Petros and Petra

[pete_29]

I see, the “sons of thunder” don’t count?

Yes, and this is extremely peculiar.

Please support that claim. I am not aware of the earliest Aramaic manuscripts being older than the earliest Greek ones. This sounds false, especially since the oldest Aramaic writing we have dates to the third century, whereas much Greek material dates to the first and second centuries.

Claims that are likewise unsubstantiated.

You’re assuming that a play on words was intended, and specifically, that the play was to use a synonymous word to liken Simon (Peter) to the rock on which the church would be founded. Why is that any more reasonable than assuming that the author was actually trying to contrast one to another?

Only if you can demonstrate that the original was actually kepha and kepha. If not, then both theories would seem to be valid, and we must appeal to logic to solve this.

See, you’ve assumed the conclusion to be a certain way, and thus aren’t interested in other possibilities. Closing your mind means that you’re not to be trusted in terms of objectivity.

pete, you have demonstrated my point very well! You say that surely there are other words that could have been used. This is not the case, however, and so the author (or translator) of the text was forced into a difficult situation. He knows that shu’a or sela would translate as petra, but how can he translate kepha? If he uses lithos, then the implication is that it’s a very small stone, but this isn’t what the Hebrew (and presumably Aramaic) means. On the other hand, if he uses petra, he’s not only got the gender problem, but also the problem of mistaking kepha (a large, but not gigantic rock) for a petra (a firm foundation, such as what you’d build a house on).

The author might have some knowledge of previous Greek trends, and might have some knowledge of the use of petros. This solves the gender problem, and at least provides some distinction from petra. It’s the best option in an imperfect situation.

Yes, it’s fair. Honestly, neither conclusion is completely unreasonable. I know that I’m not totally without bias. However, I just don’t see a way that kepha can be translated fairly in Greek, based on the uses of petra elsewhere.

Oh, and one other point – if it is appropriate to translate kepha as petra (or petros, in this case), then how would you translate shu’a? If it too is validly translated as petra, then we have an ambiguity which allows either interpretation to be valid. As such, the only thing we can appeal to further are the oldest Aramaic manuscripts, which we know are not the originals.

PC Master, it’s been an interesting conversation, but I’m way out of my league here I just barely got out of high school. So i’ll let the intellectuals discuss this with you, to me it just makes more sense to use kepha and kepha, I guess that’s just my Catholic prejudice on the subject. Make it a good discussion. I’ll be watching.

 

[PC_Master]

I did not claim that the earliest Aramaic texts that we have are older than the earliest Greek ones. Please read my post over again. My point is that they are earlier than some of the Greek manuscripts and that they are very ancient.

Which does not matter to the discussion if in fact they are translated from the Greek. The Aramaic only matters if it is the original.

Claims for the the Aramaic being the originals are not proven and I did not say that they were. Likewise, it has not been proven that they were not.

There’s really no evidence to support that such Aramaic originals existed. To claim that this is the case, you need some evidence. All known fragments of Aramaic date to the third century. There’s just no indication a first or second-century text even existed.

There are contending theories all of which have merit. The antiquity of the Aramaic, however, says a lot and there has never been any ancient claims that the words were corrupted.

It’d have been an honest mistake on the part of the translators, and at the time, the papacy wasn’t a bit thing, so it’s not hard to see that people would not have made a big deal of it.

One reason is the antiquity of the understanding of Peter as the rock versus the rather modern theory to the contrary. Likewise, it would seem more reasonable to use different words and language to make the contrast you suggest as opposed to the play on words that exist in the Aramaic texts themselves as well as the other translations that exist. The English says “rock/rock”, the French says “pierre/pierre” etc. I see no evidence to support any other conclusion over the traditional one. It appears to me that the evidence leans in this direction and not the other.

No, English says “Peter/rock” – if you go strictly on that, there is no similarity. Clearly, we must agree that translations can be errant. This includes the Aramaic ones.

