Matthew 16:17 Jonah or John, which is it?

[Augustine3]

All the English translations I have come across read “Jonah”, so I always thought Jesus was referring to himself as Jonah the prophet, making Simon his spiritual son. Strangely enough all the Arabic translations I’ve come across read “John” not Jonah. I heard Fr Pacwa (God bless him!) on a talk show say Peter is addressed in his full name Simon bar John in order to articulate to the readers “make no mistake, this decisive moment of appointing Simon as the rock is Simon son of John”.

Any comments?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Rev. Fr. Leo Haydock:

Ver. 17. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Simon is undoubtedly Sumewn, as written 2 Pet. i. 1. Bariwna is son of Jona, or John, an abridgment for Bariwanna. Bar, in Chaldaic, is son; hence S. Peter is called, in John xxi, 16. and 17, Simon, son of John. It was customary with the Jews to add to a rather common name, for the sake of discrimination, a patrwnumikon, or patronymic, as appears from Matt. x. 3. and xxiii. 35. Mark ii. 14. John vi. 42. P.

Sorry the Greek characters did not stick

 

[Augustine3]

Rev. Fr. Leo Haydock:

Ver. 17. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Simon is undoubtedly Sumewn, as written 2 Pet. i. 1. Bariwna is son of Jona, or John, an abridgment for Bariwanna. Bar, in Chaldaic, is son; hence S. Peter is called, in John xxi, 16. and 17, Simon, son of John. It was customary with the Jews to add to a rather common name, for the sake of discrimination, a patrwnumikon, or patronymic, as appears from Matt. x. 3. and xxiii. 35. Mark ii. 14. John vi. 42. P.

Sorry the Greek characters did not stick

Thanks for that.

I’ve always respected Haydocks commentary, but I’m not content with this explanation

Anyone else?

 

[pablope]

Thanks for that.

I’ve always respected Haydocks commentary, but I’m not content with this explanation

Anyone else?

From what I had heard, “bar” meant son of…Simon, son of John (peter’s father must have been named John).

 

[sousley]

Thanks for that.

I’ve always respected Haydocks commentary, but I’m not content with this explanation

Anyone else?

Lapide offers this:

Simon Bar-jona. For the father of Simon Peter was called Johanna, that is John, as is plain from S. John xxi. 15, meaning “God hath given: or God hath pitied: or the gift of God, from ‘Ia’ which is contracted from Jehovah, and ‘chanan,’ that is, he hath visited, he hath given.” Peter, then, was the son of John, or the grace of God, because he was most pleasing to God, and full of His grace. S. Chrysostom observes, that Christ gave the addition “Bar-jona,” not only according to the Hebrew custom, which always adds the name of the father to the children, but with a special reference to Peter’s answer, as though Christ confirmed it and said, “Thou hast spoken truly, 0 Peter, that I am the Son of God, for as thou art the son of Jona, a man from a man, according to natural generation, so am I the Son of God the Father, but begotten of Him from eternity—God of God, of one substance and Godhead with Him.” Symbolically Jona, that is “a dove,” is the emblem of the Holy Ghost, who in the form of a dove came down upon Christ. In this place also he descended upon Peter, and revealed to him that Christ was verify and indeed the Son of God. Thus S. Jerome—“Peter obtains a name from his confession, because he had a revelation from the Holy Ghost, whose son he was to be called.” Bar-jona in our language signifies “the son of a dove.” “For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee”—that is, not earthly parents nor friends nor any man who consists of flesh and blood has revealed unto thee that I am the Son of God—forasmuch as this knowledge far transcends all nature, and the natural knowledge of all men, but My Heavenly Father hath made it known to thee by the illumination of His grace. “What flesh and blood could not reveal, has been revealed by the grace of the Holy Ghost,” saith S. Jerome. By flesh, S. Hilary understands the bodily eyes of S. Peter, for they had told him that Christ was a man, but the revelation of the Father alone had made known to him that He was God.

 

[PJM]

=Augustine3;11740679]All the English translations I have come across read “Jonah”, so I always thought Jesus was referring to himself as Jonah the prophet, making Simon his spiritual son. Strangely enough all the Arabic translations I’ve come across read “John” not Jonah. I heard Fr Pacwa (God bless him!) on a talk show say Peter is addressed in his full name Simon bar John in order to articulate to the readers “make no mistake, this decisive moment of appointing Simon as the rock is Simon son of John”.

Any comments?

Douay Bible “[17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven”

Haydock’s catholic Commentary:.
“Ver. 17. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Simon is undoubtedly Sumeon, as written 2 Peter i. 1. Bariona is son of Jona, or John, an abridgment for Barioanna. Bar, in Chaldaic, is son; hence St. Peter is called, in John xxi, 16. and 17, Simon, son of John. It was customary with the Jews to add to a rather common name, for the sake of discrimination, a patronumikon, or patronymic, as appears from Matthew x. 3. and xxiii. 35; Mark ii. 14; John vi. 42. (Pastorini)”

 

[DaveBj]

The English name John is our version of the Hebrew name Yohannan. Jona and Jonah (the J’s should be pronounced as Y’s) are variants of that name, just as I have been called Dave and Davey in my own lifetime.