TedM

I don't think it was a miscommunication, Toto, but I"m ready to drop it, although I think it reminds us to consider the audience being addressed.

I normally wouldn't infer this. If that is what is to be inferred, then my assumption would stand--Cephas is not a common name.

I guess I"m really dense about this..if I were writing my name in French, I think I would still write Ted--no transliteration at all... I'm curious--do we have any of Josephus writings in Greek? If so, how does it translate Caiaphus?


Seems messy. Thanks very much for your help Toto. I do appreciate it.

ted

Ben C Smith

Around 70, in my best judgment, though I do know that you opt for some time around the second revolt.

True enough. I would not at this stage press the point that the Marcan readership knew Alexander and Rufus personally. They may merely have known of them.

All such hypotheses are, of course, possible. But, since they are hardly the first answer that presents itself to the question, they require specific argumentation in order to be accepted as valid.

Your humble opinion is well known to me.

I cheerfully disagree.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Yes, but only in conjunction with a number of other data.

The more I read from you about your thesis, the more I really think you have to make Mark 16.7 an editorial insertion to make it work.

Not sure what to say here. I am being gullible in suspecting that a text that stops mid-sentence was not accidentally mutilated? Even if the mutilation was absolutely intentional (hard to prove, I think), I cannot see how thinking it was accidental is being gullible. There is a difference between being wrong and being gullible.

Except Jesus himself. And Bartimaeus, presumably. And Simon of Cyrene.

And who promptly disobeyed the messenger. Some replacement.

This is a better replacement than Mary with Mary.

But I still say that Simon was simply a very common name.

If the appointment of authority was a mistake, then why, by thunder, does Mark attribute that mistake to Jesus himself?

Ben.

Toto

If you were writing your name in French, you would still be using a Roman alphabet. If you were writing your name in Greek, Hebrew, Armenian, etc, you would have to transliterate the letters.

We only have Josephus' writings in Greek. He would have written καιαφας, which looks a lot more like κηφας in Greek than in English.

See Caiaphas in the Jewish Encyclopedia

Please refer to this thread on transliteration - it may clarify things for you.

ynquirer

If YOD can be transliterated as an eta, Khfas would be an acceptable transliteration for an Aramaic sound like QY-FA. Experts, however, read QYP) as QA-YA-FA and QP) as QA-FA, neither one as QY-FA. Do you have any instances of either AYA or A, not YOD alone, being transliterated as an eta?

Vorkosigan

LOL. Yep. That's the exact same case I'm making in the case of Bauckham's article in the other thread. Specific argumentation needed.

Vorkosigan

spin

"Experts" don't have the original pronunciation, just a Greek form. This pronunciation can vary from speaker to speaker, though more likely from locality to locality, so one vocalization doesn't represent the range available. They do however have that second form of the name from the "Caiaphas tomb", QP), and that would easily be transliterated into a Greek nominative as Kefas. In fact this name was also found at Elephantine circa 400 BCE, translated by Fitzmyer in the name 'Aqab son of Kepha'.


spin

TedM

I don't know those letters--so, does this look like Cephas in Greek? If not, is there any reason to conclude that Cephas was a common transliteration of Caiaphas?

I looked but didn't find them to be very helpful--sounds very unstandardized.

I guess I was wondering if Spin's suggestion about how Caiaphus could have been transliterated into Greek as Cephas is much different than saying something like "the word medal could be spelled meddal, medel, meddel, metal, mettal, medle, or meddle". What matters is not what 'could be' acceptable but what WAS actually done.

ted

Toto

No one is claiming that it was a common transliteration, just possible.

We don't always know for sure what was actually done, especially with Hebrew vowels.

spin

My only desire was to show that there was another possible source for the name Cephas. What I don't know is how popular the name Caiaphas was nor even what the name actually meant.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Kepha is a name known from circa 400 BCE at Elephantine where there was a community of Jews, so that name was already in circulation well before the gospel period. The question remains whether Cephas [Aram: K)P), Grk: Khfas] is or is not the same as Kepha [Heb: QP)] or Caiaphas [Heb/Aram: QYP) or QP)]. I think there is sufficient evidence to say that QYP) could have been transliterated into Greek as Khfas.

I don't know how one would tell if Cephas represented "Rocky" or "Caiaphas" at the time of Paul.


spin