Page 3 of 5

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:35 pm
by spin
Bernard,

Ben made a reasonable request:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:And if Paul learned of the nickname from Aramaic illiterate Galilean speakers orally (with a strong local accent!), he could have easily transliterated what he heard by "Κηφᾶς".
Okay, show me an example of this happening.
You really need to respond to this request. If you cannot, your assertion has no value.

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:48 pm
by arnoldo
rsz_apostles.jpg
rsz_apostles.jpg (13.64 KiB) Viewed 5681 times
Allegedly, Paul spoke to the apostle in question face to face and would've known how to pronounce his name.

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:06 am
by Bernard Muller
to spin,
Transliteration is based on the sound the scribe heard when the reader enunciated/dictated the words in the text. The scribe didn't read the text and then translate it. The process was about hearing. The reader spoke the name. Would he have pronounced it differently from the way casual speakers would have said it?
I agree. I said Paul very likely did not read in Aramaic the nickname, but transliterated what he heard:
And if Paul learned of the nickname from Aramaic illiterate Galilean speakers orally (with a strong local accent!), he could have easily transliterated what he heard by "Κηφᾶς". Then later, "Mark" was told by others that "Κηφᾶς" means "stone" in Aramaic and changed "Κηφᾶς" by "Petros", which of course his Greek speaking audience would know it means "rock".
What need to be answered: is there an Aramaic noun for "stone" (or similar) which sounds like "Κηφᾶς".
According to: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767&hilit=cephas%2F#p61694
and
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D ... 90#Aramaic
I think there is.
It might not be exactly sounding like "Κηφᾶς", but as Ben wrote:
One of the things my Classics stressed, both for Latin and for Greek, is that we do not really know exactly how ancient people pronounced their letters and words; ...
And the problem is worse about Galilean Aramaic as spoken by uneducated people.

All what was needed is for "Mark" (and possibly Paul) to be told that "Κηφᾶς" means "stone". I also note that "Mark" did not make a theological point on "Petros" as "Matthew" did.

Cordially, Bernard

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:33 pm
by spin
Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Transliteration is based on the sound the scribe heard when the reader enunciated/dictated the words in the text. The scribe didn't read the text and then translate it. The process was about hearing. The reader spoke the name. Would he have pronounced it differently from the way casual speakers would have said it?
I agree. I said Paul very likely did not read in Aramaic the nickname, but transliterated what he heard:
And if Paul learned of the nickname from Aramaic illiterate Galilean speakers orally (with a strong local accent!), he could have easily transliterated what he heard by "Κηφᾶς". Then later, "Mark" was told by others that "Κηφᾶς" means "stone" in Aramaic and changed "Κηφᾶς" by "Petros", which of course his Greek speaking audience would know it means "rock".
My point was that the scribes transliterated what they heard when they transcribed the Kaf as a chi and there is no reason to believe that Paul heard it any differently. We should be able to assume that what he transliterated was not the syncretizing proposal of christian orthodoxy, but something more like Qyp', the Semitic name we know as Caiaphas.
Bernard Muller wrote:What need to be answered: is there an Aramaic noun for "stone" (or similar) which sounds like "Κηφᾶς".
According to: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767&hilit=cephas%2F#p61694
Syriac is not a viable source for a Galilean Aramaic nickname. The phonology of the two languages is different.
This entry doesn't help overcome the problem of the improbable trajectory of Kaf to kappa.
Bernard Muller wrote:I think there is.
It might not be exactly sounding like "Κηφᾶς", but as Ben wrote:
One of the things my Classics stressed, both for Latin and for Greek, is that we do not really know exactly how ancient people pronounced their letters and words; ...
And the problem is worse about Galilean Aramaic as spoken by uneducated people.
This is where transliteration becomes so important. We have evidence in the crossover from Hebrew into Greek just how certain names—and so specific phonemes—were generally heard. Hence the problem of Kaf to kappa. One cannot make special pleas about Galilean Aramaic as spoken by uneducated people, without having some confirming evidence. All we have—with regard to the figure Paul refers to—is post hoc syncretism. I can see no way to separate the claim that Cephas means "rock" (and therefore equates to Peter) from the need to tie Peter into the Pauline ethos. I don't know (or perhaps remember) your position on Gal 2:7b-8, but I think the evidence is strong that it is an interpolation specifically to support Peter's priority, so the connection of Peter to Cephas is colored by theological tendency.
Bernard Muller wrote:All what was needed is for "Mark" (and possibly Paul) to be told that "Κηφᾶς" means "stone". I also note that "Mark" did not make a theological point on "Petros" as "Matthew" did.
My reaction is—naturally—that the above is more conjecture!

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:41 pm
by Bernard Muller
to spin,
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaph the Hebrew 'kaph' is pronounced with a "k" sound either as kangaroo or Bach/loch
The Syriac/Aramaic apparently has also a "k" sound for 'kap' in words (but not for all 'kap'): http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/

Cordially, Bernard

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:05 pm
by spin
Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaph the Hebrew 'kaph' is pronounced with a "k" sound either as kangaroo or Bach/loch
That's modern Hebrew. The only way to know how letters were pronounced in ancient Hebrew is based on transliteration into other languages!

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:07 pm
by Secret Alias
Then later, "Mark" was told
The k in Markos was spelled with a ק‎

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:13 pm
by Secret Alias
However

It is reasonable to interchange xi and kappa when transliterating into Greek because kafand qof sound identical, even in Aramaic; for instance, Aramaic kalmei (lice) is interchangeable with qalmei. https://books.google.com/books?id=7DRzB ... IQ6AEIHTAA

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:59 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote:
Then later, "Mark" was told
The k in Markos was spelled with a ק‎
There is often a difference between medial and initial letter sounds. Initial consonants are more likely to evince a heavy aspiration. You can test this for yourself by putting your hand in front of your mouth and feeling how much air is produced by the "k" in "kite" as contrasted with how much is produced by the "c" in "Marcus". English does not often distinguish between initial consonants orthographically, but other languages have done and still do. (This is one reason why linguists collecting "minimal pairs" in a language try to collect initial, medial, and final examples: all three.)

This is why I asked specifically for examples of initial kaph turning into kappa. Medial and final examples are not necessarily going to be the same thing.

Re: A slightly different approach to Cephas/Peter in Galatia

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:05 pm
by spin
Secret Alias wrote:However

It is reasonable to interchange xi and kappa when transliterating into Greek because kafand qof sound identical, even in Aramaic; for instance, Aramaic kalmei (lice) is interchangeable with qalmei. https://books.google.com/books?id=7DRzB ... IQ6AEIHTAA
I've already demonstrated that the basic claim that they sounded identical is false! Greek obviously treats the two letters as different phonemes in most cases.

In fact, there is a clear regular tendency to transcribe Hebrew Pe, Taw and Kaf as phi, theta and kappa, so it is a systemic issue, while the emphatic forms Tet and Qof are not affricated.