Attack on Catholic Answers

[coolduude]

I found this today; I’m sure it’s a little dated though:

Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:

"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:

“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”

(justforcatholics.org/a124.htm)

This is taken right from an article that Karl Keating wrote:
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Besides the obvious attack on Karl/CA, is there any truth to that article?

coolduude

 

[Theophorus]

In relation to the petra/petros argument I read a very interesting article recently that dealt with an early syriac manuscript of the gospel of Mathew. The manuscript dates from the 4th Century, and is written in the syriac dialect of Aramaic.

Have a read of the article and see what you think:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

St. Pauls tendency to transliterate Cephas (kepha) seems to punch a hole or two in the argument as well

hope that helps

 

[Canto]

The Greek says “you are Rock and on this rock”
so logically Christ would have said the same in Aramaic
you are Kepha and on this kepha
John 1:42 “you shall be called Cephas (Kepha), which means rocck.”

In the Koine Greek of the NT petros and petra both meant rock, there was no distinction from what I have read.

The word for stone is lithos and in Aramaic enva

The masculine was used for Peter’s name and the feminine, as it was more common, was used to follow to show that Peter really is the rock

That’s why it’s not Petra…petra or Petros…petros

On Greek gramatical grounds the second rock refers back to the first.

you [St Peter] are Rock and on this rock [the one just refered to] I will build my Church…

This site gives a good respons to the St Augustine quote.
americancatholictruthsociety.com/webster/webray1.htm

St Augustine said he would not believe the Gospel if not for the Catholic Church.

 

[suissemissed]

Christ specifically changed Simon’s name to Peter (Cephas, which is a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha). He could have changed it to anything, or simply left it as Simon, but instead He changed it to Cephas, which means “Rock.”

Here’s all of Jesus’ speech to Peter: “Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”

Notice in the narrative how Jesus uses Peter’s name - first He calls him simply Simon, and then He switches in verse 18, saying that he is instead “Peter”. Why the sudden switch? I think Jesus was trying to make it even more clear that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church is built. Karl Keating is right… it’s terribly improper to use a feminine word as the name for a man, and that’s the reason for the change to “petros” in Matthew’s Gospel. Petros still means “rock”, but the difference is that petros means “small rock; a pebble” whereas petra means “massive rock; foundation.” Of course, in Aramaic the word “Kepha” (which is also Peter’s name according to Matthew) means “massive rock.”

 

[KShaft]

Christ specifically changed Simon’s name to Peter (Cephas, which is a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha). He could have changed it to anything, or simply left it as Simon, but instead He changed it to Cephas, which means “Rock.”

Here’s all of Jesus’ speech to Peter: “Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”

Notice in the narrative how Jesus uses Peter’s name - first He calls him simply Simon, and then He switches in verse 18, saying that he is instead “Peter”. Why the sudden switch? I think Jesus was trying to make it even more clear that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church is built. Karl Keating is right… it’s terribly improper to use a feminine word as the name for a man, and that’s the reason for the change to “petros” in Matthew’s Gospel. Petros still means “rock”, but the difference is that petros means “small rock; a pebble” whereas petra means “massive rock; foundation.” Of course, in Aramaic the word “Kepha” (which is also Peter’s name according to Matthew) means “massive rock.”

Not to mention ‘rock’, ‘pebble’, ‘boulder’… does it really change the content of the passage? Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I found this today; I’m sure it’s a little dated though:

(justforcatholics.org/a124.htm)

This is taken right from an article that Karl Keating wrote:
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Besides the obvious attack on Karl/CA, is there any truth to that article?

coolduude

You mean the identity of the quote used, yes… that is quite a direct attack on Karl.

There is some truth to the article, if it were total lies it would be obvious and easily dismissed. Matthew did not choose to translate “Petros” in both positions, but Petra in one and petros in another. That is not to say that the Protestant work has an argument of any real value, but it is to say that both sides over simplify what is going on.

There are examples of men having feminine sounding endings attached to their names – for example cissera (the A ending if feminine/neuter). Elcanna in the Book of Samuel is a positive example of an honorable man with a feminine/neuter sound on the end of the name. Zechari(AS) when spelled as shown, is also femine/neuter sounding. However, in the case of all these names – the words are not Greek. Even the name CephAS has a neuter/feminine sounding ending and St. Paul did not hesitate to use it for St. Peter as did St. John – in 1John 42

John 1:42 ηγαγεν αυτον προς τον ιησουν εμβλεψας αυτω ο ιησους ειπεν συ ει σιμων ο υιος ιωαννου συ κληθηση κηφ-ας ο ερμηνευεται πετρ-ος.

This sentence in Greek clearly relates the feminine SOUNDING kEf-as (Kepha, Cephas) to the masculine Petr-os (Peter). So the sensitivity of the Greek writers in General does not exist regarding the a feminine sounding FOREIGN word.
The only distinction is that Petros is a masculine word known in the Greek language. The question surely does arise as to why some authors choose to use Cephas (as John does in 1:42) but most of the time the name is rendered in Greek Petr-os, even By St. John cf: John 6:69.

John 6:6x απεκριθη αυτω σιμων πετρ-ος κυριε προς τινα απελευσομεθα ρηματα ζωης αιωνιου εχεις
John 6:69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

The exception is only in regards to John 1:42 where Jesus prophecies ahead of time what Simon’s name WILL BE. Unfortunately John does not record the passage in question Mt. 16:18, so we can only surmise that since John went out of his way to indicate the NAMING of peter is tied to Cephas (Aramaic) that he would have done so at Matthew 16:18.

