Greek advice / Peter the Rock issue
Forum category
I have become involved in a discussion with a Catholic young man who is quite the young scholar. I need a consultation, particularly on my Greek and Latin. I want to get this right before he takes it to some Catholic mentor of his.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp: This weblink to CatholicAnswers.com gives an approved Catholic answer to the issues around Petros, Petra, etc. An Imprimatur appears at the bottom. [Note to Moderators: their website permits this link and the quote below; I checked:
Below are my responses to the article. Comments?
_______________
1). The first Protestant argument that Mr. Keating defends against is the idea that “petros” and “petra” are 2 words distinct as to meaning. He argues that they were used interchangeably in first century Greek. The facts are somewhat more muddled. Thayer’s Lexicon makes the distinction, but others address the differences in usage in greater detail. Regional variations can be assumed to exist in that period. What we are talking about here is “linguistic range”. The word “Petros” has a linguistic range including the idea of “small stones” but also including the word “rock”. The word “Petra” has in its linguistic range the idea of “large cliff”, “mountain”, “boulder”, and also “rock”. It is much like our words “love” and “like”, which have some overlap, but can also refer to different things. So this argument would hinge on whether or not the word-play Christ uses is intended to set the two equal or to distinguish between them. Due to our lack of certainty about the exact usage of those words at the time of Christ in the regions He lived and moved, it’s safest for both sides to admit that the arguments are not definitive.
Do some study of John 1:42 and the debate about how it is translated in English, the Latin Vulgate, etc. It’s revealing of how far-reaching this debate has become.
2). Mr. Keating defuses the 2nd Protestant argument by appealing to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic. His point is well-taken as far as it goes. Part of the Protestant argument is that “Petros” is masculine, whereas “Petra” is feminine, a distinction that holds true in the Greek and the Latin (it is a noun of the 2nd declension in both). Since Christ likely spoke Aramaic, and the word “Cephas” or “kepha” is appropriate for both, the distinction disappears.
But Mr. Keating is missing two key points.
The first is this: While it is possible that Matthew’s gospel was written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek (Papias’ statement uses some odd word choices; he may have meant “written in the Hebrew manner of expression”, explaining some of the Hebraisms found there), it is the Greek version of it that has been accepted, canonized, and preserved by the providence of God. No Hebrew manuscript is ever mentioned by anyone, including Origen, the greatest 2nd Century scholar who tried to accumulate all the manuscripts of the gospels in particular. This is no small point. What is said in the Greek version of Matthew (whatever that may be) is the Word of God, accepted by both Catholic and Protestant.
So determining what it says in the Greek is ultimately meaningful. The accepted, authorized, proven Word of God is there. A possibly imaginary Hebrew Matthew may have said anything. If the gospel of Matthew in the Greek goes to the trouble to distinguish the two (which we have not yet proven), then God intended the two to be distinguished. If the gospel of Matthew in the Greek sets them equal, then they are equal. Which will bring us to point 3.
By the way, the same distinction is retained in the Latin Vulgate. In other words, all of his efforts to “get behind the text” should not be the issue for a good Catholic. It is scholarship of a sort, but the Latin Vulgate is the approved text of the Roman Church. It is obfuscation to pretend like they don’t share the same textual issue as the Protestants who tend to rely on the Greek more.
3). The 3rd Protestant Argument, that Christ would not have used 2 different words if He wanted to set Peter equal to “the Rock” is dealt with by Mr. Keating with a serious logical fallacy. His imaginary discussion with a Protestant missionary goes like this…
____________________
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t
we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build
my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word,
Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different
grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in
Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact
that nouns take differing gender endings.
“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra
is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18
without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because
you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t.
You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When
you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word
meaning rock.”
_____________________
There is a logical flaw here.
Karl says Jesus had no choice. But if the words petros and petra are
identical, then he had another choice!
If the Greek in Matthews gospel were meant to represent Peter as The
Rock, Christ could have been recorded as saying…
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRON I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Masculine Singular, which in Greek grammar would ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY mean the two are the same.
Or, He could have said “Thou are PETROS and upon you I will build my church.” Which He did not say, perhaps because there would be no word-play in that construction at all.
Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Feminine Singular, which cannot be the same grammatically. It is the nature of Greek grammar that they cannot be referring to the same thing. It is ABSOLUTE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. Any Greek scholar would admit it.
Christ is making a distinction.
So, regardless of the original spoken language, the Gospel of Matthew as canonized by the early church maintains a distinction between the two.
I might add that the Latin Vulgate retains the exact same grammatical structure points, so the same thing is true of the Latin as it is of the Greek. Christ could have used the Accusative Masculine Singular to set the two equal, and it could have appeared that way in Latin also, but it does not. And that is a particular problem for the Catholic Church if it is going to follow Latin grammar, which also uses case, gender, and number to show relationships in the sentence, as Greek does.
Mr. Keating’s on-going discussion of the structure of the passage is well-taken, in the sense that Peter is without dispute given the keys. What this means, however, is another discussion entirely. But he mischaracterizes the evidence slightly. Because the word play would not be “Peter, you’re just a little pebble, but I’m going to build my church on this Rock of an affirmation of my identity that you just made.” No Protestant says Jesus is down-playing the significance of Peter. Peter is a rock or stone. He is just not The Rock.
