Loading...I have recently finished republishing a series of posts from years ago that explored the tradition that Peter and Cephas were in fact two different people. Anyone who is not interested in the Bible would care, of course, but then again, no one like that would be on the blog! For those who are both interested and familiar with the New Testament, the idea is unusual and odd – a bit of a bombshell, actually, since it is normally assumed that these are two names for the same disciple of Jesus, Simon son of Jonah, nicknamed “Cephas” (an Aramaic term that means “rock”) by Jesus. When the term “Rock” was translated into Greek by later story tellers, they simply used the Greek term “Petros,” which gets transliterated into English as “Peter.”
No problem, right?
Well for 99.99% of the readers of the NT over the centuries, right. No problem. But for roughly .01% of us there is a problem, as I have outlined in the previous posts. I showed that there was in fact an early Christian tradition – not the dominant tradition, but one that went on in written sources for centuries (even though even most scholars haven’t known it) — that there were in fact two prominent Christians with the same nickname, one in Aramaic and the other in Greek, one of them one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and the other someone who converted to the faith after his death.
I also showed that there are grounds for thinking this. Even though John 1:42 explicitly identifies Cephas and Peter as the same person, the much earlier writer Paul, the only surviving author who actually knew Peter, or Cephas, or both, seems to indicate they were separate people. He doesn’t actually SAY so, but that appears to be the implications of what he does say, when he speaks of them both in the same breath.
And so I concluded that maybe they were in fact two different people.
When I published these posts on Cephas and Peter years ago, I promised I would then explain why I had doubts about whether my view was correct. For some reason I never got to that post, and periodically blog readers have reminded me and asked: what do you think now? So, well, I need to say!
The posts were based on an article that I published in academic journal (over 30 years ago now!): “Cephas and Peter,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 109 (1990) pp. 463-74). When the article came out, I had lots of friends come up to me at professional conferences to ask me if I really meant it (!). Yup, I did. But what now?
Actually, I’m not so sure. Either way. Dale Allison wrote a vigorous refutation of the article (I think it was also in the Journal of Biblical Literature, but I don’t remember) and he and I disagreed on a number of points. But his most obvious objection is one that has always stuck in my head, and was stuck in there even while writing the article. It may kill the thesis, or it may not: but it does render it difficult.
It is this. Very simply: Cephas/Peter was (virtually) not a name or nickname until Jesus gave it to his disciple Simon. How likely is it that in early Christianity there would be TWO people with the same previously unknown nickname, one in Aramaic speaking circles and the other in Greek?
Let me provide a bit of background. The most important NT reference on the issue is Matthew 16:18, a hugely important passage not just for Matthew’s Gospel (it is found nowhere else in the NT) but also for the history of Christianity. It was a central point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants in the Reformation. My beloved professor of Church history at Princeton Theological Seminary – the most erudite scholar I’ve ever known — Karlfried Froehlich, wrote his PhD dissertation on the history of the interpretation of the verse (in Germany).
Here’s the context. As in the parallel passage in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am?” The disciples respond that some people think he is John the Baptist come back from the dead, or Elijah, or another of the prophets. He then asks who they think he is and Simon replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus responds that this truth has not been revealed to Simon by “flesh and blood” but by God the Father himself, and then Jesus renames him: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18).
It seems like a fairly straightforward statement. Peter is the rock and on this rock Jesus will build his church. But the verse is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Jesus uses two different but related words for “rock”: “You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” Why does Jesus change words and what does that signify?
Catholics had long insisted that Peter was the first pope and that the church was built on the “rock” of the papacy (I’m putting it in highly simplified terms here). Protestants pointed out that the words are different and that the church was not build on Peter himself (Petros) but on the words he had just spoken (the divinity of Christ), as shown by the change in words.
It’s a complicated issue on a number of levels, and I won’t give a detailed study here, obviously; but I will say this. The two words mean different things. A “petros” is a small stone, a pebble; a “petra” is a large crag, an enormous rock. You cannot build a large structure on a stone but you can build it on a foundation rock. The problem is that Jesus could not nickname Simon “Petra” (massive stone) because in Greek Petra is feminine. And so he uses the masculine word that is closely related: “You are (masculine) Petros and on this (large crag feminine) Petra I will build my church.”
Brief grammatical point: In Greek, every single noun is either masculine, feminine, or neuter. Sometimes the gender of the noun is based on the gender of the thing it represents (“boy” is masculine; “widow’ is feminine); but most of the time nouns are not obviously one gender or another, and so they are just randomly given masculine, feminine, or neuter genders because every none has to have one (the Greek word “word” is masculine; “road” is feminine; “work” is neuter).
