judge

One place where we can try to get some idea of the meaning of aramaic words in the NT is at www.peshitta.com.
This site deals with the western peshitto text, which is an edited (slightly) version of the eastern peshitta.
Here is Matthew in Aramaic/Syriac. If you go to verse 16:18 you can click on each word for suggested meanings.
In this case the suggested meanings for Keepa are stone and rock , word 9774. Word 9781 gives "Cephas" (Keepa in aramaic).
This is probably not exhaustive but at least is a start.

Magdlyn

But those quotes of John1:42 do not impress me. It seems to just be a gloss. There is no reason Jesus calls him "Petros" there, whereas at least in Matthew the name is explained. Peter earns the name by his profession that J is Christ the son of god.

Why would Jesus rename him Peter on the very first mtg as in John? You are a stone. Huh?

Chili

It was the keen insight of Peter to detect the Christ identity of Jesus that would become the rock of faith whereupon the Church would be built and this had nothing to do with Peter as the apostle of Jesus.

Nobody knew or recognized Jesus as Christ or they would have never crucified him and here it can be said that the test of a mystic is how well he can keep it secret because the crucifixion of Jesus was an essential element in the liberation of the Christ identity of Jesus. The crucifixion was the needed crisis moment that is required before a happy ending (comedy) can follow.

Peter 'becomes' satan because Peter as the apostle of Jesus represented the faith of Jesus which had to be anniliated since it is impossible for Jews to get to heaven as Jew. Indeed Judaism must be brought to understanding that it only served as a means to the end when the end is reached.

We see this happen when Thomas the doubter, who was the twin of Peter because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt, was convinced when Jesus showed him his wounds to leave Peter defrocked of faith in Thomas' exclamation "my Lord and my God" to say that faith and doubt had become one with no substance to either one (Lord God is subconscious and God is conscious now fully in agreement).

The naked Peter is clothed again during their next fishing trip when he dives headfirst into the celestial sea which is on the starboard side of the human mind. Notice that they could not catch anything on the portside to prove that he was without faith and therefore naked (post resurrection appearance in Jn.21).

Mathetes

So I found where I had read it. It's Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Prometheus Books, 2003), page 187. The text mentions Petros as apparently meaning "firstborn" in Aramaic, although it suggests that the Greek "rock" is more logical.

A couple of other comments that you may find interesting:

(...)

Hope this is helpful.

Magdlyn

Aha! I had read that book to a few months ago, so that is where is I must have remembered the controversy from. Thank you. You, and everyone, have been very helpful.

As far as the Simon thing, I do think there are far too many suspicious Simons in the gospels as well...

What about the "Matthew being first written in Aramaic" theory? I am sure I could do a search for threads, and I will. But it seems that if Peter was an Aramaic word that was changed and ran into a translation problem, the lg rock/small stone (archaic) v masculine/feminine (koine) noun problem would melt away. Is that really a possibility, or was it meant as a double entendre? Maybe that is one of those things we will never know.

judge

Many of the references to Matthew having written his gospel in "the Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)


What we have is this (in greek)MATQAIOSMEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWSHN DUNATOS hEKASTOS.
Scholars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but I beleive the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could".

Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken by judeans at the time of Christ.Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of jews.

There were it seems several dialects of Aramaic spoken. Matthew's gospel in Aramaic is in a slightly different dialect to Marks gospel in Aramaic. Matthew seems to have been Judean whilst Mark, was Gallilean.
We can see the different dialects by comparing Matthew 27 with mark 15. for example. In Aramaic that is.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia.
Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).


An interesting quote from Eusebius, History ; Book V, chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:
"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as far as India, where he appears to have found that Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus's mission."
Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965, pages 213-214.


Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)


Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)


Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29 :4)

Magdlyn

Thank you, judge.

So it appears we have an assertion or two:

That Matthew the tax collector, an historical person and apostle, wrote a book.

Next, that Papias asserted he wrote it in Aramaic. (Or do I remember a recent discussion that Eusebius may have invented Papias anyway?)

Then that several other "historians," over a couple more centuries, parroted Papias's assertion.

Of course, many today assert "Matthew," had he really been a close follower of Jesus, would not have needed to copy large pieces of "Mark" (not a disciple) for his work.

Which kind of blows all the rest of the assertions out of the water.

But thank you very much for showing me where the idea came from that GMat was originally written in Aramaic!

I would appreciate more feedback on this topic.

I think the earlier question still stands. Big/small or male/female rock? From a Magdalite-gnostic perspective, I could assert Jesus was saying: "Simon, you are a male rock, but on this female rock (Mary M, the only disciple that really "gets" J's message) I will build my church." :shrug

Chili

While you are searching keep in mind that "Magdalite-gnostic" is a contradiction in itself because Mary Magdalene only realized that she did not understand when she 'got' Jesus' message. Yes indeed, that much she understood (or the crucifixion of Jesus would not have left her stranded with no place to go).

Mary theotokos was the driving force and the only one who saw a victory in the crucifixion (see: "The Crucifixion with Mary and St. John" by Masaccio that is located at the top of the Royal stairway in the Sistine chapel).

DramaQ

Given Peter's cluelessness in GMark, maybe Jesus was giving him the nickname "Box-o-Rocks".

(Sorry. A serious discussion and I just had to digress.) :angel:

dq

Magdlyn

That's OK, DramaQ. It is a reasonable conclusion.

Jesus:

You are thick as a brick.

Petros: (more cluelessness)

Jesus: I take that back. You are Satan!