____________
NOTE: A study of the church father’s writings may be very revealing, also. Some of them seem to vacillate between these two positions, at various points calling Peter the Rock, Jesus the Rock, or his affirmation the Rock. But others are firmly in a camp – and not uniformly Roman Catholic either. There appears to be some confusion on the issue, making much interesting debate between Catholic and Protestant antiquarians.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp: This weblink to CatholicAnswers.com gives an approved Catholic answer to the issues around Petros, Petra, etc. An Imprimatur appears at the bottom. [Note to Moderators: their website permits this link and the quote below; I checked:
Below are my responses to the article. Comments?
_______________
1). The first Protestant argument that Mr. Keating defends against is the idea that “petros” and “petra” are 2 words distinct as to meaning. He argues that they were used interchangeably in first century Greek. The facts are somewhat more muddled. Thayer’s Lexicon makes the distinction, but others address the differences in usage in greater detail. Regional variations can be assumed to exist in that period. What we are talking about here is “linguistic range”. The word “Petros” has a linguistic range including the idea of “small stones” but also including the word “rock”. The word “Petra” has in its linguistic range the idea of “large cliff”, “mountain”, “boulder”, and also “rock”. It is much like our words “love” and “like”, which have some overlap, but can also refer to different things. So this argument would hinge on whether or not the word-play Christ uses is intended to set the two equal or to distinguish between them. Due to our lack of certainty about the exact usage of those words at the time of Christ in the regions He lived and moved, it’s safest for both sides to admit that the arguments are not definitive.
Do some study of John 1:42 and the debate about how it is translated in English, the Latin Vulgate, etc. It’s revealing of how far-reaching this debate has become.
2). Mr. Keating defuses the 2nd Protestant argument by appealing to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic. His point is well-taken as far as it goes. Part of the Protestant argument is that “Petros” is masculine, whereas “Petra” is feminine, a distinction that holds true in the Greek and the Latin (it is a noun of the 2nd declension in both). Since Christ likely spoke Aramaic, and the word “Cephas” or “kepha” is appropriate for both, the distinction disappears.
But Mr. Keating is missing two key points.
The first is this: While it is possible that Matthew’s gospel was written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek (Papias’ statement uses some odd word choices; he may have meant “written in the Hebrew manner of expression”, explaining some of the Hebraisms found there), it is the Greek version of it that has been accepted, canonized, and preserved by the providence of God. No Hebrew manuscript is ever mentioned by anyone, including Origen, the greatest 2nd Century scholar who tried to accumulate all the manuscripts of the gospels in particular. This is no small point. What is said in the Greek version of Matthew (whatever that may be) is the Word of God, accepted by both Catholic and Protestant.
So determining what it says in the Greek is ultimately meaningful. The accepted, authorized, proven Word of God is there. A possibly imaginary Hebrew Matthew may have said anything. If the gospel of Matthew in the Greek goes to the trouble to distinguish the two (which we have not yet proven), then God intended the two to be distinguished. If the gospel of Matthew in the Greek sets them equal, then they are equal. Which will bring us to point 3.
By the way, the same distinction is retained in the Latin Vulgate. In other words, all of his efforts to “get behind the text” should not be the issue for a good Catholic. It is scholarship of a sort, but the Latin Vulgate is the approved text of the Roman Church. It is obfuscation to pretend like they don’t share the same textual issue as the Protestants who tend to rely on the Greek more.
3). The 3rd Protestant Argument, that Christ would not have used 2 different words if He wanted to set Peter equal to “the Rock” is dealt with by Mr. Keating with a serious logical fallacy. His imaginary discussion with a Protestant missionary goes like this…
____________________
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t
we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build
my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word,
Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different
grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in
Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact
that nouns take differing gender endings.
“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra
is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18
without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because
you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t.
You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When
you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word
meaning rock.”
_____________________
There is a logical flaw here.
Karl says Jesus had no choice. But if the words petros and petra are
identical, then he had another choice!
If the Greek in Matthews gospel were meant to represent Peter as The
Rock, Christ could have been recorded as saying…
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRON I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Masculine Singular, which in Greek grammar would ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY mean the two are the same.
Or, He could have said “Thou are PETROS and upon you I will build my church.” Which He did not say, perhaps because there would be no word-play in that construction at all.
Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Feminine Singular, which cannot be the same grammatically. It is the nature of Greek grammar that they cannot be referring to the same thing. It is ABSOLUTE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. Any Greek scholar would admit it.
Christ is making a distinction.
So, regardless of the original spoken language, the Gospel of Matthew as canonized by the early church maintains a distinction between the two.
I might add that the Latin Vulgate retains the exact same grammatical structure points, so the same thing is true of the Latin as it is of the Greek. Christ could have used the Accusative Masculine Singular to set the two equal, and it could have appeared that way in Latin also, but it does not. And that is a particular problem for the Catholic Church if it is going to follow Latin grammar, which also uses case, gender, and number to show relationships in the sentence, as Greek does.
Mr. Keating’s on-going discussion of the structure of the passage is well-taken, in the sense that Peter is without dispute given the keys. What this means, however, is another discussion entirely. But he mischaracterizes the evidence slightly. Because the word play would not be “Peter, you’re just a little pebble, but I’m going to build my church on this Rock of an affirmation of my identity that you just made.” No Protestant says Jesus is down-playing the significance of Peter. Peter is a rock or stone. He is just not The Rock.
____________
NOTE: A study of the church father’s writings may be very revealing, also. Some of them seem to vacillate between these two positions, at various points calling Peter the Rock, Jesus the Rock, or his affirmation the Rock. But others are firmly in a camp – and not uniformly Roman Catholic either. There appears to be some confusion on the issue, making much interesting debate between Catholic and Protestant antiquarians.
- 240 views
No comments yet? I’m surprised.
but the section below:
seems to be absolutely correct from what I recall. Stick with your guns!
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRON I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Masculine Singular, which in Greek grammar would ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY mean the two are the same.
Or, He could have said “Thou are PETROS and upon you I will build my church.” Which He did not say, perhaps because there would be no word-play in that construction at all.
Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Feminine Singular, which cannot be the same grammatically. It is the nature of Greek grammar that they cannot be referring to the same thing. It is ABSOLUTE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. Any Greek scholar would admit it.
Christ is making a distinction.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
In all 156 uses in the GNT, not once is the noun πετρος (petros) ever used to indicate “a rock.” They all refer to Peter. Whenever the NT authors want to refer to individual rocks or stones, they use the word λιθος (lithos). Also in the GNT, πετρα (petra) sometimes refers to something other than an immovable topographical feature - Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8.
All that to say, I think the easiest solution is to admit that πετρος in Matthew 16:18 is the masculinization of πετρα, not the distinct Greek word πετρος. By the way, the connection between κηφας (Kephas) and πετρος is not just conjecture; it is Scripture. John 1:42 - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas [κηφας] ” (which means Peter [πετρος] ).” So, we are entirely within the realm of exegesis to suggest that the name Jesus actually gave him was “Kephas”, but that he went by the roughly equivalent “Petros” in Greek-speaking areas. As such, we should not attempt to derive the significance of Peter’s name from a nuance in the word πετρος.
Contextually, the identification of Peter with the rock makes sense. Jesus asked Peter who Peter thought Jesus was, so now Jesus is going to tell Peter who Peter is.
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
The emphatic pronouns εγω (I) and συ (you) mark the shift from the preceding discussion. It is now I (Jesus) who is going to say something about you (Peter). “You are Πετρος.” This is a name, and it is common in the Bible for the giving of the name to be followed by the explanation of the name. This is precisely what occurs. “Kαὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ” (and on this rock) further confirms that Peter is the referent. The pronoun ταύτῃ (this) modifies πέτρᾳ and informs us that the πέτρᾳ refers back to a “rock” already introduced in this passage. Only one rock has been mentioned - Πετρος - so the ταύτῃ informs us that πέτρᾳ is indeed referring to Πετρος.
This passage has been torn to shreds both by pro- and anti- papist polemicists. The Baptist New Testament scholar John Broadus admits the identity of Peter as the rock within the context of a Protestant theology. I suggest that others follow his example.
All that to say, I think the easiest solution is to admit that πετρος in Matthew 16:18 is the masculinization of πετρα, not the distinct Greek word πετρος. By the way, the connection between κηφας (Kephas) and πετρος is not just conjecture; it is Scripture. John 1:42 - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas [κηφας] ” (which means Peter [πετρος] ).” So, we are entirely within the realm of exegesis to suggest that the name Jesus actually gave him was “Kephas”, but that he went by the roughly equivalent “Petros” in Greek-speaking areas. As such, we should not attempt to derive the significance of Peter’s name from a nuance in the word πετρος.
Contextually, the identification of Peter with the rock makes sense. Jesus asked Peter who Peter thought Jesus was, so now Jesus is going to tell Peter who Peter is.
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
The emphatic pronouns εγω (I) and συ (you) mark the shift from the preceding discussion. It is now I (Jesus) who is going to say something about you (Peter). “You are Πετρος.” This is a name, and it is common in the Bible for the giving of the name to be followed by the explanation of the name. This is precisely what occurs. “Kαὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ” (and on this rock) further confirms that Peter is the referent. The pronoun ταύτῃ (this) modifies πέτρᾳ and informs us that the πέτρᾳ refers back to a “rock” already introduced in this passage. Only one rock has been mentioned - Πετρος - so the ταύτῃ informs us that πέτρᾳ is indeed referring to Πετρος.