And so if Jesus wanted to name Peter something connected with “foundation stone” he had to give him a masculine name. Petros (masculine) then, is meant to be the name form based on petra (crag). But what did Jesus mean? Was the church built on the disciple Peter (the first pope) or on his confession (the fact that Jesus is the Son of God)? Well, are you Catholic or Protestant? 😊
And here’s a further complication. If Jesus renamed Peter “Rock” he would have done so in his native language, Aramaic, not Greek. And Aramaic does not have two similar sounding words for “rock.” So Jesus would have said “You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church.” Only when the tradition got translated into Greek were two different words used (where the feminine Petra could not used as the name of a man).
Hence the problem. The name Cephas never occurs (in any surviving evidence) as a nickname prior to the Christian tradition. So what are the chances that TWO of Jesus’ followers (out of the 60 million people in the empire at the time) would be the only ones with this name and both given it within years of each other?
Seems unlikely.
On the other hand, maybe a Greek speaking Christian, say a decade or so after Jesus’ death, was given the same nickname (Greek Petros) as one of Jesus’ followers because he was the “rock” of his own community. We know that later Christians gave their children this name. And there is one clear instance of a slave named Petros before our period (slaves were often given nicknames as names: “Useful” “Happy” etc.). So possibly it was used of someone other than Cephas in a different context, possibly modeled on Cephas?
It’s possible. Most scholars think it’s improbable. OK, highly improbable. Me? I’m not sure, either way.
I have a more fundamental question: Is the entire quote problematic? Is there convincing evidence that Jesus had a concept of “my church”? I am no scholar, but as a layperson I had always assumed thatt it was a statement invented by later church leaders to justify themselves.
I think none of the statement “upon this rock I will build my church” can go back to Jesus.
Do you have any ideas then how Simon became Peter? Does the nickname but not the context go back to Jesus?
Yes, I think almost certainly so.
I have seen in real life people get a nickname based on someone else.
Was perhaps Cephas a great Peter fan, quoting him all the time?
Or perhaps Cephas looked a lot like Peter?
OR boxed like him: Rocky II!
How does one convert to a faith after one’s death?
In later Christian traditions Christ went to Hades after his death and before his resurrection and gave everyone the chance! THat’s the “Harrowing of Hell” tradition. BUt apart from that, well, who knows?!
Yes, it is unclear, but at least part of the argument rests on the exchange initiated by: “Who do people say that I am?” And it isn’t at all clear to me that any part of the exchange is anything but fiction. So you also have to attach a probability to the entire passage in Mark being veridical rather than fictional. At that point it seems to be very much like playing an air guitar… did you like that Hendrix riff? What, that wasn’t Hendrix! That was pure Clapton! Monty Python again…
The explanation is that Cephas/Peter is a title, not a name. Titles can be given to more than one person. Like you, I believe that Cephas and Peter were two separate people, and go through the reasons in my 2016 book, “The Rock and the Tower”. However, you do not far enough in your argument because you are working under the historical Jesus paradigm. Cephas, the first witness of the resurrection and not one of the twelve, must be the founder of the Jesus movement. Simon Peter was a second-generation figure, an apostle under James and included in the twelve. Paul knows them both. The Peter of the gospels is a fictional mixture of the two.
In “The Rock and the Tower” I trace the name back to the Animal Apocalypse. There you will find both a rock (Cephas) and a tower (the Magdalene). The rock is Mount Sinai, the tower is the temple. Both Cephas and the Magdalene are said to be the first witness of the resurrection. God dwells on Sinai and in the temple. So Cephas and the Magdalene are the two names of a shaman, a receptacle for the spiritual resurrected Christ.
SP Laurie
How likely is it that Jesus, a peasant’s son from Nazareth, was fluent enough in Greek to make such a clever twist on a Greek word?
Being Greek I feel compelled to comment on the vocabulary and grammatical issues.
First, I would like to point out that “Petros” (“Πέτρος” in Greek) is only a male name. “Πέτρος” does not mean little rock or stone or pebble or anything of the sort – it’s just a name, just as “Bart” or “Emma” are.
