MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

As a point of personal disclosure, I am literate in only one language. This can be taken as ignorance but, I feel confident I can manage since the posts are all in English.

One of the things I found intriguing was the title of this thread. Correcting me if I am wrong in my observation, but it appears that the second part is not quite what you meant. May I suggest: " – Beyond the Catholic Talking Points"? It appears that you have tried to preserve your own so-called “talking points”.

Looks like you have your hands full with the 16 posts that have been generated so far. Personally, I think that Benedictus2’s posts present a rather clear refutation of your position - but, I will eagerly look, for your focused responses…

I would like to merely comment on one item. Addressing this clearly would be appreciated. You will note a certain similarity to this same question that I asked - but, you never did get around to answering. So, I will rephrase it with the hope that you will respond.

1. “Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word. They’re two different words which have a common root, and are in the same semantic domain (they both talk about that hard stuff.) These two different words have two different meanings in classical Greek.

This entire matter appears to be based on the premis that classical Greek was the language spoke by Christ and the Apostles. Fine. Additionally, the real argument is that Peter is really being referred to as a ‘small pebble’ rather than a “large rock”. Fine.

Is your point that God should not have selected Peter to give the answer to Christ’s question, or that Christ could not build His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church - on this ‘small pebble’? Throughout the Bible, God has decided to work through weak and sinful men - beginning with Adam. Of all the Apostles, Peter would be recorded as the second most sinful (Judas despaired and hung himself). No one really comes close to Peter for sinning.

Yet, if we can possibly move forward to the next verse, we find that this ‘little pebble’ is given the Keys - a symbol of authority and honor still used today, and the authority to bind and lose. This ‘little pebble’ certainly has a lot of recognition from Godhead!

Not wishing to watch someone strain out the gnat while swallowing a Greek camel … taking the entire verse - instead of this fixation on one word, that I believe is being totally misused in your presentation - Christ recognized Peter in a very special way - and made him the leader. The size of the rock is immaterial - it is the size of the man that Christ has chosen for this special task.

I eagerly await your response.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

These have been truly enlightening responses.

God bless

While you may not be able to find the change in interpretation from Attic to Koine Greek, we can still ask: "What do Protestant Biblical Scholars have to say about it?"

Gerhard Maier (leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian)

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
**

---

Donald A. Carson III**
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18​

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

---

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

 

[adrift]

The new thread is still the same as this old thread. It still all amounts to the same question: Was Peter the Rock?

“Beyond the talking points” is just a fancy title for a simple question.

True. There are now three threads on the subject two of which have been abandoned by their OP’s. I wish they would answer the question why a name change?

Is Peter the rock?

 

[elvisman]

I’m not asking for an autograph manuscript. I’m simply stating that there are lots and lots of manuscripts of Matthew in Greek. There are no manuscripts of Matthew in Aramaic. None. There are hundreds of quotations of our Greek Matthew in the literature of the Early Church. There are, to my knowledge, no such quotations of an Aramaic Matthew. Is it really likely that the Early Church lost an apostolic Gospel that completely, but preserved a translation that well?

**Your entire argument is based on the fact that there is not ancient Aramaic text - but the likelihood that Jesus spoke Greek to his Apostles is weak at best. **

As I pointed out earlier, Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine but it was not the ligua franca among the peasantry. Jewish fisherman didn’t speak Greek among themselves.

Eusebius was repeating Papias’ statement. He isn’t, and doesn’t claim to be, an independent source.

Excuse me, but it was you who made the false claim that Papias is the sole ECF who claimed that Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Irenaeus also made this claim.

**I never said that Eusebius made the claim. I said that he *recorded *these claims by Irenaeus and Papias. Besides, the issue of which language was used in Matthew’s Gospel does not seem to have been a huge topic of interest among the Fathers at large. **

Do you understand how utterly unconvincing that argument is? “We think, but cannot prove, that Jesus spoke in Aramaic on this occasion.” Well, we know for certain that the Holy Spirit chose to preserve for us a Greek Gospel of Matthew. “You are kepha … on this kepha …” Well, Delitzch’s Hebrew NT translation used petros for petros and HATSSUR HAZZE for petra. The modern Hebrew NT has KIPPA for petros and HATSSUR HAZZE for petra. So inferring “kepha … kepha” as the Aramaic original is not certain either. Neither recent Hebrew translation from the Greek went that way. So if we want to try reconstructing an Aramaic original, kepha … kepha is only one of a number of candidates. Hebrew has plenty of rock/stone type words.

Let me try to be pithy: In my judgment, you’re using an Aramaic text that does not exist, to prove that in the Greek text that DOES exist, two different words are the same. My answer is that extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary proof, but I’d settle for even some proof of the ordinary variety.

I like how you completely glossed over the Scriptural evidence I gave you regarding Paul using the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha, when referring to Peter as Cephas:
Gal. 1:18, 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5.

Your claim that since the Holy Spirit preserved a Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel and therefore it MUST have been originally written in Greek shows a certain ignorance of history and linguistics.

Greek was the language of commerce at the time and slowly began to tak over as the lingua franca over the centuries. Aramaic eventually all but died out. Why wouldn***'t* the Holy Spirit have preserved the Scriptures through Greek translations. Don’t forget - Latin eventually became the lingua franca around the world when Jerome translated the Scriptures in the 4th century. It only made sense at the time to translate the Bible into Latin.**

You apprear to be a person who needs absolutes in every scenario with no room for probability, which is simply not a dependable way of viewing history.**

 

[pablope]

For petros: Basic meaning, a stone or a piece of rock. Authors cited include Homer, Xenophon and Euripides.
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pe%2Ftros&la=greek#lexicon

For petra: Basic meaning, rock, freq. referring to cliffs; rock (which a cave is in); stone (as a building material); a ledge or shelf of rock. A number of classical authors are cited.
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=petra&la=greek#lexicon

Looking at the examples in these citations, it almost seems like the difference is that petra is “living rock,” rock you’d have to break or cut to separate it from the earth, whereas all the examples of petros are rocks or stones that are already broken out or cut out of the earth. But it’s small sample, so take it for what it’s worth.

Since the definition of rock is mentioned it, then when discussing this, aside from the context, the location of where this was stated also plays a role in the understanding by the Apostles of what Jesus meant (I will quote the source directly):

Look at the scene

…he place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when “Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi” (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, “You are Peter” (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name…

Source: catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

 

[pablope]

One more thought before bed … do we all realize that Jesus had already given Simon his nickname quite some time before? John 1:42 says that Jesus told Simon his nickname the very first time they met. So Matt. 16 is not a renaming. I think Matt. 16 is best taken as a later explanation of a nickname or new name that was given quite some time before.

It doesn’t change the petros/petra discussion very much, but in the interest of being accurate, I thought I’d mention it.

AIL

John 1:42 (New American Standard Bible)

42He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

The verse states “…you shall”…meaning a future naming. I think it just confirms the primacy being given Peter among the Apostles, and this early at that. Jesus had already singled Peter out for something.

Again, the name change is significant, and it is not a nickname…as has been pointed in another post.

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

From your links and my own links your conclusion that there is not a difference.

The difference between classical Greek and Koine Greek is something like the difference between Shakespeare and modern English. Grammar got a lot simpler. Some words of course changed meaning over 300-400 years. Others didn’t change at all. New words came in, old words went out.

To know whether a given word changed meaning or not, you need to find where writers use it, compare those uses of the word, and see whether or not the meaning has changed.

My conclusion at this point is that the meanings of petros and petra didn’t change between Classical and Koine Greek. I’ve asked for references that might indicate that’s wrong.

The word for chair in Spanish is La Silla. Now if I were to name my son chair I would have to change it to Sillo to reflect that he is male. Otherwise it would be like naming a son Sue that Johnny Cash sung about.

Let’s say there’s also a Spanish word, el Sillo. It means “an outdoors chair” – a lawn chair, or a camp stool. “La Silla” means “an indoors chair,” – kitchen chair, LaZBoy, etc.

1000 years later, people read that you named your son Sillo, after the chair your wife was sitting in when you proposed to her. A scholar is trying to decide whether you proposed to your wife in a restaurant, or in the front yard of her parents’ house. Which word should they think your son’s name comes from? Is his name (El) Sillo, or is it (La) Silla with a masculine ending attached? My answer is, the people who say it happened in the restaurant have a tough hill to climb. The simple, obvious explanation for naming him Sillo is that he was named after an outside chair.

That’s my point. “Petros” was already its own word, and had been for centuries. It’s not just the result of linguistic surgery on “petra.”

The sentence itself supports that Peter is rock. The question that has to be supported is what is “this rock”. What is the “rock” being referred to? Even in your links Peter is stone or piece of rock.

