Real word for "rock" in Aramaic?

[Kurt_G]

Hello, Jeff, and all.

I also failed to see any roughness or animosity in your posts on this subject. Can’t say the same for a few of the others, though.

The “rock” argument cannot, in my opinion, be separated from the “keys” argument. Jesus said them together, He meant them to be taken together.

Another poster began the Isaiah point, I will continue…

We must all believe that Jesus knew Isaiah pretty well.

To me it is inconceivable that Jesus would not have meant a connection to the Isaiah passage:
Isaiah 22:22.
“I will place upon his shoulder the keys to the House of David.
When he opens, no one shall shut.
When he shuts, no one shall open.”

(for immediate comparison, Matthew 16 )
“I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I guess this could have happened several ways:

1. Jesus did not know/remember the Isaiah passage.
2. Jesus knew the similarities, but did not expect anyone else to
   notice or to put too much weight on the similarities.
3. Jesus knew He was pulling from Isaiah, knew others would
   make the connection, and expected them to learn from the
   connection.

Number 3 makes sense to me. I think He meant a connection. If we get someone to agree to the connection, the next step is to ask "Why would Jesus paraphrase Isaiah?"

That passage is overflowing with placement and transfer of authority, to a “# 2 man” in charge.

Also, I think this # 2 position was known to be a successive office, both before this Isaiah passage and after. (I don’t have that in front of me, but I’ll look for it… if somebody has it, throw it in!)

If Jesus did not mean to imply an authoritative, successive office for Simon Peter, then His choice to paraphrase from Isaiah was a poor one. I cannot believe Jesus chose poorly.

Staples points out a few “peripheral” Isaiah statements:
Eliakim “will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah”. Tim claims the Isaiah passage then becomes prophetic, since the two kingdoms were supposedly not united at that time. (I don’t fully understand the implications, but Tim mentioned it several times, so it must be something).

Others have tried to tie Jesus’ “keys” statement to the passage in Revelation, but of course Revelation wasn’t written yet. And the Revelation passage just has Jesus back with the keys… they are being passed in only 2 places in Scripture (Isaiah and Matthew) So I have trouble connecting Matthew keys with Revelation. Matthew and Isaiah fit really well together.

As we all share info with each other, I start to see how these threads work. I’m sure many folks could answer about Isaiah 22 better than me (Hahn wrote a paper on it!) But it doesn’t mean we “non-experts” can’t contribute “half-answers” once in a while.
So that’s why I just jump in now and then!

But whoever jumped on Jeff I thought was out of place. I have conversed with him a few other times, and find him pleasantly challenging…

God Bless Us All!

 

[jphilapy]

Kurt G.:

But whoever jumped on Jeff I thought was out of place. I have conversed with him a few other times, and find him pleasantly challenging…

God Bless Us All!

Hi Kurt and thanks.

I haven’t saw the Isaiah verse before. Here are a few others to go along with it:

*Job 12:9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? *
*Job 12:10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. *
*Job 12:11 Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat? *
*Job 12:12 With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding. *
*Job 12:13 With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding. *
*Job 12:14 Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again: he shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening. *

*Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Jeff

 

[lindalou725]

Not much has been said of Jn 1:42 "Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’."So Jesus waited until Simeon made his confession, and bestowed the promised name upon him. This was significant, because God only changed the names of a few people–those who were to hold a significant place in salvation history:

Abram to Abraham
Sarai to Sarah
Jacob to Isreal
Mary to “Full of Grace” Luke 1:21
Simon to Peter

There is obviously significance in the fact that he is changing Simon’s name.

 

[jphilapy]

lindalou725:

Not much has been said of Jn 1:42 "Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’."So Jesus waited until Simeon made his confession, and bestowed the promised name upon him. This was significant, because God only changed the names of a few people–those who were to hold a significant place in salvation history:

Abram to Abraham
Sarai to Sarah
Jacob to Isreal
Mary to “Full of Grace” Luke 1:21
Simon to Peter

There is obviously significance in the fact that he is changing Simon’s name.

Did he change his name? Or did he just append to his name? I know that Peter continued to be called by Simon and Peter as well as mentions of Cephas.

The 2 epistle of Peter is addressed from Simon Peter. See I think that is significant. See Abram wasn’t name Abram Abraham. So Peter really doesn’t have a name change the same as the above list. It isn’t from Simon to Peter. It is from Simon to Simon Peter.

Something to consider I think.
Jeff

 

[SteveT]

Jeff:

Just to clarify, like many other instances the RCC doesn’t dictate one interpretation over the other on this passage, buts opts for the both/and approach - i.e., we believe the word of God is living and powerful and consists of multiple layers of truths. Hence, the meaning of Jesus’ words, “thou are Peter…etc” are held to indicate that the church would be built on Peter - the papacy - while at the same time also mean the rock-like faith of true believers upon which the church is built over time, and also indicate the church’s foundation on Christ himself as the cornerstone, etc., etc., etc… One “truth” is not true at the expense of the others, but all are true, and all are implicit in the passage. What a marvelous thing is scripture - how multi-faceted and deep a spring to draw from! This is why you will often find a church father citing a particular scripture to make a point, and elsewhere citing the same passage to make an entirely different (though not contradictory) point. The church has ruled that Jesus here instituted the papacy; the church has not said He didn’t also convey these other truths at the same time.

 

[Maccabees]

Scott_Lafrance:

No, what you have to be is a charitable Catholic who defends the Church with humility, unless you believe that you are not above exalting yourself? You come across as pompous and arrogant, and are doing nothing to demostrate that the Church has an open door policy. The Church is Catholic, meaning universal, and is therefore open to all people, once they get over their theological hang-ups. John Cardinal Newman spend a great deal of his life questioning the Church while he was an Anglican. His questioning lead him to research Church history, which lead him straight across the Tiber into the Catholic clergy. You are doing nothing to foster faith in Catholic doctrine. In fact, because of you patently rude and snide disposition, you are forcing other people to retreat behind their non-Catholic position. You are sounding like a cocky 7 year old school bully. You are an arrogant Catholic zealot, end of story. I suggest you purchase a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and read it before any further attempts at apologetics.

It’s sad when catholics attack catholics for trying to proclaim the gospel. Typical Vatican 2 indifference no wonder our young people leave the church with such mushiness and fawning over non-catholics. THe last name is France no wonder you don’t want to fight for your faith you wish to giveup and be nice gee thats worked with the Muslims right?

 

[Vincent]

jphilapy:

Augustine adopted and accepted the interpretation that the church would be built up on the confession of Peter. But then Augustine left it open to interpretation to the reader showing that the interpretation of that passage which is apparently the required one that catholics today are to adopt was not required by folks in the time of augustine to adopt. It was open to speculation. Apparently the plain sense of matt 16 as it is understood by catholics today wasn’t so plain to even those closest to the apostles.

There’s more than one way to understand “this rock” that’s compatible with the Catholic faith. The Pope points out that it’s Christ, and in the Catechism, which he authorized, it’s Peter and his confession of faith. All three are fine.

 

[jphilapy]

Vincent:

There’s more than one way to understand “this rock” that’s compatible with the Catholic faith. The Pope points out that it’s Christ, and in the Catechism, which he authorized, it’s Peter and his confession of faith. All three are fine.

I have to say this is somewhat frustrating to me because I see on here catholics every day ridiculing folks because they explain matt 16. the same as Augustine and Origen. If it is ok then why do catholics spend so much time refuting those arguements, and presenting arguments that render those views as incorrect? For example Keating in his book goes to lengths to show that “on this Rock” could not refer to Jesus. So which is it? It is or it isn’t. Those views are acceptable or not?

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

sorry to take up so much post space today. Anyway Peter is not the only person that Jesus surnamed in the NT.

Mar 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;
Mar 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

if anyone has any insight on this, im interested to hear it.

Jeff

 

[Vincent]

jphilapy:

I have to say this is somewhat frustrating to me because I see on here catholics every day ridiculing folks because they explain matt 16. the same as Augustine and Origen. If it is ok then why do catholics spend so much time refuting those arguements, and presenting arguments that render those views as incorrect? For example Keating in his book goes to lengths to show that “on this Rock” could not refer to Jesus. So which is it? It is or it isn’t. Those views are acceptable or not?

I understand your frustration, Jeff. It’s possible that in interreligious dialogues, one’s view on “this rock” is framed by polemics. When a non-Catholic says to me, “It isn’t Peter, so the papacy isn’t true,” I’m tempted to counter it with “It is Peter”. Those references from the Pope and the Catechism, on the other hand, aren’t in the context of polemics.

