Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simple Aramaic Primacy Proof in I and II Peter
Everyone on here knows that Peter's nickname in Aramaic is "Kepha" (Cephas). In I Peter, the apostle refers to himself by the Greek version of that name "Petros". In II Peter, he refers to himself as "Shimon Petros". Why would a translator translating Greek into Aramaic transliterate Petros instead of translating it into Kepha. "Cephas" appears several times in the Greek, in John and in two of the Pauline Epistles. I don't see why Paul would have written to Greek speakers and used "Kepha" without translating it, as well as "Maran atha" (Our Lord come).
I don't see why this is a primacy proof to either side. Sorry <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Just this, both languages were prominent and Cefa was known in both languages. However, 2 Peter in Aramaic is superior in several ways, especially 2 Peter 3:10 in Greek (rhoizedon, looks like a major translation error from Aramaic). As if the kingdom would come with a lot of noise.

The aramaic has this idiom 'men sheli' (out of silence) and this was understood as, "so, there must be noise" instead of they understood the idiom 'men sheli' means suddenly!

A great primacy proof, I suppose.
I actually thought about this after writing it (Kepha being understood by the Greeks). <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Nice little primacy proof you gave there.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)