[B-Greek] Matthew 16.18
Mike Gainor
jmgainor at ec.rr.com
Sun May 25 11:58:41 EDT 2003
Mike Gainor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: "Mike Gainor" <jmgainor at ec.rr.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 6:05 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] Matthew 16.18
> > 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).
My first inclination is to agree with the parser re PETRWN on the basis of
the gender. What reason is there to derive the masculine noun from a femine
root, when there is the masculine root?
Additionally, I find 4 instances of PETROBOLOS in the LXX, in I Samuel, Job,
and Ezekiel, and once in the Apocrypha (Wisdom).
I find PETRWN 10 times in the LXX O.T., and once in the Apocrypha, and
PETROS twice in the Apocrypha.
That makes derivatives of PETROS 14 in the LXX O.T., and 4 in the Apocrypha;
I find PETRA and derivatives 88 times in the LXX O.T., and 5 in the
Apocrypha.
That totals PETROS & derivatives:18; and PETRA & derivatives: 93.
So, while PETROS is less common, it is a a bit of a stretch to call it
'rare'.
> >
> > 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.
But isn't it just as speculative to assume kepa/kepa, for the same reason?
Why would not the switch from PETROS to PETRA indicate a likelihood of two
different spoken words, when PETROS/PETROS would have preserved the
sameness? Or was PETROS so far different from PETRA by definition that it
could not be a foundation stone, or bedrock?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Mike Gainor
>
> > 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