Did Jesus speak Aramaic and why does it matter?

[Usagi]

All right, so you’re saying that the petros/petra divide in the Greek, far from being ammunition for a Protestant reading, is actually potent evidence that Jesus was establishing a perpetual office and not conferring a blessing on Peter as an individual only. That’s pretty cool, and would indeed be missed if we were to insist on the kepha/kepha reading.

Of course, I had never previously heard of the “office-holder masculine, office feminine” pattern, so it would not seem to be a thing commonly cited in Catholic apologetics. Will you be writing up your findings in a more permanent form at some point? Or have you already?

Usagi

 

[calmthesea]

All right, so you’re saying that the petros/petra divide in the Greek, far from being ammunition for a Protestant reading, is actually potent evidence that Jesus was establishing a perpetual office and not conferring a blessing on Peter as an individual only. That’s pretty cool, and would indeed be missed if we were to insist on the kepha/kepha reading.

Of course, I had never previously heard of the “office-holder masculine, office feminine” pattern, so it would not seem to be a thing commonly cited in Catholic apologetics. Will you be writing up your findings in a more permanent form at some point? Or have you already?

Usagi

Usagi,

Exactly! I have been rewriting a book that I wrote on the sociopolitical aspects of the Israelites. (the Pope is Clearly in Genesis) Samuel tried to reinstitute the office but the people wanted an earthly king.So, I haven’t thought about Matthew 16 for awhile but the book on the 7 deadly sins of apologetics made me think of it.

I wrote an article about Petra/Petros in Matthew and sent it to CA about a year ago. I don’t know if they received it. I never heard back. I’ll send it to other publications, I had kinda forgot about it.

In the article. I made some Old Testament connections to Christ’s use of the word “rock” maybe they didn’t like that?? But, its definitely a valid connection.

Tomorrow sometime I will post several of the offices straight from the bible and the lexicon.

Best, Patrick

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This link may be of some minor help. Actually I wondered myself where the Aramaic language came from, but apparently it was the language of their Assyrian overlords during the Assyrian occupation.

I kept hearing the term without really knowing where it came from.

They were in captivity for so long, they assimilated the language of their captors, without, however, losing their Hebrew roots.

catholicexchange.com/what-language-did-jesus-speak

 

[Rolltide]

In context, 4 to 6 centuries from today, people thought the Earth was flat.

Not to get too far off topic, but as a professional historian, I need to correct this. The idea that Columbus was the one to figure out the world was round is completely wrong. Virtually everyone in Europe knew the world was round in the era of Columbus. The ancient Greeks certainly knew it, and Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference of the Earth surprisingly accurately. Certainly almost all sailors since Greek times knew that the world was round. It was easy to determine, since you could watch a ship with a tall mast and sails sink slowly over the horizon, which could only happen if they were sailing over the curvature of the Earth. There are also many surviving medieval globes in Europe that demonstrate this as the prevailing idea.

 

[St_Francis]

I see This makes total sense to me and fits in with either theory of what language they were speaking, including translation. Very elegant, in fact.

My point is this. I lean toward Matthew having composed his Gospel in both Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. It just makes sense. But, the rest of the New Testament seems to have been originally composed in Greek.

Catholic Apologists seemed to grope for an answer to the Petros/Petra dilemma. We just don’t know what Jesus said or how He said it. But, we do know He made Simon Peter the Pope.

We don’t know the words He used. But, we have a Greek gospel that uses the Petra problem. Well, the ‘family’ of God (perhaps Abraham), the ‘household’ of God, and the Kingdom of God all had chief stewards, or chief servants. All of them.

The Pope occupies this office. I’m sure we all agree. Petros is the occupier or the office holder and Petra is the office. Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine.

In Hebrew, Greek, Italian, and Spanish etc etc, the office holder is ALWAYs masculine in grammatical gender and the office itself is feminine in gender. (Remember affixing a peg in a secure place, you get it)

If I were to say thou art president(masculine) and on the presidency(feminine) I will build my church, that would be accurate grammatically. Or, thou art priest(masculine) and on the priesthood (feminine) I will build my Church.

It goes on and on. ALWAYS. The office holder has a grammatical gender that is masculine and the office itself is feminine. Like a chair, the office can receive new occupants but the chair remains.

do searches for whatever offices and office holders you can think of, and in any of those language. English doesn’t have grammatical gender.The office (Petra) is always feminine!
So, the word Petra establishes an Office that will never end.

You will be shocked at how it grammatically works. I’ve spent a lot of time on it. I challenge you. "Thou art the chief steward (it would be masculine) and on the office of the chief steward (it would be feminine) I will build my Church.

The writer or translator definitely understood the difference of the office and the office holder. Their languages were steeped in grammatical gender.

