Petra/Petros argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter christismylord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I meant was, Paul says in Galatians chapter 1 then he visited Cephas for 15 days. But he already wrote, starting in verse 11, that he received the gospel “not from any man”, and was not taught it, but received it directly from a revelation by Jesus. He says he didn’t immediately consult with anyone and didn’t go to Jerusalem, but eventually did visit Cephas for 15 days. However, he doesn’t explicitly say why he went.

Are you saying that the reason he went to see Peter was to consult with him?
 
BartholomewB said:
40.png
OddBird:
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?
Click to expand...
Maybe or maybe not. Some parts of Israel, esp around Caesarea Philippi where very Hellenized from the time of Alexander the Great.
 
I see. So Peter/Cephas gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, and agreed that they should go to the Gentiles. I had heard of Paul “getting permission” from Peter, but couldn’t place it. I guess that’s the passage.
 
Many twist this to prefer Saint Paul over Saint Peter. Not the first Time that Peter (like so many of us) had been chastized. Can you imagine Peter’s thoughts? “Oh yeah, I’ve been upbraided by far better, Paul!”
 
christismylord said:
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?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that anyone was arguing over Peter’s name?
Why should any argue over such a rather inconsequential thing?
His given name was/is Simon - Everyone knows that, yes?
 
EndTimes said:
I didn’t know that anyone was arguing over Peter’s name?
Why should any argue over such a rather inconsequential thing?
His given name was/is Simon - Everyone knows that, yes?
Click to expand...
The Greek translation of Matthew 16:18 is

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος,

And I tell you, you are Peter,

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

and on this rock I will build my church,

Because ”Πέτρος“ (Peter’s new name) differs from ”πέτρᾳ“ (the later version of the word “rock” that the Church is built upon) in the gender of the word (it’s the same word; different suffix) , Protestants claim that it is not Peter the Church is built upon but his earlier confession of faith “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

But the Catholic argument is that they just made the more common (feminine) version of the word ”πέτρᾳ” into a masculine form ”Πέτρος“ because Peter is a man and a man couldn’t have a feminine name back then. So it still refers to Peter as the rock (first Pope)
 
Last edited:
While the Petra/Petros argument is a sticking point with most Protestants, I have found that addressing it from the Keifa angle is a lot easier position for Catholics to address the issue. I find that the one aspect of this which totally stumps defendants of the Protestant position is not necessarily the primary meaning of Keifa as ‘rock’ but rather it’s secondary meaning and allusion.

Taking into account that vowel dipthongs were somewhat informal in the way they were written in Greek from Aramaic and Hebrew, we actually find that there is another man named ‘Keifa’ in the New Testament. This is the same name as Caiaphas, the High Priest. The modern equivalent of Jesus’ declaration would be like Christ singling out a layman and saying, “You are Pope Francis and upon this rock I build my Church.”

Christ says that the stones of the Temple will be torn down and not one ‘Keifa’ will be left upon another. The Temple’s Keifa, Caiaphas, is toppled and replaced with Christ’s Keifa, Peter.
 
Last edited:
A possible difficulty: Caiaphas is spelled with a quf, קַיָּפָא , suggesting a different origin from Keifa with a kaf. In modern Hebrew the two letters are pronounced identically, but were they then? I have no idea …

https://haktuvim.co.il/en/study/Luke.2
 
CRM_Brother said:
While the Petra/Petros argument is a sticking point with most Protestants
Click to expand...
I’m really curious about this : who are these “most Protestants” ? I’m a Reformed minister, I went to a Protestant seminary, and honestly, that whole πέτρα/Πέτρος argument is seen as a non-issue. As I said above,
OddBird said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, I was speaking from experience. If it is different in your part of the country, then I apologize. I am from South Carolina and there, Catholics are in the vast minority (3-5%). I have repeatedly had this argument thrown at me as Protestant friends and even their parents were trying to prove to me that I was a blasphemer (growing up, my city was extremely anti-Catholic). I’ve heard it from Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Luterans, and non-denominational evangelicals. I realize that they probably weren’t the most learned Protestant scholars but I was speaking of the general person in the pew, not necessarily those who have gone to seminary.

In about fifteen years of trying to defend my faith, I only encountered one minister like you who did not find the Petra/Petros to be a hang-up.
 
Last edited:
We are pretty sure that the pronunciation used in that time period was the same it is today in Hebrew, at least for Caiaphas’s name. Whenever the Romans recorded a name from a minor language of the Empire, like Hebrew, they use a somewhat standard of transliteration into Latin. The hard ‘C’ with which they recorded Caiaphas’ name in their reports, some of which survived, is the same with which Latin speakers recorded Cephas (we have a record in Latin of this from Josephus). The transliteration system was based upon the phonetics of Greek. Both names fell under the Greek pronunciation of Kappa. Thus, we know that the names were either pronounced exactly the same or pronounced so similarly that no difference could be heard by someone who could not speak Hebrew.

For softer glottal stops, the first consonant was usually dropped. If this was the case with Caiaphas, his name would have been written as Aiaphas.
 
Last edited:
OddBird said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Evangelicals, in a limited way, recognize the primacy of Peter, to judge from the words of R. Wade Paschal of Asbury Theological Seminary. Referring to a verse in the farewell discourse, Lk 22:32, “But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” Paschal writes:

Peter, despite his failure, is implicitly singled out for special leadership … Not so much transfer of authority as mission. … Peter is to care for the disciples much as Jesus has. This anticipates Peter’s role in Acts, where he will be the leader of the early church, but not the sole possessor of Jesus’ authority.

Green & McKnight (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, InterVarsity Press, p. 231a.
 
Thank you !

That may be an American phenomenon then. I’m in Europe and never met with people who would have contested Peter’s primacy. What is usually argued is that his primacy is personal, and non transmissible to his successors (what I find a bit weak when reading the election of Matthias in Acts 1, where someone has to be elected to take up “the apostolic ministry” from Judas).
 
Indeed! Rather irascible, one would think. However, as strong as his letters are, he was apparently mild in person. Strong letters have time to sink in, as opposed to face-to-face speech, which can inflame.

Not that we see any of that here, mind you…
 
Last edited:
christismylord said:
Protestants claim that it is not Peter the Church is built upon but his earlier confession of faith “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
Click to expand...
It’s useful to note that there are about a bazillion different, clearer ways that Jesus could’ve spoke if he had intended that particular meaning:

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πετραίῃ πίστιν σου… “and upon this rock-like faith of yours…”

καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ πίστιν σὴν ὡς πέτραν… “and upon your faith [I will build my church] because it is like a rock…”

τῇ ἐλλκησίᾳ μου πρέπει οἰκοδομεῖσθαι ἐπὶ πέτρᾳ, καὶ ἡ πίστις σοὺ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ εστιν… “it is fitting for my church to be built upon a rock, and your faith is this rock…”

etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top