Matthew 16:18 myths

[Mystophilus]

Same is true in Latin and Greek. But in these languages gender is determined not by a definitive article but by the noun ending. In Greek the masculine is -os or -as while the femine is -a.

Sorry, but no, this is entirely incorrect. First, the endings do not determine gender, as evidenced by the fact that μεθοδος, for example, has an ος nominative inflection and is feminine, while γαλα has an α nominative inflection and is neuter.

Further, as mentioned in the OP, we do have two instances of πετρος as a feminine noun: not πετρα, but πετρος, feminine. Τhis sort of gender-switching is not a terribly rare event, in Greek, since gender was primarily grammatical, not natural, and so Greek writers sometimes changed it. When they did so, they had no need to alter the noun, q.v. Iliad 18.514-4, Euripides’ Medea 853, Xenophon’ s Memorabilia 2.7.2, Sophocles’ Trachiniae* 206-7, the Orphic Argonautica 263, Lk 2:43 and 8:54, κτλ.

However, when applying that word to a man, as Jesus does, requires that the gender ending has to change to the masculine.

Sorry, but, as already mentioned, not in Greek, and, as already mentioned in the OP, Jesus is identified with σοφια, a feminine noun, in 1 Co 1:24 and 30.

This argument about ‘needing to change the gender’ keeps reappearing, despite its lack of justification in actual Greek usage. My best guess is that it was originally made up by someone who had studied Latin, and who presumed that Latin gender rules could be transferred to Greek, although there are plenty of examples of people who refer to modern European languages as if they were at all relevant to the situation.

So petra

becomes petros. The meaning does not change only the gender.
Sorry, but no, as this ignores the consistent usage of the two terms with two distinct sets of denotation from the C8th BC to at least the C2nd AD, as already mentioned in this thread.

In Mt 16:18 there is only one rock and that is Peter. He is the one that the church is built on.

Sorry, but I am going to have to go with reading of the Fathers who were reading the text in their own first language, already listed by Lampe (already mentioned in the OP): the Church is built upon the stuff of which Peter was made, which most certainly includes him as first and foremost, but not alone.*

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In Greek the masculine is -os or -as while the femine is -a.

This is false. Hence, “he anthropos”, which means “the woman”.

 

[dronald]

I do have one off topic comment and then a question.

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say that people who make claims against Peter being the rock are “Anti-Catholic”. I’m surprised that the claim was made so many times to start.

And now for my simple question,

How do Catholics interpret this by Augustine?

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

Thanks.

 

[ezeekl]

Sorry, but no, this is entirely incorrect. First, the endings do not determine gender, as evidenced by the fact that μεθοδος, for example, has an ος nominative inflection and is feminine, while γαλα has an α nominative inflection and is neuter.

Further, as mentioned in the OP, we do have two instances of πετρος as a feminine noun: not πετρα, but πετρος, feminine. Τhis sort of gender-switching is not a terribly rare event, in Greek, since gender was primarily grammatical, not natural, and so Greek writers sometimes changed it. When they did so, they had no need to alter the noun, q.v. Iliad 18.514-4, Euripides’ Medea 853, Xenophon’ s Memorabilia 2.7.2, Sophocles’ Trachiniae** 206-7, the Orphic Argonautica 263, Lk 2:43 and 8:54, κτλ.

Sorry, but, as already mentioned, not in Greek, and, as already mentioned in the OP, Jesus is identified with σοφια, a feminine noun, in 1 Co 1:24 and 30.

This argument about ‘needing to change the gender’ keeps reappearing, despite its lack of justification in actual Greek usage. My best guess is that it was originally made up by someone who had studied Latin, and who presumed that Latin gender rules could be transferred to Greek, although there are plenty of examples of people who refer to modern European languages as if they were at all relevant to the situation.

Sorry, but no, as this ignores the consistent usage of the two terms with two distinct sets of denotation from the C8th BC to at least the C2nd AD, as already mentioned in this thread.

Sorry, but I am going to have to go with reading of the Fathers who were reading the text in their own first language, already listed by Lampe (already mentioned in the OP): the Church is built upon the stuff of which Peter was made, which most certainly includes him as first and foremost, but not alone.

