Petros/petra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercygate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And it gets better!

But first I need to correct a mistake, :o
the last passage shown in greek was book 20 (XX), verses ~280-290. The English summary is correct.

The story line comes from a comparison of several accepted English translations. I am doing that rather than try and translate everything myself because I am short on time, but also I think that will help others to prove the point since the texts are readily available in many libraries. (P.S. all translations are out of copyright).

The verse number (strophe?) may vary by up to ten, but in all the various publlishers/translators available to me, these verses are translated consistantly enough to make the point clearly.

I have checked various Greek copies from around 1900, and have even found concordances. The Greek of the Illiad is well documented.
 
Quote taken from:
  • The illiad chapter 16, the editor, Walter Leaf Litt.D
  • Sometime fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge (1900),
  • Macmillian and Co., LTD.
  • N.Y. : The macmillian company.
on book:passage 16:735.
  1. μαρμαρον οκριοεντα, M 380.
    Bently conj. οκριοενθ, ον οι, which is
    adopted by most edd., and is no doubt right if the line is genuine. The second part, however, is unusual, as it appears to describe a stone of small size, whereas those cast by heroes are elsewhere of heroic dimensions.
Click to expand...
The two Greek words at the start indicate sparkling [an adjective apllied to a rock], and rough/jagged respectively.

What he is referring to is this passage:
`ετερηφι δε λαζετο πετρον μαρμαρον οκριοεντα, τον οι περι χειρ εκαλθψεν.

Which contains the masculine form of rock – petron (πετρον)

A standard translation of the passage is:
In his left hand he clutched a shining, jagged, stone – which his hand covered. (–τον οι περι χειρ εκαλθψν.)

That last part – which his hand covered – is very literal. It actually means that the stone was the biggest one he could grasp one-handed.

The editor/author seems to be baffled by the hand covering the stone, but perhaps the hero is carying very large stone much like a basketball player grasps something larger than his hand.
The exaggeration of the Illiad and Odessy is similar to the American tall tale.

The footnote, however, to a protestant would be exactly the kind of thing to engender the petros/petra argument.

In the Illiad, It does appear that Petra is most often found in the hero’s hand, and the Petros in the hand of the arch-villian (hero), but here there is a reversal which crushes the stereotype. – it would not be a reversal if Petros and Petra are interchangable.
It is also true that Petra often means cliff or craig, but this would not be a surprise if the word were being used collectively.

(Collective can also mean uncountable, in addition to what I posted before. For example, water is a collective English noun.
If I say I have water, you couldn’t tell me a quantity or number.
A large mass of rock could easily be collective, so that Petra might simply be referring to the concept of rock and not a size.
The indefinite article is a clue to collective noun use in English, but unfortunately the Greek has no indefinite article (a,an).
More study!
🙂

– One / two examples left, probably post in a day or two –
 
Up to this point, I have been working on the meaning of Petros.
So, far I have shown that Petros is not necessarily a ‘pebble’.

Now, I would like to add a Homeric passage which shows that Petra is not necessarily a stationary (immobile) rock. The passage I have in mind is from the Odyssy, where the cyclopse blocks the entrance of the cave with a ‘rock’ for a door ( PetrAn ).

(The n at the end is ‘nu’ movable. It is for sound only – similar to English : ‘a’ door vs. ‘an’ apple. ‘a’=‘an’ but the ‘n’ sound is added depending on the next word.)

Book 9:243
τοσσην ηλιβατον πετρην επεθηκε θυρησιν

So this shows conclusively that PetrA does not necessarily mean an immovable rock either. Arguments can be made in all directions as to the size of this ‘rock’. It was large enough to block a wide mouth cave, but caves often had small entrances which might be ‘wide’ ( e.g. Jesus’ tomb is blocked with a ‘small’ stone ‘lithos’, etc. ).
The relative words ‘wide’ mouth cave or 22 sturdy carts couldn’t lift might indicate several different difficulties – the stone was immovable to Odyssius and his men – but clearly the ‘massive’ rock was movable by one Cyclopse who was able to lift it.

Bottom line: Even Homeric Greek poetry does not really support the position that Petra is an immovable rock and Petros a small pebble.

Not only that, but if the ending in biblical greek -ος vs. -α is held to mean that the words are ‘different’, then the ancient Greek poetry is not an argument in favor of the common protestant polemic for the simple reason that -η is not -α. Even Homeric Greek does not support the Petros vs. Petra distinction as a certanty.
 
Who (and when) first interpreted Mt. 16:18 based on the gender distinction between Petros and petra to indicate that it is not Peter but Peter’s confession upon which Jesus would build his Church?
Click to expand...
Apart from discussions about Petro/petra, it is Peter ***and ***Peter’s confession which the Church is built. It need not be a dichotomy between the two, such that one must choose one or the other. The Catholic Church teaches both, as had the early Church.

