Need Aramaic transliteration of Matt. 16:18

In the Greek text of Matthew 27:46 we have a transliteration of an Aramaic phrase into Greek. If it were transliterated into English it would read:

"'eli, 'eli, lema sabachthani"

I do not read Aramaic but I do read Greek and Hebrew.

I am studying the claim that Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 was originally in Aramaic. Thus we have a Greek translation of an Aramaic statement. However, Matthew does not give us a Greek transliteration in the text as he does in Matthew 27.

What I need is for someone to transliterate Matthew 16:18 from the Aramaic into either a tranlsiterated Greek-English, as I did above, or at least into English from which I can transliterate it into Greek.

If someone could do this for me you would have my undying gratitude and would recieve credit in a paper and consequent book which I am writing.

If you have any scholarly credentials PLEASE include them as they would add weight to my paper.

Shalom,

Erik F. Wait

ewait@earthlink.net

In reply to message #0
 
Shalom~Shlama Akhi Eric,

You can find the English Interlinear of Matthew 16:18 on this website.

Here is a transliteration and translation of 16:18:

P0 ("ap" - also)
0n0 ("en-a" - I)
rm0 ("e-mar" - say)
0n0 ("'na" - (I))
Kl ("l'akh" - to you)
tn0d ("d'at" - that you)
wh ("haw" - are)
0p0k ("kee-pa" - rock)
L9w ("w'al" - and upon)
0dh ("ha-de" - this)
0p0k ("kee-pa" - rock)
hynb0 ("aeb-neyh" - I will build)
Ytd9l ("l'eed-tee" - my Church)
09rtw ("w'tar-aae" - and the gates)
Lwy4d ("d'shee-ol" - of Sheol)
f ("la" - not)
hnwnsxn ("nekh-snaw-nah " - will subdue it)

I have no scholarly credentials, but I speak this language natively.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your paper!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
ap ena emar 'na l'akh d'at haw keepa w'al hade keepa aebneyh 'eedtee wartee dsheeol la nekh snaw nah

Now if I transliterate this into a transliterated Greek (Greek using English letters) will it read correctly?

And from this I ought to be able to transliterate back into Greek using a Greek font?

This may sound strange, but my goal is to have a greek transliteration of an Aramaic translation of Matthew 16:18 so that it reads like the transliterated aramaic in the greek text of Matthew 27:46.

Perhaps I should have asked for this earlier, but if you know Greek maybe you can save me a step and give me an Aramaic to Greek transliteration of Matthew 16:18, using either an english or greek font.

Thanks for the help,

Erik

In reply to message #2
 
After reading my last post perhaps my request sounds confusing so let me explain what I am doing.

(1) It is the Roman Catholic argument that Matthew 16:18 is a Greek translation of an Aramaic conversation.

(2) Thus the Petros/Petra dististinction is lost when we translate "rock" back into Aramaic.

(3) However, if Matthew's pattern is to give us a Greek rendering of Aramaic statements, why do we have transliterated Aramaic in Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli..." followed by the Greek translation from which we get the English "My God, My God.."

(3) If this is Matthew's pattern, then why doesn't he give us Aramaic Transliterations whenever Jesus speaks in Aramaic, such as he supposedly did in 16:18, or why does he bother to give us a transliterated Aramaic in Matthew 27:46 at and not just the Greek as he did in 16:18?

(4) Thus what I want to present is, if Matthew was consistent and the statement in Matthew 16:18 was originally said in Aramaic "kepha" he would have written it like Matthew 27:46:

"ap ena emar ena leakh deat haw keepa weal hade keepa aebneyh 'eedtee wartee dsheeol la nekh snaw nah, that is, I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "

(6) Its seems if the Kepha understanding of this text is so important, as RC claim it is, then Matthew would have written Matthew 16:18 in this fashion.

(7) One more question. I downloaded the interlinear of Matthew 16 and it says "kepa" not "kepha." Why is this? Is this Aramaic modern, or is it middle Aramaic (200 BC- 200 AD)?

(8) Finally, if anyone can give me an Aramaic to Greek of Matthew 16:18 I would be in your debt. I can do it from the english transliterated Aramaic but I want to make sure I do so accurately.

Thanks,

Erik F. Wait

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Eric,

I'm afraid I don't know Greek well enough to help translate the Aramaic back into Greek, but there are some people on this forum who may be able to help (Iakov?)

Just a couple of quick comments on your points:

You said
It is the Roman Catholic argument that Matthew 16:18 is a Greek translation of an Aramaic conversation.

That is quite accurate. Not only this passage, but wherever Jesus spoke and it was recorded into Greek, the Greek is only a translation of His Aramaic speech.

You said
Thus the Petros/Petra dististinction is lost when we translate "rock" back into Aramaic.

That is quite accurate, again. Petros/Petra does not matter in Aramaic, there is no distinction and there is only 1 term - Keepa.