I’m not a linguist but its easy to see. Its not a mistake. It creates Christ’s office of the chief servant (steward)

Did Christ say Kephas? Maybe. But the gospel of Mathew knew what Christ was saying!

Best, Patrick

I can post several Geek and Hebrew examples of the office and office holder if you would like. But, Kephas is what we used to call a rabbit trail. I’d like to get the dog back in the hunt.

 

[calmthesea]

Not to get too far off topic, but as a professional historian, I need to correct this. The idea that Columbus was the one to figure out the world was round is completely wrong. Virtually everyone in Europe knew the world was round in the era of Columbus. The ancient Greeks certainly knew it, and Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference of the Earth surprisingly accurately. Certainly almost all sailors since Greek times knew that the world was round. It was easy to determine, since you could watch a ship with a tall mast and sails sink slowly over the horizon, which could only happen if they were sailing over the curvature of the Earth. There are also many surviving medieval globes in Europe that demonstrate this as the prevailing idea.

Interesting! You learn something everyday. But, I hope you got the point I was trying to make.
I always thought how you could look at the moon and think the earth was flat.

I tease my son and say that the earth is the center of the universe. It’s a cam and the whole universe wobbles around it.

He doesn’t buy it!.

Best, Patrick

Maybe I should have said Luther wasn’t even born yet

 

[calmthesea]

This link may be of some minor help. Actually I wondered myself where the Aramaic language came from, but apparently it was the language of their Assyrian overlords during the Assyrian occupation.

I kept hearing the term without really knowing where it came from.

They were in captivity for so long, they assimilated the language of their captors, without, however, losing their Hebrew roots.

catholicexchange.com/what-language-did-jesus-speak

Bob,

My word! You havent read any of my posts. If it were that simple. I have read dozens if not hundreds of articles like this. Remember, teachers will be judged more strictly and anyone who writes something like that is most likely bearing false witness> They know they are purposefully omitting centuries of relevant info, entire books of the bible as a matter of fact.

That is the exact spirit behind the sect of Jews that Jesus said “Woe” to several times. Why, you may ask. I will try to shorten the answer because, while simple, it could get very lengthy. People have spent their entire academic lives on the subject. Both Jews and Christians.

Jesus, said “woe” because he did not come for them but for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Why, does that matter?

I rounded off the Assyrian/Aramaic argument to 4-6 centuries BC. And, your article makes Aramaic the primary language some 5 or 6 hundred years prior to Christ while completely ignoring those 5-6 centuries. Those same people would use the time period they just ignored to defend the Catholic canon of the Old Testament.

Here are just a few this that happened after the Assyrians.

1. The majority of the second temple period
2. The Greek occupation
3. The Hellenization of the Jews
4. The Jewish diaspora during the Hellenization period
5. The Sepuagint because they were losing their culture and their language
6. The entire time period of the books of Maccabees
7. The Macabean revolt
8. The persecution of the Greek speaking Jews by other Jews
9. i Maccabees written in Hebrew; 2Maccabees written in Greek.
10. The rise of the Sanhedrin council
11. The Sadducees who embraced Hellenizing
12. The Pharacees who were more scepticle

I could go on.

That doesn’t include:

1. the dispersion of the Northern Kingdom
2. The possibility of the Samaritans to be 1/2 remnants, or potentially half breeds of the Southern Kingdom. (God said many wouldn’t even know they were descendants.

I think you would admit that it’s alot to overlook. Just the political fights for control of the Sanhedrin prior to and during the time of Christ.

No Bob, it’s not that simple. 5-6 hundred years is a long time.

You can’t use the Septagint in defense of the Catholic canon, and then ignore, or omit, everything else. That’s generally something that I have seen different Protestant denominations do. You don’t come up with the narrative first, then only use what suits you and ignore the rest.

I tried to summarize a great deal, I hope the point is not lost.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

This link may be of some minor help. Actually I wondered myself where the Aramaic language came from, but apparently it was the language of their Assyrian overlords during the Assyrian occupation.

I kept hearing the term without really knowing where it came from.

They were in captivity for so long, they assimilated the language of their captors, without, however, losing their Hebrew roots.

catholicexchange.com/what-language-did-jesus-speak

Bob,

Jesus came for His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. Greek would have been a very important tool. Aramaic would not.

Jesus said that a good shepherd would leave the flock even for one sheep. Those sheep most likely spoke Greek.

Best, Patrick

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Bob,

Jesus came for His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. Greek would have been a very important tool. Aramaic would not.

Jesus said that a good shepherd would leave the flock even for one sheep. Those sheep most likely spoke Greek.

Best, Patrick

By the fourth or fifth century, there were likely more Aramaic speaking Christians than Latin or Greek speaking ones. Greek was an important language within the realm of the Roman Empire–outside of it, not so much.

 

[St_Francis]

Bob,

Jesus came for His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. Greek would have been a very important tool. Aramaic would not.

