Re: Cephas

I'm afraid that Greg Doudna's larger theory about early Christian 
developments raises so many questions (to my mind, of the sort that make 
the theory difficult to sustain) that I prefer to remain with something 
more controllable:  the question about Keypha/Petros. A Few specifics:
1) Greg, I checked every place I could think of in the Fitzmyer volume 
you mentioned (_Essays on the SEmitic Background of the NT_) and could 
find no ref. to a usage of Keypha as a proper name outside the NT.  The 
essay where Peter is disucussed is titled "The Name Simon", and deals 
with the usage of that name.  I remain, therefore, of the opinion that we 
have no verified usage of Keypha as an Aramaic name prior to the NT usage.
2) We do in fact have a few cases of TITLES being translated from Semitic 
languages into Greek:  Mashiach/Christos; Thomas/Didymus; Abba/Pater; 
etc.  So, the move from Keypha to Petros is by no means without parallel 
in early Christianity.  
3) All indications are that Keypha arose NOT as a name but as a title or 
nickname (i.e., either a formal or informal sobriqet), and was early on 
matched by a Greek usage (Petros; whether used for the same person or 
another is presently the issue).  Such a "titular" term would the more 
readily be "translated" than would an established proper name (which 
might more readily be Graecized).
4) Having re-read Bart's JBL article over the weekend, I am the more 
persuaded (contra Bart) that the 2nd cent. & later sources he cites that 
attempt a distinction twixt Peter and Kephas reflect apologetic concerns 
to avoid the idea of conflict within the apostolate, specifically a 
conflict twixt the two "biggies" of Peter and Paul (i.e., the scene 
mentioned in Antioch in Gal. 2).
5) Given that there is an Aramaic name "Petros" which perhaps meant 
"firstborn" (see Cullmann, "Petros", TDNT 6:101 [n. 8]), it is even 
possible that the same figure could have been called "keypha" and 
"petros" as Aramaic nicknames first and then "Petros" in Greek as an 
attempt to carry over the rough sense of Keypha.
6) A confusion of people is always to be considered (and can be shown in 
early Christian texts).  But Greg's hypothesis of a deliberate conspiracy 
to make up alternate Jer. leaders boggles one.  In fact, the broad 
direction of the early church was to claim close ties with the Jer. 
church and to claim all its leaders for itself.  I see no evidence of a 
polemic against the family of Jesus or others of the Jewish Christian 
leadership (Weeden's theory about Mark's supposed attack on the 12 hasn't 
stood up to critical analysis).

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba