2 Quick questions on Peter, the ROCK

[JSmitty2005]

Protestants say that “petra” means *rock * and that “petros” means pebble. We say that the word’s feminine gender was changed because Peter was a man. However, they come back and say that whenever Jesus, a man, is referred to as “rock” that it is spelled as “petra.” Is this true and how should I respond?

Also, “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha,” or rock. I’ve heard that “Kepha” is the only word for rock in Aramaic and that a completely different and dissimilar word would have been used for “pebble.” So, what Aramaic word would Jesus have used if he *really * meant Peter to be a pebble?

 

[Batjacboy]

JSmitty2005:

Also, “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha,” or rock. I’ve heard that “Kepha” is the only word for rock in Aramaic and that a completely different and dissimilar word would have been used for “pebble.” So, what Aramaic word would Jesus have used if he *really * meant Peter to be a pebble?

From what I’ve read, the Aramaic word for stone is evna.

 

[DeFide]

JSmitty2005:

Protestants say that “petra” means *rock *and that “petros” means pebble. We say that the word’s feminine gender was changed because Peter was a man. However, they come back and say that whenever Jesus, a man, is referred to as “rock” that it is spelled as “petra.” Is this true and how should I respond?

Also, “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha,” or rock. I’ve heard that “Kepha” is the only word for rock in Aramaic and that a completely different and dissimilar word would have been used for “pebble.” So, what Aramaic word would Jesus have used if he *really *meant Peter to be a pebble?

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplespetertherock.html

 

[Ruthie]

Bible software… ain’t it great?

1 Peter 2:4-8 (RSV)

4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very **stone **which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” 8 and “A **stone **that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

In all cases where “stone” appears, it is from the Greek lithos. The one appearance of “rock” is from petra.

I can’t help you with the Arimaic, though.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Thanks a lot for the posts so far. But why do you think that petra wasn’t changed to petros when it was referring to Jesus, a man?

 

[trumpet152]

JSmitty2005:

Thanks a lot for the posts so far. But why do you think that petra wasn’t changed to petros when it was referring to Jesus, a man?

Because it wasn’t a name. Jesus gave Peter the name of Rock, but we only decribe Jesus as the rock. Gender change is not needed when describing. It is vital when naming.

 

[JSmitty2005]

trumpet152:

Because it wasn’t a name. Jesus gave Peter the name of Rock, but we only decribe Jesus as the rock. Gender change is not needed when describing. It is vital when naming.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I just needed to see if anyone else was thinking alone those same lines. Thanks a lot!

 

[Veritas41]

JSmitty2005:

Thanks a lot for the posts so far. But why do you think that petra wasn’t changed to petros when it was referring to Jesus, a man?

One thing to keep in mind is *where *Jesus spoke these words to Peter – in Caesarea Philippi where there’s a massive rock about 200 ft high and 500 ft wide.

 

[believers]

Because it wasn’t a name. Jesus gave Peter the name of Rock, but we only decribe Jesus as the rock. Gender change is not needed when describing. It is vital when naming.

Jesus gave Peter the name Petros to make a distinction. Petros is a smaller movable stone. Petra is a massive rock which is not movable. Jesus is building His Church on a foundation that the devil cannot prevail. The confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is the Petra.

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:16

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:17

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros = movable stone), and upon this rock (petra - large massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”

If you take just the Greek text, there’s no way that Petros and Petra are equivalent.

 

[Batjacboy]

Jesus gave Peter the name Petros to make a distinction.

Incorrect.

Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek; therefore, your entire Petros/Petra argument falls apart.

If you take just the Greek text, there’s no way that Petros and Petra are equivalent.

Which is why you can’t use “just the Greek text”–if you look at the *Aramaic *words Jesus used (“You are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock) I will build my Church”), only the Catholic interpretation makes sense.

If you want to go back to the ancient languages to determine what Jesus meant, you have to go back to the ancient language Jesus used.

 

[jmcrae]

As I understand it, the word “petros” didn’t even exist in the Greek language in the first century AD. (I think I read that in something by Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating, etc.)

It was a word that Matthew or his Greek translator invented, in order to be able to make the word “Petra” into a masculine name. “Petra” is a feminine noun - most unsuitable as a man’s name. So, they made up the word “Petros,” which is a masculinization of the noun “Petra.”

We actually see exactly the same thing going on in reverse, when ever we give boys’ names to girls.

For example, if we want to name a little girl “Peter” we end up calling her “Petra.” By the time the little girl is old enough to know her name, she already understands that her name is “Peter” but that because she is a girl, it is pronounced and spelled “Petra” because “Peter” is a boy’s name, and “Petra” is a girl’s name that means exactly the same thing as “Peter.”

Little Petra understands perfectly that, although one is feminine and the other is masculine, they both mean the same thing, and she understands perfectly that she has been named after the Apostle Peter. (I used to know someone named Petra, and it’s true - she really did understand all these things.)

This is one of those things that can be perfectly self-evident to a child, but a complete mystery to so many adults.

 

[Batjacboy]

As I understand it, the word “petros” didn’t even exist in the Greek language in the first century AD. (I think I read that in something by Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating, etc.)

It was a word that Matthew or his Greek translator invented, in order to be able to make the word “Petra” into a masculine name. “Petra” is a feminine noun - most unsuitable as a man’s name. So, they made up the word “Petros,” which is a masculinization of the noun “Petra.”

This is true.

I also read that scholars went back to the first century to see if “Petros” was ever used outside the Gospel of Matthew, and they only found it two or three other times, and *after *the Gospel of Matthew was written (can’t remember where I read this, so I wouldn’t guarantee its accuracy).

It’s also why the Apostles always referred to Peter as “Cephas” and *never *as “Petros”, and why the word “Petros” is *never *used in the Greek Scriptures anywhere else to mean “stone.” The Greek word “Lithos” is used.

Even today, in medical terminology, gallstones are called “Cholelithiasis” and breaking them apart with ultrasound is called “lithotripsy.”

Not “Petros-tripsy.”

 

[believers]

Incorrect.

Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek; therefore, your entire Petros/Petra argument falls apart.

Which is why you can’t use “just the Greek text”–if you look at the *Aramaic *words Jesus used (“You are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock) I will build my Church”), only the Catholic interpretation makes sense.

If you want to go back to the ancient languages to determine what Jesus meant, you have to go back to the ancient language Jesus used.

So now you’re saying the Greek text is wrong?! The Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament in Greek. Greek is a very accurate type of language. Many words for the same thing with slight differences. You can stick with your Aramaic argument if you so choose… but I’ll believe the Holy Spirit.

1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ

Mat 7:24 ¶
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (Petra):

Mat 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock (Petra)

Luk 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock (Petra): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded

 

[Mannyfit75]

So now you’re saying the Greek text is wrong?! The Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament in Greek. Greek is a very accurate type of language. Many words for the same thing with slight differences. You can stick with your Aramaic argument if you so choose… but I’ll believe the Holy Spirit.

The Greek translation got it from Aramaic text and it is not a mistranslation. The Greek just use Petro. Petra is the incorrect term since Petra is femine. Petro would be better used.

In the original context, the Aramaic is the native language of Jesus. So he called Simon, Kepha, which is Aramaic word for Rock.

There is no mistranslation. Let me make a comparision. In French Mister is Monsieur. Both words means the same thing.

I also believe in the Holy Spirit and I strongly believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and prevents it from making any erroneous doctrines. It is infallable when teaching the issue of moral and faith.

 

[believers]

The Greek translation got it from Aramaic text and it is not a mistranslation. The Greek just use Petro. Petra is the incorrect term since Petra is femine. Petro would be better used.

In the original context, the Aramaic is the native language of Jesus. So he called Simon, Kepha, which is Aramaic word for Rock.

There is no mistranslation. Let me make a comparision. In French Mister is Monsieur. Both words means the same thing.

I also believe in the Holy Spirit and I strongly believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and prevents it from making any erroneous doctrines. It is infallable when teaching the issue of moral and faith.

