Diatessaron supports Peter/Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter copland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

copland

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

thanks
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
“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.
 
interresting, do you have english translations of those texts?
 
Daniel Marsh:
interresting, do you have english translations of those texts?
Click to expand...
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.
 
with all respect copland, the Diatessaron is dated about 175 ce, could you kindly, post your quote.

thanks
Click to expand...
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 earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html

But for the Arabic you will have to purchase it because it is not online that I know of.
 
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Daniel Marsh:
with all respect copland, the Diatessaron is dated about 175 ce, could you kindly, post your quote.

thanks
Click to expand...
And what is the problem with this? This is early in Church history.
 
There are hundreds of Aramaic NT manuscripts. Here is a site that even has an interlinear of the ancient Aramaic Peshitta. 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.
 
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.
 
40.png
copland:
There are hundreds of Aramaic NT manuscripts. Here is a site that even has an interlinear of the ancient Aramaic Peshitta. 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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,

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.
 
40.png
copland:
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.
Click to expand...
Papias claimed that the “logia” (sayings) of Matthew were written in Hebrew. Eusebius took that as being an Aramaic gospel, and subsequent writers followed Eusebius’ line. As much as the Catholic emphasis on the tradition is valuable for its historical contextualisation, it is vulnerable to a sanctification-by-age which can lead to the perpetuation of a story merely by virtue of its antiquity, and, in my heretical opinion, antiquity is not an absolute measure of validity.

We have yet to see any evidence for the existence of an Aramaic original of Matthew, and every translator’s analysis which I have seen of Matthew’s Greek says that it bears no traces of having been translated from anything else. While I cannot discount the possibility that an Aramaic Matthew did exist, I doubt it as Erasmus did.
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. 16:18, petros being a masculinzed petra. And not only the translators into Aramaic but other languages as well.
Click to expand...
Many languages lack a useful distinction, and translations depend a great deal upon the translators, as shown by the huge variations between English versions of the Bible. However, it is important to note that petros is not a masculinised form of petra: the two separate words had existed since at least the time of Homer, with two distinct sets of denotations. Petros is a separate piece, petra a mass. This distinction was maintained in the such famous writers as Pindar, Sophokles and Euripides, and thus unsurprisingly continues on down into the Koine period, in which the likes of Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and Plutarch all use the words as two distinct terms.

Whatever the later Aramaic versions might say, the Greek writer used two different words, leaving us with a text which actually does make a lot of sense when you consider the Jewish cultural references to the eben shetiyya and the parallel passage in Mt 18:18.

The argument that petros is a masculinised petra descends, I suspect, from the Vulgate, which features “petrus” and “petra”. Thus far, I have been unable to find any other example of petrus: it seems to have been created for the purpose, and does look very much like a masculinised form of the other noun.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
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.
Click to expand...

Very rightly said.​

Is it just me, or do Catholics argue from hypothetical documents in one instance, to vindicate the position of Peter; while ridiculing another hypothetical document thought by scholars to underlie the Synoptic gospels ?

No one has seen a line of these Aramaic texts - any more than they have seen a line of Q. Why is one hypothesis treated with respect, and almost taken for granted; while Q, and those who think it accounts for many features of those three gospels, are treated with scorn ?

Why are there not links to dismissals of the hypothesis of an Aramaic Matthew, just as there are sometimes links to dismissals of Q ? To believe that Q may have existed is regarded by some as “liberal”, therefore bad - is the Aramaic Matthew hypothesis valued because it is perceived to be a defence against “liberalism” ? If so, that is to confuse apologetics with the study of Scripture - to the benefit of neither. Apologetics and scholarship do not mix well - they both have their place, just as riding and cookery do; but it would very rash to try preparing a three course meal while on the back of a race-horse.

Using apologetic to dismiss or uphold hypotheses about the formation of the texts of the Bible does just that: hypotheses should be accepted or rejected, not on dogmatic grounds, but by criteria suitable to their character as human artifacts; and, at least for the purposes of academic study, that is what hypotheses and the texts of the Bible both are. To dismiss - or support - an hypothesis for dogmatic rather than scholarly reasons is an error in method: which is why a Catholic OT scholar can’t appeal to his conviction as a man of faith that God works miracles, in order to support an hypothesis such as that the ten plagues on Egypt in Exodus come from different sources; he must appeal to criteria which are verifiable by academic means; not to elusive realities such as God. (That is why scholars in other disciplines don’t appeal to divine realities either: the decipherment of Linear B owed nothing to any revelation by King Minos.)

