Did petros exist as a word b4 Peter?

[RyanL]

“[On Matthew 16:18]
By rock * he * refers to religious faith”. Theodoret of Cyrus, comm. Cant. 109, in Commentary on the Song of Songs**, trans. Robert C. Hill. Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane 2001.

“[On Matthew 16:18] This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being… he will build his church upon this same confession and faith.” Theodore of Mopsuesta, Fragment 92, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Manlio Simonetti, gen. ed.Thomas C. Oden. Inter-Varsity Press, Illinois, 2002. Theodore goes on to state that the keys of the kingdom are given to every believer who makes the same confession of faith.

“[Of believers] Others are a rock * worthy of that rock on which we stand and which we worship.” Gregorius Nazianzus, orationes 26.9, in St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Select Orations*, trans. Martha Vinson. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

““This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the Son of God.” “ Hermas, Similitudes 9.12 (c.f. 9.1 ff.)

“You founded the Church on the rock made of faith” Liturgy of St. James, 206.18

Oh, and you forgot to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support your claim:

**552 **

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

**424 **

Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Guess the Catholic Church doesn’t think Peter is the Rock…

More to follow.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Mystophilus:

…Thus, we lack actual data from outside of this passage to support the claim that they have to be synonyms here. This, however, does not mean that they could not be read as synonyms here.

Again, I am not now nor have I ever argued for an exclusive reading of the text. It is polyvalent. The fact remains that Peter being the rock is the primary interpretaion, with others being secondary or terciary.

That Hippolytus was a wild guy: a schismatic Bishop of Rome!

Not really sure what you mean by this. Hippolytus is a canonized Saint - they typically don’t do that to schismatics or heretics. Perhaps you meant Zosimus?

I definitely agree regarding the primacy of Peter, and for a first there must be a second. This is why I regard the passage as a clear announcement of the apostolic succession: the separate petros proceeds from and represents the petra mass.

Could you please say more about your Apostolic Succession argument? I don’t think I understand…

it would still be less preferable from a critics’ standpoint.

Frankly, I’m not very interested in a historical-critical analysis. I’m interested in what the author intended. I think this is also apparent in the context.

Moreover, as reference in one of the Fathers pointed out, “petra” is the foundation used by the man “who built his house on the rock” in Mt 7:24 (and Lk 6:48): you do not build your house on a “petros”.

Says who?

“this rock” is a noun.

Right, but it’s a vague noun. In this instance, it’s as good as a pronoun. To whom does it refer? That is the question.

… 'outos may be prepositive, postpositive or pronominal: it may be before the noun which it describes, after the noun which it describes, or as a pronoun in place of the noun. Second, “kai” has a broader range than our “and”; it is a general-purpose conjunctive particle. To cite just three examples from the top of the search program’s list, in Matthew 8:9, 12:45, and 13:22, a form of 'outos is used in the clause following kai to denote a particular noun not mentioned previously, in much the same way as we say, “The street is quite a nice one, and this is my house.”

Let’s cite the text in Greek, that way we have the source on this page to work with:
Matthew 16:

18καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει **πετρος και επι **ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι *αδου *ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

‘Outos’ isn’t part of the text to which I’m refering. And as for your example, I think a more appropriate one is, "Blessed are you** Mystophilus, for nobody told you I was a restauranteer!**** I say to you that you are ‘Deep Dish’, and on this pie I will build my restaurant! And I will give to you the keys to the restaurant, and you will open it when you want and close it when you want! Now go get 'em, Deep Dish!"** Different words? Yup. Related? Yup. Synonyms? In this case, yes, even though ‘pie’ is typically a pastery. Would a scholar in a few hundred years understand what I was saying? By context, yes. By lexicon…perhaps, but I’m sure most lexicons would call a ‘pie’ a pastery.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Mystophilus:

The reference to Isaiah 22 is interesting, because Eliakim son of Hilkiah is there appointed prime minister over an earthly kingdom, replacing the arrogant Shebna. However, the passage prophesies both Eliakim’s rise and Eliakim’s fall (v. 25), which makes Matt 16:19 seem suddenly less secure.