I disagree totally. Proper greek gra,mmar requires the masculine form when referring to a man so Petra becomes petros. Rock is rock whether it be masculine or feminine. The early church writers knew this. For instance, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage wrote the following:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

There is no outcry seen in the church that Cyprian is teaching somethin new, a novel doctrine. No, instead we see others sayung the same thing that Peter and the rock are indeed one and the same.*

 

[spina1953]

It would seem to me that since Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Apostles also spoke Aramaic. Jesus changing Simon’s name to Kaphas meaning Rock, when it was translated into Greek, The intent of the meaning did not change only the grammar used changed because of the gender in the Greek language which was not the case in Aramaic it seems. One can argue as to the Greek but in any translation it is more the intent and meaning that is the more important I think than whether a word is feminine or masculine. The meaning should not change because of it, even when a different word is used in translation.

 

[Mystophilus]

I disagree totally. Proper greek gra,mmar requires the masculine form when referring to a man so Petra becomes petros.

That’s fine. You go right ahead and disagree with Homer and Sophocles and Euripides and Xenophon (not to mention St. Luke and St. Paul) about how Greek worked.

There is no outcry seen in the church that Cyprian is teaching somethin new, a novel doctrine.

Nor was there any such outcry against any of the other readings listed in Lampe, as already noted.

 

[Mystophilus]

It would seem to me that since Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Apostles also spoke Aramaic. Jesus changing Simon’s name to Kaphas meaning Rock, when it was translated into Greek,

The problem is rather that we do not know what the Aramaic word was in the latter part of the verse, and Aramaic apparently had quite a few terms which could have been used there.

The two Greek terms were different, both before and after the Gospels, which gives us plenty of reason not to assume that the Aramaic ones were the same.

 

[Mystophilus]

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say that people who make claims against Peter being the rock are “Anti-Catholic”. I’m surprised that the claim was made so many times to start.

This is what the OP states:
“What some anti-Catholics claim is that πετρος and πετρα are wholly-dissimilar”
“One of the more common claims of anti-Catholic readings is that πετρα is a mass of stone, while πετρος is a small pebble”
It does not state that reading πετρος as a different term from πετρα is inherently anti-Catholic, and, in fact, the OP also gives a list of readings by Church Fathers who did not equate πετρος with πετρα, i.e. who located the building of the Church on something other than Peter. Such readings were not necessarily exclusive, and a theologian who said at one point that the Church was built on Peter could say at another point that the Church was built on Christ, on Peter’s confession, on all believers, etc (q.v. Origen).

How do Catholics interpret this by Augustine?

" so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock," (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

This, from about minute 48, is much the same view, from a Catholic archbishop.

 

[Abu]

Who is the Rock?
If Peter is the rock that the Church is built on, then why does the Greek say “… you are “Petros” and upon this “petra” I will build my church …”? Actually Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic. And He used the Aramaic word for rock which is “Kephas.” See John 1:42 below.

So, Jesus’ actual words were
“… you are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church …” [The words not underlined are translated into English.]

In Paul’s letters he continued to use this Aramaic name for Peter. [Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5, etc.]

Matthew translated that into Greek when he translated his original Aramaic Gospel into the Greek. However, in Greek words have gender, that is, some words are feminine and some words are masculine. Spanish is the same way. For example, the Spanish word for “milk” is “leche” which is feminine and so it always takes feminine adjectives.

In Matthew 16 the second usage of “Kephas,” which means rock, the Apostle had no problem translating it to the root word for rock in the Greek which is “petra.” However, “Petra” is feminine. The masculine form of that word is “Petros.” So when Matthew translated the first instance of “Kephas” into Greek he used the masculine form of the word to keep it consistent with the male person it referred to.

Actually, the parenthetic note that is part of John’s Gospel chapter 1 verse 42 informs us that Jesus really called Peter “Kephas” and that this name was later translated to “Peter,” or actually “Petros” in the Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel.

John 1:42
“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Petros).”

Some English translations substitute “Peter” for “Petros” which is in the Greek text for the above verse.

Also the context itself precludes the mistaken notion that Jesus was putting Peter down in some way. Consider the five things that Jesus declares to Peter in Matthew 16 verses 17 through 19.

1. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.”
2. “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
3. “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.”
4. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
5. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Declarations 1, 2, 4, and 5 are unquestionably favorable to Peter. If declaration number 3 was unfavorable to him it would be totally inconsistent if not contradictory and it would make the whole dialogue confusing if not incomprehensible.

Therefore, both the original language of Aramaic where only one word for rock is used and the context itself shows that Simon is now the Rock on which Christ builds His Church.

 

[spina1953]

The problem is rather that we do not know what the Aramaic word was in the latter part of the verse, and Aramaic apparently had quite a few terms which could have been used there.

