Little Rock, Big Rock question

[steve_b]

A protestant stated to me, No, Aramaic was a predominantly Palestine language. consider the book Palestine Aramaic grammar. btw, i tuaghtnce Aramaic in college for a semester so i know what i am talking about. i agree, Jesus could have done whatever he wanted including using the word pope in the new testament so that is not what he wanted to do, wonder why. you need to look the Greek up in BDAG the most accept lexicon by all scholars including catholic scholars. your contention about lithos does not follow based on this lexicon. you never answered the question, why did Jesus uses two different Greek words one meaning Rock and one meaning pebble. How would respond to this?

Scripture makes the specific point of Jesus saying these words / phrases.

1. 
   *]Effeta or Effata meaning to open,
   *]Talita Qum which means: Arise little child!
   *]Abba (Mark 14:36 and Gal. 4:6) which means Papa/Father,
   *]From the cross Jesus said Eloi Eloi lema sabactani. the beginning of Psalm 22, spoken by Jesus, found in Matthew and Mark.
   
   **Aramaic had at least 7 dialects. **
   1. 
      *]Aramaic of Judea.
      *]Aramaic of Southern Judea.
      *]Aramaic of Samaria.
      *]Aramaic of Galilee.
      *]Aramaic from beyond Jordan.
      *]Aramaic from Damascus.
      *]Aramaic spoken in the Orontes River Basin of Syria.
      
      Jesus would have used the Galilee dialect of Aramaic.
      
      condensed from christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mag/TSmgenB2.html

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t know Aramaic, but it’s a pun in Greek: πετρα is the continuous mass, whereas πετρος is the separate, individual instance (of unspecified size). To give you some idea of how that works, consider the Greek version (i.e. the version which the vast majority of the early Church were reading) of Isaiah 51:1-2, “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock πετρα] whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.” Abraham is the πετρα, the source; the individual hearer of the prophecy is then a πετρος cut from that mass.

The effect of Mt 16:18 in Greek is thus essentially “You are made of the right stuff, and on such stuff I shall build”. This does not claim that Peter is the only foundation of the Church (and, if you look at the last post of my thread linked below, you will see a list of Church Fathers who do address this plurality of foundations) but it does represent him as being the first foundation of the Church. As such, in Greek at least, it is a good demonstration of Petrine primacy.

BTW, ignore the “he had to use an -ος ending for the gender” claim, because it’s simply false: Greek had no problem using feminine nouns for men, since they understood that grammatical gender is not physical sex.

 

[James82]

I wouldn’t consider anyone publishes material at Zondervan to be “on my side” except perhaps accidentally–it’s not just a place where a reputable scholar of the Bible would publish their work. I’m glad you enjoy their products, but that really doesn’t do anything to improve their reputation. I think the mistake many Catholic apologists make is to find some fringy Evangelical/fundamentalist(s) and then try to set up said person as some sort of spokesperson for all of Protestantism.

If your telling me that William Lane Craig, who has 56 published works with Zondervan and is one of the most respected apologists in the English speaking Protestant fold is “not a respectable scholar” then I’m not sure what your benchmark is? I also browsed the authors of their biblical commentaries as well as some of their exegesis on offer and the names that pop up are quite prestigious in Protestant apologetics (e.g. Willem A. VanGemeren, Gordon Fee etc). So no, you are very wrong to cast Zondervan aside as some tent revival pandering fundamentalist drivel. Besides who is this massive swath of ground-breaking respected exegetes that you claim back your claim? I digress, to a point, however in that Zondervan is a Protestant publisher who’s doctrinal views largely don’t square up with the Church or the Catholic Faith, so for me it’s largely a moot point.

Randy’s favorite tactic—I’ve “dialogued” with him before—is to ignore the questions or objections posed to something he’s raised and to respond instead with a massive copy and paste from (what I’m guessing) are various computerized apologetic notes he’s accumulated over the years–which often bear at best only a tangential relationship with what’s actually being discussed or to questions that are being posed. Or to just jump to another issue entirely. IMO, yeah it comes across as obfuscation–it cuts off the conversation. Maybe that’s not the intent, I only stated how it seems to me.

