M
Mystophilus
Guest
We could chase this around all week, but I think that there are some things that ought to be noted:
“petros” was not always a masculine noun: we have examples of it being used as a feminine noun (e.g., Honestus and Theodoridas, in the Anthologia Graeca). I do not think that we should be too hung up on the petros-because-of-gender argument.
What I would like to stress is that “petros” is not the male form of “petra”: it is a separate, distinct word with a distinct set of meanings. While the two nouns do share one meaning, each of them also has several others. All of the meanings of “petros” revolve around a root meaning of separate pieces (oddly including a type of reed). All of the meanings of “petra” revolve around a root meaning of a mass of stone. Therefore, a C1st Greek reader, upon seeing Mt 16:18, would have noted a relationship but also a difference between the two words.
I do not think that the use of two words in the verse impacts upon Peter’s role in the church - for that I would go to other parts of the Bible.
However, most importantly, all of this is purely textual. We have no record of Jesus having ever spoken Greek. We presume that, when he spoke to Simon, he did so in Aramaic. I know absolutely nothing of Aramaic, but every reference that I have encountered so far says that Jesus would most likely have used the word “kephas” in the conversation recorded in Mt 16:18 and that he would probably have used it twice.
“petros” was not always a masculine noun: we have examples of it being used as a feminine noun (e.g., Honestus and Theodoridas, in the Anthologia Graeca). I do not think that we should be too hung up on the petros-because-of-gender argument.
What I would like to stress is that “petros” is not the male form of “petra”: it is a separate, distinct word with a distinct set of meanings. While the two nouns do share one meaning, each of them also has several others. All of the meanings of “petros” revolve around a root meaning of separate pieces (oddly including a type of reed). All of the meanings of “petra” revolve around a root meaning of a mass of stone. Therefore, a C1st Greek reader, upon seeing Mt 16:18, would have noted a relationship but also a difference between the two words.
I do not think that the use of two words in the verse impacts upon Peter’s role in the church - for that I would go to other parts of the Bible.
However, most importantly, all of this is purely textual. We have no record of Jesus having ever spoken Greek. We presume that, when he spoke to Simon, he did so in Aramaic. I know absolutely nothing of Aramaic, but every reference that I have encountered so far says that Jesus would most likely have used the word “kephas” in the conversation recorded in Mt 16:18 and that he would probably have used it twice.
For example, … During the time of Christ, the Nabathean Arabs ruled a kingdom in modern Jordan named “Petra” --a feminine name, on par with “Italia” (“Italy”), “Britannia” (“Britain”), or “Germania” (“Germany”) However, a man could not hold this kind of feminine name. Rather, in the Greco-Roman world, if one was named after such a feminine place or concept, the form would be masculinized --e.g. “Italicus” or “Italikos” / “Britannicus” or “Britannikos” / “Germanicus” or “Germanikos,” etc. “Petrus” (in Latin) or “Petros” (in Greek) is not different.