"On this rock": petra, petros and problems

[itsjustdave1988]

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars can be found here (View), discounting the pretra/petros argument as merely polemical.

John A. Broadus, Baptist author (two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Consequently, there’s a broad consensus in even Protestant Bible scholarship that discounts the petra/petro polemic with regard to Peter as the “rock” referred to in Matt 16:18.

 

[Mystophilus]

E.E.N.S.:

However, I think this paragraph tells of it’s significance perfectly:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This is from Matthew 16:19, immediately following the “petros…petrai” verse. What makes it even more interesting is the fact that the second half of the verse (from “whatever”) is repeated in Matthew 18:18, except that the usage becomes plural: “whatever you (all) bind…” However, the “keys of the kingdom” clause is absent from the plural version. There is also a similar verse in John 20:23, regarding the ability to forgive sins, once more with a plural subject.

 

[Mystophilus]

itsjustdave1988:

… there’s a broad consensus in even Protestant Bible scholarship that discounts the petra/petro polemic with regard to Peter as the “rock” referred to in Matt 16:18.

It would be more accurate to say, “There is agreement amongst some Protestant Bible scholars”. Before we could step from “some” to “many”, we would need numbers much larger than 14. Before we could say “most”, we would need a world-wide survey, and that, I suspect, would reveal more bias against Peter.

There is rarely consensus about very much at all in Protestantism, hence all the different Protestant churches.

 

[Mystophilus]

Ignatius:

I think bangel_fan misspoke. I believe he was referring to the fact that there was not proper name Petros.

You’re a genius!!

I was going to say that, considering the fact that lower case letters were only invented six hundred years after the text was written, it would not have been clear at the time of writing that it was a ‘proper name’, particularly because Greeks normally constructed names from derivations of extant words, rather than using the words themselves.

However, the majority of the readers of the text would already have heard of Petros/Kephas/Simon, one of the leaders of the church. The text was not produced until AD 50 at the earliest, by which time Petros was a well-known figure. Reading this text for the first time, they would then understand how he acquired his unusual name, a consideration significant enough to justify the use of the two different words: this is the guy whom you know, and this is whence his name came.

Of course, this still leaves the apologists mired in their argument, because it fails to either prove or disprove the exclusivity of the reference of “on this rock”, but that is no concern of mine.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mystophilus

quote: Mystophilus
A Gospel of Matthew originally in Hebrew would have significant implications for Biblical studies and for C1st social and literary history. The problem would lie in proving that the Hebrew text predates the Greek.

However, I keep turning up references to the authorship as being that of one Shem-Tob ben-Isaac, a physician living in Castile in the C14th.

Thanks for the information! I’ll take another look at
Gordon’s book and get back to you.

I’m in the really early days, looking into this, and I
appreciate any insight that you can give me. If the
internal evidence within this Shem Tov manuscript
would characterize it as ancient Hebrew, then where
are we?

In other words, if it were a Hebrew translation of
the Greek, where would come the play on
words, which produce readings that conflict with the
Greek Matthew, and in ancient Hebrew, yet.

And if the Hebrew* clarifies* things that are confusing
in Matthew…Hmmmm. See what I mean? [Maybe
I’m not being clear, here.]

If you ever decide to take a look at Gordons’ book,
let me know what you think, will you please?

Many thanks,

reen12

 

[Tigerhawk]

Mystophilus,

I have to admit also that this topic intrigues me so bore away , but unfortunately I am completely unqualified to discuss it.

However, after reading your original two posts I am left with a question.

1. You state that the gender of nouns has a deeper meaning than the gender of the subject.
2. You give significance to incidences where a feminine gendered word is used to describe Jesus.
3. This is given as evidence that assigning Simon a feminine proper name would not be out of the question and not doing so is significant.

So my question is are you placing too much emphasis on the use of feminine gendered descriptive words with respect to assigning a man a feminine proper name?

I guess my point is that when talking about descriptive words doesn’t the gender say more about the point being made than the subject of the description, but with a proper name isn’t the gender of the word directly related to the subject?

 

[reen12]

Dear Mystophilus,

I’ve just finished reading some critiques of Gordon’s work.
I was way too hasty in supporting his conclusions.

As far as I can see, you are correct in:

quote: Mystophilus
However, I keep turning up references to the authorship as being that of one Shem-Tob ben-Isaac, a physician living in Castile in the C14th.

