Would he already have been called Petros by Greek-speaking Christians or was that started by the Gospel writers?
Leafing through a friend's Amplified Bible once, I found the weird old petros=pebble/petra=boulder argument actually written into Matthew 16:18.
See
http://www.biblegateway.com/pass...6:18&
version=45
Publius:
Hard to say. Chances are "Petros" was common usage among Greek speakers long before the gospel writers decided to use it.
Another thing too is that the Bible was not written with English punctuation. I often see this phrase attacked on the basis of commas and whatnot. None of that existed at the time either.
At the risk of over-thinking this, if Jesus was attempting to make a distinction between Peter (little rock) and himself (big rock), wouldn't he have said, "You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church, rather than "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church"? Isn't the pun incoherent if it doesn't refer to Peter?
Anon,
It's worse than that. Jesus is in the middle of blessing Peter. The verse before and after are clearly blessings. To see this as a comment intended to humble Peter makes the whole statement incoherant.
though [Jesus] may have known Greek too
I surely hope He knows English! That's what we pray in at home.
In addition, I've heard it said that by the time of Jesus the words petra and petros had lost their big rock/little pebble distinctions and by then had become synonyms.
I don't speak ancient Greek though, so I can't back that up. 
Not only that, Jesus gives Peter the keys as well.
Anon., I heard one prot preacher make that exact claim - that in fact, the scripture read "but upon this rock," rather than "and upon this rock." I was shocked that, for such a sola scriptura stickler, this guy would have no shame in completely rewriting scripture.
Even if Peter is the pebble of the "Jesus Boulder", Peter's still the pebble He chose upon which to build His Church.
This is one of the scripture passages that induces the most pretzel twist logic/language/splaining siezures in protestants. Maybe that's why its there.
"In addition, I've heard it said that by the time of Jesus the words petra and petros had lost their big rock/little pebble distinctions and by then had become synonyms."
As I understand it, this is correct. People are using classical dictionaries rather than Koine lexicons.
In the NT, "petra" has connotations of foundational, fundamental bedrock.
See Matthew 27:59-60: "Taking the body, Joseph wrapped it (in) clean linen and laid it in his new tomb that he had hewn in the rock." "In the Rock" is "en te petra" in the Greek.
I'm sure Simon got enough grief from his fishing buddies for going around calling himself "the Rock" (petros). Imagine if he'd had to go around calling himself "the Rockette!" (petra)
Due to a grave mistake, I neglected to include any reference to Simon asking folks if they smelled what he was cooking. I am heartily sorry.
And let's not leave out the 5th Gospel, the Holy Land, from this discussion.
I was amazed when I watched Steve Ray's Footsteps of God: Jesus DVD & he came to this section in Christ's ministry. It wasn't until I saw the actual land that I really understood the full impact of what Jesus was saying here. I found this part of the documentary to be worth the price of the DVD! Great stuff.
There was a perfectly good Greek word in NT times meaning "pebble" -- "lithos." If Jesus were calling Himself a "Rock" (Petros) and Simon a "Pebble" (Lithos) He would have said so -- and whoever translated the words from Aramaic into Koine would have done exactly the same thing.
Shazbott.
Michael,
In Matt. 27, "lithos" is actually the word used for the rock that covered Christ's tomb. Not quite pebble-sized, that. I don't know much more about Greek geology, but surely there's another more precise word.
And his name is Simon, not Rock.
some Protestants I've heard make it sound like Peter's name was already Petros, and Jesus was playing on that.
According to NAB footnotes, it's the first time "Rock" is used as a proper name in almost all the relevant cultures.
The petra/petros distinction was present in attic Greek, primarily in poetry and drama, from what I understand. By Christ's time, some 200 or more years later, the distinction wasn't recognized (in koine Greek, as another commentor mentioned).
I don't have a Greek/English version of the NT, but what term does Christ use when He refers to Himself as a stone on which the Pharisees will stumble (or the capstone that will fall on them)?
Perhaps this guys friend was referring to 1 Cor 10:4 " And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
This rock is indeed petra.
Why does Jesus say, "You are Petros and on this petra I will build my Church'?
Why not use the masculine form both times?
because rocks are feminine.
Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18? (Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars)
Eric:
Because what Jesus actually said was "You are Kefa and upon this Kefa I will build my Church."
Ah HA! So He does know English!
Interesting site, ELC -- thanks for the link.
Jesus: "You are Peter, and upon that Rock I will build my Church."
Simon: "Lord, thank you for your blessing!"
Jesus: "What? No, I'm telling you, I'm going to build my church upon that rock. THAT rock, the big one right over there..."
Simon: "I don't understand..?"
Jesus: "Here are the keys to my toolshed, which the gates of Hell have not yet prevailed against. It's got all my carpentry tools in it."
Simon: "Again, my Lord, I fail to understa..."
Jesus: "Get the tools out, and build a church on THAT ROCK, right over there. It'll do for starters."
Simon: "Um, ok."