Jesus said that a good shepherd would leave the flock even for one sheep. Those sheep most likely spoke Greek.

Best, Patrick

The likelihood of the Apostles speaking Greek with Christ is low as Aramaic would have been the native language of all of them and their Greek rather more limited.

But one of the things I like about your theory is that it works either way. There is no need to argue about which language they spoke

 

[MPat]

The likelihood of the Apostles speaking Greek with Christ is low as Aramaic would have been the native language of all of them and their Greek rather more limited.

But one of the things I like about your theory is that it works either way. There is no need to argue about which language they spoke

I guess both options could be used together. For example, perhaps one option, used cautiously, could be used to prepare way for another…

However, before we can use the “new” option, it would be nice to have some reference to support the idea that Greek uses one gender for officeholder and another for the office…

 

[buffalo]

Somewhere I read there was some evidence that Aramaic was the original language of man. I’ll see if I can dig up the reference.

 

[Maryann_C]

Maryann,

I’m not going to get into my qualifications. Scott Hahn helped lead me back to the Church from Leadership in a Protestant church. However, the example you quote has nothing definitive in it. It uses words like perhaps and reported. That’s not an “oral” tradition being handed down.

So, I’m not ignoring Church Authority at all. Scott Hahn would be the first to tell you he is not in the Church hierarchy, nor in Church Authority, but under it.

I used the example of a newspaper, because it is contemporary, something people may grasp, because they don’t seem to be able to grasp the complexities of the culture in which Jesus spoke into.

Best, Patrick

Dear Patrick , Pray tell what would you consider definitive and why you hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Please also quote to me where I use the word "reported " because I am blind . May I also ask what your objection is to me using the word “perhaps” when I am referring to myself and pointing the finger at myself? Finally I think Dr Scott Hahn might be slightly insulted by your inference that he is not contemporary and that a Newspaper is a more reliable and trustworthy reference than he would be. No where have I said Dr Scott Hahn is part of church hierarchy or authority but then is your newspaper reference??? But I won’t go into my personal contact with Dr Scott Hahn and credentials either since you won’t which is very humble of you.

 

[calmthesea]

Dear Patrick , Pray tell what would you consider definitive and why you hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Please also quote to me where I use the word "reported " because I am blind . May I also ask what your objection is to me using the word “perhaps” when I am referring to myself and pointing the finger at myself? Finally I think Dr Scott Hahn might be slightly insulted by your inference that he is not contemporary and that a Newspaper is a more reliable and trustworthy reference than he would be. No where have I said Dr Scott Hahn is part of church hierarchy or authority but then is your newspaper reference??? But I won’t go into my personal contact with Dr Scott Hahn and credentials either since you won’t which is very humble of you.

Maryann,

I sincerely have no idea where you are coming from in a single sentence in your response. The first post on this thread was a dictionary reference edited by Scott Hahn.

We need to realize that a main ploy of our enemy is offense.

The ‘perhaps’ and ‘reported’ were in the dictionary quote. You referenced Scott Hahn, the only Scott Hahn quote in this thread was in the first post. That is to what I was referring. I wasn’t saying you said anything about it. Sometimes the first thing we do when we post is take things personally. I wasn’t attacking Dr Hahn either. (Be careful of something called “cult of personality”) I think Dr Hahn would tell you that also;

I never said Dr Hahn wasn’t contemporary. Nor, did I say a newspaper is more reliable. It was an analogy about something Irenaeus wrote in the second century.

I think your really taking this wrong and out of context.

Best, Pat

 

[calmthesea]

Dear Patrick , Pray tell what would you consider definitive and why you hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Please also quote to me where I use the word "reported " because I am blind . May I also ask what your objection is to me using the word “perhaps” when I am referring to myself and pointing the finger at myself? Finally I think Dr Scott Hahn might be slightly insulted by your inference that he is not contemporary and that a Newspaper is a more reliable and trustworthy reference than he would be. No where have I said Dr Scott Hahn is part of church hierarchy or authority but then is your newspaper reference??? But I won’t go into my personal contact with Dr Scott Hahn and credentials either since you won’t which is very humble of you.

Maryann,

Your post is a classical rhetorical " straw man" and I’m not sure whether it is intentional or not.
It is certainly not my position.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

By the fourth or fifth century, there were likely more Aramaic speaking Christians than Latin or Greek speaking ones. Greek was an important language within the realm of the Roman Empire–outside of it, not so much.

Dave,

I have mainly studied from Abraham to the Church Fathers. So, you may be right. However, the dialect that I mainly heard of was Syriac (of the family) and, we had the Latin Vulgate.

However, this is a red herring. You said “likely more”. Hmm. You guys jump 500 years like it was the next day. it wasn’t. Is that to mislead the people who haven’t studied it?