Think of who Paul was: the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Obviously he was writing to Greek speaking people, so he would write to them in Greek.

 

[Penitant]

Think of who Paul was: the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Obviously he was writing to Greek speaking people, so he would write to them in Greek.

Are you saying that Paul wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

If you are not, then this is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Mystophilus]

Incorrect.
Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek; therefore, your entire Petros/Petra argument falls apart.

While we assume that Jesus was not speaking Greek, the fact remains that the words were recorded in Greek and disseminated around the Church in Greek. As such, the difference in the Greek words has played a role in the development of Christian thought down the centuries.

Which is why you can’t use “just the Greek text”–if you look at the *Aramaic *words Jesus used (“You are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock) I will build my Church”), only the Catholic interpretation makes sense.

Owing to the fact that we do not have the Aramaic words which Jesus used, and can merely speculate as to what they were, we are left, again, with the text which the Church has been reading for two thousand years, unless we wish to discount the entire history of the church.

 

[Mystophilus]

As I understand it, the word “petros” didn’t even exist in the Greek language in the first century AD. (I think I read that in something by Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating, etc.)

This myth has been perpetuated far too much . Most likely, it stems from someone mis-hearing someone else. I am not blaming you: you are merely repeating what you heard.

The Latin word Petrus, which is used as Simon’s new name in the Vulgate, was a neologism, a new word invented for the purpose. Most likely, someone heard this, and thought that it was about the Greek.

In stark contrast, the Greek word πετρος was a well-known and well-used common term, which first appears in Homer’s Iliad, written in the C8th BC, occurs subsequently over the centuries in a number of other famous writers’ works, and is still present in the C1st works of both Philo Judaius and Flavius Josephus, in both of which its usage is clearly distinguished from that of πετρα (the former emphasises separateness, the latter mass).

The argument for πετρος merely being a masculinisation of πετρα is further problematised by the fact that we have at least two still-existing uses from the century before Matthew’ gospel of πετρος as a feminine noun. It is worth remembering at this point that the notions of nouns being ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ was only a C3rd BC invention to assist in grammatical classification.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The three earliest Christians whose writings are still extant and mention Matthew 16:18, understand the rock upon whom Jesus would build his church as referring to Peter:

The heretic Tertullian (A.D. 220), in his treatise On Modesty, 21.

Origen (A.D. 230), in his *Commentary on John, *5.3 and his Commentary on Matthew, 12.10-11.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251), in his treatise The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4.

 

[Mystophilus]

The three earliest Christians whose writings are still extant and mention Matthew 16:18, understand the rock upon whom Jesus would build his church as referring to Peter:

The heretic Tertullian (A.D. 220), in his treatise On Modesty, 21.

Origen (A.D. 230), in his Commentary on John, 5.3 and his Commentary on Matthew, 12.10-11.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251), in his treatise The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4.

The C1st or C2nd Shepherd of Hermas (from 3.9.2 to 3.9.12) is earlier than any of the abovementioned texts and reads the rock as being Christ himself. I think that, from memory, he may also refer to Peter as the rock, but I cannot seem to find the reference at the moment. Origen, in the same Commentary on Matthew which you quoted, also reads the rock as being every Christian who imitates Christ (in 12.11). Many of the early Church Fathers read the rock reference as being to Peter and also to Christ, to every believer, to the confession of faith, etc, and this multiple interpretation is a far better reading of the linguistic effect in the text: a combination of similarity and difference.

I really, really hope that you did not know about those, because what I often find frustrating about this particular text is that Catholics all too often overlook the other readings, presumably because those do not serve the immediate purpose of ‘proving’ the primacy of Peter. If they knowingly omit the other readings, they do a disservice to the text (by reading it so narrowly), to its author (by ignoring the artistry of that wordplay), to their audience (by refusing to introduce them to that artistry), to the human search for truth (by hiding part of it), and to the reliability of their own argument (when their audience learn that the other readings are there).

While one obviously cannot include in every argument all of the issues which could come up, issues which are extremely relevant ought to be addressed merely out of one’s love for one’s neighbour.