aa5874

So, this may mean that the letter writer called Paul was aware of the Syriac version of the Gospel where Cephas represents Peter, unless you think that Jesus, while in heaven, revealed to the letter writer that Peter was called Cephas in Syriac versions.

bacht

So the places where Cephas appears in Paul's letters might indicate later material?

andrewcriddle

Cephas means Rock in Aramaic/Syriac
Peter means Rock in Greek

The Greek NT mostly uses Peter.
Syriac translations use Cephas throughout.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

Okay, I understand that the assumption has been that Cephas = Peter in the Greek NT, but isn't that idea disputed nowadays? I thought aa5874 was going somewhere with this.

andrewcriddle

My point is that because Peter when translated into Aramaic/Syriac comes out as Cephas the Syriac versions generally read Cephas, whatever the Greek they were translating read. (I said generally because I haven't done a thorough check). IE the reading of Cephas in Tatian and the Peshitta is a translation effect. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the variations between Peter and Cephas in the original Greek NT have any significance.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Well, not exactly.

My theory or position is that Cephas appears in the letters because it is likely all the letters with the name Paul are no earlier than the 2nd century ,no earlier than the writings of Justin Martyr and after the writings of Acts of the Apostles.

DCHindley

But ...

The name Peter does appear in the Pauline letters, along with Cephas, in both the Nestle-Aland ecclectic text and the so-called Textus Receptus (which is also ecclectic if you think about it).

Verse * N-A GNT * TR

1 COR 1:12 * KHFA * KHFA
1 COR 3:22 * KHFAS * KHFAS
1 COR 9:5 * KHFAS * KHFAS
1 COR 15:5 * KHFA * KHFA
GAL 1:18 * KHFAN * PETRON
GAL 2:7 * PETROS * PETROS
GAL 2:8 * PETRW * PETRW
GAL 2:9 * KHFAS * KHFAS
GAL 2:11 * KHFAS * PETROS
GAL 2:14 * KHFA * PETRW

All Gospels have Peter except Joh 1:42 which has "Cephas (which means Peter)".


DCH

aa5874

So, it may be that the authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Aramic word for "rock" (Cephas), this may be an indication that these authors did not see or know of the letters in which Peter was also called Cephas or did not see or know that gJohn had explained what "Cephas" meant in Aramic.

DCHindley

It could mean other things too. The authors of the synoptics may not have known of the Pauline letters, or none of the gospel writers knew of the Paulines and a later publisher of the NT placed Joh 1:42 there to link the 4 gospel mss to the Pauline corpus mss. The mixture of Paul and Cephas in the Pauline corpus could suggest interpolation at least at Gal 2:7 & 8. If so, the author of the Paulines (however one chooses to divide them between authentic or inauthentic) may not have known of Peter, with the possibility that Cephas and Peter are two different folks.

DCH

aa5874

If you noticed I did use the word "MAY" not "MUST".

Now, it must be always remembered that the church writer called Eusebius claimed that it was said that the letter writer called Paul was aware of the gospel called Luke, a companion or disciple of Paul.

This may indicate that the gospels were written before the letters of the letter writer called Paul.