Kind of. Peter is a stone or piece of rock, maybe like in English we say a “chip off the old block.” Petra IS the block. There’s really not much overlap between the two, like there is in English between “rock” and “stone.”

AIL

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done.

I’m not sure devout Jews would think that a city named after the pagan, Gentile emperor in Rome would emphasize the importance of the event. A number of Jews thought it might even be sinful to pay taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:17).

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

Your entire argument is based on the fact that there is not ancient Aramaic text - but the likelihood that Jesus spoke Greek to his Apostles is weak at best.

My argument is that possibilities and probabilities are not good enough. Yes, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic that day. But we do not and cannot know that for sure. We must deal with the text we have, not what we think another text we do not have might have said.

As I pointed out earlier, Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine but it was not the ligua franca among the peasantry. Jewish fisherman didn’t speak Greek among themselves.

Most scholars agree with you, but not all. These were Galileans, not Judeans. If these were Judeans, I’d say you have a slam dunk. But they’re Galileans. The very name of the place, Galilee, comes from a Hebrew term, “The wheel/circle (Galil) of the Gentiles,” which you see in Isaiah 9:1. So I’d say you’re probably right – but only probably.

Excuse me, but it was you who made the false claim that Papias is the sole ECF who claimed that Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Irenaeus also made this claim.

Yes, he did, and I should have added that to my list.

I like how you completely glossed over the Scriptural evidence I gave you regarding Paul using the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha, when referring to Peter as Cephas:
Gal. 1:18, 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5.

Yes, John has “Kepha” as the Aramaic flavor of Simon’s new name/nickname. Yes, then, if you insist on trying to reconstruct a text we don’t have, “kepha” might be a reasonable guess at an Aramaic version of, “You are Peter.” Your problem is trying to convince people that “On this rock” would also have been “kepha.”

Also, neither Franz Delitsch in his late 1800’s Hebrew NT, nor the translators of the current modern Hebrew translation of the NT, use Kepha for either word. They know a lot more Hebrew and Aramaic than you or I do. But they did what a responsible translator is required to do. They translated the words in the Greek text, as they stand written in Greek. The translator’s job is to report what’s actually there, not what they believe might possibly belong there.

Your claim that since the Holy Spirit preserved a Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel and therefore it MUST have been originally written in Greek shows a certain ignorance of history and linguistics.

It does? Really? Do you realize that current consensus, based primarily on linguistic analysis of the text, is that it was originally written in Greek? Did you know that it’s rather unlikely that someone writing in Hebrew or Aramaic would have “mind” instead of the Hebrew original “strength,” like Matthew does in 22:37? Check wikipedia.org for some references to the literature. (“Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the first century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness … scholars such as Craig Blomberg, disagree variously on these points and believe Matthew did write the gospel.”) Just for the record, I’d fall under the Craig Blomberg group – I believe that Matthew wrote Matthew in the early 60’s AD, in Greek. Maybe Papias was wrong. Or maybe Matthew collected Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic/Hebrew, and used them as references when he sat down to actually write his Gospel, much like Luke collected various source materials is preparation for writing his books.

You really need to quit telling me I’m displaying ignorance if you want me to spend my time conversing with you. It’s rude, arrogant, and doesn’t reflect well on you. I haven’t noticed ANY actual information from the Greek text of Matthew in any of your posts. Perhaps I missed it.

One quick question … do you know any Greek, Latin, or Hebrew?

I object, and will continue to object, to basing the exegesis of this verse on a Hebrew or Aramaic statement we do not have. But hey, if you want, I can rephrase my question this way:

If Jesus said, “You are Kephas, and on this kepha I will build my church,” why would Matthew not translate, “You are petros, and on this petros I will build my church.” Why did Matthew change words in Greek, and make the grammar clumsy, when saying it that way was far easier, simpler, and more natural?

 

[elvisman]

I’m not sure devout Jews would think that a city named after the pagan, Gentile emperor in Rome would emphasize the importance of the event. A number of Jews thought it might even be sinful to pay taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:17).

WRONG.
Not only did the place that this event occurred have a great significance because of its massive stone formation - history tells us that inside the cave of this stone temple was a place called the “gates of hell” because of the seemingly bottomless pit therein. This would correlated PERFECTLY with Jesus’ statement in verse 18 that even “the gates of hell” would not prevail against his Church.

