Petra/Petros argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter christismylord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christismylord

Guest
I am familiar with the debunking the “Petros” vs “petra” argument by saying that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic then translated to Greek. And the translator changed the original Aramaic “kephas” into “Petros” when referring to Peter because a man’s name could not be feminine (petra) but left the more common Greek word “petra” when later referring to the rock on which the Church is built. Could someone please explain then how the names Aquila, Judas, Mathias, Thomas etc are used in scripture? Isn’t the name of a man not supposed to end in a feminine suffix? Does this negate our argument about Peter’s name?
 
Last edited:
christismylord said:
Greek word “petras”
Click to expand...
It isn’t “petras”, it’s “petra” (πέτρα).

I’m not sure I understood exactly what your question about endings is, but it might be because it is late here. I’ll read your post again with a fresh mind tomorrow morning.
 
Because some of the names are NOT translated when brought into different languages.

Thomas was a name that was originated from an Aramaic word (transliterated as) Ta’oma’. When the name came into other languages, it was not translated.


Aquila is not a Greek name. It’s just a Latin name, which wasn’t as strict with this as Greek is/was. There is no Greek variant of the name.


(A modern example of this is when people in English speaking nations are named Pedro or Jose instead of the english translation of the name)

The name Judas comes from the Judea, which is the Greek transliteration of Judah. So this is a little different than the work rock, because someone named “Judas” is being named after Judea



Mathias is a Latin variant of Hebrew Mattithyahu, which comes from the Ancient Hebrew Mattaniah. In Greek, there were two versions: Matthaios and Matthias. Latin also had two version: Matthias and Mattheus

 
Furthermore: Petros and Petra are not exactly the same things either. The male/female argument isn’t the best argument. Really, we just need to look at the different meanings of the words.

πέτρα (petra) means (1) a rock formation (as in a cliff, ledge, cave, ridge). Or (2) a stone as a building material.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πέτρα

While πέτρος (petros) means a rock, stone, boulder.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πέτρος

Building the Church on a cliff, ledge, cave or ridge would not be a very good analogy. Plus, Jesus doesn’t say “with these rocks I will build my Church.” He says “on this rock I will build my Church”. So only πέτρος works correctly, as πέτρα would indicate a pretty unstable foundation.

It’s also important to look at the context of where Jesus and the Apostles were when Jesus renamed Simon as Peter. They were in the REGION of Caesarea Philippi (not in Caesarea Philippi). Sources say they were actually outside the pagan temple, which build on top of very rocky terrain (see this picture of the ruins:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Start this video at minute 7:35 and Steve Ray will tell you all about the location Jesus and the Disciples were at when Simon was renamed Peter


God Bless
 
I say never mind all of this hokum! Look at the Church: how it was formed, how it behaved; how they deferred to Saint Peter. Even Saint Paul went to Peter to ensure that his (Paul’s) Gospel accorded with the Apostles. The burden of proof lies upon the persecutors and prosecutors.

The separatists are grasping at straws.
 
I can only explain why I abandoned this Petros/petra argument. I do not think Simon ever went by Peter. I believe that was only a translation in Greek, as Paul gives his name as Cephas. Therefore, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and what Jesus says is what matters. Then there is the pre-eminence among the apostles he is given by the beloved apostle, John. If anyone else had a claim to this position, it would have been John, but he gives it to Cephas.
 
christismylord said:
Could someone please explain then how the names Aquila, Judas, Mathias, Thomas etc are used in scripture? Isn’t the name of a man not supposed to end in a feminine suffix? Does this negate our argument about Peter’s name?
Click to expand...
40.png
Question on Matthew 5:29 Sacred Scripture
Hang on a second – you’re contradicting yourself here! Do you realize what you just stepped into?
rofl
You claim that in Koine Greek, names of men are always in the masculine. That’s true (AFAIK)! What that means is that they take non-masculine foreign names and force Greek masculine endings on them. For example, look at Acts 18. The man mentioned there is ‘Aquila’. It’s a Latin name, which means ‘eagle’, and it’s feminine in case. In Latin, that’s no big deal. However, in Koine Gree…
Click to expand...
 
BartholomewB said:
We have several Greek experts who will be able to help:
Click to expand...
Thank you kindly for the tag!
OddBird said:
I’m not sure I understood exactly what your question about endings is
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m having an issue understanding as well.
christismylord said:
Aquila, Judas, Mathias, Thomas etc are used in scripture? Isn’t the name of a man not supposed to end in a feminine suffix?
Click to expand...
In Biblical Greek, only the -α a and -η e endings are explicitly feminine. This is not an absolute relationship, as in some dialects (notably Homeric), -ᾱ ā (a long alpha) could be masculine.

In Biblical Greek, nouns ending in -ας as and -ης es are generally masculine. For example, Aquila (a Roman masculine name) is transliterated into Greek as Ἀκυλας Akulas. Note the -ας ending in the Greek that replaces the -a Latin ending.

From my perspective, there is a lot of unnecessary finagling with Matt 16:18 that results in overcomplication: trying to determine a putative Aramaic basis (which is beside the point), trying to distinguish between what types of rocks to which Petros and petra refers (again, besides the point), trying to link petra to Peter’s faith rather than Peter himself, etc.

