Interesting claim by a protestant

[Seraphim73]

Except that it was also received in Aramaic, even when translated into Greek…

I don’t think so. Do you have a source for this? I could be wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t think so. Do you have a source for this? I could be wrong.

Then explain to me why Christ is plainly quoted speaking Aramaic both to Peter and from the cross when He says “Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani” in Matthew 27:46.

Read the articles above they document that Sacred Traditional sources speak of Matthew being first in Aramaic.

 

[Seraphim73]

Then explain to me why Christ is plainly quoted speaking Aramaic both to Peter and from the cross when He says “Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani” in Matthew 27:46.

Read the articles above they document that Sacred Traditional sources speak of Matthew being first in Aramaic.

The fact that Aramaic was spoken has nothing to do with what the received text is. It just seems like a little revisionist to look at Aramaic when the received text is Greek. Or maybe the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the Greek to be the received text.

 

[Church_Militant]

The fact that Aramaic was spoken has nothing to do with what the received text is. It just seems like a little revisionist to look at Aramaic when the received text is Greek. Or maybe the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the Greek to be the received text.

Not at all. If you consider what we have as received, and it includes the Aramaic then logically that should answer your own question…and keep in mind that the church teaches that the original texts are inspired and there is ample evidence that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, so again, your issue is answered.

 

[Seraphim73]

Not at all. If you consider what we have as received, and it includes the Aramaic then logically that should answer your own question…and keep in mind that the church teaches that the original texts are inspired and there is ample evidence that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, so again, your issue is answered.

Is that the case? I’ve not seen any evidence showing that Matthew was received in Aramaic and the rest in Greek. Do you have any source for that?

 

[Church_Militant]

From my links above. (Didn’t you read them?)

“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”

1. Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language. Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).
   The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic *Kepha, *which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
   Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
   [T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I have to say that your citation and added comment are so true and beautiful. My 18 year journey as an evangelical has well equipped me to be a better Catholic and a wiser Christian to be fully able to accomplish the will of God in my life. Not just my life but for His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which indeed includes all the Orthodox Churches.

Evangelicalism has brought a lot to the table, two most important elements; first, to know the scriptures for they are the mind of God (and in my opinion an 8th sacrament). And secondly to evangelize. I have been a revert now for 15 years and I am watching God guiding his church and calling evangelicals home to the Church Christ started. In the very words of Saint Paul to the Ephesians,

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. Ephesians 3:20-21.

Peace,

David

:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think so. Do you have a source for this? I could be wrong.

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Have you ever read about the Peshitta?

 

[RollTide1987]

I will say the idea that we should try and look at what was said in Aramaic instead of using the received Greek text seems extremely suspect to me. The New Testament was received in Greek. That should be treated as the source text.

Okay. Let’s use Greek. In the Greek, the verse would have looked something like this:

“You are Petros] and upon this petra] I will build my Church.”

Petros and petra are masculine/feminine nouns. Petros is the masculine, petra the feminine. Matthew had no choice but to use Petros for Peter’s name because, if he would have used Petra, we would be calling him Petrina instead of Peter. Had Matthew wanted it to mean what some Protestants think it means, he would have used the word lithos, which is Greek for “pebble.”

 

[Seraphim73]

From my links above. (Didn’t you read them?)

I got what you are saying but the text that was canonized was Greek. Is there an extant copy of Matthew in Aramaic?

 

[Seraphim73]

Okay. Let’s use Greek. In the Greek, the verse would have looked something like this:

“You are Petros] and upon this petra] I will build my Church.”

Petros and petra are masculine/feminine nouns. Petros is the masculine, petra the feminine. Matthew had no choice but to use Petros for Peter’s name because, if he would have used Petra, we would be calling him Petrina instead of Peter. Had Matthew wanted it to mean what some Protestants think it means, he would have used the word lithos, which is Greek for “pebble.”

Well I don’t know what Protestants think but the fact is there are a number of different patristic interpretations. Honestly it seems quite likely for the most part they didn’t put anywhere near the emphasis on a particular understanding the way the Catholic Church came to eventually came to do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I don’t know what Protestants think but the fact is there are a number of different patristic interpretations. Honestly it seems quite likely for the most part they didn’t put anywhere near the emphasis on a particular understanding the way the Catholic Church came to eventually came to do.

That’s because they WERE Catholic, as the letter from Ignatius of Antioch reveals in AD 107.

The Fathers didn’t have to worry so much about some of the hair-splitting that modern controversialists engage in because, by and large, they all agreed on the big picture.