Of course it prophesies Eliakim’s (or perhaps his successors’) fall. This makes sense, for if a Prime Minister for David’s kingdom still existed it would give us two claimants for Prime Minister in the kingdom of God on earth, which is a Davidic kingdom (Peter’s successor and Eliakim’s). The first had to end in order for the second to start. You can’t have two Presidents, and you can’t have two Prime Ministers.

Beyond that, Christ says that the gates of Hell will never overcome the new Prime Minister. Matt 16:18 is only “less secure” if you don’t trust the promises of Christ.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RobNY]

RyanL:

"Blessed are you** Mystophilus, for nobody told you I was a restauranteer!**** I say to you that you are ‘Deep Dish’, and on this pie I will build my restaurant! And I will give to you the keys to the restaurant, and you will open it when you want and close it when you want! Now go get 'em, Deep Dish!"**

-Rob

PS-- sorry, I couldn’t help the spam!!!

EDIT: “And the perils of bankruptcy shall not prevail against it…”

 

[Mystophilus]

RyanL:

The fact remains that Peter being the rock is the primary interpretation, with others being secondary or tertiary.

With respect, this “fact” has never been demonstrated.

Not really sure what you mean by this. Hippolytus is a canonized Saint - they typically don’t do that to schismatics or heretics.

He recanted, they think.

Could you please say more about your Apostolic Succession argument? I don’t think I understand…

Being a separated piece, the petros proceeds from, and shares fully in the nature of, the petra. The petra, then, is Peter and everyone like him. This is (unsurprisingly) a view held by many of the Fathers, although there is considerable debate over whether the “everyone like him” includes only the other disciples (Origen’s most common line), or everyone else who makes the same confession (e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia).

Frankly, I’m not very interested in a historical-critical analysis. I’m interested in what the author intended.

Textual critics generally do not regard this as either knowable or deterministic to the text, but you are welcome to try.

(you do not build your house on a “petros”)
Says who?

The usage of the term in all of the texts which we have available to us.

‘Outos’ isn’t part of the text to which I’m referring.

(tautei is the feminine dative singular of 'outos).

And as for your example, I think a more appropriate one is, "Blessed are you** Mystophilus, for nobody told you I was a restauranteer!**** I say to you that you are ‘Deep Dish’, and on this pie I will build my restaurant! And I will give to you the keys to the restaurant, and you will open it when you want and close it when you want! Now go get 'em, Deep Dish!"** Different words? Yup. Related? Yup. Synonyms? In this case, yes, even though ‘pie’ is typically a pastry. Would a scholar in a few hundred years understand what I was saying? By context, yes. By lexicon…perhaps, but I’m sure most lexicons would call a ‘pie’ a pastry.

On this pie I will build my restaurant: I will build a commercial empire on this particular recipe, which is not to say this particular example. It does not take a few hundred years for the accuracy of the message to be lost: it takes only a few words. I would strongly recommend that you read Ferdinand de Saussure (or pretty much any general work on semiotics, because they will quote him) and Michel Foucault on the construction of the author. I may not agree with everything which they said, but I cannot deny their brilliance.

Beyond that, Christ says that the gates of Hell will never overcome the new Prime Minister. Matt 16:18 is only “less secure” if you don’t trust the promises of Christ.

“prevail against it”. “autes” is feminine: the gates will not prevail against the ekklesia, not the petros. I hope you do not mind the fact that it is the LSJ to which all of the vocabulary is glossed, much as it was for the Josephus to which you provided a link.

The promises of God are often conditional: the book of Jonah is built around God’s promise to destroy the Ninevites, a promise subsequently abandoned (v.10, in which God “repents”). This is not uncommon among the OT prophets.

 

[Mystophilus]

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (BTW, Catholic Bishops tend to agree with Church teaching…)

Except that naughty, naughty Hippolytus, and Origen, and all those Eastern bishops who sided with Cerularius after he was excommunicated, and (according to many Catholics) quite a few modern bishops.

I quite missed the point of the quotes from Theodoret, however: I thought that you meant them as evidence that he thought that the two terms in Mt 16:18 were the same, but that was obviously not the case.

GREGORY NAZIANZEN
"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church; whilst another is the beloved, and reposes on the breast of Jesus; and the rest bear with the prior honor (thus bestowed).