“Petra” (“πέτρα”), on the other hand, does mean rock, but, at least in modern Greek (maybe it was used differently in ancient Greek) when we say “πέτρα”, we primarily mean a small to medium size stone. I think the most usual equivalent to “rock” in Greek would be “βράχος”, that is a big rock, such as the ones upon which sea waves are hit. (Funny trivia to prove my point: you can find the legendary film “The Rock” as “Ο Βράχος” in a Greek DVD club – if you find any of them alive.)
Lastly, the Greek word “word” is feminine (“η λέξη”), “road” is masculine (“ο δρόμος”) and work is indeed neuter (“το έργο”). (As you noticed, every pronoun has its gender also – Greek is a pain in the ass, Mr. Ehrman is a real hero! 😂😂)
RIght! But we’re talking about *ancient* Greek, and then Πέτρος was not a name and did πέτρά usually mean stone rather than, say, boulder or crag. And in ancient Greek it’s ὁ λόγος and τὸ ὅδον!
Hm. I’ve heard some catholics claim there was no difference of meaning between Petros and Petra by the 1st century. Don’t know where they’re getting their evidence from. This was obviously from arguments over the papacy.
Yup, it was! If there was *no* difference then Jesus could have said “You are petros and on this petros I will build my church”…
Always been confused about the difference between logos and lexi.
Logos is more often something like a “word” or even it’s meaning, so taht it can be something like “reason.” Lexis is a speech that someone makes or a saying or phrase.
“maybe a Greek speaking Christian, say a decade or so after Jesus’ death, was given the same nickname (Greek Petros) as one of Jesus’ followers because he was the “rock” of his own community. ”
Gal 2:8
“For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles”
Question to Bart:
How could a “Greek speaking Christian, say a decade or so after Jesus…the “rock” of his own community.” become “an apostle to the Jews” ???
By being sent out to convert Jews and being given charge of other missionaries doing the same.
Bart: “… none of the sources that draws this distinction actually makes anything of it — i.e. none of them uses it for any explicit apologetic ends.”
It is indeed surprising to see the continuing tradition that Cephas and Peter were different people. You indicate that none of these texts actually use this idea to downplay the problem of Peter and Paul disagreeing on a fundamental matter. That does not, however, eliminate the possibility that this was the origin of the idea that they were two different people.
Bart: “On the other hand, maybe a Greek speaking Christian, say a decade or so after Jesus’ death, was given the same nickname (Greek Petros) as one of Jesus’ followers because he was the “rock” of his own community.”
And this hitherto unknown “Peter” became so prominent a figure for Paul to single him out as “Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles)”???
Surely you must see that as highly improbable.
Nope. I see it as a slightly improbable one. 🙂 (BTW: I don’t see a problem with a later convert being appointed to take care of the mission to Jews any more than a later convert — Paul — was appointed to take care of teh Gentile mission. Why is that a problem?)
I don’t know if it is a “problem” but the fact that “James, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars” were already apostles “to the Jews” (Gal 2:9) makes me wonder why the need for a fourth.
I feel the case of Paul to be appointed “apostle to the gentiles” it’s a bit different than that of a Greek speaking Christian Peter to be appointed as another “apostle to the jews” but maybe it is only a feeling.
THere were a number of apostles to the Gentiles (Andronicus and Junia, e.g., Rom 16:8); but Paul understood himself to be the one in charge of the mission; I’m imagining something comparable for Peter among the Jews.
Yes , there were many , not only Andronicus and Junia, but Apollos , Bernabe and probably many others were “apostles to the gentiles”.
But none of them is mentioned in Gal 2:7-8.
Only Paul as apostle “to the gentiles” and Peter “to the jews”, so it’s that central role of Peter in converting non-chirstians jews that is hard to explain for a Greek speaking Christian that say a decade or so after Jesus’ death, was given the same nickname (Greek Petros) as one of Jesus followers.
I think nicknames may have been more common in the ancient world than now because of a more limited range of names, eg the extremely common name of Mary among Jewish women. Also reading Tacitus, every other Roman is named Drusus, so nicknames of necessity became de rigueur. Perhaps two early important Christians being called ‘Rocky’ isn’t so improbable after all?
Except, as Dr. Ehrman notes, use of ‘rock’ as a nickname is exceedingly rare before the Gospels.