The two Greek terms were different, both before and after the Gospels, which gives us plenty of reason not to assume that the Aramaic ones were the same.

Hi Mystophilus: You might be correct, but what did Matthew mean? and how did those who heard and also read his Gospel understand what he Matthew was saying and meaning? While we sit and debate what Matthew meant and said by the use of Greek grammar and Aramaic grammar, as to meaning, but should we think then that those who actually heard and read Matthew’s Gospel did the same?

 

[ezeekl]

Hi Mystophilus: You might be correct, but what did Matthew mean? and how did those who heard and also read his Gospel understand what he Matthew was saying and meaning? While we sit and debate what Matthew meant and said by the use of Greek grammar and Aramaic grammar, as to meaning, but should we think then that those who actually heard and read Matthew’s Gospel did the same?

The early church did not have the problem that Mystophilus has. They knew who was the rock. In Acts Chapter 15 at the Council of Jerusalem scripturetellsus there was “much debate” But then Peter stood up and began to speak and everyone shut up. Why? Probably for the same reason that my co employees shut up in a meeting when our boss speaks. They knew exactly who was boss. Unfortunately, Mystophilus does not.

Again the situation in Corinth and the appeal to Clement in Rome. All of the apostles are dead except for John who is in Ephesus. Yet the Corinthians did not seek help from the Apostle. Instead they went to Rome and Clement. They too, unlike Mystophilus, knew who was boss.

Then too there is Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John. He too acknowledges the ‘presidency’ of the Roman Church. He too knew where the boss was to be found.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Mystophilus is not commenting on Petrine primacy, so far as I can tell. He is investigating a Scripture.

As for the discussion of whether Gospel readers would know the finer points of Greek grammar – of course they would! We all know the finer points of English grammar, even if we’ve never taken grammar classes. That’s what it means to speak a language fluently.

Consider the HUGE difference between “I got it” and “I have it”, or the huge difference between “He’s smart” and “He’s wise.” Any fluent speaker is tremendously discerning in a language. Unfortunately, there are no longer any fluent speakers of ancient Greek.

 

[spina1953]

The early church did not have the problem that Mystophilus has. They knew who was the rock. In Acts Chapter 15 at the Council of Jerusalem scripturetellsus there was “much debate” But then Peter stood up and began to speak and everyone shut up. Why? Probably for the same reason that my co employees shut up in a meeting when our boss speaks. They knew exactly who was boss. Unfortunately, Mystophilus does not.

Again the situation in Corinth and the appeal to Clement in Rome. All of the apostles are dead except for John who is in Ephesus. Yet the Corinthians did not seek help from the Apostle. Instead they went to Rome and Clement. They too, unlike Mystophilus, knew who was boss.

Then too there is Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John. He too acknowledges the ‘presidency’ of the Roman Church. He too knew where the boss was to be found.

Hi ezeeki: I have to agree with you. It just seems too me that the early Christians who heard and read Matthew’s Gospel understood what he was saying and meaning. it also seems to me that in our modern day and age, so many want to infer something other than what Mathew was speaking about in 16:18

 

[spina1953]

Mystophilus is not commenting on Petrine primacy, so far as I can tell. He is investigating a Scripture.

As for the discussion of whether Gospel readers would know the finer points of Greek grammar – of course they would! We all know the finer points of English grammar, even if we’ve never taken grammar classes. That’s what it means to speak a language fluently.

Consider the HUGE difference between “I got it” and “I have it”, or the huge difference between “He’s smart” and “He’s wise.” Any fluent speaker is tremendously discerning in a language. Unfortunately, there are no longer any fluent speakers of ancient Greek.

Hi Prodigal Son: I understand what you are saying, however, do you think that they understood Matthew differently and the intend Matthew was implying? It seems to me that they got the message, yet, it seems that the modern man wants to find a different meaning to what Matthew was saying and meaning.

 

[Mystophilus]

Apparently, some people are willing to completely ignore a thousand years of demonstrable Greek usage, and to just keep asserting the same tired claims, in some cases merely by cutting and pasting previous comments. It does not seem useful to continue pointing out the fact that their misconceptions about Greek are contradicted by Greek as used by Greeks and early Christians.

So, I would just like finally to add for anyone interested in the actual linguistic evidence that I did look for gender-switching of nouns in the Greek Scriptures, and did find examples of it, including ελεος in Proverbs 3:16 being used as a neuter (despite its usually being masculine); there are also such examples in the earliest Church writings: q.v. το ζηλος in Ignatius to the Trallians 4.2. Interestingly, the Codex Alexandrinus has many such examples, but they are corrected (i.e. made more consistent with the common Greek gender of the nouns) in the Byzantine Majority.

