Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does Simon Peter Hear Two Roosters? kpr-doodle-doo
Here is a chart tracking Simon Peter?s three denials of Yahshua in the Peshitta: Denials of Simon Peter

Probably every second of every single day, there are multiple roosters calling out on earth ? kukaduduldu (?cock-a-doodle-doo!!?) On my ranch I have four roosters that are so unpredictable, they call out anytime they wish -- 3am, again at 5am, 10am, 4pm, etc. It?s all the time, anytime, totally unpredictable to my perspective.

[Image: donald-cluck-2.jpg]

So when I study the bible prophecy about the famous rooster call after Simon Peter denies Yahshua three times, I reason (1) Yahshua may be referring to a particular first or second rooster in Jerusalem, and (2) Simon Peter is the one who needs to hear the rooster(s) to fulfill the prophecy.

Now, bible skeptics rightly claim there are potentially differing accounts over how many times (1 or 2) the famous rooster called as Peter denied Yahshua three times. Skeptics also argue there are different accounts of who is questioning Peter. And on the surface with translations, the skeptics can make a decent case against conventional apologetics. I too must admit that the different gospel accounts can appear misleading on the surface and can be interpreted to conflict (i.e., John 13:38 dla nqra Thrngla Eadma? appears to conflict with Mark 14:68).

But I actually do find the literal Aramaic offers gospel harmony here as a possibility on par with conflict (and as explained below, the meaning of that tension (conflict v. harmony) is central to the word kpr (?deny/atone?), a word that is essential to this rooster prophecy and further evidence of Aramaic primacy). With that preface, here is a logical explanation for gospel harmony (see chart for ease of reference):

First, Peter was being questioned in a group setting (you can see this explicitly and with Aramaic grammar, such as klhun in Matthew 26:70)-- all the gospels agree there were more than three people questioning Peter, and that Peter denied Yahshua during three ?denial events? in a group-setting. The Peshitta uses the word zbnyn (?times?, ?exchanges?, ?purchases?, ?sales?) to describe how many times Simon Peter denies Yahshua. The fullness of the word zbna refers to an ?exchange?, which routinely means a timed-event or transaction. So a ?denial event? could naturally include multiple words presented together to multiple people when spoken at a single location at a particular time. For example, in the 2nd denial event inside the temple gate near the fire, there are multiple people inquiring of Peter and so he uses multiple words for his denial - the accounts in Matthew and John read coherently together, ?I am not. I do not know him, the man.? Do these two sentences (one from each gospel) in one location at one time constitute two denials or one? The Aramaic word zbnyn (?times?, ?exchanges?) suggests the two sentences come together in that one place and time as one event.

Moreover, skeptics who make a ?single-speaker? assumption should consider it is not required by the literal text and it is also illogical. As people know from sitting around a group campfire, when a topic of accusation heats up, it is common for multiple people to start talking at the same time about the same topic. There can be multiple accusers (i.e. 4+ people accusing Peter), and yet the person being accused (i.e., Peter) can answer multiple accusations at once. Indeed, when a person is accused/questioned in a group setting, it is common and practical for the person to address the group (or a representative question) at the opportunity given to them, rather than respond to each individual accusation individually at each interval of accusation.

Second, the Peshitta uses the phrase Thrngla ThrThyn, which can be translated ?second rooster? in the gospel of Mark. See e.g., Mark 14:30 qdm dnqra Thrngla ThrThyn zbnyn ThlTh Thkpur by (?before the second rooster will crow, you will deny me three times?). Not only does this literal reading (?second rooster?) help harmonize the gospels and open up new possibilities, it also preserves the symbolic meaning (discussed below). Note too the multiple possible interpretations of Mark 14:70 ubh bShEaTha qra Thrngla dThrThyn zbnyn:
  • 1. ?And in that moment, the rooster called a second time.?
    2. ?And in him, in his hour, calls a rooster, the second exchange.?
    3. ?And in the moment the rooster called, the exchanges doubled.?

