Peter is Protos?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic Dude;2779513]It appears you are right, this verse should only be used in conjunction with the other major Peterine “proof texts” because on its own it doesnt prove much beyond “head Apostle” (though that is a good start).
Click to expand...
Well, all the credit to you brother, you did a fabulous job showing more “evidence” for Petrine primacy. Truth is not found in a proof text but a culmination of truths formulated together, which gives evidence of that truth; you’ve given us more of the evidence of that reality that Peter was the first Pope of Mt 16:18-19. 🙂
 
Bishopite said:
Well, all the credit to you brother, you did a fabulous job showing more “evidence” for Petrine primacy. Truth is not found in a proof text but a culmination of truths formulated together, which gives evidence of that truth; you’ve given us more of the evidence of that reality that Peter was the first Pope of Mt 16:18-19. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ll have to disagree here. The problem with the logic is it starts with assuming the consequent – one must be looking to see the importance of Peter for any of the so-called proof texts to actually seem supporting.
 
thank you for this most interesting thread. Quite informative. Carry on!!
 
PC_Master said:
I’ll have to disagree here. The problem with the logic is it starts with assuming the consequent – one must be looking to see the importance of Peter for any of the so-called proof texts to actually seem supporting.
Click to expand...
Well, no one doesn’t have to be specifically “looking” to see Peterine primacy, one could be reading and studying the life of Peter and be lead to see the truth about his primacy over the other Apostles. People become Christians, not just because they are “looking” to become Christians; some are actually challenging Christianity itself and end up converting. So is the truth of Petrine primacy. 🙂
 
PC_Master said:
So the lack of a defining characteristic means that it’s automatically a reference to authority?
Click to expand...
That is exactly my proposal (though I dont know greek :o).
If there is no reference to “second”, “last”, etc then “protos” must be in reference to “chief”.
What about the verses that seem to fit neither category directly, or could be argued to fit both?
Click to expand...
I dont believe there are verses that fit neither category, that would mean the word didnt have a definition at all. It could be argued some verses support BOTH definitions, but at that point one of those definitions is “chief” so it doesnt hurt my claims at all. In otherwords, if you say a dual definition is possible HOW do you know 10:2 isnt a dual?..and IF it is, then my positions still stands.
No – that some can use both does not mean that any or all must use both. The point is that there’s no distinct rule by which you can discern. You’re left with context, and in Matthew 10:2, there’s almost no context regarding the use of protos.
Click to expand...
I NEVER said “any or all” must use both. There are THREE categories here, one which is clearly “chief”, one which is clearly “time/sequence”, and one which arguably uses both “chief” and “time/sequence”. In EVERY “time/sequence” usage I can find there is explicit context along the lines of “last”, “second” etc. WITHOUT such context “protos” doesnt make sense in regards to time/order.
Given 10:2 does NOT use terms like “last”, “second”, etc goes against the “time/sequence” usage according to all the verses we have referenced thus far which do use such terms in the context.
So, chief is meant only when there is no “last” present? What about Matthew 19:30 (not to mention various uses in other scripture passages)? It uses first and last, which on the surface would seem to be ordinal, but in fact is clearly speaking of chief-ness, as easily seen by context?
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Rechecking that passage just now I wonder if it is a play on words. The reason is right after Jesus said 19:30 He starts on a parable which ends 20:16 with the same phrase as 19:30, but the usage in 20:8,10,16(?) is sequential.
I looked up the greek word for last which is “Eschatos” (hence the term “eschatology”! I learn something new every day.) and from what I see it also has two usages for “last” which are last in time/sequence and last in rank.
Given this I would say the “last” in 19:30 is in reference to last in rank, then comes the parable using “last” in sequence, then concludes 20:16 with a double meaning (play on words).
No, that rule doesn’t fit.
Click to expand...
Actually I would say the rule must be modified because “last” has two usages as well.
Sure it can – every use of protos as meaning chief that I’ve seen has a clear context which indicates this, a context lacking in Matthew 10
Click to expand...
I would turn that around on you however and say in the context of 10:2 there are no references to “last” (in regards to time/sequence) or “second”, thus “first” in regards to time/sequence doesnt work.

I have two questions for you:
Does the usage of protos for “chief” require a context which makes a contrast between “chief” and its opposite extreme, like “servant” for example?
If you argue 10:2 has a dual usage (includes chief) how does that possibly hurt my claims?
 
First, I’m not arguing that Matthew 10:2 has dual usage. I am merely saying there are other passages that, according to context, seem to have such.

Second, I think the only conclusion we can agree on is that in almost every other passage with the use of protos, we have a context that clearly indicates either chief or ordinal first-ness. On one occasion, the context seems to indicate both.

However, Matthew 10:2 is fairly unique, for there are no indications of context either way, except that this is a list of all the apostles. This leaves us to guess and infer meaning. I think we need to expand to look at other uses of protos in scripture to determine more clearly.

Also consider that even if Petrine primacy were valid, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Matthew was intentionally alluding to that in Matthew 10:2. He could have indeed been providing an ordinal list, feeling that Petrine primacy was either unimportant for a gospel to establish, or that it was established clearly elsewhere.

Like I said, we need to broaden our search.
 
PC_Master said:
I think we need to expand to look at other uses of protos in scripture to determine more clearly.
Click to expand...
I agree. Hopefully by tomorrow I will use the Lexicon on Crosswalk.com (a protestant page, the only easy to use Lexicon I know of online) and see all the times protos is used in the NT and see if there is more to bring out.
 
I strongly suggest you download E-Sword, which is a free Bible software, full of capability with dictionaries, multiple translations, etc. If you download it, a few essential resources you’ll want to make sure you get (for free from the site)…
  • An assortment of Bible translations, possibly including some in Greek and/or Hebrew and/or Latin.
  • All of the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries/definitions that you can get. There are a couple for each language.
  • The King James Concordance is included by default. Simply find the verse that contains the word you want, switch to the KJV+ translation, and click on the word you want to look up. The click on the KJC resource tab (should be toward the bottom of the screen), and it will provide a full list of verses containing the Greek/Hebrew word in question, including how the KJV translated them.
It’s really a great software, and has enhanced my studies greatly.

e-sword.net

I recommend downloading all of the translations you have in print, plus any other free ones you like. If, for some reason they don’t have the print version you own for free download, it is legal to download a copy and use it (or such is my understanding of US Federal Laws – I have read a bit on this subject). A tool called BeST (Ben’s E-Sword Tool) can help with that.

(Remember, you’re not legally allowed to download any translation you have not purchased in print that isn’t in the Public Domain or made available for free by the publisher, such as the ones on the E-Sword site.)
 
I have been so busy I have only had a chance to get on line for about 15min intervals over the last few days.

Anyway, to start off, that E-Sword tool is my new friend, I greatly appreciate PC Master mentioning it.

Using E-Sword I found out that Protos appears 100 times in the NT! I realized it would take me a good chunk of time to go through it all and thankfully I found a window of time tonight…though it is hard to know where to start…:o

First I should restate my theory: Protos is used to mean “chief” when the context gives no indication of time or sequence (eg using words like “second”, “last”, etc). I modified my theory (:p) to exclude from the time/sequence limitation those verses that use terms like “last” in a non time/sequence sense but rather in a “less” or “lowest” sense (contrasting it to “chief”).

I guess I will start by showing the breakdown of the times protos is used according to how the E-S KJV Concordance (very cool tool) arranges them. It arranges them according to how the KJV translates protos into English, SO just because it translates a verse as “first” doesnt necessarily mean the usage is time/sequence:Total KJV Occurrences: 100

first, 83 including Mat 10:2]
chief, 10
before, 2
former, 2
beginning, 1
best, 1
chiefest, 1
Each verse is listed directly after each of the above categories, but I will only be singling out a select amount. If anyone wants to follow this in greater detail I suggest they have the E-Sword open so they can quickly look up any of the verses I am not mentioning.

I will single out any verses that I believe (or agree with KJV-C) mean “chief”, as well as point out any that Im not sure about. Any verses I dont include means I consider them “correctly” defined, especially for the “time/sequence” verses.Support:

[using the term “first”]
Mt 19:30 (discussed above in previous posts)
Mk 9:35 (“first” vs “servant”)
Mk 10:31 (same passage as Mt 19:30)
Lk 13:30 (same as Mt 19:30)

[using the term “chief”]
Mt 20:27 (“chief” vs “servant”)
Mk 6:21 (“lords”, “captains”, “chief estates”)
Lk 19:47 (“chief priests”)
Acts 13:50 (“honorable women”, “chief men”)
Acts 16:12 (“chief city”)
Acts 17:4 (“devout greeks” “chief women”)
Acts 25:2 (“high priest”, “chief jews”)
Acts 28:7 (“chief man of the island, Publius”)
1 Tim 1:15 (Paul is “chief sinner”)

[using the term “chiefest”]
Mk 10:44 (“chiefest” vs “servant”)

[using the term “best”]
Lk 15:22 (Prodigal son returns and gets “best robe”, leaning towards “chief”)

Unsure:

[Using the term “first”]
Mk 12:29-31 (“this is the first commandment”, but uses “second”)
Lk 14:18 (does not use terms like “last”, “second”, etc, but rather “and another”)

[using the term “before”]
Jn 1:15 (clearly talking about time, yet the fact Jesus was before [protos] John makes Jesus “preferred”/greater)
Jn 1:30 (same as Jn 1:15)
The verses that I believe mean “chief” are for the most part straightforward with clear context indicating “chief” (though not always contrasting with “servant” for example).
The “Unsure” verses on the other hand need to be worked with:
-Mk 12:29-31, clearly “chief” is intended, so I would say the reference to “second” is “second greatest”. It could be a dual usage of protos.

-Lk 14:18, clearly in reference to time, though there is no term like “second”, “last”, “then”, etc. It is not exactly a list and leaves the men unnamed because that is not important to the story. (eg “and another said”) Luke has a almost identical same set up in Lk 16:5 but in 16:7 uses the term “then” indicating time. From this I would argue Lk did not disprove my theory, but merely an exception in which there is evidence it was purely in regards to time. Looking over Mt 10:2 again I noticed that each name is not separated by an “and” which goes against Lk 14’s model of “and another”.

-Jn 1:15 & 1:30: “This is he [Jesus] of whom I [John] said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before [protos] me.” Clearly “protos” is in reference to time, but it indicates this being first is a sign of “chief-ness”. Could being listed first, like Peter was be an indication of chief? I would think so.

In other news:

Even more interesting I just found out that Luke in his Gospel arranges the Apostles’ names DIFFERENTLY in when he writes Acts 1:13!Luk 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Luk 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
Luk 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Joh 21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.
Joh 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael [commentaries argue this is Bartholomew, cf Jn 1:45ff & Mat 10:3 & Mk 3:18, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13] of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top