richard2

Hi,

I remember reading once that Matthew 16:18 was a later interpolation by the Church to validate it's authority. Is there any truth to this? If so, what is the evidence that it is a later interpolation?

The verse in question: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."



Thank you,

Richard

S.C.Carlson

It is not an interpolation in the sense of being an addition to the text of Matthew. On the other hand, if you hold to Markan priority, as do most scholars, then it could be seen as Matthew's addition to Mark.

richard2

If the Gospels are inspired, it seems odd that the other Gospels would omit this critical phrase.

spin

The verse is quite problematic in interpretation.

It may easily be taken this way:

1) Peter has just said, "you are the messiah, the son of the living god"
2) Jesus responds to Peter (petros, masc.) that this statement #1 is the rock (petra, fem.) on which the church will be built.

It obviously was written in an era after the time of Paul, in whose day there was no monumental church but churches in people's houses.

The verse not being in Mk may be explained by christians as information that existed but not available to the Marcan writer.


spin

richard2

Suffer me for a second, but would the word 'church' even be in Jesus' vocabulary?

spin

I certainly wouldn't argue such a thesis. I'd first have to assume that Jesus existed to do so. The christian can hide in the shifty notion of prophecy.

As I said, the presence of the "church" suggests a period of writing when such a notion had developed.


spin

Chris Weimer

Sure "church" would. After all, it was a common Greek word (ekklhsia) found in abundance in the LXX meaning "assembly". The only difference is that in the NT the bias of the translators specifically render it church instead of assembly as it was done in the OT.

spin

In the particular verse we have a singular definite (mou thn ekklesian). It is the one assembly. This use of ekklesia certainly doesn't suggest an assembly as one would normally consider one. The term does later come to have a specific meaning in the church. How do you differentiate that usage from the one used in the text we are looking at?


spin

Chris Weimer

The relationships between συναγωγη, εκκλησια, קהל ,עדה are complicated. I would say that the special meaning in Matthew opposes the usage of synagogue which fits along with my theory of Matthew (which is that Matthew is not Jewish-Christian but Christian only). However, all it really says is that the author was aware of the community of Christians of large. I have little doubt that if there were an historical Jesus, and if he spoke Greek like pictured in the gospels - both assumptions I'm not willing to make - he would have undoubtedly known the word εκκλησια as an assembly, not as a body of Christians. That part is Matthew.

richard2

Thanks, all.