"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?

[ttruscott]

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?

What are you on about?? Church is the English word for - (ekkl"sian)

Strong's Concordance: 1577. ekklsia
ekklsia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.

Nothing about the meeting place here...

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

Here's Matthew 16:18(a) in Greek:

, -

The closest word-for-word English translation of this passage might be the following:

I also now to you say that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

So the Greek word - (pronounced ekk-lay-sih-onn) is translated "church." In addition to church, - can be translated "assembly" or "congregation."

So we can conclude that while there were obviously no Christian churches in the early first century, there were assemblies or congregations of people with common religious beliefs. I hope you can see then that there's no significant problems with the use of the word "church" in Matthew 16:18.

[John Human]

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?

What are you on about?? Church is the English word for - (ekkl"sian)

My point is that, in Galilee during the time of Jesus's ministry, there were no separate denominations with doctrinal differences, so Jesus would never have made a statement about founding a "church," because an Aramic word for - simply did not exist. In other words, the translation from Aramaic into Greek (not from Greek into English) is the problem here. - is either a mis-translation from Aramaic into Greek, or simply a self-serving fabrication like the proven-to-be-false Donation of Constantine.

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

Here's Matthew 16:18(a) in Greek:

, -

The closest word-for-word English translation of this passage might be the following:

I also now to you say that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

So the Greek word - (pronounced ekk-lay-sih-onn) is translated "church." In addition to church, - can be translated "assembly" or "congregation."

So we can conclude that while there were obviously no Christian churches in the early first century, there were assemblies or congregations of people with common religious beliefs. I hope you can see then that there's no significant problems with the use of the word "church" in Matthew 16:18.

Jagella, your statement that "there were assemblies or congregations of people with common religious beliefs" is the problem here. In Galilee, there was a synagogue in every village. They all shared the same doctrine. There were no separate denominations. (Even the Essenes kept the commandments and sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem along with all other Jews.) There was no reason for Jesus to speak of founding an -, because no word for - existed in Aramaic, as the very concept was foreign in Galilee. (You can't have a word without an underlying concept, unless you're talking baby talk. That was the point of my deliberately silly sentence from post #1 that ttruscott quoted above.) Once again, - is either a mis-translation from Aramaic into Greek, or simply a self-serving fabrication giving special status to the Church in Rome (founded by Peter), like the proven-to-be-false "Donation of Constantine": see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine.

[Jagella]

They all shared the same doctrine. There were no separate denominations. (Even the Essenes kept the commandments and sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem along with all other Jews.) There was no reason for Jesus to speak of founding an -, because no word for - existed in Aramaic, as the very concept was foreign in Galilee.

Are you sure that there was no word for a group of religious followers in Aramaic? I just checked an online Aramaic dictionary, and I found Aramaic words for sect, church, and assembly. Besides, even if the concept was "foreign in Galilee" as you say, then it may have been introduced to that culture by the early Christians.

This is strange: I find myself defending the Bible. LOL

[John Human]

They all shared the same doctrine. There were no separate denominations. (Even the Essenes kept the commandments and sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem along with all other Jews.) There was no reason for Jesus to speak of founding an -, because no word for - existed in Aramaic, as the very concept was foreign in Galilee.

Are you sure that there was no word for a group of religious followers in Aramaic? I just checked an online Aramaic dictionary, and I found Aramaic words for sect, church, and assembly. Besides, even if the concept was "foreign in Galilee" as you say, then it may have been introduced to that culture by the early Christians.

This is strange: I find myself defending the Bible. LOL

I found that too -- MODERN Aramaic has a word for church, because modern speakers of Aramaic live in a land with multiple religions. In the backwoods hills of Galilee in the time of Jesus, there was only one choice. The "Christians" in Palestine in the years right after the crucifixion of Jesus were the Dead Sea Scrolls people, and James -- not Peter -- was their leader.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

"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)].

What aspect of the text indicates that Jesus spoke in Aramaic? No doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic, but he undoubtedly also spoke formal Hebrew, Greek as well as Latin. Perhaps it isn't such a well known fact that conquering empires will require thier subjects to speak their language rather than those conquered requiring the same of their conquerors. Greek was also the language of commerce, and if there's one thing Jews are good at, it's making money. So they would have learned Greek.

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.
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?

Ekklesia (-)simply means "called out ones", but one need look no further than one's own Hebrew scriptures to see that this is the same meaning for those who were called out of the bondage of Egypt. Jesus is a type for Moses so he does the same thing in Matthew's gospel. Those who were called out congregated at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and were referred to as "a congregation". That is what was built.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by postroad]

The text states what it states. im not sure how anyone can get around the context of an authoritive figure and institution.

The exact same authority was given to the Disciples here.

John 20:21-23 New International Version (NIV)

21 Again Jesus said, Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyones sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

These are bad translations. Within the future periphrastic is a past preterite which indicates that whatever they do in the future, will be already done in heaven. Jesus did not have the power to do anything of his own will. He only did what he saw the father doing. He only did what was given to him from the father to do. So when he forgives sins, he is only pointing out what God has already done.

And yes the fact that Jesus is presupposing a church is troubling. He was to be coming back shortly.

Another text I find interesting is the following which presupposes a long delay.


New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15 If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever" 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

The return is fulfilled in Pentecost. This is when they saw him because they were filled with his holy Spirit. This is admitted by almost all Christian denominations, but for some reason they don't seem to be able to see that he explicitly pointed out that "you will see me". So they think he's coming back again later which is to adopt the same perspective as those who don't see him at all.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 9 by Deleted]

You're all focusing on the less important words like build and church. The all-important word is petros -rock.

Does it mean huge foundation stone or small pebble?

In attic Greek it refers to a pebble or small stone. The koine Greek of the bible doesn't make this distinction. It is no different than Petra.

Does petros mean Peter himself or Peter's confession of faith that Christ is Savior?

"Petros" refers explicitly to Cephas' new name.

If the Gk word is petra not petros, how did we get to petros for Peter?

Petros is the masculine form which is why it is his name. Christ wouldn't have named him Petrina, or Patricia.

This requires some serious work with the original to straighten this out.

THAT's where the arguments need to be focused.

A topic for another thread perhaps. Petra can't be referring to Peter because it would have to agree in gender, number and case, and in this example, it doesn't agree in gender "taute te petra" is feminine, while 'Petros' is masculine. If the author of Matthew's gospel intended to "upon this rock" to refer to Petros, he would have written "tautw tw petrw" which would then have agreed in gender. Since he didn't do that, he either made a horrendous blunder, or he never intended it to be a reference to Peter at all.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 13 by Deleted]

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'.

Thus the gospel writer is pointing out that "upon this rock" ("taute te petra") cannot be referring to Peter at all due to the fact that gender specific languages like Greek must agree in gender.

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?

Petros is an explicit reference to Peter. It's his new nickname. "Upon this rock" is probably the reference you're really interested, no? This cannot refer to Peter as it doesn't agree in gender.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 20 by RightReason]

[Replying to postroad]

the "immaculate conception" of Mary makes clear the general connection between sexual intercourse and original sin, and of course sex is generally accompanied by pleasure and usually motivated at least in part by physical desire, which has to be the correlation with original sin.

Beyond that, what parts of their bodies did Adam and Eve cover with fig leaves after they "did it"? And furthermore, Eve's punishment, pain during childbirth, is also associated (as a consequence) with sex.

Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

The euphemism is to be found in the word "touch" which Eve adds to God's sole commandment. This is euphemistically used to refer to sexual contact or touching.