The Didache was reconstructed hypothetically just before it was rediscovered 120 years ago. If an hypothesis can be shown to have been valid, as it was, so may the hypothetical Aramiaic Matthew - and so may the despised Q. Hypotheses about hypothetical documents are valid, not because they are useful in arguments about dogmas, or uphold interpretations of texts; but because they are fruitful in accounting for what is known by appealing to hypothetical, unknown, sources for what is known.

I wish Our Lord had included a Beatitude for those who write very briefly 🙂 ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
Why are there not links to dismissals of the hypothesis of an Aramaic Matthew, just as there are sometimes links to dismissals of Q ? To believe that Q may have existed is regarded by some as “liberal”, therefore bad - is the Aramaic Matthew hypothesis valued because it is perceived to be a defence against “liberalism” ? If so, that is to confuse apologetics with the study of Scripture - to the benefit of neither.
Click to expand...
While I agree wholeheartedly with your general point, I feel that we what are actually seeing is a function of the variance in epistemology. For an orthodox Catholic, the ontological accuracy of Tradition is a given. On this basis, anything which contradicts Tradition can be immediately disregarded. Because the existence of the Q document (apparently) contradicts Tradition, the Q document cannot exist, in much the same way that fundamentalists “know”, a priori, that evolution is false, and atheists “know”, a priori, that the Bible is false. Ideology predetermines epistemology.

As blind as this may seem, ideologically-prejudiced readings abound. Who amongst us can honestly and accurately say that s/he can identify and bracket all of the assumptions which may bias his/her reading?

I am frequently suspicious of orthodox Catholic readings of the Bible texts, for the very reasons which you have mentioned. However, that is only because my bias is towards the values of literary studies. Thus, they produce good Catholic readings, while I search for good literary readings. I cannot reasonably say that my bias is less bad than theirs.
I wish Our Lord had included a Beatitude for those who write very briefly 🙂 ##
Click to expand...
“Blessed are the concise.”
(From the lost book of Bob, ch. 12, v. 2 ¾)
 
I’m coming into this conversation a bit late and I’m tired so if I make no sense please correct my mistakes. But I would like to add a few things.

I see the thread has been talking about Matthew and the possibilities of it being written originally in Aramaic and eventually translated into Greek and the Aramaic original eventually being lost. From what I remember there are a couple of factors which lead some to believe this to be true.

One is not so much a word here or there (Petra/Cephas) but it was the play on words that was typical of 1st Cent. Palestinian speach, which, I think is still the practice. This is found in other passages (please don’t ask me where, remember I’m going from memory). Unfortunately this is often lost though the many translation but the kernel is still there. Another example I just remembered is the passage of Jesus saying we are the salt of the earth. From what I remember the word earth could also be translated, with the change of a letter or two, as an oven which was common at the time of Jesus. Salt was used in the bottom of these bread ovens to increase the heat - salt was a catalyst. After continued use salt would loose the ability to produce heat and would be scraped out and thrown away. This was a common occurance in the times and life of Jesus - every town had an oven like this and everyone would know exactly what Jesus was talking about.And if the translation I am suggesting is more accurate then it may show a Palestinian Jewish influence which was an aramaic speaking influence. That’s just one example.

Another reason is based on more anthropological evidence. It seems, and again please allow me some leeway with my sources,that Matthews Gospel developed in and for a Jewish community turned Christian, but whose concerns clearly shows a Palestinian Jews concern which was distinct than the concerns of the Jews of the Diaspora, for example the emphasis on the Temple found in Matthew. Also the parables of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, strongly relate everyday occurances in Judea and Galilee, both aramaic speaking areas.

These are just some poor examples, but what I hope to add here is that sometimes we have to go beyond the “words” and attempt to catch the cultural origin hidden within the words used.

One last thing about “Q”, a theory that I do accept and see no threat in its acceptance. First, I think we should all agree that the Gospel message was presented in Oral Tradition (just read Dei Verbum). It makes sense to me that duing the time of oral tradition someone or ones would write down various words or sayings and stories but not in a story form because it wasn’t needed - the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry were still alive. I think this is what many consider the “Q” source to be. And to give it a little more credence, one has to go out of the canonical books of the NT into those books that were rejected. Such works such as the Gospel of Thomas were developed indepently of the four Gospels, yet contain many of the same passages and sayings found in the Canonical works. How does one explain this knowing that the non canonical Gospels are contemporary yet independent of the Canonical Gospels?

Just some food for thought I hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top