MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[AnIrishLutheran]

Actually, many scholars believe that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Your claim that we don’t have a manuscript in Aramaic is moot since we don’t have any autograph of ANY of the 4 Gospels. They are all copies of copies.

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?

**Also - I don’**t know where you get your information about the Early Church Fathers but Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus also claimed that Matthew was originally written in his native tongue (Hebrew/Aramaic).

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

**Finally - it IS **entirely possible that Jesus also spoke Greek as you said. However, it is highly unlikely that he spoke Greek to his Apostles. Greek was the language of commerce in the first century.

So - it is most probable that Jesus told Simon, "And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

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.

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

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

 

[adrift]

Unfortunately, my NT Greek tools are in Libronix on my Windows VM, and when I just tried to boot it up I discovered it’s having issues

I hate when that happens. I have one program that I have to reinstall frequently because of issues.
Right now I am having issues with my computer. It is misbehaving.

Is Classical Greek the same as Koine Greek?

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

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).”

You have missed the point of what the argument is. Here is an example. 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. The argument that you present has nothing to do with the noun disagreeing with the subject.
Your example of scripture does not address giving someone a name. Show an example of that and you will have an argument.
The sentence itself

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.

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.

There is definitely a difference between the words, and the standard ancient Greek lexicons all have it

This has not been established. I wonder what you mean by “ancient” and “all”?

 

[adrift]

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

Yes I was aware but it really doesn’t change the fact that Jesus changed his name. How do you conclude that it wasn’t a renaming?

He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: **thou shalt be called Cephas **(which is by interpretation, Peter).

Note that the Aramaic is being used. Cephas is rock. If Peter meant something other than rock, would Cephas been used? Cephas-rock is said to be the interpretation of Peter.
I wouldn’t disagree that it was an explanation of why Jesus called him Peter. Jesus’ reason? Peter was the rock on which Jesus built His Church.

 

[adrift]

Hi, Benedictus2,

It really sounds like more dead horse beating to me…

No response will be given - either on this thread or, I doubt, on any other.

Based on what we have seen, many of us are ‘quite serious’ about Peter (not his faith, confession or any other item) being selected by God the Father - with this fact being acknowledged by Christ, and then Christ proclaimed that Peter would be the foundation on which Christ would build His Church on. And, that Church is the Catholic Church - the evidence being that the Catholic Church has the line of of succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.

All of the claims of multiple languages are of little value if the very sense of history is ignored.

God bless

He started another thread on this subject.Petra and Petros – Beyond the Talking Points

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=520174

 

[benidict]

He did post a rebuttal (which I thought was quite a good rebuttal but that was pulled along with my reply)

He cited the Cathechism of the Catholic Church par 424 and said ") So the understanding I prefer is one of the interpretations found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "

But of course he thought paragraph 424 was supporting his interpretation but it clearly was not. He seemed to have miss the “OF” in the paragraph.

If he truly prefers the understanding of the Catechism then I thought I would write the other relevant paragraphs in the Catechism. So I did a post dedicated entirely to the paragraphs in the Catechism that refuted his view.

That was another case of citing something that was completely misunderstood since it did not say what he thought it said.

personally, i like your style Benedictus. dont change a thing. i doubt Paul was very quiet in his arguments with the Judaizers. your doin wonderful. peace

 

[benidict]

He started another thread on this subject.Petra and Petros – Beyond the Talking Points

ill stick to this one. it sounds like its gonna get heavy over there with foreign languages, and real scholars. i love it when giants clash. its like watching two rabbis, go at it about a particular verse, and have the other rabbis, vote on who was most sucessful in their argument. fascinating. Peace

 

[benedictus2]

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

**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

**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.”

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

**Question: **Why does the Petros/Petra issue matter?

**Answer: **Because by doing so we determine whether Simon is the rock that Christ built his Church upon.

**BUT,**If this is the whole crux of the matter, then it is not so much the petros/petra that matter but what the Lord actually said and meant.

If the Lord indeed spoke Aramaic, then the petros/petra becomes moot and academic, a non-issue, a red-herring

So the point that has to be addressed first of all is what Language did Christ use and is there any ambuiguity in that language.

In the OP, Point 4 is the one that must be addressed first.. **If Christ spoke Aramaic, points 1 to 3 fades into insignificance.
**
So to point 4.

First : What are the things that we can now with certainty and those that are mere speculation.

Speculations:

1. That the Gospel was written in Aramaic ( although there is some evidence to support this)

2. That Jesus spoke Greek.  That is indeed pure speculation we can definitely say that He can speak whichever language He pleases.

Certainty:

1. That the Gospel of Matthew as it has come down to us is written in Greek

2. **That Jesus spoke Aramaic. Yes, that is something we know with certainty. The Bible says so.**

Mark 5:41 Talitha kum

Mark 7:34 Ephphatha
Mark 14:36 Abba
Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9-13 -Mammon
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 Eli Eli lema sabachthani
John 1:42 “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

What is interesting about these words being in Aramaic is because the Gospel is written in Greek!!!

If the Gospel was all in Aramaic, we can argue that of course it is in Aramaic because the author is writing in Aramaic. But because the author/(translator) was writing in Greek then, that particular Aramaic words were included, makes you wonder – what was the Holy Spirit up to in making sure that the Aramaic was noted. After all, the writer could have easily had every single word in Greek.

Now if the original was Aramaic and was only translated into Greek, what was the reason for retaining some Aramaic words? Why not translate everything into Greek. There again you see the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But in Matthew 16:18 how do we know that He did speak Aramaic?

What we must look at is who is Jesus talking to? He is talking to a simple fisherman from Galilee,. What sort of language would He use with a simple fisherman?

There is reason to believe that He spoke Latin with Pilate, and perhaps Greek to the more learned. But to a simple fisherman?

We need to remember as well that when this was happening, the other apostles were there too. What would be the language that we can reasonably assume, based on Archeological findings, would these other apostles speak?

Well Jesus gives us a very good clue. Jesus says to Peter : "Blessed are you, Simon barjona. “Bar” is the Aramaic for son, that is why most English bibles translate this as Simon son of Jonah. But in the Greek text barjonah is what is used.

CONTINUED

 

[benedictus2]

1) “There is no difference in meaning in Koine Greek.”
**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

**3) **“Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word.
**4) **“Jesus spoke Aramaic,” and/or “Matthew was written in Aramaic, so he said kepha … kepha.”

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

As I said in my previous post, that we have the Aramaic words in a Greek language Gospel makes it even more interesting.

Anyway, Is there good reason to believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic:

Allen C Meyers * wrote: "It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the first century A.D. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem*.

Meyers cites here Matthew 26:73 when Peter was being accused of being a member of Jesus’s group :“A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away."

Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts* write: There is evidence, however, that points to the use of Aramaic in Galilee, the region where Nazareth was located. Such evidence includes inscriptions, contracts, and other ancient writings. It makes sense that residents of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, given the fact that Aramaic became the official language of Galilee from the sixth-century B.C. onward. Thus, it seems likely that ordinary residents of Galilee, including Nazareth, spoke Aramaic as their first language. This was the language of common discourse among Jesus’ family and friends.
*
*For a more detailed explanation go to this site: *
*http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdrobe...guage-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html
*

CONTINUED

 

[benedictus2]

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

**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

**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.”

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."

In 1 he calls him blessed then in 2 insults him by calling him a stone. What was the point of calling him a stone? What has his being a stone got to do with the with 1, 3 and 4. It just does not make sense.

Then in 3 Jesus says “**AND **upon **this **rock”. But if He is meaning to contrast the rock with the little stone, if He means to belittle Peter by calling him stone, then what Jesus should have said was “BUT upon this rock”. So it should have you gone, you are a little stone BUT upon this rock I will build my Church. But the question arises, what is “this” rock? Notice He did not say upon “A” rock but **THIS **rock.

Which rock?

What rock?

It cannot be Peter’s confession because there is just no way in the structure of this sentence that you can connect that.

So therefore, by insisting on this kind of interpretation, Jesus then sounds like an erratic lunatic who:

• first blesses Peter in1,
• insults him in 2,
• then honors him by giving him the keys to heaven in 4.

And in the meantime we still have no idea what is “THIS rock” that He is referring to.

So even structurally speaking the stone/rock controversy does not hold water.

 

[benedictus2]

ill stick to this one. it sounds like its gonna get heavy over there with foreign languages, and real scholars. i love it when giants clash. its like watching two rabbis, go at it about a particular verse, and have the other rabbis, vote on who was most sucessful in their argument. fascinating. Peace

You should go visit the thread.

It is a very interesting thread. The foreign language is a smokescreen.

I’ve done a couple of replies but there are still some that need addressing.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Ooops - sorry, I guess I missed it.

So, 424 contained the basis for a rebuttal…?

Yes indeed he uses point 424 as a rebuttal.

He must have thought that “rock of this faith” meant the confession that Peter made.

He said he preferred the Catechism’s take on this so I dedicated a post just to the paragraphs that relate to Peter’s primacy.

If he is abiding by the Catechism because he misread 424, then there is no way he can misread the other two I included.

And if he is abiding by the Catechism, then boy He’s got nowhere to turn with regards the other two.

 

[benedictus2]

personally, i like your style Benedictus. dont change a thing. i doubt Paul was very quiet in his arguments with the Judaizers. your doin wonderful. peace

Thank you. Thank you very much for your support.

I think there is always a time to use strong words and a time to be mild. Otherwise it becomes pretty boring.

 

[benedictus2]

He started another thread on this subject.Petra and Petros – Beyond the Talking Points

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.

 

[benedictus2]

1. “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).”

That kind of reasoning is only valid if the petra in 1 Cor 10:4 is a proper name given to Christ that instead of calling Christ, Jesus Christ, He is NAMED Rock.

The usage of rock in this example you cite is similar to Christ’s usage of rock in “upon this rock”, but not in the first instance of " You are Rock."

In Matthew 16:18 Simon is given a new proper name, “Rock”, not just referred to as the foundation. And this new proper name that was given is meant to signify the new nature that is being being bestowed. He is called Rock because he is to be made rock.

 

[benedictus2]

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

It has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

John wrote His gospel after Matthew.

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.

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

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

Example: Abram to Abraham

And again, what is interesting about John 1:42 is the phrasing.:

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of Joha you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Petros).

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.**

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Well now that we are all wide awake lets look from a FRESH perspective.

Since you are understanding of “Simon” and “Peter” lets look at this another way.

John 10:2 He that entereth by the Door is the shepard of the sheep.

John 10:3 To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice, and He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

John 10:7 Jesus-“I am the Door of the Sheep.” [Jesus isn’t feeding the sheep, He is the Door!]

Are you following this so far? “Christ is the Door”. Now here comes Peter Simon once again. To feed the Flock.

John 21:15 So when they had dined Jesus said to Simon Peter “Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me more than these?” He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He said unto him. “Feed my Lambs”

“BTW in quotation are the comments of Jesus Christ.” No mistaken who Peter is.

John 21:16 He said to him again a second time “Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me” He said unto him, Yea Lord; thou knowest that I love thee, He said unot him, “Feed my Sheep”.

Again Christs words in Quotation.

John 21:17 He said unto him a THIRD TIME. “Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” Peter was grieved because he said unto him a third time. Lovest thou me? And he said unto him Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I Love thee. Jesus said unto him “FEED MY SHEEP.”

Maybe its easier to understand sticking with Simon Peter???

God Bless, GT

 

[benedictus2]

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?

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

 

[benedictus2]

Well now that we are all wide awake lets look from a FRESH perspective.

**You, **may be wide awake but I, am about to doze off on my keyboard. Good night and God bless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

**You, **may be wide awake but I, am about to doze off on my keyboard. Good night and God bless.

Ah, God Bless you my friend. Good Night!