The Reaction of Some Aramaic Bloggers to My Theories About the Origin of the Name Peter

I know what it must be like for the readers of my blog who don't know a thing about Aramaic. "Here's this guy who's challenging the accepted notion of Peter deriving from Cephas." The point as I mentioned already is that the core of the idea has passed the test of the guy who marks all the Hebrew exams in the nation of Australia (Dr. Rory Boid). This doesn't mean that he is saying I'm right about Peter deriving from 'interpreter.' It just means - as he noted here yesterday - that Peter can't derive from Cephas, so pitur is the next best choice or next best possibility.

In any event as I always Google my name I found this Aramaic blogger who at the very least DOESN'T ATTACK MY THEORIES. He seems knowledgeable enough but remember - Rory Boid is at the very highest level of Semitic language experts translating texts in a variety of languages including Jewish, Samaritan, Mandaean Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic not to mention Greek and Latin. Rory is so smart that he can even write academic articles in French and German on top of English!

In any event here is the link to give some of my readers the perspective they need to decide about whether Peter comes from pitor (remember Rory is EMPHATIC that it can't come from kefa 'little stone'). What is for certain, he says, is that a kefa is not a boulder or any size stome that approaches a 'rock.'

Here is the post:

Stephan Huller's Musings on "Peter"
Looking over my news feeds today, I came across an interesting article by Stephan Huller entitled "Could the Editors of the Catholic Canon Have Thrown 'Cephas' as a Diversion from the Real Meaning of Simon's Name."

In essence, the argument is that the origin of the title "Peter" is not from כיפא ['kefa'] but from פתור ['pitor'].

Where I'm not sure I agree with some of their assertions (for example that כיפא ['kefa'] means "little stone" when it is used in phrases such as "ארון דכיף" ['arun d-kif'; "a coffin/chest of stone"] in Ham 575:152 etc., because both אבנא ['ebna'] and כיפא ['kefa'] are used in either sense) as well as some of their conclusions (I'm one who takes conspiracy theories with skepticism by default, especially when kephas as כיפא ['kefa'] is a less-elaborate, more Occam's Razon-friendly solution), it is certainly thought provoking and draws some interesting connections.

In Palestinian Aramaic (but rarely in other dialects) the root פתר ['ptar'] did carry the sense of "to interpret" as the cognate to the Hebrew פשר ['pesher'] which makes his connection between Peter as an "interpreter" an alluring one. However, interpreting πετρος ['petros'] as פתור ['pitor'; i.e. 'interpreter'] is a bit sketchy, as besides being very rare, פתור ['pitor'] was almost exclusively used in the context of interpreting dreams (i.e. פתור חלמיה).

(Also as a completely frivolous side-note, I must admit that when I first read the proposal, when I saw "pitor" I immediately though to myself, "Well then, what about פַתוּר ['patur' = table]?" a much more common homograph. :-) )

In either case, the blog post is certainly worth a read. :-)

Just some notes. Remember what I started out suggesting was that the GOSPEL OF PETER was mistranslated from Bassoret ha-Pitrah. I don't know if there ever was a Simon called Peter. I am only trying to make sense of where the 'someone else INTERPRETED a gospel for Peter' legend got started and I am fairly certain that a book entitled Bassoret ha-Pitrah is the right place to begin.

Later editors of the canon (remember Irenaeus doesn't reference Matt 16:18 where Peter = 'rock') certainly DID posit an implausible etymology for Cephas. Also I think Caruso assumes that the Simon called 'Peter' is our canonical St. Peter. I just wrote a post today suggesting that the Peter Clement is referencing had a gospel written by Mark or 'interpreted' by someone associated with Basilides might well have been Simon Magus, who is identified as being involved with visionary, dreamlike experiences. The argument in the Clementines AGAINST this SIMON (who clearly thought he was a 'seer' as well as an 'interpreter') was effectively that he wasn't instructed enough in the truth to call himself a pitor.

Also Caruso seems only to be aware of HEBREW references to pitor which all reference dream-like states. However with regards to Jewish Aramaic this is certainly not true. Some examples from Jastrow (p. 1255) where patar is used to mean interpreted, explained or solved in everyday situations:

it may be explained that they redeemed unblemished sacrifices, and when afterwards they are blemished (the money paid for them is secularized) Y. Ber. VII.11a

the difficulty may be solved in agreement with R. Ishmael's opinion a. fr.

whatever you asked of us, we all explained in the same way. Keth 107b

have you gone so far in your interpretation? Y. Ber. II end. 5d

I can explain them in agreement with the opinion of ... Pesik. Shek. p. 10b

the Rabbis explain this verse (Ps. III.3) as a reference to Doeg a.fr.

there is an explanation for it (you can meet this difficulty by saying) that it refers Tam 32a

we shall ask you something too mysterious for solution Y. Shebu I 32c sq

there is nothing left to thee but to agree with the first interpretation Y. Naz. V 53d

as R. J. has explained a. fr.

offered two explanations Y. Peah IV. 18b

he explained it in accordance with those explanations (given above) Y. Gitt. VIII, 4pc

As such there is nothing that distinguishes patar from pesher in terms of the application of 'interpretation.' With regards to pitur there is no doubt that it is primarily used in the sense of 'interpreter of visions or dreams' with Balaam as the ultimate type of pitur (pitur is specifically referenced as Balaam's title in the rabbinic literature). Yet even this is significant because Balaam is clearly identified as a Christian 'type' - if not Jesus himself.

There is absolutely no doubt that 'Balaam' became identified with a prominent Christian teacher (although it must be noted the rabbinic texts never make it explicit that Balaam is Jesus). Indeed the gospel portrait of Jesus offers no reason why Balaam would be 'misidentified' with Jesus as Jesus is never portrayed as a seer or dreamer of dreams after the manner of Balaam.

Simon Magus is certainly an exact match especially as we have already noted Simon is identified as both a dreamer and interpreter of dreams. Note how the rabbinic tradition identified pitor as a title of Balaam - in Paddan which is named Petor after him (Balaam) 'interpreter of dreams' (Targ. Y Deut. XXIII, 5)

One more thing of note for Caruso when he mentions as a side note - Also as a completely frivolous side-note, I must admit that when I first read the proposal, when I saw "pitor" I immediately though to myself, "Well then, what about פַתוּר ['patur' = table]?" a much more common homograph - Jastrow (p. 1251) suggests that paturah developed from money changing TABLE (patur) to mean 'money changer.' I have noted on a number of occasions at this site that I AM NOT AN EXPERT on Aramaic but I find it intriguing to see if the oft cited saying of Jesus 'Be ye as skillful money-changers. Take the good, throw the bad away' originally used a word developed from patur - perhaps paturah - so that the expression had a built in double-entendre i.e. 'Be ye as skillful INTERPRETERS. Take the good, throw the bad away.' Just a thought. I have to run that one by Rory.

Yet I think the readers can begin to see why retaining what I consider to be the original etymology of Peter's name would be problematic for the Church. Simon Peter becomes indistinguishable from Simon Magus especially when we consider the Balaam connection.

Balaam once again is understood by Jewish tradition to have "gradually acquired a position among the heathen as exalted as that of Moses among the chosen people (Num. R. xx. 1). At first a mere interpreter of dreams, Balaam later became a magician, until finally the spirit of prophecy descended upon him (ib. 7)." Can't the reader see? If pitur = Peter than Simon Peter = Simon Magus.