I tend to lean towards a later Greek-speaking Christian offering some clever subliminal marketing to his Greek readers. First of all, proof that Jesus never made this Pun are his own alleged positive statements in refutation of the other forged “missionary” passage in Matt. 28:19. The avowed mission of Jesus, as we have seen from his reputed words, was exclusively to his fellow Jews: (Matt. 10: 5-6); and he expressly commanded his disciples not to preach to the Gentiles, nor even to the near-Jewish Samaritans. He proclaimed the immediate end of the world, and his quick second coming to establish the exclusively Jewish Kingdom of Heaven, even before all the Jews of tiny Palestine could be warned of the event — that “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” It is impossible, therefore, that Jesus could have so flagrantly contradicted the basic principles of his exclusive mission as the Jewish promised Messiah, and could have commanded the institution of a permanent and perpetual ecclesia to preach his exclusively Jewish Messianic doctrines to all nations on earth, which was to perish within that generation. This is a strong proof of a later interpolation of this punning passage.
I don’t understand this argument: what does Jesus’ renaming of Simon have to do with any mission to the Gentiles? Peter doesn’t take up that mission until much, much later.
“Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am?” The disciples respond that some people think he is John the Baptist come back from the dead, or Elijah, or another of the prophets. He then asks who they think he is and Simon replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus responds that this truth has not been revealed to Simon by “flesh and blood” but by God the Father himself, and then Jesus renames him: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18).”
Is this historical? Do you think this conversation happened?
In my judgment, no. It’s a later addition to the Jesus tradition to show that he was recognized as the messiah during his life, and to show, in Matthew, that Jesus would establish his church either on Peter’s confession or his work.
I think when Paul says in Galatians 2:7 that Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised he means entrusted by God. Not entrusted by the church.
That is, this Peter was the first leader of the church and is the same Cephas that was appeared to before the Twelve in 1 Cor 15.
Many problems (or questions) are interesting precisely because they cannot really be solved (or answered definitively).
“But what did Jesus mean? Was the church built on the disciple Peter (the first pope) or on his confession (the fact that Jesus is the Son of God)?”
As far as I know, you’re more standing in the protestant tradition than the catholic. 😉 But as an ‘outsider’ and as a textual critic, what is the most probable reconstruction of the Gospelwriter’s view? Do you think he was inclined towards an early Roman catholic view, seeing Peter as the foundation of the church, or did he obviously mean Peter’s confession is the church’s foundation? Is there a clear ‘objective’ – as far as that’s possible – textual argument or historical argument for thinking the Gospelwriter originally meant one of these views?
My hunch is that he meant something like “the church will be built on the apostolic mission after my death” But as you know, it’s hotly debated.
Ok fine, your on the fence,I think most are this way,including myself. What would cause you to tip the scale ? A more articulated view from,say another scholar, or just a deeper personal understanding/revelation?
I”m waiting for a divine revelation!
Ah yes,me too, may be a long wait though. But I was thinking closer than that, like mom or maybe even Sarah, may zap you😊. Someone once said, ” Faith is a precursor to Wisdom”.
How much weight do you give to the theory that Galatians was actually written before the “Council of Jerusalem”, perhaps leading to it and might therefore possibly be the earliest of the Pauline letters? Vs. it being after it and that Paul is probably referring to what we laymen call the CoJ?
I think ch. 2 is clearly referring to the meeting narrated (with legendary expansions) in Acts 15.
Hi Bart. Could it be that Matt 16:18 was an invention by the gospel writer based on a confused understanding of the original leaders in the movement as recorded by Paul?
Interesting idea. I really don’t know. But I’d say that there’s not much to suggest that Matthew had read the letters of Paul.
I wasn’t suggesting Matthew had read Paul’s letters. Rather, perhaps Matthew was drawing on distorted traditions that had arisen since the time of Paul.
Ah, I think that too, especially with respect to his understanding of the law.
I still think your thesis has merit, Bart. The fact that the idea is found in some early patristic writings shows that Peter = Cephas is not a dead cert. Besides, they were closer to the fact than we are (not a conclusive evidence in itself, I know), but still… And as far as Cephas being virtually unknown as a nickname prior to Jesus, Dale’s argument only holds if 1. We can categorically confirm that Jesus said these words – John and Matthew *could* have got their info from the same Aramaic source, and how can we be sure if it wasn’t invented or distorted along the way? 2. Most 1st century Aramaic people couldn’t write, again, how can we be certain there wasn’t another Cephas walking around in some far-flung hamlet?
Just a thought. Is there any mileage in comparing the Cephas/Peter scenario with the later conflation by Pope Gregory of Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the woman taken in adultery and making them into one person (ie. a prostitute)? We now accept that they were three different women.
Ah, interesting analogy.
