Matthew 16:18 myths

[Cirdan_XII]

I don’t know much about Greek or Hebrew so maybe I’m shooting in the dark here, but in Nordic-style stave rhyme, you freuquently get similar sounding (or rhyming) words being paired, one in the first half of a sentence and one in the last half, to create a bridge or association between the two. I understand other cultures from across the world used something similar, so it may well be an older form of once universal poetry that has been lost to modern man.

Reading “you are Petros - and upon this Petras …” I cannot help but feel this is such a functional assonance. And furthermore one that survives translation into any language.

 

[Abu]

Catholics know that Fr Stanley Jaki and Paul Keating are faithful Catholics as well as outstanding scholars, so they realize that their knowledge on Christ’s design for Peter as the Rock on which the Church is founded can be trusted. The evidence from Fr Jaki is confirmed by Karl Keating.

**Karl Keating **
catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
Extracts:
‘As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek* lithos *would have been used. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

‘ "And what does *Kepha *mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

‘ “When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

‘Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.’

 

[catholictiger]

don’t analysis the greek Jesus didn’t speak in greek. when you look at it in Aramaic, which Christ would have spoken, the words are exactly the same. The original greek the Gospel was written in is a translation of Christ speaking Aramaic. (at-least the times Jesus was speaking)

(I removed the quote it was to long)

 

[JohnR77]

In essence, this is almost the same interpretation as the one given in the original post, that the verse refers to Peter and the “rocklikeness” he demonstrated with his confession. …
Think about this: If I was speaking to you and said “Thou art JohnR77 and upon this JohnR77…” wouldn’t it sound a bit odd to you instead of saying "Thou art JohnR77 and upon you … " or “Thou art JohnR77 and upon you, JohnR77, …”

Why the switch from second person (Thou) to 3rd person (this Rock) when everything else in Jesus words in the passage is spoken in the 2nd person?

… **there needs to be some reason **for the switch from 2nd to 3rd person, hence the argument put forward in the original post about Peter and his “rockiness”, the 3rd person reference making sense because it refers to a characteristic of Peter, that describes Peter, but will describe others as well when they develop rocklike faith in Jesus.

Hi,

Interesting question. I would like to make the point that the fact that we have this question cannot be used as a reason for concluding that Peter himself was being downplayed by Christ.

I think the text itself rules out a negative reason against Peter as Abu and the section 4 make that point. So, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there was a positive reason. Possibly it happened like this.

Since this happened in the area of Caesarea Philippi it is not unreasonable to think that there was some conversation between Apostles about this city built on a massive structure of rock that was built to give false glory to a false god, Caesar.

Jesus on the other hand builds a Church, a City of God, to give true glory to our heavenly Father.

Jesus looks into Peter’s eyes and declares,

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Rock (Kepha)”

And then looking at the other Apostles with his hand on Simon Peter’s head, Jesus continued,

“ … and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Then, looking back at Simon, now Peter the Rock, Jesus continues,

“I will give you ( in the Greek it is “you - singular”)
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
​

Now is this account speculative ?

Yes, but it is consistent with all the data whereas the other speculations are not in my opinion.

.

 

[Mystophilus]

don’t analysis the greek Jesus didn’t speak in greek. when you look at it in Aramaic, which Christ would have spoken, the words are exactly the same.

1. Aramaic had multiple words for rock, and so we cannot reasonably assume that the two words were the same in the text which we do not have.
2. An assumption that they were the same is tantamount to a claim that the Greek, in which they are related but different, is a corruption of the message.

 

[Mystophilus]

Catholics know that Fr Stanley Jaki and Paul Keating are faithful Catholics as well as outstanding scholars, so they realize that their knowledge on Christ’s design for Peter as the Rock on which the Church is founded can be trusted.

I am quite surprised that you should want to suggest that Archbishop Fulton Sheen and all of the native Greek-speaking Fathers listed by Lampe cannot be trusted to understand the distinction between πετρα and πετρος, but, if that is really what you want to claim, it is up to you.

the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect.