Third, we can see in the rooster prophecy that each gospel presents a series of perspectives. Just like we experience on earth, our perspectives routinely overlap: when multiple people describe the same event a fuller picture comes into view. In the rooster prophecy fulfillment, the gospel of John is the only one that details that one of the high priest?s servants questioning Simon Peter was a relative of mlk (?Melek?), the guard whose ear Simon Peter cut off. Does this detail in John mean the other gospels are inaccurate by omission? No. Rather, the author of the fourth gospel simply has unique insights.

Similarly, the gospel of Mark (likely authored by Simon Peter himself through his scribe Mark) provides additional detail about the second rooster. The other gospels (not authored by Simon Peter) lack this detail, but the omission does not render them inaccurate, just limited to their own perspectives. I mean to say the other gospels are limited in the sense that they do not define Thrngla (?a rooster?, ?the rooster?), so their gospels are open to interpretation if read in isolation ? do they refer to the first rooster to call out in Jerusalem that night? The first rooster to call out in Judea? The rooster heard by the beloved disciple? The rooster heard by Simon Peter? What if the relevant rooster was actually the 43rd rooster to call out that night in Jerusalem, but it was the only one heard by Simon Peter? All of these are assumptions that the gospel of Mark helps clarify or dismiss, just like we could have assumed a great deal about the lineage of the high priest?s servant, but the gospel of John helped clarify that he was from the same family as Melek.

Now with that background, notice how the words of the gospels fit together like puzzles layered atop one another. Some of the layers have gaps that the other puzzles fill-in, which is also how our world works in a physical sense. One of the curiosities of perspective gaps is that we see ?incomplete quotes?, which is another way to say ?perspective?. Notice that I say ?incomplete quote?, not ?inaccurate quote?:

  • Matthew 26:34 has the incomplete quote, but which still accurately reflects the author?s perspective: ?Truly I say to you that in this night, before the rooster will call, three times you are denying in me.?
  • Mark 14:30 has the fuller quote, which actually has every Aramaic word from Matthew?s quote within it (which is also evidence of Peshitta primacy by the way): ?Truly I say to you that you today in this night, before the second rooster calls, three times you are denying in me.?

The Gospel of Matthew by itself does not define which rooster will call (i.e., Matthew omits the word ?second? before rooster). Reading only Matthew one would naturally assume the first one that Simon Peter hears is the relevant one. But the gospel of Mark clarifies that the relevant one is actually the second one. This additional detail does not render Matthew inaccurate, but rather identifies the Thrngla (?rooster?) in his gospel as the second one. And indeed, the other gospels had not identified the rooster fully (i.e., we could only assume the rooster would be in Jerusalem, assume Simon Peter would need to hear the rooster to fulfill the prophecy, etc).

Faithful men learn over time through synchronistic experiences that our Father speaks to our individual perspectives. So we each receive unique insight, unique talents, a unique story. Like ecological diversity on earth, this diversity of human experience is a gift that allows us to function like a body, to work together to ?complete? the whole. The gospel of Mark accomplished its job here, helping to complete the other gospels. They are not inconsistent in the rooster account; they are perspectives that contribute to the body of the messiah.

kpr la plg bmShyKha

Symbolism Part 1

Symbolically, Yahshua himself represents the first rooster in Mark 14:32-42, as he called/crowed (qra) three times to the apostles (Peter, John, & Jacob) to keep watch as he prayed (before Judas Iscariot comes with the wolf pack). And then the second rooster is the actual rooster bird that crows (qra) in Mark 14:68-72 as the wolves take the first step to devour/divide Yahshua away from the flock/disciples.

A key function of the rooster is to keep watch over the flock. I see it regularly on my ranch ? when a coyote appears at the top of the hill it looks down at my free-range chickens, and creeps toward them. The first rooster who sees the coyote starts a chain reaction of rooster calls. If I?m not asleep, I come running. In this chain reaction, the roosters together crow so loudly and distinctly that the flock can take safety maneuvers (either flocking together to appear like a large animal (which ultimately doesn?t work against a coyote), or taking shelter in a tree (which does work well). Compare the rooster?s ordinary crow in the morning ? it has a tempo you can count like three crows as it is far less hurried (compared to the ?predator-danger? crow). So it is the morning crow, not the predator-danger crow, described in the gospel.

A rooster doesn?t crow only once or twice when he sees a predator on the horizon ? he crows as many crows as he can before he is either devoured or the predator is out of sight ? he?ll rapidly crow 100 times or more if that?s how long it takes until the danger or his life has passed.

So the second rooster call in Mark 14:30 is both literal and symbolic. The first rooster (Yahshua) called out to his fellow roosters (Peter, Jacob, and John) to wake up and keep watch, but those three other roosters were sleeping, and so the wolves were able to devour the only rooster on watch (Yahshua). And the wolves took off with their prey away from the flock, shaking their heads violently (kpr) just like canines do in the wild.

Note also that in Mark 14:68, the maiden of the high priest looks in Peter, uKhrTh bh (?and she looked in him?). Who in the gospel has the ability to look inside people? Just as Yahshua miraculously saw Nathan under the fig tree in John 1, it appears that the Father was working another miracle here in Mark 14:68 through the maiden, and that miracle was foreshadowed by the ?first rooster? phenomenon (namely, Yahshua represents the first rooster). So when we read about this first rooster in Mark 14:68 uqra Thrngla, do we see Yahshua calling to Peter, testing/calling him through the maiden of the high priest? I think it is mShkKha.

Symbolism Part 2

Peter is from kprnKhum (?Capernaum?). See Mark 1:21-22, 29.

One of the coolest words in Aramaic & Hebrew is kpr ? in both languages the word has two seemingly contradictory translations: ?deny? and ?atone?. Knowing this helps inform the issue above and connect the rooster symbolism in Mark 14 (Peter denies three times) with the sheep symbolism in John 21 (Peter atones three times). I think Yahshua prophecies in John 21 that Peter must atone three times before Yahshua returns (like a rooster calls/returns before dawn). In this view, the three admonitions to Peter in John 21 (tend my lambs, tend my sheep, tend my ewes) are appropriate admonitions for how Peter is commanded to atone.

I think the atonement prophecy applied to Simon Peter during his life, but it also has macro-applications (like wheels within wheels) as Peter came to ?represent? the Catholic Church that has been the lead shepherd of faithful Christians in this world for nearly 2000 years. As for the other two roosters (Jacob & John), I think Jacob has come to represent Torah-observing Christians, and John represents Protestants in a way.

[Image: chicken_run_3.jpg]
That's an extraordinarily fascinating article, Brother. I love your posts!
Super kind comment, thank you <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Yeah, this was a fun one to study!

Sometimes I begin a post and it becomes a long article, and sometimes worse -- brevity has yet to find a permanent home in my vocabulary.

So I just finished reading the Peshitta gospel of Mark for the first time. Such an amazing witness!

On this topic above regarding kpr (?atonement?) for kapa (?Peter?) from kpr-n-Khum ("atone-seed-energy"), I think I think:

Spirit is the true foundation of a man's soul, which is why Mark 3:29 states mn dyn dngdp Eal ruKha dqudSha lyTh lh Shubqna lEalm ala mKhyb hu ldyna dlEalm (?And he who will blaspheme against the holy spirit, he does not have forgiveness to a world/age but rather he is guilty, to the judgment of a world/age.?)

I reason there is no forgiveness for an 'unrepentant destroyer/denier of self', dmn hunh npq (Mark 3:21), because there is nothing to build upon for kpr (?atonement?) if man blasphemes/denies even his foundation. This is because spirit is foundational, like seed (indeed, the famous seed parable is recorded in Mark 4:1 after Mark 3:29-35 sets the context of family lineage) -- if there is no seed from Alha there is no regrowth in the family of Alha. In all of Yahshua?s miracles he accomplishes something by building on something else, building on some core seed (heals a man who exists; produces exponential fish and bread from two loaves and five fish; creates wine from water).

