Aramaic and Greek are not our languages. So, the bibles we use are translations and quite a lot of information and elegance of the prose is lost through translations. At the moment, the only verse I know which the Latin translation surpasses the Greek original is "Ego sum Via, et Veritas, et Vita" vs. "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή" (John 14:6) The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, interspersed with Aramaic which Jesus and his disciples spoke. (Don't worry, in the 19th century, some brave scholars, Salkinson and Ginsburg, had already translated the New Testament back into Hebrew.) Therefore, we need to know a bit of Greek when we want to clarify some points of contention. Alas, even the meaning of the same word changes through time!
The verse in debate is Matthew 16:18. Before we proceed, let us keep one important point in mind and two. The Bible is not self-explanatory. It cannot speak for itself. It relies on human beings to interpret it. Using verses from other parts of the Bible to prove, to clarify the messages of another verse can be one of the many methods. Still, the choice itself depends also on the theology, the conviction of the scholars. Moreover, one single verse is not enough to build up a theological point. Articles of faith are historical products. There is a history in every theological idea such as the Trinity, communion of idioms and primacy of Peter etc. With the limitation of space and time, I can only touch on one microscopic linguistic point in the debate.
Let's begin.
There are a lot of wordplays in the Bible. Genesis gives us a lot of etymology examples. Why is this person/place given this name? For example, Jacob.
"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob" (Genesis 25:26) In Hebrew, heel is 'aqeb and Jacob is Ya'aqob. The wordplay is lost through translation.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
Again, the wordplay is lost in English. Take one step back. Latin.
"Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversum eam" (Vulgate)
Now, we can see that Jesus was playing on the words "petrus" which is masculine and "petram" feminine. The word petroleum immediately comes to mind. They share the same prefix "petro"
The more meticulous souls will not be satisfied and want to read the Greek original. Perhaps there is something more.
"κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς" (GNT) Again, πέτρος is masculine and πέτρᾳ feminine.
Many Protestants don't agree to the Roman Catholics' using this verse to support the primacy of Peter. For example, the CARM, gotquestion.org and many more. They argue that in Greek, petros is only a stone, a pebble while petra is a solid bedrock. Therefore, Jesus did not mean to build his Church on this unsteady pebble Simon Peter. Look at how he lost his faith when he tried to walk on the water towards Jesus, how he boosted to die with Jesus during the Last Supper and yet denied Jesus three times to save his skin! Very true indeed. But is it a correct interpretation?
First of all, Jesus might not be speaking in Greek to Simon Peter. Nowadays, many scholars believed that Mark wrote the first gospel, not Matthew. However, some other scholars still maintain the priority of Matthew because they believe that there was a lost Aramaic Matthew. The Greek Matthew we have today was translated from Aramaic. The clue comes from another word Cephas. Simon Peter was also known as Cephas in John, 1Corinthians and Galatians. Cephas is Peter in Aramaic. What would Matthew 16:18 be like in Hebrew? Here it is from Salkinson-Ginsburg translation.
וְגַם־אַנִי אַגִּיד לְךָ כִּי אַתָּה הוּא כֵּיפָא וְעַל־הַכֵּף הַזֶּה אֶבְנֶה אֶת־קְהִלָּתִי וְשַׁעֲרֵי שְׁאוֹל לֹא יִגְבְּרוּ עָלֶיהָ׃
The word keph has a Strong number 3710. It appears in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29 only. In these two verses, keph is a rock, not a pebble. It also refers to a hollow of a rock to hide from enemies. Draw whatever conclusion you want from the Aramaic Matthew.I highlighted "my Church" Qehilati in blue. Read them, Kepha', keph, qəhilati. Jesus was playing on the words "Peter", "rock" as well as "my assembly of Israel"! The wordplay was gradually lost through Greek/Latin, English and finally, totally lost in Chinese! So, it is worth the effort to learn some biblical language in order to appreciate the elegance of the text.
Let me put forth my interpretation. Even if Peter had been impulsive and unsteady before the resurrection of Jesus, it would not stop Jesus from transforming this feeble pebble into a robust rock later. In the Last Supper, Jesus had made it clear that Peter would be a prime target of attack by Satan. But Jesus had prayed for him so that later he would strengthen his fellow brethren (Luke 22:31-32). The gospels are silent on special prayer by Jesus for any other apostles. (Of course, that does not prove Jesus had not prayed individually for each and every apostle like Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 49. Absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is non-existent.) Therefore, attack on Peter is to be expected. That would not stop him from dying on the cross for the love of Jesus. (If you want to stick to sola scriptura, you can find the way Peter died hinted at in John 21:18.) When the Son of God decided to incarnate, he chose to become a human being, a weakling in comparison to the impeccable cherubim. In building his Kingdom of God on the feeble human nature, he demonstrates his compassion and power. This is his MO --- to raze the haughty but raise the lowly.
Dear Lord, I praise you for your unfathomable wisdom. May glory and honour be yours, forever and ever. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment