Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2:7-14

[NotWorthy]

In John 21:15, RSV the quote is, “Simon, son of John.” But in the same translation the Matthew citation you give above is “Bar-Jonah.” So it looks like “Bar” goes with “Jonah” but “son” goes with John. And that Jonah and John are the same name.

I agree that it is logical to come to this conclusion. The only problem is, John and Jonah are NOT the same name, nor are they Greek-to-Hebrew alliterations. I’m still trying to find out where I first heard this, though. After all, Matthew calls John by his name and never calls him Jonah.

 

[porthos11]

I agree that it is logical to come to this conclusion. The only problem is, John and Jonah are NOT the same name, nor are they Greek-to-Hebrew alliterations. I’m still trying to find out where I first heard this, though. After all, Matthew calls John by his name and never calls him Jonah.

The difference lies in the Greek underlying Matthew and John, and there are manuscript variants.

And there are people whose names vary even more wildly than Peter/Cephas, take for example, Jehoiachin, also known as Jeconiah, and Shallum (!!!).

bar- is simply an Aramaic word for “son of”, as is the Hebrew ben-. Peter would be Shimon ben-Yona or Shimon ben-Yochanan, depending on which name is correct. But no, Jonah and John are not the same name, as they do not share the same Hebrew origin.

 

[NotWorthy]

The difference lies in the Greek underlying Matthew and John, and there are manuscript variants.

And there are people whose names vary even more wildly than Peter/Cephas, take for example, Jehoiachin, also known as Jeconiah, and Shallum (!!!).

bar- is simply an Aramaic word for “son of”, as is the Hebrew ben-. Peter would be Shimon ben-Yona or Shimon ben-Yochanan, depending on which name is correct. But no, Jonah and John are not the same name, as they do not share the same Hebrew origin.

I agree - both that “Bar” means “Son of” and that John is of diferent origin than Jonah.

So, why did Jesus call him “Simon Bar Jonah” if its clear that He should have said “Simon Bar John” or Simon Bar Yochanan?

 

[SHW]

I found more Scriptures in which Paul states his view of “admonishing” and of esteeming “authority.”

Philippians 2:3 “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.”

Paul’s own Scriptures teach contrary to his “supposed” rebuke of his superior Peter since Peter alone has the “keys to the kingdom” and this “office” must be respected or esteemed.

I cannot fathom Paul disparaging fellow “Apostles” reputations by insultingly stating before all and even writing it in a letter to a Church at large the following “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars…”

But if these were subordinates, as in members of the original 70 disciples, then yes, I could see him using his legitimate authority to question their status as “pillars.”

I would not have a job if I insulted my superior/boss in a manner such as Paul supposedly did to his equals and superior. Would you? Instead I would carefully approach him in private and voice my concern and give him the opportunity to rectify the situation and I would not tell anyone else in the company about my discussion with my superior either if I desired continued job security.

I certainly would not broadcast the superior’s mistake to one and all in the company while at the water cooler and surely would not write a letter for inclusion in a company newsletter which included bragging about my rebuke of my superior or equal. This would be a sin against the proper use of pride and I would also be promptly escorted out the door never to return.

After Peter’s bold proclamation in Acts 10 when he states that both clean and unclean meats now enjoy the same status in God’s eyes as acceptable and that Gentiles are to be welcomed as Christians since God shows no partiality…I honestly cannot picture him cowering in front of Jews and being afraid to eat with Gentiles simply because Jews were present. The bigger offense to Jews would have been Peter’s acceptance of Gentiles as worthy “Chosen” of God to inherit eternal life and Peter had absolutely no qualms when he proclaimed this new “astonishing” teaching to and in front of Jews in Acts 10.

Paul circumcised Timothy for fear of the Jews opinion after the decision was made to abolish the circumcision law in Acts 15:

Acts 16:1-4 “Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.”

Wouldn’t his actions be hypocritical to say the least if he actually rebuked Peter the Apostle (in public and by letter) instead of Cephas the disciple in his letter to the Galatians after this event of his own personal failing in Acts 16?

I could be mistaken but I believe the evidence makes my case very compelling for Peter and Cephas to be known as two different men in Galatians 2, one (Peter) being the Apostle and the other one (Cephas) being one of the 70 disciples. A legitimate and easily understandable reason for all listeners, both learned man and common man, for using “two different names” in order to speak of “two different men” with the “same” name in the “same” Scripture passage.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think the very reason that Peter is Prime is why Paul should have admonished him and made it known that he did else. Else, others could say, “*Why should we eat with those filthy Gentiles, Peter didn’*t…” The last thing we should do is let our leaders act wrong simply because they are “above” us in rank.

Let the greatest among you be the least…

 

[porthos11]

I found more Scriptures in which Paul states his view of “admonishing” and of esteeming “authority.”

Philippians 2:3 “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.”

Paul’s own Scriptures teach contrary to his “supposed” rebuke of his superior Peter since Peter alone has the “keys to the kingdom” and this “office” must be respected or esteemed.

I cannot fathom Paul disparaging fellow “Apostles” reputations by insultingly stating before all and even writing it in a letter to a Church at large the following “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars…”

But if these were subordinates, as in members of the original 70 disciples, then yes, I could see him using his legitimate authority to question their status as “pillars.”

I would not have a job if I insulted my superior/boss in a manner such as Paul supposedly did to his equals and superior. Would you? Instead I would carefully approach him in private and voice my concern and give him the opportunity to rectify the situation and I would not tell anyone else in the company about my discussion with my superior either if I desired continued job security.

I certainly would not broadcast the superior’s mistake to one and all in the company while at the water cooler and surely would not write a letter for inclusion in a company newsletter which included bragging about my rebuke of my superior or equal. This would be a sin against the proper use of pride and I would also be promptly escorted out the door never to return.

After Peter’s bold proclamation in Acts 10 when he states that both clean and unclean meats now enjoy the same status in God’s eyes as acceptable and that Gentiles are to be welcomed as Christians since God shows no partiality…I honestly cannot picture him cowering in front of Jews and being afraid to eat with Gentiles simply because Jews were present. The bigger offense to Jews would have been Peter’s acceptance of Gentiles as worthy “Chosen” of God to inherit eternal life and Peter had absolutely no qualms when he proclaimed this new “astonishing” teaching to and in front of Jews in Acts 10.

Paul circumcised Timothy for fear of the Jews opinion after the decision was made to abolish the circumcision law in Acts 15:

Acts 16:1-4 “Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.”

Wouldn’t his actions be hypocritical to say the least if he actually rebuked Peter the Apostle (in public and by letter) instead of Cephas the disciple in his letter to the Galatians after this event of his own personal failing in Acts 16?

I could be mistaken but I believe the evidence makes my case very compelling for Peter and Cephas to be known as two different men in Galatians 2, one (Peter) being the Apostle and the other one (Cephas) being one of the 70 disciples. A legitimate and easily understandable reason for all listeners, both learned man and common man, for using “two different names” in order to speak of “two different men” with the “same” name in the “same” Scripture passage.

The Judaizing heresy was the first heresy that threatened schism within the Church. Of course, if the Pope misbehaves and goes against his own infallible decree, then naturally, one of his cardinals can and should forcefully rebuke him.

 

[SHW]

Dear SHW - Maybe then you’ll not need to find another rock to place your faith in other than Peter who was the first Pope. Or are you already so far gone that you don’t believe Benedict XVI is the Pope? What other Apostles are you willing to admit are truely Apostles? Have you fallen away that far? I hope not.
Gail

And also:

That’s too bad. Keep reading. I’d suggest an additional book. One that contains Church history.
Gail

If you mean John 1:42, this discussion of Galatians 2 has nothing to do with it. “Peter” and “Cephas” mean the same thing in different languages just like Marie and Mary and Maria are all the same name but in different languages.