This passage has been torn to shreds both by pro- and anti- papist polemicists. The Baptist New Testament scholar John Broadus admits the identity of Peter as the rock within the context of a Protestant theology. I suggest that others follow his example.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] All that to say, I think the easiest solution is to admit that πετρος in Matthew 16:18 is the masculinization of πετρα, not the distinct Greek word πετρος. By the way, the connection between κηφας (Kephas) and πετρος is not just conjecture; it is Scripture. John 1:42 - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas [κηφας] ” (which means Peter [πετρος] ).” So, we are entirely within the realm of exegesis to suggest that the name Jesus actually gave him was “Kephas”, but that he went by the roughly equivalent “Petros” in Greek-speaking areas. As such, we should not attempt to derive the significance of Peter’s name from a nuance in the word πετρος.Charlie,
…This passage has been torn to shreds both by pro- and anti- papist polemicists. The Baptist New Testament scholar John Broadus admits the identity of Peter as the rock within the context of a Protestant theology. I suggest that others follow his example.
You may be right. But John 1:42’s translation is somewhat disputed. Some say it should be translated “which means rock”. Several commentators weight the issue endlessly. If so, your argument for lithos deteriorates a bit.
As for your statement on Broadus, while he does not stand alone, the debate is hardly uniform. While Jesus as the rock is somewhat out of favor since Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, and such notables as Broadus and Carson (Carson! I respect him greatly!) say Peter is the Rock, there are still many who say it is the affirmation itself (Boettner, James White, etc.). Thanks for the summarizing email, Andy.
I’m sure we all understand that Peter as the Rock doesn’t prove the Catholic church is right. There are many more hurdles for Rome to get over to prop up the papacy than this one idea.
What I’m really looking for is a Greek scholar to weigh in on my theoretical construction. If Matthew (as we have it in the Greek) intended to conveigh that Peter was the Rock, there were ways to say it plainly in Greek. The way it was worded in Greek suggests that it was not the intended meaning.. The fact that it is not structured in this way strongly suggests to me that Matthew (or the alleged Greek translator of Matthew, very very early) intended us to understand the passage as NOT saying that Peter was the rock. And if an Apostle understood it as not being Peter, isn’t that normative?
BTW, I remember reading of a church father link indicating this history for Matthew: That, as Papias says, Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but Luke translated it into Greek for distribution to Paul’s audience as he travelled. Eventually, when Matthew was revealed to have too many Hebraisms and Hebrew references to be clear to a Greek audience, Luke’s gospel was produced at Paul’s behest. Does anybody remember reading this? I can’t find the information now.
Mike,
Greek scholars have weighed in on it, with varying results. That alone should let us know that the solution is no waving of the magic Greek wand. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I am a student of the New Testament who has taught and tutored Greek. It is my contention that we misunderstand this passage by combing lexicons over these two words. If Jesus wanted to indicate that Peter = rock, I’m not sure how he could have done so more clearly. John 1:42 states that Jesus actually gave him the name Kephas, and that Petros was used as the translation of that for Greek-speakers. Matthew 16:18 uses the phrase ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (upon this rock), which is a pronoun which indicates continuity between the referent of the ταύτῃ and a previously introduced entity. Since Peter is the only entity previously introduced in Jesus’ discourse (after the transitional marker κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι) , there really isn’t any other option. If I said, “A man stole my car last night, and this criminal is standing across the street,” no one would be arguing whether the words “man” and “criminal” have the same dictionary definition. They don’t. But the placement of the “and this” signifies my intention to equate the two. As such, it makes the most sense to view Πετρος as a name, the masculinized form of πετρα. I’ll turn your argument backwards. If Jesus had intended to say that Peter was NOT the rock, all he had to do was name him Λιθος instead. The “he could have said this differently” argument almost never cuts only one direction.
There are theological and contextual reasons to prefer the identification of Peter as the rock as well. Only 4 people in Scripture are given new names by God (that I can think of, at least) - Abram, Sarai, Jacob, and Simon. All of these people have a special role in the founding of God’s people. The first three all have naming passages which follow a particular structure: 1) the person’s current name, 2) declaration of their new name, and 3) explanation of the new name. Obviously, God did change Simon’s name. Matthew 16 is the only passage which seems to offer an explanation of the name (including Peter’s role in the founding of Jesus’ new community), so since we do in fact see that threefold structure in place here, we ought to take it as a naming passage. To make it refer to Jesus or a declaration of faith is actually defeating the point of the statement.
I have more, but that’s more than enough.
Greek scholars have weighed in on it, with varying results. That alone should let us know that the solution is no waving of the magic Greek wand. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I am a student of the New Testament who has taught and tutored Greek. It is my contention that we misunderstand this passage by combing lexicons over these two words. If Jesus wanted to indicate that Peter = rock, I’m not sure how he could have done so more clearly. John 1:42 states that Jesus actually gave him the name Kephas, and that Petros was used as the translation of that for Greek-speakers. Matthew 16:18 uses the phrase ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (upon this rock), which is a pronoun which indicates continuity between the referent of the ταύτῃ and a previously introduced entity. Since Peter is the only entity previously introduced in Jesus’ discourse (after the transitional marker κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι) , there really isn’t any other option. If I said, “A man stole my car last night, and this criminal is standing across the street,” no one would be arguing whether the words “man” and “criminal” have the same dictionary definition. They don’t. But the placement of the “and this” signifies my intention to equate the two. As such, it makes the most sense to view Πετρος as a name, the masculinized form of πετρα. I’ll turn your argument backwards. If Jesus had intended to say that Peter was NOT the rock, all he had to do was name him Λιθος instead. The “he could have said this differently” argument almost never cuts only one direction.