Here’s what I mean. In post #8, Randy quotes Homer to show that petros can mean “large stone.” That’s somewhat questionable as a linguistic argument, because Homeric Greek and Koine Greek are pretty far removed historically from each other, but we will let that part go.

In post #8, I respond that these are still just rocks and nothing you would ever build something on—not foundation stones/bedrock (although also certainly not pebbles) and I provide a reputable dictionary entry to provide additional information.

In post #10, Randy switches tactics and now claims that petros is irrelevant and says that size is not the issue (but isn’t that the gist of the OP?) but then also says–I guess it’s suddenly relevant again?: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek.” (totally unsupported, and pretty much a whiplash of a response because we were just discussing Homeric Greek only a couple of posts earlier) and “When translated into English it’s Peter. Peter does not mean little rock in English.” (Completely irrelevant to any discussion.) So, I thought size didn’t matter but we’re back to discussing it?

In post #11 I ask him to back up his claim: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek” preferably with a dictionary entry such as the one I provided in #9.

Instead of providing support for his assertion about “N.T. Era” Greek, in post #12 Randy includes long quotes (again, the usual tactic) from Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson and someone named George Salmon? Who I guess wrote a book in 1914? First, I don’t know of any Bible scholar who would consider Craig Blomberg or D.A. Carson to be anything more than Evangelical apologists–they are certainly by no means linguistic experts on Greek or Aramaic or qualified to discuss the nuances of the passage or what it might mean. If they knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t publish their work where they do–it’s basically intended for fundamentalist consumption. That’s perfectly fine; they are free to publish what they want but their work doesn’t carry sufficient weight to add anything to this discussion.

To me it looked like Randy was presenting evidence based on scholars within the Protestant world. You say they are “not respected”; that’s simply begging the question and circular “I don’t respect them because they’re not respectable”. You haven’t shown me anything to suggest they aren’t respected, so I’m left thinking that your simply posturing. We all do it here and there I suppose, but I wouldn’t suggest it in an online apologetics forum, as people can shed light very quickly with access to resources.

But second, and more importantly, all of that quoting doesn’t address the questions that I posed, nor does it provide any support Randy’s assertion about petros in “N.T. era” Greek. If so, I’m not seeing it. So no, they are not “respected scholars” (except maybe respected by other fundamentalists) and no, they don’t “support his case” at least that I can tell?

Well this thread is now full of replies to that very question! I personally agree with the Roman Catholic position regarding St. Peter being the Rock of the Church militant

And all of that garners an emoji?

You are right on this, emoji’s can come across as shallow at the best of times. I will no longer toss emoji’s your way good sir.

 

[Generic_Name]

Why all this fuss about the size of the metaphorical rock? The whole Keys to the Kingdom & binding and loosing parts don’t provide enough context to figure out what’s going on?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why all this fuss about the size of the metaphorical rock? The whole Keys to the Kingdom & binding and loosing parts don’t provide enough context to figure out what’s going on?

The context is this:

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[Mystophilus]

If your telling me that William Lane Craig, who has 56 published works with Zondervan and is one of the most respected apologists in the English speaking Protestant fold is “not a respectable scholar” then I’m not sure what your benchmark is?

Dave’s benchmark seems to be the very standard academic one: “apologist” does not mean “scholar”; “theological apologist” does not mean “biblical scholar”; Zondervan is not an academic publisher.

Citing an apologist as an authority on the operation of κοινη is like citing a pharmaceutical company’s PR person as an expert on chemistry: while it is not impossible for the PR rep to have a PhD in chemistry, there is no reason to assume that s/he has one.

 

[James82]

Dave’s benchmark seems to be the very standard academic one: “apologist” does not mean “scholar”; “theological apologist” does not mean “biblical scholar”; Zondervan is not an academic publisher.

Citing an apologist as an authority on the operation of κοινη is like citing a pharmaceutical company’s PR person as an expert on chemistry: while it is not impossible for the PR rep to have a PhD in chemistry, there is no reason to assume that s/he has one.

This is now turning into semantics. While yes, I lumped William Lane Craig in with the genus of ‘scholars’, I also brought forth the names of very respected (in that fold) biblical exegetes. So you are misquoting me and he is still very wrong.

 

[James82]

Why all this fuss about the size of the metaphorical rock? The whole Keys to the Kingdom & binding and loosing parts don’t provide enough context to figure out what’s going on?

You’d think…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy’s favorite tactic—I’ve “dialogued” with him before—is to ignore the questions or objections posed to something he’s raised and to respond instead with a massive copy and paste from (what I’m guessing) are various computerized apologetic notes he’s accumulated over the years–which often bear at best only a tangential relationship with what’s actually being discussed or to questions that are being posed. Or to just jump to another issue entirely. IMO, yeah it comes across as obfuscation–it cuts off the conversation. Maybe that’s not the intent, I only stated how it seems to me.

Dave-

I don’t actually recall “dialoguing” with you before. I’m active in a lot of threads, and your post count is rather small, so while we may have interacted, it’s just not enough for me to remember it. Sorry.

My favorite “tactic”, as you have termed it, is to provide information from reputable sources in support of the Catholic position. This is particularly effective when the sources are “hostile witnesses” - folks who can’t be accused of sympathy for the Catholic cause. Like Protestant Bible scholars and theologians.

And, ooooh, yes…I have accumulated hundreds of files which are all neatly stored on my hard drive according to topic. Non-Catholic members of this forum come and go over the years, but their objections, questions and misunderstandings are fairly constant. New faces, same old arguments, so to speak.

As for the rest of your first paragraph, well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

Here’s what I mean. In post #8, Randy quotes Homer to show that petros can mean “large stone.” That’s somewhat questionable as a linguistic argument, because Homeric Greek and Koine Greek are pretty far removed historically from each other, but we will let that part go.

The point of quoting Homer is simply to illustrate that the “petros = small stone” argument is not so cut-and-dried as most Protestants like to claim.

In post #8, I respond that these are still just rocks and nothing you would ever build something on—not foundation stones/bedrock (although also certainly not pebbles) and I provide a reputable dictionary entry to provide additional information.

And as you have pointed out, I can quote 25 Protestant theologians and scholars who say that your argument is meaningless. Peter is the rock, and they know it.

In post #10, Randy switches tactics and now claims that petros is irrelevant and says that size is not the issue (but isn’t that the gist of the OP?) but then also says–I guess it’s suddenly relevant again?: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek.” (totally unsupported, and pretty much a whiplash of a response because we were just discussing Homeric Greek only a couple of posts earlier) and “When translated into English it’s Peter. Peter does not mean little rock in English.” (Completely irrelevant to any discussion.) So, I thought size didn’t matter but we’re back to discussing it?

First, I’d have to go back to read the post again, but I think the point I was making is simply that Jesus didn’t say “Petros” in Greek or “Peter” in English. He said “Kepha” in Aramaic. It is the Baptist NT scholar, Donald A. Carson, who points out that "had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Second, I suppose in the context of the thread topic, the size of the rock is relevant, but in terms of common Protestant apologetics, the matter is settled: Peter - not his confession - is the rock upon which Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In post #11 I ask him to back up his claim: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek” preferably with a dictionary entry such as the one I provided in #9.

Instead of providing support for his assertion about “N.T. Era” Greek, in post #12 Randy includes long quotes (again, the usual tactic) from Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson and someone named George Salmon? Who I guess wrote a book in 1914? First, I don’t know of any Bible scholar who would consider Craig Blomberg or D.A. Carson to be anything more than Evangelical apologists–they are certainly by no means linguistic experts on Greek or Aramaic or qualified to discuss the nuances of the passage or what it might mean. If they knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t publish their work where they do–it’s basically intended for fundamentalist consumption. That’s perfectly fine; they are free to publish what they want but their work doesn’t carry sufficient weight to add anything to this discussion.

