Peter's father's name

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In Matthew 19, doesn’t Jesus refer to Peter as “Simon bar Jonah?” Which would make his father Jonah, or Jonas, or whatever has been ‘Anglicized’ from the Aramaic?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
In Matthew 19, doesn’t Jesus refer to Peter as “Simon bar Jonah?” Which would make his father Jonah, or Jonas, or whatever has been ‘Anglicized’ from the Aramaic?
Click to expand...
But isn’t there another place where it says his father’s name is John?
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
But isn’t there another place where it says his father’s name is John?
Click to expand...
Um, might be (off the top of my head I don’t recall.) Different Bibles do different things with names. Jonah, John etc. could all be based on the same ‘root’. At least they weren’t calling him something totally different like Lemuel!
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
But isn’t there another place where it says his father’s name is John?
Click to expand...
[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16:17[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 1:42[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 21:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Yonah (Jonah) and Yohanan (John) may have been close enough in oral records to cause the confusion. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Notice John uses both names according to the Douay translation. Some translations use “John” throughout and others use “Jonah” throughout.
 
SonCatcher said:
[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16:17[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 1:42[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 21:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Yonah (Jonah) and Yohanan (John) may have been close enough in oral records to cause the confusion. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Notice John uses both names according to the Douay translation. Some translations use “John” throughout and others use “Jonah” throughout.
Click to expand...
That was the point I was going for - the distinction matters. Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says only the sign of Jonah will be given. What I am getting at is Jesus changing the lineage of Peter and since Jonah was a type of Christ in the OT, Jesus made Peter His son and gave him the double portion (ie: Primacy over all bishops - the Keys). I think there are other non-biblical sources which say Peter’s natural name was John.
 
I agree with you, I think that there is something important about the use of Jonah in the Gospel of Matthew. A couple of the commentaries I have read say that Jesus is making a play on words when He said “Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah”. Jonah was a “type” for Jesus, so one could interpret this to mean that Jesus is pointing out His ‘relationship’ to Simon. (Additionally, Matthew’s Gospel was really aimed at showing the Jews how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies; the reference to Jonah would have stood out to them, I think).
 
Prayer_Warrior said:
I agree with you, I think that there is something important about the use of Jonah in the Gospel of Matthew. A couple of the commentaries I have read say that Jesus is making a play on words when He said “Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah”. Jonah was a “type” for Jesus, so one could interpret this to mean that Jesus is pointing out His ‘relationship’ to Simon. (Additionally, Matthew’s Gospel was really aimed at showing the Jews how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies; the reference to Jonah would have stood out to them, I think).
Click to expand...
And I may speculate that Jesus used “Son of John” here:

John 21:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?

Because He was in some sense, punishing St. Peter for his sin (be demotion), and asking him if he loves him.
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
That was the point I was going for - the distinction matters. Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says only the sign of Jonah will be given. What I am getting at is Jesus changing the lineage of Peter and since Jonah was a type of Christ in the OT, Jesus made Peter His son and gave him the double portion (ie: Primacy over all bishops - the Keys). I think there are other non-biblical sources which say Peter’s natural name was John.
Click to expand...
No place does Jesus call him “Peter son of Jonah.”

Plus, Jesus was not making Peter his son but his steward. There is a difference.
 
SonCatcher said:
No place does Jesus call him “Peter son of Jonah.”

Plus, Jesus was not making Peter his son but his steward. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Sure He may not say “Peter, son of Jonah” but he says “Simon, son of Jonah”

Matthew 16:18
"And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah …,”

Simon name was changed to Peter, so in essence, he is saying Peter, Bar-Jonah.
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Sure He may not say “Peter, son of Jonah” but he says “Simon, son of Jonah”

Matthew 16:18
"And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah …,”

Simon name was changed to Peter, so in essence, he is saying Peter, Bar-Jonah.
Click to expand...
No essence. He did not say that. If so, the passage would have been recorded
“blest are you Simon Bar-John … you shall be called Kepha Bar-Jonah”

Name changes are significant in the Bible so whenever they happen they are explicit, not “hidden” as in your example.

and to head off any objection:
Saul/Paul is a very different case. “Saul” is a Hebrew name whereas “Paul” is Greek. It was simplest for him to use the name most familiar to those he was talking to at the time.
 
I think this is a worthy topic and I hope we don’t get to sidetracked about the names for Simon. After all, the point of the thread isn’t about Simon Peter. To be sure, the changing of his name to Peter is very significant, but this thread about the usage of the name “Jonah” for the father. Is it not? To me, the name Jonah is very significant and I believe it would have been significant to Matthew’s earliest readers. Like the OP, I think that this isn’t a slip of the tongue on Jesus’ part, nor do I believe it to be a copyist error. The point the OP is trying to make (if I am not mistaken) is that the name Jonah is very meaningful and is often overlooked in this passage. Why did Jesus say this when the Gospel of John records a different name?