Apart from the fact that there are plenty of κοινη lexica which show the distinction between πετρος and πετρα, one need read only the LXX, which was written in κοινη, to see their usage continuing in the original Greek vein (q.v. Ex 33:21-2, Jdg 1:36, Job 39:1, Ps 61:2, Is 51:1, Hab 2:1). That usage continued at least into Pausanias’ time (Description of Greece 1.4, 9.2). Sorry, but this claim fares no better than the one about πετρα being a small stone, λιθος being only a small stone, or Aramaic having only one word for stone.

the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church

Nor does the Greek, as already stated in the OP. You are protesting against something which is not being argued.

 

[Mystophilus]

In essence, this is almost the same interpretation as the one given in the original post, that the verse refers to Peter and the “rocklikeness” he demonstrated with his confession. I can’t speak for the original poster, but I don’t think he intended this interpretation to cast Peter in a negative light, but rather to make an argument about how the verse could be describing Peter and still be grammatically sound.

I admit to being quite confused by some people’s desire to interpret a natural Greek reading of this, the reading of native-Greek-speaking Fathers of the Church (and at least one Catholic archbishop), the reading of the Greek as it was used before, during, and after the writing of the Gospels, as casting Peter in any sort of negative light.

Thanks.

 

[Mystophilus]

in Nordic-style stave rhyme, you freuquently get similar sounding (or rhyming) words being paired, one in the first half of a sentence and one in the last half, to create a bridge or association between the two. I understand other cultures from across the world used something similar, so it may well be an older form of once universal poetry that has been lost to modern man.

Reading “you are Petros - and upon this Petras …” I cannot help but feel this is such a functional assonance. And furthermore one that survives translation into any language.

Greek poetry generally worked on metre rather than rhyme, but yes, the fact that the two different words share a common etymological basis is very apparent in Greek.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hi,

Interesting question. I would like to make the point that the fact that we have this question cannot be used as a reason for concluding that Peter himself was being downplayed by Christ.

I admit to being quite confused by some people’s desire to interpret a natural Greek reading of this, the reading of native-Greek-speaking Fathers of the Church (and at least one Catholic archbishop), the reading of the Greek as it was used before, during, and after the writing of the Gospels, as casting Peter in any sort of negative light.

Thanks.

I don’t think there is as much difference between the two of you as there is between either of you and me. Both of you are agreeing that the passage definitely shows special recognition of Peter and that this recognition later led to a leadership role among the Apostles.

Personally I think the recognition had specific fulfilment in Peter’s role in bringing his confession of Christ to all of the major ethnoreligious groups in Acts (preaching to Jews and Gentiles with confirming Samaritans in between) and that Peter acknowledges such in his speech in Acts 15. As Peter denied Christ 3 times, he was permitted to confess Him to these three groups and loose salvation and the Spirit to them, prevailing over Hell by freeing them from the curse of death and judgement.

I think that the scenario JohnR77 outlined is possible, and he acknowledges that it is speculation, and so up for discussion. That said, I don’t think either this interpretation or the one by Mystophilus leads to an understanding of Peter that is radically different. It takes external evidence and sources of information to create the differences between your understandings of Peter’s role-these have to be read into the text.

On a side note let it be known that I’m biting my tongue on other poster’s questionable use of an edited “quote” by Cullman as evidence and the continued assertion that the “spiral” argument isn’t circular without distinguishing between the actual biblical text and catholic interpretation of the text. While I think both are important, I worry that delving into them here would derail the thread.

 

[Abu]

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has addressed Peter as the Rock – the faithful will recognise what the Pope’s confirmation means to the understanding of the reality of this fact.

**“The Custodian of the Communion With Christ”
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 7, 2006 (Zenit) **- Here is a translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s address at today’s general audience, which he dedicated to comment on the theme “Peter, the rock on which Christ founded the Church.”
Extract:
The Evangelist John, when recounting the first meeting of Jesus with Simon, Andrew’s brothers, mentions a singular detail: “Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’ – which is translated Peter” (John 1:42). Jesus did not usually change his disciples’ names.