Some of the oldest biblical manuscripts we have are in this Edessene dialect of Aramaic: Syriac. Matthew 16:18 – I tell you also that you are a stone (ܟܐܦܐ Kepha -ܟܐܦܐ proper noun), and upon this stone (Kepha- ܟܐܦܐ Feminine) I will build (ܐܒܢܝܗ – fig.: to construct a logical argument Galilean Aramaic) my church; and the doors of Sheol shall not shut in on it. Peshitta New Testament, Dr. George Lamsa’s English Peshitta translation
Personal name © The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon ©
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:47:34 -0400
Does this mean that perhaps the Greek translator knew : There are two genders of nouns in Syriac Aramaic, masculine and feminine.. .In earlier forms of Aramaic there was a distinction between the two. But the Greek translators would not give the feminine form to Peter, a man. Would this not distort the understanding. The second “rock” is feminine in Aramaic, so they deliberately made it a man.
Also the word “build” could mean to construct a logical argument, rather than a building.
In the ancient Santana Dharma tradition, The masters give the disciples the level of responsibility that they can handle, by constructing a logical argument for them..
If I’m understanding you correctly, the answer would be yes. The Greek translator did not want to use the feminine Petra as a nickname for the *man* Simon, and so changed it to Petros, the masculine term (though it is a different kind of rock)
I have an unrelated question.
In Phillippians, Paul says that Jesus was exalted above every other name. How do we know that that name above all other names isn’t YHWH? (So that Jesus is equated with YHWH…)
Because God himself gives him the name, so God must be YHWH. In any event, like every other Jew, Paul read his BIble and knew that YHWH was over all other gods, so he would be the one who was in charge, so to speak.
Why then can’t we say that YHWH giving Jesus the highest name would imply that YHWH made Jesus YHWH too, that Jesus became an embodiment of him or something?
The imagery comes from the ancient idea that the *messenger* of a king (or other high level person) had ALL the authority of the king, and was to be treated like the king in every respect. God game that authority, that “name,” to Jesus.
Jesus did the same they say, and gave the paradigm, in the Luke 10:25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself.” He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.”
@BDEhrman Are we not putting too fine of a point on this question? Is it not enough to simply say that Jesus favored Simon Peter as an Apostle and viewed him as the rock of the Church? Why does this issue make contrary to the supposition that Peter (the apostle) is the first Pope of the Church?
YEs, that’s the essence of Matthew 16. But the idea that Peter was the first pope would be anachronistic, I”d say.
So, one of the areas where my brain seems to be below average is linguistics. I really have trouble with other languages, even at the most superficial level. So, I have what is probably a dumb question regarding the name “Petros”.
Why is St Petersburg (presumably the English translation) also known as Petrograd? Petro obviously refers to Peter, and ‘grad’ means town or city; but is Petro a Russian word or a Greek word?
Sorry: I don’t know Russian! But maybe someone else can help us out here…
This discussion reminds me of a different question raised by the quotation. The first commenter (Rodge) touches on it, but my focus is different.
This reference to “church”. What the heck did that term mean in the first century? (I don’t believe Jesus used the word, but clearly the author of Matthew did).
Within a few centuries the word seems to have clearly meant the “body of believers” and perhaps also the organization that had placed it self over this body of believers.
But what about c. 70 CE?
“Church?” That seems to have no analog OUTSIDE later Christianity. Was the Greek word ever used in connection with Temple or even Rabbinic Judaism? Pagan practice? Philosophy? Mystery religions?
Is there some kind of etymological explanation you know of, Bart? [for the Greek word originally used, of course, not English]
The Greek word translated “church” is “ekkelsia” — and literaally means something like “those who are called out.” It was the term used for a ruling body of a community, and then later came to mean simply “community.” IN the Xn context it means “CHristain community,” that is, “church.” So Xn authors can say things like “the ekklesia of Christ.”
I understand that it is controversial to propose that Peter in the Gospels and Acts could be two different people, and I have no inkling to take that seriously. But does any scholarship on Galatians suggest that Peter and Cephas are two different people in that letter? That sounds plausible to me.
Just me and the people I cite in my article! (Some fine scholars have thought so, but not many) (Cephas of course is not mentioned in the book of Acts, at all, or anywhere in the Gospels except in John 1:42 — just the one time — so there can’t really be any passages that speak about him one way or ther other)
I want to pinpoint my question. And there is a lot to wrap my head around your paper that I read tonight in JSTOR, and my questions follow:
1. Do you think it is possible that Cephas in the Letter to Galatians is not Peter in Acts 15 (i.e., the Jerusalem Council)?