You said
However, if Matthew's pattern is to give us a Greek rendering of Aramaic statements, why do we have transliterated Aramaic in Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli..." followed by the Greek translation from which we get the English "My God, My God.."

The transliteration happens only in the Greek, and not the Aramaic versions.

Matthew did not write in Greek (even the early Church fathers say so) - he wrote in Aramaic, the glosses you speak of exist only in the Greek translations of Matthew - added by a later scribe in most cases (except in the cases where Matthew explains differences in Aramaic dialects.)

You said
If this is Matthew's pattern, then why doesn't he give us Aramaic Transliterations whenever Jesus speaks in Aramaic, such as he supposedly did in 16:18, or why does he bother to give us a transliterated Aramaic in Matthew 27:46 at and not just the Greek as he did in 16:18?

It's not Matthew's pattern. It's a scribe's pattern, one who desired to preserve the Aramaic in Greek transliteration of verses he felt were important.

You said
Thus what I want to present is, if Matthew was consistent and the statement in Matthew 16:18 was originally said in Aramaic "kepha" he would have written it like Matthew 27:46

Not unless he felt it important enough to warrant the transliteration. That Shimon was the rock being referred to was undoubted in early Church understanding.

Also - remember this very important fact, Matthew did not write in Greek, and even the Greeks (Eusebius, Papias, Jerome) admitted it!

You said
Its seems if the Kepha understanding of this text is so important, as RC claim it is, then Matthew would have written Matthew 16:18 in this fashion.

Well, I can't speak for the RC viewpoint, but many churches who do not follow the Pope and who have preserved the original Aramaic of Matthew agree with the RC Church that Shimon is being referred to here.

The Peshitta Aramaic version testifies to this even more than the Greek versions, which the RC Church uses, do.

But that doesn't mean that we agree with them about Papal authority, or Petrine Succession in Rome.

But, to be sure - Shimon Keepa was the head of the Apostles.

You said
One more question. I downloaded the interlinear of Matthew 16 and it says "kepa" not "kepha." Why is this? Is this Aramaic modern, or is it middle Aramaic (200 BC- 200 AD)?

It can be pronounced either way, depending on dialect and time. There have always been different oral traditions and pronunciations during Aramaic's long history. There's no way to tell from the text what way it was pronounced by Jesus when he spoke it, although I suspect that since His pronunciation always seems to agree with the Eastern when we examine the Greek transliterations, that He would have pronounced it "Keepa" rather than the "Keefa" of the Western pronunciation.

Hope this helps!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
In response to your last post in which you insist that ALL of Jesus' statements are in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, I think this assertion is more of one who is predjudice toward the Aramaic language than any actual textual argument. Consider the following:

The standard Roman Catholic argument for justifying that Peter is the rock, the only rock, upon which the Church will be built is that supposedly the original conversation between Peter and Jesus would have been in Aramaic as it was their lingua franca (everyday language). Thought you are not RC, ytou agree with this assessment. Thus it is argued that what we have in Matthew 16:18 is a Greek translation of an Aramaic conversation. Is there any textually validity for this? No, but most scholars think the Jews would not become so helenized that they� would speak Greek on a regular basis. However, the more we study the linguistic situation of the first century amongst Jews from within and without Scripture I believe that we find that such an assertion does not accord with the evidence.

It may seem like making long arguments about the original language of the conversation between Jesus and the disciples is a tangent, but heavy emphasis has been placed on the original language used by Jesus in His statement to Peter by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Thus it is necessary to discuss the linguistic context of our text in light of the entirety of Scripture, particularly the gospels. I believe the internal and external evidence of Scripture clearly demonstrates that Jesus� words to Peter were originally in Greek and not Aramaic. However, as I do not believe that this is the most crucial issue in interpreting Matthew 16:18. Thus whether or not I am correct in what follows will in no way determine whether or not my exegesis of this text is correct. For in no manner ought we hinge the entirety of our exegesis on any singular hermeneutical point as has often been the practice of exegetes in the past.

From Scripture it is evident that the origin of Jesus�s learning to speak Greek probably came from His growing up in Galilee the region �of the Gentiles� (Matthew 4:15). In addition He would have probably spoke Greek while living in Nazareth, a mere hour�s walk from Sepphoris and the Decapolis (Matthew 2:23). Consequently all of the gospels depict Jesus speaking Greek. For example, when He had an encounter with a Roman centurian and Jesus implies that he was a gentile, �I tell you, I have not fund such faith even in Israel.� (Luke 7:2-10; cf. Matthew 8:5-13; John 4:46-53) In addition, Jesus travels to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon where He has a conversation with a Syro-Phonecian woman who was �a Greek� (Mark 7:26). Then at His trial in conversing with Pilate, the Roman prefect, He undoubtedly spoke Greek for there is no mention of an interpreter (Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 223:3; John 18:33-38.) and Paul tells us that He, �...testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate� (1 Timothy 6:13). It is unlikely that Pilate, a Roman, spoke Aramaic let alone Hebrew thus Jesus must have spoke Greek with him. However, not only does Jesus speak Greek with these people but the disciples do as well, �Now there were certain Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; these therefore came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask Him, saying, �Sir, we wish to see Jesus.�� (John 12:20-21). In fact, when Jesus speaks of His leaving some even think that perhaps he might continue His teaching amongst the Greeks, �The Jews therefore said to one another, �Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find Him He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is He?� (John 7:35). This seems to indicate, or at least strongly suggest, that He was already teaching in the Greek language.

