Kepha not transliterated...why?

[LionHeart777]

But again, I’m not sure it works the other way around. I’ve never seen any reference to “petros” as being anything other than a “smallish” rock or stone. If you can find an actual, DOCUMENTED example of petros being used as a “large rock”, please let me know. I just havent found one.

aussie_stockman,

If I’m not mistaken, the semantic domain would cover a large rock (take a peak at the entry for the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicion you gave again.) But also, if it only approximates it then I can see how “Petros” would be used instead of “Petra” when naming a male a Greek name (even if we do accept your argument that Petra could have been given as a name.)

Here I am not focusing so much on how the words have been used in the extant texts, but rather on the semantic range (how they could be used legitimately.)

But here we are back to square one perhaps…

(edit): but then again does “Petros” even have to be translated “large rock” in the Text to support the Catholic interpretation? I think “Petros” = rock and “Petra” = rock suffices, but I may be wrong.

 

[LionHeart777]

Ok, I’m doing a little investigating. Here is the The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon entry for “Petros”:

πέτρος, ὁ (in later Poets ἡ, AP7.274 (Honest.), 479 (Theodorid.)), stone (distd. from πέτρα, q. v.); in Hom., used by warriors, λάζετο πέτρον μάρμαρον ὀκριόεντα Il.16.734; βαλὼν μυλοειδέϊ πέτρῳ 7.270, cf. 20.288, E.Andr.1128 (never in Od.); ἔδικε πέτρῳ Pi.O.10(11).72; ἄγαλμ’ Ἀΐδα ξεστὸν π. ἔμβαλον στέρνῳ Id.N.10.67; νιφάδι γογγύλων πέτρων A.Fr.199.7; ἐκ χερῶν πέτροισιν ἠράσσοντο Id.Pers.460; λευσθῆναι πέτροις S.OC435; πέτρους ἐπεκυλίνδουν X.HG3.5.20, etc.; ἐν πέτροισι πέτρον ἐκτρίβων, to produce fire, S.Ph.296; of a boulder forming a landmark, Id.OC1595; τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκα π. ἀειράμενος IG42(1).125 (Epid., iii B. C.).
2. prov., πάντα κινῆσαι πέτρον ‘leave no stone unturned’, E.Heracl.1002, cf. Pl.Lg.843a; of imperturbability, καὶ γὰρ ἂν πέτρου φύσιν σύ γ’ ὀργάνειας S.OT334, cf. E.Med.28.
II. a kind of reed, Peripl.M.Rubr.65.—The usual Prose word is λίθος.

source: tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=85305&context=lsj&action=from-search (emphasis mine)

If you look at one of the citation of the definition I emphasized, you see “Id.OC1595” listed. If you go to the link and click that you see that it seems to refer to a Poem by Sophocles, “Oedipus Coloneus”, and line # 1595 is highlighted. I dug up an English version of the poem from: poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Colonus.htm

I found this at #1590:

But when he came to the edge, to the threshold of the abyss, to the steps that are made of bronze, he stopped at one of the many crossroads, near that deep fountain where the pact of eternal friendship between Theseus and Perithus is written.
He stopped there and there, between that fountain and the Thorician rock, he sat down on the earth, near a hollow wild pear tree and a tomb stone. He took off his filthy clothes and called out to his daughters to bring him water from a nearby running stream, to purify himself with and to conduct libations.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, I have bolded what I see as the only 2 possibilities of where “Petros” would seem to fit in here (more specifically, to replace “rock” or “stone”.) My hypothesis is that it refers to the first “Thorician rock” as it is found immediately after the definition given by the above mentioned Lexicon meaning “…of a boulder forming a landmark…” Why do I say this? Because the words “between that fountain and the Thorician rock” from the Poem indicated to me that the Thorician rock is a landmark. If this is so, it would seem to follow that this Thorician rock is a sizeable rock and thus we would seem to have an example of “Petros” being used as a “large rock” ???

However, I’m not sure that I can verify this with my limited knowledge and resources.

–Nick

 

[Evan]

Could it be that Peter preferred “Petros” over “Petra” and that is why Matthew translated Kepha to Petra?

I would assume, when Peter moved from Jerusalem to Antioch his nickname was changed from Aramaic (Kepha) to Greek (Petros) in a fashion that he preferred. If that is what he preferred in the translation, that is probably what Matthew used.

Jesus, by that time, had ascended and had no (name removed by moderator)ut into the translation to the Greek.

So Matthew may have known the proper translation of Kepha was Petra, but he also knew his friend Simon, went by the name of Petros among the Greek speakers. Even with that change the pun remains.

Of course the papacy is not based on this triviality of how the word is translated. It is based on who Jesus set up as his vicar: Simon, son of Jonah. Matthew, Mark, John, Barnabas, Paul, James, Philip, Thomas,… all knew that. So the translation was of little importance coming 40-50 years later.

 

[LionHeart777]

Another translation of “Oedipus at Colonus” reads, for line 1595:

[1595] He stood midway between that basin and the Leaping stone, and between the hollow pear-tree and the marble tomb; then he sat down and loosened his filthy clothing. And then he called his daughters, and asked them to bring water from some flowing source, so that he might wash and make a drink-offering.

Source: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0190%3Acard%3D1579 (Emphasis mine)

I suppose it could go in either phrase ???

I say this because I have seen the “marble tomb” translated as:

“sepulchre of stone” here

But I suppose a “marble tomb” or a “sepulchre of stone” could each be examples of sizable (i.e. largish) rocks. It would help to know where “petros” fits in to this passage.

The Loeb edition has both the Greek and English which would solve my problem.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hey, Lionheart

I’ve got to give you some very HIGH MARKS for your “studiousness” (if that’s really a word…)… I mean, you really dig into this stuff! Thats good!

I’m gonna go through all your material better, but I just wanted to tell you (in case I hadn’t already), but I’m not Catholic… HOWEVER - I’m not here to cause trouble, either. I had a thought a while back that “maybe those Catholic guys are right”, and I’m sincerely checking things out on my own…

But so far - being as objective as possible, standing way back, and looking at both Catholic and “Protestant” views (really, I don’t like the term “Protestant”… I mean, I’m not Catholic, but I’m not “protesting” anything at all) - and here’s what I see:

Matt 16:18 in Greek says “…petros… petra”. This is “problematic” for the Catholic view, because somehow, they need both terms to mean the same thing: Simon

(NOTE: I am NOT saying that with any kind of “bad attitude”… Just trying to say it how I see it)

SO - essentially, for the Catholic position to even EXIST, they need petros = petra.

I see a lot of guys saying that in Aramaic, Jesus MUST have said “kepha…kepha”… But, OK, we don’t know that he did… Not as “cold hard fact”. It’s sort of a supposition, I guess. (And, it might well be a good one).

BUT - that still doesn’t explain the “petros/petra” thing then. I’ve read NUMEROUS theories on how that MIGHT have worked, and oddly enough, some of the theories contradict other theories on the same thing. For example, some say petros and petra were synonymous terms in Koine Greek, others say petros wasn’t even a word in Koine Greek. (and, I’ve read these very opinions written by “scholars” - in BOOKS…)

They can’t both be right. Two words cant be synonymous if one of them didn’t even exist. So, it sort of “waters down” the argument a bit… A guy like me is left to figuring out which one is actually right (if ANY of them). And, I’m no scholar…

There just doesn’t seem to be a consise, clear-cut answer. There just seems to be a lot of “theories”. (But - I want to make it clear: that doesn’t mean that one or another of those theories isn’t TRUE)

I read stuff written by “Protestants” (and I guess we could sort of include the Orthodox in “Protestants”, just to make things simpler) - and there are plenty of Protestant scholars who believe that Peter was indeed “this rock” (in “…upon this rock…”), but they don’t think he was the ONLY rock, or even the Most Important Rock… That is, they don’t see a basis for the Papacy, even if Jesus said “…upon this rock…” to mean Peter himself.

Thing is, I’m gonna need something more than “theories” to go on. Writings of the Church Fathers don’t impress me (and I say that with no sarcasm, negativity, etc). The reason is that the Church Fathers are those guys that are still regarded as Church Fathers by the Catholics - But there was a whole big bunch of them that didn’t go along with the idea of the Papacy… But those guys that didn’t go along with it are considered Church Fathers in the Orthodox Church.

I am not at all opposed to the Catholic viewpoint, and that’s why I’m here. But, so far, I haven’t been convinced. If the Catholic viewpoint is right, then I want to “get with the program”. But I’ve been a believer in Jesus Christ for over 40 years, and I feel my relationship to God is very intimate, and His Word says that He has made me “accepted in the beloved” (ie, the church) by His grace. So, I’m not exactly sure why I need to be part of the Catholic Church at all…

I guess all I’m saying is that I’m “investigating”, but so far, I’m still not convinced that Peter was the “first Pope” (as it were), or that I’m not really even a Christian unless I become Catholic…

So, I just wanted to tell you where I’m coming from… I’ve enjoyed our conversation…

 

[Catholic4Christ]

I’m going to admit I haven’t followed this entire thread, but if I can thrown in my 2 cents regarding the original question:

My question is why would the name Kepha ever have been translated to Petros, and not be consistently translitterated as Cephas (as John and Paul both did in at least some instances)?

Simon, Jesus, Israel, Jacob, and so many other names were transliterated (sound for sound) into other languages from their originals. Why not do the same with Kepha? Does it make sense at all for this particular name to have been a translation of a Hebrew/Aramaic name’s meaning instead of a transliteration of the name itself?

I’ve taken a lot of Ancient Greek, but I don’t really want to take that route. I just want to turn the question back around in my own way, if I can re-phrase:

"Why would the name Mashiach ever have been translated into Christos, and not consistently transliterated as Messiah?"

It’s easy to ask this question about Peter because of all the controversy regarding what the ‘rock’ is and whether he is the forerunner of the papacy. But when you turn the question around and make it about Jesus, no controversy. Yet it’s really the same question.

Simon and Jesus both have proper names that are roughly transliterated from the original into Greek. Kepha and Mashiach are both names that are given to them to describe their attributes. They are transliterated sometimes into Greek to show the readers the original terms, but much more commonly Petros and Christos are used so that the meaning is clearer to the reader.

I’ll leave the petra vs. petros debate to everyone else.

 

[mikelionheart]

Why not simply say Cephas, and provide a translational note for Matthew 16:18 to clarify what Christ’s intent was?

A transitional note???

:banghead:

I think that shows your protestant mindset and total misunderstanding of the early church and how it worked.

 

[aussie_stockman]

A transitional note???

:banghead:

I think that shows your protestant mindset and total misunderstanding of the early church and how it worked.

now, now, mikelionheart… that’s hardly fair… I’m not Catholic, but I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and I’m here trying to decide whether I should become Catholic or not… I don’t have any “protestant mindset”, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions - SERIOUS questions - about this whole Cephas-Kephas-Petros-Petra thing. Those of us who weren’t “born into the Catholic Church”, yet have become believers in Jesus Christ, look at the “reasoning” (or “arguments”) that Catholics use to explain WHY “…petros… petra” was used in Matt 16:18, and for myself, I can say (unfortunately) I’m not seeing any particularily CLEAR answers so far. I’ve seen a lot of “theories” by various apologists and scholars - and some of them actually contradict other “theories”, yet all are done by guys who believe Peter was “the rock”. So, even the Catholics don’t agree on how exactly the “…petros… petra” thing really works.

I dunno… maybe that other guy that you were responding to DOES have a “protestant” mindset… But I don’t (even though I’m not Catholic). I’m just waiting on SOMEBODY to give me some really solid reason to believe that Simon (Peter) was indeed “the rock”. I don’t want to have to “pick and choose” between a variety of theories. Heck, if that’s what it gets down to, then I could just as well pick the theory that says “Jesus is the rock” and leave it at that… shrug…

guess I’m just saying that not all “non-Catholics” are “protestants”…

 

[thenobes]

hehehehe… of COURSE it’s supported by the Church’s teachings… I mean, the whole basis of the Papacy hinges on “kepha… kepha…” in Matt 16:18. Why WOULDN’T they support it?

Yeh, I find the idea that Matt might have originally been written in Hebrew to be very intriguing… There are some interesting “Hebrew-isms” in it, such as “if a man has a good eye…” (which is a Hebrew manner of saying “if a man is generous”). So, yeh, I think there’s a case to be made for Matt having been originally written in Hebrew…

(BTW - I’ve actually found that “good eye” quote in a Rabbinical writing. I wish I could remember where I found it so I could show you… I think it was in a Midrash, or from the liturgy for the Feast of Weeks…)

I found this on some geneology site: “I have found a news article dated Dec 21, 1922 about an accident that happened in Flint, Michigan on November 15, 1922. A man named Petra N. Petroff…died in a cave-in while on a job.”

Looks like SOMEBODY out there (male) was named Petra… Heck, I got a friend (a guy) named Carol… shrug

The name “Acacia” is a Greek feminine noun, used “as is”, as a mans name.

You know, I think you’re right about Bivins at the Jerusalem School… Seems I remember reading that about him… He and a guy named Dr. Roy Blizzard have done some interesting writings about the Hebrew “roots” of some of the stuff in the N.T… Granted, I don’t take any of it as “gospel” necessarily, but it is some fascinating info that those guys have come up with…

Hi, aussie_stockman,

I did a little research online and I found a list of 1500 Male names in ancient Greece, only one of which, “Numa”, ended in “a”.

You know, I’m not sure that really want to continue tin his discussion, in that I don’t really see the point of it. I can accept that Peter is a piece of the rock which is Christ, or at least will be when he is baptized with fire at pentecost.

