"Upon this rock" (Matt.16:18) a mis-translation?

[John Human]

My very Catholic father (may God rest his recently-departed soul) liked to quote Matthew 16:18, where Jesus gave Peter his nickname, and "upon this Rock [Petros/Cephas] I will build my church."

The text of this verse makes it clear that Jesus spoke in Aramaic [not in the "original" Greek of Matthew (the earlier Hebrew version of Matthew having been lost)].

So... I'm sure that Aramaic had a word for "build," but what about "church"? It occurs to me that some words don't exist without culturally relevant meanings. Can you imagine an illiterate Galilean fisherman trying to decide whether to pray in the local Romanglican synagogue, or perhaps he would prefer the doctrinal purity of the preacher at the "Pillars of Samson" synagogue down the road?

My point here is that "churches" didn't exist for Galilean Hebrews at the time of Christ, so I doubt that a word for "church" exists in Aramaic. If that is indeed the case, then, well, what (if anything) DID Jesus say to Peter when nick-naming him Rock? And, um, if this verse was mistranslated (or worse, if it was a precursor to the deplorable Donation of Constantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), then what does that do to arguments for the infallibility of the Bible?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 8 by John Human]

John Human wrote:

bjs, most languages exist within cultures with doctrinal and religious heterogeneity " people can choose between distinctly different groups. However, in the time of Jesus Christ, the culture was remarkably homogeneous. There weren't different sects within Judaism, and doctrinal differences among Jews were minimal. Therefore, there was no need for the word church. Can a congregation exist without a church?

Up until 135 A.D. Christians were considered to be one of the sects of Judaism and attended synagogues.

"In addition to the main sects which existed during the period of the Second Temple and after, such as the Pharisees , the Sadducees , the Essenes , the Therapeutae and the Dead Sea sects , the sources mention a number of others. As will be noted, some scholars identify some of these sects with those belonging to the above-mentioned categories." - Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/minor-sects

We also should know that the first Christians were considered a Jewish sect which attended synagogues until ca. 135 A.D.

"The Jewish belief that the parting of the ways came not at Stephens martyrdom but after Bar Kochbas war against Hadrian [132-135 A. D.] is now gaining ground. Previously there had been no event sufficiently striking to sever the ties. Christians frequented the synagogues: they were still a Jewish sect. [See the ISRAEL study] But Bar Kochba was hailed by Aqiba as the Messiah. This the Christians could not condone and they stood aside. .... The Jews regarded the Christians as renegades: the Christians would not fight for Aqibas Messiah. The die had fallen and there was no recalling the past." - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 167, Vol. 13, 14th ed.

"Revolt
"The Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva convinced the Sanhedrin to support the impending revolt and regarded the chosen commander Simon Bar Kokhba the Jewish Messiah, according to the verse from Numbers 24:17: 'There shall come a star out of Jacob' ('Bar Kokhba' means 'son of a star' in Aramaic language).

"At the time, Christianity was still a minor sect of Judaism and most historians believe that it was this messianic claim that alienated many Christians (who believed that the true messiah was Jesus) and sharply deepened the schism." -
http://www.answers.com/topic/bar-kokhb ... l=kokhba

"Until the year 132, Christians considered themselves a sect of Judaism. In that year, Simon bar Kochba (Simon son of the star), was confirmed by the great Rabbi Akiba as the Messiah. bar Kochba was a great leader and warrior, and led a revolt of tens of thousands of Jews against the Romans (similar to recent conflicts in Chechnya, or Grozny.) The Christians, who would have been eager to fight the Romans, couldn't, because they already had a Messiah. This was the final split, where Christianity stopped being Judaism. - http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tzohr.htm

[John Human]

I will reply to ttruescott's and tigger2's recent posts in due course.

Replying now to mrhagerty, who wrote:

But since Gk was lingua franca for Judaea, it is not out of the question that Peter knew how to write some things in Greek.

I suppose that Greek was a lingua franca in the Decapolis, but certainly not in the highlands of Galilee. Furthermore, "There was never a word of Greek spoken between Jesus and his disciples."

It is NOT true that when the Gospel writers wrote, the original Aramaic of the verbal gospels was lost. Not true. What we have is the writers choosing the best Gk word to represent the Aramaic.

Your emphatic but unsupported assertion skips over the possibility of deliberate mis-translation or fabrication/forgery of this verse (as in the later Donation of Constantine, falsely conveying authority on the Catholic Church).

...Peter's confession of faith that Christ is Savior

Peter did not confess that Jesus was "Savior." The fact that you say this suggests that there is something willful about your misinterpretation of the Bible. Peter actually said (per Matthew 16:17): You are the anointed one, the Son of the living God.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 12 by John Human"

I suppose that Greek was a lingua franca in the Decapolis, but certainly not in the highlands of Galilee.

