Diatessaron supports Peter/Rock

[copland]

I have run onto a Peter is the rock passage while studying the Diatessaron. While I have only examined the Arabic version of it, I have found that it uses the same Arabic word Cephas, which is the same as the Aramaic, but it uses it in both places for Peter and rock, just as the Aramaic Peshitta also does. Again, more evidence to make the case for Peter as the Rock. You would figure that the Greek would be convincing enough for non-Catholics since the only way to masculinize petra is by using petros.

Though, not earth shattering info, but thought some on here would find it interesting!

[Daniel Marsh]

with all respect copland, the Diatessaron is dated about 175 ce, could you kindly, post your quote.

thanks

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by copland

I have run onto a Peter is the rock passage while studying the Diatessaron. While I have only examined the Arabic version of it, I have found that it uses the same Arabic word Cephas, which is the same as the Aramaic, but it uses it in both places for Peter and rock, just as the Aramaic Peshitta also does. Again, more evidence to make the case for Peter as the Rock. You would figure that the Greek would be convincing enough for non-Catholics since the only way to masculinize petra is by using petros.

"petros" was used as a feminine by both Theodoridas (C3rd BC) and Honestus Epigrammaticus (early C1st AD), both of whom are in the Anthologia Graeca, if you want to look them up (7.479 and 7.274). Greek nouns did not need to be altered in form to be altered in gender: see also "theos", which varied quite a lot.

"petros" was there because it was Peter's Greek name (in 162 locations in the NT, compared with only 6 appearances of "kephas"). "petra" was there because it was what you built things upon (e.g., Matthew 7:24-5 / Luke 6:48), and because it was a reference to the eben shetiyyah, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail. However, the two are of the same substance.

[Daniel Marsh]

interresting, do you have english translations of those texts?

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by Daniel Marsh

interresting, do you have english translations of those texts?

I do not at present, sorry, nor do I have the originals, although I can dig them out of the library. However, the translation is not of a great deal of use with respect to the gender of "petros", because you cannot see noun gender in English.

From memory, Honestus uses "petros" in the feminine while talking about Orpheus building the walls of Troy via the power of his song. I cannot recall what Theodoridas says, but I will look it up when I next go in.

[copland]

with all respect copland, the Diatessaron is dated about 175 ce, could you kindly, post your quote.

thanks

The quote can be found in the Diatessaron in Section 23:36-37. Unless you have the Arabic text you will not see what I am saying. 'Cephas' is used in Arabic, and the word is used in both places that the verse for Peter and rock. You will find it in the Codex 14 Vatican manuscript and also the Borgion (B) manuscript. These are translations from an Aramaic version of the Diatessaron, which is the original form that Tatian composed it. You can find it in page 91 of Ciaseas' Arabic version.


For the English translation online you can read it here http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...atessaron.html

But for the Arabic you will have to purchase it because it is not online that I know of.

[copland]

Mystophilus,Petros was an absolute translation of Kephas, at least according to the Apostle John.

John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

Every translator who translated the passage from Greek into an Eastern dialect such as Aramaic or Arabic all used the same word in each place for Peter and rock, it seems to me that it is very unlikely that all these scribes were were wrong in their translation, but maybe, just maybe, they translated correctly. And most importantly, the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek,so more than likely the Aramaic manuscripts that we have of the NT gospel of Matthew are of little more importance than the Greek. But if not convincing for the anti-catholic then maybe all the translations of the "Aramaic from the Greek" using the same word for 'petros' and 'petra' is.

I am well aware of the arguement about the Aramaic NT not being older than the Greek, but that can be argued at many levels.

[Daniel Marsh]

Papas said that Matthew was in Hebrew.

a interresting summary of traditions concerning ... here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm




Why are many of the quotes in matthew from the LXX?

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by copland

And most importantly, the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek,so more than likely the Aramaic manuscripts that we have of the NT gospel of Matthew are of little more importance than the Greek.

What Aramaic manuscripts of the NT? While Papias claimed that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, no one has yet been able to locate any actual evidence of such a manuscript. Instead, all we have is a Greek text, which chooses to use two words instead of one.

[Topher]

Originally Posted by Daniel Marsh

with all respect copland, the Diatessaron is dated about 175 ce, could you kindly, post your quote.

thanks

And what is the problem with this? This is early in Church history.

[copland]

There are hundreds of Aramaic NT manuscripts. Here is a site that even has an interlinear of the ancient Aramaic Peshitta. http://www.peshitta.org/

Look up Matthew 16:17-18 on this interlinear and you will see that it has 'Keepa' for both.

There are more Aramaic manuscripts of the NT then what most people think! You have the Sinaitic, Curatonian, Peshitta, Palestinian, and Philoexienon. In all I think there are about 450. I have an Aramaic NT in Maronite Script at the house.

[Daniel Marsh]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...gospel+matthew

[Mystophilus]

Greek is an inflected language, with genderised nouns. As such, each adjective and definite article (“the”, in English) must match the number, gender, and case (i.e., sentence function) of the noun which it describes. The following are two examples of πετρος being used as a feminine noun, as shown by the attendant adjective(s).

Theodoridas, A.P. 7.479, C3rd BC:
Πετρος (“stone”) ... γυρη (feminine, “round”) .
Were πετρος masculine,γυρη would be γυρος.

Honestus Epigrammaticus, A.P. 7.274, early C1st AD:
'η (feminine “the”) ... περιςςη (feminine, “superfluous”) πετρος (“stone”) .
Were πετρος masculine, 'η would be 'ο and περιςςη would be περιςςος.

These are in the Anthologia Graeca, the numbers following the authors' names being the original book and entry numbers for each. Note that translated editions often rearrange the epigrams into groups by author.

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by copland

There are hundreds of Aramaic NT manuscripts. Here is a site that even has an interlinear of the ancient Aramaic Peshitta. http://www.peshitta.org/

Look up Matthew 16:17-18 on this interlinear and you will see that it has 'Keepa' for both.

There are more Aramaic manuscripts of the NT then what most people think! You have the Sinaitic, Curatonian, Peshitta, Palestinian, and Philoexienon. In all I think there are about 450. I have an Aramaic NT in Maronite Script at the house.

My apologies; I thought that you were suggesting that we have original texts for the NT written in Early Aramaic, rather than those derived Late Aramaic texts.

[copland]

Mystophilus,

It can be debated, and is actually an ongoing debate between scholars about the Aramaic that we do have of NT manuscripts being the dialect that would be used by the Apostles. But as I have dialogued with Aramaic speaking friends about the issue of the different dialects, they explain it as the different dialects of English in America. We would not make such a big distinction between someone speaking Californian English and someone speaking Kentuckian English, though there are obvious differences in the dialects, but not many. The same goes with the Eastern Aramaic and the Palestinian Aramaic. And for some scholars to act as if they are totally distinct as if they are two different languages is actually like saying Kentuckian is a completely different language than Californian. That is quite silly to say, and that is just as silly to the Aramaic speaking people I know.

Since the gospel of Matthew being originally written in Aramaic, I find the ancient Aramaic NT to be quite reliable in the first gospel. Tradition tells us that Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew, and some might think that that does not mean Aramaic. But what some may not understand is that when anytime Hebrew as a language(Hebraios) was mentioned in NT times it meant Aramaic, it was the means of distiguishing between those who spoke Greek or Roman, or a Hellenistic Jew.

As I have said before, if the Aramaic is a translation of the Greek of Matthew, then it does seem to be odd that all these translators of the Greek into Aramaic seemed to understand Cephas to be the same word as petros and petra in Matt. 16:17, petros being a masculinzed petra. And not only the translators into Aramaic but other languages as well.