cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON PETER
ih) From what has been said it will be evident thnt
with \'r writers the honorific name of the apostle was
the only one in general currency, and that thcy used
his pr0p.r name Simon (or Symeon) only when there
mere lilernrv rensons for doing so. This holds good
also for the author (not hitherto referred to) of I Pet.
who calls himself (I I) Ilhpar. From the epistles of Pnui
we can gnther that the Ammaic form of this honorific
name nnn known even in Galati* (Gal. 118 z9 ~+l and
in Corinrh ir Cor. 11% 321 9r - lilrl. -, And in fi~ct this is
not to ix nccouatecl for by some such reason as n mere
personal habit of Paul's to call him so : rather must re
infer from I Cor Ira thnt Peter's own follo\~.ers had
brought his Dame in its Aramaic form to Corinth : for
we may be sure that Paul when he attributes the woidr
1 on the form of the nvne of Simon'3father x e JOHN, SON
OF ZB.EDEE, 8 I, middle.
45.51
SIMON PETER
I [am] of Cephar ' to the retrine party at Curinth is
reriderrng t1n:ir lamgouge with literal fidelxty. Yet from
- IlauYr twice ravin~ , . ' Prrei' (Gal 2~ .,/ I , we must uof
conclude that the iurses in which the name occuri arc
; froril another hand : for along nirlr the *\ramnic n;lnre
ue "la)- be sure that the C;nlatians, precisely bccause it
,>as an honorific name, nor n proper name in the stricter
senre uf