Correction: Gk wasn't just a lingua franca, it was the lingua franca of the entire Roman Mediterranean.

You didn't have to live in Gentile territory to be exposed to Greek. Three of the Gospel writers lived significant time in and around Jerusalem after the Resurrection, and those manuscripts were Greek.

Furthermore, "There was never a word of Greek spoken between Jesus and his disciples."

I don't really know who you're quoting above, but this is notably false. Jesus used Septuagint LXX readings of OT scripture in numerous places, in fact, scholars have gone so far as to say He preferred its readings.

I don't believe there is linguistic evidence He used it for "thou art Peter."

The problem is that petros is not the gender for the word. Petra is the normal feminine word for the Aramaic kepha used. If fact, no one ever used the Gk petros before this event.

The reason it is coined by the gospel writer is that you would never nickname a male person with a female gender word. The writer in translating the Aramaic kepha, modified petra to have the masculine 'os'.

Your emphatic but unsupported assertion skips over the possibility of deliberate mis-translation or fabrication/forgery of this verse (as in the later Donation of Constantine, falsely conveying authority on the Catholic Church).

I'd have to refer you to all my Gk professors at seminary. I don't subscribe to the popular fabrication of a Constantinian text for political/Catholic gains. Sorry.

Peter did not confess that Jesus was "Savior." The fact that you say this suggests that there is something willful about your misinterpretation of the Bible. Peter actually said (per Matthew 16:17): You are the anointed one, the Son of the living God.

A fair point. But in defense, the Messiah idea did include a Savior aspect in that he would conquer the enemies of God's people.

But you're correct, Peter didn't say Savior. He did learn what his confession meant soon thereafter.

But returning to the point I was making at that juncture - did Petros refer to Peter the man or Peter's confession, meaning by extensions everyone's confession?

[JehovahsWitness]

I suppose that Greek was a lingua franca in the Decapolis, but certainly not in the highlands of Galilee. Furthermore, "There was never a word of Greek spoken between Jesus and his disciples."

Emphasis MINE

Greek was the language of trade and culture, the common tongue necesary for travelers; Jesus and his Apostles did a great deal of travelling, including travel through regions inhabited by Greek speaking natives.

Palestine became strongly Hellenized, indeed arguably some of the Jewish movements of the period were responses to Hellenization. The Apostles Andrew (Peter's brother) and Philip had Greek names" for which apparently there are no Hebrew equivalents so this fact alone indicates that hellenization had at least to some extent reached the highlands and that some may have had at the very least some knowledge of the language.

Further evidence that the Aposltes could have had at least some knowledge of Greek is found in the fact that Jesus is reported as traveling through several Greek regions, the region of the Decapolis, a region east of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. The cities in this region were centers of Hellenistic culture and trade and while there is no record of his having visited any of the cities, at the very least they would have sought provisions or had some contact with the Greek speaking natives in their travels.

We also have the Apostles complaining about the pleas of a woman describe as being Syrophoenician when Jesus visited the coastal plains of Phoenicia, north of Galilee. While we cannot say categorically which language they conversed in, Jesus did speak to her without any mention of an interprter, she is not described as being a Jewish proselyte, so it is unlikely she spoke Aramaic. The region describe as Gerasenes on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee evidently had a non-Jewish population (the pig farmers from the region were would neither have been no or would they have been serving a Jewish demand), and again the Apostle are reported as communication with the locals.

Before Jesus final Passover, the Bible record has some Greeks (perhaps proselytes) requesting an audience with Jesus through Philip (possibly being attracted to the apostle because of his Greek name). While these individuals may well have spoken Aramaic the obviously also spoke Greek, and it is not beyond the realms of reason they did so with Philip without the need of an interpreter.

CONCLUSION While it is most likely the disciples communicated in Aramaic, and had some knowledge of Hebrew (the language of temple worship) given the above it, to state categorically that not one word of Greek was ever spoken between Jesus and his the disciples ( implying that it is impossible that any of them knew or employed any greek ) is contextually untenable and logically unprovable.

JW



RELATED POSTS


How is it that the bible writers could write in such educated Greek?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p329398

[JehovahsWitness]

.... in the time of Jesus Christ, the culture was remarkably homogeneous. There weren't different sects within Judaism, and doctrinal differences among Jews were minimal. ....

• The Sadducees were a sect or group of Jews that was active in Judea during the Second Temple period, starting from the second century BCE through the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The sect was identified by Josephus with the upper social and economic echelon of Judean society.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees
  

  "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." Josephus. AJ. Translated by Whiston, William. 13.10.6..

  
  The Essenes were a Jewish sect during the Second Temple period which flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE. The Jewish historian Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judaea, but they were fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the other two major sects at the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes
  

  "The Essenes were a Jewish sect divided into two classes. First the practical who lived in society and applied themselves to husbandry and other harmless occupations; and second, the contemplative ... [who] devoted themselves wholly to meditation and avoided living in great towns" - ftn. p. 70, Plinys Natural History translation by C A Kofoid & P W Kofoid, pub Wernerian Club 1847
  https://archive.org/stream/plinysnatura ... 7/mode/2up

JW



RELATED POSTS

How were Christians viewed in the first century? (tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 198#953198

Why were the early Christians persecuted?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 899#333899

Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, taken by themselves, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 645#792645

[John Human]

I will respond to the posts by JehovahsWitness and mrhagerty (whose name seems to have been changed to deleted) in due course.

Right now I will take up ttruscotts post of Feb. 3, which states that the meaning of church certainly did exist in those days, and then discusses a Greek word (ekklesias). However, this is not my point. To restate: I am inclined to challenge the notion that ancient back-country Aramaic, the language in which Jesus communicated with his followers, could have had a word that corresponds to the Greek ekklesias.

ttruscott does show that he understands my point, continuing with the following quote:

Then too there is http://www.chaimbentorah.com/2015/03/wo ... the-church which asserts: The Aramaic word used for church is an old Semitic legal term from the root od which means to assemble or gather together for the purpose of testifying, instructing in a matter of law or to call a witness to testify. When we think of the reason for the existence of a church, this seems to fit quite well.

I have some problems with this quotation. First of all, there is no citation in Chaim Bentorah's whole article by of a complete sentence in ancient Aramaic. Secondly, Chaim Bentorah (if that is his real name) is very clearly concerned with promoting modern-day Christiany, and this would seem to lead him to anachronistic misrepresentations of the potential meaning of the old Aramaic words in question.

Is Chaim Bentorah representing faithfully? Once again, he never uses any ancient Aramaic words (such as od or any derivative) in complete sentences, so it is impossible for the reader to think through the possibility that the author is mistaken. Perhaps Chaim Bentorah is overly concerned with present-day doctrinal questions, leading him to shift or misrepresent the meaning of a word.

The way that Bentorah jumps from od to the (Christian) notion of a church congregation is a case in point. Imagine, for example, a Galilean community leader calling on the villagers to ASSEMBLE to hear a reiteration of proper understanding of limitations on behavior between young unmarried men and women. Such an assembly is not by any means an autonomous congregation. The assembly is a periodic gathering that happens within a pre-existing social structure. Bentorah acknowledges that much of his discussion of old Aramaic words is speculation, once again without any rendering of a full sentence as an example of ancient Aramaic.

On a related topic (questioning the infallibility of the Bible), ttruscotts signature contains the following very interesting statement: This [PCE] theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

It is my understanding that the New-Testament doctrine rooting our need for salvation in our participation in Adams sin (presumably meaning our conception being accompanied by our parents sexual pleasure, as opposed to Marys immaculate conception) is one of a trinity of interlocking doctrines, none of which were enunciated by Jesus himself (as recorded in the gospels), and none of which makes sense in the Christian scheme of things without the other two. In other words, remove any one of this trinity of doctrinal innovations, and the other two become meaningless.

These three interlocking doctrines are: (1) Our participation in "original sin," condemning us to eternal damnation; (2) the Virgin Birth, establishing the divinity of Jesus; and (3) divine Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to atone for our sins and save us from eternal damnation.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 16 by John Human]

What does sexual pleasure have to do with original sin?

[RightReason]

[Replying to John Human]

My point here is that "churches" didn't exist for Galilean Hebrews at the time of Christ, so I doubt that a word for "church" exists in Aramaic. If that is indeed the case, then, well, what (if anything) DID Jesus say to Peter when nick-naming him Rock?

Well, you can quibble about language, but it is very clear that whatever Christ said there in fact was an authoritative earthly Church that resulted that the first Christians recognized and turned to for guidance and leadership. Sooooo . . . not really sure what your dilemma is? History proves your fathers faith.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 18 by RightReason]

Seems Paul felt he had authority to lay down rules for all the churches.

Although forbidding the requirement that preceded keeping the commandments seems odd.

1 Corinthians 7:17-19 New International Version (NIV)

Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping Gods commands is what counts.

[RightReason]

[Replying to postroad]

Seems Paul felt he had authority to lay down rules for all the churches.

Yes, he was given that authority with the following words . . .


I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.

And 1 Corinthians 7:17-19 does not contradict that " it confirms it.


7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

Again, Paul recognizes that God calls different people to different vocations, assigns different people to lead different lives. Notice also that the rules Paul gives are authoritative and binding on all the churches. Individual believers were not allowed to use their own reason with the Old Testament or apostolic writings and draw their own different conclusions.


7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

Keeping the commandments of God counts for something, according to St. Paul. Obedience is not merely superfluous to faith; it IS faith.

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpres ... rinthians/

I have no idea why you see Pauls words as contradictory. Care to elaborate?