Riiiight. As opposed to your own works which are published where?

But second, and more importantly, all of that quoting doesn’t address the questions that I posed, nor does it provide any support Randy’s assertion about petros in “N.T. era” Greek. If so, I’m not seeing it. So no, they are not “respected scholars” (except maybe respected by other fundamentalists) and no, they don’t “support his case” at least that I can tell?

Jimmy Akin writes:

Greek is an inflected (not “reflexive”) language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They 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. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar.

Another Baptist, John Broadhus agrees:

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”

“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

So, anyone who wishes to show off their knowledge of NT Greek is more than welcome to do so. They paid good tuition money for that education, and they ought to be able to use it on those rare occasions when it is useful.

However, once all the nuances have been completely exhausted, we will still be left with the plain fact that Jesus called him “Kepha” or “Cephas”, as recorded in Matthew, John and Galatians, and promised to build His Church thereupon.

 

[Generic_Name]

The context is this:

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

I don’t disagree with any of those points…perhaps without voice inflection my post didn’t come across the way I intended it. I can see how one might interpret it a couple of different ways. My apologies.

My point was that it seems there is an awful lot of focus on the size of the rock referenced by Jesus, when in reality the size matters not once one continues reading and gets to the whole keys of the Kingdom bit. That pretty much tells you Peter has the authority at that point.

 

[Mystophilus]

This is now turning into semantics. While yes, I lumped William Lane Craig in with the genus of ‘scholars’, I also brought forth the names of very respected (in that fold) biblical exegetes.

It is only an issue of semantics in so much as it is an issue of categorical labelling, i.e. recognising that “apologist” is a category distinct from “scholar” and that publishing for a company like Zondervan is not any kind of academic credential, regardless of who else might have published with them: the calibre of one contributor does not alter the calibre of another.

So you are misquoting me and he is still very wrong.

Since I haven’t quoted you at all, I will thank you to keep your baseless accusations to yourself: I referred to “Citing an apologist as an authority on the operation of κοινη”; you have not done that.

 

[James82]

It is only an issue of semantics in so much as it is an issue of categorical labelling, i.e. recognising that “apologist” is a category distinct from “scholar” and that publishing for a company like Zondervan is not any kind of academic credential, regardless of who else might have published with them: the calibre of one contributor does not alter the calibre of another.

Since I haven’t quoted you at all, I will thank you to keep your baseless accusations to yourself: I referred to “Citing an apologist as an authority on the operation of κοινη”; you have not done that.

“I hereby charge you with baseless allegations dear sir!!” LOL…come now.

Listen, by inference I believe you did ‘misquote’ me; by implying that I suggested Zondervan was an academic publishing house, would you prefer ‘straw man’?

We’ll go through it step by step.

1. Several Catholics and a few Protestants have been arguing over the validity of the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock of the Church. Which he is.
2. Randy Carson brought several Protestant sources to the fore as hostile witnesses to undermine the credibility of Protestant claims that St. Peter is not the Rock of the Church. Many other posters brought relevant information as well.
3. Somehow, in the logic of an alternate universe, bringing clear and concise arguments from reputable Protestant biblical scholars is seen as ‘obfuscation’ and lacking in academic credibility.
4. The sources were labelled as ‘fundamentalist’ and Zondervan was as well. This is a textbook logical fallacy; pure unadulterated ad hominem. Sufficient counter sources and an explanation as to why said Protestant scholars are not reputable has not been given.
5. Going for the bait (which clearly at this point I regret) I slipped up in my usage of titles and claimed that Zondervan does have published work by reputable scholars (which I showed later that they do) by citing William Lane Craig who is in fact, hrmph hrmph, not a koine biblical scholar but a philosophical apologist. Ok fair enough.
6. As stated above I then did in fact show (please read back to my other posts and the names I listed) that Zondervan has published books by respected biblical scholars.
7. However at this point it was no longer a matter of the reputation of the sources we had collectively given. It was now matter of smearing Zondervan (in it’s entirety as a corporate body and publishing house) as not academic even though Randy nor myself ever claimed at any point that Zondervan was the on-site publisher for the Sorbonne.

