Petros/petra revisited

[Maccabees]

jimmy:

Kepha is used in both instances. Here is a link to the peshita with English translations.

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm

That is exactly what the protestant scholars I quoted said.
So what is the controversy here? This pastor has no understanding of the text at all. The theologians he disagrees with have far higher credentials. Why are we taking him on the same level as these theologians when he can’t even provide footnotes for his evidence.

 

[copland]

Huiou Theou,

Petra is not always translated as shua! There are a number of places where kepha and shua are interchangable. Matthew 27:60 is just one example because kepha is used both times in the Syriac when petra and lithos where used in the Greek. Matthew used Kepha a few other times interchangably with shua, just as he did in 16:17.

As I have tried to explain, the Syriac/Aramaic is an independent text concerning the gospel of Matthew because Matthew originally wrote it in Aramaic, which means that the Aramaic version was translated into Greek, not Greek into Aramaic. If you want the purest form of the gospel of Matthew then use the Aramaic version and Greek as a secondhand version.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Copeland,

I was quoting the argument as I have seen it posted in various places – Even if I accepted the argument ( which I don’t, and Thank You for a specific counter-argument ) it would still fall apart.
For the author uses a false premise on top of false facts.

As far as which is actually more origianal 'Greek" or ‘Syriac’ I have seen sharp disagreement which I am unable to prove one way or the other.

In my understanding, Syriac is not exactly Aramaic, but close.
Some people believe the process went Aramaic/Hebrew → Syriac parallel with Aramaic/Hebrew → Greek. Others believe the original was destroyed prior to the widespread use of the Gospel, so that all copies come from the Greek. And some, as you hold, think that the process went the reverse direction: Aramaic/Hebrew → Greek.

I am presently unable to decide which I really believe on this point.

However, the argument , based on the Syriac, generally seems to assume that the translation came from the Greek. I have often seen this argument repeated by various scholars, and the different variations generally have the same flaw.
No one knows.

 

[Schabel]

copland:

I have studied the Peshitta for quite some time, and I am studying Syriac/Aramaic. And even though I do believe that most of the NT was originally written in Greek, I do hold the position that Matthew wrote his gospel orignally in Aramaic, and that is based upon the fact that the Fathers of the Church proclaimed that from the beginning with Papias to St. Jerome.

It is a fact that the Syriac has its roots that go back to the 1st century, and the Diatesseron is a testimony to that, which happens to be a work by Tatian. You have other very early versions that follow it such as the Sinaitic, Curetonion, Peshitta, etc etc. The Peshitta is much like the Vulgate to the Latin manuscripts.

But my point is this, Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and it was later translated into Greek, and the structure of the early Syriac shows that it is an independant tradition apart from the Greek as far as the gospel of Matthew goes, so it is of my belief that the Aramaic rendering of Matthew 16:17-18 is perserved the best as it is in the critical edition of the ancient Syriac, which is not in an agreement with a Protestant ‘reconstruction’ of the Aramaic in order to reject the Pope. The differnce between the Protestant ‘reconstruction’ of the Aramaic and the Aramaic that supports the Pope passage in Syriac is that the Protestants have no manuscript evidence to prove their case! But there are over 300 ancient Syriac/Aramaic manuscripts to back up the our argument!

Thanks for the assist! (same to Huiou Theou, Maccabees, copland, and all the rest!).

Still, not that I’m doubting anything you’ve said, do you know if there’s a link to any of this type of testimony on the web? Not the ECF, I know where to find that ! but the stuff above?

Thanks again, guys!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

P.S. I do understand that the actual original Gospel was written in Aramaic, with a possible Hebrew bent. I am just uncertain what path it took to the Syriac and Greek.

 

[copland]

Huiou Theou,

Sorry for my misunderstanding! I misread you.

By the way, yes, Syriac is Aramaic, and Aramaic has different dialects just as English does. Our president speaks a different dialect then me, he speaks Texan as I speak Kentuckian, though we both speak English. I would not say that he speaks a different language, but there are some minor differences. Same with Aramaic. Often some ‘scholars’ will make more out of the distinctions in Aramaic then what is really there. The best thing to do is have a true Aramaic speaking person to explain it, one who lives in the area where it is common to have the various dialects being used. I have had it explained to me by such people, and it truley parallels the English dialects that we are used to.

If you study the Syriac versions such as the Sinaitic, Curetonian, and Peshitta, you will find that they are very independant from the Greek when it comes to Matthew. Though I have noticed that Mark, Luke,and John seems to be based upon Greek. Though there are different versions of Syriac that are not independent such as the Harclean Version,which was intended to be a Syraic version based upon the Byzantine Greek.

 

[mayra_hart]

this is from david currie an i quoted : the insurmountable problem with the evangelical analysis of the greek text is that in aramaic, the language of jesus,there was only one word for rock(kephas). the greek text is itself a translation of the original aramaic. there was no possibility of the original hearers being confused about jesus’ meaning. the disciples had to have heard jesus saying, in aramaic, “i tell you that you are rock ( kepha), and on this rock (kepha) i will build my church.” there is not the originally uttered! the church would be built on peter as"rock", as distinguished from the other apostles there that day with him. the aramaic word for “rock”, transliterated into english, can be written cephas. that this name for peter is used elsewhere in scripture lends further support for the catholic understanding of this passage (see jn 1:12,4:5,15:5;gal2:9–14).i imagine an this is because in spanish words have gender i wonder is that the confusion.

 

[jimmy]

Schabel:

Thanks for the assist! (same to Huiou Theou, Maccabees, copland, and all the rest!).

Still, not that I’m doubting anything you’ve said, do you know if there’s a link to any of this type of testimony on the web? Not the ECF, I know where to find that ! but the stuff above?

Thanks again, guys!

Here is the link to the Peshitta. It is posted in an above post too. It also has English translation to go with each individual word so that you can see what word means what. You can see from it that the same word is used for both in Matt 16.

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm

 

[Philthy]

Schabel:

On another discussion board, I’ve been presented with the following evidence regarding the Aramaic from which Matt 16:18 may have been translated:

gpcredding.org/petra.html

In particular, the argument is that:a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: “You are KE’PHA’ (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A’ (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”

I have some thoughts on how to rebutt most of this article, but I’d appreciate any insights you guys can offer!

Thanks in advance.

Well, my first critique would be to restate his original OBJECTION to using Aramaic/Syriac translations:

1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are **merely uninspired translations of the original **

Once you make a claim like this, you have to live with it. His conclusion above that you posted is nothing more than an educated guess which in the final analysis is, as he puts it, an “uninspired translation of the original”. why should we rely on his analysis any more than any other analysis?

Phil

 

[copland]

Philly

Once you make a claim like this, you have to live with it. His conclusion above that you posted is nothing more than an educated guess which in the final analysis is, as he puts it, an “uninspired translation of the original”. why should we rely on his analysis any more than any other analysis?

Phil

His answer is a cop out, believe me! If the Syriac supported his claims then the Syriac would be his saving grace!