There are theological and contextual reasons to prefer the identification of Peter as the rock as well. Only 4 people in Scripture are given new names by God (that I can think of, at least) - Abram, Sarai, Jacob, and Simon. All of these people have a special role in the founding of God’s people. The first three all have naming passages which follow a particular structure: 1) the person’s current name, 2) declaration of their new name, and 3) explanation of the new name. Obviously, God did change Simon’s name. Matthew 16 is the only passage which seems to offer an explanation of the name (including Peter’s role in the founding of Jesus’ new community), so since we do in fact see that threefold structure in place here, we ought to take it as a naming passage. To make it refer to Jesus or a declaration of faith is actually defeating the point of the statement.
I have more, but that’s more than enough.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Greek scholars have weighed in on it, with varying results.My point is that we have 2 conflicting Greek rules here. The basic rule of inflected langugages (agreement in case, number, gender indicates association) vs. the prounoun thing you outline here. Which is the higher value? Which “weighs” more in Greek interpretation?
…Matthew 16:18 uses the phrase ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (upon this rock), which is a pronoun which indicates continuity between the referent of the ταύτῃ and a previously introduced entity. Since Peter is the only entity previously introduced in Jesus’ discourse (after the transitional marker κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι) , there really isn’t any other option. If I said, “A man stole my car last night, and this criminal is standing across the street,” no one would be arguing whether the words “man” and “criminal” have the same dictionary definition. They don’t. But the placement of the “and this” signifies my intention to equate the two. As such, it makes the most sense to view Πετρος as a name, the masculinized form of πετρα. I’ll turn your argument backwards. If Jesus had intended to say that Peter was NOT the rock, all he had to do was name him Λιθος instead. The “he could have said this differently” argument almost never cuts only one direction.
You assertion that Christ would have used lithos in the passage misses the point. Those of us who believe Peter is not The Rock don’t deny a word play. We think it is a contrasting word play.
[Jay C.] but the section below:When I said this, I should have said that I was referring to the grammatical aspects (NMS to AMS and NMS to AFS) of the post; I bolded the two sentences that I meant to refer to.seems to be absolutely correct from what I recall. Stick with your guns!
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRON I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Masculine Singular, which in Greek grammar would ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY mean the two are the same.
Or, He could have said “Thou are PETROS and upon you I will build my church.” Which He did not say, perhaps because there would be no word-play in that construction at all.
Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
He transitions from Nominative Masculine Singular to Accusative Feminine Singular, which cannot be the same grammatically. It is the nature of Greek grammar that they cannot be referring to the same thing. It is ABSOLUTE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. Any Greek scholar would admit it.
Christ is making a distinction.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Mike Durning]Except that there really isn’t a rule here regarding inflection. It’s not true at all to say that because two nouns have a separate gender they can’t share the same referent.
My point is that we have 2 conflicting Greek rules here. The basic rule of inflected langugages (agreement in case, number, gender indicates association) vs. the prounoun thing you outline here. Which is the higher value? Which “weighs” more in Greek interpretation?
You assertion that Christ would have used lithos in the passage misses the point. Those of us who believe Peter is not The Rock don’t deny a word play. We think it is a contrasting word play.
Here is the Greek text of Luke 13:31-32:
Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ προσῆλθάν τινες Φαρισαῖοι λέγοντες αὐτῷ, Ἔξελθε καὶ πορεύου ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι Ἡρῴδης θέλει σε ἀποκτεῖναι. 32καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες εἴπατε τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶ σήμερον καὶ αὔριον, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦμαι.
Note especially Jesus’ response in verse 32. “Tell that fox” - “εἴπατε τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ” - uses the pronoun ταύτῃ, just as Matthew 16 does. The word for fox - ἀλώπεκι - is feminine. Of course, Herod’s name - Ἡρῴδης - is masculine. We know, however, that the fox refers to Herod because the ταύτῃ indicates to us that the ἀλώπεκι refers to an entity introduced previously in the discourse. This sort of thing happens all the time in Greek.
My point regarding λιθος was simply that it is the word that the NT authors use when they want to talk about a rock, 59x in fact. Isn’t it interesting that the NT authors choose that word 59 times and not πετρος even once (unambiguously)? Jesus himself uses the word λιθος plenty, but never πετρος, except when he is referring to Peter. He uses πετρα often, though. It’s plausible (though not provable) that πετρος wasn’t currently in use as a noun among Palestinian Greek-speakers. This further highlights that πετρος is to be understood as a masculinization of πετρα.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
David Friedman, in his book, They Loved the Torah p. 61) comments:
I see Shim’on as Yeshua’s Torah-observant….talmid hakham…a Hebrew technical term meaning the leading student (of a rabbi). Every famous rabbi who daily taught the same students had a talmid hakham, his chief student. This is the student who figured most prominently in narratives about his rabbi. In first-century Judaism, the chief student was trusted by his rabbi to learn and pass on the rabbi’s teachings. The Talmud provides an example of this type of relationship…
He then quotes Avot 2:10-12
BTW, I think Charlie’s points are accurate.