Unless, you can provide evidence that they were corrupted, then there is absolutely no reason to entertain another theory as if it has an equal footing. The texts themselves are rather serious empirical data.

Who said they must have been corrupted? In fact, I would entertain that they were simply translated improperly to start with.

I have not simply assumed a conclusion. It is extremely unlikely that the texts have been tampered with.

You didn’t say that – you said that no one will ever prove that it was another way, because it never happened that way.You’re asserting as fact that it happened a certain way, rather than supporting that claim with arguments. That is assuming a conclusion.

There are no historical claims to support such an idea, and it is ridiculous to even suggest it unless there is some credible evidence that it happened.

There are no credible claims to support Aramaic primacy either, so I assume that not to be true, in which case my original analysis stands.

Your position requires that you provide evidence to show that the text is corrupted.

Not if that text never existed in an “uncorrupted” form. If it never existed to start with, and later came in as a translation of the Greek, it’s rather simple to assume that the translator made an error.

So, why would Jesus build his own church simply on a kepha, and not on a shu’a? Why are all the other references to building making reference to a shu’a as the foundation, and not a kepha? It just doesn’t fit!

PC Master, it’s been an interesting conversation, but I’m way out of my league here I just barely got out of high school. So i’ll let the intellectuals discuss this with you, to me it just makes more sense to use kepha and kepha, I guess that’s just my Catholic prejudice on the subject. Make it a good discussion. I’ll be watching.

Keep studying and learning!

 

[Pons]

At this again…

The Catechism says:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ **On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church. **

…

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

(From here)

 

[Pax]

…
…
It’d have been an honest mistake on the part of the translators, and at the time, the papacy wasn’t a bit thing, so it’s not hard to see that people would not have made a big deal of it.

Please demonstrate that there is evidence for this having happened. Furthermore, you are making an assumption that people would not have been concerned about a copy or translational error in scripture.

No, English says “Peter/rock” – if you go strictly on that, there is no similarity. Clearly, we must agree that translations can be errant. This includes the Aramaic ones.!

The name Peter means “rock.” I see no reason whatsoever to agree with your assertion that we can agree that translations can be errant when it comes to Matthew 16:18. It is one thing to find an error in translation. It is quite another to suggest that an error has been made when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is an error.

Who said they must have been corrupted? In fact, I would entertain that they were simply translated improperly to start with.

An improper translation is a corruption.

You didn’t say that – you said that no one will ever prove that it was another way, because it never happened that way.You’re asserting as fact that it happened a certain way, rather than supporting that claim with arguments. That is assuming a conclusion.

You can make this claim all you want, but it simply doesn’t work. Until there is evidence to the contrary we must use the data before us. The data we have is contained in all of the available manuscripts. That data simply does not support your contention. Your contention depends upon a possibility, however remote it may be, that has absolutely no evidence to support it. Since there is no evidence to support the idea that the text is corrupted it is quite reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that I drew.

There are no credible claims to support Aramaic primacy either, so I assume that not to be true, in which case my original analysis stands.

You are merely expressing an opinion about the Aramaic, and some scholars hold a different opinion. I think both positions and arguments have merit, and I personally believe that the jury is still out on the Aramaic.

Not if that text never existed in an “uncorrupted” form. If it never existed to start with, and later came in as a translation of the Greek, it’s rather simple to assume that the translator made an error.

This is another assertion without any evidence whatsoever to support this view concerning Matthew 16:18. Please show me some credible evidence to this effect. We can make all kinds of assumptions and present all kinds of theories. That is indeed a simple thing to do. It is imaginative but no factually based.

So, why would Jesus build his own church simply on a kepha, and not on a shu’a? Why are all the other references to building making reference to a shu’a as the foundation, and not a kepha? It just doesn’t fit!

I see no reason to worry about the use of kepha. Words always have a range of meaning and kepha works perfectly well in the text. When Jesus spoke with Peter and the latter made his confession of faith it was done in front of a large rock formation at Caesarea Philippi. This is the back drop and it has significance because it was an extremely important site of pagan worship. It even had a cave with an extremely deep pool that was known as “the gates of Hades.” It is against this back drop that Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kephas.

Peter’s profession of faith is in Jesus. Faith in Jesus is greater than the paganism illustrated at Paneas with its “gates of Hades.” Paganism and the gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church established by Christ. Peter is named Kephas. The person, Peter, cannot be separated from his faith and that is why Jesus gives him a new name. From that day forward he is known as Peter/the rock. I see no necessity for using the word shu’a. If you wish to press the issue of the word shu’a in terms of a foundation then it should be reserved for Jesus alone. Afterall, the apostles are referred to as foundations in scripture. This is done even though Jesus is referred to as the only foundation and as the cornerstone. Perhaps not using shu’a is a subtle way of keeping the “foundation” distinction between Jesus and Peter in play. In any event, kepha gets the point across and allows for a play on words.

I simply see no reason to question the manuscripts on this passage without evidence. If we start doing this kind of thing on this text we can do it everywhere else in scripture and we will then be left with nothing.

 

[CSJ]

So, why not use the Greek “lithos” in Matthew? Simple – it referred to a much smaller stone – the kind you might throw at a window to break it. So, the author of Matthew needed to describe Peter as a keph, but not as a sela/shu’a. Thus, the original Aramaic, which might have had something like this…

“You are kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church.”

became this…

“You are petros, and on this petra I will build my church.”

Conclusive proof? Again, no. But it’s enough to give me reason to think beyond the standard explanations.

Edit: Think of it this way – why would Jesus say that the man who follows his teachings is effectively building his house on a rock (huge foundation), and then build his very own church on a mere kepha in comparison?

I admire the work that you’ve done to scrutinize this narrative between Jesus and Peter - I’ve been scrutinizing Catholic and Protestant teaching for several years and I appreciate any work that a person puts into investigating Scripture - it’s a daunting task at the best of times.

I agree that God is the only one (other than Peter) who was ever referred to as a rock - this is a key point. However, I do believe that we need to stay in context of the New Testament for this statement. The OT is certainly crucial, but this is a question of translation between Aramaic, Greek, and English. Jesus’ statement was almost certainly made in Aramaic and to attempt to link it to the Hebrew will fog the context. If my understanding of history is correct, Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek (correct me if I’m wrong). I also believe that only the original Greek manuscripts exist today.

Firstly, Jesus took the disciples to the region of Ceasarea Philippi to the location of a very large rock (200 ft high x 500 ft long). This was a pagan location where live sacrifices were offered to a false god (I don’t recall the name, but it means shepherd). Leave it to God to turn something intended for evil into something good. The symbolism of this location would not be lost on the disciples.

Secondly, whenever God changed a person’s name (i.e. Abram, Jacob) in the OT, it meant a change of identity and stature for that man. It was of utter importance and purposeful.

Thirdly, the grammatical structure of the statement is more logical from the Catholic perspective.
Simon Bar-Jonah, you are “rock” and upon this “rock” I will build my church makes more sense grammatically than Simon Bar-Jonah, you are a small rock and upon this huge immoveable rock I will build my church. The second statement sounds more belittling than uplifting and this was not Christ’s intent at this time.
The context of the narrative also supports the Catholic position. Firstly, Jesus tells Simon that he is blessed because he is hearing from God the Father regarding Christ’s identity. Then Jesus responds by changing Simon’s identity to “Rock” and that upon this “Rock” he would build His church. Finally, and most importantly, Christ gives the keys of Heaven to Peter. It was almost as if it was a threefold blessing given preemptively of Peter’s three denials.

Keys were a symbol of ultimate authority in Biblical times. Eliakim (Isaiah Ch. 22) was given the keys to the House of David. The person with the keys was answerable only to the King - they were the chief steward/prime minister and the doors that they opened, none could shut; the doors they closed, none could open. Eliakim would also be a “father” figure.

It was said that Jesus would restore the throne of David. Jesus is the King of Kings and Peter was assigned as the chief steward. Peter would be a father (aka “papa” or “pope”) to God’s people. I believe that the typology between Eliakim and Peter is far too strong to ignore because Isaiah 22 is essentially what Jesus was quoting when He gave the keys to Peter.

After reading the arguments, I must return to my original thoughts on this point - the differing words (petros and petra) were simply used because of gender. Petra was probably the more common word for rock, but the translator had to hold to the limitation of the gender specific nouns. If the translator intended to highlight a difference, he would have probably used lithos instead of petros, but the fact is that he used two words meaning the same thing at the time. Why did he use Petra? - it was probably the more common word. The nuance is more supportive of Catholic teaching.

Why would Jesus delegate the responsibility of feeding His sheep if Peter was the “small pebble” that Protestants claim he was? Jesus bestowed upon Peter a significant grace to be God’s tangible voice on earth…Peter was appointed the Prime Minister of the King of Kings to Jesus’ followers on earth.

 

[PC_Master]

Please demonstrate that there is evidence for this having happened. Furthermore, you are making an assumption that people would not have been concerned about a copy or translational error in scripture.

I’m assuming one thing – you’re assuming another. Can I prove that Aramaic texts were corrupt? No. I can prove that the Greek we have predates the Aramaic we have, however. Thus, there’s no reason to believe there was an Aramaic original, and even if there was, there’s no necessity in believing that the Aramaic we have today is a valid copy thereof. It could just as well be a translation. The translator perhaps saw “petros” and “petra”, thought as you did that the original was “kepha” in both places, and translated it such.

The name Peter means “rock.”

Okay, prove it. No doubt, you’ll have to appeal to the meaning of the Greek “petros”, from which Peter is derived. Thus, we’re back to the original question of the Aramaic behind it.

Peter does not simply mean “rock” any more than shu’a or kepha simply mean “rock”. You cannot simply equate one word with another in that fashion and have a full understanding of the word. This is very faulty reasoning, which only serves to try to support your claim.

Trying to determine the meaning of an original by back-translating is an imperfect method at best, and should only be done when necessary. We indeed have no choice with the Greek, because we don’t have the Aramaic originals (if ever there were any). However, there’s no reason to start with the English here, especially when interpretation of it requires understanding of the language it was translated from.

I see no reason whatsoever to agree with your assertion that we can agree that translations can be errant when it comes to Matthew 16:18.

Either you must try to understand the underlying meaning, or you must accept things as they appear on the surface. If the former, then full understanding of translations requires understanding of that from which they were translated. If the latter, however, then I assert that there’s a clear difference, because “Peter” is not the same as “rock” in English. Of course, in French, it is the same (pierre in both cases), so this gives contradictory information.

Thus, I exclude the latter though, and assert again that translations can be errant. If translations cannot be errant, then I should be able to use any translation I want, including the Amplified Bible which says there’s a distinct difference between “Peter” and “this rock”.

Now, do I get to assume my translation is valid, even though it disagrees with your interpretation, or are we going to agree that translations can be in error, and that we should focus on the source as much as possible, rather than translations thereof?

It is quite another to suggest that an error has been made when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is an error.

The evidence of error, if any, would lie in the original – therefore, we should not be paying a lot of attention to the translations.

An improper translation is a corruption.

Okay – then the Aramaic translations may well have been an un-noticed corruption of the original text.

You can make this claim all you want, but it simply doesn’t work.

Why do my claims not work? Would you mind providing some form of evidence to disprove my claim? Or perhaps, some form of evidence that affirms your own?

I have shown that kepha and shu’a are distinctly different words. I’ve also shown that it would be very odd to build something merely on a kepha – shu’a (or the Hebrew sela) was always used for this purpose elsewhere in scripture. To assume that in this one case, when speaking of Christ’s church of all things, it would be different…this makes no sense.

Scriptural evidence shows that sela, shu’a and petra all refer to large, immovable rock masses. Kepha, lithos, etc refer to smaller rocks. Now, which would Christ build his church on, if it’s going to withstand even the gates of hades (and let’s also not forget that the “gates of hades”, while a literal place, was being used as a symbol to represent the whole of evil and satanic influence)?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Your contention depends upon a possibility, however remote it may be, that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

As I have demonstrated, so does yours. You depend on the fact that the original Aramaic that was spoken used kepha in both locations. We do not have the original Aramaic text, and we have no proof that the Aramaic we do have is anything but a translation.

Just answer me this – if the original were to have used kepha and shu’a, respectively, how would you translate those into Greek? If you use lithos, you’ve demeaned Peter making him a very small stone. Clearly you don’t want to do that. So, how would you translate it?

It is against this back drop that Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kephas.

Actually, scriptural evidence makes it far more likely that he held this nickname either from much earlier in Jesus’ ministry, or perhaps even previously to being called by Christ.

The person, Peter, cannot be separated from his faith and that is why Jesus gives him a new name.

Why can’t you separate Peter from his faith? Please explain this, rather than asserting it.

If you wish to press the issue of the word shu’a in terms of a foundation then it should be reserved for Jesus alone.

In Matthew 16:18, the use of shu’a would refer to a faith in Christ, I believe.

Afterall, the apostles are referred to as foundations in scripture. This is done even though Jesus is referred to as the only foundation and as the cornerstone. Perhaps not using shu’a is a subtle way of keeping the “foundation” distinction between Jesus and Peter in play. In any event, kepha gets the point across and allows for a play on words.

You’re looking for there to actually be such a play on words, however. This bias (same as mine) tilts the way that you interpret things in a less than objective fashion.

But if you’d care to show where shu’a represented, in scripture, anything that wasn’t a firm foundation (including Christ himself, of course), I’d be happy to see it.

For just a moment, could you drop your preconceptions and your biases and respond to this, please? If the original spoken to the apostles used “kepha” and “shu’a” respectively, how would you translate it into Greek, and how would it change your faith? Just assume there were first-century manuscripts found in Aramaic that proved it – what difference would it make?

One more question I’d love to hear the answer to – I’ve read in a few places that it would have been proper to convert a word’s gender by changing “petra” to “petras” (“as” being a valid masculine word ending in Greek). Do you know why the author/translator of the Greek Matthew text did not do it this way?

I admire the work that you’ve done to scrutinize this narrative between Jesus and Peter - I’ve been scrutinizing Catholic and Protestant teaching for several years and I appreciate any work that a person puts into investigating Scripture - it’s a daunting task at the best of times.

Agreed – it’s very trying, especially since I don’t have a full understanding of ancient Greek.

However, I do believe that we need to stay in context of the New Testament for this statement. The OT is certainly crucial, but this is a question of translation between Aramaic, Greek, and English. Jesus’ statement was almost certainly made in Aramaic and to attempt to link it to the Hebrew will fog the context.

Why is this confusing? You are aware that the Aramaic spoken by Jesus was likely a Hebrew-influenced variant, and so there would be many similarities, right? The similarity between the Hebrew keph and it’s derivative (kepha/kefa) is important.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

If my understanding of history is correct, Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek (correct me if I’m wrong). I also believe that only the original Greek manuscripts exist today.

This is a possibility. It’s also possible that it was originally Greek. Regardless, the point is that there’s no original Aramaic available for us to consult.

Firstly, Jesus took the disciples to the region of Ceasarea Philippi to the location of a very large rock (200 ft high x 500 ft long). This was a pagan location where live sacrifices were offered to a false god (I don’t recall the name, but it means shepherd). Leave it to God to turn something intended for evil into something good. The symbolism of this location would not be lost on the disciples.

Agreed, and surely this large rock would be a “shu’a” rather than a “kepha”, would it not?

Secondly, whenever God changed a person’s name (i.e. Abram, Jacob) in the OT, it meant a change of identity and stature for that man. It was of utter importance and purposeful.

True. But this does not necessarily mean that it made Peter a leader. It also isn’t for certain that Jesus had not given/used this name previously.

Thirdly, the grammatical structure of the statement is more logical from the Catholic perspective.
Simon Bar-Jonah, you are “rock” and upon this “rock” I will build my church makes more sense grammatically than Simon Bar-Jonah, you are a small rock and upon this huge immoveable rock I will build my church. The second statement sounds more belittling than uplifting and this was not Christ’s intent at this time.

My question is – How do you know what his intent was? Second, “and” can be “but” in Greek. It can have a function somewhat like the English semicolon – used either for connecting things for comparison or for contrast.

Also, I think the nickname of kepha was well-known, and possibly held by Simon previously to his recruitment by Christ. So it might have been more like You are a steady rock (and this is a good thing), but on so much greater a foundation (a massive rock mass) will I build my church.

Definite? No. Possible, even plausible? Yes.

The context of the narrative also supports the Catholic position. Firstly, Jesus tells Simon that he is blessed because he is hearing from God the Father regarding Christ’s identity. Then Jesus responds by changing Simon’s identity to “Rock” and that upon this “Rock” he would build His church. Finally, and most importantly, Christ gives the keys of Heaven to Peter. It was almost as if it was a threefold blessing given preemptively of Peter’s three denials.

Or, he’s explaining how fortunate (blessed) Simon is to understand the truth. Then he explains how great a rock he will build his church on, and gives that church the keys, rather than Peter specifically.

Keys were a symbol of ultimate authority in Biblical times. Eliakim (Isaiah Ch. 22) was given the keys to the House of David.

And in Isaiah, is there any reference of other individuals who shared this authority given to Eliakim? The apostles shared the binding and loosing authority (the keys). If you’re going to draw an analogy, be sure it fits.

Why would Jesus delegate the responsibility of feeding His sheep if Peter was the “small pebble” that Protestants claim he was?

He wasn’t a “small pebble”, but neither was he a foundational rock. It doesn’t always have to be one extreme or the other, you know.

Also, the responsibility of feeding his sheep was given to all of the apostles. That we have specific reference of this being given to Peter does not contradict this, any more than having Peter being the only one to explicitly deny Christ makes him the only one who did so.

The teaching/feeding responsibility was given to more than just Peter. The binding and loosing, too, was given to others. So, indeed, I see nothing so unique about Peter, except for his outspokenness, which Jesus uses to his own ends – to illustrate spiritual truths.

 

[MrS]

Also, the responsibility of feeding his sheep was given to all of the apostles. That we have specific reference of this being given to Peter does not contradict this, any more than having Peter being the only one to explicitly deny Christ makes him the only one who did so.

The teaching/feeding responsibility was given to more than just Peter. The binding and loosing, too, was given to others. So, indeed, I see nothing so unique about Peter, except for his outspokenness, which Jesus uses to his own ends – to illustrate spiritual truths.

The responsibility “…Peter, do you (singular, 3 times in a row) love me…” to teach, lead, shepherd, was given to Peter alone… never to any of the others, alone. (only one chief steward or prime minister)

The Catholic Church has always taught the primacy of Peter and his successor, one after the other for 2000 years. The Teaching Authority, the Magisterium, is both the [1] Pope, and also [2] the Pope and bishops in union with him.

As for the binding and loosing… same as above. First, FIRST, given only to Peter. Later given to Peter and the others . Never abrogated… never given to others… never hinted that any authority would later be vested in reformers etc.

