Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Cephas and Keepha
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I've run into someone who wants to argue that Cephas and Peter are different people in the GNT of Galatians and that Cephas is derived from the Hebrew Caiphas, rather than the Aramaic Keepha.
Are there any problesm with this?
Shalom, the greek has Kefas, that is the aramaic Kefa (rock), and Kefa was also called Petros. Petros is also an aramaic name, is not only greek, and in aramaic means "first-born", i think this is why the jews that didnt believed in Yeshua (because many of them did believed), called him Peter Chamor (firstborn ass). Petros is also in the aramaic, for example in the Talmud Yerushalmi Megilla, fol. 75. 2, talks about Yos?f bar Petros. Kefas was also called Shimon and in the Jerusalem dialect Simon (See-mon).
Greek names have to end with a consonant, so the Aramaic word, when transliterated to Greek, had to be suffixed with an S.
Examples (Greek NT)
Kayafa Kayafas
Cefa, Cefas
Satana, Satanas
Jesu, Jesus (Iesus)
Barnabba, Barnabbas

etc

Now the text of the NT already falsifies their claim:
John 1:42.
thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, Petros

Now, look in Galatians 2:9. This is exactly the same word/name.

And the addition, that Cephas means 'Petros' (A rock) shows that it was not about the Hebraic name Caiphas.
Small tangent: In the Apostolic Text, I've observed that only contemporary names were absolutely bound to this constraint, e.g. Iakob (Ya`aqov the patriarch) compare with Iakobus (James) and Aaron to list two.
judge Wrote:I've run into someone who wants to argue that Cephas and Peter are different people in the GNT of Galatians and that Cephas is derived from the Hebrew Caiphas, rather than the Aramaic Keepha.
Are there any problesm with this?


Shlama akhi,


pointless assertion here. the reason being that the Aramaic is seamless in maintaining Keepha (Cephas) throughout the text, while the GNT manuscripts are all over the place. check it out:

in Galatians:

1:18 -- KEEPHAN / PETRON

2:9 -- KEEPHAS / PETROS

2:11 -- KEEPHAS / PETROS

2:14 -- KEEPHAS / PETRO

different Greek manuscripts contain the two conflicting names. why would anyone assert one over the other when the readings could be arbitrary? it makes no sense unless the Greek was merely a translation from the Aramaic, which is consistent throughout Galatians as to the identity being Keepha.

if you'd like the specific manuscripts i can give you the lists. kinda lengthy, but it may be needed to shut the mouth of someone promoting that silly idea.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy