Petros/Petra

[NoelFitz]

Q: in the verse why is Peter referred to as Petros then as Petra? Shouldn’t it go “thou art Petros and on Petros I will build my Church”?

Matt 16:18 is

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 16:18.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ** πέτρᾳ **οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (4th ed.; Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979),

Here Peter is PETROS and rock is PETRA. Thus Paul wrote thou art Petros and on this PETRA I will build my Church. The Greek is correct since PETRA (rock) is feminine.

Again I hope this is clear.

Basically PETROS is masculine, and PETRA is feminine always.

You might like to review the posts in this topic.

 

[inkaneer]

In the Greek the word for rock is normally petra. This word is comprised of a root word ‘petr-’ and a gender ending ‘-a’ the gender ending determines the gender [masculine/femine/neuter] of the word. To change a word like petra from the femine to the masculine gender involves changing the gender ending from -a to -os so petra becomes petros. Note that while the gender ending changes the root word does not So petros is still rock but only in the masculine gender.

One more thng on this. Can anyone think of any group today who would relish Jesus calling Simon the feminine “petra” instead of the masculine “petros”? We would be facing claims that Peter was actually gay because Jesus gave him a feminine name. No thanks, Petros is a masculine rock just as petra is a feminine rock.

 

[persian85033]

I like the name Petra, and especially the Italian and Spanish version of Peter, Pietro and Pedro. My great grandmother is named Petra. I do hope my brother names his daughter after her, as I will never have children myself.

 

[NoelFitz]

Inkaneer

May I repeat again that PETRA and PETROS have slightly different meanings?

You wrote:

One more thng on this. Can anyone think of any group today who would relish Jesus calling Simon the feminine “petra” instead of the masculine “petros”? We would be facing claims that Peter was actually gay because Jesus gave him a feminine name. No thanks, Petros is a masculine rock just as petra is a feminine rock.

Let me again quote Matt 16:18

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (4th ed.; Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979).

Here Peter (masc Πέτρος PETROS) is called rock (fem πέτρᾳ PETRA).

 

[Sharp11]

Inkaneer

May I repeat again that PETRA and PETROS have slightly different meanings?

NoelFitz,

As pointed out by NotWorthy in post #5, the semantic distinction between petra and petros was extinct in Koine Greek by the time the Gospels were written. The small stone vs. large rock distinction existed between lithos and petra.

Therefore I don’t see on what grounds, in this context, you can say “PETRA and PETROS have slightly different meanings.”

Moreover, returning to your point that Jesus was identified as a petra, Mintaka already pointed out in post #6 that Jesus was not being RENAMED petra and therefore there was no need to masculinize the term. Gender agreement in predicate nominative clauses is not strictly necessary.

Last, we know that Jesus did not intend to assign Peter a name (petros) in semantic contrast to petra because the Aramaic semantic equivalent of petra is kepha. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and we know that He named Peter kepha (as opposed to, say, evna, the semantic equivalent of lithos) because Peter is called “Cephas” numerous times in the New Testament (e.g., John 1:41-42).

Peter is the rock of Matt 16:18, plain and simple. There are no caveats or qualifications.

Sharp11

 

[NotWorthy]

I think it must be made clear that PETROS is masculine and PETRA is feminine always. Thus when Paul; said and the rock was Christ, rock is feminine and Christ is masculine. The definite articles used show this.

But this has been my contention as well. The Rock (feminine) is the Christ (masculine).

I’m sorry, but I simply do not understood any disagreement in each of our statements.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

It occurred to me that if the Greek necessarily called Peter “petros” in order to maintain the masculine, would that not also be true throughout the Greek Scriptures for God, both the Father and the Son?
Is there some way of checking the Greek to see if Jesus the Rock is petros or petra?

Thanks,

The entire argument of Petra vs Petros is really pointless, because it proves nothing. Jesus IS The Rock. Arguing over the linguistics is a common Protestant tactic used to avoid discussing the clear meaning of the passage. It is a convoluted explanation that merely serves to confuse and confound a person so that the real meaning is never actually addressed,and the Protestant can walk away feeling like he is smart when really he has proved nothing to justify his separation from the Church. Jesus elevated Simon to '‘a rock’ (hence, the name change). This clearly indicates that Jesus was appointing Peter a leader of the Church, by elevating Peter to be an almost-but-not-quite equal to Himself. The entire passage concerns the establishment of the church and every single thing there demonstrates that the Church has authority through Jesus Christ. The Protestants don’t want to admit this so they come up with silly arguments like this to convince themselves that they are justified. Both Jesus (grace) and Peter (faith) make up the Rock, that is, the solid foundation on which the Church was built.

 

[NoelFitz]

JonathonofOhio

You quote from Exiled

Is there some way of checking the Greek to see if Jesus the Rock is petros or petra?

This has a clear answer 1 Cor 10:4 is:
ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός (and the rock was Christ).

Here it is clear that Χριστός (Christ) is πέτρα (PETRA).

You claim “The entire argument of Petra vs Petros is really pointless”. Originally the question was asked in good faith. You may consider some topics here are pointless. But if so why do you reply?

You say Jesus elevated “Peter to be an almost-but-not-quite equal to Himself.”

In what way was this so? Is Peter semi-divine?

NotWorthy
You wrote

But this has been my contention as well. The Rock (feminine) is the Christ (masculine).

Oops sorry, we are both fully in agreement.

I misinterpreted

“and the rock was the Christ.” Regarding rock, as soon as you made it “The”, you took away its masculine gender and made it feminine, since rock is an inanimate object. but “The Xristos” means “the annointed one”, a person. Hence, Xristos is masculine.

I thought you were saying that PETRA without the article was masculine and with it it was feminine.

So all I can do is repeat that I took you up incorrectly. Mea maxima culpa!

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy
You wrote

Oops sorry, we are both fully in agreement.

I misinterpreted

I thought you were saying that PETRA without the article was masculine and with it it was feminine.

So all I can do is repeat that I took you up incorrectly. Mea maxima culpa!

Life is good, my brother! Don’t worry about it.

Something I heard the other day regarding Matthew 16. Notice in the early part of Matthew 16, that Jesus says but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
And then later on in chapter 16, Jesus calls Peter, “Simon BarJonah” (son of Jonah). I assumed that Jonah was Aramaic for John (in John 1, Jesus says, “You are Simon the son of John;” I assumed that Jonah and John are were the Greek and Aramaic rendering of the same name, but they aren’t.

So why “son of Jonah”? The answer may be found in the story of Jonah, who was sent by God to travel to and convert the most powerful Gentile nation - Ninevah. What is Peter’s role in the New Church, to travel to and convert the most powerful Gentile nation - Rome.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

NoelFitz

You may consider some topics here are pointless. But if so why do you reply?

Did I say the topic was pointless? If I thought that it was, I wouldn’t have posted. I meant that the entire argument about Petra/Petros that has been going on outside of this topic. I can see how you could infer that I meant this topic so I will give you that. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean the topic was pointless

You say Jesus elevated “Peter to be an almost-but-not-quite equal to Himself.”

In what way was this so? Is Peter semi-divine?

Where in my statement did I even suggest something like that?

Is it so wrong to suggest that Jesus elevated Peter to be a rock? Doesn’t the scripture tell us that we are all sons of God (Galatians 3:26)? He even went so far as to tell us that we are His brothers (Matthew 12:48-50). We call Jesus Son of God and we are called sons of God, and yet you think it’s wrong for me to reason that Jesus made Simon a ‘rock’? Are we divine because we are called ‘sons of God’? No! So then what makes you think in anyway that I implied Peter was ‘semi-divine’ (if that were even logically possible) all because Jesus made him a ‘rock’?

 

[NoelFitz]

NoelFitz

Did I say the topic was pointless? If I thought that it was, I wouldn’t have posted. I meant that the entire argument about Petra/Petros that has been going on outside of this topic. I can see how you could infer that I meant this topic so I will give you that. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean the topic was pointless

Where in my statement did I even suggest something like that?

I

As I wrote to NotWorthy I misinterpreted him. I think I did the same to you, sorry.

When you wrote:

The entire argument of Petra vs Petros is really pointless, because it proves nothing. Jesus IS The Rock. Arguing over the linguistics is a common Protestant tactic used to avoid discussing the clear meaning of the passage

I thought you were claiming that this topic is pointless.

Again when you wrote:
Jesus elevated * Peter to be an almost-but-not-quite equal to Himself. * I thought you were implying Peter was almost-but-not-quite-equal to Jesus, who is God.

 

[NoelFitz]

NotWorthy,
not only did I misinterpret you, but it seems I also misinterpreted JonathonofOhio.

I can see why the priest in our parish calls Peter Rocky Johnson, based on *Peter *and Simon BarJonah..

 

[JonathonofOhio]

NotWorthy,
not only did I misinterpret you, but it seems I also misinterpreted JonathonofOhio.

I can see why the priest in our parish calls Peter Rocky Johnson, based on *Peter *and Simon BarJonah..

Well, at least I make sense to SOME people …I don’t know about you, but many people I talk to usually just get mad at me and call me names when I clarify something like this … not sure why … maybe I spend too much time on the wrong forums

 

[NoelFitz]

Well, at least I make sense to SOME people …I don’t know about you, but many people I talk to usually just get mad at me and call me names when I clarify something like this … not sure why … maybe I spend too much time on the wrong forums /QUOTE
Thank you for your post.

Here in CA I try to learn. I find it excellent that we can debate issues and gain insight’s. I would liker to be considered a student of the Bible, hence I try to study the Bible and attempt to learn about the word of God. I am often wrong, but I hope I remain within acceptable Catholic belief. I consider there is room for a range of opinions within the Church on inessentials. Looking back over the posts in this topic, I realize I misinterpreted the views of others.

So thanks to all of you for your patience and charity and for helping me to understand a little bit better God’s word.

 

[Frankk]

Petra is male gender

Petros is female gender

Chrsit used “Petra”

This is incorrect. Liddell and Scott, Greek - English Lexicon will show you petra is female and petros is male.

The problem here is that Christ spoke Aramaic and would have addressed Peter as Kepha which means ‘bedrock’. The direct Greek translation would be Petra but as this was a female noun it would have been unacceptable as a male name in Greek. The writer, therefore, masculinised it as Petros [which means small rock, stone or pebble].

It is this that Protestants have in the past used as ‘proof’ that Catholics can’t claim Jesus founded the Church on Peter because it means a small rock or pebble in Greek. Most [maybe all] major Protestant theologians no longer make this claim as they now understand the background and the context to it.

 

[geekborj]

It occurred to me that if the Greek necessarily called Peter “petros” in order to maintain the masculine, would that not also be true throughout the Greek Scriptures for God, both the Father and the Son?
Is there some way of checking the Greek to see if Jesus the Rock is petros or petra?

Thanks,

Check this out: Peter the Rock.

 

[aball1035]

Of course it was all originally in Aramaic, you have to remember. In Aramaic, Jesus used the word “kepha.”

I have a question, I sometimes see anti-Catholic Christians claim that that “petros” means “small stone” and “petra” means “large stone”, I have not found any citation for this claim, is there any validity to it or is it a linguistic fabrication? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter…

This distinction was true a few hundred years before Christ in Greek poetry, but not in Christ’s time.

 

[phil8888]

I’m just looking for some clarification. It has been said that both Jesus and God were referred to as Petra in the Bible, whereas Peter was referred to as Petros. If Petros was used in order to use a masculine name, then why was not the same done for God and Jesus? Can someone help?

 

[Sharp11]

I’m just looking for some clarification. It has been said that both Jesus and God were referred to as Petra in the Bible, whereas Peter was referred to as Petros. If Petros was used in order to use a masculine name, then why was not the same done for God and Jesus? Can someone help?

Hi Phil8888,

As Mintaka pointed out in post #6 and I reiterated in post #24, Peter was called the masculine petros because he was being renamed. It would make no sense to bestow a feminine name upon him.

In contrast, when Jesus is referred to as petra (1Cor 10:4), the word is being used as a symbol rather than a name. Therefore the standard feminine form will do; it does not have to be masculinzed into petros.

I hope that clears things up.

Sharp11

 

[phil8888]

As I thought about it, that’s the conclusion I came to. Thanks for the clarification. I guess it’s kind of like when the Bible compares God to a chicken I believe in one part. I think I heard of that. Correct me if I’m wrong.