Kephas/Cephas?

[jmgainor]

I found this thread while browsing through the list. I devote a page of my website (linked below) to this question (actually, a couple of pages). Briefly, the oldest extant Aramaic text is the Peshitta, which only dates back to the 5th century. The Greek texts are much older, and the Peshitta likely was translated from them. Aramaic kepa correlates to Greek petros or lithos, and generally means a smaller, movable rock. Aramaic shua is the more correct (and more often) translation of petra, and indicates a larger, massive rock, or bedrock. This would mean that the Lord’s words (anglicized) would have more likely been “You are Kepa, and upon this shua I will build my Church”, where the Kepa is Peter, and the Shua is Christ.

See these links:

Hebrew of Matthew

The following two links are linked on the Hebrew of Matthew page:

Some thoughts on Matthew 16.18 by Pastor David Th. Stark. I found this online, and it is excellent.

Aramaic Kepa, Shua I did a computer search on the Peshitta, and found all the instances of kepa and shua, and their corresponding Greek and English renderings.

 

[joe370]

Hey Brandon…

Hi,
Recently I was challenged in a debate by the statement that we do not know really if Christ or Matthew used the word Cephas/Kephas in the Aramaic, since we do not have a copy of the Gospel in that language.

So, does anyone know if this is this true? Do we have proof that this was the word he chose to refer to Rock in the play on words with Peter? Or are we “reverse engineering” the Aramaic Gospel, ie. could he have used a different word?? If not, why not?

Thanks all!!
Brandon

Ps… I read somewhere that they found an Aramaic version of Matthew with the Dead Sea Scrolls… anyone know if that is true?

For me, as a former protestant, I had to ask myself:

If the writers of the New Testament wanted us to believe that Simon was re-named small stone rather than immovable rock, then why preserve the word Cephas when addressing Simon, (which means immovable rock) - 6 times in the NT? I should absolutely see the word lithos in lieu of Cephas, or at least the word petros in lieu of cephas every single time - right? In Matthew alone I count 23 times that Simon is referred to as Petros instead of lithos. Why not use the word lithos which would draw a much greater distinction between Jesus, the immovable rock and Simon, the small stone?

Brandon, why does the protestant English bible use the word cephas (immovable rock) - when referring to Simon, in lieu of lithos or even petros, those 6 times? Perhaps because the word cephas is what is found in the original Koine Greek?

Again, the Koine Greek word for small stone is not petros; it’s lithos, so why didn’t the NT writers employ the word lithos every time, instead of petros, and cephas on occasion, when using Simon’s surname?

If in fact the NT writers wanted all to believe that Simon was renamed small stone to distinguish, (as protestants would have us believe) - between the second immovable rock (Jesus) - and the first small stone (Simon) - then why not use the most descriptive word to describe a small stone???

Small stone …What an odd thing to surname Simon after his singular revelation from God, don’t you think?

Even if the idea was to use the word small stone to identify Simon, and make the clear distinction between Simon, the first rock of Matthew 16, and Jesus, the second rock of Matthew 16, (the immovable rock) - in Romans 9, Jesus is referred to as both small stone (lithos) and immovable rock petra) - negating this argument. In other words, if lithos fails to make the protestant argument then certainly the word petros fails as well:

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (lithos) - As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone (lithos) - that causes men to stumble
and a rock (petra) - that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Furthermore, grammatically speaking, the second rock on which Jesus built His church, is referring directly to the first rock, as oppose to Simon’s confession of faith or Jesus Himself, who is of course the divine Rock, and architect, considering the fact that He is the one doing the building. “I will build my church…”

They are clearly the same rock…

Your thoughts Brandon?

 

[inkaneer]

1. Kepha (aramaic word for MASSIVE ROCK)
2. Kephath (aramaic word for SMALL ROCK/ PEBBLE/ THROWABLE STONE)

‘Petros’ is more informative in showing what the writer really meant
Because ‘Petros’ is a Greek word written in Greek alphabet. John and Matthew must have chosen the word carefully to translate the Aramaic word in order to clarify the meaning.

The allegedly word ‘kephas’ is less informative because it is an Aramaic-Greek Transliteration of allegedly Aramaic word ‘Kepha -or-maybe- Kephath’.