Only later did people pick up magnifying glasses and scrutinize every jot and tittle - twisting the writings of these thoroughly Catholic men in an effort to prove that they were actually Orthodox from the outset.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I don’t know what Protestants think but the fact is there are a number of different patristic interpretations. Honestly it seems quite likely for the most part they didn’t put anywhere near the emphasis on a particular understanding the way the Catholic Church came to eventually came to do.

That’s because they WERE Catholic, as the letter from Ignatius of Antioch reveals in AD 107.

The Fathers didn’t have to worry so much about some of the hair-splitting that modern controversialists engage in because, by and large, they all agreed on the big picture. Catholics debating fine points among Catholics is very different from arguing with heretics and pagans. Thus, the Fathers could argue a secondary meaning because “both/and” is completely acceptable among brothers. It is only with non-Catholics that “either/or” becomes an issue.

Only later did people pick up magnifying glasses and scrutinize every jot and tittle - twisting the writings of these thoroughly Catholic men in an effort to prove that they were actually Orthodox from the outset.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s because they WERE Catholic, as the letter from Ignatius of Antioch reveals in AD 107.

The Fathers didn’t have to worry so much about some of the hair-splitting that modern controversialists engage in because, by and large, they all agreed on the big picture.

Only later did people pick up magnifying glasses and scrutinize every jot and tittle - twisting the writings of these thoroughly Catholic men in an effort to prove that they were actually Orthodox from the outset.

Well they most certainly were Orthodox.

And most of the hair splitting didn’t begin until someone started teaching something contrary to the faith. No reason to oppose something that didn’t exist.

 

[guanophore]

The fact that Aramaic was spoken has nothing to do with what the received text is. It just seems like a little revisionist to look at Aramaic when the received text is Greek. Or maybe the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the Greek to be the received text.

It turns out to be critical in this case because there is so mucj effort made to discredit Christ telling Peter “upon this Rock…”.

Matthew is clear by it’s structure that it ws written first in Aramaic, and we also have this witness from the Fathers.

It must have almost immediately been translated into Gk., or perhaps the witness “everyone translated as best he could” really is a reference to the oral translation used in Church. So yes, we accept the received txt in Gk. also. The more modern research on Syriac version s is also very interesting, because it appears that many of the texts never passed through the Gk.

Is that the case? I’ve not seen any evidence showing that Matthew was received in Aramaic and the rest in Greek. Do you have any source for that?

You know, I first learned this in my textual criticism class and don’t even remember what book we used for that. At the time, I had never come across the “Cephas” argument so it did not occur to me that it would become such an issue.

As someone who seems to rely so much on the Faothers, I am surprised you would deny their testimony on this point. Did you look at the links Militant posted?

orthodoxwiki.org/Gospel_of_Matthew

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

 

[Seraphim73]

It turns out to be critical in this case because there is so mucj effort made to discredit Christ telling Peter “upon this Rock…”.

Matthew is clear by it’s structure that it ws written first in Aramaic, and we also have this witness from the Fathers.

It must have almost immediately been translated into Gk., or perhaps the witness “everyone translated as best he could” really is a reference to the oral translation used in Church. So yes, we accept the received txt in Gk. also. The more modern research on Syriac version s is also very interesting, because it appears that many of the texts never passed through the Gk.

You know, I first learned this in my textual criticism class and don’t even remember what book we used for that. At the time, I had never come across the “Cephas” argument so it did not occur to me that it would become such an issue.

As someone who seems to rely so much on the Faothers, I am surprised you would deny their testimony on this point. Did you look at the links Militant posted?

orthodoxwiki.org/Gospel_of_Matthew

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

Where did I deny anything? I said the received text was Greek and it is. Any study of Matthew in Aramaic is done from a translation from Greek into Aramaic. As to the interpretation of Peter as “the” rock you don’t need textual criticism to understand that passage. Some of them understood Peter as the rock but more understood that passage in other ways. Here again is the summary from the survey by Roman Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy.

1) 7 Fathers thought of the rock as Peter

2) 44 thought it referred to Peter’s confession

3) 16 thought Christ was the rock

4) 8 thought the rock was all the apostles

So other interpretations of that verse are not some invention of the 16th century for sure.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s because they WERE Catholic, as the letter from Ignatius of Antioch reveals in AD 107.

The Fathers didn’t have to worry so much about some of the hair-splitting that modern controversialists engage in because, by and large, they all agreed on the big picture.

Only later did people pick up magnifying glasses and scrutinize every jot and tittle - twisting the writings of these thoroughly Catholic men in an effort to prove that they were actually Orthodox from the outset.

Well they most certainly were Orthodox. And usually the “hair-splitting” didn’t begin until some group started to teach error.