As I note on the "homepage" below, the name "Peter" appears 65 times outside of the Gospels (in the King James, anyway). In that same span, the name "Simon" appears only five times (Acts 10:5, 10:18, 10:32, 11:13, 2 Peter 1:1), each time being accompanied by "Peter." As far as the New Testament Church was concerned, Simon bar Jonah had his name changed to "Peter." If "Peter" is intended to be a slight by calling him a pebble, why does the name "Peter" stick? What's more likely: that the whole Church took to calling Simon "pebble," or that the Church recognized that Simon had his name changed to signify his new call from God, just as Abram and Jacob had their names changed?
This petra/ petros meme is one of the weakest arguments Prots use against Papal infallibity. (Which means that, logically, its weakness is an argument for Pap. Inf. I pray that no Pastor Chuck out there in Bibleland ever starts arguing that "Jesus never physically constructed a church hall on top of Simon Peter, did he?", because refuting that would prove Pap. Inf. beyond any doubts.)
As an evangelical I have no problem whatsoever saying "Yes, Peter was the rock on which the Church was built." I don't buy all the more extravagant implications of that statement - but then, of course, as Catholics would be first to agree, you can't build a massive doctrinal edifice on a single isolated proof-text.
I pray that no Pastor Chuck out there in Bibleland ever starts arguing that "Jesus never physically constructed a church hall on top of Simon Peter, did he?"
I have to admit, I enjoy that mental image. Especially the "hall" part. Stealing Sydney Carton's riff:
Peter: Pardon me, Lord, but I'm a bit tired of lying here in the dirt, and I know I'm slow, but I don't quite get why you're having me do this,...,
Jesus: Hmmm,...,we can set up the bingo tables right here and over by those olive trees - the perfect spot for the pancake breakfasts!
though [Jesus] may have known Greek too
It's very likely. He grew up a mere 4km from a major international trade center, Sepphoris.
But the Gospel of John makes it clear, as Mark said, that Jesus named Simon "Kefa." "Petros" is a later translation, not the name Jesus gave him.
Would he already have been called Petros by Greek-speaking Christians or was that started by the Gospel writers?
The Gospel of John presents "Petros" to its readers as a translation of Kefa. Paul apparently preferred to use the Aramaic "Kefa."
More cool info.
D'oh. I only know what I read in the papers ... "Catholic Answers," etc. It sounded good, and using any other words would wreck the pun, anyway. Why would two Aramaic speakers use Greek when talking amongst themselves, anyway? They'd have used plain American ... like all civilized people.
... and we're pretty sure He didn't say, "Simon! Ah kefa you upsida yo' haid!" or any thing like that.
Tom R. but then, of course, as Catholics would be first to agree, you can't build a massive doctrinal edifice on a single isolated proof-text.
It's worth pointing out though that Pete was pope, and everyone including St Paul obviously recognized his special authority before that Gospel passage was even published.
Beware certain Protestants (especially of the fundamentalist variety) when they start claiming to know the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. (John MacArthur is one of the most egregious offenders.)Remember that for some of them deliberate ignorance is a dominical sacrament.
> "everyone including St Paul"
Paulus contra mundum. That dissenter! Surely Paul realised that if he was outvoted, he must have been wrong.
Tom Round scores another little point! As we all know, when Paul (backed not only by the teaching of the Council of Jerusalem but by Peter's own words) reminds Peter of the Church's teaching, that "dissent" and definitively disproves all this silliness about Petrine Primacy!
Tom Round scores another point for Protestantism!
Tom, if you weren't constantly attempting to score little points for Protestantism, would you have anything left to say? Does *every* conversation *have* to be turned into a little point-scoring session for you?
Mark,
"Does *every* conversation *have* to be turned into a little point-scoring session for you?"
Brief answer: No. If you check the following links, you will see that well over 50% of my comments here the past few weeks cannot be characterised as "point-scoring" (not against Catholicism, anyway, which is when it annoys you):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=47736#402985
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=48886#402987
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7617772/
#402809
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=23703#401377
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=23184#401366
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=17251#393522
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7083492/
#393519
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=35513#401347
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1186619/
#395974
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3551913/
#395015
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=24307#395997
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=32502#393873
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...026634/?
a=16701
Every now and then, I accept one of your criticisms of me as valid.
But when a dozen people write comments along the lines of how stupid Protestants are, and then I write some comment along the lines of "well, this Catholic view is pretty stupid too", and my comment is the only one that you single out as "point-scoring"... well, it's hard to escape the conclusion that your objection is not to point-scoring as such, but as to whose ox is being gored.
Look, it's your blog, and if you want to make a house rule "Only comments favourable to one or other version of Catholicism may be posted here", well and good; if and once you so decree, I'll abide by it, and you won't even have to ban me.
But then you'll end up with an echo chamber. And the Internet is far too full of echo chambers. In fact, I think it's a danger of the way weblogs are set up: people gravitate to the sites where they're in the large majority, and those who pop up to put opposing views get banned for "trolling".
Myself, I could find a hundred sites where hundreds of Prots gather and pat each other on the back and say "Yeah, those dumb RCs, they worship the Pope"... but I have no interest in those. You, Mark, are much more interesting.
Also, would you mind not using my surname online: I have posted some things about Islam (and I live in a country that doesn't have a First Amendment). Thanks
Commenting by HaloScan