In a plain reading of the Greek, it’s simple wordplay: two phonologically similar nouns are used as a pun to draw a substantive connection between the two. If Jesus spoke English and named Peter ‘Rocky’ (as in Rocky Balboa!), the wordplay would be the same:
You are Rocky, and upon this rock I will build my Church.
Click to expand...
I will note that Ulrich Luz’s (a Swiss Protestant biblical scholar) commentary in Hermeneia (the major historical-critical scholarly commentary series) agrees that Peter is the rock.
 
@Bithynian said it all.

I’ll just add that in Greek in general, not just Biblical Greek, endings in -ας (as) and -ης (es) are generally masculine. Just think Pythagoras, Socrates, Euripides, Demosthenes, Athenagoras…

Most of the names we find in the Greek New Testament, if they are not Greek, are actually Hellenized forms of Hebrew (or sometimes, Roman) names.

I’d also add that, in Greek, nicknames derived from another word (that’s what “Peter” is, originally) often behave as substantivized adjectives, taking on the corresponding adjectival endings for the gender of the person they refer to. These adjectival endings can differ from personal name endings.

I’m really not sure one has to read too much into it.

Fun fact : in French, my first language, “Peter” is “Pierre”. That’s the French word for “rock”, but “pierre” is a feminine noun (une pierre, la pierre).
Bithynian said:
I will note that Ulrich Luz’s (a Swiss Protestant biblical scholar) commentary in Hermeneia (the major historical-critical scholarly commentary series) agrees that Peter is the rock.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That’s true of all the serious Protestant Biblical scholars I know of. The Petrine primacy isn’t disputed. The contentious point is defining the ecclesiological consequences one should draw from it.

And thank you for the kind tag, @BartholomewB !
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I do not think Simon ever went by Peter. I believe that was only a translation in Greek, as Paul gives his name as Cephas.
Click to expand...
Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages, but “rock” is one of the words that they don’t have in common: tzur (צּוּר) in Hebrew but keifa (כֵּיפָא) in Aramaic. Recognizing that when Jesus spoke those words to Peter he said them in Aramaic, the standard Hebrew translation of the New Testament used by the Catholic Church in Israel retains Keifa for “Peter” throughout. Matt 16:18 reads, “And I tell you, you are Keifa, and on this tzur I will build my church.”

https://haktuvim.co.il/en/study/Matt.16
 
Last edited:
While I am not an expert on Greek, just a friendly reminder that Simon’s name was changed based on what our Lord said that day. Even without knowledge of Greek and Aramaic, one could come to this conclusion that Peter is surely the Rock… because otherwise that change of name has no real meaning.

Interesting thread. I can’t contribute much but will keep reading 🙂
 
pnewton said:
I do not think Simon ever went by Peter. I believe that was only a translation in Greek
Click to expand...
Indeed, the gospel of John clearly states : “Looking at him, Jesus said : “you are Simon, son of John, and you will be called Kephas”, which translates as Peter”. (1:42)

That said, can we affirm that Peter never went by “Peter” ? I’m not so sure. Acts tells us of a first community in which Peter played an important part and which included also Greek-speaking Jews; and if anything, the New Testament shows us how important is was considered, early on, that everybody could understand the meaning of the name Jesus had given him.
pnewton said:
Paul gives his name as Cephas.
Click to expand...
The context of the epistle to the Galatians is particular. Paul visibly has a beef with Peter about the Antioch incident and his timidity to welcome the Gentiles, and flat out accuses him and “the other Jews” of being hypocrites. I have always wondered if his use of Kephas here wasn’t a deliberate attempt to underline his point that Peter is a Jew talking to Jews, and to whom Gentile Christians shouldn’t listen. In Galatians, he uses the name “Peter” only twice, and each time he is careful to qualify this by saying he is the apostle “for the circumcised”, while he himself is the apostle for the nations (ie, here, the Galatians).
 
OddBird said:
Acts tells us of a first community in which Peter played an important part and which included also Greek-speaking Jews;
Click to expand...
All seven of the deacons appointed in Acts 6 have Greek names. Does this mean they were Greek-speaking Jews originally from the Diaspora?
 
BartholomewB said:
Does this mean they were Greek-speaking Jews originally from the Diaspora?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. Most commentators I’ve read on this just say that in a hellenized world, there were probably multiple cultural and linguistic communities in Jerusalem, as evidenced by the Pentecost narrative. In higher social circles, the temptation to “hellenize” to be close to the powers in place would have been strong. The fact that the Hellenist deacons were elected specifically to serve the Hellenist community, and in particular its widows who were feeling neglected, would seem to indicate that they were either hellenized Jerusalemites, or that they had in any case settled there for the long term.

Two centuries earlier, the Seleucids had already imposed (or rather tried to impose) their hellenistic culture in Judea – that’s the historical setting for the Books of Maccabees. Even if they were eventually replaced by the (Jewish) Hasmonean dynasty, there was a phenomenon of accrued hellenization under it; the short-reigned Hasmonean king Aristobulus I (104-103 BCE, whose Hebrew name was Judah) was even nicknamed “Philhellene”.

From what we know, for example, about Flavius Josephus, he is a witness to the existence of hellenized Jerusalemites in the first century; he was one himself, originating from a well-to-do sacerdotal family and linked to the Hasmoneans on his mother’s side. He was undoubtedly competent in Hebrew, and he learnt Latin later on as he spent a good part of his life close to the imperial family in Rome, but Greek was the language he chose to think in and write in.
 
Where is it stated that Paul went to Peter specifically “to ensure that his gospel accorded with the Apostles”?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top