Second, I did also locate examples of non-masculine words metaphorically used for a male person other than that used in 1 Co 1:24 and 30 for Jesus: Song of Songs 1:14 has Βοτρυς (neut) and 2:9 has Δορκας (fem) for the male Beloved.

 

[Mystophilus]

Hi Mystophilus: You might be correct, but what did Matthew mean? and how did those who heard and also read his Gospel understand what he Matthew was saying and meaning? While we sit and debate what Matthew meant and said by the use of Greek grammar and Aramaic grammar, as to meaning, but should we think then that those who actually heard and read Matthew’s Gospel did the same?

In the OP, I did post a link to a lengthy list of early Church readings of this very passage. The majority of them recognise the interplay of the two distinct terms, which is precisely why I talked about it being there: the native speakers of Greek read it that way.

However, none of this linguistic evidence seems to matter to people who would prefer to simply reiterate the same claims over and over regardless, and so I will leave them to it.

 

[ezeekl]

In the OP, I did post a link to a lengthy list of early Church readings of this very passage. The majority of them recognise the interplay of the two distinct terms, which is precisely why I talked about it being there: the native speakers of Greek read it that way.

However, none of this linguistic evidence seems to matter to people who would prefer to simply reiterate the same claims over and over regardless, and so I will leave them to it.

Let me ask you this question. In this 'lengthy list of early church readings of this passage" in which you say, “The majority of them recognise the interplay of the two distinct terms…” We all know that it is possible to have interpretations of bible passages without denying others. So I ask you, did any of these early church writers unequivically deny that Peter and the rock mentioned in Mt 16:18 are one and the same? I think that is the point you have to show if your contention is to be considered as having any merit.

 

[dronald]

Let me ask you this question. In this 'lengthy list of early church readings of this passage" in which you say, “The majority of them recognise the interplay of the two distinct terms…” We all know that it is possible to have interpretations of bible passages without denying others. So I ask you, did any of these early church writers unequivically deny that Peter and the rock mentioned in Mt 16:18 are one and the same? I think that is the point you have to show if your contention is to be considered as having any merit.

Can you please comment on your interpretation of the Augustine passage I quoted?

 

[ezeekl]

Can you please comment on your interpretation of the Augustine passage I quoted?

I would be glad too. But first allow me to quote what I posted. I said:

“Originally Posted by ezeekl
Let me ask you this question. In this 'lengthy list of early church readings of this passage” in which you say, “The majority of them recognise the interplay of the two distinct terms…” We all know that it is possible to have interpretations of bible passages without denying others. So I ask you, did any of these early church writers unequivically deny that Peter and the rock mentioned in Mt 16:18 are one and the same? I think that is the point you have to show if your contention is to be considered as having any merit."

Now your post that you refer to [post #43]:

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

Now re-read Augustine’s last sentence, “. . . But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” Does that sound like Augustine was unequivical? Augie does not slam the door as you would like him to do. Augustine did not deny that Peter was the rock. But more over, since Peter has the power to bind and loose both on earth as well as in heaven then there can be no separation of Peter and Christ as the rock on which the church is established. We see a parallel in the OT church with God and Moses.

One more thing. Let’s not empower Augustine with infallibility. A great man, sure, but certainly not infallible. If he were, Anglicans and Episcopalians as well as other protestants would drop him like a hot potato. For you see, even Augustine held to the universal authority of the pope.

 

[dronald]

Now re-read Augustine’s last sentence, “. . . But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” Does that sound like Augustine was unequivical? Augie does not slam the door as you would like him to do. Augustine did not deny that Peter was the rock. But more over, since Peter has the power to bind and loose both on earth as well as in heaven then there can be no separation of Peter and Christ as the rock on which the church is established. We see a parallel in the OT church with God and Moses.

No, Augustine doesn’t slam the door; he even says “let the reader decide.” Does that mean I have the choice to decide which one is true?

One more thing. Let’s not empower Augustine with infallibility. A great man, sure, but certainly not infallible. If he were, Anglicans and Episcopalians as well as other protestants would drop him like a hot potato. For you see, even Augustine held to the universal authority of the pope.

Why wouldn’t Augustine know such an obvious truth?

How could he get this so wrong; honestly, how? He’s Augustine… If it was so obvious he would have known. I can’t wrap my mind around how he could make this mistake.