Posted on 01/10/2005 12:36:47 PM PST by It's me
SOME THOUGHTS ON MATTHEW 16:18
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
by Pastor David Th. Stark
The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.
1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.
Petros, the name given to the Apostle.
Petra, the word used for rock.
Rome says that "Peter" (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But...
3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.
According to Liddell and Scott:
Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...
Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288
E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"
cf. Pl. Lg. 843a
X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."
S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"
Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark [the usual prose word is lithos]
from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)
NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.
Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.
The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.
5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.
6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?
7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas").
But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?
8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac
9 times by the word SHU`A' ,
6 times by the word KE'PHA' and
1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A'
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE'PHA'
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.
[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable).
[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.
In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."
KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.
As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.
The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.
9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.
c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.
d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
*** END ***
Click here to return to Grace Presbyterian Church’s homepage.
http://www.gpcredding.org/
I believe the point is valid. The Church has its foundation the apostles. We could get into a preterist/ non-preterist debate here, but suffice it to say that the scholarship I have read points to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the issue discussed in Revelations, with its replacement by the new Jerusalem, i.e. the Catholic Church.
You need to see how you are all over the board here...
Preterism is NOT a Catholic doctrine.
I don't think the Church has spoken one way or the other. But given that the books and articles I have read were from Catholic Authors, I tend to disagree with you.
It might come to you as a surprise to hear more of the travels of St. Thomas. You know he was not present when Jesus returned to the upper rooom the first time, and when he came back, he challenged the others with his unwilling assent to their testimony, demanding proof of their claim to witnesses of the miraculous entrance of the Lord, not only after having been long dead but also through a locked door without unlocking it or without it opening before Him. Too many today would likewise seek a more "scientific" explanation, for such is the nature of man! And our Apostle was certainly a man. Take heed to see, this was before the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, when the Church was born. The point is, St. Thomas was known to travel far even then, but how did he get around? He was not the only one of the Apostles, or the Saints for that matter, whose physical presence was known to exist in more than one place at the same time. We may well ask how he managed to stay in communication with the others being so far away as India? Or, did he? Scoffers would sneer and say there is no basis for this legend of the wood log placed such that the sea would not pass. But for nearly 2,000 years the words were repeated from generation to generation, not recorded in Scripture, but believed anyway by those who have ears to hear. All that time, they had little cause to know what the words meant, but we are privileged today, in this age of unfaith and doubt, to behold the fulfillment of the words the Apostle left us long ago. They have called him "doubting Thomas" but who are we to hurl insults, we of so little faith? We doubt Tradition, we doubt the existence of miracles, we even doubt the very word of God. Kyrie eleison!!! Why would we not doubt the legend of he who doubted in his own time? Anyone who can answer these questions is welcome to respond. Thank you for the opportunity to ask them. Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu.
Have you noticed how it is rather common for Catholics to deny their own Christianity? It seems to me that's the open door through which the hecklers surge.
I don't understand your comment. Please elaborate on how Catholics deny their Christianity.
Example: I struck up a conversation with a complete stranger in a hotel lobby one day, and in due course asked him if he was Christian. His reply was, "No, I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic." This was odd to me, so I asked him if he thinks you have to be Protestant to be Christian. He said he thought so. The point is, until about 1930 the term Christian was generally synonymous with Catholic. But then for some reason, it became less popular for Catholics to use the title of their ancestors in the Faith. Certain outspoken and enthusiastic Protestant groups were using it instead, and Catholics backed away from it. When they did so, their vacancy with the name left the opportunity for evangelicals and pentecostals to usurp the name "Christian." Since Catholics are generally less outspoken than Protestants, the popular usage of Christian started to change its meaning. We are now in a sort of recovery phase, in which Christian means different things to different people. What does this all mean in the progress of religion in history?
It seems to me that a dispute arose over the meaning of the word "apostle." Paul is considered an apostle, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles. Peter, Andrew, James and John, Simon, James and Jude, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas and Matthias are the 12, and Paul is not among them. There were two "James": the Less and the Greater. Do you know why they were so called?
Is this a real photo or photoshop.
The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the nicknames refer to nothing more profound than the relative stature of the two apostles. If there's another theory, I'm not aware of it.
That's it. One was taller, therefore, "greater." They say Paul was short. I wonder if he was as short as the "less?"<<
I was just looking over the past postings and it is surprising to me that nobody has mentioned the original topic for a long time: the tsunami. I just looked at a website that claims there was no earthquake at all, but some kind of large explosion, at the bottom of the Sumatra trench: For a speculative update, go to vialls(dot)com, download 'Did New York Orchestrate the Asian Tsunami'. At first read, it sounds like sci-fi until one realizes that the technology was first entertained during WWII and deemed plausible. Enter the Brave New World.
Given the church/world view that Luther grew up in ( the didache - Edict of Ignatious, etc) I doubt Jewishness or Yeshua's connections to Israel were on his mind. I do agree about the blindness until the time of the Gentiles was complete. I can't wait to know my brothers. Shabat Shalom, Wes
If you haven't read it may I suggest "Who Is Israel?" by Batya Wootten,... Shalom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.