I am currently formulating a response to a protestant fellow in a discussion we are having about Matt 16:18.
I have already proven that Jesus spoke Aramaic and Aramaic does not have the masculine/feminine version of “rock” that Greek does, andthat according to the grammatical rules in Greek the masculine had to be used in the first part and the feminine in the second part, and that in Aramaic it is simply one word used in both parts. I have a fairly descent understanding of this.
But his whole argument hangs on the following idea:
He basically asks if the Greek is so unclear, using two different words for Rock, then why did the author not clarify and quote Jesus in Aramaic as he did in Matt 5:41? At least that is what I believe he is asking- its kind of hard to tell…
Here is exactly what he wrote to me:
- So let’s assume that Aramaic was spoken by Christ with the statement “Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani”. (I could say that it is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic… NOT PURELY Aramaic) Jesus could used Aramaic because his mother, John. etc. were present and I don’t doubt Christ is comfortable in speaking in Aramaic. That is why the Roman soldiers could misunderstood and thought Christ was talking about Elijah. BUT that does not change the authorship of the same person, Matthew… If it was so crucial to write in Aramaic, it would have been done… That simple… Not Greek… The account ( the attributes of rock) you refer is highly documented that includes letters from Peter, Paul, and even James (half-brother of Christ). The only argument you have is that they write Greek because most converted afterward was the Gentiles… Again, the writing of Matthew would have wrote the same attributes if you are referring ROCK is the same in that passage… It was NOT! Matthew is from Galilee which would make him as proficient as Jesus in Aramaic… Why did he distinguish the difference in Greek?