited for
us by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 1.12.2), Clement maintained that Peter was one
of the Twelve, who later became one of the three styloi of the church in
Jerusalem, whereas Cephas was one of the seventy disciples whom Jesus had
sent out in Luke 10. In construing the relationship of Cephas and Peter in
this way, Clement may well have initiated the tradition that is still preserved
in a number of ancient documents that list the names, and sometimes the
salient activities, of the early apostles. Many of these apostolic lists situate
Peter among the disciples but Cephas among the seventy; most of them
allege that it was Cephas whom Paul opposed in Antioch." (JBL 109/3 ß990) 463-474
CEPHAS AND PETER by BART D. EHRMAN)

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:26 am

As the dispersed Jewish synagogues were co-ordinated ... by means of Twelve Apostles ...

What's the source of this besides Robinson?

excluding late rabbinical sources:
the Didachē, “teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, considered a Jewish (i.e. not-Christian) document edited later by Christians. It would be interesting to know if there is today some scholar who argues for a such view.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:26 am excluding late rabbinical sources:
the Didachē, “teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, considered a Jewish (i.e. not-Christian) document edited later by Christians. It would be interesting to know if there is today some scholar who argues for a such view.

Alright but obviously if it was edited by Christians, the "Twelve" in the title might have been edited too. Also, the "Jewishness" of Didache doesn't necessarily mean it was authorized by the High Priest. For example, it could have been Essenes.

Anyway, I'd be grateful even for those late rabbinical sources.

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:59 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:26 am excluding late rabbinical sources:
the Didachē, “teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, considered a Jewish (i.e. not-Christian) document edited later by Christians. It would be interesting to know if there is today some scholar who argues for a such view.

Alright but obviously if it was edited by Christians, the "Twelve" in the title might have been edited too.

or it might have been original.

As to the late rabbinical sources, I heard something about them by Neil. I should remember in what occasion.

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:05 am 1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

I hadn't made the 1 Clement connection before. Thanks!

If we stick with the OP's instructions and focus only on the Pauline letters, what are the theories so far, then:

1. A basic reading of Corinthians and Galatians with no other context seems to have Peter introduced as a new person in Galatians: Cephas and Peter were different people.
2. Paul intended Cephas and Peter to be the same person, but used the different names for purposes of context\criticism\sarcasm, depending on whether he was being critical of Peter for his adherence to the Jerusalem church's view of the new religion.
3. The transliteration of Cephas to Greek from Aramaic obscured the original meaning of the word. It was not “rock” at all, but a different name, possibly that of the family of Caiaphas.
4. Changing names was a later interpolation into Galatians to make it seem like two different people were being discussed to avoid the doctrinal embarrassment of conflict between Peter and Paul.
5. Paul just used the words interchangeably, and was being a little sloppy, and it is the same person. (Maybe he stopped and started writing or dictating and just didn't think about the importance of being consistent – everyone knew who he was talking about.)

How about a few more theories?

6. Maybe Jesus gave many people the name “rock.” It was a sign of distinction – so, many of his followers thought it would be cool to be a “rock” in the new order and Jesus obliged, or people just took the name because they liked it. If focusing on your Greek identity, you were Petros, if Jewish, you were Cephas.
7. Maybe Cephas was actually a more common Aramaic name than we thought. There is not much evidence for this, but how much evidence is there really either way?
8. Maybe all of the letters were late Marcionite forgeries and Cephas was a creation to criticize those who placed too much emphasis on the Old Testament.

Of all of the above, which are possible? Plausible?

Not that it solves the problem by itself, but many people had or have more than one name, even Paul, Saul, and some folk here.

The OP includes a statement: "the fact that "Petros" cannot be a translation of "Cephas."" I do not consider that to be a fact. That mere assertion does not change, among other things, John 1:42. Some may prefer that away by proposing redaction or interpolation, but it remains the case that the two names are, at very minimum, "near synonyms."

Epiphanius wrote in Greek, presumably his first language. Reputedly--though the extent is debated--Epiphanius also knew Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Coptic. With his heresies Nazarenes and Nasarenes, as well as Essenes and Ossenes, the possible doubling may be an artifact of some variability in transliterating from one language source to another, in these cases, from Hebrew to Greek.

Yesterday I reread the intelligent, learned, and mostly quite well-written JBL articles by Bart Ehrman (1990) and Dale Allison (1992). In my current opinion, Allison, admittedly with some advantage by writing after Ehrman, was the more persuasive: Peter and Cephas was the same individual. (I'm not up-to-date on Bart's blog, though.)

What, after all, does it take to call someone a second name? Even if some outsider has an opinion that the name relations, arguably, may not be academically-justified, one fact is that people may use folk etymology, like it or not.