**Sorry, but your argument becomes weaker and weaker every time you inject your own presuppositions in place of what Scripture tells us.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m interested in a civil dialogue; I neither indulge in the trolling and character assassination that pervade the internet, nor converse with those who do. Life’s too short for that nonsense, not to mention that the Lord forbids such conduct. Nor do I live and breathe here; if I haven’t replied to something someone wrote in 48 hours, it’s entirely possible I’m off living my life, thinking, reading, or other things.

I am familiar with the following “talking points,” I will call them, which Catholics generally use to discuss Matt. 16:18. Please read and consider the following before repeating any of these:

1. “There is no difference in meaning in Koine Greek.” That’s very easy to say, of course, but saying it doesn’t make it true. These two words mean different things in classical Greek. I find no evidence this changed in any of the standard NT Greek lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Louw-Nida, etc.) I’m aware of no evidence for this assertion, only that the assertion is made. Can anyone refer me to actual evidence, either raw evidence in the Greek, or a study done by someone who refers to the Greek text(s) and cites at least one or two references, that use petros and petra interchangably?
2. “Jesus used Petros because Simon was a man, and petra is a feminine noun.” It is perfectly normal in Koine Greek, in fact in any inflected language I know of, for a predicate nominative noun to disagree in gender with the subject it refers to. The New Testament even offers an example of this using the word petra! 1 Cor. 10:4: h petra hn o xristos – “The rock (petra – feminine subject) was Christ (xristos – masculine predicate nominative).”
3. “Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word. They’re two different words which have a common root, and are in the same semantic domain (they both talk about that hard stuff.) These two different words have two different meanings in classical Greek.
4. “Jesus spoke Aramaic,” and/or “Matthew was written in Aramaic, so he said kepha … kepha.”

a) One church father (Papias) said that Matthew was written in Aramaic. There is no manuscript or any other evidence for an Aramaic Matthew. Other than Papias’ one comment, there is no other evidence for an Aramaic Matthew at all.

b) Matthew wrote his Greek Gospel by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Greek statement we have accurately reflects exactly what jesus said and meant. God gave us Matthew in Greek, and intends that we understand it in Greek, not in Aramaic.

c) “Jesus spoke Aramaic.” It’s entirely likely he also spoke Greek. Even life in Rome would have been difficult for a non-Greek speaker in the 1st century, let alone in not-very-Jewish Galilee. Which one did Jesus speak that day outside of Caesarea Philippi? We do not know. The only thing we know is what Matthew wrote down for us. In Greek.

Thanks,
AIL

What is your point?

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

So with the foregoing, and other mounting evidence that supports that Jesus spoke Aramaic, the petros/petra is reduced to a non issue.

Now we can move forward to explaining why the different terms in Greek
But as you pointed out in points 1-3 you know all the usual Catholic reasoning.

So let’s take a different tack and just look at the sentence structure.

Let’s grant for the purpose of this exercise, that Petros is stone and petra is rock.

I will number the segments so we can look at it more clearly. But, bear in mind, this is one CONTINUOUS discourse. So who ever is addressed in the first YOU, is the same YOU in the rest of the discourse.

(1) Blessed are you, Simon barJona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
**(2) ** And so I say to you, **you are a little stone, **
**(3) ** 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. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You forgot #0. “Peter said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’”
Jesus then says,

1. “The Father in heaven himself revealed this to you.”
2. “You are Petros.” (Why would that be an insult??? I don’t think it’s an insult.)
3. “On this rock I will build my church.”

I contend that “this rock” uses a different but related noun, with the demonstrative adjective, to refer back to what Peter said, not to anything Jesus said. “You” in the passage always means Peter. “This rock” fits quite nicely with Jesus’ reference to “this,” i.e., this truth/statement/confession Peter had just spoken.

In 1

It sounds to me like

1. Peter confesses who Jesus is,
2. Jesus blesses him for this,
3. Jesus builds his church on this, and
4. There’s a cool pun involving the name Jesus gave him, and
5. Also some other stuff.

AIL

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

It has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

We don’t know whether the chronology that should be followed is John’s or Matthew’s. Since Matthew was written earlier, then it would be a reasonable assumption that his Chronology in this regard is more accurate.

Why can’t they both be right?

Furthermore, in John 1:42 He tells Simon he shall be called Cephas but does not give any reason for the name change.

So because Jesus didn’t say why, it didn’t happen? Was John just making stuff up?

In the Bible, whenever God changes the name of someone - it signifies a momentous event. It is not just a nickname.

It’s not a name change. It’s an additional name. Jesus called him “Simon bar Jonah” again in John 21:15. By contrast, Abram got his name changed – after the change, he isn’t called Abram any more.

If Cephas translates to Petros and Cephas is Aramaic for Rock then it stands to reason that Petros is rock.

Another interesting note: the final sigma (s) in Cepha(s) was added in Greek to make it masculine instead of feminine. ** Now this is exactly what was done in the Greek translation – to masculinize petra they called him Petros.**

Yes, yes, yes, Cephas is a rock, and Petros is a rock. They’re both rocks. Cephas and Petros could have started a rock band if they’d had electric guitars and hadn’t been the same guy. They could have invited Lithos the Greek neighbor, as well as Tsur, Sela, and the rest of the Hebrew rockers, and had quite a jam session.

You do like to forget that petros is a word. Why? It’s not just a masculinized Petra. Why don’t you like petros? Why won’t you give this perfectly fine Greek word the respect he deserves? Ajax threw him at Achilles once. Thousands of slingers in many different armies killed lots of enemy soldiers with him. He has his very own entry in the Greek lexicons. He has his very own definition. He’s not his sister Petra dressed in men’s clothes, with the makeup washed off. He’s a word all by himself! He’s been a he-man, masculine noun since way before Alexander the Great came down the road.

I’m tellin ya, if you keep treating petros like this, he’s liable to pop you one in the mouth and tell you to quit questioning his manhood!

AIL

 

[John7]

Hi AIL,

“Peter said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’”
Jesus then says,

1. “The Father in heaven himself revealed this to you.”

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
in the NASB and KJV ‘this’ (or ‘it’ in the KJ) is italicized, ie, there is no demonstrative pronoun for ‘this’ in the Greek,

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ
Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ,
ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι
ἀλλʼ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς•

only demonstrative is in next verse like you said

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω
ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ
οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς•

1. “On this rock I will build my church.”

I contend that “this rock” uses a different but related noun, with the demonstrative adjective, to refer back to what Peter said, not to anything Jesus said. “You” in the passage always means Peter. “This rock” fits quite nicely with Jesus’ reference to “this,” i.e., this truth/statement/confession Peter had just spoken.

Why not? Why can’t “this rock” have the very same antecedent “this” does in the previous sentence? “You are the Christ! … The Father revealed this … on this rock.” Why on earth can’t the same demonstrative adjective (“this”) refer to the same antecedent (“You are the Christ!”) in two consecutive sentences?

Again there is no greek demonstrative for ‘this’ in verse 17 so I don’t know if this part of your argument holds.

Also: although the demonstrative in ‘this rock’ could be anaphoric to Peter’s confession, this I think is not a natural reading. The more natural and nearer antecedent should be petros…my opinion.

Also do you think that if Christ was referring to Peter’s confession, that instead of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ / this rock, Christ could have easily have said something like ταύτης τῆς ὁμολογίας, ‘this confession/profession’, ‘You are Petros and upon this confession I will build my church’?

 

[TimothyH]

Which rock?

For what it’s worth, I always thought that the rock referred to the foundation stone of the temple in Jerusalem.

What I seem to remember is that Jewish tradition held that the foundation stone of the temple capped off a long shaft leading to sheol, the abode of the dead, the netherworld or “The pit.” Insofar as these places represent chaos and death, the foundation stone of the temple protected Israel from death, chaos, destruction, etc. I had always though that Jesus’ reference to Peter as the foundation stone of the temple - the rock upon which his new Church would be built - was thus part of the replacement of mosaic authority and part of the promise of infalibility

I know it is not directly related to the petra vs petros debate but thought I’d throw it out there.

My own personal opinion is that the sense of scripture is accurate enough for me to believe that the Catholic Church is everything it says it is and that you are all arguing about what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Having said that, carry on.

-Tim-

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

Hi AIL,

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
in the NASB and KJV ‘this’ (or ‘it’ in the KJ) is italicized, ie, there is no demonstrative pronoun for ‘this’ in the Greek.

Again there is no greek demonstrative for ‘this’ in verse 17 so I don’t know if this part of your argument holds.

Thank you for the correction. You are of course right about my missing demonstrative pronoun. And thanks for knowing some Greek.