John 1:42 does not mean that there cannot be two different men named either Peter or Cephas. The name “Cephas” was used by other men other than the Apostle and there is archaeological evidence for this fact dated c. 416 B.C. It was not a new name only allowed to be used by one single person.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding if this is the reason that you were chastising me.
SHW

 

[SHW]

porthos11: The Judaizing heresy was the first heresy that threatened schism within the Church. Of course, if the Pope misbehaves and goes against his own infallible decree, then naturally, one of his cardinals can and should forcefully rebuke him.

NotWorthy: I think the very reason that Peter is Prime is why Paul should have admonished him and made it known that he did else. Else, others could say, “Why should we eat with those filthy Gentiles, Peter didn’t…” The last thing we should do is let our leaders act wrong simply because they are “above” us in rank.

Let the greatest among you be the least…

TMC: And why would it matter what some guy whose name happened to sound like Peter’s thought? Paul records only a handful of the millions of conversations he had in his life. Why did he choose to record this one?

The fact that it is a dangerous heresy is an excellent reason for Paul to have recorded it for posterity. Perhaps this recording of this incidence in Galatians 2 had nothing to do with the supposed rebuking of a pope by Paul because this “rebuking” of the Apostle Peter never happened. Heresy is an excellent reason to publicly rebuke one of the 70 disciples whose name also happens to be Cephas.

I also believe as you all do, that people should be corrected if they are in error.

We disagree on what should be (or is) the appropriate method of correcting an equal or superior and your argument stands as correct if Paul actually did as you claim he did.

But, why would Paul change names for the same man in the middle of his letter without explaining his reason for doing it in clear and concise terms so that there could be no misunderstanding?

If I received this letter at the Church in Galatia, I would naturally think that he was speaking of two different men. I think everyone else would also. When I speak of two men with the name “John” in the same conversation, I make sure that everyone knows which one I am speaking of at all times by giving his last name or some other identifying name along with “John.” I certainly would not use two names “Jack” and “John” for the same man in conversation. I would be thought daft or muddle-headed if I did so.

People keep assuming that there was no man named Cephas/Peter until Jesus gave the name to Simon. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas/Peter so that it would mean stone or rock because Peter/Cephas is to be the head of the Church, Christ’s representative on earth. This is a fitting name change because Jesus is also called the “stone” and “rock” in Scripture but it does not mean that there weren’t any other men named Cephas. And there is archaeological evidence that this name “Cephas” was being used already in 416 B.C.

I believe the logical reason why Paul gave no explanation for the change in names and never thought to have to do so is because they are actually two different men.

I don’t know the “meanings” of other people’s names and I doubt very much if anyone else does, either now or back in Paul’s time. Perhaps now many people consult a baby book of names with meanings in order to name their child but I doubt very much if they did so back then. Who would have had the free time or wanted to use their free time to learn the definitions of everyone’s names?

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it and It has been interesting!

 

[SHW]

Another disagreer here. That article erroneously attempts to vindicate Peter while overlooking the actual vindication given by Paul’s words. St. Paul is precise in switching between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” ("Rock) - the name which Our Lord actually used for St. Peter; however, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. So in looking at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”, whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

I doubt that the common man in Galatia would be able to discern any of this high-minded word usage in an open letter to the Church without any explanation whatsoever as to why two different names were used. I think they believed that Paul was speaking of two different men, so Paul had no need to explain anything and he would not have thought to do so, if he was speaking of two different men. I don’t even know the meanings of the names of my 11 brothers and sisters!

Just my opinion and I am not infallible.

 

[porthos11]

The fact that it is a dangerous heresy is an excellent reason for Paul to have recorded it for posterity. Perhaps this recording of this incidence in Galatians 2 had nothing to do with the supposed rebuking of a pope by Paul because this “rebuking” of the Apostle Peter never happened. Heresy is an excellent reason to publicly rebuke one of the 70 disciples whose name also happens to be Cephas.

I also believe as you all do, that people should be corrected if they are in error.

We disagree on what should be (or is) the appropriate method of correcting an equal or superior and your argument stands as correct if Paul actually did as you claim he did.

But, why would Paul change names for the same man in the middle of his letter without explaining his reason for doing it in clear and concise terms so that there could be no misunderstanding?

