[B-Greek] Matthew 16.18
Mike Gainor
jmgainor at ec.rr.com
Sun May 25 02:38:06 EDT 2003
Greetings,
Surely Matthew 16.18 has crossed this board many a time; yet I hope that there are those who are willing to offer their worthwhile input on it once again. The archives of this board have come up several times in my searches over the past several days, but I have questions that I haven't seen answers to as of yet.
I am aware that the most common interpretation is to equate 'petros' and 'petra' on the basis of the wordplay assumed to be inherent in the verse, and on a presumed underlying Aramaic kepa/kepa (Cullman, Fitzmeyer, several others). Aside from my own personal bias, I see reasons to question that interpretation.
1. Why is the reading petros/petra, rather than petros/petros, if the two were "interchangeable" at the time (as, e.g. Cullman)? My thought is that it would have been a poor translation to introduce the enigma if the spoken words were the same (kepa/kepa). How unlikely was petros/petra instead of lithos/petra, if there was a contrast intended (Peter contrasted with Christ), rather than a comparison (Peter with Peter)?
2. Could petros/petra (stone/rock) be Aramaic kepa/shua as per David Stark here: http://www.trinitarian.com/articles/article_017.html . This argument seems to have some strength, but I've seen zero in either support for or opposition to it. Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on it.
3. Does not the change in both person and gender from 'petros' to 'tautee petra' indicate a likely change in the referent.
4. I have seen many supposedly exegete this verse by saying that 'tautee' following 'kai (epi)' grammatically requires that petra = the immediate precedent petros. This seems to me to be baseless, as it does not hold true in other examples (e.g. Matt 12.45; Luke 19.42; II Corinthians 1.15; 8.7). Am I missing something?
5. If petra=shua (as in 2) the kepa/kepa wordplay is nonexistent, and the referent for petra could as well be Christ, as, e.g. John 2.19 "… destroy this temple …"
My language skills do not come near to many on this board, and I'm pressing the limits of my current ability to comprehend this verse. I'm reluctant to cave in and join the petros=petra herd if these questions are valid. If anyone can invalidate them for me, please do so. Likewise if you can validate them. Thanks very much.
Lovin' Christ and the Truth,
Mike Gainor
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list