Also: although the demonstrative in ‘this rock’ could be anaphoric to Peter’s confession, this I think is not a natural reading. The more natural and nearer antecedent should be petros…my opinion.

To which you are, of course, entitled.

Also do you think that if Christ was referring to Peter’s confession, that instead of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ / this rock, Christ could have easily have said something like ταύτης τῆς ὁμολογίας, ‘this confession/profession’, ‘You are Petros and upon this confession I will build my church’?

Well, I’ll go way out on a limb here … Jesus can and will say whatever he likes; my job is to nod vigorously.

Yes, he could have, but it would break the play on words, and you’re left wondering why Jesus either stated the obvious (“You are Peter,”) or gave Peter his name. What’s hard for anyone, certainly including me, is exactly what to do with the petros/petra relationship.

As I see it, most everyone who reads it sees a play on words. I sure do. But if Petros is just Petra in men’s clothing, there’s no pun. Just a plain old declarative sentence. And you also have a rather clumsy shift from addressing Peter in the 2nd person, to describing him in the 3rd person. “You are Peter, and on this Peter I will build …”

And if “this” doesn’t point to something other than Peter, what is it doing there? As if there were 2 Peters? As if there was any potential confusion about who Jesus meant?

Far more natural is simply, “You are Peter, and on you …” Or to preserve the pun, “You are Peter, and on you, Peter, I will build …”

And just to make matters more interesting still, one can’t reproduce the pun in Aramaic/Hebrew. So:
a) Did Matthew create the play on words just because?
b) Did Matthew use the wordplay to succinctly say in Greek what Jesus originally had to explain at greater length?
c) Did Jesus, perhaps, say it in Greek to start with? It doesn’t seem so likely, but it sure would solve some problems if he did.

Lots to consider.

AIL

 

[elvisman]

My argument is that possibilities and probabilities are not good enough. Yes, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic that day. But we do not and cannot know that for sure. We must deal with the text we have, not what we think another text we do not have might have said.

The language that the text was written is not as important as what was said by Jesus and what was meant by the writer. You’re placing way too much importance on that. If the earliest manuscript we had of Matthew’s Gospel was written in Chinese, I suppose you’d be telling us that Jesus spoke Mandarin and not Aramaic.

That is a ludicrous argument.

Most scholars agree with you, but not all. These were Galileans, not Judeans. If these were Judeans, I’d say you have a slam dunk. But they’re Galileans. The very name of the place, Galilee, comes from a Hebrew term, “The wheel/circle (Galil) of the Gentiles,” which you see in Isaiah 9:1. So I’d say you’re probably right – but only probably.

**No, I’d say that I’m most likely correct.

Yes, John has “Kepha” as the Aramaic flavor of Simon’s new name/nickname. Yes, then, if you insist on trying to reconstruct a text we don’t have, “kepha” might be a reasonable guess at an Aramaic version of, “You are Peter.” Your problem is trying to convince people that “On this rock” would also have been “kepha.”

Also, neither Franz Delitsch in his late 1800’s Hebrew NT, nor the translators of the current modern Hebrew translation of the NT, use Kepha for either word. They know a lot more Hebrew and Aramaic than you or I do. But they did what a responsible translator is required to do. They translated the words in the Greek text, as they stand written in Greek. The translator’s job is to report what’s actually there, not what they believe might possibly belong there.

It does? Really? Do you realize that current consensus, based primarily on linguistic analysis of the text, is that it was originally written in Greek? Did you know that it’s rather unlikely that someone writing in Hebrew or Aramaic would have “mind” instead of the Hebrew original “strength,” like Matthew does in 22:37? Check wikipedia.org for some references to the literature. (“Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the first century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness … scholars such as Craig Blomberg, disagree variously on these points and believe Matthew did write the gospel.”) Just for the record, I’d fall under the Craig Blomberg group – I believe that Matthew wrote Matthew in the early 60’s AD, in Greek. Maybe Papias was wrong. Or maybe Matthew collected Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic/Hebrew, and used them as references when he sat down to actually write his Gospel, much like Luke collected various source materials is preparation for writing his books.

Yes, I’ve read the evidence about who wrote Matthew and when. Again, we are acquiescing to some scholarly presuppositions here – a point which you are rejecting - unless if comes from one of your sources.**

You can’t have it both ways, my friend.

You really need to quit telling me I’m displaying ignorance if you want me to spend my time conversing with you. It’s rude, arrogant, and doesn’t reflect well on you. I haven’t noticed ANY actual information from the Greek text of Matthew in any of your posts. Perhaps I missed it.