Another multiple-interpretist, great! I am really beginning to wonder when the idea that texts could only have one meaning came into vogue.

(LSJ)Not surprising. Koine and Attic share quite a bit of vocabulary, but they are certainly not identical.

You are right: they are not identical. However, they are close enough for the LSJ to be able to delineate denotations occuring in both (see especially the note on A.II) It might also be worth mentioning, in case you were still thinking that the LSJ did not cover Koine, that the Matthew 16 text in the other post was reached via a reference in an LSJ entry, and that both Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus used petra and petros as distinct denotations (text references to come).

Guess the Catholic Church doesn’t think Peter is the Rock…

They clearly do not think that he is the only Rock, which has been the point: if they do not think that he is the only rock, then they do not think that petros and petra are identical terms, which is unsurprising, because, had they been identical terms, petros ought to have been used both times.

However, I start to wonder whether you think that I am supporting the disjunctive argument, which I have already rejected several times. The two terms are not utterly unconnected, but neither are they identical. Peter is the rock, just not the only one.

 

[RobNY]

Mystophilus:

Being a separated piece, the petros proceeds from, and shares fully in the nature of, the petra. The petra, then, is Peter and everyone like him. This is (unsurprisingly) a view held by many of the Fathers, although there is considerable debate over whether the “everyone like him” includes only the other disciples (Origen’s most common line), or everyone else who makes the same confession (e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia).

Might I make the idea that everyone like him are Peter’s successors.

First of all, if it includes everyone who made the confession, it is markedly wrong, after all, how many people have confessed faith in Christ but have fallen into heresy, apostasy, etc…?

Now, certainly the successors of the apostles (the bishops) are lesser foundations, but they can’t literally be just like Peter because, while both were granted the power to bind and loose, only Peter was granted “the keys” to the kingdom of heaven. So, only Peter’s seat can have that specific authority of “they keys.” I’d be in favor of the successors of Peter being it. Of course, I can’t say I’m familiar with what the Fathers thought.

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (*Letters *53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

St. Augustine. (And other various quotes on Peter’s successors in this tract at Catholic.com.)

 

[cazayoux]

Scott Waddell:

This would be a good point if if wasn’t for the fact that non-Catholics can’t even entertain that the Catholic position is at least a possibility. That is, it is Catholic, therefore it must be wrong.
Scott

I agree there are those that think “If it’s Catholic, it must be bad”, but this point about Peter is one of the MOST important to non-Catholics.

This is the point, if our Catholic explanation could be disrupted, then non-Catholics some hope for claiming some type of church authority of their own sans the Catholic Church.

Our Catholic Authority is a definite. Better skills at debating won’t change this fact.

It’s hilarious to me to see protestants trying their hardest to disprove any part of this notion. So many have become Greek experts.
They are very well educated and well spoken. Kudos to you for bettering yourself. The approach seems to be “Wait! There is a possibility that it could have been meant a different way, therefore, it can’t mean what the Catholics say.”

It’s as annoying as the mother-in-law coming over and complaining about a little dust found on the mantle of a X,000 sq ft home in the best neighborhood of the best town. Nevermind that the wife and kids are happy, healthy, whole and content. Makes you think the mother-in-law has self-value issues of her own, doesn’t it?

As elequent as you (protestant scholars and studiers) can be, you still will not be able to disprove that …

• Jesus founded ONE church
• Jesus established an authoritative church
• Jesus established a visible church
• THAT authority is Apostolic
• THAT church is infallible on teachings of faith and morals
• THAT church will remain in existence through Apostolic succession

This can all be shown from the only source accepted as truth by them - the Holy Bible… pick your version.

Golly! … I re-read and seem to have come off much more combative than I meant to. Maybe I’ve had too much caffeine this morning.

michel

 

[RobNY]

Oh and, Mystophilus, I am anxious for you to critique two of my posts, numbers 56 and 57 in this thread. Do the arguments contained in those posts hold any water?

 

[RyanL]

Mystophilus:

With respect, this “fact” has never been demonstrated.

Nor has it been discounted.

Being a separated piece, the petros proceeds from, and shares fully in the nature of, the petra.