In addition to examples of actual conversations of Jesus which were clearly conducted in Greek, we have terms used in the Greek text which uniquely reflect first century Greek terminology. In Matthew 7:5 we see Jesus saying, �You hypocrites...� and in and Matthew 23 he uses the term six times in reference to the Scribes and Pharisees. The word translated �hypocrite� (�upokritai) is a unique word derived from the Greek culture from classical and helenistic Greek which has no direct counterpart in Hebrew or Aramaic. The idea of calling Jesus calling them hypocrites is to liken them to being like an actor in a Greek play who wears a mask. Thus what he portrays himself to be is contrary to what he is in reality, �Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full� (Matthew 6:16). Though the word appears in the Septuagint in Job 34:30 and 36: 13, its counterpart in the Hebrew �haneph� means �polluted,� �godless� or �profane� but doesn�t carry the same connotations as �hypocrite� as spoken by Jesus in Matthew 23. In addition, it is significant that Jesus uses this uniquely Greek word in Matthew 7:5 for he then uses �petra� Matthew 7:24, in reference to �a wise man who built his house on the rock (petra).� Are we to believe that Jesus spoke in Greek in Matthew 7:5 but then suddenly switched to Aramaic in Matthew 7:24?

While it is contended that Matthew was written originally in Aramaic, it is hardly contended that Luke�s gospel was written in Greek. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain identical or largely identical Greek words. Hence, it may be that Matthew used Mark and Luke, or Luke used Matthew and Mark for he himself states that his gospel account is the work of his investigation. However, there are at times when Jesus quotes the O.T. Scriptures which reflect the Aramaic Targum rather than the LXX, such as in Mark 4:12. However, in Matthew 5:39, which reflects Isaiah 50:6 the words are from the LXX and not the Targum. Likewise, Jesus� quotation of the Scriptures during His temptation in Matthew 4:1-11 are from the LXX and not the Targum. Hence as A.W. Argle suggests, �We may have direct access to the original utterances of our Lord and not only a translation of them.� A. W. Argyle �Did Jesus Speak Greek?� In light of this internal evidence, I find it difficult that Patrick Madrid (a RC apologist) could honestly assert the contrary, �Jesus and the Apostles didn�t speak to each other in Greek but in Aramaic, the common language of the Jews in Palestine at that time.�

While it is often argued that some early Church father refer to Matthew as originally being written in Aramaic, this may have been due to their wrong conclusions from such texts as Matthew 27:46 as there is no manuscript evidence to support such assertions. Thus this �tradition� ought to be ignored in light of the internal evidence of the text itself, particularly if we claim to uphold Scripture (Sola Scriptura) as our final authority for interpreting all of life.

In reply to message #5
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Aug-17-2001 at 01:40 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Eric,

To summarize, which one of the following scenarios do you accept (Let's just talk about Matt. 16:18) ?:

1. Eshoa and Shimon were speaking in Aramaic, Shimon was named "Keepa", and Matthew preserved it in Aramaic.
   
2. Eshoa and Shimon were speaking in Aramaic, Shimon was named "Keepa", and Matthew translated it into Greek.
   
3. Eshoa and Shimon were speaking in Greek, Shimon was called "Petros" and Matthew translated it into Aramaic.
   
4. Eshoa and Shimon were speaking in Greek, Shimon was called "Petros" and Matthew preserved it in Greek.
   

It has to be one of the four above scenarios - these cover all reasonable possibilities.

So which one is the truth ?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #5
 
Hi there!,...if you have the time you will find many interesting posts in the past threads stored here on this area of discussion. I thouroghly recommend you have a look through them....all the best ...judge

In reply to message #5
 
Dear Erik F. Wait,

So lets see .... The Syro-phoenician woman was niether Syrian nor Phoenician? She spoke niether Syrian (Aramaic) nor Phoenician (Cannanite). She was a Greek, speaking Greek?

I'm curious ... Could you please elaborate on all the evidence you assert exists when you wrote "I believe the internal and external evidence of Scripture clearly demonstrates that Jesus� words to Peter were originally in Greek and not Aramaic"

and .....

"...in light of the internal evidence of the text itself..."

What is and where is all this "internal and external evidence"

Thanks

Dean Dana