With the exception of the nickname “sons of thunder,” addressed in a specific circumstance to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mark 3:17), and that afterward he would not use, he never attributed a new name to one of his disciples. He did so, however, with Simon, calling him Cephas, a name that was later translated into Greek as “Petros,” in Latin “Petrus.” And it was translated precisely because it was not just a name; it was a “mandate” that Petrus thus received from the Lord. The new name “Petrus” will return on several occasions in the Gospels and will end by replacing his original name, Simon.

This detail is of particular importance if one keeps in mind that, in the Old Testament, a change of name announced in general the conferring of a mission (cf. Genesis 17:5; 32:28ff, etc.). In fact, Christ’s will to attribute to Peter a special prominence within the apostolic college is manifested with many clues: In Capernaum, the Master stays in Peter’s house (Mark 1:29); when the crowds pressed upon him on the shores of the Lake of Gennesaret, between the two moored boats, Jesus chose Simon’s (Luke 5:3); when in particular circumstances Jesus remains only in the company of three disciples, Peter is always recalled as the first of the group. Thus it occurred in the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (cf. Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mark 9:2; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28), and finally during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (cf. Mark 14:33; Matthew 16:37).

The tax collectors for the Temple went up to Peter, and the Master paid for himself and for Peter, and only for him (cf. Matthew 17:24-27); he was the first one whose feet he washed in the Last Supper (cf. John 13:6) and he prays only for him so that his faith would not fail and so that later he will be able to confirm the other disciples in it (cf. Luke 22:30-31).

On the other hand, Peter himself is aware of this particular position he has. He is the one who speaks often on behalf of the others, asking for explanations of a difficult parable (Matthew 15:15), or to ask about the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Matthew 18:21), or the formal promise of a recompense (Matthew 19:27). In particular, he is the one who surmounts the awkwardness of certain situations intervening in the name of all.

In this way, when Jesus, grieved by the incomprehension of the crowd after his discourse on the “bread of life,” asks: “Do you also want to leave?”, Peter’s answer was peremptory: “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:67-69). Jesus then pronounces the solemn declaration that defines, once and for all, Peter’s role in the Church: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).

The three metaphors to which Jesus takes recourse are very clear in themselves: Peter will be the rock foundation upon which the building of the Church will be based; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven to open and close to whom he thinks it is just; finally, he will be able to bind or loose, that is, will be able to establish or prohibit what he considers necessary for the life of the Church, which is and will continue to be Christ’s. It is always Christ’s Church and not Peter’s. He describes with plastic images what subsequent reflection will describe with the term “primacy of jurisdiction.”

This pre-eminent position that Jesus willed to give Peter is also seen after the resurrection: Jesus tells the women to take the announcement to Peter, singling him out among the other apostles (cf. Mark 16:7); Magdalene runs to him and to John to tell them the stone has been removed from the entrance of the sepulcher (cf. John 20:2) and John will let him go first when they arrive before the empty tomb (cf. John 20:4-6); later, Peter will be, among the apostles, the first witness of the apparition of the Risen One (cf. Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). This role, underlined with determination (cf. John 20:3-10), marks the continuity between his pre-eminence apostles, the first witness of the apparition of the Risen One (cf. Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).

This role, underlined with determination (cf. John 20:3-10), marks the continuity between his pre-eminence in the group of the apostles and the pre-eminence that he will continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles attests (cf. 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11,29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.]. His conduct is considered so decisive that it is the object of observations and also of criticisms (cf. Acts 11:1-18; Galatians 2:11-14).
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3377

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A quick perusal of the LSJ shows that “petros” was a poetic word, whereas “petra” was a more casual word. If the Gospel had said “petros” twice, it would have been using it the second time in a sort of archaic/poetic mode, which would have been strange.

 

[Mystophilus]

A quick perusal of the LSJ shows that “petros” was a poetic word, whereas “petra” was a more casual word. If the Gospel had said “petros” twice, it would have been using it the second time in a sort of archaic/poetic mode, which would have been strange.

In that case, I would suggest perusing more slowly : while poetry makes up the bulk of extant Greek literature, Xenophon’s Hellenica and Plato’s Laws are both listed there, and they are prose, not poetry. The Inscriptiones Graecae and the Anthologia Palatina are also there, the contents of neither of which are poetry by classical standards. Further, πετρος and πετρα are also used in Diodorus Siculus’ Biblioteca Historica 1.32 and 18.41, Flavius Josephus’ De Bello Judaico 7.240 and 271, and Pausanias’ Descriptio Graeciae, none of which is listed in the LSJ there, but all of which are prose, not poetry.

While it seems to be a huge challenge for some people to realise this, the historical evidence of the two words being used for separate denotations is not a threat to Catholic honour or to the importance of Peter. All that it means, in fact, is that a Catholic can answer claims against Petrine primacy with the statement of the fact that the two words were used in Greek from the C8th BC to at least the C2nd AD to refer to two different but interrelated things: the individual example and the general essence whence that example came.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In that case, I would suggest perusing more slowly : while poetry makes up the bulk of extant Greek literature, Xenophon’s Hellenica and Plato’s Laws are both listed there, and they are prose, not poetry. The Inscriptiones Graecae and the Anthologia Palatina are also there, the contents of neither of which are poetry by classical standards. Further, πετρος and πετρα are also used in Diodorus Siculus’ Biblioteca Historica 1.32 and 18.41, Flavius Josephus’ De Bello Judaico 7.240 and 271, and Pausanias’ Descriptio Graeciae, none of which is listed in the LSJ there, but all of which are prose, not poetry.

While it seems to be a huge challenge for some people to realise this, the historical evidence of the two words being used for separate denotations is not a threat to Catholic honour or to the importance of Peter. All that it means, in fact, is that a Catholic can answer claims against Petrine primacy with the statement of the fact that the two words were used in Greek from the C8th BC to at least the C2nd AD to refer to two different but interrelated things: the individual example and the general essence whence that example came.

You seem to have assumed I was arguing with you. I wasn’t. I was simply pointing out something about the words. I’m interested in the truth, not in defending some bias of my own.

You’re right about the Laws passage and the Xenophon passage, although those occur almost 500 years before Matthew was written. The Inscriptiones are simply Greek inscriptions, which are likely to be poetic, and “The Palatine Anthology (or Anthologia Palatina) is the collection of Greek poems and epigrams discovered in 1606 in the Palatine Library in Heidelberg.” (wikipedia).

The other uses of petros that you mention are interesting and relevant.

 

[Abu]

Here, the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. supports the Rock who is Peter

Faith in Christ Shown by Loyalty to the Pope
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J
'Having accepted Peter’s profession of faith in Himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, Christ then makes the promise that He was to fulfill shortly after His Resurrection from the dead. Jesus had just called him “Simon, son of Jona,” which means “John.” That was his first and his family name, frankly, Simon Johnson.

'Then Christ proceeded to change Simon’s name. He said, “Thou art Peter.” To see that in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, Tu es Petrus, is to realize that we are standing on rock. The Savior spoke Aramaic, in which language the word was kepha. But in Greek, in which Matthew’s Gospel has come down to us, the term became petros, although the normal Greek word is petra. But Petros was evidently a man. Jesus broke the law of language. He gave him a masculine name, appropriate to his gender, in order to bring out what no one dare forget: behind the gender was the meaning, and the meaning was “rock.” This is no pebble, no little rock. This is a stone, the kind you quarry. The Greeks had a word for every shade of distinction.

'Having given Simon his new name, “The Rock,” Jesus went on to declare what would be Peter’s [the Rock’s] role in the Church that Christ was founding. The word “founding” in the context we are examining has a much deeper significance than we commonly give it. There is the sense in which a founder is one who starts, and that is true. But even on that level, even before Christ left this world, He had made Peter His created, visible Vicar on earth. Moreover, after Christ’s Ascension into heaven, the Savior was the invisible head or, if you wish, the invisible foundation of the Church no less than He was during His visible stay on earth.

'The key to understanding Peter’s role relative to Christ’s is the word “visible.” This Church that Jesus was establishing was no hierarchy of angels; it was no community of disembodied spirits. It was a society of human beings, who would need a visible basis or foundation to which they could adhere. They had to hear an audible, sensibly perceptible voice. They would have to see these sensibly perceptible words expressed in doctrine and laws. It was not for nothing that, as far as revelation records, Jesus wrote nothing that He left to posterity. But since Christ wanted His Church to be a visible, sensibly perceptible society, just as in any other human visible society, there must be someone who is in charge.

‘We must take note of various biblical translations. Some modern English Bibles translate the Greek basilea as “reign.” Not so. Basilea is “kingdom.” “Reign” is an abstraction; “kingdom” is sensibly, visibly perceptible. Especially in our day, how necessary this is, to stress that apart form the See of Peter there is no certainty, no security, and no unity in Christianity.’
therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_001.htm

 

[spina1953]

Here, the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. supports the Rock who is Peter

Faith in Christ Shown by Loyalty to the Pope
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J
'Having accepted Peter’s profession of faith in Himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, Christ then makes the promise that He was to fulfill shortly after His Resurrection from the dead. Jesus had just called him “Simon, son of Jona,” which means “John.” That was his first and his family name, frankly, Simon Johnson.

'Then Christ proceeded to change Simon’s name. He said, “Thou art Peter.” To see that in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, Tu es Petrus, is to realize that we are standing on rock. The Savior spoke Aramaic, in which language the word was kepha. But in Greek, in which Matthew’s Gospel has come down to us, the term became petros, although the normal Greek word is petra. But Petros was evidently a man. Jesus broke the law of language. He gave him a masculine name, appropriate to his gender, in order to bring out what no one dare forget: behind the gender was the meaning, and the meaning was “rock.” This is no pebble, no little rock. This is a stone, the kind you quarry. The Greeks had a word for every shade of distinction.

'Having given Simon his new name, “The Rock,” Jesus went on to declare what would be Peter’s [the Rock’s] role in the Church that Christ was founding. The word “founding” in the context we are examining has a much deeper significance than we commonly give it. There is the sense in which a founder is one who starts, and that is true. But even on that level, even before Christ left this world, He had made Peter His created, visible Vicar on earth. Moreover, after Christ’s Ascension into heaven, the Savior was the invisible head or, if you wish, the invisible foundation of the Church no less than He was during His visible stay on earth.

'The key to understanding Peter’s role relative to Christ’s is the word “visible.” This Church that Jesus was establishing was no hierarchy of angels; it was no community of disembodied spirits. It was a society of human beings, who would need a visible basis or foundation to which they could adhere. They had to hear an audible, sensibly perceptible voice. They would have to see these sensibly perceptible words expressed in doctrine and laws. It was not for nothing that, as far as revelation records, Jesus wrote nothing that He left to posterity. But since Christ wanted His Church to be a visible, sensibly perceptible society, just as in any other human visible society, there must be someone who is in charge.

‘We must take note of various biblical translations. Some modern English Bibles translate the Greek basilea as “reign.” Not so. Basilea is “kingdom.” “Reign” is an abstraction; “kingdom” is sensibly, visibly perceptible. Especially in our day, how necessary this is, to stress that apart form the See of Peter there is no certainty, no security, and no unity in Christianity.’
therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_001.htm

Hi Abu: Great post and a great site to go to in explaining about Peter!

 

[Mystophilus]

You seem to have assumed I was arguing with you. I wasn’t. I was simply pointing out something about the words. I’m interested in the truth, not in defending some bias of my own.

Sorry, I did assume precisely that.

The Inscriptiones are simply Greek inscriptions, which are likely to be poetic, and “The Palatine Anthology (or Anthologia Palatina) is the collection of Greek poems and epigrams discovered in 1606 in the Palatine Library in Heidelberg.”

The inscriptions (many of which are now available here) are not generally poetic even by modern standards: most of them are civic/legal statements. The Anthologia Palatina does qualify as poetry by modern standards, but what I meant about them was that I very much doubt that the likes of Longinus or Dionysius Halicarnassus would admit them as poetry.

 

[Mystophilus]

in Greek, in which Matthew’s Gospel has come down to us, the term became petros, although the normal Greek word is petra. But Petros was evidently a man. Jesus broke the law of language. He gave him a masculine name, appropriate to his gender,

Doing this involves breaking no law of Greek. As already noted, Greek gender was primarily grammatical, and so flexible that we do have examples of Πετρος (petros) as a feminine noun.

This is no pebble, no little rock. This is a stone, the kind you quarry. The Greeks had a word for every shade of distinction.

Agreed.

 

[Abu]

Fr Stanley Jaki astutely highlights the significance of Caesarea Philippi as being “mentioned by Matthew and conspicuously slighted by biblical scholars. Such is a curious slighting if one recalls that in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi Jesus uttered a phrase which, even disregarding its content, is by its form one of the most conspicuous among His always momentous declarations……While the declaration…you are rock and on this rock I will build My Church….is all too well known, there has developed no broad awareness of the ‘neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi.’ ” And On This ROCK, Fr. Stanley Jaki, Trinity Communications, 1987, p 15].

Part I – Peter the Rock at Caesarea Philippi
defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html
Extract:
So, Caesarea Philippi was built on top of this wall of rock to give honor to these false gods, Caesar and Pan. And this rock is an extremely impressive sight. It towers over 100 feet straight up. However, in contrast Jesus makes Simon the Rock by changing his name to Rock, “Kephas” in the Aramaic language that Jesus Spoke, “Peter” in English, and “Petros” in Greek.

While the rock that Caesarea Philippi was built on is an impressive sight, Peter, by Christ’s decree becomes even a greater Rock because the ROCK-ness of Jesus Christ works through him making him a Rock. And upon him Jesus builds His Church to honor the One True God.

 

[Mystophilus]

Fr Stanley Jaki astutely highlights the significance of Caesarea Philippi as being “mentioned by Matthew and conspicuously slighted by biblical scholars.

I am not sure that it is so very curious for others not to mention it.

If the reference in Mt 16:18 were meant to include the rock outcropping at Caesarea Philippi, why not use παγος? If the reference were meant to include the whole of Mt Hermon, why not use 'ορος? In either case, the direct reference to a part of the physical environment might have misled the audience into believing that Christ’s church was to be built in that place, rather than upon the stuff of which Peter was made.

 

[ezeekl]

Something which keeps coming up, and being misunderstood, is the interesting interplay of πετρα and πετρος in Mt 16:18. Now, I am not a Catholic, but I would nonetheless say that that verse does support Petrine primacy, and I would like to explain how.

In Greek, Mt 16:18 reads καγω δε σοι λεγω (“and I-myself say to you”) οτι συ ει πετρος (“that you are Petros”) και επι ταυτη τη πετρα (“and upon this Petra”) οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν (“I will build my church”) και πυλαι 'αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης (“and the gates of Hades will not stand against her”).

What some anti-Catholics claim is that πετρος and πετρα are wholly-dissimilar, and that Jesus is not saying that he will build his church on Peter; what some Catholics claim is that πετρος and πετρα are utterly identical, and that Jesus is saying that he will build his church only on Peter. Neither of these readings does justice to the text.

There is a very simple reason for the dissimiliar wording. It has to do with gender. In all languages nouns have gender. That is they are either masculine, feminine or neuter. In English a noun word’s gender is determined by its sex. So a man is masculine, a woman is femine and a table is neuter. But that does not hold true in all languages. In German a noun’s gender is determine by the ‘definitive article’ masculine is der, feminine is die and neuter is das. But in German, a table is not neuter but rather feminie. Why because in German gender does not necessarily follow along sexual lines.`It is ‘die tafel’ not ‘das tafel’. Same is true in Latin and Greek. But in these languages gender is determined not by a definitive article but by the noun ending. You have a root word to which a gender ending is added. In Greek the masculine is -os or -as while the femine is -a. So the Greek word for rock is petra and by its ending we know it is femine gender. The root word is petr-. However, when applying that word to a man, as Jesus does, requires that the gender ending has to change to the masculine. So petra becomes petros. The meaning does not change only the gender. In Mt 16:18 there is only one rock and that is Peter. He is the one that the church is built on.