Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 11 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1681
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
So I'm listening to Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" and one of the things he keeps addressing is the Fundamentalist argument that Peter is not the rock of Matt 16:18 because the Greek has two words for rock in the verse.

His reply is that if we look at the Aramaic it is only one word for rock being used.

Now it is clear from the Gospel that Christ spoke Aramaic, and we have good external evidence that at least a large portion of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic (the logoi of Christ), but that being said how can Keating or any Catholic apologist appeal to the Aramaic of Matt 16:18 when we do not have it?

How can we know what the Aramaic of Matt 16:18 really said?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:53 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82356
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
St. Peter is called "Cephas" in several places, and that's the Aramaic word in question. So we know that word was used for St. Peter, and we know it's the common Aramaic word for "rock," and so it is an eminently reasonable and likely conclusion that the same Aramaic word was used in both places.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1681
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
St. Peter is called "Cephas" in several places, and that's the Aramaic word in question. So we know that word was used for St. Peter, and we know it's the common Aramaic word for "rock," and so it is an eminently reasonable and likely conclusion that the same Aramaic word was used in both places.


But if we were looking only to the eminently reasonable anyways, would it not seem that the Petra referred to the early Petros as opposed to shoehorning in an entirely different rock which Protestants do.

I mean I agree, but I thought the point was more technical than an inference to the best explanation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:36 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82356
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I'm utterly untrained in Aramaic, but if I understand correctly, the "two words for rock" situation doesn't apply in that language, so Jesus would have had to have said, "You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:53 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15374
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
St. Peter is called "Cephas" in several places, and that's the Aramaic word in question. So we know that word was used for St. Peter, and we know it's the common Aramaic word for "rock," and so it is an eminently reasonable and likely conclusion that the same Aramaic word was used in both places.


But if we were looking only to the eminently reasonable anyways, would it not seem that the Petra referred to the early Petros as opposed to shoehorning in an entirely different rock which Protestants do.



yes, it would seem entirely reasonable to understand that the petra referred to the earlier petros, except when:
1. you don't know or understand masculine and feminine nouns in greek,
2. you don't know or understand from context what Christ was actually doing in Matt 16:18, and
3. your religion requires you come up with whatever specious argument is possible to discredit the biblical reality of apostolic succession


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:23 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76278
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
First, even Protestant scholars agree that in that passage Peter is The Rock and that no other interpretation makes sense of the passage.

Second, trying to appeal to the original Aramaic is pointless because we have no idea what the original Aramaic may have been. It's 100% pure conjecture.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:42 am 
Offline
Binary Boy
Binary Boy
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:09 pm
Posts: 2776
Location: On my way to Calvary
Religion: Catholic
Steve Ray had an article he wrote back in 2016. Unfortunately, the original video linked doesn't display on most modern browser versions. However, I was able to pull it from the code and created a link below.

Steve's article
https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2016/12/01/you-are-peter-in-jesus-language-of-aramaic/

"You are Peter" spoken in Aramaic"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKYtOTYfXUE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:21 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6183
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
St. Peter is called "Cephas" in several places, and that's the Aramaic word in question. So we know that word was used for St. Peter, and we know it's the common Aramaic word for "rock," and so it is an eminently reasonable and likely conclusion that the same Aramaic word was used in both places.


But if we were looking only to the eminently reasonable anyways, would it not seem that the Petra referred to the early Petros as opposed to shoehorning in an entirely different rock which Protestants do.
Yes, that is the natural reading of the verse. It's just strengthened by the fact that in Aramaic, cephas means rock, not pebble. And Simon was named Cephas.

It should be said that reputable Lutheran exegetes do not hold that there is a difference between Petros and Petra. But they will often say that Peter is a representative of the Church there. An example of this can be found in a peer reviewed article by Hans Kvalbein, a Norwegian Lutheran scholar: "The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose," found in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005), 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:30 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1681
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Closet Catholic wrote:
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
St. Peter is called "Cephas" in several places, and that's the Aramaic word in question. So we know that word was used for St. Peter, and we know it's the common Aramaic word for "rock," and so it is an eminently reasonable and likely conclusion that the same Aramaic word was used in both places.


But if we were looking only to the eminently reasonable anyways, would it not seem that the Petra referred to the early Petros as opposed to shoehorning in an entirely different rock which Protestants do.
Yes, that is the natural reading of the verse. It's just strengthened by the fact that in Aramaic, cephas means rock, not pebble. And Simon was named Cephas.

It should be said that reputable Lutheran exegetes do not hold that there is a difference between Petros and Petra. But they will often say that Peter is a representative of the Church there. An example of this can be found in a peer reviewed article by Hans Kvalbein, a Norwegian Lutheran scholar: "The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose," found in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005), 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession.


To be clear, this post is largely about Fundamentalists who do try and suggest there are two rocks.

Don't ask for me to define Fundamentalist either, Keatings is my source on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:58 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:30 am
Posts: 599
Religion: Catholic
The other side to this question is whether there's really two words for rock in Greek. In the Greek Old Testament, the word "petros" is only used in 2 Maccabees, so while petros is a real word in certain Greek authors, so it's maybe doubtful whether petros as a distinct word for rock (rather than as a masculinized name from petra) was in the working vocabulary of the NT authors.

Source: Jimmy Akin says more or less the same thing somewhere in here so it must be true.
http://jimmyakin.com/2009/09/the-petrin ... art-5.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Aramaic of Matt 16:18
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:28 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76278
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Pelagius wrote:
The other side to this question is whether there's really two words for rock in Greek. In the Greek Old Testament, the word "petros" is only used in 2 Maccabees, so while petros is a real word in certain Greek authors, so it's maybe doubtful whether petros as a distinct word for rock (rather than as a masculinized name from petra) was in the working vocabulary of the NT authors.

Source: Jimmy Akin says more or less the same thing somewhere in here so it must be true.
http://jimmyakin.com/2009/09/the-petrin ... art-5.html



It is generally agreed that while a distinction did exist in classical Greek, by the first century, this distinction disappeared.

It is important to understand that between the classical Greek of Plato and Aristotle and whatnot and the New Testament is a distance of about 400 years.

To put this into perspective, this is about the same length of tine as between us and Shakespeare. Has English changed in that time? It is safe to assume that in the ancient world, Greek would have changed about as much.

The same point can be made about the different words for "love" used in the New Testament. Much has been made of it, but modern Greek scholars agree that by the first century , there was no practical distinction between say "Eros" and "agape", so all the commentaries and sermons about "the four loves" in the New Testament are completely wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 11 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: