Did petros exist as a word b4 Peter?

[Mystophilus]

All of the following mark a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. Wesley J Perschbacher. Hendrickson, Massachussetts, 1990.
A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Barclay M. Newman. United Bibles Societies, London, 1971.
W. J. Hickie, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. Macmillan, New York, 1907.
F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Revised by Frederick W. Danker. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1983.
James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1949.
G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1956.

Writers of Koine Greek, whose usage shows a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – AD 40)
Flavius Josephus (AD 37- c.100)

Writers of Koine Greek, whose have πετρος as feminine:

Honestus Epigrammaticus (fl. c. AD 14-37) (Anthologia Graeca 7.274)
Theodoridas (d. late C3rd BC) (ibid. 7.479)

All of the following Fathers read πετρα as separate to πετρος in Matthew 16:18:

Hermas (similitudines pastoris, 9.2.1, 9.12.1)
Eusebius Caesariensis (preparatio evangelica 1.3, et al.)
Modestus Hierosolymitanus (fragmentum homiliae in unguentiferas mulieres)
Hippolytus Theophanus (de theopania 9)
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis (commentarius in Canticum Canticorum)
Joannes V Hierosolymitanus (opusculum contra iconoclastas 16)
Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), et al.)
Basilius Caesariensis Cappadocie (liber in Spiritu sancto 31)
Gregorius Nazianzenus (orationes 26.9)
Procopius Gazaeus (comm. in Exodus 33:21)
John Chrysostom (Homily 54 on Matthew)

(I love university libraries!!)

 

[Mystophilus]

On the difference between Attic and Koine Greek:

“Classical Attic always remained the fundamental constituent of the Koine, and its position was strengthened under the Roman Empire by the classicism prevailing among the educated classes.” (Günther Zuntz, Greek: A Course in Classical and Post-Classical Greek Grammar from the Original Texts, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1994, vol II, pt. 3, p. 26).

The original staff of the LSJ, which marks a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:

Margaret Alford; T. W. Allen; H. Idris Bell of the British Museum; P. V. M. Benecke; T. Bruce; Ronald Burn; F. H. Colson; Christopher Cookson; G. M. Cookson; Prof. G. R. Driver of Magdalen College; Prof. R. L. Dunbabin; J. M. Edmonds; Rev. W. Evans; Lt.-Col. A. S. L. Farquharson; C. E. Freeman; Prof. E. S. Forster of Sheffield University; Professor W. A. Goligher; Herbert W. Greene; F. W. Hall; Ernest Harrison; J. H. A. Hart; Sir Thomas Heath; A. E. Housman; W. W. How; E. T. D. Jenkins; Pfarrer P. Katz of Coblenz; Prof. K. Latte of Hamburg; Henry George Liddell; Rev. A. Llewellyn Davies; Edgar Lobel; Prof. W. L. Lorimer; Roderick McKenzie; Prof. A. H. McNeile; Prof. Paul Maas of Königsberg; Prof. A. W. Mair; G. Middleton; Prof. J. F. Mountford of Liverpool University; A. C. Pearson; Prof. R. Pfeiffer of Munich; Maurice Platnauer; Prof. J. A. Platt; J. U. Powell; Sir David Ross; Prof. W. Schmid of Tübingen; Robert Scott; M. T. Smiley; J. A. Smith; A. H. Smith; Prof. A. Souter; J. L. Stocks; Prof. A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh; Sir William T. Thiselton-Dyer; Sir D’Arcy Thompson; M. N. Tod; G. E. Underhill; Prof. Ulrich Wilcken; E. T. Withington.

Obviously, the list is longer now, after eighty years of use, review and supplementation.

On the Koine Greek within the LSJ:

“For the New Testament the intensive study of theologians has done great things in recent times, and the results of their labours are readily accessible; for the ordinary purposes of revision such Lexica as those of Ebeling and Zorell are generally sufficient; while for the illustration of Biblical usage from Hellenistic and later Greek we have a most valuable aid in Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament which (within its natural limits) may almost be regarded as a Lexicon of the koinê as a whole. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Professor Milligan for supplying advance proofs of the Vocabulary, the fifth part of which has just been published. Prof. A. H. McNeile and the Rev. A. Llewellyn Davies have advised me in matters relating to the LXX, Hexapla, etc.” (Sir Henry Stuart Jones, Preface 1925 to the LSJ).

 

[RyanL]

Writers of Koine Greek, whose usage shows a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – AD 40)
Flavius Josephus (AD 37- c.100)

It’s fairly difficult for me to verify your claims when you don’t provide a source. Here’s the best I could come up with from **Josephus:

** in Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, petros (or, rather, a form of the word) is translated as “large stone.” book 7, section 142 in the greek translation reads:

tou de basileôs akousantos para tôn angelôn tauta kai dusphorountos phaskontos hamartein autous tôi teichei prosbalontas, deon huponomois kai mêchanêmasin helein peirasthai tên polin, kai taut’ echontas paradeigma ton Gedeônos huion Abimelechon, hos epei ton en Thêbais purgon helein ebouleto biai, blêtheis hupo presbutidos petrôi katepese kai andreiotatos ôn dia to duscheres tês epibolês aischrôs apethanen:

book 7, section 142 in the english translation reads:

When the king had heard this of the messengers, he took it heinously, and said that they did wrong when they assaulted the wall, whereas they ought, by undermining and other stratagems of war, to endeavor the taking of rite city, especially when they had before their eyes the example of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who would needs take the tower in Thebes by force, and was killed by a large stone thrown at him by an old woman; and although he was a man of great prowess, he died ignominiously by the dangerous manner of his assault:

in The War of the Jews, also by Josephus, petra is translated as “stone.” book 5, section 272 in the greek translation reads:

skopoi oun autois epi tôn purgôn kathezomenoi proemênuon, hopote schastheiê to organon kai hê petra pheroito, têi patriôi glôssêi boôntes “ho huios erchetai.” diistanto de kath’ hous êiei kai prokateklinonto, kai sunebaine phulattomenôn aprakton diekpiptein tên petran.

book 5, section 272 in the english translation reads:

accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE STONE COMETH 1 so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.

Thus, we have the words petros and petra translated relatively the same way in works from the first century. this would appear to substantiate the claim of both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars that by the time the gospels were written, these two greek words failed to have a substantial difference in meaning.

Unfortunately, without the source by which you have come to the conclusion that Philo used *petros / petra *in distinctly different ways, I cannot verify what you have said.

More to follow.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

All of the following mark a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. Wesley J Perschbacher. Hendrickson, Massachussetts, 1990…

All of the following do not mark a distinct difference between πετρα and πετρος:
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) –

      "Although it is true that *petros* and *petra* can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably *kepha* was used in           both clauses ('you are *kepha*' and 'on this *kepha*'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between *petros* and *petra* simply because it           is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine *petra*           could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, ***The           Expositor's Bible Commentary*** [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page           368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

      R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --

                "The name *Peter* means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose *keys* symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the *kingdom of heaven*           (to *bind* and to *loose* have this meaning in rabbinic           writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for           'rock' (*petra*) differs from the name *Petros*, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term *kefa*           would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact           that *petra*, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above." (France, ***New Bible Commentary*** with           consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press,           1994], page 925, 926)

 

[RyanL]

     Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard ***Theological         Dictionary of the New Testament ***--

                "The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as           well suggests a material identity between *petra* and *petros*, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between *petra* and *petros*:           *petra* = *Kepha* = *petros*....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His *ecclesia*. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (*petros, petra*) trans. and ed. by           Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ***Theological Dictionary of the New           Testament*** [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107,           108)

              Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) --

                "It is well known that the Greek word (*petra*) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from *petros* ('Peter') to           *petra* is that *petra* was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called *petra* but *petros*.           The word *petros* was not an exact synonym of *petra*; it           literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word *petra* when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from *petros*           to *petra* to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock *petra*]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." (Ridderbos, ***Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew***           [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page           35-36)

              Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) --

      "Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the           appropriateness of Simon's nickname 'Peter' (*Petros*=rock). This           is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42           [wherein he is called *Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (*Petros*)           and the word 'rock' (*petra*) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." (Blomberg, ***The New American Commentary:           Matthew*** [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in           Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)

 

[RyanL]

     William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from ***The Anchor Bible ***series)         --

      "Rock (Aram. *Kepha*). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. *Peter as Rock* will be           the foundation of the future community (cf. *I will build*). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see *this rock *as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, ***The Anchor           Bible: Matthew ***[Doubleday, 1971], page 195)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) –

“‘You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)…Protestants…have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)…But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’…the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’… Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21…Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)…” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) –

“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) –

“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) –

“…in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old…The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death…They are God’s people, the church…as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization…This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

 

[RyanL]

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ) –

“16:18**, Peter as Rock. **Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) –

“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church…Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)…the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God…there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church…For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) – McCarthy, when he sadly left the Catholic Church became part of a Protestant “Brethren” sect –

“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view…” (Gardner, ***Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew ***[Herald Press, 1991], 247)

Additionally, the LSJ may be a combined work, but in that you have to understand the following:

1. It draws NO DISTINCTION ANYWHERE between Attic and Koine Greek. NONE. AT ALL. EVER. Unless the two languages are identical (which they are not), this method will introduce errors. As the LSJ is primarily aimed at translating ancient Greek, it is understandable that they would default to Attic Greek.
2. There is no evidence that any more than one of the “scholars” ever looked into the Attic / Koine distinction about petros/petra. When you have a large work of that magnitude, not everyone will pour over every word. Typically, sections are assigned. Additionally, voices of dissent are never heard; all you are left with is the final output. I have cited works that are one/two scholar works, and so it is clear that the authors agree that there is no distinction.

More to follow.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Mystophilus:

All of the following Fathers read πετρα as separate to πετρος in Matthew 16:18:

Hermas (similitudines pastoris, 9.2.1, 9.12.1)
Eusebius Caesariensis (preparatio evangelica 1.3, et al.)
Modestus Hierosolymitanus (fragmentum homiliae in unguentiferas mulieres)
Hippolytus Theophanus (de theopania 9)
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis (commentarius in Canticum Canticorum)
Joannes V Hierosolymitanus (opusculum contra iconoclastas 16)
Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), et al.)
Basilius Caesariensis Cappadocie (liber in Spiritu sancto 31)
Gregorius Nazianzenus (orationes 26.9)
Procopius Gazaeus (comm. in Exodus 33:21)
John Chrysostom (Homily 54 on Matthew)

(I love university libraries!!)

Then you should love actually reading what you post. I have already shown that the “separate” idea is not as solid as you would have me believe, specifically regarding John Chrysostom and Origen. As for the others, I don’t have time to track down their writings (as some of them are very hard to find - which makes me think *you *haven’t read them), so I will reply on the few whose writings I could find:
Eusebius of Caesarea

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eastern Fathers… (and lots of them!)

If you would, please, post what those you have cited actually said that makes you think there is a definite distinction. As you have said to me so many times before (paraphrase), show me that they thought there was a distinction in the context of that passage. I have shown that the ECF did not draw a distinction. You have only made allegations. Bring evidence.

Additionally, we have yet to breach the subject that most scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, as we learn from early Christian writers such as Papias in the 2nd century and Eusebius in the 4th century, and then was translated into Greek. I think this would probably bear fruitful exploration, but for now we can continue on as we have.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
You still haven’t addressed the lack of ‘petros’ in the NT or OT when rocks of all shapes, sizes, and kinds are discussed. Would you please? This makes the fourth time I have asked.

 

[RyanL]

On the difference between Attic and Koine Greek:

“Classical Attic always remained the fundamental constituent of the Koine, and its position was strengthened under the Roman Empire by the classicism prevailing among the educated classes.” (Günther Zuntz, Greek: A Course in Classical and Post-Classical Greek Grammar from the Original Texts, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1994, vol II, pt. 3, p. 26).

If you are using the above quote to show that Attic and Koine Greek are the same, this is disingenuous.

source
Changes in vocabulary are of course too numerous to list here. Generally, it may be said that there are many shifts in the meaning of words and in the frequency of their usage. Some examples that Gingrich gives are as follows. Kalw~j nearly replaces eu], e1sxatoj has taken over teleutai=oj and u3statoj, pro/baton replaces oi]j, and afi/hmi overshadows e9a/w. A dramatic example of a word that shifts meanings is ba/sanoj, which shifts from “touchstone,” to “test,” to “torture,” to “disease.” We notice other important shifts. The cardinal numeral ei[j loses some of its numeric force and become equivalent to the indefinite pronoun tij in many cases. Also, i1dioj is used as a possessive pronoun. e9autw~n is substituted for the Classical first and second person plural reflexive pronouns. Robertson points out that Koinê is not adverse to useful foreign words.

There is quite a bit of difference with reference to accidence. The Ionic substantive form -rhj takes precedence over the Attic form -raj. Possessive adjectives, which Classical Greek used for the emphatic possessive genitive of the personal pronoun, have to a great extent disappeared in Koinê and have been replaced by the personal pronoun in the genitive. The system used to express degrees of comparison in adjectives has been simplified, since superlative forms have mostly disappeared (comparative forms being used in their place) and what vestigial superlatives remain are used mostly in the elative sense.

It is with respect to the verb that most change in accidence has occurred. First, there are no dual forms in Koinê. Secondly, the future tense has retreated. That is, alternative forms are eliminated in that tense; the (non-periphrastic) future perfect is mostly eliminated; the simple perfect is limited mostly to the indicative mood; and the future participle is becoming disused. However, the future indicative is taking on some of the functions of the aorist subjunctive. Thirdly, the optative has a very limited use (which will be discussed later). Fourthly, verbal adjectives in -te/oj are lacking (the only NT example is in Luke 5:38), and those in -to/j have been crystallized into a set group. Fifthly, periphrastic construction is on the increase. Sixthly, the pluperfect in Koinê no longer requires the augment, and the tense sign becomes -kei- instead of -ke-. Lastly, the passive is beginning to gain the ascendancy over the middle voice. Most of these trends can be seen to have carried on into Modern Greek.

 In the Septuagint, the verbal ending -san is used with thematic aorists and imperfects; e.g., -ei1dosan, -ela/bosan, and -h1lqosan. Aorist verbs in -a occur more frequently in Koinê; e.g., h]qan.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mystophilus]

RyanL:

If you are using the above quote to show that Attic and Koine Greek are the same, this is disingenuous.

I am using it only to show what it is: that Attic and Koine are not identical, but that they are similar, sharing the majority of their vocabulary and grammar.

 

[Mystophilus]

RyanL:

I have already shown that the “separate” idea is not as solid as you would have me believe, specifically regarding John Chrysostom and Origen.

As already mentioned, these people used multiple readings. I would not have you think that they thought that the “separate” idea was their only reading; I would merely have you understand that they did read it that way, and, therefore, were not opposed to that reading.

If you would, please, post what those you have cited actually said that makes you think there is a definite distinction.

Certainly. However, it will take some time, I am afraid. I cannot go into the university every day, which is why it was so long before I could post those ones.

Additionally, we have yet to breach the subject that most scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, as we learn from early Christian writers such as Papias in the 2nd century and Eusebius in the 4th century, and then was translated into Greek. I think this would probably bear fruitful exploration, but for now we can continue on as we have.

“most”? Really? You have conducted the survey this time?

“A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?”

You still haven’t addressed the lack of ‘petros’ in the NT or OT when rocks of all shapes, sizes, and kinds are discussed.

I have addressed this: “lithos” is the generic, and so could be used for “rocks of all shapes, sizes and kinds”. In the same way, I could use the generic “food” instead of “bread”, “meat”, “breakfast” or “sustenance”. The use of more-specific vocabulary has significant artistic advantages, but those are not always pursued in any text. However, identifying why a given writer did anything is difficult, and identifying why a given writer did not do something is well-nigh impossible.****

 

[Mystophilus]

Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus
book 7, section 142 (“petros”: “a large stone thrown by an old woman”)… book 5, section 272 (“petra”: “a stone hurled by a siege engine”)… Thus, we have the words petros and petra translated relatively the same way in works from the first century. this would appear to substantiate the claim of both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars that by the time the gospels were written, these two greek words failed to have a substantial difference in meaning.

Why do you assume that a stone thrown by an old woman is equivalent to a stone hurled by a siege engine?? How does one such example substantiate anything???

Unless, of course, the old woman is SuperGran, I find it hard to understand why you would claim anything of the kind. In *De Bello Judaico, *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 uses the words just as the LSJ presents them, and thus uses “petra” and “petros” for two separate sets of denotations: “petra” for mass, “petros” for separate. The usage of “petra” as a boulder has been discussed already, and referenced already from the LSJ, and dates from Homer (e.g., Odyssey 9.243).

Unfortunately, without the source by which you have come to the conclusion that Philo used *petros / petra *in distinctly different ways, I cannot verify what you have said.

Philo uses “petros” only in Legatio ad Gaium 237-8, in which he refers to people being petrified. Interetingly, he uses “petrous”, the accusative plural: rather than being turned ‘to stone’, the people were turned into ‘stones’. Thus, he uses “petros” for separate pieces, as per the LSJ, oddly enough.

He uses “petra” for rocks jutting from the sea (De Opificio Mundi 63; De Ebrietate 172), the rock whence God gives the Israelites water (Legum Allegariarum II 84, 86; De Somniis II 221-2; De Vita Mosis I 192, 210; De Decalogo 16), the rock whence God gives honey (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 115, 118), rock as archetypal for hardness (Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 26), and bedrock wherein gems are found (ibid., 66). In other words, he uses “petra” for bedrock, the mass of stone, as per the LSJ, oddly enough.

However, I would suggest that you should research this for yourself, rather than merely taking my word for it.

 

[Mystophilus]

Obviously, the listing of lexica which do or do not separate the two terms could continue for some time. For example, at the home of a friend today, I happened to see the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988). It happens to discriminate between the two terms also.

This friend’s name is Stephen W. Pattemore, and he is employed by the United Bible Societies as a translation consultant, i.e., he travels around, from country to country, analysing translations of the Bible and teaching the professional translators how to do it better. When I asked him about it, he said that it was quite clear that the two words are different, and said that any literature student should be able to see that the two words were morphologically distinct, which was the clearest possible signal that the writer was talking about two things, not one. Does he know what he is talking about? Perhaps; his expertise in understanding and translating the text is, after all, what the worldwide Bible-translating enterprise pays him for.

RyanL:

Additionally, the LSJ may be a combined work, but in that you have to understand the following:

1. It draws NO DISTINCTION ANYWHERE between Attic and Koine Greek. NONE. AT ALL. EVER. Unless the two languages are identical (which they are not), this method will introduce errors. As the LSJ is primarily aimed at translating ancient Greek, it is understandable that they would default to Attic Greek.

The problem with absolutist statements is that they are very easy to refute, even more so when they are based upon a fundamental misapprehension.

The fact that it never says, “This is Koine Greek,” is irrelevant. Dialect-specific inflections are noted when they are different, so that a student can see that one inflection in one dialect is the same as another inflection in another dialect. This is not deemed necessary for Koine.

As I hope you have noticed, the LSJ references denotations via Homeric, Attic and Koine texts. Thus, if a denotation appears in those times, it appears in the entry for the word, and its time period is shown by the text whence it came. When the LSJ references the Septuagint, or Philo, or Josephus, or the New Testament works, they are referencing that denotation to Koine Greek, and doing so in a verifiable fashion. This is how they draw the distinction, because it is the only demonstrable method: the text comes first.

There is no evidence that any more than one of the “scholars” ever looked into the Attic / Koine distinction about petros/petra. When you have a large work of that magnitude, not everyone will pore over every word. Typically, sections are assigned. Additionally, voices of dissent are never heard; all you are left with is the final output. I have cited works that are one/two scholar works, and so it is clear that the authors agree that there is no distinction.

I am afraid that you misunderstand the process of producing such a text. While different scholars are assigned to different lexis groups or lexical collections, oversight is always provided by editorial staff. For an academic work, the finished product is subsequently evaluated, reviewed and discussed by the worldwide community of scholars who work within that field. Any dissent is always heard: that is the purpose of academic scholarship. Sometimes, we hear little else!

 

[Psalm45_9]

threej_lc:

I’m not greek expert, but I’m going to have to say yes, it did. I mean, that’s the whole root of the Petros/Petra argument protestants have against this passage. Many many moons ago, long before even the time of Christ, petra meant “small pebble”, and petros was the regular word for stone or rock. But by the time the good JC came around, their usage had come to umean the same thing. Even still, that implies petros was a regular word.

Josh

It’s the other way around, “Petra” means rock, “Petros” can be interpreted stone. The Catholic defense is that at the time of Christ the two words were used as synonyms. Petra being an effeminate word and Petros being masculine. In the Greek translation of Matthew (some believe Matthew was written first in Aramaic) it would not be appropriate to call a man an effeminate name. It would be like calling a guy Michele instead of Michael.

In the New Testament Epistles, he is called Cephes instead of Peter.

 

[RyanL]

My friend,

This dialog seems to be bearing little fruit. I have provided sources saying that there is no distinction, and you have provided sources saying that there is. You have referenced a friend of yours as an expert, and I don’t doubt that he is; perhaps it is your contention that he is far more an expert than D. A. Carson. Carson is also paid for his work, which is published and relied on by numerous Protestant pastors, seminaries, and misc. bible scholars, and who also travels the world seeking better interpretation through other experts, and still maintains that there is no distinction in Koine Greek. While it may indeed be the case that your friend knows better, I think it would be a hard argument to make (and quite frankly I’m not that interested in making any such argument).

It also seems as though there is a misunderstanding about my position. If I haven’t acknowledged this before, please allow me to acknowledge this now so that we can move forward (I will quote Jimmy Akin, as he is a bit more eloquent than I):

[Petros and petra]
are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and * petra* is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. (Emphasis his, but I agree.)

As I have said, this dialog seems to be bearing little fruit. Perhaps we are too narrowly focused. Perhaps we should extend our search from the individual words to the context of tha passage. Again, I don’t think that there is only one possible interpretation, but rather that the passage is polyvalent with a hierchial primacy of Peter as the rock of which Christ spoke (just as the CCC and the ECF view the text).

So let us take a look at the text. Each of the you’s highlighted are singular yous, not plural yous.
Matt 16:17 Blessed are you Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you , you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’

The rules of grammar would seem to dictate that the phrase ‘this rock’ must relate to the closest noun. That happens to be Peter, the you in all four nouns immediately before. Therefore, ‘this rock’ could not be Peter’s profession of faith, which was in v. 16, and five nouns prior to ‘this rock’.

Similarly, if Jesus wanted to say that Peter was only representative of the apostles, he would have said, ‘you’ in the plural, making the distinction in the use of singular you and plural you. Jesus only used the singular.

Likewise, Christ also used the demonstrative pronoun taute (‘this very’) when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: ‘You are Peter, and on taute petra (this very rock) I will build My Church.’ Please correct me if I am wrong, but when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘kai’ (‘and’) the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, “You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,” the second rock He refers to *has *to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have gotten around it if He’d wanted to. He didn’t have to say ‘kai’ (‘and’) on this rock I will build My Church.’ He could’ve said, ‘alla’ (but) on this rock I will build My Church,’ meaning another rock. But He didn’t do that. Also, I think it would have been highly unusual to state that while referring to Peter directly seven times, Christ would refer to Himself indirectly in the midst of them with so little indication. Think about this: you, you, you, you, (me), you, you, you. As Christ was the most succinct speaker and greatest teacher to have ever lived, His inability to confer the distinction you desire to draw is striking.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

But let us look also to Matthew’s use of the word ‘lithos’. This word was not unknown to him. In Matthew 4:3 the devil tempts Jesus to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, into bread. And, as you have said, Matthew also uses lithos for the stone at Christ’s tomb. Clearly, ‘lithos’ is not unknown to him; and yet, Matthew does not translate ‘Kepha’ as lithos. Also, you have mentioned that ‘Cephas’ is only used 6 times in the NT, 4 of which in the Corinthian epistles. Let us think about that. Paul came way after the renaming, and yet he refers to Simon as ‘Cephas’. If ‘Petros’ was indeed Simon’s name, as you assert, why would Paul call him ‘Cephas’ years after the re-naming, and expect others to know to whom he was refering? Also, I would make the point that Christ is only called Immanuel once, but that is still sufficient for you to accept the title.

Finally, let us look to Isaiah 22 and Matt 16.

Isaiah 22:22
And the **key **of the *house of David *will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the **keys **of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt **bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt **loose **on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What does this have to do with Matt 16:18? Obviously, Christ was parallelling these passages. Is there anything in Isaiah 22 that would indicate that ‘this rock’ would refer primarily to Simon? Yes. What does Isaiah say about the man who gets the keys?

Isaiah 22:23
And I will fasten him as a nail in a **sure **place (Read: graft him in, secure, firm, not a ‘separate piece’)…he shall be for a glorious **throne **to his father’s house (Read: chair of Peter)

**Isaiah 22:21 **
… I will commit thy government into **his **hand (Read: you don’t do this to something ‘fragmentary, as that is building your house on sand’): and he shall be a ***father ***to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (BTW, pope means ‘papa’ or ‘father’)

History, tradition, and the scriptures are clear: Christ is the King, Rock, and Shepherd. History, tradition, and the scriptures are also clear: Peter is the rock. Peter is the shepherd. Peter holds the keys to Christ’s kingdom, empowered by Christ Himself to head the household of God on earth.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mystophilus]

“they were synonyms”

So far, we have had Early Church Fathers read them as if they are, and Early Church Fathers who read them as if they are not. We have had modern scholars and lexicographers who say that they are, and modern scholars and lexicographers who say that they are not. With such division amongst authorities, we belatedly turn to what should have been our source from the very beginning: the data, the texts themselves. The texts written in Koine (Theodoridas, Josephus, Philo, Honestus, the LXX and the Greek NT) use the two terms for two sets of denotations, but there is an overlap (boulders), as there was in earlier times.

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.

This dialog seems to be bearing little fruit.

Regarding the external readers of the text, yes, I agree. However, I am still learning a lot. That Hippolytus was a wild guy: a schismatic Bishop of Rome!

I don’t think that there is only one possible interpretation, but rather that the passage is polyvalent with a hierarchical primacy of Peter as the rock of which Christ spoke.

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. This explains both the similarity and the difference between the two terms (and is supported by the usage elsewhere in Koine texts) whereas the “synonym” argument explains only the similarity (and is not supported by the usage elsewhere in Koine texts and thus is sometimes claimed as a result of grammatical gender, which does not make sense considering Honestus’ and Theodoridas’ Koine). This is something which we are always trying to drum into our students: low-correlation readings are possible, but higher-correlation readings are preferable (from a literary-critical perspective, not a doctrinal one). Thus, even were contemporary support found for the “synonym” argument, it would still be less preferable from a critics’ standpoint.

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”.

RyanL:

The rules of grammar would seem to dictate that the phrase ‘this rock’ must relate to the closest noun.

“this rock” is a noun.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘kai’ (‘and’) the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, “You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,” the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one.

This is not actually true; you may be thinking too much in English. First, '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.”

(continued)

 

[Mystophilus]

If ‘Petros’ was indeed Simon’s name, as you assert, why would Paul call him ‘Cephas’ years after the re-naming, and expect others to know to whom he was refering?

If ‘kephas’ was indeed Simon’s name, why would Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Paul and Peter himself repeatedly (162 times!) call him ‘petros’ years after the re-naming, and expect others to know to whom they were refering? Only John (once) and Paul use “kephas”.

“kephas”, being the transliteration of a foreign word, was never likely to be as acceptable to Greek speakers as a legitimate Greek word (which, by the way, I did see as the name of another person in the C1st BC; I will find that reference again). This may be why the NT writers were so heavily in favour of “petros” for Simon.

However, in Galatians, which is generally regarded as the earliest of the epistles and possibly of the NT texts, a strange event occurs. Paul uses “petros” in 2:7 and 2:8 and the “kephas” in 2:9. I think that Paul may have been trying to explain Simon’s names to the Galatians. Different manuscripts use one or the other in 1:18, 2:11, and 2:14. Thus there may be 9 occurences of “kephas” in the NT (instead of 6), and so it may be outnumbered only 18:1 by “petros” (instead of 27:1).

History, tradition, and the scriptures are clear: Christ is the King, Rock, and Shepherd. History, tradition, and the scriptures are also clear: Peter is the rock. Peter is the shepherd. Peter holds the keys to Christ’s kingdom, empowered by Christ Himself to head the household of God on earth.

This is absolutely true. Yet he is not the only one. As you yourself noted, Abraham is also the Rock. Others are also shepherds (Eph 4:11). 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. I am not sure what this implies, but it is intriguing that Jesus, being as talented a speaker as you have mentioned, should have chosen it. Perhaps he wanted Peter not to rest on his laurels.

 

[Mystophilus]

“[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

On another note, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, and The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, ed.s A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (CUP 1965, 68), continually cites the LSJ for denotations of words in Koine texts.*

 

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

The great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by the Divine grace. And the Lord commanded **him **to apply that same care to the brethren. ‘And thou,’ He says, ‘converted, confirm thy brethren.’ (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Haeret. Fab. lib. v.c. 28)

‘For as I,’ He says, ‘did not despise thee when tossed, so be thou a support to thy brethren in trouble, and the help by which thou was saved do thou thyself impart to others, and exhort them not while they are tottering, but raise them up in their peril. For this reason I suffer thee also to slip, but do not permit thee to fall, thus through thee gaining steadfastness for those who are tossed.’ So **this great pillar **supported the tossing and sinking world, and permitted it not to fall entirely and gave it back stability, having been ordered to feed God’s sheep. (Theodoret, Oratio de Caritate in J. P. Minge, ed., Partrologiae Curses Completus: Series Graeca).

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to **the **Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

“[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

… 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…

********GREGORY NAZIANZEN (Saint and Doctor of the Church - BTW, Doctors of the Church tend to agree with Catholic readings of Scripture…that’s why the Church made them Doctors)

******** "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).

Neither does a man know, though he be the parent of an evil like unto Judas, whether his offspring shall become godlike Paul, or be unto Peter, - Peter who became the unbroken rock, and who had the keys delivered to him." (Oration 26, & Carm. 2 from Berington & Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:21**)

On another note, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams

, and The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, ed.s A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (CUP 1965, 68), continually cites the LSJ for denotations of words in Koine texts.

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

More to follow.

God Bless,
RyanL