Petros has not been established as definitely meaning a “separated piece”. I don’t want to let this fall off the radar, so let me revisit an earlier quote:

Josephus uses “petros” for stones launched by hand, and uses “petra” for stones launched by engines (see, e.g., 3.240-5, in which a man is decapitated by a “petra”-weight missile, and others destroy the wall itself).

Josephus used petra to mean boulder, just as Sophocles used petros for boulder in Oedipus at Colonus. The distinction simply isn’t as cut and dry as you would like, and it has been shown that the two words could be used to describe the very same object. Beyond that, Josephus’ usage clearly does not mean a “rock, being a cliff or mountain”, nor does Josephus indicate that the petros were fragmentary pieces of the petra.

The petra, then, is Peter and everyone like him. This is (unsurprisingly) a view held by many of the Fathers, although there is considerable debate over whether the “everyone like him” includes only the other disciples (Origen’s most common line), or everyone else who makes the same confession

Origen’s most common line? Is that to discount the following:

“Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” (Commentaries on John 5,3)

“Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? ‘O you of little faith,’ He says, ‘why did you doubt!’” (Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

You also don’t mention the “everyone like him” being Peter’s successors, but that was already addressed by one of my companions.

Textual critics generally do not regard this as either knowable or deterministic to the text, but you are welcome to try.

Textual critics are, as a whole, silly. See the Jesus Seminar.

“prevail against it”. “autes” is feminine: the gates will not prevail against the ekklesia, not the petros.

If I destroy the foundation, will a building stand?

The promises of God are often conditional: the book of Jonah is built around God’s promise to destroy the Ninevites, a promise subsequently abandoned (v.10, in which God “repents”). This is not uncommon among the OT prophets.

What is the condition to “x shall not prevail. Ever.”? Is there any condition to this promise? I have yet to read anything of the sort…

Except that naughty, naughty Hippolytus, and Origen, and all those Eastern bishops who sided with Cerularius after he was excommunicated, and (according to many Catholics) quite a few modern bishops.

I said “tend” because I was afraid that I would be told to get another survey ready if I said “most”, and I haven’t received the responses to the surveys I sent out after my last two “mosts”…
Sure, there are heretics. As a rule, however, Catholic Bishops don’t disagree with Church teaching.

I quite missed the point of the quotes from Theodoret, however: I thought that you meant them as evidence that he thought that the two terms in Mt 16:18 were the same, but that was obviously not the case.

Obviously? Perhaps you should re-read.

Another multiple-interpretist, great! I am really beginning to wonder when the idea that texts could only have one meaning came into vogue.

I have no idea. Seems like a silly position to me to say that a given word can only mean one thing, especially in reference to a work with polyvalence everywhere.

However, I start to wonder whether you think that I am supporting the disjunctive argument, which I have already rejected several times. The two terms are not utterly unconnected, but neither are they identical. Peter is the rock, just not the only one.

I must admit that I see a disjunctive flair to your relative readings, insisting that there is a distinction between petros/petra. I assert that there is no inherent or necessary distinction, a synonimous reading is preferable, and the relative readings are present (but to a lesser degree).

If it turns out that we have been arguing from the same side of the coin, I think I’ll have to take a very long nap…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mystophilus]

RobNY:

Might I make the idea that everyone like him are Peter’s successors.

You are in good company: this idea shows up in a few of the Church Fathers.

I am not sure that I agree that it cannot apply to all who make the confession of belief, however, for two reasons, one theological and the other sociological. On the sociological side, each believer who joins a given group renders that group more attractive to others merely by having elected to join it, and, in so doing, assists in the building of that group. On the theological side: God uses whomsoever God chooses to use, whether they are righteous or not, which thus means that God can build a holy church out of the dross of sinful humanity. This we see every day.

 

[Mystophilus]

RobNY:

Oh and, Mystophilus, I am anxious for you to critique two of my posts, numbers 56 and 57 in this thread.

Please accept my apologies; now that I see these posts, I remember having promised myself that I would come back to them. There are many good things there; please tell me if I miss any of them.

The writer of Matthew might have been a non-native user of Greek, and he might not have been utterly familiar with other writers’ usage of his vocabulary. From this distance, we cannot reasonably say that we know that he was not. Nevertheless, we are talking about an era in which a scribe was an expert professional whose literary skill was his livelihood, in a country which had no unemployment benefit. Further, Matthew’s Greek is apparently so perfect (according to those far more knowledgeable than I) that it is unlikely to have even been a translation from another language (vs. the oft-repeated-yet-never-demonstrated Aramaic Matthew claim), let alone the work of a second-language user.

