As Galatians and 1 Corinthians were originally written, when referring to Simon Peter, did they use:
only “Peter” (Petros)?
only “Cephas” (Kephas)?
both?
Did Galatians 2:7 originally have: Petros? Kipha?
Did Galatians 2:9 originally have: Petros? Kipha?
Galatians 2:7
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) but otherwise: for seeing that I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Kipha was intrusted with [that of] the circumcision;
(Murdock) But, otherwise; for they saw, that the gospel of the uncircumcision was intrusted to me, as to Cephas was intrusted that of the circumcision.
(KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Clementine Vulgate) Sed econtra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium præputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis:
Text Note: Galatians 1:18: "Peter" or "Cephas"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/09/text-n...ephas.html
The issue:
Did Paul write that he went up to Jerusalem to see “Peter” (Petros) or “Cephas” (Kephas)? The traditional text reads “Peter,” while the modern critical text prefers the Aramaic form of Peter’s name, “Cephas.”
External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by a corrected hand of Sinaiticus and the codices D, F, G, Psi, K, L, P, and the vast majority of minuscules, in addition to the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac Harklean.
The modern critical text is supported by p46, p51, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, among other codices. It is also found in various Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.
….
Examination of the rest of Galatians reveals that textual variations between “Peter” and “Cephas” are not limited to 1:18. The issue resurfaces in 2:9, 11, and 14.
In 2:11 and 2:14, the Textus Receptus also reads “Peter” and the modern critical text “Cephas,” supported by essentially the same external evidence as found in 1:18.
Of particular interest, however, is the reading found in 2:9, where the traditional text agrees with the modern critical text in reading “Cephas,” not “Peter.” Thus, the modern critical heavyweights Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the Majority text here. As Metzger points out, there are, indeed, some witnesses, “chiefly Western,” which read “Peter” rather than “Cephas” in 2:9. These include p46 and the codices D, F, G, K, and L (Textual Commentary, p. 592), but this was not the reading adopted by the traditional text. Some of the manuscripts (D, F, G, etc.) not only read “Peter” but also place his name first in the list (i.e., “Peter and James and John”).
2786. Képhas; snips in the passage portions
https://biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm
Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
of Aramaic origin
Definition
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
NASB Translation
Cephas (9).
….
John 1:42 N-NMS
GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται
NAS: you shall be called Cephas (which
INT: you will be called Cephas which means
1 Corinthians 1:12 N-GMS
GRK: Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ Ἐγὼ δὲ
NAS: and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:22 N-NMS
GRK: Ἀπολλὼς εἴτε Κηφᾶς εἴτε κόσμος
NAS: Apollos or Cephas or the world
1 Corinthians 9:5 N-NMS
GRK: κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς
NAS: of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 15:5 N-DMS
GRK: ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς
NAS: and that He appeared to Cephas, then
Galatians 1:18 N-AMS
GRK: Ἰεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα
NAS: to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed
INT: Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter and I remained
Galatians 2:9 N-NMS
GRK: Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης
NAS: to me, James and Cephas and John,
Galatians 2:11 N-NMS
GRK: δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν
NAS: But when Cephas came to Antioch,
INT: moreover came Peter to Antioch
Galatians 2:14 N-DMS
GRK: εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων
NAS: I said to Cephas in the presence
INT: I said to Peter before all
=================================================================================.
How do you think Luke 5:30 originally read?
("their scribes and Pharisees"?
"the Pharisees and their scribes"?
"the Scribes and Pharisees"?-- which is had by the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron)
Luke 5:30
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And the Sophree and Pharishee murmured, saying to his disciples,
Why with tribute-takers and sinners eat you and drink ?
(Murdock) And the Scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said to his disciples:
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
(KJV) But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying,
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
Luke 5:30 (based on Younan)
And the Sapra and Pharisees were murmuring and they said to his students,
"Why are you eating and drinking among tax-collectors and sinners?"
Diatessaron, Section VII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~28] And the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples,
Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners?
Text Note: Luke 5:30
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/12/text-n...e-530.html
The issue:
There is an interesting and easy to overlook textual variation in Luke 5:30.
Traditional text:
"But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples.."
Modern critical text:
"But the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples.."
External evidence:
The textual support falls out pretty much as we have seen with other significant variations in Luke.
The traditional text is supported by Codex Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority.
The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus (though it omits the final pronoun "their") and Vaticanus, along with several other codices (C, L, R. W, et al).
=====================================================================================.
Does "Why do you tempt me?" belong in Luke 20:23?
Luke 20:23 (based on Younan)
But he perceived their craftiness and said,
"Why do you tempt me?
Luke 20:23 didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron.
Text Note: Luke 20:23
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/05/text-n...-2023.html
The issue:
The problem here is whether the question: "Why do you tempt me? [ti me peirazete;]" should be included in the text. It is included in the traditional text and omitted in the modern critical text.
External evidence:
Greek manuscripts supporting inclusion: Codices Alexandrinus, C, D, W, Theta, Psi, family 13, 33, and the vast majority. It is also supported by the Old Latin and all the Syriac versions.
