No doubt many examples are result of multiligual audience as Leolaia mentioned however I'm convinced that at least some are the result of confusion and imagination. A famous one Peter, Cephus, Simon is very possibly the result of a subsummation of one character with another. Recently Bart Erhman has revisited the topic (other researchers have postulated it in past) that there were different persons, either in real history or literary history, that became melded into one 'Peter'. Many early Christian writers insisted that persons of Peter and Simon (aka Simon Peter) were different, the text of John 1:42 seems a deliberate if not forceful identification of the two, why?? I'm pulling from memeory but if interested, it is a great research topic.
Why do so many major characters in the NT change their jewish name to a greek one ?
by mP 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
Do you know when this multilingual nomenclatural practice began (i.e. first-recorded example)?
I'm not sure....possibly the pre-Maccabean high priest Jason? I can't think of any from the third century BC.
PP....Yeah we had an extended discussion on this on the "old" JWD. I don't think that is necessarily a position by Ehrman, if his recent book on Jesus is anything to go by. But I might be mistaken.
-
peacefulpete
No you are right I just edited my comment. He apparently had concluded that while a provocative topic he suspects the name Cephus was too uncommon. Not sure if that really deals with the questions but he may be just picking his battles.
-
peacefulpete
I am still of the opinion that next to nothing in the NT or other texts helps to identify an Historical Jesus (H.J.). I have read at least 5 books claiming to have teased the H.J. from the layers of legend but not one of them seems to have read the others' books wherein much of their own theory has been dismantled. I have sought long and hard for something that can be nailed down as not OT midrash, mythic embelishment or historically impossible novelle, but have found NOTHING. Not even sure just what name to use, as we have discussed the name Jesus is likely titular/honorary. Where he was from is unknown or controversial at best. When he died is found to be in dispute in earliest writings.
WHO WAS THE GUY?
-
mP
MP:
That still doesnt explain why a jew would give Simon a greek name. Are we to believe that Peter now went around witnessing introducing himself to all his fellow aramiac speaking brothers as "Peter" ?
Leo:
In Aramaic-speaking circles, the nickname was Cephas. In Greek-speaking circles, the nickname was Peter. Both mean the same thing. Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas. Many Jews in the diaspora spoke Greek. It was a multilingual world in the first century. Especially in Antioch, where Peter was especially active.
MP:
Im not questioning where Peter was active, but given the setting for the gospels is Gallilee and Jerusalem, one can hardly expect Mt, Mk or John to know about Peters activities in Antioch or other places where Greek was especially popular. Its not reasonable to believe or assume that Mt knew that Simon was called Peter in Antioch and used that when he set his story in Palestine.
From my humble readings, I somehow doubt that given Peter and Jesus supposedly witnessed to poor everyday people, who cheifly spoke Aramaic would then take a Greek name. There are many occasions in all the gospels where certain sayings are given in Aramaic and then "translated" into Greek.
Pete
No you are right I just edited my comment. He apparently had concluded that while a provocative topic he suspects the name Cephus was too uncommon
mP:
Not quite, There are several history records of Cephases, I was not discussing the popularity of the name but the notion that a populace speaking chiefly only Aramaic would default to using Greek names. The better educated no doubt would have used Greek, but the poor most likely did not. The gospels themselves tell us this, most if not all direct quotes are Aramaic never Greek.
Leo:
Do you know when this multilingual nomenclatural practice began (i.e. first-recorded example)?
I'm not sure....possibly the pre-Maccabean high priest Jason? I can't think of any from the third century BC.
mP:
Priests are by their very vocation hardly comparable to everyday lay people. Almost always they were educated, which implies they spoke Greek after all they needed to communicate with the ruling superiors for numerous practical reasons.
Blondie:
My neighbors are from various countries. I have noticed that while they retain their native name they also adopt an English name. I do believe that a form of Greek was the international language in the Roman Empire.
mP:
And yet the NT almost always when it gives quotations such as Jesus last agonyzing appeals to his father has them in Aramaic. Do we have any proof that people adopted Greek names but spoke Aramaic ?
-
Leolaia
one can hardly expect Mt, Mk or John to know about Peters activities in Antioch or other places where Greek was especially popular.
Umm, why??? Matthew was a Greek composition, and literarily dependent on Mark (a Greek work most likely NOT written in Judea). And BTW, Greek was not uncommon in Judea; even in Galilee there was an important Greek city (Sepphoris).
Its not reasonable to believe or assume that Mt knew that Simon was called Peter in Antioch and used that when he set his story in Palestine.
You are aware that Antioch is the most likely place where Matthew was written?
I mentioned Jason because he was the earliest person I could think of who had a name like that.
-
King Solomon
Thanks for the answer, Leo.
-
Wasanelder Once
Because they could pick up Greek women easier I suppose.
-
peacefulpete
mP.....My comment was responding to Leolaia's correct comment that Erhman has changed his view. Apparently in his book:(Peter, Paul and Mary Mag. 2006) he says his earlier opinion had been changed because of the uncommon use of the name Cephus. I haven't read that book and found that commnet doing a google. Personally I feel that if that is his whole argument it is a gross oversimplification of the controversy. If your comment about the name being in comon use can be supported, his new position is even less compelling. Unfortunately, I suspect he is deeply interested in distancing himself from anything regarded as fringe.
-
mP
Leo:
Leo:
Umm, why??? Matthew was a Greek composition, and literarily dependent on Mark (a Greek work most likely NOT written in Judea). And BTW, Greek was not uncommon in Judea; even in Galilee there was an important Greek city (Sepphoris).
Its not reasonable to believe or assume that Mt knew that Simon was called Peter in Antioch and used that when he set his story in Palestine.
MP:
Of course there was a Greek city in Palestine, that does not mean everyone spoke partially or in full Greek. Sorry i did not mean uncommon as in nobody knew it, of course the educated and rulers used Greek but considering that many of the apostles were fisherman, its hardly fair to assume they when working the boats would have known Greek.
Yes i am aware that all the gospels were written in Greek but apologists still insist other excuses like we only have Greek copies left rather than the original form in Aramaic even though my nonoe have been found.
Pete:
Sorry i missed your original target, thanx for the corretion.