"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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]


The Greek (the language the earliest available text were recorded in) or the Hebrew word translated into the Engish word "church" didn't refer to a building at all but rather to a group of people.

Thus Jesus wasn't speaking at all about where (which geographical location) believers should pray.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

[bjs]

[Replying to John Human]

The Greek word for church (�κκλησίαν) roughly translates to “a group of people who hold the same beliefs� or "congregation." I don’t know Aramaic, but I tend to assume that a word similar to this exists in most languages.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

What? Are we going to pretend that a fisherman in the first century could write in any language? We have to assume a lost Aramaic version?

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 anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


The same language is used later.

Matthew 18:15-18 New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

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.

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.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 4 by postroad]

You quote John 14:17 which is nearly always rendered incorrectly by Trinitarian translators. The New American Bible correctly translates it:

"the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you."

auto in the Greek text is a neuter singular pronoun ('it').

[postroad]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

Sounds as if Jesus is equating the Spirit with himself.

Paul uses who instead of that.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

2 Corinthians 3:18
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

1 John 5:6
This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.


Revelation 19:10
At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.�

The last text seems to be equating the Spirit to God.

[Jagella]

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?

The Greek word translated "church" in Matthew 16:18 is �κκλησίαν. It can be an assembly or congregation. Although there were no churches in the early first century as we know them today, Jesus may well have had followers that might be described as an assembly or congregation.

As far as the infallibility of the Bible is concerned, there are many translation difficulties like these. If god exists, then he was foolish to have his word written in languages that later generations would not understand.

[John Human]

bjs wrote: “The Greek word for church roughly translates to ‘a group of people who hold the same beliefs’ or ‘congregation.’ I don’t know Aramaic, but I tend to assume that a word similar to this exists in most languages.�

Jagella wrote, “Although there were no churches in the early first century as we know them today, Jesus may well have had followers that might be described as an assembly or congregation.�

@Jagella, yes, Jesus’s followers might be described (in modern English) as an assembly or congregation or cult, but was there a WORD for that in Aramaic? Especially if Jesus was unusual or unique in his appeal, there would NOT have been a word for his movement in Aramaic. Jesus couldn’t say something in a language that had no word for a concept that was alien to the shared experience of the people.

@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�?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 4 by postroad"

What? Are we going to pretend that a fisherman in the first century could write in any language? We have to assume a lost Aramaic version?

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

You simply have to pay attention to how the gospel accounts came into being. First are the verbal accounts that the apostles would have spoken in Aramaic. So the fisherman didn't have to know how to write in other languages.

(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. As for a whole gospel, neither of the four were written by him, so the point is moot.)

But his gospel account was written down later in Greek by Mark. 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.

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

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

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

THAT's where the arguments need to be focused.

[ttruscott]

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.

The meaning of Church certainly did exist in those days, in two forms: the one in the verse you mentioned is
S577. ekklésia
Strong's Concordance
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation

1577 ekklēsía (from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kalé�, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, with the added note:
[The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kyrios). 1577 /ekklēsía ("church") is the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical."]


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.

You seem to have missed the mark due to a lack of scholarship...