I have yet to see a text by a Father which says that Peter is not the rock. This became tangled in the discussion. Instead, the majority of the readings which I have seen have said that the Peter is the rock, but the rock is more than Peter alone. One source, a lexicon of Patristic Greek, listed the exegeses of “petra” in the passage as: confession, faith, preserved righteous doctrine, all disciples, and Peter. That was the order in which they were listed.

If we start from the literal meanings of the words, which will always be the core of any symbolic usage, the petros is a part of the petra. As such, they share in the same nature, but one is considerably larger than the other. This is where the most popular Patristic reading (confession) comes in: it was often said that the confession was the basis of the designation, and so it would apply to all who confessed. While I see your point about those who confess and then stray, I do not think that they are invalidated for that. God can build a Church even out of weak, sinful humans: we see this around us every day.

While various readings of the text are reasonable, I do not think that the Protestant Separatist reading should be included. Had Jesus meant that Peter had no connection with the foundation of the Church, he could have phrased the entire comment in a different fashion. The connection between the two separate terms is unmistakable. Such people as read it that way seem determined to take a jack-hammer to the Petra itself.

 

[Mystophilus]

(Peter as #1 reading) Nor has it been discounted.

This is another question which leads us into textual surveying. However, G.W.H. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon lists five exegeses of petra in the passage, and Peter is the one with the lowest usage (after confession, faith, preserved doctrine, and all disciples). Still, prefer what you will.

Petros has not been established as definitely meaning a “separated piece”. I don’t want to let this fall off the radar, so let me revisit an earlier quote: Josephus used petra to mean boulder, just as Sophocles used petros for boulder in Oedipus at Colonus. The distinction simply isn’t as cut and dry as you would like, and it has been shown that the two words could be used to describe the very same object. Beyond that, Josephus’ usage clearly does not mean a “rock, being a cliff or mountain”, nor does Josephus indicate that the petros were fragmentary pieces of the petra.

With respect, I have repeatedly mentioned the overlap of these two terms: the separate (petros) mass (petra), or boulder. Both terms are used for such stones. Nonetheless, we have yet to see a text in which both of them are used for the same stone, or a text in which petros is used for an unseparated mass.

Origen’s most common line?

This is based upon Lampe. However, I will be in at the university tomorrow, and so I should be able to check.

If I destroy the foundation, will a building stand?

This argument is too circular to even contemplate an answer.

What is the condition to “x shall not prevail. Ever.”? Is there any condition to this promise? I have yet to read anything of the sort…

Where is “never” in Matthew 16:18?

(Theodoret)Perhaps you should re-read.

I offer my apologies: you are correct. Add yet one more to the multiple-interpretist column.

I must admit that I see a disjunctive flair to your relative readings, insisting that there is a distinction between petros/petra. I assert that there is no inherent or necessary distinction, a synonymous reading is preferable, and the relative readings are present (but to a lesser degree).

If it turns out that we have been arguing from the same side of the coin, I think I’ll have to take a very long nap…

Do you have a pillow handy? We have not exactly been arguing the same side of the coin, if the two sides are Peter-is-the-foundation and Peter-is-not-the-foundation. In this case, I am between the two, with a fair few of the Fathers.

Based on the evidence presented thus far, I maintain the position that there is a distinction, but not a disjunction between the two related terms. They are not used interchangeably in any text seen thus far. The Peter-as-foundation reading is justified by the relative reading: if the petros proceeds from the petra, then the petros is that which the petra is, only not the totality of it.

 

[RobNY]

Mystophilus:

I am not sure that I agree that it cannot apply to all who make the confession of belief, however, for two reasons, one theological and the other sociological. On the sociological side, each believer who joins a given group renders that group more attractive to others merely by having elected to join it, and, in so doing, assists in the building of that group. On the theological side: God uses whomsoever God chooses to use, whether they are righteous or not, which thus means that God can build a holy church out of the dross of sinful humanity. This we see every day.