So by this way of thinking, I guess that John was trying to say
plainly that ‘Simon’s new Aramaic name’ means ‘Petros’
(which plainly means ‘pebble/stone’).

I’m sorry but that is flat out wrong. Petros is the Greek word *Petra *meaning rock. Petra consists of the root word petr- * and the feminine gender suffix -a However, since it is a feminine gender word it cannot be used to denote a man. In order to do so it must be changed to the masculine gender so * Petra loses the feminine gender ending -a and gains the masculine gender ending *-os *. So Petra becomes Petros with no change in meaning. As for stone Mathew certainly knew the difference between a rock and a stone. A stone in Greek is the word lithos which Matthew used 10 times in his gospel. As for Little Rock it is not in the Bible but you can find it in Arkansas.

 

[markomalley]

Hi,
Recently I was challenged in a debate by the statement that we do not know really if Christ or Matthew used the word Cephas/Kephas in the Aramaic, since we do not have a copy of the Gospel in that language.

So, does anyone know if this is this true? Do we have proof that this was the word he chose to refer to Rock in the play on words with Peter? Or are we “reverse engineering” the Aramaic Gospel, ie. could he have used a different word?? If not, why not?

Thanks all!!
Brandon

Ps… I read somewhere that they found an Aramaic version of Matthew with the Dead Sea Scrolls… anyone know if that is true?

Cephas is the Hellenization of “kipa” (rock)

As far as a copy of the Aramaic NT, you can find it here: peshitta.org

 

[hatsoff]

A few items…

1. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the Greek language. However, several Apostolic fathers, most notably Papias, claim that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, and this has led scholars (and not a few unscholarly hacks!) to speculate over the following: that Papias intended Hebrew to mean Aramaic, that the Gospel to which he referred is the same Gospel we have today, and finally that he was correct! This speculation is not borne out by the evidence, but you will find nevertheless some periodic scholarly interest in the hypothesis. Those who think Matthew was originally written in Aramaic typically suggest the Syriac Peshitta as the most faithful extant text, since Syriac is so closely related to Aramaic. Needless to say, this hypothesis does not enjoy much support, since it relies on a long chain of guesswork, and flies in the face of hard evidence—namely, the manuscript data and textual analysis (esp. in comparison to Mk and Lk).
2. Paul calls Peter both “Petros” and “Kephas” in his epistles. Since Peter probably spoke Aramaic, and also since Paul’s use of Aramaic in a Greek epistle would be unusual if Peter did not have an Aramaic nickname, it seems safely reasonable to conclude that Peter was indeed called “Kephas” in that language. If Mt 16:18 is historically accurate, then we would not expect Jesus to have used the Greek term “Petros” unless he was speaking Greek, which seems quite unlikely.
3. Mt 16:18 is not known to be historical at all. Although Jesus’ commission is one possible origin for Peter’s nickname, it is by no means the only one. Peter could have coined the name himself. Or it could have been one of the Twelve, or his mother, or some person never mentioned in our sources. We just don’t know.

I hope that helps.

 

[vwtaylorii]

Hi,
Recently I was challenged in a debate by the statement that we do not know really if Christ or Matthew used the word Cephas/Kephas in the Aramaic, since we do not have a copy of the Gospel in that language.

So, does anyone know if this is this true? Do we have proof that this was the word he chose to refer to Rock in the play on words with Peter? Or are we “reverse engineering” the Aramaic Gospel, ie. could he have used a different word?? If not, why not?

Thanks all!!
Brandon

Ps… I read somewhere that they found an Aramaic version of Matthew with the Dead Sea Scrolls… anyone know if that is true?

Here are two more arguments you can use:

1. The apostles were from Galilee, and the dominant language in that region was Aramaic

2)The Church Fathers in early centuries wrote that Matthew was written in Aramaic:

St. Papias of Hieropolis (may had a direct contact with John the Apostle):

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” (Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 3:39:16) newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

St. Irenaeus of Lyon:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (Against Heresy 3:1:1) newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Origen:

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. (Commentary on Matthew, bood 1) newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm

**Eusebius of Caesarea **

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. (Church History 6:25:4, which is a history of Origen view of Scripture Canon) newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue (Church History 3:24:6) newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

I also put the links so you can read them in context.