2. Or does Galatians unequivocally refer to the Jerusalem Council?
Galatians, in my view, is certainly talking about the Jersualem Council. But it’s account does not reconcile with Paul’s own.
Question for Dr. Ehrman: I was snooping through my wife’s Kenneth Copeland “Study Bible” today and read the introduction to the Gospel of Mark. The intro states that according to “biblical history” the Apostle Peter “took Mark under his wing, assisted him in the writing of the Gospel that bears his name.” I have never heard of that before, have you? Where would that “biblical history” originate? Thank you.
Yup, it’s a traditioal view that goes back to the very first time a Gospel of Mark is mentioned in any Christian writing, a quotation from the early second century writer Papias. (Look up fragments of Papias and you’ll find the quotation)
Dr. Michael Heiser suggests that both Protestants and Catholics are wrong. The rock is neither Peter (Catholic interpretation) or Jesus Himself (protestant interpretation). The rock he’s referring to is Mount Hermon which they’re currently standing at the base of.
While tradition has said they’re at Mount Tabor, that’s problematic since they’re walking from Phillipi Caesaria, and the only mountain there is Mount Hermon. From a theological standpoint, this seems to make more sense too since Mount Hermon was known for being an evil place. This is where the watchers descended in 1 Enoch. In Hebrew, this mountain was also known as Bashan, which has an evil history in the Old Testament. In this view, Jesus is essentially saying that he’s establishing His church on Satan’s kingdom aka He’s turning Satan’s kingdom into his grave.
Do you think there’s any validity to that view?
I’d have to see his precise argument, but the Greek word “petra” does not mean a mountain (or even tall hill). The Protestant interpretation is more typically that it ist he *confession* of Peter that Jesus is the Christ that is the rock, not that Jesus himself is.
Bart…
Question…
Do you really believe there were 12 “chosen” disciples or is the notion of 12 “chosen” disciples just symbolic? Of course there were disciples.. but were there really just 12 “special” appointments of such?
The list of the chosen disciples in the 3 synoptics all include a Simon the Zealot.. However Simon the Zealot is not one of the 11 disciples listed in the Epistle of the Apostles. The Gospel of John although refers to there being 12 disciples, it only gives identities to 10 of them and none of the identifed resembles a Simon the Zealot. It also excludes any disciple named “James”. It identifies the “Beloved Disciple” but also identifies the “Sons of Zebedee” which gives confusion..
I have been questioning both the “beloved Discipal” of John and Revelation, as well as the Peter/Cephas disciple for some time, thus searched through you blogs for any about Cephas and found this was your “final addressment” on the Cephas/Peter. I have encountered some who believe that the “Beloved Disciple was John the Elder/Presbyter, not John of Zebedee. I wish we had some of Papias writings.
I kind of agree with you about 2 Peters
Yes, I think Jesus did choose twelve disciples –and precisely for symbolic reasons. There are pretty good grounds for thinking so, and it is significant that everyone seems to know there were 12 of them even if they can’t agree on the names. I flip a coin on Peter/Cephas still. I don’t think we can know who the Beloved Disciple was, although I very much do not think it was John the son of Zebedee; and in fact there is no reason at all (from the text itself) to suppose it was anyone named John.
Is it possible that Papias writings were intentionally destroyed in later years because of how it could have conflicted with the Gospels the church had adopted as authoritive? We know that writings were to be destroyed that would conflict with the emerging orthodoxy. What happened to both the Mathew and Mark that Papias is said to have commented on? I’m thinking that Eusebius may have tanked Papia’s writings believing Papias views of Chiliasm were heretical and any evidence Papias may have gathered to come to such view must be stopped in it’s tracks (buried).
It’s possible; but as it turns out, we don’t have much evidence of Xn book burnings in antiquity. The best way to destroy a book was simply never to copy it.
I don’t find a word play in aramaic: “you are Kefa and upon this kefa”, is not a word play. But there is a word play in greek “Petros” – “Petra”. There is also a word play in hebrew: “upon this eben (rock) i will ebeneh (build)”. There is a tradition about Eben Shetiya and the building of the Temple.
I”m not sure Jesus said “upon this kefa I will build my church.” In fact I don’t think he did. (It’s only in Matthew) I think he renamed Simon Cephas, Rock, and that later Christian story tellers invented the word play in Greek, Petros/Petra.