I see what you mean, but I think that it’s just a few too many degrees of separation. Certainly, in the act of joining, members assist in the “building,” however, they build on the *foundation. * I believe that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that Jesus, Peter, the Apostles, all in different ways are foundations of the Church, but the average joe believer is not.

My objection wasn’t to the sinfulness of the foundation, obviously there have been many sinful popes, so I can’t exactly object on those grounds.

Also, Peter’s confession was a peculiar confession-- it was one prompted by revelation from God. If the individual’s confession was what mattered, then it would seem to remove the vitally important special revelation that Peter alone among the Apostles was privy to. It seems to me that it was only Peter’s confession that could have any bearing on being a foundation, being as it wasn’t a *normal *confession. Rather, I don’t think any individual believer’s confession is what makes him a ‘rock,’ but rather, for those who are Peter’s successors, it is Peter’s confession that makes them a ‘rock,’ and it is his passing on of authority that confers on them the same power.

The writer of Matthew might have been a non-native user of Greek, and he might not have been utterly familiar with other writers’ usage of his vocabulary. From this distance, we cannot reasonably say that we know that he was not. Nevertheless, we are talking about an era in which a scribe was an expert professional whose literary skill was his livelihood, in a country which had no unemployment benefit. Further, Matthew’s Greek is apparently so perfect (according to those far more knowledgeable than I) that it is unlikely to have even been a translation from another language (vs. the oft-repeated-yet-never-demonstrated Aramaic Matthew claim), let alone the work of a second-language user.

Well, I don’t expect Aramaic manuscripts to just pop up either, but there is at least one Father who mentions the idea, so, I keep it at least in the back of my mind.

You’re most likely right about the very good language, so I’ll leave that one. But, what about the idea of paralleling the sounds?

 

[Mystophilus]

RobNY:

Also, Peter’s confession was a peculiar confession-- it was one prompted by revelation from God.

Yet Jesus said that all confessions were so led: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (John 6:44).

My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority (John 7:16-7)
What is also interesting is that, between these two comments, in 6:69, we find John’s account of Peter’s confessio, which, in the Textus Receptus, is identical to Mt 16:18 but is not followed by a naming or by any reference to any kind of rocks.

I don’t think any individual believer’s confession is what makes him a ‘rock,’ but rather, for those who are Peter’s successors, it is Peter’s confession that makes them a ‘rock,’ and it is his passing on of authority that confers on them the same power.

This is one of the major differences, I think, between contemporary Catholic and non-Catholic views of Peter and the other Apostles: Catholics tend to view them more as archetypes, while the rest of us view them more as prototypes.

Still, Matthew is widely regarded as the most Jewish of the gospels, I am currently looking into a possible Jewish reading of this text which could thoroughly rearrange a few views of it, which I will post just as soon as I can find some good rabbinical advice.

You’re most likely right about the very good language, so I’ll leave that one. But, what about the idea of paralleling the sounds?

Could “petros…petrai” be there purely for the sound? Perhaps, but only if it were written by a bad scribe. The usage of the two terms would always lead to the suspicion that they denote different things in this context, as they do in every other. Further, if, as is often suggested (but has yet to be demonstrated), the original comment in Aramaic were “kephas…kephas”, an Aramaic scribe would be correspondingly less likely to use two different terms for what he had been told was one word two times.

 

[Sacramentalist]

My understanding is that Jesus, in Greek, said “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.”

What I wanna know is: Why did Jesus refer to Peter as “this petra,” the feminine form of the word? Shouldn’t he have been consistent and used the masculine form both times?

 

[Mystophilus]

Sacramentalist:

My understanding is that Jesus, in Greek, said “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.”

What I wanna know is: Why did Jesus refer to Peter as “this petra,” the feminine form of the word? Shouldn’t he have been consistent and used the masculine form both times?

This is precisely what we have been discussing in this thread, and in others, for quite some time. The short answer is that no-one can honestly claim to know why anyone else does anything, but the usage has caused significant controversy. The majority of readings in the past, and the many in the present, take it to mean that the petra includes Peter and others. Thus, Peter is the foundation, but not the only one.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I tried to print this thread 89 pages, but all I am getting from my printer is junk characters. Is this charistic of this board or is my printer possessed?