Not to confuse you even further, but there is a way for Catholics to argue that Christ or Peter’s faith isn’t “this rock”, and that Peter is, and only can be. The Catholic Church reads Scripture as having literal and spiritual senses. If a Catholic takes the position that there can be only one literal sense, then he could plausibly argue that Peter is the literal sense of “this rock” and not Christ or Peter’s faith-- those would fall in the spiritual senses. Moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas says that arguments are drawn from the literal sense alone. Therefore, if a Catholic is going to use “this rock” to demonstrate a point then he has to argue from its literal sense. It’s in that context that he can say, “Yes, it’s Peter, and no it’s not Christ or Peter’s faith.”

 

[Maccabees]

jphilapy:

sorry to take up so much post space today. Anyway Peter is not the only person that Jesus surnamed in the NT.

Mar 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;
Mar 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

if anyone has any insight on this, im interested to hear it.

Jeff

Jesus did not give Peter a surname he already had one being Simon Bar Jonah. Jesus had a surname Jesus Bar Joseph aka Jesus son of Joseph. And many of the apostles were referred to as being the son of someone. That is Jewish custom at the time to have the surname the firstname of your father.
What Jesus did is give Peter the honary title Kepha or Rock.
HE’s the only apostles to have an name change or nickname indicating an honor. Put it this way he’s the first Rocky in history.
As far as the catholic explanation of the 3 possible interpretations I think apologist should spread it out a little more clearly that the primary catholic interpretation is that Peter is the Rock but the passage has other secondary interpretations. That’s the way the cathechism spells it out and that’s the way we should spell it out.
However I think I know why Keating and other took the route they did first of all the book he writes is aimed at fundamentilist. Fundamentilist in their interpretation only have one meaning for each verse as they have no such as nuance and polyvalent interpretations in their exegesis and to explain to them that it has 3 meanings might be in argument in fultility as they cannot comprehend such a thing in interpretation. To them its either A or B plus they wouldn’t get the difference between primary and secondary interpreation as they would think that this argument is just to cover the catholic weakness here when in fact it is not a weakness but the ordinary means or catholic exegesis.
The more objective the person you are dialoguing with the more you can dig deeper with the mystery of scripture. To fundamentilist their is no mystery no possiblity of a primary and secondary meaning. THis is how they come up with creating being in 6 days and so forth as they fail to see the mystery and layers of scripture.

 

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

Jesus did not give Peter a surname he already had one being Simon Bar Jonah. Jesus had a surname Jesus Bar Joseph aka Jesus son of Joseph. And many of the apostles were referred to as being the son of someone. That is Jewish custom at the time to have the surname the firstname of your father.
What Jesus did is give Peter the honary title Kepha or Rock.
HE’s the only apostles to have an name change or nickname indicating an honor.

When you say he is the only one, are you saying that not all honary titles are given to indicate an honor?! I don’t get you here. Jesus did give James and John a honorary title. Doesn’t that indicate honor?

From my understanding an honorary title was given to someone usually to describe a character in them.

Jeff

 

[Church_Militant]

jphilapy:

Don’t you think you folks are being somewhat unrealistic about how plain matt 16 is considering that it took folks over 300 years to arrive at conclusions that you now accept? Even believers who were closest to the apostles offer a different interpretation of matt 16 than you offer.

Jeff

Gosh… that just means that it took 2,000 years to come up as a stupid question.
Everyone seems to have missed this article right here at CA:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
and all the other articles on that page are equally relevent. Sources people…sources…they’re right here.

Also remember that The Church teaches that Peter IS the rock that Jesus built his church on. The verses about being given the keys to the kingdom are equally important since they refer back to the practice of OT kings that did just that. When they gave the keys to the kingdom to a man, it meant that from then on that man spoke with the authority of the king himself. I wouldn’t think it necessary for me to point out that Jesus is both Messiah, king of Israel, and King of Kings. If He gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, then what does that tell you? The kingship of Jesus is inarguable, and also clears up the position of Mary as intercessor for his subjects. (Dig up the meaning of the Hebrew word “Giberah”. That’s Mary)

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/doh2.gif

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Jeff,

I concede I am no expert with regard to scripture; however, you said

When you say he is the only one, are you saying that not all honary titles are given to indicate an honor?! I don’t get you here. Jesus did give James and John a honorary title. Doesn’t that indicate honor?