At this point I feel we could bring in John bloody Calvin (purgation chains n’ all) to attest to the veracity of our claims and we’d still be denied credibility. C’est la vie I suppose…

 

[fasolislithuan]

Actually, it’s just the opposite. In Aramaic a kepha is a hand-sized rock, used to refer to flint-stones used to start a fire, or a stone or making tools, or a stone used in hand food processing–for final grinding or pressing. A kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.” While it’s certainly not “pebble,” a kepha is something you can hold in your hand, something you can use as a tool, or something you can throw at someone and expect to do some damage.

In general, evnah refers to the material itself “…made of stone” but can also be used to refer to things like massive foundation stones. If Jesus wanted to clearly refer to Peter as something/someone appropriate and good for building on, evnah would actually have been a good choice.

The protestant theory (yours) is untenable. The catholic theology is supported by Scriptures.

Aramaic NT

Matthew 16:18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ

The eighth and eleventh words (from right to left) are Kepha. Accord to you: "a hand-sized rock, …] a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock”.

But then, why does the aramaic NT use also the same word “Kepha” to express Jesus’ words: “and upon this Kepha, I shall build my church”? Accord your theory that Kepha means not a solid rock the aramaic text then is saying:

“and upon this Kepha hand-size rock (not a immovable rock), I shall build my church”
So for the protestant assumption Christ built His Church not upon a a big immovable rock rather a little stone that you can use as a tool or throw at someone. So the Church of God for your interpretation has not strength, and therefore cannnot be a ground of anything. That’s false, as we know (1Tim 3:15)

1 Cor 10:4 Aramaic New Testament:

ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܚܕ ܡܫܬܝܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܐܫܬܝܘ ܫܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܓܝܪ ܡܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܕܐܬܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܝ ܗܘ ܗܘܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ

The tenth and fifteenth words are Kepha. Accord your explanation: "a hand-sized rock… a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.”

Translating to English: And they all drank of the one drink of The Spirit, for they were drinking from The Rock of The Spirit, which was with them, but that Rock was The Messiah

So, accord to you, the Messiah (Jesus) is also a hand-sized rock, used to refer to flint-stones used to start a fire, or a stone or making tools, or a stone used in hand food processing–for final grinding or pressing. A kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.” .

If Kepha in aramaic is what you assert not only Peter is a movible stone (not a rock), also the Church is built on a movible stone (not upon a rock and therefore upon unstable foundation) and Jesus, the Messiah is a movible stone, not a strength rock. Jesus is not the rock that Bible claims in some passages.

This refutes your pretension, a wrong ad hoc constructo. Your necessity to make a counterargument against the solid catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 and the aramaic Kepha has leading to you to deny not only that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church (your initial purpose), but also that the Church is built upon a solid rock and even that the Messiah (Jesus) is the solid rock of our faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The protestant theory (yours) is untenable. The catholic theology is supported by Scriptures.

Aramaic NT

Matthew 16:18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ

The eighth and eleventh words (from right to left) are Kepha. Accord to you: "a hand-sized rock, …] a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock”.