CCC 424 “On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”
 
My motives for wanting to know are base: I want THE definitive response the next time somebody gives me that condescending “you-ignorant-Catholic” look and tries to foist this one on me.
Click to expand...
I simply refer them to the broad consensus by Protestant bible scholars on the matter, which concludes that Peter is the “rock” of Matthew 16:18.

Upon this Rock … is the rock of Matt 16:18 Peter?

Also, the well-respected Protestant source, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged edition), states:
If [Peter] himself is petra, it is as Christ has taken him in the hand and given him a place in the unique apostolate which is the historical foundation of the church. As Abraham is for the rabbis the rock on which God builds the word, so Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the community of the new covenant. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, ed., abridged in one volume, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985, pg. 834-835)
Click to expand...
 
Thayer’s Lexicon (1889) states:
Mt. xvi. 18 [some interpp. regard the distinction (generally observed in classic Greek; see the Comm. and cf. *Schmidt,
Click to expand...
Syn. ch. 51, §§ 4-6) between [petra], the massive living rock, and [petros], a detached but large fragment, as important for the correct understanding of this passage; others explain the different genders here as due first to the personal then to the material refreence. Cf. Meyer, Keil, al.; Green, Note on Jun. i. 43]. blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=16&verse=18&strongs=4073&page=1&flag_full=1%between% ]
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Thayer’s Lexicon (1889) states:
Click to expand...
Dave, the point of my posts, is that this notion of Petra being a non-detached rock – eg. bedrock cliff etc., is not sustainable even in Greek Poetry.
There are instances where the word Petra means a detached rock, I have cited one example already.
That should be enough, but I may post more examples of Greek through the ages to show the point even more clearly.

The Lexicon is simply wrong, it substitutes a possible interpretation for Petra as a definition.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Apart from discussions about Petro/petra, it is Peter ***and ***Peter’s confession which the Church is built. It need not be a dichotomy between the two, such that one must choose one or the other. The Catholic Church teaches both, as had the early Church.

CCC 424 “On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”
Click to expand...
Those who watched the inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI this weekend had this brought home as the sub-liturgy of the pallium ceremony re-interated Peter’s confession as the foundation of the Church. Of course, never did the liturgy say that the confession was detatched from Peter himself. Nor, until the Reformation, would it be necessary to split the two. In fact, that need to split things is the quintessence of the whole problem with *petros/petra, *isn’t it? In an undivided Church, the discussion never would have arisen.

Again, kudos to Huiou Theou (and always to you, itsjustdave1988) for your outstanding efforts here. You have both contributed immeasurably to my knowledge.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Who (and when) first interpreted Mt. 16:18 based on the gender distinction between Petros and petra to indicate that it is not Peter but Peter’s confession upon which Jesus would build his Church?
Click to expand...
Someone on this board did some research and couldn’t find anything on it prior to 1920 or something like that.
 
Ignatius,

The earliest I could find was not an exact match and that was the year 1900. Itsjustdave1988 beat my date by 11+ years.
Thayer’s lexicon has the definition in the 1889 edition of his lexicon.
Surprisingly, protestant scholars took more than 11+ years to repeat the idea in any place I could find, and then only dubiously.

Kalon Dave!
 
40.png
mercygate:
Who (and when) first interpreted Mt. 16:18 based on the gender distinction between Petros and petra to indicate that it is not Peter but Peter’s confession upon which Jesus would build his Church?
Click to expand...
I found that it began towards the beginning of the reformation, look at the King James’ Bible:

“And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (John 1:42, KJV)

Every other translation says the interpretation is Peter (i.e. Petrus). The translators of the King James Bible went another step and gave their interpretation of Petrus. Now look at the New International Version and play close attention to the foot notes:

“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Petera]).” (John 1:42, NIV)

Footnotes:


  1. *]John 1:42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.

    ibs.org/niv/
 
Psalm45:9:
I found that it began towards the beginning of the reformation, look at the King James’ Bible:

“And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (John 1:42, KJV)
Click to expand...
But was there any indication that they did not believe that it was in reference to Peter as the stone or rock? Stone could still be the cornerstone or buildingstone as in “the stone which the builders rejected.” Are there any expositions or writings which show their misinterpretation at that time? Huiou Theou did some research and found no such error prior to 1889.
 
Huiou Theou:
P.S. is that lexicon (1889) the Date?
Click to expand...
It seems Thayer is conveying an interpretation already present within his day (1889). Thus, it is at least an argument that is that old. Thayer himself seems rather uncommitted about it. It doesn’t seem a strong argument. Even if in some cases a distinction in poetry is made between petra and petros, most Bible scholars admit the most obvious sense, that Kephas is the kepha upon which the church is built.

Does anybody know of a Catholic lexicon? I use Strong’s, Vine’s, and Kittel’s TNTD (abridged edition). The TNTD seems to be one of the most respected by a broad range of scholars.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the little I know of languages is that the masculine, feminine (and neuter) articles are not sexual attributes but simply grammar.

So the petros/petra distinction does not connote sex but just a grammatical relationship. So the masculine identification of the words Peter and rock simply puts them into the same grammatical group, and nothing else.

I had read somewhere that people where attributing a gender status with these words?
 
James Cody:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the little I know of languages is that the masculine, feminine (and neuter) articles are not sexual attributes but simply grammar.

So the petros/petra distinction does not connote sex but just a grammatical relationship. So the masculine identification of the words Peter and rock simply puts them into the same grammatical group, and nothing else.

I had read somewhere that people where attributing a gender status with these words?
Click to expand...
Well, a man called Petra would have been strange to Greek ears, just as today, a man called Louise instead of Louis, or Michelle instead of Michael would be strange. St. Matthew was simply trying to maintain a pun. “You are Rock, upon this rock …”

A good article on this is by Tim Staples, here:

Bam! Bam! The “Pebbles” Argument Goes Down
A bedrock Protestant argument gets reduced to rubble.
by Tim Staples
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html
 
O.K. now I get it. Thanks for the insight.

Yeah, you’re right, a boy named Sue is odd.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Well, a man called Petra would have been strange to Greek ears, just as today, a man called Louise instead of Louis, or Michelle instead of Michael would be strange. St. Matthew was simply trying to maintain a pun. “You are Rock, upon this rock …”

A good article on this is by Tim Staples, here:

Bam! Bam! The “Pebbles” Argument Goes Down
A bedrock Protestant argument gets reduced to rubble.
by Tim Staples
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html
Click to expand...
 
Does anybody know of a Catholic lexicon? I use Strong’s, Vine’s, and Kittel’s TNTD (abridged edition). The TNTD seems to be one of the most respected by a broad range of scholars.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
I really echo your desire on that point! I haven’t come across one either.
 
the 1599 Geneva Study Bible makes the distinction in question:

**16:18 ** 5 And I say also unto thee, That thou art l Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the m gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(5) That is true faith, which confesses Christ, the virtue of which is invincible.

(l) Christ spoke in the Syrian tongue, and therefore did not use this discourse to distinguish between Petros, which signifies Peter, and Petra, which signifies a rock, but in both places used the word Cephas: but his meaning is what is written in Greek, in which the different word endings distinguish between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and foundation: or else he named him Peter because of the confession of his faith, which is the Church’s as well as his, as the old fathers witness, for so says Theophylact. That confession which you have made, shall be the foundation of the believers.

(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by “gates” are meant cities which are made strong with wise preparation and fortifications, and this is the meaning: whatever Satan can do by cunning or strength. So does Paul, calling them strongholds; (2 Corinthians 10:4).

so, we see this prejudice reaching almost all the way back to the reformation. pretty interesting, huh!

pax christi,
phatcatholic
 
here are some other commentaries prior to 1899 that address the petros-petra distinction:

Adam Clarke’s Commentary, 1826:Peter, πετρος, signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on THE CHRIST, the SON of the LIVING GOD. See Clarke on Luke 9:62.

Upon this very rock, επιταυτητηπετρα-this true confession of thine-that I am THE MESSIAH, that am come to reveal and communicate THE LIVING GOD, that the dead, lost world may be saved-upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalms 118:22, The STONE which the builders rejected is become the HEAD-STONE of the CORNER: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a STONE in Zion for a FOUNDATION)-will I build my Church, μοντηνεκκλησιαν, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith.

People’s New Testament, 1891:18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. This is the first time Jesus speaks of his church, and here, as not yet founded. Three terms are to be noted: (1) Peter, in the Greek, Petros, meaning a single stone; (2) Rock, in the Greek, Petra, which means the solid, immovable bed-rock, a great mass like a cliff, and (3) church, Greek, ecclesia, those “called out,” the fellowship of believers, the organized society of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. There is probably no passage in the word of God that has called forth more discussion. The Papal church insists that Peter is the rock upon which Christ founded his church. The Catholic position is based upon the fact that Peter means a stone (see John 1:42), and the Savior’s language might be rendered, “Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The Catholic view is untenable, for 1. The Savior does not say, “Thou art a stone, and upon thee I will build,” etc., or “Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build.” He changes the word in the Greek from Petros (Peter, a stone) to Petra, a rock, or ledge of rock–a solid bed-rock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top