"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?

[shnarkle]

A straw man argument. He said "FORNICATION". Eve didn't have sex with Adam, she had sex with SATAN. Where else is SATAN going to plant his seed? Why else would God even refer to the seed of the serpent?

Satan's seed was with him in Sheol (where they all RETURN to upon their death, Ps 9:17 The wicked will RETURN to Sheol, even all the nations who forget God.) and he sows (not creates) them into the world of human families as per Matt 13:36-39. To speculate he had to impregnate Eve is bogus as unnecessary, that is, Cain, the son of Adam and Eve's cohabitation was obviously one of Satan's seed he was allowed to sow into their family for GOD's purpose. The body was their ordinary biological son; the person who animated that body was Satan's seed.

If we're consistent, then we would probably say the same thing with regards to Jesus. He was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, but the person of God. Is that how you see it?

The problem here is that a person is defined as a "man, woman, or child" which are direct references to biology.

[shnarkle]

Eve's punishment, pain during childbirth, is also associated (as a consequence) with sex.

GENESIS 3:16

To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.� - NWT

QUESTION Was Eves punishment indicative that the "original sin" was indeed sexual intercourse?

♦ANSWER No, the text gives no indication God prohibited sexual intercourse for Adam and Eve. Indeed there are a number of contextual difficulties which are thrown up if one concludes that the "original sin" was sex:

• - the text has God explicitly commanding the couple to reproduce and fill the earth, presumably by having sexual intercourse. If the original prohibition was sex, we are left with the anomaly of two contradictory commands .
  
  - The judgement pronounced on Adam (who would have also had sex) included farming difficulties. If the "punishment " was directly and literally are reflection of the offending act, then we are left with the difficulty of explaining what agriculture has to do with sexual intercourse. (While some punishments are indeed somewhat reflective of the crime committed (such as cutting off the hand of a thief) it is a unwise to make this a universal presumption).
  
  - God told Eve that he would (as a result of her sin) greatly increase her birth pains. Logically then if she did NOT sin, she would still have some pain giving birth. If the sin was sex, and she had not had sex, how would she have had the "milder" pain originally fordained?

A more rational reading ….

John has already pointed out that the sex was illicit by using the word "fornication" which you seem intent on ignoring, and instead insisting that he must be referring to sex between Adam and Eve. Again, why do you insist on pretending that when someone uses the word "fornication" they are then referring to sexual congress that is explicitly referred to as licit in the texts? There is nothing rational about ignoring what other people post, and implying that their posts are irrational, or that it "lacks substance, logic and credibility" without ever providing anything to back these claims up other than how it "seems" to you.

[shnarkle]

It's not unlikely that Jesus knew some Greek, but it seems far-fetched to speculate that he also spoke Latin.

Again, given that it was a well established language for commerce, he probably knew plenty of Greek. To then assume that Pontius Pilate held a conversation with Jesus in Aramaic is where far-fetched speculation begins.

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.

As a general rule, conquering empires require proficiency in their language for local functionaries who have to answer to the overlords. As time goes by, the upper class of the conquered people becomes proficient in the language of the conqueror.

So you see my point.

A counter-example is the case of Rome and Greece, where the intelligentsia among the conquerors became proficient in the language of the conquered. But as a general rule, through the course of history, the norm was polyglot empires where the common people among the conquered retained their own language and learned nothing more than a smattering of the conquerors' language.

Still right in line with my point. I grew up in southern California, and know more than a smattering of Spanish because there has been basically an invasion from the south occurring over the last 40 years. If I want directions to a store, or even directions within a store, I need to understand Spanish, especially if I'm in places like Los Angeles.

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.

This is an astounding argument. If I understand your logic you are saying:
(1) Jews are good at making money.
(2) The language of inter-regional trade in the ancient (eastern) Mediterranean world was Greek.
(3) Therefore, illiterate fishermen in isolated, zenophobic Galilee knew Greek.

I don't buy it. There is a good description of the situation in Galilee, during the time of Jesus's ministry, in Chapter 7 ("Messiahs") of Marvin Harris's Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture.

How about looking at the fact that the Galilee hadn't just recently been taken over by Greece? I'm not suggesting that they were fluent in Greek, or that they wrote or could read Greek. I'm not denying that there were those who didn't know much at all, but for those who were in the habit of venturing off to Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts, they certainly knew enough to interact with Greek speaking Jews, especially if they selling their wares, fish included.

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 (�κκλησίαν)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.

That's a neat argument, and I'd like to follow up on it. What was the word in Hebrew from the Book of Exodus that you identify with "a congregation"?

עֵדָה ʻêdâh, ay-daw'; feminine of H5707 in the original sense of fixture; a stated assemblage (specifically, a concourse, or generally, a family or crowd):—assembly, company, congregation, multitude, people, swarm.

Secondly, what is your source for associating the Greek word ekklesia (�κκλησίαν) with "called out ones"? I am inclined to suspect that you are reading too much into the meaning of the word here.

Your suspicions are unfounded. Ekklesia is formed from a compound of "ek" which is a preposition and denotes " origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative", and a derivative of "kalew" which means "to "call" (properly, aloud, but used in a variety of applications, directly or otherwise):—bid, call (forth), (whose, whose sur-)name (was (called)). "

Beyond that, I can see a potential difficulty in your comparison of Jesus to Moses, because Moses led his people out of bondage (and this is presented in Exodus as the entire Hebrew nation), but Jesus's followers were a distinct sub-group of the Hebrew nation, separating to some extent from their brethren.

Jesus explicitly points out that he must also go to "the lost tribes of Israel" which would be a direct reference to the northern tribes who split off. You can read all about it in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Exodus doesn't present the entire Hebrew nation, but "a mixed multitude" leaving Egypt.

[otseng]

This seems to be a habit for you.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making comments about another.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.