If I received this letter at the Church in Galatia, I would naturally think that he was speaking of two different men. I think everyone else would also. When I speak of two men with the name “John” in the same conversation, I make sure that everyone knows which one I am speaking of at all times by giving his last name or some other identifying name along with “John.” I certainly would not use two names “Jack” and “John” for the same man in conversation. I would be thought daft or muddle-headed if I did so.

People keep assuming that there was no man named Cephas/Peter until Jesus gave the name to Simon. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas/Peter so that it would mean stone or rock because Peter/Cephas is to be the head of the Church, Christ’s representative on earth. This is a fitting name change because Jesus is also called the “stone” and “rock” in Scripture but it does not mean that there weren’t any other men named Cephas. And there is archaeological evidence that this name “Cephas” was being used already in 416 B.C.

I believe the logical reason why Paul gave no explanation for the change in names and never thought to have to do so is because they are actually two different men.

I don’t know the “meanings” of other people’s names and I doubt very much if anyone else does, either now or back in Paul’s time. Perhaps now many people consult a baby book of names with meanings in order to name their child but I doubt very much if they did so back then. Who would have had the free time or wanted to use their free time to learn the definitions of everyone’s names?

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it and It has been interesting!

The problem lies in the assumption that Paul is using two different names, which he isn’t. He’s using the same name but in two different languages, Greek and Aramaic, which is, of course, not unheard of in ancient times.

 

[John1]

I think that saying that Cephas is anyone oyher than Peter is and was an attempt to avoid a possible doctrinal problem. From what I’ve seenand read, all the diiferent denominations of Christianity throughout history have formed doctrines, and then stuck to them dogmatically, refusing to or reluctant to change there doctrines, no matter what the Bible says. Near the beginning of Christianity, in 1Corithians, Paul rebukes the early Christians because one says he follows Paul, one says he follows Cephas, and another says he follows Apollos. These would have been considered different denominations today. At the Council of Ephesus in 449, a bunch of bishops got together to debate their differing opinions about Church topics, namely the dual nature of Christ. Anyway one of the bishops, Cyril, decided to start the council dicussions early, before all of the bishops had arrived, which was not supposed to happen. Cyril also had his army there to make sure that his opinion was the one that won the day. “Carpe Diem” I guess.

Blessing and Happy Thanksgivings!

 

[SHW]

The problem lies in the assumption that Paul is using two different names, which he isn’t. He’s using the same name but in two different languages, Greek and Aramaic, which is, of course, not unheard of in ancient times.

Why would it be necessary to use two different languages to speak of one man when writing to members of a Greek-speaking Galatian Church? If he wrote the whole letter in two different languages, then he would write “Peter” if writing in the Greek language and “Cephas” if writing in the Aramaic language. But he would not use both name translations in the same letter unless he was speaking of two different men.

Paul is writing to the Galatian Church exclusively in the Greek language so if he was speaking of the same man, he would not use two different names. No speaker changes names for the same person in the same conversation when using only one language. A person does not start out talking about “John” and then finish talking about this same person as “Johann” in the same conversation unless a specific reason is stated for the change in name.

It is up to the speaker to make his speech/letter perfectly clear. Paul did not make any attempt to do this because he did not know that anyone would ever mistake Peter the Apostle for Cephas the disciple. Paul’s audience knew that he was speaking of two different men with the same name definition. I am sure that these Church members were aware of the names of some of the 70 disciples and probably had met many of them. He spoke of “Peter” as “Apostle” in this conversation. He never said that Cephas was the same person as the Apostle Peter in this same conversation. Why should we, 2000 years later, assume now that Paul was speaking of the same man? It does not make logical sense to do so.

Peter the Apostle is actually listed in this passage as background material. Paul is comparing his own mission to the Greek-speaking peoples (Gentiles) in relation to Peter’s mission to the Hebrews (Jews) and Paul is establishing his own authority by this means of comparison with Peter.

