Originally Posted by Frank R. Zindler

While not quite as fraudulently anachronistic as old photographs of the vaccination scars on the arms of Adam and Eve, Jesus’ alleged use of the word “church� is just as clearly anachronistic and just as certainly fraudulent. Peter would have understood "build a church" about as well as “grill a hotdog.� Ex hypothesi, no churches existed at the time of the Thou-art-Peter event. Worse yet, the very idea of an ecclesiastical organization being founded would have conflicted with everything Peter had been taught - viz., the present age was drawing to a close and the Apocalypse was nigh. Certainly, that would be no time for chartering corporations and setting up off-shore bank accounts!

Just as the narrative context leaves no room for the Thou-art-Peter passage, so too the historical context leaves no room for it. If it be admitted by everyone - as is the case - that churches did not exist at the time in question, how can it be maintained that the absence of the word for church from all the literature of the time is an invalid argument from silence? Is this not evidence of absence of the word from Jesus’ vocabulary, rather than absence of evidence concerning his vocabulary?

The Greek word for church used in this disputed passage is ecclesia - the same word used today in the Roman Catholic mass to denote the multinational corporation headquartered in Rome. Joseph Wheless explains [p. 180] the absence of the meaning “church� for the term ecclesia at the time Jesus is alleged to have been speaking:

“There was nothing like ecclesia known to the Jews; it was a technical Greek term designating the free political assemblies of the Greek republics. This is illustrated by one sentence from the Greek Father Origen, about 245 AD, when the Church had taken over the Greek political term ecclesia to denote its own religious organization. Says Origen, using the word in both its old meaning and in its new Christian adaptation: “For the Church (ecclesia) of God, e.g., which is at Athens; ... Whereas the assembly (ecclesia) of the Athenians,� etc. (Origen, Contra Celsum, iii, 20). The Greek Fathers who, a century later, founded the Church among the pagan Greek-speaking Gentiles, adopted the Greek word ecclesia for their organizations because the word was familiar for popular assemblies, and because the translators of the Septuagint had used ecclesia as the nearest Greek term for the translation of the two Hebrew words qahal and edah used in the Old Testament for the “congregation� or “assembly� of all Israel at the tent of meeting.

These Hebrew words (qahal, edah) had also a more general use, as signifying any sort of gathering or crowd, religious or secular. ...Thus no established and permanent organization of disciples of the Christ is implied by the term ecclesia, even if Jesus could have used the Aramaic equivalent of that Greek term; at most it would have only meant the small group of Jews which might adopt the “Kingdom of heaven� watchword and watchfully wait until the speedy end of the world and the expected quick consummation of the proclaimed Kingdom, - not yet come to be, these 2000 years.

It is quite clear that the Greek word ecclesia was put into the mouth of Jesus by a partisan of the Roman Church - a church which claimed descent from Saint Peter to justify its apostolic legitimacy and now was seeking to justify its political supremacy over the rival churches of Africa and Asia. By elevating Peter vis-ê-vis the rest of the apostles, the interpolator elevated the Roman Church at the same time.

Originally Posted by richard2

Sorry for bumping, but any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Andrew, concerning the Diatesseron - what evidence is there that the original Greek by Tatian contained the phrase? But I don't really think it is a much later interpolation - why would it only be in Matthew, then?