Jesus may well have been bestowing an honour on these other two gentlemen when you consider they, along with Peter, were constantly by Jesus’ side, when all the others were elsewhere; also in Galatians 2:9, Paul states that the aforementioned trio where reputedly ‘the pillars’ or in otherwords, ‘leaders’. The names bestowed may not have been actual honours, but they appear to have been given honours.

Peace be with you

P.S… Useless bit of trivia…Peter was mentioned I think, 192 times in the NT; the next being John, who was mentioned by name about 29 times! Speaks volumes!

 

[af3983]

Maccabees:

It’s sad when catholics attack catholics for trying to proclaim the gospel. Typical Vatican 2 indifference no wonder our young people leave the church with such mushiness and fawning over non-catholics. THe last name is France no wonder you don’t want to fight for your faith you wish to giveup and be nice gee thats worked with the Muslims right?

I’m young and many of my friends have left the catholic church. The reasons that they give is conflict. The conflict is that catholics attack each other instead of helping each other to understand.

I learned that one rock in Greek feminine and well, Peter is male. So it would be rude and improper to give him a feminine name so the changed the ending of Kepha. This works for me, but many fundamentalist still argue the definitions. It is better to then translate it into aramaic which is the language that Jesus spoke. The christians told the stories of the Gospels to each other in Aramaic before it was written down. So then we should translate all the way back to Aramaic so we can understand what the early christians wrote.
My next point is that if two different words were used for the Aramaic word ROCK, then why is it same (similar) for Greek? Wouldn’t it make sense to put before the word rock, small and large, or to use a word in Greek to represent small rock and large rock. I would stick to the correct Aramaic translation and not twist it up.

 

[montanaman]

Also remember that The Church teaches that Peter IS the rock that Jesus built his church on. The verses about being given the keys to the kingdom are equally important since they refer back to the practice of OT kings that did just that. When they gave the keys to the kingdom to a man, it meant that from then on that man spoke with the authority of the king himself. I wouldn’t think it necessary for me to point out that Jesus is both Messiah, king of Israel, and King of Kings. If He gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, then what does that tell you? The kingship of Jesus is inarguable, and also clears up the position of Mary as intercessor for his subjects. (Dig up the meaning of the Hebrew word “Giberah”. That’s Mary)

I have read the CA stuff and much, much more. I’m no novice on this stuff–not a great apologist, but no novice.

I started this thread because I was hit with a new argument after years of debating this issue. My opponent was basically saying that because two “separate” words were used in Greek, it follows that two separate words MUST have been their source in Aramaic/Syriac. I’m not so concerned about his first assumption–that petra/petros are different words. That sounds like hogwash according to the galaxy of scholars out there.

What I WAS concerned about was this Aramaic/Syriac claim. Was it kepha/kepha, as we’ve always been taught, or was it kepha/evna. THAT’S what I need an answer for.

However, since he stole his whole argument from one single guy, I’m leaning toward the “desperate crank” rebuttal. One man among a thousand others desperately trying to undermind what he sees as our solitary argument for the papacy. I don’t think I’m going to have to go Church-shopping anytime soon…

 

[Church_Militant]

montanaman:

I have read the CA stuff and much, much more. I’m no novice on this stuff–not a great apologist, but no novice.

I started this thread because I was hit with a new argument after years of debating this issue. My opponent was basically saying that because two “separate” words were used in Greek, it follows that two separate words MUST have been their source in Aramaic/Syriac. I’m not so concerned about his first assumption–that petra/petros are different words. That sounds like hogwash according to the galaxy of scholars out there.

What I WAS concerned about was this Aramaic/Syriac claim. Was it kepha/kepha, as we’ve always been taught, or was it kepha/evna. THAT’S what I need an answer for.

However, since he stole his whole argument from one single guy, I’m leaning toward the “desperate crank” rebuttal. One man among a thousand others desperately trying to undermind what he sees as our solitary argument for the papacy. I don’t think I’m going to have to go Church-shopping anytime soon…

Sounds like you might be right. Sorry if I assumed you were a newb. I figured that out as I read your last couple of posts. It’s sort of like the JWs do…if you blow them away with a clean point they eventually get eith their “home office” and come up with a new startegy…however lame it is.

Where are the Jesuits when we need one huh?