It is the next verse, concerning the giving of the keys to Peter, that is the important one.

For you see, the verses where Our Lord states we are to take our differences to the Church in case of disagreement seem clearly to me to mean that the Church must have a visible head to whom we can appeal when the members of the Church are divided. There must be a final voice to what the “whole church” believes.

This to me is the role of the of Pope to act as a final authority in case of disagreement on a high level.

But that’s not the OP. So I will bow out having had my minor say.

peace
steve

 

[aussie_stockman]

well, Steve - really, I think I’m with you on this one… I think I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that the “names” business is something of a dead-end.

and, taking your cue - I think I’m gonna look into the “keys of the kingdom” stuff…

thanks for the good conversation!

out for now…

 

[mikelionheart]

now, now, mikelionheart… that’s hardly fair… I’m not Catholic, but I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and I’m here trying to decide whether I should become Catholic or not… I don’t have any “protestant mindset”, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions - SERIOUS questions - about this whole Cephas-Kephas-Petros-Petra thing. Those of us who weren’t “born into the Catholic Church”, yet have become believers in Jesus Christ, look at the “reasoning” (or “arguments”) that Catholics use to explain WHY “…petros… petra” was used in Matt 16:18, and for myself, I can say (unfortunately) I’m not seeing any particularily CLEAR answers so far. I’ve seen a lot of “theories” by various apologists and scholars - and some of them actually contradict other “theories”, yet all are done by guys who believe Peter was “the rock”. So, even the Catholics don’t agree on how exactly the “…petros… petra” thing really works.

I dunno… maybe that other guy that you were responding to DOES have a “protestant” mindset… But I don’t (even though I’m not Catholic). I’m just waiting on SOMEBODY to give me some really solid reason to believe that Simon (Peter) was indeed “the rock”. I don’t want to have to “pick and choose” between a variety of theories. Heck, if that’s what it gets down to, then I could just as well pick the theory that says “Jesus is the rock” and leave it at that… shrug…

guess I’m just saying that not all “non-Catholics” are “protestants”…

Now, now Aussie, I’m sure you can allow people to respond for themselves rather than respond for them.
I’m a little puzzled as to where you get the idea from that I think all non-Catholics are Protestants. Very strange. I guess I presumed the person I responded to is a Protestant because he wrote that he is a Protestant. But hey, maybe that was a stupid thing to presume.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think the context of the statement should play a part in our consideration of the translation, namely, are we suggesting that Jesus wished to build His church upon a small stone?

 

[LionHeart777]

Hey, Lionheart

I’ve got to give you some very HIGH MARKS for your “studiousness” (if that’s really a word…)… I mean, you really dig into this stuff! Thats good!

I’m gonna go through all your material better, but I just wanted to tell you (in case I hadn’t already), but I’m not Catholic… HOWEVER - I’m not here to cause trouble, either. I had a thought a while back that “maybe those Catholic guys are right”, and I’m sincerely checking things out on my own…

But so far - being as objective as possible, standing way back, and looking at both Catholic and “Protestant” views (really, I don’t like the term “Protestant”… I mean, I’m not Catholic, but I’m not “protesting” anything at all) - and here’s what I see:

Matt 16:18 in Greek says “…petros… petra”. This is “problematic” for the Catholic view, because somehow, they need both terms to mean the same thing: Simon

(NOTE: I am NOT saying that with any kind of “bad attitude”… Just trying to say it how I see it)

SO - essentially, for the Catholic position to even EXIST, they need petros = petra.

I see a lot of guys saying that in Aramaic, Jesus MUST have said “kepha…kepha”… But, OK, we don’t know that he did… Not as “cold hard fact”. It’s sort of a supposition, I guess. (And, it might well be a good one).

BUT - that still doesn’t explain the “petros/petra” thing then. I’ve read NUMEROUS theories on how that MIGHT have worked, and oddly enough, some of the theories contradict other theories on the same thing. For example, some say petros and petra were synonymous terms in Koine Greek, others say petros wasn’t even a word in Koine Greek. (and, I’ve read these very opinions written by “scholars” - in BOOKS…)

They can’t both be right. Two words cant be synonymous if one of them didn’t even exist. So, it sort of “waters down” the argument a bit… A guy like me is left to figuring out which one is actually right (if ANY of them). And, I’m no scholar…

There just doesn’t seem to be a consise, clear-cut answer. There just seems to be a lot of “theories”. (But - I want to make it clear: that doesn’t mean that one or another of those theories isn’t TRUE)

I read stuff written by “Protestants” (and I guess we could sort of include the Orthodox in “Protestants”, just to make things simpler) - and there are plenty of Protestant scholars who believe that Peter was indeed “this rock” (in “…upon this rock…”), but they don’t think he was the ONLY rock, or even the Most Important Rock… That is, they don’t see a basis for the Papacy, even if Jesus said “…upon this rock…” to mean Peter himself.

