[B-Greek] Matthew 16.18

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun May 25 06:05:01 EDT 2003


> 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)?

It can hardly be correct to say that these two words are interchangeable.
PETRA is the normal word for a solid rock. Louw&Nida says "bedrock" in the
short gloss and give the following longer explanation: "bedrock (possibly
covered with a thin layer of soil), rocky crags, or mountain ledges, in
contrast with separate pieces of rock normally referred to as LIQOS."
LIQOS is the normal word for a stone. PETROS is a rare word for stone, and I
could not find any instances of PETROS in the LXX until 2 Maccabees (1:16,
4:41). My parser suggests that the plural genitive PETRWN in the LXX is
derived from PETROS, but it seems to me that it is more likely derived from
PETRA. PETRA translates any of two common words for rock in Hebrew (tzur and
selah).
>
> 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.

This is speculative, since we don't know what Jesus might have said in
Hebrew or Aramaic.

> 3. Does not the change in both person and gender from 'petros' to
> 'tautee petra' indicate a likely change in the referent.

No, not a change in referent, but a change of meaning or semantic
properties. It seems most likely clear from the context that both PETROS and
EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi refer to Peter, but the sense of the two expressions
is not the same. The distinction between sense and reference in a basic
principle of semantics. One could argue that the reference of the second
term is broader than the person Peter, and includes a reference to what
Peter had just done.

> 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?

I cannot see how the verses you cite are relevant to Matt 16:18. There are
several factors involved in deciding the referent, including the position of
the demonstrative relative to the head noun, but especially the context.

> 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 …"

You seem to suggest that there are two possibilities:
a) That PETROS and PETRA both refer to Peter and have the same meaning
b) That PETROS refers to Peter and PETRA to Christ.

I suggest a third possibility:

PETROS refers to Peter, and Jesus is here giving Simon a new name
(KEFAS/PETROS). That name is to be a reminder of the incident of Peter's
revelation and his testimony of faith in the Messiah as expressed in the two
preceding verses. There is an intended association between the name PETROS
and the word PETRA. PETRA has a symbolic significance of something solid
that is suitable as a foundation to build a "house" on. The context suggests
that both "revelation" and "faith" are intended associations, and I believe
Jesus (and Matthew) intended a back reference to the conclusion of the
sermon on the mount in 7:15-29 about faith in action and building a house on
the rock.
So, I would accept that PETRA refers to Peter as well as to this incident,
but the important aspect is the symbolism of a foundation on which Jesus is
going to build his church. In those cases where Peter did not act as a
result of revelation and in faith, then he himself had left that foundation.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list