 

[Maccabees]

jphilapy:

When you say he is the only one, are you saying that not all honary titles are given to indicate an honor?! I don’t get you here. Jesus did give James and John a honorary title. Doesn’t that indicate honor?

From my understanding an honorary title was given to someone usually to describe a character in them.

Jeff

Of course all honary titles are to indicate honor but more than that they tell us of the Role that God has invisioned for them in his plan for them. For example Abraham is known as the father of many nations and Peter is known as the Rock that Jesus built his church on.
Now the name he gave James and John the sons of thunder I am not really sure about unlike the name changes in the OT and Peter it does not give us an explantion on how this name change gives them in a special way a new role in God’s covenant.
But this is a group of 2 persons here and not an idividual name change here so I don’t know if it could be a nickname Jesus is giving them here as the situation is not calling for a reward heere unlike Peter who declares who Jesus really is while no one else can do as God spoke through him. James and John were trying to be the first in the kindgom of God and known as hothead zealots. Jesus might be playing with them here as calling them sons of thunder to remind them of thier over zealousness. So I don’t think its the same things here. He still called John-John and James-James there really isn’t a name change that would indicate a covenant or anything like that. But it still could be significant in some non-covenant way as when Jesus is reveled to the asostles it is Peter, James and John alone who witness him talking to the prophets of old. Also it was Peter, James and John who are with him in the Garden of Gethsemane praying in Jesus final hours.
So Peter, James and John were in some way in a closer circle than the rest of the apostles. IF you read the first 15 chapters of Acts Peter is seen as the clear leader and the Jewish leaders saw Peter as the leader of the apostles.
I don’t recall ever reading anything about the name change of James and John becasue no scholar Catholic or Protestant saw what I think was nickname as a namechange indicating a convenat so I think that is an invalid comparision. But I don’t think it is alltogether meaningless even nicknames indicate something of value consiering they were in the inner circlle of Jesus disciples aka the big 3 this is plausible but what it means is exactly I don’t think is clear from scripture.

 

[Maccabees]

af3983:

I’m young and many of my friends have left the catholic church. The reasons that they give is conflict. The conflict is that catholics attack each other instead of helping each other to understand.

I learned that one rock in Greek feminine and well, Peter is male. So it would be rude and improper to give him a feminine name so the changed the ending of Kepha. This works for me, but many fundamentalist still argue the definitions. It is better to then translate it into aramaic which is the language that Jesus spoke. The christians told the stories of the Gospels to each other in Aramaic before it was written down. So then we should translate all the way back to Aramaic so we can understand what the early christians wrote.
My next point is that if two different words were used for the Aramaic word ROCK, then why is it same (similar) for Greek? Wouldn’t it make sense to put before the word rock, small and large, or to use a word in Greek to represent small rock and large rock. I would stick to the correct Aramaic translation and not twist it up.

I think the argument is weak because Jesus was not speaking Koine greek in his ministry to the Jews. Whatever we know in the greek is a transllation of the Aramaic into Greek. The insert of Cehpas the transliteration of the Western Aramaic Kepha is Rock the literal translation is Peter as Rock. Are there some valid symbolic translations besides the ovsious literal one. Yes sure there are and its ok to discuss them as such. But just like verses we use to prove that Jesus is God that the Jehovah’s witness ignore and go for alternative interpretations that have some value but are not the primary vlalue and literal value this is just the case here its important to establish the primary and literal value and then give credence to a symbolic or alternative interpretation.

As for division in the church yes it is traggic but remeber unlike divisions and disagreemnts in our church that leads to a new church we look to the Pope and magisterium to settle our disagreements and we just need to look to the cathechims for the truth. Protestants don’t have that luxury but often argue over scipture which cannot interpret itself thus resulting in another church split. I know I have been there and done that.

 

[oudave]

montanaman:

I’m debating a guy who has until now been almost boring. He’s a feverish, frothing-at-the-mouth Catholic hater, but hey, it kills the time. However, he stumped me on this:

Aramaic/Syriac – “You are KE’PHA’ (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A’ (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”

Any truth to this? Specifically, is this what Christ said? I talked to a Jewish friend who knows Hebrew and Aramaic, and he confirmed for me that kepha means “rock,” (though he didn’t say if it meant “large, massive stone.”

I have NEVER heard the argument that Christ used the word “Shu’a.”

Need your scholarly advice, please.

This website explains it as good as I have ever read.
bbfhouston.org/Sermons/970928.html