I see Shim’on as Yeshua’s Torah-observant….talmid hakham…a Hebrew technical term meaning the leading student (of a rabbi). Every famous rabbi who daily taught the same students had a talmid hakham, his chief student. This is the student who figured most prominently in narratives about his rabbi. In first-century Judaism, the chief student was trusted by his rabbi to learn and pass on the rabbi’s teachings. The Talmud provides an example of this type of relationship…
He then quotes Avot 2:10-12
An interesting book that deals with this from the perspective of church history is The Matthew Controversy by William Webster (Christian Resources, 1505 N. W. 4th Avenue, Battle Ground, WA 98604).
10. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and these
are they: Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Joshua ben Chananiah, Yosi the Priest, Shimon ben Natanel, and Elazar ben Arach.
11. He used to say their praise: Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which does not lose a drop; Joshua ben Chananiah — happy is she that gave birth to him; Yosi the Priest is a saintly man; Shimon ben Natanel is fearful of sin; Elazar ben Arach is an ever-flowing spring.
12. He used to say: If all the sages of Israel were in one scale of the balance and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in the other, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul, however, said in his name: If all the sages of Israel, together with Eliezer ben Hyrcanus were in one scale of the balance, Elazar ben Arach would outweigh them.
BTW, I think Charlie’s points are accurate.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Charlie] Except that there really isn’t a rule here regarding inflection. It’s not true at all to say that because two nouns have a separate gender they can’t share the same referent.Please tell me you did NOT just say that there isn’t such a rule regarding inflection.
Here is the Greek text of Luke 13:31-32:
Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ προσῆλθάν τινες Φαρισαῖοι λέγοντες αὐτῷ, Ἔξελθε καὶ πορεύου ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι Ἡρῴδης θέλει σε ἀποκτεῖναι. 32καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες εἴπατε τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶ σήμερον καὶ αὔριον, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦμαι.
Note especially Jesus’ response in verse 32. “Tell that fox” - “εἴπατε τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ” - uses the pronoun ταύτῃ, just as Matthew 16 does. The word for fox - ἀλώπεκι - is feminine. Of course, Herod’s name - Ἡρῴδης - is masculine. We know, however, that the fox refers to Herod because the ταύτῃ indicates to us that the ἀλώπεκι refers to an entity introduced previously in the discourse. This sort of thing happens all the time in Greek.
My point regarding λιθος was simply that it is the word that the NT authors use when they want to talk about a rock, 59x in fact. Isn’t it interesting that the NT authors choose that word 59 times and not πετρος even once (unambiguously)? Jesus himself uses the word λιθος plenty, but never πετρος, except when he is referring to Peter. He uses πετρα often, though. It’s plausible (though not provable) that πετρος wasn’t currently in use as a noun among Palestinian Greek-speakers. This further highlights that πετρος is to be understood as a masculinization of πετρα.
Wuest, for instance, says of the passage “petra, feminine in gender, feminine demonstrative pronoun cannot go back to masculine petros”.
If there is no such rule, we have no guidelines for interpreting many Greek sentences. The whole point of inflected languages is that they work this way.
In the example you give, the fact that “fox” (or “jackal”) is feminine is hardly the point. Two different speakers, two different sentences. My point is not that feminine gender can never refer to a masculine person. My point is about linguistic agreement of parts of speech in the same sentence.
Your second point, about lithos, sounds like it may be worth looking into. I will study it out.
Well, Wuest says lots of things that aren’t true. Agreement doesn’t apply when you’re talking about two nouns, especially when one is a proper name. There are examples of this all over the New Testament and in the greater Greek corpus. When I said there isn’t a rule about inflection, I merely meant that no rule about inflection would apply to this passage. Obviously, Greek indeed is an inflected language.
The problem here is that certain persons have misrepresented the issues in the passage. Certain interpretations, which are in my opinion weaker, have sought to bolster themselves by escalating the rhetoric. This verse must be read a certain way, because to do otherwise would tear the fabric of the Greek-time continuum! And so, a “rule” is born, which doesn’t apply anywhere else in the Greek language. This is similar to Charles Ryrie’s exegesis of Romans 12:1, in which he appealed to the “once-for-all aorist” to argue that the “present your bodies” is a one-time act. Of course, the aorist tense doesn’t mean “once-for-all”, and everyone knew that, but some people forgot that in the heat of the moment when it seemed useful to exegesis.
Now, I can see how such an interpretation arose, especially because most of the Greek guys of yester-centuries tended to treat NT Greek like classical Greek, or at least they didn’t recognize the distinctions to the extent that we have since the nineteenth century. From the perspective of classical Greek, it makes lots of sense to see a petros/petra distinction. In fact, if you look up petros in the LSJ lexicon, it actually says something like, “as distinguished from petra.” So, I’m not saying anyone who said this is a dummy. I’m just saying that we’ve progressed in our recognition of the distinct features of NT Greek, and the petros/petra distinction was one of the first things to vanish. Of course, if “Petros” is just the masculinization of petra, as I’ve been arguing, then there’s really no issue at all.
By the way, I’ve asked about half a dozen Greek professors about this passage, and they’ve all confirmed to me that there is no grammatical reason why the two words must refer to different things. Surely these professors would know about basic rules of inflection, right?
The problem here is that certain persons have misrepresented the issues in the passage. Certain interpretations, which are in my opinion weaker, have sought to bolster themselves by escalating the rhetoric. This verse must be read a certain way, because to do otherwise would tear the fabric of the Greek-time continuum! And so, a “rule” is born, which doesn’t apply anywhere else in the Greek language. This is similar to Charles Ryrie’s exegesis of Romans 12:1, in which he appealed to the “once-for-all aorist” to argue that the “present your bodies” is a one-time act. Of course, the aorist tense doesn’t mean “once-for-all”, and everyone knew that, but some people forgot that in the heat of the moment when it seemed useful to exegesis.
Now, I can see how such an interpretation arose, especially because most of the Greek guys of yester-centuries tended to treat NT Greek like classical Greek, or at least they didn’t recognize the distinctions to the extent that we have since the nineteenth century. From the perspective of classical Greek, it makes lots of sense to see a petros/petra distinction. In fact, if you look up petros in the LSJ lexicon, it actually says something like, “as distinguished from petra.” So, I’m not saying anyone who said this is a dummy. I’m just saying that we’ve progressed in our recognition of the distinct features of NT Greek, and the petros/petra distinction was one of the first things to vanish. Of course, if “Petros” is just the masculinization of petra, as I’ve been arguing, then there’s really no issue at all.
By the way, I’ve asked about half a dozen Greek professors about this passage, and they’ve all confirmed to me that there is no grammatical reason why the two words must refer to different things. Surely these professors would know about basic rules of inflection, right?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Well, Wuest says lots of things that aren’t true. Agreement doesn’t apply when you’re talking about two nouns, especially when one is a proper name. There are examples of this all over the New Testament and in the greater Greek corpus. When I said there isn’t a rule about inflection, I merely meant that no rule about inflection would apply to this passage. Obviously, Greek indeed is an inflected language.OK. Well, now I thoroughly understand your argument, and I accept that you have talked to a number of Greek profs about it. But I wonder if they are representative of just one strain of thought within current Koine scholarship or not. Give me a few days to do some digging and I’ll post here if I find guys who agree/disagree with what you’re saying.
The problem here is that certain persons have misrepresented the issues in the passage. Certain interpretations, which are in my opinion weaker, have sought to bolster themselves by escalating the rhetoric. This verse must be read a certain way, because to do otherwise would tear the fabric of the Greek-time continuum! And so, a “rule” is born, which doesn’t apply anywhere else in the Greek language. This is similar to Charles Ryrie’s exegesis of Romans 12:1, in which he appealed to the “once-for-all aorist” to argue that the “present your bodies” is a one-time act. Of course, the aorist tense doesn’t mean “once-for-all”, and everyone knew that, but some people forgot that in the heat of the moment when it seemed useful to exegesis.
Now, I can see how such an interpretation arose, especially because most of the Greek guys of yester-centuries tended to treat NT Greek like classical Greek, or at least they didn’t recognize the distinctions to the extent that we have since the nineteenth century. From the perspective of classical Greek, it makes lots of sense to see a petros/petra distinction. In fact, if you look up petros in the LSJ lexicon, it actually says something like, “as distinguished from petra.” So, I’m not saying anyone who said this is a dummy. I’m just saying that we’ve progressed in our recognition of the distinct features of NT Greek, and the petros/petra distinction was one of the first things to vanish. Of course, if “Petros” is just the masculinization of petra, as I’ve been arguing, then there’s really no issue at all.
By the way, I’ve asked about half a dozen Greek professors about this passage, and they’ve all confirmed to me that there is no grammatical reason why the two words must refer to different things. Surely these professors would know about basic rules of inflection, right?
Of course, we all know that some guys (you mentioned Ryrie, and I mentioned Wuest) can be guity of machine-like translation of Greek that results in some oddities.
RE “tear the fabric of the Greek-Time Continuum”. Great line.
[Mike Durning] Your second point, about lithos, sounds like it may be worth looking into. I will study it out.Actually, I was poking around last night trying to look at this too. If you find anything especially good, please share!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
OK, Responses from Greek profs are beginning to come in. Give me a few more days, and I’ll post some of the reponses or summarize them at least.
Please forgive my official missionary non-opinion, but how did things turn out??
I don’t see my faith changing, but I would be a little gunshy to speak with authority what I have heard in the past about it.
I don’t see my faith changing, but I would be a little gunshy to speak with authority what I have heard in the past about it.
Well, I am still waiting for a few more replies. But the ones that have come in so far have muddied the waters and actually de-clarified things.