Not to discredit what you wrote, but It really doesn’t matter.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

I guess both options could be used together. For example, perhaps one option, used cautiously, could be used to prepare way for another…

However, before we can use the “new” option, it would be nice to have some reference to support the idea that Greek uses one gender for officeholder and another for the office…

MPat,

While these are from the Greek lexicon, you can also find these grammatical genders in Hebrew. Language is not my forte, however. I would someone who was an expert to chime in.

In the Greek lexicon, you will find the word Leitourgia which means a public office; the office of a public minister; the office of the servant of the state. The grammatical gender of the word Leitourgia, the public office, is feminine. The noun Leitourgos [masculine] is a public servant, a public minister [administrator]. Leitourgos is the ‘title’ of the office holder. The office would remain, but the office holder would change.

There is the word Hierateia [feminine gender] is the office of the priesthood. Hiereus [masculine gender] is the office holder; the priest.

The office of the deaconate [diakonia] is grammatically feminine in gender, as is [episcope] which is the office of the overseer, or bishop. The word propheteia (feminine) can mean the office of the prophet, but was seldom used, so it’s also seen as the overarching English word prophecy.

The root word ‘arche’ [feminine] can mean magistracy, a generalized word for the office of a specific magistrate, but is usually used as a part of another word like archipoimen [chief shepherd] or archegos [chief leader]. So, the word hierarchy can simply mean chief priest, high priest, or more accurately, priestly magistracy.

La presidencia(feminine) is the presidency in Spanish, el presidente(masculine) is the president.

Although the grammatical genders have nothing to do with sex discrimination, or misogyny, political correctness has started to de-genderize nouns in some of these modern languages. i.e. Spanish

We do the same genderizing in hardware stores with male and female threads and plumbing parts. Both men and women know the logical reasons for this descriptive use.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

The likelihood of the Apostles speaking Greek with Christ is low as Aramaic would have been the native language of all of them and their Greek rather more limited.

But one of the things I like about your theory is that it works either way. There is no need to argue about which language they spoke

St Francis,

You are absolutely right. Greek and Aramaic divided Judaism for several hundred years before and after Christ. It’s why we have the Catholic bible (essentially from Greek) and the Protestant bible (essentially from Hebrew/Aramaic, which came from intolerance of the other sect)

I posted some examples in another post.

Best, Patrick

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave,

I have mainly studied from Abraham to the Church Fathers. So, you may be right. However, the dialect that I mainly heard of was Syriac (of the family) and, we had the Latin Vulgate.

However, this is a red herring. You said “likely more”. Hmm. You guys jump 500 years like it was the next day. it wasn’t. Is that to mislead the people who haven’t studied it?

Not to discredit what you wrote, but It really doesn’t matter.

Best, Patrick

You stated, “Jesus came for His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. Greek would have been a very important tool. Aramaic would not”. My point is that your statement is false–Aramaic was indeed an important tool (and arguably an even more important tool than Greek) for disciple-making in the early church.

Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic.

 

[Maryann_C]

Maryann,

I sincerely have no idea where you are coming from in a single sentence in your response. The first post on this thread was a dictionary reference edited by Scott Hahn.

We need to realize that a main ploy of our enemy is offense.

The ‘perhaps’ and ‘reported’ were in the dictionary quote. You referenced Scott Hahn, the only Scott Hahn quote in this thread was in the first post. That is to what I was referring. I wasn’t saying you said anything about it. Sometimes the first thing we do when we post is take things personally. I wasn’t attacking Dr Hahn either. (Be careful of something called “cult of personality”) I think Dr Hahn would tell you that also;

I never said Dr Hahn wasn’t contemporary. Nor, did I say a newspaper is more reliable. It was an analogy about something Irenaeus wrote in the second century.

I think your really taking this wrong and out of context.

Best, Pat

Dear Pat, Perhaps you ought to look at a quote then before you quote it. I was responding to your response to me in which you include my original quote. No where do you say " in the original post of this thread" or in the “dictionary quote” you simply posted your words attached to my quote and used the direct term “you” ( had we been speaking in good old English you would have had the brilliant ability to use the indirect ‘one’ instead of the direct ‘you’ and I would have understood it was not a direct reference to my post and me in particular) so of course I was left with no other context in which to take your comment other than in reference to my own, which you quoted in full. I was left with no other option than to believe you were directly answering my comment . Forgive me for not being a mind reader. I am sure if you go back and read in full my post and your response to it you will see the reason for my last to you.
To make an analogy is fine if one somehow make a reference to what one is pointing to. In a thread like this where there are many posts and one can not hear tone or see people’s reactions or one does not know that people are all of the same mind set as ones’ self it is necessary to be a little clearer and precise in one’s meaning. If you catch my drift , probably not but at least I get the big picture so thanks for explaining the reasons for your comments to my post