Q for Mormons (NDM) Gates of Hell

[majick275]

where do you get the idea that there is no aramaic? we know what the aramaic words are. we know Jesus spoke aramaic.

if you want to claim the original manuscripts are gone then I still don’t see how that supports your case. I could say there is no greek too as everyting was copied or transcribed, whatever.

 

[Alma147]

where do you get the idea that there is no aramaic? we know what the aramaic words are. we know Jesus spoke aramaic.

There is no Aramaic version of the New Testament that hasn’t been translated from the Greek. Sure we know that the word Κηφᾶς corresponds to “Petros” but we don’t know what word existed originally for “petras.” While scholars generally agree that Matthew initially wrote his gospel in Aramaic, no ancient Aramaic document has survived. People have tried to create Aramaic versions, but their source is the Greek text. The Greek uses two different words in Matt. 16:18 and to simply ignore that fact and use one Aramaic word instead is cheating.

if you want to claim the original manuscripts are gone then I still don’t see how that supports your case. I could say there is no greek too as everyting was copied or transcribed, whatever.

Hopefully you see the difference now in that I’m not asking for an original manuscript–I’m asking for a manuscript that doesn’t ultimately come from Greek.

Alma

 

[majick275]

understood. I see the difference. I will look. I still say that based on waht we know that you can’t assume the Greek directs you away from the relationship between Peter (name given him by Christ) and “the rock” and replacing it with revelation=rock and Peter is just a listener.

 

[majick275]

try this for starters:

srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

(please read the conclusions and feel free to research the bibliography)

The Syriac texts seem to at least be as old the grek texts if not pre-dating them. in any case they don’t seem derivative.

this requires registration but is of interest:

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0548(195512)18%3A3%2F4%3C456%3AADOTFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

more on pre-christian aramaic:

khalili.org/2_nour/2_PUBLIC_bactria.htm

highly questionable site but still of interest:

specialtyinterests.net/arsames.html

 

[Alma147]

try this for starters:
srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html
(please read the conclusions and feel free to research the bibliography)
The Syriac texts seem to at least be as old the grek texts if not pre-dating them. in any case they don’t seem derivative.
this requires registration but is of interest:
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0548(195512)18%3A3%2F4%3C456%3AADOTFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
more on pre-christian aramaic:
khalili.org/2_nour/2_PUBLIC_bactria.htm
highly questionable site but still of interest:
specialtyinterests.net/arsames.html

It seems to me that these websites don’t disagree with what I’ve been saying. While the Aramaic language is clearly older than Christianity, there are no surviving Christian Aramaic documents that pre-date the Greek NT mss.

Alma

 

[majick275]

except the syriac, which MAY not technically predate it but is at least contemporary and thus not derivative from the Greek.

as to the rest, those sites all made a point that we DO have examples of aramaic writing from at least 500BC… that shold allow us to examine the language without reverse engineering form Greek.

They also claim a different meaning from aramaic rather greek.

 

[sterryfamily]

The reason there aren’t two words in Aramaic is because there is no original Aramaic. All existing versions have come from the Greek. While it sounds like a good argument to appeal to an Aramaic text, it’s a vacuous argument because all Aramaic versions are translations of Greek texts.

The claim that the word for “rock” is “petra” is also mistaken. Adjectives will reflect gender but not nouns. Nouns have a gender that defines the word. “Petros” means a rock or a stone, it isn’t a masculine declension of a feminine word. The feminine “petra” means a rock ledge or a mass of rock. In a gendered language, you can’t change the gender without also changing the meaning of the word. For example masculine “melo” in Italian means “apple tree” while the feminine form “mela” means “apple.” If you were to call a man an “apple” you would use the feminine form “mela” because if you called him a “melo” it would mean “fruit tree.” That’s why “petros” and “petra” aren’t different forms of the same word, they’re different words.

Alma

From what I’ve read there was no difference in meaning between petra and petros in the first century. It’s distinction had been lost some time earlier.

The issue isn’t about an Aramaic text - it is that we know from other passages that his name was retained as Kepha or Cephas, depending on the transliteration. We do know the meanings of these words and have to conclude that these were how he was commonly referred to by Jesus and the apostles and, thus, how we derive at the renderring in this passage.

 

[Alma147]

except the syriac, which MAY not technically predate it but is at least contemporary and thus not derivative from the Greek.

as to the rest, those sites all made a point that we DO have examples of aramaic writing from at least 500BC… that shold allow us to examine the language without reverse engineering form Greek.

They also claim a different meaning from aramaic rather greek.

I think you’re still missing my point. The fact that Aramaic writing appears in several forms from very ancient times doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion regarding Πέτρος and πέτρα. You have insisted that this is “an Aramaic conversation.” You claimed, “When you look at the Aramaic you don’t have the Greek connotations.” The problem with that assertion is that no one knows what word appeared anciently in the Aramaic gospel for the word πέτρα that appears in Matthew. Consequently, since no ancient Aramaic gospel of that passage is extant, it cannot be an “Aramaic conversation” because all the Aramaic texts of Matthew are translations from the Greek. It remains a Greek conversation because that is the oldest authentic text.

As an example, assume that you and I are discussing a passage from the Book of Mormon. You say it should be interpreted one way I disagree. Since I believe that the passage was first written in Hebrew, then translated in English, would it be legitimate for me to say that this is a Hebrew discussion and you should agree with the interpretations of someone who translated the text into Hebrew? Of course you’d say “no” because there is no evidence what Hebrew words might have originally appeared because the earliest text we have is English. Any discussion about what the Hebrew might say would be nothing more than conjecture. Even though we have Hebrew text from 500 B.C. and it’s more ancient than English, those conjectures can’t tell us what might have appeared in a text that no longer exists.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

From what I’ve read there was no difference in meaning between petra and petros in the first century. It’s distinction had been lost some time earlier.

Perhaps you should read more widely. I would suggest a good lexicon dealing with the meaning of Greek words such as “Bauer’s Lexicon.” The idea that there was no difference in meaning between two different words until later is a pretty bold assertion. I would be interested in examining the source and validity of such an assertion. Do you have a source you could cite for me?

Alma

 

[sterryfamily]

I think you’re still missing my point. The fact that Aramaic writing appears in several forms from very ancient times doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion regarding Πέτρος and πέτρα. You have insisted that this is “an Aramaic conversation.” You claimed, “When you look at the Aramaic you don’t have the Greek connotations.” The problem with that assertion is that no one knows what word appeared anciently in the Aramaic gospel for the word πέτρα that appears in Matthew. Consequently, since no ancient Aramaic gospel of that passage is extant, it cannot be an “Aramaic conversation” because all the Aramaic texts of Matthew are translations from the Greek. It remains a Greek conversation because that is the oldest authentic text.

As an example, assume that you and I are discussing a passage from the Book of Mormon. You say it should be interpreted one way I disagree. Since I believe that the passage was first written in Hebrew, then translated in English, would it be legitimate for me to say that this is a Hebrew discussion and you should agree with the interpretations of someone who translated the text into Hebrew? Of course you’d say “no” because there is no evidence what Hebrew words might have originally appeared because the earliest text we have is English. Any discussion about what the Hebrew might say would be nothing more than conjecture. Even though we have Hebrew text from 500 B.C. and it’s more ancient than English, those conjectures can’t tell us what might have appeared in a text that no longer exists.

Alma

You are mistaken. This cannot be a Greek conversation because that is not what was spoken by Christ and the apostles. We know from the rest of the New Testament that the name given was Kepha (Cephas). Anyone who denies this cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Alma, I don’t believe your analogy is correct. Suppose a Spaniard translated a conversation I had in which I called a man a hamburger. Would it make any sense for people to assert whatever about the gender of the word I used for “hamburger?” Anyone fighting about “la hamberguesa” versus “el hambergueso” would be barking up the wrong tree, because they know I was speaking English, and there’s no gender in English, nor even two words for “hamburger.”

Your argument seems to be that we don’t have any written documents in Aramaic and so we can’t conclude one way or the other, but that has no bearing on the fact that we know what language the Lord spoke. Besides, the Aramaic form of the name is written in the New Testament, as sterryfamily pointed out. Look in Acts for “Cephas.” Where did that come from, if not the Aramaic that Christ and His apostles spoke?

 

[sterryfamily]

Perhaps you should read more widely. I would suggest a good lexicon dealing with the meaning of Greek words such as “Bauer’s Lexicon.” The idea that there was no difference in meaning between two different words until later is a pretty bold assertion. I would be interested in examining the source and validity of such an assertion. Do you have a source you could cite for me?

Alma

You can start with D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan

Jimmy Akin has an article at catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

There is a whole lot more available, if you’re interested.

 

[Alma147]

You are mistaken. This cannot be a Greek conversation because that is not what was spoken by Christ and the apostles. We know from the rest of the New Testament that the name given was Kepha (Cephas). Anyone who denies this cannot be taken seriously.

I realize that this was most likely an Aramaic conversation, but since you don’t know what both words were, (you’re merely assuming that petros and petra were both translated as Kepha), you still need to go to the Greek because you don’t have the ancient Aramaic. The fact that the Greek provides two different words cannot be dismissed as though they were the same words.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Your argument seems to be that we don’t have any written documents in Aramaic and so we can’t conclude one way or the other, but that has no bearing on the fact that we know what language the Lord spoke. Besides, the Aramaic form of the name is written in the New Testament, as sterryfamily pointed out. Look in Acts for “Cephas.” Where did that come from, if not the Aramaic that Christ and His apostles spoke?

