Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Euphen · 01-22-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

No, just that it was known that Peter went by either name. Many modern readers seem to know that Cephas was another name for Peter without knowing either Aramaic or Greek!

Well, that's probably because they've read John 1:42, but I see your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Sometimes names are transliterated into another language, sometimes translated.

I don't speak the original languages and haven't read many ancient texts. Would transliterated and translated forms of the same name really be used in the same passage as synonyms? Seems awfully confusing to me. Anyway, as you've pointed out, whether or not these verses are interpolated doesn't really make a difference on the Cephas/Peter issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Only one other known instance in the NT? Or in all relevant biblical and patristic literature? If the former, John 1.42 links Peter and Cephas, and is the only NT passage outside Paul to even mention Cephas. If the latter, then the assertion is just wrong. (For the relevant passages from the Epistula Apostolorum and Clement of Alexandria, refer to my page on Peter and scroll down to the bottom.)

Ben.

No, this is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the link though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In fact this name was also found at Elephantine circa 400 BCE, translated by Fitzmyer in the name 'Aqab son of Kepha'.

spin

Ben C Smith · 01-22-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphen

I don't speak the original languages and haven't read many ancient texts. Would transliterated and translated forms of the same name really be used in the same passage as synonyms?

Well, that is a good question.

Quote:

No, this is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the link though.

Ah, you were referring to mentions of the name Cephas before the NT. The name is rare, that much I know. I am not certain if the Elephantine example is the only instance or not.

Ben.

spin · 01-22-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Conservative view: The 12 in 1 Corinthians 15.5 (as well as Ascension of Isaiah 4.2-3 and others) are the eleven that we find in the synoptic gospels, plus Matthias, elected to replace Judas precisely in order to fill out the sacred number twelve again so as to facilitate just these kinds of references to that group.

Liberal view: The presence of the 12 in these postresurrection texts presupposes that either there was no such disciple as Judas or he was not one of this group; or this group of 12 had nothing to do with the ministry of Jesus until the gospels threw them into it.

Obviously, the first option is wrong for a conservative: Acts tells us Jesus went up to heaven before Matthias was chosen. They'll have to find some other way to hedge.

The second option seems to require a lot of hacking at the gospel tradition, as Judas is part of the synoptic core,

, just as the twelve is.

spin

Ben C Smith · 01-22-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Obviously, the first option is wrong for a conservative: Acts tells us Jesus went up to heaven before Matthias was chosen. They'll have to find some other way to hedge.

Well, these chaps usually take Acts 1.22 as an indication that Matthias saw the risen Lord at some point (just not while he was actually a member of the 12), so when Paul says that Jesus appeared to the 12 he really means that he appeared to the eleven original disciples and also to the replacement (possibly at a different time).

Quote:

The second option seems to require a lot of hacking at the gospel tradition, as Judas is part of the synoptic core,

....

:notworthy:

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.