There is an additional Hebrew Matthew, that is referred to, in
what I read. One of the critiques said that what Gordon
calls the Baal Shem manuscript has been known by
scholars for quite a while, and that not much credence
is given to same. [If I understood the critique, correctly.]

Well, I’ll just have to research further. But I must admit,
I was thrilled by the thought of there being a copy
of a Hebrew Matthew.

This is what happens, when I step out of those areas
where I have some competency, and step into a world
where my knowledge of same could fit into a peanut shell.

Best to you, Mystophilus, and thanks, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[Pythagoras]

I would like to share my research too

**Evna ** is the Aramaic word for litlle pebble or small stone

Again, we know that Jesus means to call Peter “Rock” and not “Stone” because in Aramaic he calls him Kephas, which can only mean “Rock” and not Evna, which is the Aramaic name for “Stone,” and because he could have called him Lithos instead, the Greek word for stone which already posseses a male ending.

 

[reen12]

Dear Pythagoras,

quote: Pythagoras
**
****Evna ****is the Aramaic word for litlle pebble or small stone

Again, we know that Jesus means to call Peter “Rock” and not “Stone” because in Aramaic he calls him Kephas, which can only mean “Rock” and not Evna, which is the Aramaic name for “Stone,” and because he could have called him Lithos instead, the Greek word for stone which already posseses a male ending.

Thanks for presenting that information.

Please allow me to display my ignorance, by asking,
is Aramaic still a spoken language?

Thanks, Pythagoras,

Best,
reen12**

 

[reen12]

Hi, Pythagoras,

Thank you for the information on the word “Evna.”

Please allow me to display my ignorance, by asking,
is Aramaic still a spoken language?

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[Philthy]

Kevan:

The argument for or against the papacy will not rest on this word petros. But I’d like to add a comment about the languages.

Presumably the Lord spoke in Aramaic. He didn’t have to. It is an assumption, albeit a well-founded one. But he could have interjected Greek words to make a point. Don’t confuse an assumption with a fact.

Easier said than done, as we shall see…

Kevan:

Some Fathers said Matthew wrote in Hebrew (meaning “Aramaic,” the colloquial form of Hebrew at the time). They may have been correct, or maybe not. We can’t confuse a Father’s word with God’s word.

Well, we can, but we shouldn’t…

Kevan:

Matthew’s gospel came to us from God in the Greek language.

Ut oh. **Don’t confuse an assumption with a fact. **Do we have the original? I didn’t know we did. If not, and we are not to “confuse a Father’s word with God’s word.” how do we know the original was in Greek? Is that in Scripture?

Kevan:

Why the Holy Spirit used two different words is a matter of debate, but the fact is that he did. We can’t just dismiss the words of the Greek New Testament as if they weren’t there. If we could, then we might as well discard our Bibles and let the Magisterium tell us what to believe.

I don’t think they are being dismissed. They are trying to be viewed in the fullest context of the intent of the author, which is, apparently, somewhat difficult.

Peace-

Phil

 

[reen12]

Correction: In post #27, I should have said the

“Shem Tov” manuscript, not “Baal Shem” manuscript.

quote: Philthy

Ut oh. **Don’t confuse an assumption with a fact. **

Do we have the original? I didn’t know we did.

Right!

reen12

 

[Kevan]

Philthy:

Do we have the original? I didn’t know we did. If not, and we are not to “confuse a Father’s word with God’s word.” how do we know the original was in Greek? Is that in Scripture?

Something need not be God’s word to be a historical fact. The fact is that Matthew came to us in Greek. If it didn’t come to us in Greek, it didn’t come to us at all; and all we have are the attempts of fallible men to render God’s words into Greek.

 

[Mystophilus]

reen12:

In other words, if it were a Hebrew translation of
the Greek, where would come the play on
words, which produce readings that conflict with the
Greek Matthew, and in ancient Hebrew, yet.

Well, reen, from a purely literary viewpoint, if the Shem-Tov is a translation, it is a ‘secondary’ text, a derivative. While it would be interesting to students of translation, of Hebew, and of the particular time in which it was made, its significance for Biblical Studies would be low because it is ‘merely a late copy’.

I mentioned it to my father-in-law, who works as a translation consultant for the Bible Society. He said that he was not familiar with it, which indicates that they do not think that it has any bearing on how the text ought to be understood.

This does not make the text less interesting, just less important in respect of the discussion of what was in the C1st Matthew.

I would love to read it, but, with so many things that I have yet to cover in my own field, I suspect that I will not have time unless we manage to significantly increase the human lifespan.

 

[Mystophilus]

Pythagoras:

**Evna ** is the Aramaic word for litlle pebble or small stone

Again, we know that Jesus means to call Peter “Rock” and not “Stone” because in Aramaic he calls him Kephas, which can only mean “Rock” and not Evna, which is the Aramaic name for “Stone,” and because he could have called him Lithos instead, the Greek word for stone which already posseses a male ending.

I think that there are a couple of points here which we need to address. The word “kephas” does not appear in the text of Mt 16:18. It does appear in the text of John 1:42, where it is then translated as “petros”, and it appears later in the NT (in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians). This appearance in John is the source of our assumption that the original Aramaic word used in the conversation recorded in Matthew would have been “kephas”. Matthew was written in Greek, and written at least 15 years after the conversation in question, which makes that assumption less than 100% reliable. In other words, I would not say that “we know” what Jesus said, let alone what he might have meant by it, but rather that we “can guess” that Jesus may well have said X.

Regarding lithos, I have been trying to find some reason why Matthew used both “petros” and “petra” when he had so many other choices (e.g., using “lithos” and “petra”, using “petros” twice, using “petra” twice, using “pagos” twice, etc). As I said in replying to Ignatius at #24, I surmise that the presence of this conversation in the text might be an explanation to C1st readers of the provenance of Petros’ unusual Greek name. This would explain why the two terms were used and other Greek words were not. The question over the particular choice of “petros” then runs back to the extra-textual point at which “kephas” was translated into “petros” and became Simon’s name amongst the Greeks.**

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mystophilus,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mystophilus:

I would love to read it, but, with so many things that I have yet to cover in my own field, I suspect that I will not have time unless we manage to significantly increase the human lifespan.

Don’t you know it!

I regret only two things in life: never learned to play the violin,
and don’t have a mathematical mind, so I could not study
Physics.

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[WBB]

Mystophilus:

I think that there are a couple of points here which we need to address. The word “kephas” does not appear in the text of Mt 16:18. It does appear in the text of John 1:42, where it is then translated as “petros”, and it appears later in the NT (in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians). This appearance in John is the source of our assumption that the original Aramaic word used in the conversation recorded in Matthew would have been “kephas”. Matthew was written in Greek, and written at least 15 years after the conversation in question, which makes that assumption less than 100% reliable. In other words, I would not say that “we know” what Jesus said, let alone what he might have meant by it, but rather that we “can guess” that Jesus may well have said X.

LOL! Are you part of The Jesus Seminar?

 

[Mystophilus]

Tigerhawk:

I have to admit also that this topic intrigues me so bore away , but unfortunately I am completely unqualified to discuss it.

I would contend that your post contradicts this claim.

So my question is are you placing too much emphasis on the use of feminine gendered descriptive words with respect to assigning a man a feminine proper name?

I guess my point is that when talking about descriptive words doesn’t the gender say more about the point being made than the subject of the description, but with a proper name isn’t the gender of the word directly related to the subject?

Well, first of all I think that we should start with the fact that “petros” is a not a proper name as we know it in English. Greek only had capital letters at that time, and so there was no difference in script between between (what we call) common and proper nouns. Instead, Greek names are generally derivations of combinations of common nouns. “petros” is not a proper noun, in that respect, but a nickname, in much the same way that we would consider “Rock” if used as a name today.

Second, we find many examples in Greek of animals being used as names for people, including ‘sheep’ for Christians, ‘fox’ for Odysseos, etc. These animal names tend to be neuter in gender. Were there a determinant connection between the gender-class of the noun and the gender of the object to which it refers, that would mean that Odysseos and all Christians are eunuchs.

Most importantly, were the gender a problem for the writer, [he] could have used another noun entirely, a masculine noun such as “lithos” or “pagos”, which would not have the connotations of ‘a separated piece’ which “petros” does, especially when it is placed in such close proximity to “petra”. This other noun could have been used in place of “petros”, or in place of “petra”. “petros” and “pagos” would have worked perfectly in grammatical, semantic, symbolic and euphonic terms: “You are the Rock (petros) and on this Rock (pago_i) I will build my church”. It is the proximity, the connection, and yet the difference between “petra” and “petros” which present the interest. Gender is not a sufficient reason to use this pair of words when there are so many other choices.

I am now leaning towards the idea that much of the discussion of this text has been aimed at the wrong word. “Petros” was already Simon’s name amongst the Greeks; its inclusion was inevitable. The issue, therefore, is the choice of “petra”, rather than another noun. The difference in connotation is too great to be outweighed by the minor advantage in euphony over “pagos”. The usage of that particular pairing, “petros…petra” makes the inclusive reading - that Christ will build his Church upon Peter and others like him rather than upon Peter alone - unavoidable. This is logical, anyway: the only individual upon whom the Church wholly depends is Almighty God.

It might then be pointed out that, while this particular text does not support the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, neither does it contest such primacy.

 

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

quote: WBB

LOL! Are you part of The Jesus Seminar?

Of course, if I attended a Jesus Seminar gathering,
I’d probably revert to “real-self” --an Irish-Catholic,
gnashing a tooth or two, over the “presentations.”

Heh, heh…

reen

 

[Tigerhawk]

Mystophilus:

I would contend that your post contradicts this claim.

Thank you, but I was just borrowing the knowledge you are sharing and asking a couple of questions. Without your hardwork I wouldn’t know enough to ask the questions.

Mystophilus:

Well, first of all I think that we should start with the fact that “petros” is a not a proper name as we know it in English. Greek only had capital letters at that time, and so there was no difference in script between between (what we call) common and proper nouns. Instead, Greek names are generally derivations of combinations of common nouns. “petros” is not a proper noun, in that respect, but a nickname, in much the same way that we would consider “Rock” if used as a name today.

I understand your point (I think) about the capitalization and that petros up to that time had not been used as a proper name. However, in this context isn’t it clear that Simon is having his name changed to Peter (as you argued in an earlier post) and therefore Petros is a proper name and therefore gender is significant?

Mystophilus:

Second, we find many examples in Greek of animals being used as names for people, including ‘sheep’ for Christians, ‘fox’ for Odysseos, etc. These animal names tend to be neuter in gender. Were there a determinant connection between the gender-class of the noun and the gender of the object to which it refers, that would mean that Odysseos and all Christians are eunuchs.

I disagree that sheep for Christians is a parallel to Petros for Simon as sheep is not a the name of a person but a group of people with mixed gender, but depending on the context of fox for Odysseos this would be significant (in my mind anyway). Is Odysseos called Fox or is he referred to as a fox?

The idea that I am stuck on is…

Say the Greek word for “sledge hammer” if translated to an English proper name would be Patricia. However, the male proper name Patrick is a “hammer”. You mean sledge hammer, but the subject is a man so you call him Patrick.

Mystophilus:

Most importantly, were the gender a problem for the writer, [he] could have used another noun entirely, a masculine noun such as “lithos” or “pagos”, which would not have the connotations of ‘a separated piece’ which “petros” does, especially when it is placed in such close proximity to “petra”. This other noun could have been used in place of “petros”, or in place of “petra”. “petros” and “pagos” would have worked perfectly in grammatical, semantic, symbolic and euphonic terms: “You are the Rock (petros) and on this Rock (pago_i) I will build my church”. It is the proximity, the connection, and yet the difference between “petra” and “petros” which present the interest. Gender is not a sufficient reason to use this pair of words when there are so many other choices.

I am now leaning towards the idea that much of the discussion of this text has been aimed at the wrong word. “Petros” was already Simon’s name amongst the Greeks; its inclusion was inevitable. The issue, therefore, is the choice of “petra”, rather than another noun. The difference in connotation is too great to be outweighed by the minor advantage in euphony over “pagos”. The usage of that particular pairing, “petros…petra” makes the inclusive reading - that Christ will build his Church upon Peter and others like him rather than upon Peter alone - unavoidable. This is logical, anyway: the only individual upon whom the Church wholly depends is Almighty God.

It might then be pointed out that, while this particular text does not support the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, neither does it contest such primacy.

In my mind this supports the idea that the Greek is an attempt to represent the Aramaic. Isn’t petra the closest Greek transalation of kephas? And then couple that with the “idea I am stuck on” petros is the a male form (I know not exactly) of petra. You then get Petros and petra in close proximity.

To me that wraps up in a nice neat package the reason for petra and why petros instead of petra was used and of course points directly to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church teaches.