[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Peter in Rome

Sep 04, 1996 02:16 PM

Alan wrote:
>how is it that Paul, who was under house arrest
>(staying with Linus, later said to become Bp. of Rome) never mentions
>the presence of Peter in the city?  Paul mentions Peter (Kephas) often
>enough at other times.  It is inconceivable that he would not mention
>the presence of Peter in Rome at the same time as he himself was there.

Correct, in his second imprisonment at Rome during 67AD (in accordance
with <tradition>) Paul refers to Linus 2Tm4:21 (Paul indirectly refers that
was in Rome at 2Tm1:17) and no mentions to Peter. In his first imprisonment
in Rome during 60-61AD (Acts 28:30) also there is no mention about Peter
in Rome. In Cl 4:11 written at this time, in Rome, Paul mention that Mark
was the only circumcised that accompanies him.

Alan also wrote:
>The speech of Peter is said, in the gospel, to be noticeably Galilean,
>with the inference that he may have been as simple a man as the gospels
>portray him.  If so, he probably spoke only Galiliean Aramaic (different
>from Judean aramaic) and would have been more at home in the Persian
>Empire, where Aramaic was widely spoken, and not the Roman Empire.

and in his homepage Nazareans part 1
>people in Galilee and Judae probably spoke aramaic. At that time hebrew
>was no longer the spoken language (at galilee and judae). Aramaic is very
>similar to hebrew in many ways. Its alphabet has the same number of letters
> and it can be written in the same square character as printed in hebrew.

Jews spoke hebrew in Rome. But in Judae and galilee jews spoke aramaic.
Peter living in Judae probably also spoke aramaic. If Peter was in Rome, could
be understood by jews? i think yes. For instance, at Acts21:40 Paul was
imprisioned at Jerusalem, and speaks in greek with romans and in HEBRAIC
(not aramaic) with jews. So hebraic could be also understood by people in
judae. I think that the opposite understanding could also be possible: the
jews in Rome could understand aramaic. Peter is described as an unlearned
man Acts 4:13, so it is possibly that he didn`t know greek. To speak
towards greeks (let`s remember that Peter was the circumcision apostle, and
then his main people was jew, not greek) probably the recurred to some
interpreter, like Mark, that was described by Papias as <interpreter of Peter>.

Alan also wrote:
>In the very ancient Aramaic "Peshitta" text of 1 Peter (The Aramean
>churches have never recogised 2 Peter) the verses mentioning Babylon are
>not present, and the letter thus appears as a General Epistle which
>could have been written from anywhere.  The same churches do not receive
>the Book of Revelation, which is the only other place where any
>meaningful substitution of "Babylon" for "Rome" appears.

Is this version that you cites more reliable that others ancients
manuscripts? It is not enough to cite ONE version. How much <ancient> and
reliable is this source? Could be interesting to know what says some of the most
scholars about ancient manuscripts, like Tischendorf, Westcott, Kurt Alland
or Bruce Metzger.

at internet I find the following comments:

>Until the nineteenth century New Testament scholars and translators availed
>themselves only sparingly of other manuscripts. Then, within a fairly short
>period, a number of manuscripts of superior quality became available, mainly
>thanks to the work of the German scholar Constantin Tischendorf. These
>manuscripts dated from the fourth and fifth centuries and presented a text that
>was at least free from the accretions of a later age. We had to wait, however,
>until the 70's and 80's of the nineteenth century for new critical editions of the
>New Testament. Tischendorf himself and the British scholars Westcott and Hort
>produced two rival editions of the Greek text. Most of the work in textual
>criticism in the past forty years has been done by Kurt Aland in Muenster and
>Bruce Metzger in Princeton. The latest translations of the New Testament are
>based on their work.

However it`s clear that this addition that you supposes is before century
IV, beccause:

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. BOOK II, CHAPTER XV. The Gospel according to Mark.
Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with
him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention
of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as
is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure,Babylon, as he does
in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with
you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application