Peter boldly proclaims before both the Gentiles and the circumcised (Jewish converts) in Acts 10 that all foods can be eaten and that the Gentiles are also God’s chosen people so I cannot fathom him acting the coward in Galatians 2, afraid to eat with these Gentiles in front of the circumcised. The circumcised were astonished because they actually saw the Holy Spirit poured out upon these Gentiles and Peter commanded these Gentiles to be baptized. It does not fit bold “Peter’s” character to act in the way that Paul states that cowardly “Cephas” did.

The names “Saul” and “Paul” are both names for just one Apostle; however, these names are never used together in a conversation to depict this one man unless they are explaining that they are the same man as in Acts 13:9. Paul is actually never referred to as “Saul” again after this explanation of “Saul’s” conversion in Acts 13-Acts 16.

I could be mistaken in my view. I think we’ve pretty much exhausted this topic. Thanks for the discussion

 

[mercygate]

No, I thought Jonah and John are NOT the same name.

I’ll have to check where I got that from, but if I’m correct, there is some symbolism going on. I’m referring to earlier in Chapter 16 of Matthew, where Jesus tells them to look for the sign of Jonah (His Death and Resurrection). Then 15 verses later, He calls Peter, Simon son of Jonah. Again, I’ll check where I first heard this.

Oh, and thanks for the backup, Porthos!

My Greek NT has the name as “Simon Bariona” (Mt.) and “Simon Ioannou” (Jn). One is “Aramaic” and the other is plain Greek. It’s like John and Johann or Ian. Same name. Remember, Matthew is the Gospel people speculate was composed in Aramaic.

 

[NotWorthy]

My Greek NT has the name as “Simon Bariona” (Mt.) and “Simon Ioannou” (Jn). One is “Aramaic” and the other is plain Greek. It’s like John and Johann or Ian. Same name. Remember, Matthew is the Gospel people speculate was composed in Aramaic.

OK, so you and Porthos are coming to opposite answers.

porthos11:

bar- is simply an Aramaic word for “son of”, as is the Hebrew ben-. Peter would be Shimon ben-Yona or Shimon ben-Yochanan, depending on which name is correct. But no, Jonah and John are not the same name, as they do not share the same Hebrew origin.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Jonah and John are not the same names, they are two different Hebrew names. The only thing that I can think of is that Peter’s father may have gone by both names. It appears to be a common practice, even some of the 12 apostles did the same, Bartholomew- Nathanael, and Thaddeus- Lebbaeus- Jude.

 

[mercygate]

OK, so you and Porthos are coming to opposite answers.

Maybe so, but dat’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jonah and John are not the same names, they are two different Hebrew names. The only thing that I can think of is that Peter’s father may have gone by both names. It appears to be a common practice, even some of the 12 apostles did the same, Bartholomew- Nathanael, and Thaddeus- Lebbaeus- Jude.

Aren’t these name changes due mostly to Aramaic and Greek and/or Roman names?

Such as Kepha, Peter, Cephas, etc.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Aren’t these name changes due mostly to Aramaic and Greek and/or Roman names?

Such as Kepha, Peter, Cephas, etc.

Your right. That is a little different than going by 2 different Hebrew names. I need to research this topic more to find a satisfying answer to why the NT has him as son of John and son of Jonah. The only thing I can find now is that his dad went with both names.

 

[porthos11]

Your right. That is a little different than going by 2 different Hebrew names. I need to research this topic more to find a satisfying answer to why the NT has him as son of John and son of Jonah. The only thing I can find now is that his dad went with both names.

A more likely answer is that there are manuscript variations in the synoptic and Johannine traditions.

John (yochanan) and Jonah (iona) are not the same names, as they do not share the same root, and is attested to by the Greek. This is not the same as John, Juan, and Johann. yona and yochanan are two very different names in Hebrew.

Bar-yona (Gk. Bariona) simply means son of Jonah. Iouannou is genitive for John (Ioannes) not Jonah, (which is Iona in Greek) , so very literally, that translates into “Simon of John.”

 

[COPLAND_3]

St. Jerome says

Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John (ed. note: In Jn 21, the Vulgate has ‘Johannis,’ but in Jn 1, 43, ‘Jona.’), according to that question in another place, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” (Jn 21,15) affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable.