I’ve been educating myself to this subject from the standpoint of Greek scholars. (removing link) has a site that has a compelling argument. With the understanding that Rome uses the Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 because the Aramaic word for Peter and Rock is the same word. KE’PHA This solves the problem for them. But the Aramaic text has its own set of problems I will bring up later.
The Greek text of Matt. 16:18 uses two separate and different words in the passage. Petros, the name given to the Apostle, Petra, the word used for rock. Rome says that “Peter” Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing.
But Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words Petros and Petra as two different words. According to Liddell and Scott writers of the English Lexicon, said "Petros is “distinct from Petra” E. Heracl. 1002 says it means “panta kinesai petron” “Leaves no stone unturned” c. pl.Lg.843 X HG 3.520 “Petrous epekulindoun” “they rolled down stones.”
Note: Petros, a stone, smaller moveable stone (heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.” So a Petros is a stone which can be turned over, hence a moveable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.
If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said, “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different word.
This matters in the debate.
