M
Mystophilus
Guest
- Status
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I certainly shall, thank you. However, it will take a while, because I have to source the actual texts used.But, anyway, read it. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
Thank you; I should really have thought of this myself. I was already aware of the fact that the Bible writers used non-literal and non-exclusive representations, and have for some time been wondering how long that habit lasted.
Augustine’s works are already on my ‘to-read’ list, and I read Latin much more quickly than I read Greek, but it will still be some time before I finish them.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Thus, I think, we may have reached an impasse. On the one hand, the Greek scholars say that the two words are different-yet-related. On the other, the Catholic Tradition says that they are the same. The former is an authority which literature students such as myself cannot ignore, and the latter an authority which good Catholics cannot ignore. This is not a situation which is unlikely to develop any farther, I fear, which is a pity, because I still regard the ‘relative’ reading as not only the best reading of the text itself, but also the best Scriptural argument that I have ever seen for the Apostolic Succession.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
Whether or not petros equalled petra is splitting hairs. The big point is that Christ renamed Simon, using a name which has never been used before. And afterwards, this name, Peter, became extremely common.
It doesn’t take a philologist to think that something’s up!
It doesn’t take a philologist to think that something’s up!
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
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. I’m sure there may be a handful that don’t proceed this way, but I have yet to see them. Perhaps it is because they feel no need to attempt to unsell Catholics.
As an academic question, I can certainly at least posit the Catholic position is wanting, but since the negative consistently ignores or explains away history and patristics and builds its whole disproof on this one passage, there is little need to do so.
Scott
I
Ignatius
Guest
Of course Christ did not use the word “Petros”, as it is Greek. Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic or Hebrew and used the word “Kephas”, which has not gender specific forms.
I
Ignatius
Guest
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
That’s the most important point, really. Christ said “Kephas,” so it really doesn’t matter what Petra or Petros means as much as what Kephas means.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Simon’s name is literally changed to Rock.
John 1:42
“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Rock.)”
It would be exactly the same as if I said to you, “You will be called Rock,” then started saying things like, “Hey Rock, what’s up?” or, “I saw Rock at the store the other day,” or, “Hey have you talked to Rock lately?”
So when Jesus says that to Peter in Matthew, He is saying, “Simon, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.”
In fact, the name “Peter” is nothing more than the Greek word for rock, “Petros,” being represented in English. Whenever we see the word “Peter” in our English Bible, if we turn to the same passage in the Greek it says, “Petros.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so He named Simon the Aramaic word for Rock: Cephas. So, when the Apostles would call him, they’d say, “Hey Cephas come over here!” (except the Hey come over heare would be in Aramaic obviously).
This makes it very interesting that Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) chose to write the Greek word for rock, Petros, instead of the actual name, Cephas. Think about translations of the book “Les Miserables” from French into English. Names, like Jean, are kept in their original language even though all the other words, like “go” and “run” and “eat” and “he” and “cat” are translated into English. Now, the French name Jean is equivalent to the English name John. Nevertheless, translators keep the names in the original language because a name is not like another word. A name is just a way of referring to people. if a fellow from France named Jean came over here to the US and people started calling him John, he’d be confused or offended because that’s not his name even though it means the same thing.
So it is incredibly interesting that the Gospel writers wrote the Greek word for rock, Petros, in their Gospels instead of the man’s actual name which was Cephas. This shows very clearly that Rock absolutely means something. Throughout all of the other Scriptures, we see many examples where New Testament Greek writers kept the original names in the original languages of Old Testament people instead of writing their Greek equivalent. For instance, the name “Moses” means “taken from” (or something similar), because he was taken from the river. But when the Gospel writers mention the transfiguration, do they say, “and standing their with Him were Taken From and Elijah?” No, they wrote “Moses and Elijah.” Similarly, Abraham means something along the lines of “Father of Many.” When the NEw Testament writers refer to Abraham, do they write, “Father of Many?” No, they write “Abraham.” They do this because these things were these people’s names.
But when talking about Simon, the writers don’t just write Cephas, which is his name. Instead, they write “Petros,” which has the same meaning as Cephas, but is totally different. It is incredibly clear from this that the Gospel writers wanted very clearly to indicate that this man literally was “Rock.” They didn’t care about saying what his name was. They cared about saying that he was Rock.
John 1:42
“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Rock.)”
It would be exactly the same as if I said to you, “You will be called Rock,” then started saying things like, “Hey Rock, what’s up?” or, “I saw Rock at the store the other day,” or, “Hey have you talked to Rock lately?”
So when Jesus says that to Peter in Matthew, He is saying, “Simon, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.”
In fact, the name “Peter” is nothing more than the Greek word for rock, “Petros,” being represented in English. Whenever we see the word “Peter” in our English Bible, if we turn to the same passage in the Greek it says, “Petros.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so He named Simon the Aramaic word for Rock: Cephas. So, when the Apostles would call him, they’d say, “Hey Cephas come over here!” (except the Hey come over heare would be in Aramaic obviously).
This makes it very interesting that Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) chose to write the Greek word for rock, Petros, instead of the actual name, Cephas. Think about translations of the book “Les Miserables” from French into English. Names, like Jean, are kept in their original language even though all the other words, like “go” and “run” and “eat” and “he” and “cat” are translated into English. Now, the French name Jean is equivalent to the English name John. Nevertheless, translators keep the names in the original language because a name is not like another word. A name is just a way of referring to people. if a fellow from France named Jean came over here to the US and people started calling him John, he’d be confused or offended because that’s not his name even though it means the same thing.
So it is incredibly interesting that the Gospel writers wrote the Greek word for rock, Petros, in their Gospels instead of the man’s actual name which was Cephas. This shows very clearly that Rock absolutely means something. Throughout all of the other Scriptures, we see many examples where New Testament Greek writers kept the original names in the original languages of Old Testament people instead of writing their Greek equivalent. For instance, the name “Moses” means “taken from” (or something similar), because he was taken from the river. But when the Gospel writers mention the transfiguration, do they say, “and standing their with Him were Taken From and Elijah?” No, they wrote “Moses and Elijah.” Similarly, Abraham means something along the lines of “Father of Many.” When the NEw Testament writers refer to Abraham, do they write, “Father of Many?” No, they write “Abraham.” They do this because these things were these people’s names.
But when talking about Simon, the writers don’t just write Cephas, which is his name. Instead, they write “Petros,” which has the same meaning as Cephas, but is totally different. It is incredibly clear from this that the Gospel writers wanted very clearly to indicate that this man literally was “Rock.” They didn’t care about saying what his name was. They cared about saying that he was Rock.
R
RyanL
Guest
I usually think it is helpful to enumerate the issues:
(1) Did Christ rename Simon ‘Kepha’?
(1)(a) Was the following Aramaic word ‘Kepha’ in Matt 16:18?
(2) Does petros mean the same thing as petra in Koine Greek?
(3) Do a majority of published and respected Bible scholars concur that petros = petra?
(4) Is there evidence within the Bible that petros = petra?
(5) Are there ECF who agree on the interpretation that ‘Peter’ and ‘this Rock’ are the same thing within the context of Matt 16:18?
(6) (As yet unargued) By changing Simon’s name was Christ revealing the identity of Peter, just as Simon had revealed the identity of Jesus in the line before, and if so is this pertinent to the discussion?
…cont’d…
(1) Did Christ rename Simon ‘Kepha’?
(1)(a) Was the following Aramaic word ‘Kepha’ in Matt 16:18?
(2) Does petros mean the same thing as petra in Koine Greek?
(3) Do a majority of published and respected Bible scholars concur that petros = petra?
(4) Is there evidence within the Bible that petros = petra?
(5) Are there ECF who agree on the interpretation that ‘Peter’ and ‘this Rock’ are the same thing within the context of Matt 16:18?
(6) (As yet unargued) By changing Simon’s name was Christ revealing the identity of Peter, just as Simon had revealed the identity of Jesus in the line before, and if so is this pertinent to the discussion?
- Yes. This is based (in addition to others) on the following verse:**
John 1:42**
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
- As I have stated before, the usage of ‘lithos’ exclusively for “pebble” or “little rock” in the NT vice ‘petros’ indicates that ‘lithos’ has a particular meaning that is not synonamous with ‘petros’. To deny this, you must show where they are used interchangeably in Koine Greek. I have already conceded the fact that there was no apparent distinction in artistic Attic Greek. So far, no evidence of the kind has been presented.
Also, from the LSJ for ‘petra’:
**4.**stone as material
From the LSJ for ‘petros’:
**A.***stone
*From Slater for ‘petra’:
**1.***rock
*From Slater for ‘petros’:
**1.***rock
*(Very kewl link for finding Greek words here) - I have cited 17 independent, respected, and published Protestant Bible scholars (i.e., people who have a vested interest in seeing the claims of Rome be proven false). You have cited one collaborative effort by 4 scholars, whom the 17 I cited are most likely aware (and still disagree). The majority is still, so far, on my side.
- Circumstantial, but yes there is evidence. This is partly why I cited the post I did (BTW, you had the correct post).
You have not addressed this, nor the anticipatory follow-on argument from the Greek NT.
…cont’d…
R
RyanL
Guest
…cont’d…
5. I will use only the ECF you cited, but there are far more:
They did not appear to have drawn the distinction you hold, based on their knowledge of the language (which I would assert is probably fairly good).
God Bless,
RyanL
5. I will use only the ECF you cited, but there are far more:
ORIGEN said:
Chrysostom said:
They did not appear to have drawn the distinction you hold, based on their knowledge of the language (which I would assert is probably fairly good).
- Yes, on both counts. Every time in the Bible where God changes someone’s name, it has great importance in both (1) revealing the identity of the person and (2) illustrating the role which that particular person will play in God’s divine plan. This is evident with Abram => Abraham, or Jacob => Israel, as well as every other time. This is also evident with Mary’s title Kecharitomene and Jesus’ title Immanuel, but that’s another argument altogether.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
BTW, surely you realize that by stating that these things undergo constant revision and supplementation you are acknowledging that they require constant revising and supplimenting. Perhaps one day they will get it right…
I should also state that Origen is not an “Early Church Father”, because he ended in heresy (and is thus not a ‘Father’). Just a note.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
Mystophilus said:
Sorry to string-chain my posts, but another thought occured to me while re-reading your posts. The implication above is that the OT uses ‘Rock’ for God exclusively. This is false.
Isaiah 51:1Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. 2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.(KJV)
(also, Matt 3:9)
Abraham is called the Rock (petras in the LXX), and no one bats an eye. Why not? Because Abraham’s rock-ness derives from and is not in competition with God’s primary Rock-ness. So it is with Peter. Does anyone claim that Abraham is a “pebble”? Never. Do they claim he is God because he is called ‘petras’ in the Attic Greek? Nope. Why the contention over Peter? Ideology.
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
God Bless,
RyanL
M
Mystophilus
Guest
BTW, surely you realize that by stating that these things undergo constant revision and supplementation you are acknowledging that they require constant revising and supplementing. Perhaps one day they will get it right…
Now that was an answer which only a Catholic could have come out with! From a literary-academic point of view, nothing is ever inarguable, although certain things, such as the LSJ and the OED now have so much support behind them that any attack upon them requires considerable support.
This is my problem with Infallibility: I have been trained not to believe in it.
In that case, you should probably tell newadvent.org, who list him as one.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I would suggest that this is your inference, rather than my implication, but I can see how it could reasonably be drawn from my infelicitous phrasing. When I said that ‘Rock’ is used “throughout the OT” for God, I meant that its use is pervasive, not that its use is exclusive. There are, indeed, several other things which are called rocks in the OT, including fortresses, the sharpness of a sword, and human physical beauty. It was evidently an image which the Hebrews liked.
That should be “petran”, if v.1 is the occurrence which you mean. “petras” would be plural. Thanks for that link, by the way; my version of the LXX is much less clear.
I would have gone for “hostility”, personally.
However, I would still like to think that Peter was humble enough to have ‘downsized’ himself; after all, this is the one who reputedly asked to be crucified upside-down because he was not worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord.
B
Bishopite
Guest
**I’ll add another Protestant proffessor who also agree that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. **
Dr. Robert Saucy, Th.D., Chairman Dept. of Systematic Theo., Talbot Seminary in his book “The Church in Gods program.” I read the book but can’t remember what page it was on. My brother a former student at Talbot seminary lent me his book to read years ago.
rc
B
Bishopite
Guest
Somthing to think about:
It would be terribly unusual for Jesus and his disciples, all Galilean Jews, to go around speaking Greek* to one another when their native language was Aramaic. Indeed, … In Matt 16:13, we are told that Jesus withdrew with His disciples into the non-Jewish region of Caesarea-Philipi …which was for the expressed purposed that He might be alone with them, so as to ask the telling question, “Who do the people say that I am”? …A “people” that spoke Aramaic. Indeed, if Matt 16 is a case where it’s just Jesus and His “inner circle” of the Twelve --all of whom were Aramaic-speaking Jews, … Why then, pray tell, would Jesus converse with them in a foreign language??? …Espeicially in a language that was spoken by the native Gentiles of Caesarea Philipi, who were all vassals of King Herod Antipas, one of the Lord’s chief enemies? Indeed, … If the conversation with His disciples in Matt 16 (which was all about Jesus being the rightful King and Messiah over Israel …which is why Jesus wants to know Who the people think He is took place in Greek, then Jesus would be exposing Himself as a traitor to King Herod, because the Greek-speaking Gentiles of that region would be likely to overhear. So, the suggestion that Matt 16 was a conversation that took place in Greek is very silly indeed.
A look into history shows that all (and I mean all) of the earliest references to the Gospel of Matthew make the claim that it was originally written in Aramaic --the language of the Hebrews. For example, about 1:30 A.D., Papias (a disciple of the Apostle John) writes and says …
“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language (i.e., Aramaic), and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, Fragment in Eusebius H.E., Book III, c. 130 A.D.).
Likewise, in 170 A.D., Ireneaus of Lyon (a disciple of Polycarp, another disciple of the Apostle John …and who is the first person in history to tell us that there are only four Gospels), writes …
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --170 A.D.)
rc
It would be terribly unusual for Jesus and his disciples, all Galilean Jews, to go around speaking Greek* to one another when their native language was Aramaic. Indeed, … In Matt 16:13, we are told that Jesus withdrew with His disciples into the non-Jewish region of Caesarea-Philipi …which was for the expressed purposed that He might be alone with them, so as to ask the telling question, “Who do the people say that I am”? …A “people” that spoke Aramaic. Indeed, if Matt 16 is a case where it’s just Jesus and His “inner circle” of the Twelve --all of whom were Aramaic-speaking Jews, … Why then, pray tell, would Jesus converse with them in a foreign language??? …Espeicially in a language that was spoken by the native Gentiles of Caesarea Philipi, who were all vassals of King Herod Antipas, one of the Lord’s chief enemies? Indeed, … If the conversation with His disciples in Matt 16 (which was all about Jesus being the rightful King and Messiah over Israel …which is why Jesus wants to know Who the people think He is took place in Greek, then Jesus would be exposing Himself as a traitor to King Herod, because the Greek-speaking Gentiles of that region would be likely to overhear. So, the suggestion that Matt 16 was a conversation that took place in Greek is very silly indeed.
A look into history shows that all (and I mean all) of the earliest references to the Gospel of Matthew make the claim that it was originally written in Aramaic --the language of the Hebrews. For example, about 1:30 A.D., Papias (a disciple of the Apostle John) writes and says …
“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language (i.e., Aramaic), and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, Fragment in Eusebius H.E., Book III, c. 130 A.D.).
Likewise, in 170 A.D., Ireneaus of Lyon (a disciple of Polycarp, another disciple of the Apostle John …and who is the first person in history to tell us that there are only four Gospels), writes …
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --170 A.D.)
rc
M
Mystophilus
Guest
First, how certain can we reasonably be that the second word in the source comment was “kephas” and not another word, when we have no record of it? There were four words in Biblical Hebrew which could have been used there: “tsur”, “sela”, “challamiysh” and “ma’uz”. Without access to an Aramaic dictionary, I cannot see whether they were still in use in Jesus’ day. Second, “lithos”, being a generic, would have been a better Greek translation of “kephas”, which is also generic, according to that panel of the Compendious Syriac Dictionary. For a foundation, “pagos” is better than “petra”. The usage of “petra” was an unusual choice.
The only support presented thus far for this idea is the fact that several Church Fathers regard Peter as a foundation of the Church, which should also be considered in light of the fact that the two from whom we have commentaries on the actual passage do not, in those commentaries, regard Peter as the only reference for the foundation of the Church.
The LSJ does not (n.b. "dist[inguishe]d from petra), and it is the product of the combined scholarship of the majority of published and respected Greek scholars. When you say that only four scholars were presented, you underestimate the actual work involved in the production of a lexicon. I only mentioned the editors because I (mistakenly) thought that the scale of these things was well known. From wikipedia’s entry comparing Lewis & Short’s Latin Dictionary, another classic reference work, to the LSJ, which is somewhat like comparing Godzilla and King Kong: LSJ credits dozens of scholars by name for their contributions to the main text by the time of the 1925 edition… Clearly, then, LSJ reflects the fruit of a broader and more sustained scholarly effort, including lexicographic research that continues to the present day.
None whatsoever. The post by Todd Easton, to which you refer, mentions the use of “petrwn” (where “w”=omega). This is a genitive plural, and it is easy to confuse, because both nouns have the same genitive plural. As mentioned in my reply in that thread to Mr. Easton, ‘six of these instances in the LXX refer to dwelling places and the seventh to an overhanging crag: they are large masses of rock, which is the root meaning of “petra”’ and there are no appearances of any form of “petros”.
While there are Fathers who agree that ‘Peter’ is ‘this Rock’, they do not do so “within the context of Matt 16:18”, the only direct references to that passage being the ones already mentioned, from Origen and John Chrysostom. As RobNY pointed out, they also agree elsewhere that Peter is the Rock, and thus they did not feel any need to hold to one exclusive reading. (At the time of posting, the catholic.com site was down, and so I could not check its quotations in this regard.)
Yes, and yes, but in a way that has not been fully addressed as yet, for which I will need another post.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
On the one hand, we have Church Fathers connecting Peter with the foundation of the Church. On the other, we have the summum et ultimum of Greek scholarship marking a “distinction” between the two terms “petros” and “petra”. We have the option of choosing to close our ears and say that the Fathers must be right, or we have the option of considering the passage more carefully. If we assume that the Fathers were right, then we know that this cannot bring any harm. Obviously, this work does not have an imprimatur upon it. Nonetheless, I beg those of you who have the courage to read on with open minds.
The point of interest is the fact that two words were used. The anti-Catholic reading of this is that it is ‘proof’ that the Church was not founded upon Peter. Because of this reading, many Catholics, when faced with the fact that there are two words there, immediately go upon the defensive and claim that the two words are one. I intend to show that neither of these readings is correct, and that, in fact, the Fathers and the Greek scholars are not opposed.
“petros” is a second-declension (a ‘declension’ is a grammatical grouping, constructed by the Greeks themselves, of nouns) masculine noun (although there are appearances of it as a feminine) which dates back to Homer, which is to say that it dates back to the earliest written Greek which we have. The root meaning is not a “pebble” as some anti-Catholics have said, but rather a separate piece of rock, from a pebble to a boulder. “petra” is a first-declension feminine noun, with a pedigree as long. The root meaning is a mass of rock, including cliffs, crags, and dwelling-places. Both nouns appear in a range of famous texts over a span of hundreds of years, which is how we can be sure that they were not forgotten by Jesus’ time: they were preserved down to his time by the very thing which has preserved them over the greater distance down to ours: the preservation of literature.
The question is this: why does Matthew 16:18 use “petros” and “petra”? For “petros”, the answer is simple: it was Peter’s name. The Gospel of Matthew is deemed to have been written no earlier than AD 50, in which case he had had that name for twenty years. This passage describes the provenance of the name. For the second term, i.e., “petra”, the answer is more complex. If Jesus actually used the Aramaic generic “kephas”, then “lithos” would have been a better translation. For a reference to a place upon which to build, “pagos” would have been a better choice, because it would have echoed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Both of these nouns are masculine, which would have given them a closer association with “petros”. Instead, we have “petra”. At this point, the anti-Catholics say, “Ah-hah! So the Church was not built on Peter!” They are partly right, but thoroughly wrong. “petros” and “petra” share an obvious morphological connection, and a semantic one, too: they are both rocks, and they do have an overlap in meaning, i.e., a separated mass, or a boulder (as in Odyssey 9.243).
No scholar of literature can miss either the connection or the difference between those two terms. It fairly leaps from the page, demanding explanation. That explanation lies, I would suggest, in the reconciliation and harmonisation of two extreme positions. The “petra” is the mass whence the “petros” comes, which means that the “petros” shares in the fullness of the nature of the “petra”, in much the same way as the Son shares in the fullness of the nature of the Father. As the Fathers say, the Church was founded upon Peter. As Origen in particular says, it was not founded upon Peter alone. The reason for the different-yet-related terms, for using both “petros” and “petra”, is the Apostolic Succession. The Church was founded upon Peter and those who shared in the same nature with him.
Believe all the evidence: the Fathers and the scholars.
The point of interest is the fact that two words were used. The anti-Catholic reading of this is that it is ‘proof’ that the Church was not founded upon Peter. Because of this reading, many Catholics, when faced with the fact that there are two words there, immediately go upon the defensive and claim that the two words are one. I intend to show that neither of these readings is correct, and that, in fact, the Fathers and the Greek scholars are not opposed.
“petros” is a second-declension (a ‘declension’ is a grammatical grouping, constructed by the Greeks themselves, of nouns) masculine noun (although there are appearances of it as a feminine) which dates back to Homer, which is to say that it dates back to the earliest written Greek which we have. The root meaning is not a “pebble” as some anti-Catholics have said, but rather a separate piece of rock, from a pebble to a boulder. “petra” is a first-declension feminine noun, with a pedigree as long. The root meaning is a mass of rock, including cliffs, crags, and dwelling-places. Both nouns appear in a range of famous texts over a span of hundreds of years, which is how we can be sure that they were not forgotten by Jesus’ time: they were preserved down to his time by the very thing which has preserved them over the greater distance down to ours: the preservation of literature.
The question is this: why does Matthew 16:18 use “petros” and “petra”? For “petros”, the answer is simple: it was Peter’s name. The Gospel of Matthew is deemed to have been written no earlier than AD 50, in which case he had had that name for twenty years. This passage describes the provenance of the name. For the second term, i.e., “petra”, the answer is more complex. If Jesus actually used the Aramaic generic “kephas”, then “lithos” would have been a better translation. For a reference to a place upon which to build, “pagos” would have been a better choice, because it would have echoed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Both of these nouns are masculine, which would have given them a closer association with “petros”. Instead, we have “petra”. At this point, the anti-Catholics say, “Ah-hah! So the Church was not built on Peter!” They are partly right, but thoroughly wrong. “petros” and “petra” share an obvious morphological connection, and a semantic one, too: they are both rocks, and they do have an overlap in meaning, i.e., a separated mass, or a boulder (as in Odyssey 9.243).
No scholar of literature can miss either the connection or the difference between those two terms. It fairly leaps from the page, demanding explanation. That explanation lies, I would suggest, in the reconciliation and harmonisation of two extreme positions. The “petra” is the mass whence the “petros” comes, which means that the “petros” shares in the fullness of the nature of the “petra”, in much the same way as the Son shares in the fullness of the nature of the Father. As the Fathers say, the Church was founded upon Peter. As Origen in particular says, it was not founded upon Peter alone. The reason for the different-yet-related terms, for using both “petros” and “petra”, is the Apostolic Succession. The Church was founded upon Peter and those who shared in the same nature with him.
Believe all the evidence: the Fathers and the scholars.
- Status