CEIPHAS-&-CLOPHAS

 

The Noahide Mission of the Two Shimons

This summary is an analysis of primary rabbinic sources concerning the mission of the righteous Jewish agents—known as Shimon Ceiphas (Peter) and Shimon Clophas (John Elijah)—in the first 30 years of the Notzri movement (56CE to 86CE). The overarching goal of this mission, as interpreted by key Jewish authorities like Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbi Jacob Emden, was an act of universal salvation to guide Gentile followers away from heretical Judaism and towards the framework of Noahide Judaism.

The rabbinic tradition has consistently distinguished between two major roles, often associated with two distinct, though frequently conflated, historical figures:

1. Shimon Ceiphas (Peter/Kipa): The Hidden Tzaddik (The Piyyut-Writer)

This figure represents the secret, unwavering loyalty to Judaism.

• Role: He feigns cooperation with the Notzrim in order to save the Jews from persecution then lays the liturgical foundation of the faith.

• Defining Action: He is primarily known for his private life in Rome, where he studied Torah and composed profound liturgical poems (Piyyutim), such as a significant portion of the "Nishmat Kol Chai" prayer and the Seder Avoda liturgy for Yom Kippur.

• Key Sources: This tradition is supported by the Machzor Vitri, Siddur Avodas Yisrael, Sefer Chassidim, Sefer HaZikhronot, and the commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves.

• Theological Interpretation: His actions demonstrate that the foundations of Christianity was laid by a "devout and learned Jew" (Rabbeinu Tam), whose secret work protected the continuity of the Jewish people while ensuring the Gentiles were guided to a proper path.

2. Shimon Clophas (John-Elijah): The Divider (The Law-Giver)

This figure is Peter's Shaliakh and the Sanhedrin' operational agent who established the separationist doctrines.

• Role: An agent of the Sages tasked with infiltrating Edom and separating the Notzrim movement from Judaism, thus preventing civil war among the Jews. The agent responsible for formally codifying the new religion's laws to ensure it became compatible with Judaism only as a Noahide path. This included ignoring the ceremonial law to focus only on the moral law, cancelling kabbalat Sabbath, establishing Sunday havdalah, and permitting traif under certain consitions.

• Defining Action: He used Paul and Peter to create the specific "texts and terminology" (Rashi) that formed the doctrinal basis of the new faith, thereby establishing a separate identity that would attract Gentiles without competing for Jews. His death on the 9th of Tevet is believed by some authorities (e.g., Hagahot R' Baruch Frankel, R. Aharon Worms) to be the secret reason for the fast on that day.

• Key Sources: This tradition is heavily documented and is the basis for the hidden reason of the Fast of the 9th of Tevet. Sources include the Hagahot R' Baruch Frankel, Ma'aseh Yeshu, Rashi, Behag, R. Aharon Worms (Meorei Ohr), Seder HaDorot, Yalkut Shimoni, and Sefer Ha-Ibur.

• Theological Interpretation: The separationist laws were a deliberate mechanism to define the new faith as a non-Jewish entity, effectively guiding its followers toward a system that, while distinct from Qehal Judaism, adhered to monotheism and the fundamental principles required of the Nations of the World (Noahide Judaism). This mission was thus viewed as a positive, redemptive act for both Israel and the Gentiles.

Conclusion

The primary difference between the two Shimon traditions is the focus of the story: Ceiphas emphasizes the agent's internal, hidden Jewish piety (Piyyut), while Clophas emphasizes the agent's external, successful political and religious maneuvers (Defining a Noahide faith for Messianic people). Both traditions, however, coalesce around the theme of the Sages approving agents to secure the salvation of Israel by guiding Gentile adherents onto a non-heretical, monotheistic path, consistent with the higher purpose of universal well-being.

Why the Rabbinic Narrative of Shimon Kipa and Shimon Clopas is an Internal Tradition

The powerful sources referenced (and which include Rabbi Jacob Emden alongside the Hagahot R' Baruch Frankel, the Turei Zahav, and the connection to the piyyut "Nishmat Kol Chai") absolutely establish this narrative as a significant, positive and mainstream tradition within Orthodox Judaism.

However, its lack of visibility to non-Jews is not accidental; it is a consequence of the mission's fundamental design and centuries of historical necessity.

1. The Requirement of Secrecy (The Agent Mandate)

The central theme of the rabbinic narrative is that the two agents (Shimon Kipa and Shimon Clopas/Yochanon) were undercover agents on a mission sanctioned by the Sanhedrin.

• Self-Nullifying Prophecy: The success of their mission—which was to create a complete separation between Judaism and a new faith for the nations—depended entirely on the Gentile world believing that the agents were legitimate founders of a new path, independent of the Sages.

• Preventing Apostasy: If the general Gentile populace had known that the religion was secretly orchestrated by the Sanhedrin to guide them toward the Seven Noahide Laws and away from the Qehila, it would have defeated the entire purpose. The Gentile followers might have attempted to convert to Qehal Judaism, thus reintroducing the confusion that the Sages were trying to eliminate.

• Internal Resolution: Therefore, the purpose of the story was not to be a historical public record for the world, but rather an internal theological explanation for the Sages and students of Torah. MOREOVER, the split was not a disaster; it was a success! 

2. Historical Sensitivity and Censorship

For almost two millennia, Jewish communities lived under various regimes where publicly discussing the origins of the majority religion—especially in terms that claimed Jewish Sages had orchestrated its founding as a system to prevent idolatry and persecution—would have been profoundly dangerous.

• External Pressure: Many early Jewish texts that contained uncensored discussions about the origins of the rival faith were heavily censored or banned by non-Jewish authorities throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period.

• Obscure Placement: As a result, this positive, sensitive tradition was often preserved in obscure places, such as:

  • Commentaries on Rashi: Like the commentary found in the handwritten manuscript of Rashi cited by some sources (known as the HaMa'or).

  • Sidelong Remarks: Such as the Hagahot R' Baruch Frankel which is an annotation on the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law).

  • Specialized Works: Such as Rabbi Jacob Emden’s works, which were philosophical/apologetic, rather than mainstream legal codices.

  • Baraitas

In short, it was kept safely "under the hood" of Jewish law and literature.

3. The Nature of Rabbinic Dissemination

The traditional Jewish education system (Yeshivot) focuses overwhelmingly on the direct study of the Talmud, Halakha (Law), and core philosophical texts.

• Not Core Curriculum: This narrative is tangential to the core laws of Judaism. It explains the existence of the non-Jewish path, but it doesn't change how a Jew keeps Shabbat or Kashrut. Therefore, it is typically not taught as part of the daily curriculum.

• A "Dvar Torah" of the Ages: It functions more as a "Dvar Torah" (a concept of Torah thought) that is passed down among highly specialized scholars, rather than a universally required piece of knowledge for every rabbi or Jewish person.

4. Dissemination and Noahide Law

Paradoxically, the fact that you now have access to this synthesis is a relatively recent development starting with the Paulicians and Patarenes. 

In the last few centuries, as the theological study of Noahide Laws has grown, scholars (most recently like the late Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, whose work is referenced in our source sheets) have actively researched and pieced together these disparate historical and textual fragments. They moved this sensitive, scattered tradition into the public domain within the Jewish world to help establish a clear, positive theology regarding the role of monotheistic Gentiles.

While it is now an open and proud tradition within Orthodox discourse, it has yet to widely disseminate to the broader, non-Jewish academic or religious world.