The link the OP provided was fascinating-- thank you so much!
 
Tantum_ergo said:
In Matthew 19, doesn’t Jesus refer to Peter as “Simon bar Jonah?” Which would make his father Jonah, or Jonas, or whatever has been ‘Anglicized’ from the Aramaic?
Click to expand...
I think you are correct since “bar” meant “son of”. However, Jewish familial relationships were somewhat different back then too. For example, the Bible refers to “brothers and sisters” of Jesus but Catholics (and I think Orthodox too) believe that they were cousins of Jesus. Therefore, is it possible that “bar” means something different than “son of”?

Also, would John be the Anglicized version of Jonah or Jonas? I honestly do not know about this. I do know that one of the disciples of Jesus was John though so maybe it isn’t?

🤷
 
If you want to look that intently at the meaning of Peter’s father’s name, you may want to look up those passages in a Greek interlinear.

The passage in Matthew and both passages in John use the same name (Iwna/Iona) in the Greek. It does not match John the Baptist in Matt 14 nor John the Apostle in Matt 10 (Iwannhn/Ioannen or Iwannhs/Ioannes).

Similarly, the Aramaic NT uses the same name in all passages referring to Simon Peter’s father but different than John in Matt 14 and Matt 10 (who match each other).

It seems the translators just couldn’t agree on what to call him in English.
 
Just found this thread. Our brother Not Worthy pointed out in another thread that Peter might have been our Lord’s adopted son, based on indications found in scripture. This could explain the “son of Jonah” reference in Matthew 16, since Jesus was and is the “Sign of Jonah”.

I cobbled the following together while pondering this line of thought.
There is an impressive litany of facts that relate only to Peter: Foreknowledge of him and the coming name change their first meeting (John 1:42); preaching from his boat (Luke 5:3); changing only his name (John 1:42, Matthew 16:17); Tax collectors went only to Peter to ask about the Temple tax (Matthew 17:24); Jesus paying the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17:27); Jesus referred to Peter as “family” (Matthew 17:26); inviting him only to walk on the water (Matthew 14:29); giving him the keys (Matthew 16:19); even calling him Satan as a form of discipline (Matthew 16:23); prophesying the triple denial (Luke 22:34); restoring Peter to his position (John 21:15-17); making Peter the shepherd "feed my sheep (John 21:15-17); prophesying the type of Peter’s death (John 21:18); advising him to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32); telling only Peter “follow me” (John 21:19). The list goes on and on. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT - the next closest is John “the beloved disciple” at just 29 times. Peter is always listed first, and Judas last.
Click to expand...
A case can be made, strictly from scripture, that Jesus adopted Peter as son. In addition to all of the above (and additional references not noted), Jesus referred to Himself as the “Sign of Jonah” (Luke 11:30). Jesus told the Pharisees that their generation would receive only the “sign of Jonah” (Matthew 16:4). A short twelve verses later, Jesus calls Peter “Simon bar (son of) Jonah” (Matthew 16:17), changes Simon’s name and tells him that the Father revealed Jesus’ true nature to him. The name Jonah is used in scripture only in relation to the prophet, in relation to Jesus, and as the name (literal or figurative) of Peter’s father. Now, “son of Jonah” either means son of the sign of Jonah (Jesus), or son of the prophet. The total of scripture tends to point to Peter as adopted son, IMO. Additionally, Peter is also a type of prodigal son, with his denials (John 18:15, 25-27), repentance (Matthew 26:75, Luke 22:62) and restoration to the father, who came out to him and initiated a feast (John 21:4-14).
Click to expand...
But, I credit Not Worthy for sharing his insightful observation from scripture.
 
I think this is a case of overthinking. Jonah was probably a very popular name among fishermen; we know it was a popular name among Jews. Simon was the son of a man named Jonah. (Unless you want to claim that Jesus adopted Peter and Andrew’s dad as his son, which would be more to the point.)

If you want to play types, let’s be fair here… Peter did a lot of Jonah things. A lot a lot of Jonah things. He climbed out of a boat onto the water, for one, when Jonah was forced to jump out of one. Peter was held in prison underground and was brought out by an angel, which is a lot like the belly of a whale. He breathed fire and brimstone about his freaking sword, just like Jonah threatened Nineveh. Heck, Peter ended up in Rome, which was a lot like Nineveh. Like Jonah, Peter didn’t always do a good job of carrying out God’s will; but eventually he did it, after getting enough emphatic clues from God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top