Matt 16:18

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mvrk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

I want To ask about… These verse, about Petros and Petra.

In aramaic Peshitta, this verse using Kepha and Kepha.
But this Greek Text using Petros and Petra.

My Question is:
1.Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek or Aramaic? (with proof is better, especially Church Fathers writings)
Greek & Aramaic

Answered by Patrick (Irenaeus quote)
40.png
mvrk:
2.I know that in Koine Greek, there is no difference between Petros and Petra, but i want to explain to my “hard” protestant friend so i need other reference. So how can i proof this Petros and Petra have same meaning? is there any possible proof?
If it is really a big deal, I would ask your friend
  • Who gets the keys to the kingdom, Petros or Petra?
  • Who gets the power to bind and loose, Petros or Petra?
  • Who did God pick from the beginning even before his profession? Petros or Petra
Peter ALONE is the object of this dialogue with Jesus. If someone wants to say that Petra is Peter’s faith, or the statement he made, good. Peter and his faith are a package deal. They are one. This is who Jesus builds His Church on. Not a what but a who. It’s not either/or but both. Peter and his faith received the keys to the kingdom, and the power to bind and loose in that kingdom.

And that theme plays itself out in the rest of scripture, AND sacred (T)radition that Peter is to be the prime minister over the Church and the other ministers.
40.png
mvrk:
3.I also read in Protestant website, they interpret that Petra is a proof of Peter’s firmness of faith. How to answer this?
Peter had great faith. But it was the Father who selected Peter even before Peter was Peter or pronounced his faith.

As Jesus said,

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

And at the time Jesus selects Simon as an apostle Jesus said he would be called Rock
 
I don’t understand your argument
What I meant was, petros and petra are two different words that share the same root in Greek. The scholar D.A. Carson writes (from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary):

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…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).
 
Originally the word petra was used of a solid mass of rock and petros of a (free-standing) rock/stone, but occasional early interchangeability has been documented. Over time the interchangeability became more pronounced, and eventually petros fell into disuse as a noun, with petra taking over its sense of “stone” and the word brachos (βράχος) being used for “rock”, as it does now in Modern Greek (in an interesting case, kefa also lost its meaning of “rock” and eventually came to mean “stone”). Biblical Koine belong to the transition period, after petros and petra became more interchangeable yet before brachos took over petra, which took over petros.

Even so, petros as a common noun is likely to have been rather unfamiliar to Matthew’s audience, as the word only shows up two times in the Septuagint (with both of these usages being in 2 Maccabees) and never in the New Testament or related literature - in the NT it is always used of Simon Peter.

The two main words used for rock/stone in the New Testament are lithos and petra. Lithos is often used for loose, individual stones of varying sizes, from one that you can easily pick up (John 8:7; 10:31) to one that is big enough to block the entrance of a tomb (Mark 15:46). Petra, by contrast, is used for larger types of rock: foundations of buildings (Matthew 7:24; Luke 6:48), rocky outcrops or shelves (Matthew 13:5; Mark 4:5; Luke 8:6), or even mountains (Revelation 6:15). Jesus was buried in a tomb hewn out of petra and blocked by a lithos.

The following is one example of the use of petros in Attic Greek:

He spoke, and went once more, a god, into the mortals’
struggle, while to wise Kebriones called shining Hektor
to lash their horses into the fighting. Meanwhile Apollo
went down into the battle, and launched a deadly confusion
upon the Argives, and gave glory to the Trojans and Hektor.
Now Hektor let the rest of the Danaans be, and he would not
kill them, but drove his strong-footed horses straight for Patroklos.

On the other side Patroklos sprang to the ground from his chariot
holding his spear in his left hand. In the other he caught up
a stone, jagged and shining (petron marmaron okrioenta, literally “stone petros] shining stone marmaros] jagged”), in the hold of his hand, and threw it,
leaning into the throw, nor fell short of the man he aimed at
nor threw vainly, but hit the charioteer of Hektor,
as he held the reins on his horses. The sharp stone (lithos) hit him in the forehead
and smashed both brows in on each other, nor could the bone hold
the rock, but his eyes fell out into the dust before him
from the carefully wrought chariot, and the life left his bones.

Homer, The Iliad, 16.726-750

In Plato (428/427 BC-348/347 BC), we see a comparison between petros (apparently here used in the sense of a large piece of rock/stone) and lithos:

Let us first of all, then, have a class of laws which shall be called the laws of husbandmen. And let the first of them be the law of Zeus, the god of boundaries. Let no one shift the boundary line either of a fellow-citizen who is a neighbour, or, if he dwells at the extremity of the land, of any stranger who is conterminous with him, considering that this is truly “to move the immovable,” and every one should be more willing to move the largest rock (petron…megiston) which is not a landmark, than the least stone (smikron lithon) which is the sworn mark of friendship and hatred between neighbours; for Zeus, the god of kindred, is the witness of the citizen, and Zeus, the god of strangers, of the stranger, and when aroused, terrible are the wars which they stir up.

Laws, 8.842e-843a
 
It might bear mentioning that a few references to the-more-rare-compared-to-petra petros in Greek literature I’ve seen suggests a stone that is obviously larger than a “pebble” (which some make petros to mean), since it is thrown by troops to block enemies and can even maim, destroy or kill (such as in the citation from the Iliad above):

But while the rest of the army was passing by and they were engaged in this conference, all the enemy from that neighbourhood had streamed together to the spot; and as soon as Xenophon and his men began to descend from the round hill, in order to join the rest of the Greeks at the place where they were halted under arms, the enemy took this opportunity to rush upon them in great force and with a great deal of uproar. When they had reached the crest of the hill from which Xenophon was descending, they proceeded to roll down stones (ekulindoun petrous). They broke one man’s leg, and Xenophon found himself deserted by the servant who was carrying his shield; but Eurylochus of Lusi, a hoplite, ran up to him and, keeping his shield held out in front of them both, fell back with him; and the rest also made good their retreat to the main array.

-Xenophon (ca. 430 BC-354 BC), Anabasis, 4.2.19b-21

So when the Greeks were standing in for Tenedos, Tenes saw them and tried to keep them off by throwing stones (ballōn petrous), but was killed by Achilles with a sword-cut in the breast, though Thetis had forewarned Achilles not to kill Tenes, because he himself would die by the hand of Apollo if he slew Tenes.

These were, however, saved by Antenor; but the Greeks, exasperated at the insolence of the barbarians, stood to arms and made sail against them. Now Thetis charged Achilles not to be the first to land from the ships, because the first to land would be the first to die. Being apprized of the hostile approach of the fleet, the barbarians marched in arms to the sea, and endeavored by throwing stones (ballontes petrois) to prevent the landing.

And having lit a fire and sacrificed some of the kids, they feasted. But the Cyclops came, and when he had driven in his flocks, he put a huge stone (petron) to the door, and perceiving the men he ate some of them…
And he snatched up one of them and devoured him; but the rest fled, and he pursued them, shouting and calling together the rest of the Laestrygonians*. They came to the sea, and by throwing stones (ballontes petrois) they broke the vessels and ate the men. Odysseus cut the cable of his ship and put to sea; but the rest of the ships perished with their crews.

Laestrygonians: A tribe of gigantic cannibals.

-Apollodorus (ca. 180 BC-after 120 BC), Library and Epitome, E.3.26, 29; 7.5, 13

Here is something more contemporaneous with the NT:

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 Gideon’s son Abimelech, who would needs take the tower in Thebes by force, and was killed by a large stone (petros) 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 (cf. Judges 9:50-57)…