 

[dronald]

Going to reply to this backwards since that’s how my brain is working at this late hour (which might also mean my reply won’t make much sense, if that’s the case I apologise )

I’ll tell you this much, Augustine wasn’t someone who would ever deny Church teachings. (If you want a couple of quotes for that here’s a link but I doubt they’re needed forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7215230&postcount=33)
Had the Church said “this is what the passage means and nothing else” then I very much doubt Augustine would encourage anyone to consider it otherwise. In that point you’re arguing against yourself, this more indicates that the Church hadn’t defined a single sole meaning for the passage, hence Augustine could leave it open to the reader which meaning they thought more essential.

Is there a more respected theologian than Augustine? A Bishop in the Church? Why was he ignorant in this regard if what you’re saying is true. (and I don’t deny it is.)

Ok, first of all, he said ‘‘I frequently’ explain it thus’, not ‘I always…’, so I do think he stressed the Christocentric aspect for the particular audience he was most often talking to at the time. In not rejecting his earlier claim, it seems to me he must have thought both were possible, otherwise he, being a doctor of the Church, would surely have picked the interpretation he thought correct.
What’s more, I suspect the two can be reconciled (this is my own musing though, I’m open to correction). If Christ was indeed referring to Himself as ‘the rock’, then changing Simon’s name to Peter clearly had something to do with that rock. Since Catholics would say that the Pope is Christ’s representative on earth, then it would make sense for Him to give Peter a name so closely resembling His own title, as a sign that Peter would be His representative. So it’s just a round-about way of getting back to Peter being the rock.

It doesn’t change that he made an argument by proclaiming that “thou art Peter, and not rock” was said. That means in the end he did take a stance, although he left it up to interpretation.

I simply agree with Augustine and you agree with some other Fathers on this one. I believe in a way Peter was a stone as are we, “but the rock was Christ”.

 

[dronald]

Precisely! That’s exactly how it works! Prior to the point that the Church makes a statement “on faith and morals”, people are busy trying to work it out. They try on various interpretations for size, trying to determine what the Word of God is speaking to them. There might even be a ‘commonly held’ interpretation that doesn’t rise to the level of doctrine (e.g., ‘limbo of the infants’). At this point in the game, it’s possible to disagree and still hold to Catholic faith. But – and this is the salient point – when the Church says, definitively, “this is what we believe as Catholics,” then we as Catholics adopt that belief as protected by the Holy Spirit (‘loosing and binding’, as it were). If, in the days of Augustine, there were unsettled issues, we would expect to see varieties of opinion! But, once the issues are settled, it’s no longer a matter of opinion!

So, going back in time – prior to any official interpretation or doctrinal statement – and pointing to divergent views makes no sense … nor does it provide any relevent points in a debate! What you’re doing here is like going back to a statement (made before the 13th amendment was passed) arguing for slavery and saying, “see! your guy supported this view! therefore, it’s ok that I support this view!”

Can you see how that’s what you’re doing here, in the name of allowing people to interpret as they see fit?

Have you read the recent document on limbo? Yes, it’s “allowed”, per se – but has never been doctrine and is no longer taught.

Agreed: but it’s not “old days” diversity that is no longer present. It’s a “pre-definitive teaching” scenario… which still exists today on a variety of issues!

That’s not what their take on it was, though, as if things have changed. As I’ve mentioned, Augustine, too, deferred to the authority of the Church.

It was the third time this week I’d heard that asserted, and I think I was getting a little frustrated with the notion. It’s all good…

You keep making the point that “Augustine changed his mind.” I don’t think that the quote you provided supports this interpretation. Augustine is merely pointing to the fact that he’d interpreted the text differently at different points – in an earlier book, one way, and in later sermons, another way. If you can show that he “changed his mind,” I’d like to see it. (Other than saying, “well, chronologically speaking…”, there’s nothing there to demonstrate your claim, is there? And, the “let the reader decide” really seems to be the final nail in the coffin: if there were a set-in-stone () interpretation, we would expect to see Augustine saying, “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished”… wouldn’t we? )

You have a point: before doctrine was settled, it was reasonable to argue the point as you have. Nowadays… not so much.

(In other words, this really isn’t a debate on doctrine, but on authority: you don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to declare doctrine, and we do.)

This only shows that you have missed my point entirely. My point is that there is an argument and it’s really not a crazy point since even Augustine agrees with me.

 

[dronald]

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said, “Your are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

In the context of the verse, Jesus identifies Himself as the Builder not as the rock. That leaves Simon Peter, whom Jesus re-named Cephas (kepha) as the rock upon which He would do so.

That’s not me saying that; that’s a quote by Augustine. Take it up with him.