Well, I am convinced you have no intention of accepting any level of the Truth of these passages. It seems like there has to be a way for your “any-understanding” to be the “only-understanding”.

.

 

[Fidelis]

May I ask what you base this on? Of all the other times petra is used in scripture, my understanding is that they’re almost always rendered as shu’a in Aramaic, and not kepha. Thus, it’s fair to assume that translating both as kepha is a mistake on the part of those who want to find support for the papacy. It assumes both petros and petra to be speaking of the same thing, and translates based on that assumption. If the assumption is false, then the translation is also false.

May I ask what you base *that *conclusion on? Perhaps you are referencing an Aramaic translations of the Scriptures, but that doesn’t work because, as far as I know, all Aramaic translations we have of the New Testament are newer than the Greek, and are thus based on the Greek. It has no more validity, therefore, than an English translation in which one always has to consider translator bias.

 

[utunumsint]

So here is my hypothesis based on the following evidence:

Fact 1: Since there is no record of a Greek church father making a distinction in the size of the rocks while interpreting Matthew 16

Fact 2: and since the Aramaic translations, whether based on the Greek, or vice versa, does not make a distinction between the size of the rocks,

Fact 3: and since there is no record of a Latin church father making a distinction between the size of the rocks even though the Latin translations follow the Greek convention of translating Petrus in the masculine and the second petram in the feminine.

Conclusion: I believe it is extreemly unlikely that there was a distinction between the size of the rocks.

Does my conclusion follow from the evidence?

For Fact 1 and 3, if there were a distinction, you would think that commentaries would have come down to us from the Latin, Greek, and Aramaic commentaries. But they have not.

For Fact 2, if there were a distinction, you would think that the mistake in translation would have been detected if there were a distinction in size between the rocks.

Therefore I feel safe in saying there was no distinction in size between the rocks.

Cheers, and God bless,
Ut

 

[HailMary]

Because that rock… the pillar and foundation of the Truth… is the Church.

[sign]Amen!!![/sign]

[sign]Thank God for the Catholic Church[/sign]

 

[DrDave]

Actually, scriptural evidence makes it far more likely that he held this nickname either from much earlier in Jesus’ ministry, or perhaps even previously to being called by Christ.

You’ve made this assertion several times. It is commonly held that all of the New Testament scriptures were written after the event in Matthew 16 where some are alleging Simon’s name was changed. Given this I would suggest that to support your hypothesis that scriptural evidence would have to show someone addressing Simon as Peter, Kepha, Cephas, Rock, Rocky chronologically prior to this event.

I do not think that John 1:42 qualifies in this regard as it clearly indicates a future tense. Conversely the tense of Matthew 16 is present. My saying “I tell you, you are PC Master” is extremely redundant if you, I, and everyone else following this thread, know that you are PC Master. The context and tone of the passage seem to exclude this kind of frippery on Christ’s part

Regards Doc

 

[Pax]

PCMaster,

Please be advised that we do not have the original manuscripts in Greek. We have copies of the original Greek manuscripts. Likewise, we do not have the original manuscripts in Aramaic. We have copies of the original Aramaic manuscripts. The original Aramaic manuscripts may or may not be the source documents for the Greek. Likewise, the original Greek manuscripts may or may not be the source documents for the Aramaic. At this point there is no absolute proof one way or the other.

What we do have is numerous copies of both Greek and Aramaic manuscripts. Likewise, we have many extremely ancient copies of Latin manuscripts. Not one of these manuscripts offers even a scintilla of evidence that your assertion is true. Likewise, there is not even a scintilla of evidence in any historical writings that your assertion is true.

I have nothing to prove in relying on the manuscripts that exist. You have everything to prove in making the assertions you’ve made about Matthew 16:18. The manuscripts that we have are the data. Every argument and proposition that you have presented concerning a corruption of the text is a proposition that is devoid of evidence. Linguistically, kepha works. It may not make you happy or satisfied, but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the texts.

My evidence and proof is the simple wording of scripture…nothing more and nothing less. If you have actual evidence that the text of Matthew 16:18 has been corrupted than I am interested to know what it is, and I am open to analyzing it.

I have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the ancient texts. This confidence comes by way of history. There is no reason for me to assume that the NT scriptures are any less faithfully copied than the OT scriptures. The faithful copying of our OT scriptures received verification with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This has given me a great deal of confidence in the dedication and careful copying through the ages of our NT scriptures as well.

Yes, we have found copy errors, but we haven’t found anything of the sort when it comes to Matthew 16:18 in the oldest Greek, Aramaic, or Latin manuscripts. That is the evidence for the position I hold, and until a corruption of that text can be established/proven, I have no choice but to accept them as they are.

 

[toaslan]

Pax, yours is a coherent, solid position, IMHO.

 

[CSJ]

I found this information from phatmass that supports the fact that petros and petra were used synonymously in Jesus’ time.

in Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, petros (or, rather, a form of the word) is translated as “large stone.” book 7, section 142 in the greek translation reads:

• tou de basileôs akousantos para tôn angelôn tauta kai dusphorountos phaskontos hamartein autous tôi teichei prosbalontas, deon huponomois kai mêchanêmasin helein peirasthai tên polin, kai taut’ echontas paradeigma ton Gedeônos huion Abimelechon, hos epei ton en Thêbais purgon helein ebouleto biai, blêtheis hupo presbutidos petrôi katepese kai andreiotatos ôn dia to duscheres tês epibolês aischrôs apethanen:
  book 7, section 142 in the english translation reads:
• When the king had heard this of the messengers, he took it heinously, and said that they did wrong when they assaulted the wall, whereas they ought, by undermining and other stratagems of war, to endeavor the taking of rite city, especially when they had before their eyes the example of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who would needs take the tower in Thebes by force, and was killed by a large stone thrown at him by an old woman; and although he was a man of great prowess, he died ignominiously by the dangerous manner of his assault:
  in The War of the Jews, also by Josephus, petra is translated as “stone.” book 5, section 272 in the greek translation reads:
• skopoi oun autois epi tôn purgôn kathezomenoi proemênuon, hopote schastheiê to organon kai hê petra pheroito, têi patriôi glôssêi boôntes “ho huios erchetai.” diistanto de kath’ hous êiei kai prokateklinonto, kai sunebaine phulattomenôn aprakton diekpiptein tên petran.
  book 5, section 272 in the english translation reads:
• accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE STONE COMETH 1 so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.
  according to [this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus), Josephus was a first century historian and apologist, which places his works in the same century as Matthew’s gospel. thus, we have the words petros and petra translated relatively the same way in works from the first century. this would appear to substantiate the claim of both catholic and protestant biblical scholars that by the time the gospels were written, these two greek words failed to have a substantial difference in meaning.

This substantiates my earlier thoughts on these two words.

In addition, to reiterate some of the thoughts presented by other posters here - the early church fathers (unanimously) believed in the primacy of Peter. As a new convert to the Catholic Church from Protestantism, it was only when I scrutinized both Catholic and Protestant teaching that I saw how history supported Catholic teaching. The ECF’s were especially helpful. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Thanks to everyone (bar none) for your thoughts.

 

[toaslan]

I found this information from phatmass that supports the fact that petros and petra were used synonymously in Jesus’ time.
…
In addition, to reiterate some of the thoughts presented by other posters here - the early church fathers (unanimously) believed in the primacy of Peter. As a new convert to the Catholic Church from Protestantism, it was only when I scrutinized both Catholic and Protestant teaching that I saw how history supported Catholic teaching. The ECF’s were especially helpful. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Thanks to everyone (bar none) for your thoughts.

Thank you, CSJ, for that good material from phatmass–helpful.