Cephas and Keepha

[Burning one]

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