Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 16:18 "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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 16:18 "And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades (death) will not overpower it [by preventing the resurrection of the Christ]. [Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18] |
Subject: "upon this rock I will build my church" |
Bible Note: You said,“In this article, he takes a very low few of the gospels. He accepts triple source theory and states that Luke was wrong in his chronology.” Concerning Lindsey’s article “Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus”. Robert Lindsey (the late) was a Jew who translated the Gospels into Hebrew. This apparently was one thing that sent him on course to spend the majority of his life studying the “Synoptic Gospels”. A note: Lindsey and David Flusser (also passed away I believe) are held in very high regard for their knowledge of all the Biblical Languages, as well as modern Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, modern Greek, and German, English, and who knows what else. I mention this to provide them with the appropriate respect for the immense study they both achieved. But they are not infallible of course. I did not see that Lindsey took a “very low few of the Gospels.” After all he spent his whole life studying them. The article in question, while fascinating, was quite hard for me to follow at times. 1) Lindsey advocated a 1 source theory. This 1 source called by him the “Anthology” was used to also produce a short source that divided up the first into narrative, teaching, parables. Then Luke, Mark, and Matt, according to Lindsey, had knowledge of different versions, not to mention some knowing the other’s Gospel. He put Luke first, then Mark and then Matt. (See how convoluted and odd this is getting? But, Lindsey should be given at least some examination by those, who study the Synoptic “problem”). 2) Obviously the synoptic Gospels pose a so called “problem.” Even first time readers can see this when reading. I myself spent minimal time on this issue. I don’t think it’s a “problem” in the normal sense of the word. 3) The three synoptic Gospels do not always agree on chronology. This cannot be disputed, I assume. Therefore one has to either always have a tension, or try to determine which chronology is correct. If you decide that one is accurate, then the other is not. After all, both can not be correct. Does this give a “low few of the Gospels?” I don’t think so. They are all divinely inspired and without error; however, that does not preclude that chronology HAS to agree and that one of the Gospel writers could not have gotten it wrong. Getting the chronology right does not change the Truth at all. 4) I personally think Matt was first; but I am not an authority on the issue. Also, Lindsey betrays the theory that all the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew when he states, “I encountered certain repeated words and expressions that resisted translation into Hebrew.” Okay, this is about the article that you found disturbing. I don’t think it is disturbing, but I also do not have the same understanding of languages and the synoptic problem that you may have. Thanks, by the way, for following this with me. I think I am learning and it helps to have people walk through things with you so you keep your feet on solid ground! My own uneducated thinking is this: Matt. wrote first and wrote in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Hebrew when in the Galilee, but did not when in the Decapolis, Caesariea Phillipi (when speaking to “the crowd”), and I am unsure when in Symaria, and on the way to Tyre and Sidon. In Jerusalem he may have spoken Aramaic or Greek during the festivals since the Jews and Gentiles from outside the Land were present, and particularly when facing Pilot and while hanging on the cross (hmmm, not sure about that?) However, He very well could have said many things in Hebrew as well in Jerusalem, particularly when telling a parable, but who knows? Judging from the pure historical evidence, it seems very likely, though not conclusive, that the commoner spoke Hebrew. Be it Mishnaic, Ancient, or some variant, the evidence uncovered by archeology and the Dead Sea scrolls all point to this besides the text itself. The Sermon on the Mount is classic Hebrew and in our current article of discussion you will note the mention of a Jewish scholar who said, “If you listen carefully, you can hear Jesus speaking Hebrew!” And some strong Aramaic theorists have recently admitted that Jews in Jesus time spoke Hebrew as a common tongue. This is what I think about spoken languages only (and Matt writing in Hebrew). But as far as their being a ‘Q’ source, or a Hebrew source, or that all the Gospel writers wrote in Hebrew first; these things I have no strong opinions on, and would assume that at least Luke would have written in Greek, and probably Mark as well. I see no reason to think otherwise, but Bivin thinks they all wrote in Hebrew. The reason I push Bivin’s book is because he gives all the evidence for the Jews in Jesus’ time speaking Hebrew as a common language. And even if Bivin was a womanizing atheist who hated God, the case wouldn’t change since it is historical and scientific, and does not have a barring on my, nor anyone else’s, faith I hope. God bless thanks for the great discussion. MJH |