But then, why does the aramaic NT use also the same word “Kepha” to express Jesus’ words: “and upon this Kepha, I shall build my church”? Accord your theory that Kepha means not a solid rock the aramaic text then is saying:

“and upon this Kepha hand-size rock (not a immovable rock), I shall build my church”
So for the protestant assumption Christ built His Church not upon a a big immovable rock rather a little stone that you can use as a tool or throw at someone. So the Church of God for your interpretation has not strength, and therefore cannnot be a ground of anything. That’s false, as we know (1Tim 3:15)

1 Cor 10:4 Aramaic New Testament:

ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܚܕ ܡܫܬܝܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܐܫܬܝܘ ܫܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܓܝܪ ܡܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܕܐܬܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܝ ܗܘ ܗܘܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ

The tenth and fifteenth words are Kepha. Accord your explanation: "a hand-sized rock… a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.”

Translating to English: And they all drank of the one drink of The Spirit, for they were drinking from The Rock of The Spirit, which was with them, but that Rock was The Messiah

So, accord to you, the Messiah (Jesus) is also a hand-sized rock, used to refer to flint-stones used to start a fire, or a stone or making tools, or a stone used in hand food processing–for final grinding or pressing. A kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.” .

If Kepha in aramaic is what you assert not only Peter is a movible stone (not a rock), also the Church is built on a movible stone (not upon a rock and therefore upon unstable foundation) and Jesus, the Messiah is a movible stone, not a strength rock. Jesus is not the rock that Bible claims in some passages.

This refutes your pretension, a wrong ad hoc constructo. Your necessity to make a counterargument against the solid catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 and the aramaic Kepha has leading to you to deny not only that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church (your initial purpose), but also that the Church is built upon a solid rock and even that the Messiah (Jesus) is the solid rock of our faith.

:clapping:

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The protestant theory (yours) is untenable. The catholic theology is supported by Scriptures.

Aramaic NT

Matthew 16:18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ

The eighth and eleventh words (from right to left) are Kepha. Accord to you: "a hand-sized rock, …] a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock”.

But then, why does the aramaic NT use also the same word “Kepha” to express Jesus’ words: “and upon this Kepha, I shall build my church”? Accord your theory that Kepha means not a solid rock the aramaic text then is saying:

“and upon this Kepha hand-size rock (not a immovable rock), I shall build my church”
So for the protestant assumption Christ built His Church not upon a a big immovable rock rather a little stone that you can use as a tool or throw at someone. So the Church of God for your interpretation has not strength, and therefore cannnot be a ground of anything. That’s false, as we know (1Tim 3:15)

1 Cor 10:4 Aramaic New Testament:

ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܚܕ ܡܫܬܝܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܐܫܬܝܘ ܫܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܓܝܪ ܡܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܕܐܬܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܝ ܗܘ ܗܘܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ

The tenth and fifteenth words are Kepha. Accord your explanation: "a hand-sized rock… a kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.”

Translating to English: And they all drank of the one drink of The Spirit, for they were drinking from The Rock of The Spirit, which was with them, but that Rock was The Messiah

So, accord to you, the Messiah (Jesus) is also a hand-sized rock, used to refer to flint-stones used to start a fire, or a stone or making tools, or a stone used in hand food processing–for final grinding or pressing. A kepha is hardly by definition “a big immovable rock.” .

If Kepha in aramaic is what you assert not only Peter is a movible stone (not a rock), also the Church is built on a movible stone (not upon a rock and therefore upon unstable foundation) and Jesus, the Messiah is a movible stone, not a strength rock. Jesus is not the rock that Bible claims in some passages.

This refutes your pretension, a wrong ad hoc constructo. Your necessity to make a counterargument against the solid catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 and the aramaic Kepha has leading to you to deny not only that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church (your initial purpose), but also that the Church is built upon a solid rock and even that the Messiah (Jesus) is the solid rock of our faith.

Syriac is a different dialect than Palestinian Aramaic as can be seen here for example: lebtahor.com/ChartsMaps/semiticlanguagetree.htm but let’s explore your argument anyway.

