- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
Quick reply WRT the ECF concerning Matt 16:18, specifically (and not just the primacy of Peter, of which there are way too many to post…):
AMBROSE:
"It is Peter himself that He says, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.” (Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 40,30) “Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.” (Expos. in Luc.)
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).
****HILARY OF POTIERS
****“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)
****BASIL THE GREAT
****"One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)
Tertullian
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).
**Pope Damasus I
**“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
**Jerome
**"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (*Against Jovinian *1:26 [A.D. 393]).
God Bless,
RyanL
AMBROSE:
"It is Peter himself that He says, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.” (Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 40,30) “Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.” (Expos. in Luc.)
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).
****HILARY OF POTIERS
****“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)
****BASIL THE GREAT
****"One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)
Tertullian
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).
**Pope Damasus I
**“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
**Jerome
**"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (*Against Jovinian *1:26 [A.D. 393]).
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RobNY
Guest
Dear Mystophilus,
Thanks for saying you’ll read the links I provided.
By the way, I was 2/3rds throught this post once, and I accidently navigated away from the page. If I sound irritated at any point during this post, that is the reason why.
I respect your reason for disagree with Huiou Theou’s posts, but some of the reasoning he gave in that topic was not on the disjunction argument.
Here are the arguments I found, well, if compelling is the wrong word, and yet I find interesting inadequate too… enticing. But I, admittedly don’t have knowledge of Greek or Latin as you do, so you’ll be able to answer and critique what he has posted far better than I can.
Here is one of his posts:
Now, I don’t think we’ve been searching the masculine/feminine argument too much. Indeed. If we think that Christ would have called Peter “Kephas,” then perhaps petros is just a trick of gender. Personally, Petros could very well be an exception for the reason that it isn’t merely an object, but now also a name. That would seem to necessitate a gender change to masculine, at least for a man. I see this whole argument with its minutae fascinating, but I can’t help but think that it might be making a small problem out to be far, far more than it is. Indeed, the gender argument would be a simple, common-sense explanation that doesn’t involve gymnastics to justify.
Furthermore, I think we have to give at least some credence to that great democracy of the dead that have voted for Peter as the Rock. If so many fathers, and so many Christians indeed have interpreted it this way for so long, then maybe their interpretation has something that ours lacks. I’m not saying you should accept it blindly (and you obviously don’t), just that we should respect the conclusions made by may pious and learned fathers.
The other problem is this: does Petros always indicate a certain thing, and does petra always indicate a certain thing. Unless the usage of these words is absolute then we can’t invalidate the argument based on them.
R
RobNY
Guest
He notes:
Your BS detector is undoubtedly tuned far more precisely than mine, but I can’t say I detect any sleight of hand in this particular post. Naturally, your knowledge of greek will help you to do far more with this than I can.
Anyway, perhaps this post is the most crucial:
Again, that greek could say, “Let’s go get ice cream from Homer’s shop,” and I wouldn’t know. Perhaps I am being hoodwinked.
First a note: he claims in a subsequent post to have part of the book cite wrong, and corrects it, here.
Your BS detector is undoubtedly tuned far more precisely than mine, but I can’t say I detect any sleight of hand in this particular post. Naturally, your knowledge of greek will help you to do far more with this than I can.
Anyway, perhaps this post is the most crucial:
If the ranges of petra and petros-- even if we determine they are different words, are sufficiently broad, then the idea that they have to refer to different things becomes unnecessary. Futhermore, I think it lends more credence to the change for reason of his name being masculine, than rather for different meaning.
Again, that greek could say, “Let’s go get ice cream from Homer’s shop,” and I wouldn’t know. Perhaps I am being hoodwinked.
R
RobNY
Guest
Anyway, I wanted to analyze the text for perhaps a different meaning, or a clarification of what we are talking about. Matt 16: 16-19
I think it points to something special about Peter’s role. Personally, I think it meshes very well with the idea of infallibility. If “this rock” refers to his confession, then I think there is good reason to assume a double meaning intended also by the name change, so it is Peter and his confession. And when Jesus says “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” it meshes very well with the idea of the rock as an unshakable foundation, which I’ve already discussed, and perhaps which would be more discussed if the very context of the quote wasn’t so clear about “the gates of hell” not prevailing. And then the fact that Jesus invests Peter with the “keys to the Kingdom of heaven” (as we’ve discussed a very powerful authority symbol), and the power to bind and loose shows how much more that Jesus’ statement applies to Peter, not merely his confession.
What I had been trying to say sounded so much better in my mind. Bear with my muddled thoughts.
Whatever it is, I’m sure there’s defintely more going on here than a simple linguistic analysis. I think that sort of thing is very interesting, but don’t put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Ok, now, out of context, the essential sentence:
First of all, let’s float the idea that “this rock” refers to Christ. Well, certainly not as the primary meaning, possibly as a secondary meaning. I do personally think Chirst is also ‘the rock,’ but I think that these interpretations are complementary. Anyway, let’s take a look at Matt 7: 24-25:
I sort of like this quote, because this “rock” is an unshakable foundation. In this case, this rock is the Word of God. So, we can get the idea that whatever “this rock” is in Matt 16, since the Church will be built on it, it is an unshakable foundation. But why would the foundation be unshakable? The passage isn’t referring primarily to Christ-- who we would all agree is an unshakable foundation of the Church-- but to Peter or Peter’s confession (or both). But it doesn’t make sense either to say simply that faith in Christ is an unshakable foundation that can work for anyone, because people fall away from faith, or that Peter simply as a man would be unshakable, because men are very shakable.
I think it points to something special about Peter’s role. Personally, I think it meshes very well with the idea of infallibility. If “this rock” refers to his confession, then I think there is good reason to assume a double meaning intended also by the name change, so it is Peter and his confession. And when Jesus says “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” it meshes very well with the idea of the rock as an unshakable foundation, which I’ve already discussed, and perhaps which would be more discussed if the very context of the quote wasn’t so clear about “the gates of hell” not prevailing. And then the fact that Jesus invests Peter with the “keys to the Kingdom of heaven” (as we’ve discussed a very powerful authority symbol), and the power to bind and loose shows how much more that Jesus’ statement applies to Peter, not merely his confession.
What I had been trying to say sounded so much better in my mind. Bear with my muddled thoughts.
Whatever it is, I’m sure there’s defintely more going on here than a simple linguistic analysis. I think that sort of thing is very interesting, but don’t put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I did, and am not quite sure what you wanted me to see; there is the comment about Abraham and Peter having been called ‘Rock’, but you have already mentioned that. It is a image used for many things in the OT.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
So what we have is several of the Fathers reading the second word as referring to Peter, despite the difference in the Greek. This certainly explains the persistent Catholic desire to read it that way.
Given the evidence, and particularly drawing upon Origen’s, John Chrysostom’s, and Cyril of Jerusalem’s (see 25: “Jesus said to Peter”), I would yet back the reading of the text as support for the Apostolic Succession. I suspect that, in continuing to look, I shall find yet more comments which place the Foundation not on Peter specifically as well as more that place it on him alone.
Peter, as first among equals, can be counted as the Foundation without violating the Greek, provided that the reading is not exclusive. I.e., the Apostles are the Foundation (petra); Peter, as the first of the Apostles, can stand for (petros) the rest as the Foundation by himself, and these two things are simultaneously true.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
My apologies; this has already been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but it has been becoming rather involved. First of all, with all due respect to the noble Huiou Theou, the argument there becomes hung up over the disjunction idea that “Petra means large immovable mass of rock, while Petros means a little stone”. As pointed out therein, this idea is false, because it is an oversimplification, which Huiou Theou explodes. However, the oversimplification lies in the “immovable” aspect of ‘petra’ and the “little” aspect of ‘petros’, and that is what is subsequently exploded. The root meaning of ‘petra’ is ‘mass’, immovable or not. The root meaning of ‘petros’ is ‘separate’, little or not. The quote from Odyssey 9.243 shows the overlap,which is a separate mass: the boulder with which the cyclopean giant Polyphemus closes the cave.
Other points already mentioned include the gender issue: petros is sometimes feminine.
However, and most importantly, ‘petros’ is not the issue. That was already Peter’s name. The peculiarity of the passage is the choice of ‘petra’ rather than a solely masculine noun such as 'pagos, which, with a root meaning of “that which is firmly set”, outclasses “petra” as a foundation, not least because of the Areopagos. “petros…pagos” would have had Peter as the sole foundation in an echo of the Temple Mount itself. The writer chose not to do this.
I agree. The Fathers are not wrong. However, they use non-exclusive readings, as you yourself noted. Their reading is neither incorrect nor the only possible one (see “Peter:Apostles as petros
etra”).Words are never absolute, and the thing which they indicate is never absolutely certain, as Ferdinand de Saussure so elegantly demonstrated.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
See response to previous post, re ‘overlap’. A woman can be a ‘jade’ (although it is not a nice thing to say), a horse can be a ‘jade’, and a piece of stone can be a ‘jade’. This does not mean that woman=horse=stone.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
This is a good reading of the text, not least because it is non-exclusive (“or both”). It is on this basis that I would say that I think that it does say what you have described, and more.
I.e., Peter as archetype, to which I would add “and prototype, too.”
I could not agree more, and I must say that I think that you should post your own thoughts more often, and those of others less often: your own are more interesting than many and more intelligent than most.
B
Bishopite
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?
You mean no written record, but so what? We don’t have a written record of who actually wrote the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) nor we most certainly don’t know who wrote the book of Hebrews. Yet history proves that their WAS and IS an authoritative Church that not only claims its antiquity and inception from Christ Jesus, but proves it! That authoritative Church is the same one who recognized those inspired books to which the author is unknown and all of the other books of holy Scripture that were disputed for centuries.
Most certainly one could also deduce that if this Church was from Christ and spoke for Him and He spoke through it, then we could conclude that it (at times) can say with the validity of Gods voice, what Scripture actually and specifically means. Hence we have the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church proclaiming that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church.
And what would be the alternative of not following this Church? We could argue and debate until the cows come home as to what the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew actually says, e.g. the word for brother in Greek Adelphos (which literally means kinsman) yet the word “brother” was used in a variety of ways from literal uteran brother to step brother and christian brother.
In fact St. Jerome mad this perfectly clear in the 4th century against Helvidius. This is very much worth reading at:
http:www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm from Jimmy Akins website at www.jimmyakin.com
St. Jerome only proves what Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox fail to see; that without a final arbiter, one who can give us that final voice to what is and isn’t Gods truth, we will argue and debate to no avail. That’s why sola scriptura is untenable, and a blue print for anarchy.
christi simus non nostri
rc
You mean no written record, but so what? We don’t have a written record of who actually wrote the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) nor we most certainly don’t know who wrote the book of Hebrews. Yet history proves that their WAS and IS an authoritative Church that not only claims its antiquity and inception from Christ Jesus, but proves it! That authoritative Church is the same one who recognized those inspired books to which the author is unknown and all of the other books of holy Scripture that were disputed for centuries.
Most certainly one could also deduce that if this Church was from Christ and spoke for Him and He spoke through it, then we could conclude that it (at times) can say with the validity of Gods voice, what Scripture actually and specifically means. Hence we have the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church proclaiming that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church.
And what would be the alternative of not following this Church? We could argue and debate until the cows come home as to what the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew actually says, e.g. the word for brother in Greek Adelphos (which literally means kinsman) yet the word “brother” was used in a variety of ways from literal uteran brother to step brother and christian brother.
In fact St. Jerome mad this perfectly clear in the 4th century against Helvidius. This is very much worth reading at:
http:www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm from Jimmy Akins website at www.jimmyakin.com
St. Jerome only proves what Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox fail to see; that without a final arbiter, one who can give us that final voice to what is and isn’t Gods truth, we will argue and debate to no avail. That’s why sola scriptura is untenable, and a blue print for anarchy.
christi simus non nostri
rc
R
RyanL
Guest
We can be reasonably certain of it, as I said, from the lack of distinction in the word ‘kepha’. It means neither “small” nor “big” nor “piece” of rock. It simply means “rock”.
First, Aramaic is no more Hebrew than German is English. They share the same common root, but they are most definitely not the same. Second, there are words in Aramaic that can mean “huge rock”, but we can be reasonably certain that this distinction was not made by the choice of ‘petra’ in Greek. If a distinction were desired, the following words could have been used rather than ‘petra’:
megalopetros - on the mighty rock
pagos - I. crag, rock, spilades te pagoi te Od.5.405 ; p. oxees ib.411: generally, rocky hill, Hes.Sc.439, Pi.O.10(11).49, I.2.33; chloeros hulôdês p. S.Ichn.215
spilos - A. rock, cliff
The fact remains that none of these words were chosen, and so the distinction is not made.
A couple of items here:
1. Should ‘kepha’ have been translated ‘lithos’?
Possibly. The fact remains that it wasn’t, so that’s what we have to work with.
2. Is ‘petra’ not generic?
I have seen no evidence thus far to support ‘petra’ having only one meaning. LSJ (who does not differentiate between Attic and Koine Greek) aside, you have presented no evidence that petra held only one meaning in the time of St. Matthew’s writings.
3. Is ‘lithos’ actually generic?
I would assert that the usage of ‘lithos’ for ‘stones’ throughout the NT would argue more heavily for ‘lithos’ meaning ‘stone’ rather than ‘anything that happens to be comprised of rock’.
4. Should ‘pagos’ have been used rather than ‘petra’?
This is the same question I have asked you above.
I have provided many more commentaries from ECF on this passage.
Again, you have not addressed the fact that Slater, another “combined scholarship” work does not make this distinction, nor do the Protestant scholars I have cited, nor do any Catholic scholars of which I’m aware, nor do any of the Bible Scholars from the first several centuries (where they were much closer to the spoken language). You have stated that there is constant revision of the LSJ, and this obviously means that they aren’t infallible (so quit treating it like it is). You also haven’t addressed the fact that the LSJ does not distinguish between Attic Greek and Koine Greek. This is similar to not distinguishing between Olde Aenglish and modern English - sure, a number of words are the same and the grammatical construct is the same, but if you don’t distinguish you’re making a big mistake. The LSJ is primarily aimed at translating Attic Greek (like Homer, et al), and not at Koine. There is a distinction, and I would like to see you acknowledge that fact.
R
RyanL
Guest
You have missed the point of the quote. The question is, less elequently, “explain why petros is never used in the OT or NT WRT fragmentary rocks, when rocks of all kinds, shapes, and sizes are mentioned.” You have never done this.
Again, already addressed.
…um…No it wasn’t. You have yet to address John 1:42, where it is clear that Simon’s “re-naming” was ‘Kepha’ (translated subsequently as ‘Petros’ or ‘Peter’). Now that we’re straight on Simon’s name actually being the transliterated ‘Cephas’ (and not ‘petros’) as given to him by Christ, we can turn to the question of why not use Cephas in Matt 16:18? Let’s try re-writing it:
“You are Cephas, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Doesn’t quite draw the parallel, does it?
“You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” There’s the parallel. Unfortunately, Greeks don’t speak Aramaic. How else could we write it?
“You are Lithos, and upon this pagos I will build my Church.” Hmmph. Contrast again, and no parallel whatsoever; Christ made a parallel…how can I preserve it? How about
“You are petra, and upon this petra I will build my Church.”
Good, but now Cephas is feminine.
“You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.”
“Is anyone else using ‘Petros’? No? Hasn’t been used in a few hundred years? Ok, good, I’ll use that.”
Nope. What we have is several ECF acknowledging that there IS no difference in Koine Greek. Ask yourself, who is more reliable? People who spoke the language or “modern scholarship”? And yes, this explains the persistent Catholic reading of the passage.
I am not now, nor have I ever argued for an “exclusive” reading of Matt 16:18. The Catholic Church does not argue for an “exclusive” reading of Matt 16:18. See the following CCC references:
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 424
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 881
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 552
I am arguing that there is no inherent distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’. Again, you have brought nothing to the table regarding Koine Greek to refute this. Conversely, I have argued several circumstantial points (for lack of Koine text) that show there is no distinction.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
I wanted you to see that there is theological proof that Peter is the Rock, as well as the arguments in this thread.
God Bless,
RyanL
B
Bishopite
Guest
I am arguing that there is no inherent distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’. Again, you have brought nothing to the table regarding Koine Greek to refute this. Conversely, I have argued several circumstantial points (for lack of Koine text) that show there is no distinction.
God Bless,
RyanL
Exactly Ryan. Most Evangelicals when they hear the Catholic Church’s view of Peter being the Rock will argue against that point and aruge that Mt 16:18 is talking about only Peters faith. But the Catholic Church ISN’T saying there is only one interpretation of Mt 16:15-19 but there is ONE PRIMARY interpretation (that Peter is the Rock) and that there are also secondary (Peters faith) and quite possibly tertiary meaning, but that the PRIMARY meaning is Peter is the ROCK.
Many Evangelicals/Fundamentalists also mistakenly think that each word in the Greek language has just one meaning but that’s not true at all. They often say “we need to look to what the Greek says.” Well, that’s problematic since the Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic isn’t always clear and that’s why Evangelical scholars argue as to what the Greek says very often.
I would argue that the Aramaic is clear here and that Jesus spoke Aramaic (which he did to his apostles too).
rc
God Bless,
RyanL
Exactly Ryan. Most Evangelicals when they hear the Catholic Church’s view of Peter being the Rock will argue against that point and aruge that Mt 16:18 is talking about only Peters faith. But the Catholic Church ISN’T saying there is only one interpretation of Mt 16:15-19 but there is ONE PRIMARY interpretation (that Peter is the Rock) and that there are also secondary (Peters faith) and quite possibly tertiary meaning, but that the PRIMARY meaning is Peter is the ROCK.
Many Evangelicals/Fundamentalists also mistakenly think that each word in the Greek language has just one meaning but that’s not true at all. They often say “we need to look to what the Greek says.” Well, that’s problematic since the Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic isn’t always clear and that’s why Evangelical scholars argue as to what the Greek says very often.
I would argue that the Aramaic is clear here and that Jesus spoke Aramaic (which he did to his apostles too).
rc
R
RobNY
Guest
No, indeed, my apologies, for I did not realize you meant *that *was the disjunction argument.
But, would this invalidate the idea that Petros was chosen as a masculine companion to the greek *petra? *Let us assume that the writer of Matthew was not a native Greek speaker, i.e., his primary language was Hebrew or Aramaic… if this is the case, can we expect him to have read the Odyssey and to know the little wrinkles in the usage of the word? Or, is it more likely that he tried to parallel the sound of petra/petros, and didn’t necessarily think of another word?
It was the changed name of Peter, right? Christ could have intended Peter as the rock since before time, so the change alone can still be important, even if it wasn’t an immediate change. Futhermore, the juxtaposition of “Simon bar Jona” and “Peter” argue strongly for the contrast between the names… it seems to say to me*… yes your birth name is Simon… but I say you are Rock*, as to emphasize the role of Peter’s rockiness so that when we hear the words on this rock we think immediately of Peter, even though in the strictest grammatical sense it refers to the confession. Hence, using the parallel in word sound to draw us to extra or important meaning. Hence the dual interpretation.
But perhaps Peter isn’t the sole foundation. After all, it is Christ’s Church, and in the truest sense Christ is the sole foundation. Peter was the foundation of the Church, but not on his power, on Christ’s (hence pagos would be misleading… imagine the heresies that might have cropped up from people claiming Peter ruled the Church of his own power!). Futhermore, have you ever thought of the idea that Petros could be chosen either for a parallel of the sound to petra, to connect the sound and thus connect the two, perhaps because it did just that in an intelligent, but perhaps not quite as well-read 1. intended audience, or 2. in the author himself. This of course, is a novel thought… but once again, it maintains simplicity and avoids too much hoop jumping. The most elegant proof is usually the simplest one-- that isn’t to falsely omit complicated answers… just to continually ask ourselves am I complicating this unnecessarily. I know because I do stuff like that all the time.
Indeed. I don’t think any of the Fathers would have denied Peter as the foundation, though. Perhaps some of them did in hyperbole, i.e., perhaps Augustine while stressing Christ’s divinity might say, no Peter wasn’t, but Christ was, but overall they’d agree with Peter as the rock. (And indeed, Augustine did refer to Peter as the rock, the popes as the rock, etc… ad nauseum.)I agree. The Fathers are not wrong. However, they use non-exclusive readings, as you yourself noted. Their reading is neither incorrect nor the only possible one (see “Peter:Apostles as petros
Oh, I agree. Perhaps this is more reason not to knock ourselves out on the greek. Remember Christ said, “man can not live on linguistics alone.”
R
RobNY
Guest
Addendum:
And, on the issue of parallel language usage. Is it possible that a native speaker of a Semetic tongue would be more likely to try to find words that continue certain sounds? It had been my impression that the Semetic langauges use certain tricks with similar words to aid in memorization. Could this be connected? (Only the writer would be “thinking Semetically” in the Greek language.)
And, on the issue of parallel language usage. Is it possible that a native speaker of a Semetic tongue would be more likely to try to find words that continue certain sounds? It had been my impression that the Semetic langauges use certain tricks with similar words to aid in memorization. Could this be connected? (Only the writer would be “thinking Semetically” in the Greek language.)
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Arguments can continue endlessly, yes. Nonetheless, we can learn things during them, such as the fact that “adelphos” is a derivative of “delphus” (‘womb’): it literally means ‘[one] from the [same] womb’. The extended meanings include a huge range of associations, covering any peer relationship.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
You have never asked this before. Now that you have, I can no better explain it than I can the fact that cats are never mentioned in the text. I would not even begin to claim that this is even circumstantial evidence that the Israelites/Jews did not know what cats were, however.
Considering that the Greek name “petros” is used 162 times in the NT, that the transliteration “kephas” is only used 6 times (4 of them in one book: 1 Corinthians), and that Matthew never uses “kephas”, I do not think that we really need to worry too much about it. The Greek New Testament idiosyncratically prefers the Greek name: he was “Petros” more often than he was “Kephas”.
An interesting supposition, even if it does not have any evidence to support it and it is somewhat problematised by the fact that “petros” was used as a feminine noun (as noted in the LSJ entry) by Honestus Epigrammaticus in the century before Matthew was written.
Of course, this requires a leap to the wholly unsupported assumption that the word had not been used since Theodoridas used it, again as a feminine, in the C3rd BC.
While we are speculating, how about “petros… petros”? Well, no, he did not choose that, which is very strange, if “petros” and “petra” were identical in meaning. On the other hand, if “petros” was still just “petros”, then it is perfectly reasonable: you would not want to build your church on a boulder.
Can you actually find a comment by them saying that “petros”=“petra”, or are you reading that into the fact that they place the foundation on Peter?
You have yet to provide any actual data which would support the assertion that the denotations of two different forms coalesced into one indistinguishable mass while the two retained the redundant individuality of their forms. I see no need to refute something which has never been demonstrated and is unlikely considering the writer’s decision to use two terms at that point, rather than one.
As regards Koine Greek, if you go back to the OUP site, you will see that the LSJ does cover that period.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
RyanL said:
Perhaps you can be certain of this, my friend, but I cannot without actually seeing the available possibilities. I will have to look for that Aramaic dictionary.
The distinction is already there in the use of two different words with different morphology, gender and declension, even if you will not believe that the denotations were different.
Certainly, were a masculine noun required.
Which is not surprising, because I have never asserted that it did. As you can see from the LSJ, it has several, all clustered around a common root of a mass of stone.
I would suggest that dependence upon such a small sample of the language is hardly reliable.
Nonetheless, within that small sample, we have “lithos” being used for: stones to throw; millstones; the boulder which covered Jesus’ tomb; the boulder which covered Lazarus’ tomb; the blocks from which Herod’s enormous temple was built; the stones from which the very city of Jerusalem itself was built; the material from which idols were made; the material from which Moses’ Tablets were made; precious stones. That seems really quite generic to me.
If an exclusive connection between the first term, “petros”, and the second, then yes, definitely.
That would be the text which lists petra as ‘lofty rock’, ‘high-horned peak’, and the material into which Medusa’s victims turned, but lists petros as throwable stones, stones underfoot and tombstones?
None of your 17 Protestants, no. As for the Bible Scholars, the lack of exclusivity in their readings has already been demonstrated.
I do not believe that the LSJ is infallible; I do not believe that anything other than God is infallible. However, the LSJ is as reliable as any human endeavour into knowledge, being the constantly-monitored distillation of the results of thousands of studies by people with far better linguistic training than the Early Church Fathers.
The difference is much closer to that between Middle English and Modern English. A reader of Modern English can read Middle slowly, and, when sounding out the words, quite surely. Old English, on the other hand, is closer to Modern Icelandic, being 97% of Germanic origin, and sharing few words and very few grammatical constructions with Modern English, which is only 30% of Germanic origin.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934. p71)
- Status