This leads to the second curiosity about the passage. Of all the writers, Matthew is the very least Greek; St. John’s Greek is exquisite quoting of the Septuagint Greek scriptures in places, which is quite scholarly. Luke’s is very easily read, common greek; Mark falls in-between; but Matthew tends toward Hebrew poetic style in the Sermon on the Mount – Wheras Luke’s sermon on the plane – is just that plain Greek. Matthew inserts the Aramaic of the Psalms at the cross, Matth 27:46 – but, yet, at the critical passage in Matthew 16:18, he chooses not to use the Aramaic.

On the other hand, the argument of the Protestants that Petros and Petra meant different things is simply nonsense. They triumphantly point out a lexicon definition written by a protestant author, with no citation of WHY they believe the word to be different; and some digging will show that it simply does not hold up. Many protestant scholars have noted that even in ancient Greek texts (Homeric Greek), Attic, and others – that there are exceptions to the notion blatantly found in many places. If you need some examples, let me know.

The only thing that really bothers me about Keatings argument is that lithos is used in a place like: Matth 27:60 και εθηκεν αυτο εν τω καινω αυτου μνημειω ο ελατομησεν εν τη πετρα και προσκυλισας λιθον μεγαν τη θυρα του μνημειου απηλθεν.

Here, clearly, there are both words for rock – Petra is what the tomb is hewn out of, and lithos (lithon) is what is rolled in front of it. According to Keatings take, I would translate–

… in the Rock and rolled pebble, great, …
The “great” big “pebble???”

Matth 27:60 And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument and went his way.

The fallacy in all this is that stone size is not the reason for varying the name. Stone and Rock are two different words in English for the same thing. Pebble is different…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The word Petros/Petra has to do with a kind of rock. I find that it is consistently used of a hard rock, which is similar in quality to metal. A man’s face, or the hoofs of a war horse are compared to “Petros/Petra”. A rock used in battle is “PETROS/PETRA/PETRH” So, I think the best translation is probably “flint”, as the flinty rock that Moses struck to bring forth water.

To return to Matthew 16:18, then, I would surmise that he had a good reason of some kind for choosing two Greek words for that passage. The first thing to note is that Petros is not a decorating rock, but a functional one. Lithos (lithography) is used of the tombstone which is a decorative monumental piece, that rolls even…
So the first thing I would note is that Peter is not a decoration.
The second thing I would note is that in the Greek old testament a peculiar knife is used to circumcise; it is a knife made of flint – the same stone type as is Peter’s name. This rock type, then, is associated with Abraham. And let me reinforce that – for in Isaiah 51:1 it says:
Isaia 51:1 Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out.
Isaia 51:1 ακουσατε μου οι διωκοντες το δικαιον και ζητουντες τον κυριον εμβλεψατε εις την στερεαν πετραν ην ελατομησατε και εις τον βοθυνον του λακκου ον ωρυξατε
Isaia 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sara that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and multiplied him.
Isaia 51:2 εμβλεψατε εις αβρααμ τον πατερα υμων και εις σαρραν την ωδινουσαν υμας οτι εις ην και εκ-αλεσα αυτον και ευ-λογησα αυτον και ηγαπησα αυτον και επληθυνα αυτον

Notice that in Matthew 16:18 that Jesus uses the idea of “out calling”: I will build my “out-calling” ekklesia; where in Isaiah it is “ekalesa”, but meaning the same thing, a calling, of whom he spoke-well (blessed), loved and multiplied.

This is the connection between Peter (rock) and Abraham (the founding faith of the Church) which God builds out of, and upon. Jesus’ words in Greek, then, are speaking of a very high honor – one on par with Abraham’s position in salvation history.

The second thing to note about Matthew 16:18, is that although Matthew uses two different forms of the same word – he goes to extra lengths to show they are one and the same ROCK. For he doesn’t just say “on this rock”, he adds another definite article – “this the rock!”, meaning this VERY rock (which has already been mentioned). Since Abraham is “Petra”, and Peter is of Abraham – the connection is there directly. You are the flesh of Abraham, upon YOU I will build the out calling I promised Abraham. Likewise, I say to you – you are Rock and upon this Very Rock I will build my out-calling, and the gates of hell will not be strong under it.

My translation may appear curious, but consider Peter’s epistle and the talk about Jesus descending to the dead – Peter understood the descent in terms of opening the gates of death and releasing prisoners, not in terms of hell attacking Jesus. Jesus enters to conquer rather than being swallowed up. The connection is even deeper when one realizes that St. Peter qualifies the time-period of the souls to whom Jesus goes, when he says, those who had “DISOBEYED” as far back as the time of Noah. Noah being the first instance where water and baptism (death) are equated. Notice in this connection that circumcision is the entry into the Abrahamic covenant – so it is quite significant that the circumcision knife is also Petra/Petros.

I haven’t exhausted the extent of the scriptural meaning of Matthew 16:18, but the point is that the protestant scholars aren’t even close. Keating has a weak argument, but at least his is plausible: Since Petra is a Greek word, it’s gender is important if it is used as a Proper name. I haven’t exhaustively checked all men’s names with Greek meanings to see if they are always masculine – but the gender sensitivity with proper names isn’t uncommon. However, Even if I set Keating’s argument aside as not quite top notch – I am still struck with Matthew’s extreme care in forcing the two different words to be identified with each other. There is more to learn is what that means – in some way, Peter lives on as the foundation of the Church; If you will, Peter lives on in Pope Benedict even more strongly than Elijah lived on in St. John. Study up … but don’t give in to the pebble/rock argument – it is just stupid, stubborn, error repeating. Any serious attempt to verify these arguments will show how futile they are.

Your brother in Christ Jesus,
–Andrew.