On the surface, I’m going to guess that since the waters are so murky, there is no clarity on the issue. I tentatively surrender on the idea of Greek Grammar proving the point, pending further evidence.
On the surface, I’m going to guess that since the waters are so murky, there is no clarity on the issue. I tentatively surrender on the idea of Greek Grammar proving the point, pending further evidence.
[Mike Durning] Well, I am still waiting for a few more replies. But the ones that have come in so far have muddied the waters and actually de-clarified things.I’m interested to know what on the grammatical level could cause such a befouling of the waters. I suggest rather that the opacity results rather from a lack of consensus on syntactical and contextual features.
On the surface, I’m going to guess that since the waters are so murky, there is no clarity on the issue. I tentatively surrender on the idea of Greek Grammar proving the point, pending further evidence.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] I’m interested to know what on the grammatical level could cause such a befouling of the waters. I suggest rather that the opacity results rather from a lack of consensus on syntactical and contextual features.Exactly, and to their meaning as well.
sorry cannot help out on Greek. Minored in it in Bible college and the usual 2 years in sem. but am too rusty with it to argue grammar and syntax.
several points strike me when considering the antecedent of Petra:
it is “more unnatural” to link Petros with Petra. they say it is a play on words but don’t prove it.
the “800 lb. gorilla” in this section of Scripture is Christ’s words about human enlightenment: God the Father is the one who gives it. (this is the antecedent)
if the church were built on Peter it would need to be fulfilled in Scripture somewhere. folks cannot just set up an organization and say: “aha”. Simon Peter was never the “head” of the Jerusalem church.
God’s church is primarily an organism (Jn. 15 & Jn.17) with Him working through it not so much an organization.
several points strike me when considering the antecedent of Petra:
it is “more unnatural” to link Petros with Petra. they say it is a play on words but don’t prove it.
the “800 lb. gorilla” in this section of Scripture is Christ’s words about human enlightenment: God the Father is the one who gives it. (this is the antecedent)
if the church were built on Peter it would need to be fulfilled in Scripture somewhere. folks cannot just set up an organization and say: “aha”. Simon Peter was never the “head” of the Jerusalem church.
God’s church is primarily an organism (Jn. 15 & Jn.17) with Him working through it not so much an organization.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
[Jack Hampton][Mike Durning] 2).most fundamentalists would say confession is what is spoken about by use of Petra here in Mt. i beg to differ.
According to Edersheim the “Rock” on which the church would be built was Peter’s confession of faith:
“Perhaps it might be expressed in this somewhat clumsy paraphrase: ‘Thou are Peter (Petros)—a Stone or Rock—and upon this Petra—the Rock, the Petrine—will I found My Church.’ If therefore, we would not entirely limit the reference to the words of Peter’s confession, we would certainly apply them to that which was the Petrine in Peter: the heaven-given faith which manifested itself in his confession” (Ibid., p.83).
Edersheim says the Petrine is the heaven-given faith. the confession is the human element. what Christ is building His church on is the heaven given part.
if the discourse were about earthly church admittance into fellowship, then yes, confession is the basis.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
Edersheim seems to say that the confession was heavenly also. i’m not sure on this point. with all due respects to the Oxford Don, i disagree with him on several matters though he is one of my favorite authors.
the passage is speaking of Christ’s church: His body, those who are truly known by Him. if the passage were speaking of our human churches, then i could see this confessional aspect.
the concept of an explicit election statement agrees with Christ’s other discourses minus confession in my view.
the passage is speaking of Christ’s church: His body, those who are truly known by Him. if the passage were speaking of our human churches, then i could see this confessional aspect.
the concept of an explicit election statement agrees with Christ’s other discourses minus confession in my view.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
Mt. 18: 18-20 says Christ gives this same binding and loosing power to all His disciples present and future. the popular image of Peter at the “gate of heaven” checking all the arrivals for fitness is a myth just as the idea that Christ built His church “upon” Peter.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
you need to check out the lingusitic research at http://www.freetowne.com/pppk
it’s got good sources, good references, basically “non-partisan”… it’s just the info, whether it works with someones dogma or not…
it’s got good sources, good references, basically “non-partisan”… it’s just the info, whether it works with someones dogma or not…
[DarrenMac] you need to check out the lingusitic research at http://www.freetowne.com/pppkWelcome to SI, Darren. And thanks for the link. I will check it out.
it’s got good sources, good references, basically “non-partisan”… it’s just the info, whether it works with someones dogma or not…
I was stunned that anyone would revive this long-ago thread.
Mike
[Alex K.] Mt. 18: 18-20 says Christ gives this same binding and loosing power to all His disciples present and future. the popular image of Peter at the “gate of heaven” checking all the arrivals for fitness is a myth just as the idea that Christ built His church “upon” Peter.I wholeheartedly agree that Christ did not build His Church upon Peter: But if one reads the text as a “new” Christian or just reads it for reading’s sake then surely they would conclude that Jesus was talking to Peter, and thus “about” Peter, and thus put two-and-two together about Peter meaning “rock” and Jesus saying upon this “rock”….
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I Thessalonians 5:23
Discussion