Rude and arrogant? No, I’d say that I am simply holding you accountable to the rules that you laid down.

 

[elvisman]

One quick question … do you know any Greek, Latin, or Hebrew?

Some - very little, though. However, that is neither here nor there in this age of instant information.
My guess is that you are not an Aramaic scholar either . . .

In short - I can provide you with a scholarly overview on any subject as long as I have an understanding of what the scholar is intending to say.

I object, and will continue to object, to basing the exegesis of this verse on a Hebrew or Aramaic statement we do not have. But hey, if you want, I can rephrase my question this way:

If Jesus said, “You are Kephas, and on this kepha I will build my church,” why would Matthew not translate, “You are petros, and on this petros I will build my church.” Why did Matthew change words in Greek, and make the grammar clumsy, when saying it that way was far easier, simpler, and more natural?

He didn’t. If he wrote this in Aramaic - your point is moot. because that means that somebody else translated it into Greek.

**If he wrote this in Greek, the word Petros was used to convey a masculine version of the word, Petra.

No - what apparently occurred here is that he wrote it in Aramaic, using the single word, Kepha. That is the word Kepha is transliterated - not translated - into the name “Cephas” in the Pauline letters.

 

[faithfully]

Oh, regarding whether calling someone a pebble is an insult… Sure, we have a pebble in our shoe, It’s an irratant. But a person that we can count on, is a ROCK… Tiny and annoying, or something solid… Regardless, no building or institution would be built with a pile of pebbles…

Now then, ultimately, what is the purpose of determining whether or not peter is A rock or THE rock? Or a pebble…

It seems to me the reason is to finally say, and so Peter is NOT the designated person to build the Church of Christ?

True or False?

So, If he IS the designated person, then what does this exact translation matter? Unless of course we’re sitting in a courtroom determining whether or not someone is going to jail depending on EXACTLY what was said, and in which language.

But if he’s NOT the designated person… then perhaps that’s why some care,??? If Peter is not who is to build the Church of Christ… then we can safely go on to whatever church suits our personal needs/opinions better? 'Cause then it’s just not really clear WHO we should follow as there are no other directions anyplace else… So I guess we just sit around and wait for someone’s personal revelation to tell us? Which makes total sense. That we just believe some convincing individual, and not a man who came with a purpose. Christ just came to die for our sins. Right? Not to tell us a single dang thing while he was here. Heck I’m not sure why he wasn’t just a still birth (or rather moments afterwards) That would have sufficed being born and dieing… Why go through ALL that he did? Surely he would just leave the earth and not give us a single clue. I mean WHY BOTHER??? Watching this sort of thing must be fantastically entertaining.

So for 2 seconds. Let’s say he’s (Peter) NOT the designated person to build this church? And if nothing else Run the Church. We know that Christ is about to die… so he can’t run it. Who is to run the church??? And carry on THE word as taught be Christ?

Does it not make any sense that it would be a Disciple? Who else would it be? I can’t think of anything taught and brought forward to a younger crowd, done officially by someone who was NOT right there? There is nothing else in the world that would be handled this way.

And so another question is. Did any of the other disciples run off and create their own Church? Is the Baptist church really the church started and run and handed off by John? Did they go and start something other than one Holy Apostolic Church? Or where they all standing behind Peter, perhaps even offended as he seemed less worthy in their eyes and do as they understood?

I’m confused by the purpose of this conversation. (not this thread… but the fact the conversation goes on and on and on)

I realize I’m a weeeeee OT… but help me out here. Why the concern?

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

The language that the text was written is not as important as what was said by Jesus and what was meant by the writer. You’re placing way too much importance on that. If the earliest manuscript we had of Matthew’s Gospel was written in Chinese, I suppose you’d be telling us that Jesus spoke Mandarin and not Aramaic.

Please read more carefully. I never claimed Jesus said this in Greek. I said it’s possible. I believe I even said it was unlikely.

We disagree on first principles, and there’s little point to continuing to interact about this. You simply keep repeating your assertion that the proper method is to try to reconstruct an Aramaic text we don’t have. I keep insisting that we focus on the Greek text we do have. Clearly we’re not going to agree. Do the two of us have anything else to discuss?

As for the nonsensical sarcasm about Mandarin Chinese, I think it simply proves there’s little point to the two of us discussing this any further.

AIL