You’ll note that rock of 1Cor 10:4 is indeed a movable rock; I noticed you interestingly skipped a word in your translation (d’athya) which may be causing your confusion. In Syriac (as in Greek) the rock wasn’t just with the Israelites; it came with them, usually translated from Greek into English “followed them around.” There no building going on in the 1Cor passage; Paul is talking about drinking from the rock. It doesn’t necessarily even need to be a hand-sized rock–even a large boulder would be inappropriate for construction.

Paul here is citing a Jewish midrash that the rock which gave water followed the Israelites around (and which ceased giving water after the death of Miriam), or in some versions, that the Israelites carried the rock around with them so that they would have a ready supply of water.

As I noted many posts ago, I think there’s a good chance Jesus is being ironic in Matthew, especially in light of the upcoming “Get behind me Satan” remark. Or maybe there is some sort of scribal error.

…has leading to you to deny not only that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church (your initial purpose)…

Where did I say THAT??

 

[James82]

Syriac is a different dialect than Palestinian Aramaic as can be seen here for example: lebtahor.com/ChartsMaps/semiticlanguagetree.htm but let’s explore your argument anyway.

You’ll note that rock of 1Cor 10:4 is indeed a movable rock; I noticed you interestingly skipped a word in your translation (d’athya) which may be causing your confusion. In Syriac (as in Greek) the rock wasn’t just with the Israelites; it came with them, usually translated from Greek into English “followed them around.” There no building going on in the 1Cor passage; Paul is talking about drinking from the rock. It doesn’t necessarily even need to be a hand-sized rock–even a large boulder would be inappropriate for construction.

Paul here is citing a Jewish midrash that the rock which gave water followed the Israelites around (and which ceased giving water after the death of Miriam), or in some versions, that the Israelites carried the rock around with them so that they would have a ready supply of water.

As I noted many posts ago, I think there’s a good chance Jesus is being ironic in Matthew, especially in light of the upcoming “Get behind me Satan” remark. Or maybe there is some sort of scribal error.

Where did I say THAT??

You’ve said this a few times now. Can I ask at just what point you think the Son of God unleashes his inner hipster on St. Peter? He had just finished telling St. Peter that the Father in heaven had revealed Christ’s full nature to Peter. Suddenly Christ does an about face and takes a personality shot at Peter? Am I getting that right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

As I noted many posts ago, I think there’s a good chance Jesus is being ironic in Matthew, especially in light of the upcoming “Get behind me Satan” remark. Or maybe there is some sort of scribal error.

I think there is a good chance that Jesus was re-establishing the office of the Royal Priesthood in His eternal kingdom by conferring upon Peter the symbol of that office, the keys, in the very same passage in which He called Simon, “Rock”.

 

[Mystophilus]

Listen, by inference I believe you did ‘misquote’ me; by implying that I suggested Zondervan was an academic publishing house

I advised against doing it; I never said that you did it; your accusation remains baseless.

You asked for an explanation of Dave’s dismissal. I supplied it. If you want to persist in believing that the listed apologists are indeed authorities beyond question, go right ahead, but your belief does not make my explanation inaccurate or his dismissal unfair.

 

[fasolislithuan]

…]

I see what you say and although I don’t agree with your opinion I have to say your opinion, as mine, as many other opinions often have solid and weak points. That’s the problem of any fallible opinion.

Syriac is a different dialect than Palestinian Aramaic

Yes. But the relevance of this argument is not much. It doesn’t modify the kepha argument and it can be easily refuted. We don’t have the original gospel of Matthew in palestinian aramaic and if we read the Bible in our days we don’t have the full certainty which exactly were Jesus’ words to Peter in palestinian aramaic. However, certain details help us to know with guarantee what Jesus said in palestinian aramaic.

