While I do think that Mt 16 is likely the best example from the Bible of Peter’s unique role, I definitely do not think that the Church’s interpretation lives or dies by this verse alone. …>>
V
I enjoyed hearing Dr. Hall’s interpretation. I’ve heard this interpretation before, but not with the knowledge of Greek that Dr. Hall brings to the table. I must admit that, at first, I was unsure of how to directly address his interpretation since I do not know Greek. Given this fact, …
- Dr. Hall’s first point: Since petra can only refer to a feminine object or person, or an abstract idea, petra must refer to Peter’s confession of faith.
The whole crux of the matter is not so much the petros/petra issue but what the Lord meant. If the Lord indeed spoke Aramaic, then the petros/petra becomes moot and academic, a non-issue.
So the point that has to be addressed first of all is what language did Christ use and is there any ambuiguity in that language.
First : What are the things that we can now with certainty and those that are mere speculation.
Speculations:
- That the Gospel was written in Aramaic ( although there is some evidence to support this)
- That Jesus spoke Greek. That is indeed pure speculation but we can definitely say that He can speak whichever language He pleases.
Certainty:
- That the Gospel of Matthew as it has come down to us is written in Greek
- That Jesus spoke Aramaic. Yes, that is something we know with certainty. The Bible says so.
Mark 5:41 Talitha kum
Mark 7:34 Ephphatha
Mark 14:36 Abba
Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9-13 -Mammon
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 Eli Eli lema sabachthani
John 1:42 “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
What is interesting about these words being in Aramaic is because the Gospel is written in Greek!!!
If the Gospel was all in Aramaic, we can argue that of course it is in Aramaic because the author is writing in Aramaic. But because the author/(translator) was writing in Greek then, the fact that particular Aramaic words were included, makes you wonder – what was the Holy Spirit up to in making sure that the Aramaic was noted. After all, the writer could have easily had every single word in Greek.
If the original was Aramaic and was only translated into Greek, what was the reason for retaining some Aramaic words? Why not translate everything into Greek. There again you see the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Allen C Meyers wrote: "*It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the first century A.D. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem. *
Meyers cites here Matthew 26:73 when Peter was being accused of being a member of Jesus’s group :“
A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away.”
Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts writes: *There is evidence, however, that points to the use of Aramaic in Galilee, the region where Nazareth was located. Such evidence includes inscriptions, contracts, and other ancient writings. It makes sense that residents of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, given the fact that Aramaic became the official language of Galilee from the sixth-century B.C. onward. Thus, it seems likely that ordinary residents of Galilee, including Nazareth, spoke Aramaic as their first language. This was the language of common discourse among Jesus’ family and friends. *
But in Matthew 16:18 how do we know that He did speak Aramaic?
What we must look at is who is Jesus talking to? He is talking to a simple fisherman from Galilee,. What sort of language would He use with a simple fisherman?
There is reason to believe that He spoke Latin with Pilate, and perhaps Greek to the more learned. But to a simple fisherman?
We need to remember as well that when this was happening, the other apostles were there too. What would be the language that we can reasonably assume, based on Archeological findings, would these other apostles speak? Based on the above archeological notes, Aramaic.
But Jesus also gives us a very good clue. Jesus says to Peter : "Blessed are you, Simon barjona. “Bar” is the Aramaic for son, that is why most English bibles translate this as Simon son of Jonah. But in the Greek text
barjonah is what is used.
And a corroborating point is John 1:42 "
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Petros).
Since Kepha means rock in Aramaic (without any ambiguity) and Kepha translates to Petros then Petros means Rock not stone.
Another interesting note: the final sigma (s) in Cepha(s) was added in Greek to make it masculine instead of feminine.
Now this is exactly what was done in the Greek translation: to masculinize petra they called him Petros.