My argument isn’t that we don’t have “any” written documents in Aramaic. It is that we don’t have that specific passage in question in an ancient Aramaic text. It would be very simple to use your hamburger argument if the circumstance was equivalent – that is, English to Spanish because a hamburger isn’t gendered in the first place. But the “first place” we actually have in Greek is gendered so you can’t ignore it. As I pointed out earlier, masculine and feminine forms of a word are different words with different meanings. Go into an Italian police station and ask for a permit for a “mostro” instead of a “mostra.” One is a monster and the other is a display. You can’t ignore these conventions and think they’re irrelevant. Try saying “hamburgeso” and you’ll get an odd look because it isn’t a Spanish word. If it were Spanish it would be different word than “hamburgesa” with a different meaning–just as petra and petros are different words with different meanings.

Alma

 

[Brad_Haas]

No, the “first place” is when the Lord spoke it. Again, if it wasn’t in Aramaic, in which there is only one word for “rock,” why is Peter called “Cephas” later?

 

[majick275]

I think you’re still missing my point. The fact that Aramaic writing appears in several forms from very ancient times doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion regarding Πέτρος and πέτρα. You have insisted that this is “an Aramaic conversation.” You claimed, “When you look at the Aramaic you don’t have the Greek connotations.” The problem with that assertion is that no one knows what word appeared anciently in the Aramaic gospel for the word πέτρα that appears in Matthew. Consequently, since no ancient Aramaic gospel of that passage is extant, it cannot be an “Aramaic conversation” because all the Aramaic texts of Matthew are translations from the Greek. It remains a Greek conversation because that is the oldest authentic text.

As an example, assume that you and I are discussing a passage from the Book of Mormon. You say it should be interpreted one way I disagree. Since I believe that the passage was first written in Hebrew, then translated in English, would it be legitimate for me to say that this is a Hebrew discussion and you should agree with the interpretations of someone who translated the text into Hebrew? Of course you’d say “no” because there is no evidence what Hebrew words might have originally appeared because the earliest text we have is English. Any discussion about what the Hebrew might say would be nothing more than conjecture. Even though we have Hebrew text from 500 B.C. and it’s more ancient than English, those conjectures can’t tell us what might have appeared in a text that no longer exists.

Alma

I thought I had adressed your point with my syriac GOSPEL as evidence of the original aramaic conversation. It at at least is AS old as the greek texts. We know that the conversation wasn’t greek in any case.

 

[zerinus]

The LDS interpretation is linguistically unnatural. The focus in vs 15, 16 and 17a is on Peter as the rock.

Wrong! The focus of these verses is Jesus, not Peter:

15 He saith unto them {the Apostles}, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the next verse, the focus shifts on to two things: firstly, to Peter; and secondly, to the fact that his testimony had come from God, not from man:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

then suddenly in the middle of verse 17, Jesus is talking about the rock as something else, then in verse 18 he is talking about Peter again. Jesus wasn’t nearly that confused in his speech.

Not so. In verse 18 the focus is the fact that Peter’s testimony came from God (the Holy Ghost) and not from man. The rock is a play on words:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock {i.e. the rock of testimony of the Holy Ghost, which Peter embodied} I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus did not build His church on a mortal man. If the church was built on the rock of Peter, then when Peter died he should have taken the church with him; because he wasn’t around any more on earth for the church on earth to “built” on him. What Jesus was saying that He would build His church on the testimony of the Holy Ghost which Peter exemplified. That is the correct reading of that scripture.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Okay, wise guy, I was off by one verse. But the principle still stands.
Paul

 

[zerinus]

Okay, wise guy, I was off by one verse. But the principle still stands.
Paul

No such luck, wise guy.

zerinus

 

[sterryfamily]

Wrong! The focus of these verses is Jesus, not Peter:

15 He saith unto them {the Apostles}, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the next verse, the focus shifts on to two things: firstly, to Peter; and secondly, to the fact that his testimony had come from God, not from man:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Not so. In verse 18 the focus is the fact that Peter’s testimony came from God (the Holy Ghost) and not from man. The rock is a play on words:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock {i.e. the rock of testimony of the Holy Ghost, which Peter embodied} I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus did not build His church on a mortal man. If the church was built on the rock of Peter, then when Peter died he should have taken the church with him; because he wasn’t around any more on earth for the church on earth to “built” on him. What Jesus was saying that He would build His church on the testimony of the Holy Ghost which Peter exemplified. That is the correct reading of that scripture.

zerinus

What Christ SAID was, “Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church” Why would Christ belittle Peter in between two distinct blessings? Why would he give him the keys to the kingdom, an Old Testament reference to a transfer of authority?