Originally posted by francisg:
Ray,
FYI, "KAI" in Greek also has several valid translation, depending on the context. "And" and "BUT" are both valid translations.
God bless.
I know my posts are difficult to read. Sorry. They are easy to misinterpreted.
Greek And/but !! Ah .. Now THAT is interesting.. And I would have supposed that to be so as these early languages had much in common. I do not believe in a mother �tongue� in the sense of all languages coming from one first tongue or language but I do believe in common root of all early languages in the sense of a language arising from within a common and shared human experience of nature surrounding us.
It is the way of history and human nature that what is done first is pretty good - but what is done later (with better knowledge) is done better. What is done later is a further building and further correction of what is done first. What is first is foundational - and the carpenters knows that constant corrections and adjustments are just part of the process of building on the foundation along way.
The first translators to English (King James having the bigger impact) did a wonderful job from which we have the foundation of the English translations - but we do know better today in some instances of their translation. What is unfortunate is that early mistakes (they just did not know better) are often considered to be sacristan (meaning: �this is what has been proven to be true and so this is what is true and anything other is wrong�).
For example, especially in Genesis (my area of expertise) the King James version has �And�� far too much. It is very true that this form of Hebrew used the conjunction (joined-together)
and in order to join two thoughts (the second being produced out of the first) and this was the narrative style (have you ever noticed that almost every sentence begins with �And��) - however - in several places it should be �but� rather than �and� . The second item is in opposition to the first rather than produced or flowing from the first.
In the very first line of Genesis that mistake is made. The King James says �In the beginning God made heaven and earth AND the earth was without form and void.� This leads us to imagine the earth at the beginning of time in some sort of gas ball out in space (or however you might imagine the material of the earth to have existed in its first form). However, from context, it should not be �and� it should rather be �but�.
�In the beginning God made the heaven and earth BUT the earth without form and void.� as the author is that he will be dealing with the heavens and earth - BUT NOT - in the way in the normal way we think of it as we experience it on a day to day way with our senses. He is telling us NOT to think of the earth in ways of �what has form� (things and events). He is immediately correcting us from what he knows our habitual way of thinking about the heaven and earth are.
Saint Jerome with his Latin translation had it very correct �in principatio� (I may have misspelled that) - meaning �in principles�. Meaning �At first, in principles God created the heavens and earth..� meaning that we shall be talking about the laws (principles by which a things works) involved. Yes� so many of the Church Father�s interpreter Genesis in a fundamentalist and literal way where Adam is a real person, the snake speaks, and there are still people today looking for the exact physical location of where the Garden of Eden was geographically. But not all early fathers took Genesis in this literal way. The Catholic Church toaday officially recognizes Genesis as a
cosmology and not a literal history in the way we generally imagine (Refer to the documents of the Pontifical Institute of Biblical Studies). Genesis is not interested to tell us the mechanics of
how God created the world but rather
why .= He creates the world.
Back to our subject at hand.
Apparently what Jesus was doing was making a �play on words� by using the �and/but�. I say �play on words� because that is what it is to us but to the Jews of his time this was the normal way of speaking - by including all the inflections. This - was - the Hebrew language.
Interestingly� �rock� was sometimes also used in the sense of �son� (Mattew 3:9 and Luke 3:8) for in Hebrew the maning of what we sometimes translate as rock can also mean �sons� and can also mean �disciples� (a good comment by someone other than me exists on this board in the �Son of Man� thread where the �sons of the prophets� is discussed.).
Both bannin and avanim having the meaning of �stones� but also being used in such a way as
bBannin (sons) and
avanim (stones). Rendering a nice word play here in Our Lords words�
�If these stones (these disciples in the previous verse) were to be silent than these stones (rocks laying about on the ground) would cry out.�
If theses banim are silent than these avanim will cry out - has come to us in English as �if these stones were silent, these stones would cry out.� But you see how much more is said when all Hebrew inflections are taken into account. If these -disciples- were silent than these -stones- would cry out.
Now - does that also have impact on our main subject (petros/petra)?? you bet it does. Now we have the
additional meaning of �.
�upon THIS disciple - I will build my church.�
to add to the understanding of this line. THIS disciple out of all other disciples is singled out. That is - fascinating!! It is NOT upon a confession of faith (a faith which others may also share) it is upon THIS disciple. It is upon - THIS son. It seems not to be upon faith at all - it is upon person. THIS person. THIS disciple� this son.
Since the scene is Jesus standing with several disciples - then he is obviously picking out one from all the others. THIS - disciple and son - is the massive bed-rock upon which the new Temple (which is himself) will be built.
It is NOT a confession of faith singled out - it is a disciple, a person, Peter, singled out from all others.
As you can see, this second portion �upon this petra I will build my church.� is packed with meaning and inflection that rightly harmonizes with its primary import and is very in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church - which is - this person - this office - of Peter.
Now - as to if it is
and or but used?? To me it appears to be - both. The line is valid in both ways as he speaks to Simon.
AND = �You are son and disciple AND upon you I will build my church.�
BUT = �You are Thick-headed and stubborn - but - upon you I will build my church.�
You must break it into tow parts and then either join or opposition the two parts.
In the first way (and) within the two parts: �You are son and disciple� is inclusive (many disciples) and the joiner (and) now narrows that down to one out of many. There is no nickname used here.
In the second way (but) it is used exclusively (Simon is the one disicple and son who is a stubborn-head) and the contrary or opposition here (but) now says that despite that (stubborn head) I WILL build my church upon you alone. Here then is the use of the nickname.
Not an inflection wasted - was the way of Our Lord. A perfect master of language. Listening to him must have been mesmerizing.
The gospels do not tell us when, at what time of event, Jesus names James and John the �Thunder brothers�. We can safely assume it was well before the gospels relate to us that this was their nickname. Neither do the gospels indicate when Simon was given the nickname Peter. I know, I know, so many have written that this WAS the occasion of the giving of the name - but - that is a guess on their part. It is just as well that Jesus gave Simon this name long before the events of this line and the words are just as fitting to that name having arisen naturally in normal human friendship ways over the course of the three years together� �You are petros�� (reminding Simon of what Jesus had already been calling Simon by).
As of the �unanimous consensus� of the early fathers?? They also believed the world is flat and you would fall off the edge if you sailed to far out into the horizon (St. John Damascene Book I). These are human beings and being a Saint does not make one - error free. One must know how to read them and put them into the times and culture within which they lived and wrote. One must make the difference between their shifting opinions and that which the church has
nailed down by Council as �You must believe..�. Only that which the magistrium says is guaranteed - is guaranteed.
This is the way I currently see it. Please comment. This is a discussion.
-ray
