andrewcriddle

I'm not sure if we can determine Clement's text here (apart from Gal 2:11). Clement's intention appears to be separation of the Peter who agreed with Paul from the Cephas with whom Paul had a controversy. They are represented as different people with basically the same name.

If anything Clement may have had a text that read Peter in verses 7, 8 and 9 (which appears to be the reading of P46 our earliest witness), if so this would have made it easier for him to belief that the figure in the early part of Galatians 2 is different from the figure in 2:11-14

I agree this is a guess but I think it is on internal grounds as likely as a text with Cephas in 2:7-8 and it does have external evidence (P46 etc) which the alternative lacks.

Andrew Criddle

judge

How would these exact same changes have ended up in Christian communities separated politically, theologically, liturgically and geographically?

How would the Persian church for example have ended up with the exact same changes in their texts?
This was an entirely separate community separated politically, theologically, liturgically and geographically? If you are going to suggest the text of Galatians was tampered with after the late 2nd century then you must account for this.

spin

Peter suddenly appears in 2:7-8 in the middle of a disourse about John, James and Cephas, with no warning and Paul never mentions him again. I gather that you're saying that this was native to Paul, who mentions that these pillars were to go to the circumcised, v9b, straight after the present text telling us that that was Peter's mission. I find this exceptionally difficult to see you believing.

I haven't got the mechanism, but does p46 place Peter in v.9 as well? This is not the mainstream tradition. Or is this what you are hypothesing about?

I don't know anything about p46, though it is usually dated circa 200 CE. The Hypotyposes are thought to be an early work of Clement, thus a few decades before 200 CE. Perhaps you can establish when Gal 2 was fiddled from that.

I'm sorry I didn't catch the logic of this paragraph. I guess it depends on the implications of v.9. If it's that you think it also had Peter, and so Paul knew of him, then I'd gather that you'd agree with your interpretation of Clement's thought, ie that Peter and Cephas were not the same person.


spin

spin

Paul's Letters did seem to be very popular for a long while, so they could have been filtered through a small tradition which modified the text which became the standard. That standard was translated for the Persian church, wasn't it?


spin

Magdlyn

Hi,

Enjoying the above sparring over the confusion between Cephas, one guy, and Petros, another guy.

I guess no one has the answer, however, to my question pertaining to the actual original topic, is there a difference in usage of the words petros and petra between more archaic Greek, as someone asserted, and the 1st century usage of the word? Ie:

small stone/bedrock-cliff (archaic as in some poetry)

vs

male/female (as supposedly in 1st century and the synoptics)

No one knows if the original meaning continued into 1st century CE? Either way, it is a slick play on words and one that I find important pertaining to how Jesus and the Church view Peter and his role. We do see an evolution of the character of Peter of the synoptics (denying dunderhead) to the later portrait in Acts and 1 and 2 Peter (eloquent, admired and powerful apostle).

spin

You should read the text of Acts 26:14. The Peshitta uses `BR'YT Hebrew to describe the communication. QL' CD 'MR LY ]`BR'YT, the voice said to me in Hebrew... (I only mentioned Naaman to show how the Peshitta referred to Syrians.)

You're digressing. Yes there are odd Aramaic and part Aramaic words in the nt. Here though we have the translator acknowledging that the voice spoke in Hebrew. Now if the text is clear in its implications as it is here, I can't see why you need to question it. Black is not red. The voice of God was not in Aramaic.

Perhaps, because Jesus sometimes uses Latin words in Mark, you will also argue that he actually spoke Latin. The major problem is that you are commited to the notion that this literature is history, yet you've never considered the basis of this commitment. I haven't claimed that Jesus spoke anything. Jesus is still a character in some literature that we read. To go beyond that you will need to justify your steps. You can't just assume your conclusions. I have argued elsewhere with growing evidence that the first gospel we know about, Mark, was written in Rome. The writers were neither Hebrew speakers nor Aramaic.

The text was written in Greek with Latin intrusions, set in Judea with odd Semitic words and phrases to give it a bit of flavour, you know "little girl, get up" and meaningful things like that in Aramaic with translations as though the whole text was written in Greek and foreign words were inserted. You don't translate from Aramaic and leave trivial bits of Aramaic for pleasure. These bits of Aramaic are snippets of tradition doing the rounds in the hellenistic world from one church group to another. Adds local colour.


spin

spin

There is no sign of different usage. Look for example at 27:60 for the tomb hewn out of the rock (petra). In 2Sa 22:2 the LXX uses petra for the rock of Yahweh. It doesn't mean a stone.

judge wouldn't agree with you. The Aramaic makes no difference. It says "you are Rock and on this rock I build my church."


spin

Angyson

In modern Greek, which I speak, the word for rock is " petra", the feminine of "petros".

judge

No you are backing off your original claim.
Here is your own words.
Are you going to suppoert this is retract it? The context was in relation to language as you are aware.

judge

Do you have any evidence Pauls letters were translated for the Persian Church or do we just accept it as an article of faith?
Do we believe without any evidence?

When do you propose this happened? You have already committed yourself in part. If you provide some more specifics we can scrutinise your theory.