This also suggests why YHVH intervenes on earth when seed is threatened (i.e., in the days of Noah). See also Leviticus 11:37 (seed remains clean even if a corpse touches it). When we strip away the excesses of our lives, we promote something closer to our core foundation as humans -- natural living like seeds, clean living like children... The golden ratio (phi) is an excellent example of clean seed in nature, a gift from our Father.

[Image: dna_baby_womb.jpg]
These posts make my day. Thoughtful. Scholarly. Visually stunning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul, your comment made my day!

It?s a daily blessing to study the Peshitta. Part of that blessing for me is the fun of discovering these clues where Aramaic word subtleties maintain gospel harmony and layered symoblism. Even the wordplays alone are just too numerous to keep track of it all! For example here?s another wordplay I should have mentioned above - the Thrngla (?rooster?) here was Thryn(?second?).

Or in its component parts: Thrn (?mast?) gla (?wave?) ? it can be symbolism for a cross or a ship (a rooster?s head looks like a traditional ship):

[Image: Thrngla-2.jpg]

[Image: Thrngla.jpg]

I think these deep layers of symbolism help support the harmony that is already there in the Aramaic, both on the surface and within.

Symbolically, I think Simon Peter and his ship expanded beyond Galilee, such that in his old age his ship was/is steered by others who claim his authority (John 21:18, ?But when you grow old, you stretch out your hands and another will gird your loins and will direct you to where you do not desire?). The wordplays abound here as well?

I think these are the kinds of subtleties meant for deep searching, sometimes finding fish and pearls, sometimes finding an old boot, sometimes more questions. For example, the Peshitta gospel offers boatloads of maritime commerce symbolism. I was drawn for this Thrngla study to the Lamentation of Tyre in Ezekiel 27:5, ?From planks of Senir they have built to you double-boarded ships. From cedars of Lebanon they have taken to make a Thrn (?mast?) for you.?

My favorite part of this particular study was finding two key clues (preserved only in Aramaic) that Yahshua symbolizes the first rooster: (1) the Peshitta uses the same word qra (?call?) for Yahshua speaking in Mark 14:32-42 and the rooster calls later; and (2) the Peshitta places the first rooster call heard by Peter in the same passage as the woman looking inside Peter ? Mark 14:66-68. The Greek lacks both of these subtleties.

But in Aramaic the literal and the symbolic enjoy harmony. And when the layers of symbolism are considered here (Yahshua symbolizes the first rooster), the next logical step that a student considers is that Simon Peter symbolizes the second rooster (for example, in the same sentence in Mark 14:72 the second rooster is calling and Simon Peter is crying ? like Simon is calling out within himself, the kind of tearful repentance the Father seeks for kpr atonement).

Simon Peter?s Thrngla experience gla (?reveals?) the character of the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, YHVH gives His people multiple calls/times for repentance. I like to think that in the Father?s consistent character we can see better that the call ShmEaun (?Simon?) needed to ShmEa (?hear?) was the appropriate one to his perspective (appropriate = Simon Peter has had time to fulfill the meaning of kpr and repent). So that is why Simon Peter cries with repentance in Mark 14:72, because he knew within himself as the second rooster that he should have repented earlier. The call to repentance needs to come from inside. That?s important to the message, the meaning of the second rooster.

All of the Peshitta gospels are in harmony with Yahshua?s prophetic use of kpr (?deny/atone?), as he states that Simon Peter will deny by (?in me?). To the perspective of the other apostles, they may not have heard the earlier rooster (symbolized by Yahshua calling inside ShmEaun kapa). The other apostles may very well have heard only one rooster that night (the rooster symbolized by Simon Peter crying upon the third denial) because of what was given to them: ShmEaun (?they hear?).

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)