Koine greek: Petros/petra
syriac aramaic: Kapha/kapha
another languages,
latin: Petrus/petram
french: Pierre/pierre
spanish: Pedro/ piedra
italian: Pietro/pietra

As we see there is one aspect that is lost in english language (Peter…Rock), a rethorical figure called paronomasia, the use of identical or similar-sounding words to achieve a rhetorical goal (for example emphasis). We can be sure that originally existed this sort of wordplay. Jesus probably spoke to apostles not in greek but in aramaic. That’s a known fact. So the aramaic words of Jesus evidently had this paranomasia. The reason is simple: If there wasn’t a wordplay in the original aramaic it wouldn’t have a wordplay in the translation to greek koine. That’s not coincidental. As neither is coincidental that the paronomasia is also preserved in a lot of ancient and modern languages (but not in german languages). The equivalent word of kapha (syriac aramaic) in palestinian aramaic is kepha. We have also the testimony of NT in some passages (John 1.42, 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) that the apostles make mention to the name of Peter in palestinian aramaic (Kepha). The same Jesus not only calls Peter as Kephas (greek transliteration of aramaic Kepha) in John 1.42 but in fact He changes his name, nicknames him. So the existent paronomasia in this passage guarantees, and is not risky to claim, that the original aramaic words of Jesus to Peter were: (You)… Kepha (and)… kepha.

There are a lot of considerations to make on this issue (Peter as the rock), but it’s very important to mark a fact that in spite of to be obvious shouldn’t get unnoticed: The first instance Petros is refered to the proper name of the apostle Simon (Barjona). It’s not refered ‘prima facie’ to any kind of object, rock, stone, etc… The second instance petra is refered to an object (a rock or a stone).

It tell us that the original text in palestinian aramaic ‘Kepha/kepha’ only had two possibilities to translate to greek, keeping the original paronomasia:

First possibility: Preserving the original aramaic ‘Kepha/kepha’ in the greek translation.
Second possibility: Translating the two ‘kepha’ to two greek identical or similar-sounding words.
Any other option destroys the rethorical figure.

The first option would be only possible if the second instance of kepha was accompanied with a clarification, something like this (in greek logically):* “…Kepha…kepha, what means petra,…”*, because without this clarification the sentence was unintelligible to greek readers. This option is contrived. Perhaps was tested but finally discharded.
The second option was selected.

Here, in the second possibility, i.e, translating the two “kepha” to two greek identical or similar-sounding words, the evangelist chose ‘Petros/petra’. Let’s see why this is the correct translation of the original aramaic ‘Kepha/kepha’ and there are not more choices

Occurrences of Petros and petra in the NT:

**Petros: 156 times. All these occurrences are refered always to the apostle Peter, not even once refered to an object, stone, rock. So the use of “petros” as rock, stone is inexistent in the NT.
petra: 15 times. Always refered to some kind of rock. **

That’s the crucial point. Some protestants aware that the original ‘Kepha/kepha’ argument is a solid, if not irrefutable support to catholic position, try to undermine it with untenable arguments.

a) The petros= small stone; petra=rock theory, widely refuted.

If protestants are honest they have to recognize and consider more serious objections than this discredit argument. By that, they have tried to search another more complex and elaborated objections. Personally I think this is contrary to the spirit of the God’s word (to search forced explanations to fit the text to personal theology). One of this forced arguments is:

b) Trying to deny the existence of paronomasia in the original aramaic, claiming that there were two different words (for example ‘Kepha/minra’ but not ‘Kepha/kepha’). This argument is easily refutable because, first, the majority of ancient manuscripts have the paronomasia both in greek and in syriac aramaic (there is only one exception, the Evangeleiarium Hierosolymitanum). The ancient translations to another languages always try to preserve this paronomasia. The inexistent paronomasia theory doesn’t have historic support. The only ancient source that protestant use to support their positions is the Evangeleiarium Hierosolymitanum, but it’s only a desperate measure, because the lost of the paronomasia in that document is only due to the fact the translator from Greek to aramaic syrian made a transliteration of the proper name Petros (greek) to Petrus (syriac) but not because he used two different syriac words that mean rock (for example two syriac cognates words of palestinian kepha/minra ones). So here, we find a contrived protestant contra-argument.

CONTINUE