Amaleq13

I'm not familiar with "Keepa" as a translation for "Peter". Where did you obtain this?

spin

It's a sort of transcription of the Aramaic that provides the even stranger Cephas.

Aramaic for rock is KP which provides KYP', best transcribed for Europeans as KIPA', which perhaps is rendered best into English as Keepa, although the Greek "khfas" reflects the Hebrew tendency for a P between vowels to become F, so maybe the best is Keefa.

But everyone uses Cephas from Latin, which leads us to say Seefas.


spin

judge

I got it from Victor alexander translation of the peshitta at

www.v-a.com

Be aware his translation is a very free one as he tries to capture idoms and idiomatic structures which means his rendering often differs from other translations.

An interlinear peshitta is underway at www.peshitta.org
and two translations of the peshitto (the eastern peshitta as edited by the western monophysite syriac church) at
www.peshitto.com

If you send Victor 5 bucks he'll give you access to all the translation work

spin

I was thinking of mentioning the peshitta in my previous message. It uses K'P' (' = alef). That might be transcribed as Kafa (remembering the medial P -> F).


spin

spin

When you cannot relate them to the period we are dealing with they are not fundamental historical works.

When Shakespeare used Sir Thomas More's history of Richard III, he used a text not related to the period in concern and simply muddied Richard III's character by popularising More.

Texts can only truly represent the times in which they were written. When were the nt docs written?


spin

judge

Hmm...maybe?

But Aramaic speakers seem to disagree, transcribinbg it as Keepa

here is another example.
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

I have never heard of an aramaic speaker referring to Kafa, only Keepa

Layman

Fair enough.

As far as I'm concerned, you've been a proactive and effective moderator. I'm glad you took the job.

Sauron

Rather sweeping and grandiose claim, Bede. Do you have an inventory of "atheist historians" complete with their statements that they all believe that Jesus existed?

No, I didn't think so. Just another attempt at argument ad absurdiem.

spin

That may be modern pronunciation of Aramaic, but if Cephas comes from Aramaic and not Hebrew, then it shows how ancient speakers of Aramaic pronounced the middle consonant. Keepa is logical from KP'.


spin

spin

Of the people to whom I've spoken it doesn't seem to be the case. One can only ask so many times only to receive scornfully worded assumptions.

An interesting adjective "uneloquent".

And an inappropriate noun, "rhetoric".

I have asked for some sort of historical methodology which treats source materials with a certain objectivity which includes validation of secondary evidence. What I've received is a wild avoidance. Bede is the only writer who has deigned to attempt the problem by giving a barebones synopsis.

You seem to be protesting too much to be taken seriously.

Obviously you and I have different standards in the presentation of evidence, and I admit it freely.

Back to bandying "rhetoric". I gave an accusation that the people I've been dealing with have avoided their responsibilities. You may go back over the posts I've made to see why I made the accusation.

At least I'm honest.

I would have liked to see the intervention of someone who was prepared to make a case for Jesus's historicity rather than the usual "I don't need to" reaction.

I guess the real reason why no-one has been able to present a case is that there doesn't seem to be archaeological evidence to support one, in fact neither does there seem to be epigraphic evidence. That's the problem, so one gets the presentation of "internal evidence" and secondary evidence with the hope that the weight of centuries of apologetics is sufficient to win the case.

I'm still waiting for a serious attempt.


spin