Matt 16:18 and Aramaic/Greek


#21

Must everything be Dogma before we will believe?


#22

There’s a reason why the Church intentionally does not teach all things infallibly; there’s some things it does not know 100% factually. The original language of the Gospel of Matthew is one of them. Therefore one can be a perfect Catholic and believe its original language was Koine Greek.


#23

But, this goes against the consistent living Tradition of the Church. It is only “modern scholarship” that has questioned this, raising doubts. Doubt does not have its source in God. That, by itself, is concerning.

What ever is in agreement with the Sacred Deposit of faith may be permissible, once the Church has tested it. That which conflicts with the deposit of faith is, by definition, not from God.

Since the NAB and its modernist notes hit the scene, all sorts of long-settled subjects have been called into question. Huge caution flag. We do not worship a God of confusion and doubt. Some other source has introduced this uncertainty into the Church. For my part, I firmly believe that Pope Paul VI spoke of it as the “smoke of Stan.”


#24

It is widely believed that there was some kind of Aramaic Gospel, but it is easy to conclude based on the textual evidence that the canonized Gospel of Matthew was not translated from that document. The Church Fathers were not unanimous about the matter and the Church has not decreed upon it infallibly. So am I sinning in not believing in the Aramaic primacy? Answer me that.


#25

[quote=po18guy] There is not a single original of any of the scriptures. Not one copy anywhere that has a signature on it. Each and every genuine, original, written-and-signed-by-the-author book or letter is long gone. All examples that exist today are copies of copies of copies of copies, made over hundreds of years by various and sundry scribes in different nations, who spoke differing languages. The only reason that any of the books of the bible has an author’s name on it is due to the Church tradition that ascribes that author’s name to the book. When you or I refer to the Gospel of Matthew, we place absolute trust in the Tradition that has preserved Matthew’s name as the author. Tthat same Tradition tells us that Jesus and the twelve spoke Aramaic, which was the language of Galilee, and which made them known as Galileans in Acts 2. Jesus is twice quoted in Aramaic in Mark.
[/quote]

No argument. However, we do have Greek copies going back to near the very first writings. What is the earliest copy of an Aramaic Matthew you know of? I did have a little something from an ECF that I was going to post earlier (as a response to SMA_12), but had some problems with my router.

Quotes don’t always carry the context, which can be very important (especially if one wants to be honest) For example, Origen’s Commentary on Matthew , Book XII, Paragraph 10 (The answer of Peter), he writes, "And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,”(1) if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven,(2) revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God.(3) And** if we too have said like Peter**, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc.(4) For a rock(5) is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them,(6) and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. " (emphasis mine). Paragraph 11 (THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM.) is also very informative (you can find this commentary here).

I generally do not appeal to the ECF’s, as there is a wide variety of opinions expressed by them, but I do find this particular situation most enlightening. I would add that, as far as I can tell, this was written before 1517 (did Origen just not understand the primacy of Peter?).


#26

You simply disagree with Sacred Tradition. Sin? Ask Father.


#27

I must point out that you have accidentally stumbled upon a Greek Orthodox source. Do you expect them to agree with the Catholic Church?

They hold the Deuterocanonical books to be inspired by God. They hold to the seven Sacraments. They absolutely believe in Apostolic succession and in the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Do you?


#28

I do not disagree with Sacred Tradition; I disagree with a not-universally held 't’radition (small t)… I do not need to ask the Father, because his vicar on earth, the Holy Father, has already spoken upon the matter; it is no sin to believe that the original Gospel of Matthew was in Koine Greek. :slight_smile:


#29

No, you’re not. It’s perfectly fine to believe that Matthew was originally in Greek. If any, the Church’s canonization of Matthew was of the Greek (and the Greek is therefore the inspired autograph) and not of any theoretical Aramaic. The patristic evidence for an Aramaic original is strong and I do not discount it, but we are free to believe that Matthew itself was composed in Greek.


#30

[quote=po18guy] I must point out that you have accidentally stumbled upon a Greek Orthodox source. Do you expect them to agree with the Catholic Church?
[/quote]

Funny. It reads the same way in the Faith Database, which is sold by Catholic Answers (as found here). Did the folks at Catholic Answers (or whoever put this database together) also use an Orthodox site? Maybe the Orthodox translated it correctly! What a novel idea!

They hold the Deuterocanonical books to be inspired by God. They hold to the seven Sacraments. They absolutely believe in Apostolic succession and in the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Do you?

Since none of these questions are relevant to the topic, I see no need to answer.


#31

Since the question of my using an Orthodox site has been questioned, here’s how Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, Chapter 11 (THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM) reads (this is taken from the Faith Database, which is sold by Catholic Answers) -

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord” they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.

Just in passing, I note there was no mention of Isaiah 22:20-23 or of any kind of “stewardship” given to Peter alone (sorry TimothyH).


#32

Assuming that his comments are in context (not a peep about this in either the Wiki or Benedict XVI’s book chapter on Origen), what you have posted is one man’s opinion. So, you dare to throw it against the brick wall of 2,000 years of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church?

I see that as an epic fail. Origen is not considered a Saint in either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches.

This is like exhuming Saint Jerome each time the Deutercanonical books come up, while conveniently ignoring each and every one of Jerome’s purely Catholic beliefs.


#33

Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ, writes in his book Inside the Bible that:

“The original language was Aramaic, the language that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Palestine at the time. At an early date it was translated into Koine Greek, the language in which it has come down to us. The Aramaic original has not been preserved.”

I see no good reason to disbelieve him.


#34

And that also happens to be the view I hold, so I don’t disagree.

However, the language the Biblical books were written in are a matter of textual science and not an article of faith. It certainly does not make one a heretic if he holds to the position that Matthew was originally in Greek, and EphelDuath and anyone else can freely hold this position without opposing the Magisterium.


#35

Meh. I see nothing to gain in that view except a few modernist friends.

As to language, and translations, this is from the introductory notes to the 1967 Papal Edition of the Confraternity Bible:

"Translations of the Bible are absolutely free of error only in so far as they accurately express the ideas as written by the inspired writer in the original language. "

Thus, the Church tradition takes on slightly more importance, since that tradition was formed contemporaneous with the distribution of the Gospel.

I cast a jaundiced eye toward much of modern scholarship, since so much revisionism and dissent has crept into their ranks.


#36

Thanks a lot for that education; I’ll be watchful hereafter not to be diverted…


#37

The following is from Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
at jloughnan.tripod.com/quiztruchch,htm

[LEFT]68. Christ said, upon this rock," meaning Himself, not Peter.[/LEFT]
That is erroneous. In Jn. 1:42, we find Christ saying to Peter, “Thou art Simon … thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” Christ had a special purpose in thus changing his name to Cephas or rock, a purpose manifested later on as recorded by Matt. 16:18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Let us it this way. Supposing that your name were Brown, and put I said to you, “They call you Brown, but I am going to call you Stone. And upon this stone I shall build up a special society I have in mind to establish,” would you believe that I was alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter’s name was Simon, and Christ changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha, which was the word for rock or stone, and which was never used as a proper name in that language. Thus He said, “Thou are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build My Church.” In modern English it would sound like this, “Thou art Mr. Stone, and upon this stone I 'II build My Church.” The word could not possibly refer to Christ in this text.
[LEFT]69. But in the Greek text the word for Peter is Petros, and for stone, Petra.[/LEFT]
They are not the same. There is no value in pointing out the differences of form in this word according to the Latin or Greek languages, in which they are accommodated to the masculine for Peter as a man, and to the feminine for stone. Our Lord spoke in Aramaic, in which the form is the same in both cases, simply Kepha.
[LEFT]70. You appeal to the Aramaic. I know nothing of that, nor of the Latin, nor of the Greek. I accept the Bible in its English form, in which the two words are Peter and rock, and nothing whatever alike.[/LEFT]
How can you appeal to the English form, if the English translation does not adequately express what Christ meant? Surely you want the exact teaching of Christ! The English version is not an infallible rendering, nor does anyone versed in these matters claim that the English language fully expressed the sense of the originals. But apparently you are content to be without the truth, if it is not to be discovered superficially by the reading of your talismanic English version.


#38

Origen’s statement about us all being “Peters” is not supported by Scripture.

if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us,* but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart**, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us,*

Problem is we don’t come to knowledge of Christ like Peter did by direct revelation from the Father. We know Christ through the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12

3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

*These people really did not belong to our fellowship, and that is why they left us; if they had belonged to our fellowship, they would have stayed with us. But they left so that it might be clear that none of them really belonged to us.

1 John 2

20 But you have had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ, and so all of you know the truth. 21 I write you, then, not because you do not know the truth; instead, it is because you do know it, and you also know that no lie ever comes from the truth.*

CCC

  • 683 **“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”**1 “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”'2 This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. *

Peter’s knowledge didn’t come from the Spirit, but directly from the Father,

**Matthew 16 **

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

this makes his revelation unique and different from the one we make when we discover Christ and the Truth through the Holy Spirit. Origen’s argument is incorrect, we can’t be Peters, although it is an interesting thought.


#39

[quote=PO18GUY] Assuming that his comments are in context (not a peep about this in either the Wiki or Benedict XVI’s book chapter on Origen), what you have posted is one man’s opinion. So, you dare to throw it against the brick wall of 2,000 years of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church?
[/quote]

Just because I post the entire paragraph in which the statements are made, you question whether it’s in context, but when catholics “quote” ECF’s, it’s assumed the context is correct for the way the quote is used. Why do I sense a double standard is being used here? And how can you compare the actual writings of the ECF with what someone wrote in Wikipedia?

I see that as an epic fail. Origen is not considered a Saint in either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches.

And Wiki and Benedict XVI ARE saints? Did Benedict XVI write his book ex cathedra, so that what it contains is infallible? On what basis do you judge the writings of Origen with Wiki and a book written by Benedict XVI? An examination of Origen in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I guess you missed that reference) indicates that Origen “was buried with honor as a confessor of the Faith”, and that St. Gregory of Nyssa called Origen the prince of Christian learning in the third century (P.G., XLVI, 905).

This is like exhuming Saint Jerome each time the Deutercanonical books come up, while conveniently ignoring each and every one of Jerome’s purely Catholic beliefs.

I don’t think it’s the same thing. What I do wonder is how, in light of Origen’s writing, anyone can assert that the primacy of Peter has been a constant teaching of the church for 2,000 years. This is clearly untrue. As far as this being “one man’s opinion”, I could find other ECF’s that would express similar opinions, but it seems to me that we are straying from the topic, so I will not continue along this line.


#40

[quote=Christ is Risen] Problem is we don’t come to knowledge of Christ like Peter did by direct revelation from the Father. We know Christ through the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

John 6:44 reads, “No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.” (DRA) Does that mean that the Father draws us directly, or could it be that the Holy Spirit plays a part in this? And don’t forget, “the Lord, our God is ONE”. Does the Holy Spirit do anything that the Father doesn’t know about? Could the Holy Spirit be at odds with the Father? Obviously not! In light of what po18guy has brought up about Origen, I would ask if this is an “infallible” teaching of the church, or is it just your own, fallible opinion?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.