-Flavius Josephus (37 AD-ca. 100 AD), Antiquities of the Jews, 7.142

But still Josephus and those with him, although they fell down dead one upon another by the darts and stones (petrobolōn, “throwing stones”) which the engines threw upon them, yet did not they desert the wall, but fell upon those who managed the ram, under the protection of the hurdles, with fire, and iron weapons, and stones (petroi); and these could do little or nothing, but fell themselves perpetually, while they were seen by those whom they could not see, for the light of their own flame shone about them, and made them a most visible mark to the enemy, as they were in the day time, while the engines could not be seen at a great distance, and so what was thrown at them was hard to be avoided; for the force with which these engines threw stones (petrōn) and darts made them hurt several at a time, and the violent noise of the stones that were cast by the engines was so great, that they carried away the pinnacles of the wall, and broke off the corners of the towers; for no body of men could be so strong as not to be overthrown to the last rank by the largeness of the stones (lithou). And any one may learn the force of the engines by what happened this very night; for as one of those that stood round about Josephus was near the wall, his head was carried away by such a rock (petras), and his skull was flung as far as three stadia. In the day time also, a woman with child had her belly so violently struck, as she was just come out of her house, that the infant was carried to the distance of half a stadion, so great was the force of that engine…

-Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 3.240-246

That last quote is especially interesting, as it describes a man being hit with a petra, which in context would be synonymous to the petroi or lithoi mentioned earlier. Obviously you could not achieve these effects through pebbles! 😛
 
Why didn’t they write?
“you are Petros, on this Petros…”

Why include Petra?
 
Why didn’t they write?
“you are Petros, on this Petros…”

Why include Petra?
Hmm…you raise an interesting question here.

As mentioned, the only time Petros is used in the New Testament is when referring to Simon Peter; there is no use of petros in its noun form. In fact, compared to petra, the use of petros as a noun is rather rare, occuring more in poetic (Attic) literature. It might be more due to stylistic reasons: the (not-so-commonly-used-as-petra) masculine noun petros fits the male Shimon bar-Yonah.

As an aside, continuing the classical instances of petros I have posted yesterday, I have finally found an identification of petros with psêphôn (pebble); the problem is, it is in Classical (not Biblical Koine) Greek of the 5th–4th centuries BC ;):

In this wrangling Amompharetus **took up a stone **(petron) **with both hands and threw it down before Pausanias’ feet, crying that it was the pebble **(psêphôi) with which he voted against fleeing from the strangers (meaning thereby the barbarians). Pausanias called him a madman; then when the Athenian messenger asked the question with which he had been charged, Pausanias asked the man to tell the Athenians of his present condition, and begged them to join themselves to the Lacedaemonians and, as for departure, to do as they did.

-Herodotus, The Histories, 9.55.1
 
Then why doesn’t the passage go Thou art Petros and on Petros I will build my Church?

The writer uses Petros to refer to Peter then uses Petra to refer to Peter?
Good question! Here is how I understand it: the primary metaphor in the dialogue is the (Aramaic, Syriac or Hebrew) word for rock, while Peter is the subject in the dialogue. Now whatever the original word used by Christ is (Kepha?), it is feminine in Greek (Petra). Knowing this, we would expect the Greek translation to be:
You are Petra and on this petra I will build my Church…
I have capitalized the first Petra because it is functioning as a proper noun.
That translation would most certainly be the case if Christ had chosen Mary Magdalen to lead the Church. But he didnt, he chose Peter - a man - and that creates a problem: petra is feminine! The translator, in attempting to both preserve the rock as the primary metaphore and Peter as the subject used his ingenuity: he made the petra referring to the *subject *“masculine” by changing it to Petros and he left the petra referring to the primary metaphor as petra. That results in the translation:
You are Petros (proper noun, subject) and on this **petra **(metaphor, noun) I will build my Church…
It is hard for those of us who speak gender neutral languages(no masculine/feminine) to understand such issues in normal speech. We can, however, easily recognize that certain names, like Daisy or June - which both also happen to be gender neutral nouns in English - are inappropriate names for a man while they are perfectly appropriate for women.
Lastly, you asked why not simply say, You are Petros and on this petros I will build my Church…
I think the reason for not switching the primary metaphore reference to petros is simply because there is no such word in the Greek language. Apparently more flexibility existed in giving a new name to someone as opposed to inventing a new word.
Just my 2 cents…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top