Thing is, I’m gonna need something more than “theories” to go on. Writings of the Church Fathers don’t impress me (and I say that with no sarcasm, negativity, etc). The reason is that the Church Fathers are those guys that are still regarded as Church Fathers by the Catholics - But there was a whole big bunch of them that didn’t go along with the idea of the Papacy… But those guys that didn’t go along with it are considered Church Fathers in the Orthodox Church.

I am not at all opposed to the Catholic viewpoint, and that’s why I’m here. But, so far, I haven’t been convinced. If the Catholic viewpoint is right, then I want to “get with the program”. But I’ve been a believer in Jesus Christ for over 40 years, and I feel my relationship to God is very intimate, and His Word says that He has made me “accepted in the beloved” (ie, the church) by His grace. So, I’m not exactly sure why I need to be part of the Catholic Church at all…

I guess all I’m saying is that I’m “investigating”, but so far, I’m still not convinced that Peter was the “first Pope” (as it were), or that I’m not really even a Christian unless I become Catholic…

So, I just wanted to tell you where I’m coming from… I’ve enjoyed our conversation…

Thank for the kind words. That’s cool that you are checking things out, this site is a great resource and equally the people on it. I have only been Catholic about 3 years or so, I was a Protestant for about 10 years (my beliefs were kind of a Baptist/Presbyterian hybrid…maybe Reformed Baptist?) This site was a great help to me in my searching as I was looking into both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

RE: Petros/Petra I think a better way of looking at the Catholic view is that that is the view that has always been held by the Catholic Church so She is just maintaining what has been the historical interpretation. From the 1st century onwards the Roman Bishops have exercised their authority and from Pope St. Stephen (via the Bishop Firmilian) we catch a glimpse of where exactly they (at the very least he) believes it comes from:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter…

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm (Emphasis mine)

Now regarding what you said that “there was a whole big bunch of them [Early Church Fathers] that didn’t go along with the idea of the Papacy”, I don’t know about who you have in mind but (apart from those who didn’t break away from Rome) there are a couple (maybe more) who argued with the Pope. But just because one is resisting and authority or doesn’t completely understand it (especially as it is understood today as I believe there has been legitimate development of Doctrine) doesn’t mean that the authority does not exist. In the case above with Firmilian and St.Cyprian and the re-Baptism of heretics controversy it was Pope St. Stephens position that won out and is maintained in the Catholic Church today.

The Eastern Orthodox share the same Church Fathers with us except for perhaps a small few (if I am not mistaken), and these were later Fathers (such as Photius for example, not considered a Father by us but rather a schismatic if I’m not mistaken) because there where schisms.

You said that, “…I’m not exactly sure why I need to be part of the Catholic Church at all…”

Well, I’m sure if the Catholic Church is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ you would want to be a part of that right? The Fathers taught that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” And this I believe is indeed true, however, it needs some explanation. As the Catechism states:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Paragraphs 818-819 are a good read for the Church’s view towards our separated brethren.

According to my understanding of the Catholic Church, if you have been Baptized (using the Trinitarian formula), you are a Christian (see paragraph 818.)

God bless you brother and I wish you well on your journey!

 

[LionHeart777]

well, Steve - really, I think I’m with you on this one… I think I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that the “names” business is something of a dead-end.

and, taking your cue - I think I’m gonna look into the “keys of the kingdom” stuff…

thanks for the good conversation!

out for now…

Please do look into the keys as these are crucial; there were given to no one else. A good book I read was “Upon this Rock” by Steve Ray, himself a former Baptist I believe. In it he explains, I think, how the Church is modeled on the old Jewish Kingdom. There is the king, and the king had a Prime Minister who wielded his authority in his absence. You can see this in Isaiah 22:22, where Eliakim is the Prime Minister and he is given the keys (symbolic of authority.) This is a parallel of Christ’s Kingdom where Christ the King appointed a Prime Minister (and the office itself) to wield His authority in His absence (He is absent in the sense that He is not here in the same exact way as when He was on earth.) And all the Apostles were delegated authority, but as St. Cyprian points out:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). (Emphasis mine)

Source: catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

Also of interest to you may be the “Chair of Peter” and the “Chair of Moses” parallel.

Also the fact that Peter receives a new name in St. Matthew 16:18, which is significant in the Bible (for example, Abram → Abraham, Jacob → Israel.)