DaveBj, First I wouldn’t become over concern about an Aramaic Matthew because one (as in the original from which we got the Greek Translation) doesn’t exist. There are refrences to it existence, I think by St Jerome but I could be wrong) and there is strong internal evidence pointing to an Aramaic Original, such as the Church it seems to have been directed and what appears to be strong evidence of Translitteration such as Matthew 16. That being said a few more points. Historically, the real challenge to the meaning of the passage didn’t come until 1500 years after Christ. As I have said in many places - a long time for the Holy Spirit to let that mistake get by. Even the Eastern Church held that this passage pointed out a special position for Peter, but not in the same sense as in the West of coarse. To the text it self, problems come naturally when you’re dealing first with a translitterated (if that’s a word) text Aramaic to Greek. Second these text are hand copied over and over which naturally allows for human error Petra/Petrus etc. Kapha, in Aramaic means Rock -but the rock of the earth, earth crust (remember Christ’s parable about building with a foundation of rock, not sand, that rock was kapha - the rock hard earth. One other point not mention here, but I’ve seen it written that Jesus actually meant himself as the Rock. Perhaps, however, in every other passage of the NT refering to Christ as “The Rock” or (Corner)Stone the greek word that is used is Lithos, so it would seem Jesus’ wasn’t refering to himself. Finally, as JimG pointed out, the other Apostles called him Peter of Kaphas and this includes Paul in several letters. One would imsgine they had some idea of who and why they were talking about. Sorry for being long here.