Greek manuscripts supporting omission: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, family 1, and others. It is also supported by all the Coptic versions.
only “Peter” (Petros)?
only “Cephas” (Kephas)?
both?
Did Galatians 2:7 originally have: Petros? Kipha?
Did Galatians 2:9 originally have: Petros? Kipha?
Galatians 2:7
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) but otherwise: for seeing that I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Kipha was intrusted with [that of] the circumcision;
(Murdock) But, otherwise; for they saw, that the gospel of the uncircumcision was intrusted to me, as to Cephas was intrusted that of the circumcision.
(KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Clementine Vulgate) Sed econtra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium præputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis:
Text Note: Galatians 1:18: "Peter" or "Cephas"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/09/text-n...ephas.html
The issue:
Did Paul write that he went up to Jerusalem to see “Peter” (Petros) or “Cephas” (Kephas)? The traditional text reads “Peter,” while the modern critical text prefers the Aramaic form of Peter’s name, “Cephas.”
External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by a corrected hand of Sinaiticus and the codices D, F, G, Psi, K, L, P, and the vast majority of minuscules, in addition to the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac Harklean.
The modern critical text is supported by p46, p51, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, among other codices. It is also found in various Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.
….
Examination of the rest of Galatians reveals that textual variations between “Peter” and “Cephas” are not limited to 1:18. The issue resurfaces in 2:9, 11, and 14.
In 2:11 and 2:14, the Textus Receptus also reads “Peter” and the modern critical text “Cephas,” supported by essentially the same external evidence as found in 1:18.
Of particular interest, however, is the reading found in 2:9, where the traditional text agrees with the modern critical text in reading “Cephas,” not “Peter.” Thus, the modern critical heavyweights Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the Majority text here. As Metzger points out, there are, indeed, some witnesses, “chiefly Western,” which read “Peter” rather than “Cephas” in 2:9. These include p46 and the codices D, F, G, K, and L (Textual Commentary, p. 592), but this was not the reading adopted by the traditional text. Some of the manuscripts (D, F, G, etc.) not only read “Peter” but also place his name first in the list (i.e., “Peter and James and John”).
2786. Képhas; snips in the passage portions
https://biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm
Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
of Aramaic origin
Definition
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
NASB Translation
Cephas (9).
….
John 1:42 N-NMS
GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται
NAS: you shall be called Cephas (which
INT: you will be called Cephas which means
1 Corinthians 1:12 N-GMS
GRK: Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ Ἐγὼ δὲ
NAS: and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:22 N-NMS
GRK: Ἀπολλὼς εἴτε Κηφᾶς εἴτε κόσμος
NAS: Apollos or Cephas or the world
1 Corinthians 9:5 N-NMS
GRK: κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς
NAS: of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 15:5 N-DMS
GRK: ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς
NAS: and that He appeared to Cephas, then
Galatians 1:18 N-AMS
GRK: Ἰεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα
NAS: to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed
INT: Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter and I remained
Galatians 2:9 N-NMS
GRK: Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης
NAS: to me, James and Cephas and John,
Galatians 2:11 N-NMS
GRK: δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν
NAS: But when Cephas came to Antioch,
INT: moreover came Peter to Antioch
Galatians 2:14 N-DMS
GRK: εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων
NAS: I said to Cephas in the presence
INT: I said to Peter before all
=================================================================================.
How do you think Luke 5:30 originally read?
("their scribes and Pharisees"?
"the Pharisees and their scribes"?
"the Scribes and Pharisees"?-- which is had by the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron)
Luke 5:30
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And the Sophree and Pharishee murmured, saying to his disciples,
Why with tribute-takers and sinners eat you and drink ?
(Murdock) And the Scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said to his disciples:
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
(KJV) But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying,
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
Luke 5:30 (based on Younan)
And the Sapra and Pharisees were murmuring and they said to his students,
"Why are you eating and drinking among tax-collectors and sinners?"
Diatessaron, Section VII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~28] And the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples,
Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners?
Text Note: Luke 5:30
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/12/text-n...e-530.html
The issue:
There is an interesting and easy to overlook textual variation in Luke 5:30.
Traditional text:
"But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples.."
Modern critical text:
"But the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples.."
External evidence:
The textual support falls out pretty much as we have seen with other significant variations in Luke.
The traditional text is supported by Codex Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority.
The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus (though it omits the final pronoun "their") and Vaticanus, along with several other codices (C, L, R. W, et al).
=====================================================================================.
Does "Why do you tempt me?" belong in Luke 20:23?
Luke 20:23 (based on Younan)
But he perceived their craftiness and said,
"Why do you tempt me?
Luke 20:23 didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron.
Text Note: Luke 20:23
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/05/text-n...-2023.html
The issue:
The problem here is whether the question: "Why do you tempt me? [ti me peirazete;]" should be included in the text. It is included in the traditional text and omitted in the modern critical text.
External evidence:
Greek manuscripts supporting inclusion: Codices Alexandrinus, C, D, W, Theta, Psi, family 13, 33, and the vast majority. It is also supported by the Old Latin and all the Syriac versions.
Greek manuscripts supporting omission: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, family 1, and others. It is also supported by all the Coptic versions.