OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 02:23:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Petros is Aramaic for First Born therefore Jesus does not say Peter is the rock  (Read 10403 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« on: August 23, 2010, 01:49:34 AM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:


Using subtitles to transition from one point to another, I will prove the pun in Mat 16:18 is a Janus Parallelism on PETROS, Please pardon any lack of writing skill.

"Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build"
-hypothetical Aramaic speech of Christ in Mat 16:18

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
and upon this (revelation) THE PETROS (the life giving rock)  I will build my church."


The most parsimonious interpretation is most likely correct.

The ambiguities of Matthew 16:18 vanish when we interpret Jesus’ pun on PETROS historico-grammatically as an Old Testament style double entendre (Janus Parallelism) on an Aramaic/Greek homonym (Aramaic PeTRos / Firstborn ; Greek PETROS / petra / rock). Among competing explanations, this alone achieves maximum parsimony, the universal characteristic of truth. 

What is a Janus Parallelism?

"Janus Parallelism. This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a single word with two different meanings, one of which forms a parallel with what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by virtue of a double entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. An example is Gen 49:26."-Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:157). New York: Doubleday.

   The transliterated PeTRos(firstborn) and PETROS(stone) are spelled the same in Greek, so it is likely the Greek speaking Church would confuse them;  Rome had destroyed Israel's Aramaic speaking culture and everyone familiar with Jewish Aramaic names in the days of Christ had vanished from the church.
   When we test this proposition, the ambiguities of relevant passages are resolved, proving beyond reasonable doubt they did confuse this homonym.


The Aramaic PETROS "Firstborn" and Greek PETROS "Rock" are homonyms

There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". -PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann, translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), p 19, Note 14. 


An Aramaic PETROS resolves the ambiguity of the antecedent

Mathew expressly wrote to exclude PETROS as the antecedent of HOUTOS

   The demonstrative pronoun has Christ leaving direct address (SOI, SU), speaking TO Peter ABOUT "The Rock"---literally "upon this the rock" (KAI EPI TAUTEE TEE PETRA). Usually masculine KAI EPI TOUTOIS (Lev 26:23; 1 Ma 10:42; Sr 32:13; Amo 8:8; Zec 14:18; TOUTW Joh 4:27), its antecedent implied, not supplied by the context (Lev 26:23; Sir 32:13; Amo 8:8 John 4:27).
   By attaching verse 17 to v.18 (KAGW DE SOI) "And I also unto thee", Matthew carried forward the antecedent, italicized as "it" in the KJV, which is feminine being the APOCALUPSIS (revelation) or ALEETHEIA (truth) "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God", that Peter just confessed changing his status. (cf  the Makarism "blessed"; the Aramaic Barjona, see below).
   Therefore, Matthew designed the context to disqualify the masculine PETROS as the antecedent. The article strengthens this disqualification as Jesus is speaking TO Simon ABOUT "The" rock.
   This is corroborated by his including Peter's embarrassment---Jesus "said unto PETROS, Get thee behind me, Satan" (vs. 23); obviously written against PETROS being "the rock", for then Christ built upon Satan.
   This exegesis is consistent with the overriding theme of the context---Jesus' identity (16:13-17,20); While Peter's confession is the occasion for discussing this, he remains a digression Christ quickly leaves, to return, using the short form, to what is important: "tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:20 KJV)"

This is that "saying" upon which Christ built His church--- a parallel use of PETRA:

KJV Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings (LOGOS) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built (OIKODOMEW) his house upon a rock(PETRA).

PETRA as the rock fountain of life to the dead:
KJV 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros"

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72


The existence of an Aramaic PETROS means the sample considered was too small

"PETROS…Fr. the beginning it was prob. thought of as the Gk. equivalent of the Aramaic Keph Keephas; J 1:42; cf. Mt 16:18"- A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer; University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 654.

 "Probably thought", not "is". The conclusion is a hasty generalization---the sample too small, there are other relevant words, for example, the Aramaic PETROS which in transliterated Greek, is spelled PETROS but has a radically different meaning.

Simon called PETROS before Christ surnamed him Cephas in John 1:42

KJV  John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother. (Joh 1:40 KJV)

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
 18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
 (Mat 4:17-21 KJV)

Simon "who is called Peter" ( ton legomenon petron), cp Mat 27:17 Jesus "who is called" Christ (ton legomenon christon).

While some argue the present tense describes what was happening as Matthew wrote---"the one commonly called Peter" (now), that is less parsimonous, unhistorical, contrary to accurately describing the event as it happened.

It follows Jesus did not give Simon the name PETROS in John 1:42

When John translates Aramaic into Greek, it is METHERMENEUW, when he explains what the Aramaic means it is HERMENEUW:
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted(HERMENEUW), Master,) where dwellest thou?

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted(METHERMENEUW), the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), A stone.(Joh 1:38-42 KJV)

Compare:

KJV John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. (Joh 9:7 KJV)

Although HERMENEUW can be found outside scripture as "translate," that is not John's usage. It is unhistorical to read into KEPHA what it became later, a proper name. Here it is an epithet, an idiom, not a name; therefore, John would not translate it into a proper name, rather he is interpreting it to be a stone.

It is parsimonous Christ meant  KEPHA as it is found in the Aramaic Targums, and so John chose the Attic Greek "petros" because it means "small stone":

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies," Aramaic KEPHA Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos; 
Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Aramaic KEPHA; Heb. eben  cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious reward.  [That is, a stone for a bribe, to buy favor].
-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud  Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic  Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica  Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635). 

As KEPHA=PETROS (Attic)=LITHOS (Koine) it follows  Christ called Simon a precious "lively stone" which Simon later applies to the church:

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.(1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)

The imagery is derived from Christ---the Rockmass KEPHA/PETRA, which Moses was to strike once (Ex 17:6; 1 Cor 10:4) for living water to come out…
 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock PETRA that followed them: and that Rock PETRA was Christ. (1Co 10:4 KJV)

Believers are little christs" (CHRISTIANOS), lively stones that figuratively purchase favor from God preaching the immutable truth of Christ's Name---mediating life to all who believe.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (Joh 7:38 KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:18 KJV)

Jesus surnamed Simon by putting upon him an epithet

16 And Simon he surnamed (EPITITHEMI)  Peter (PETROS);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
(Mar 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is an epithet, idiom, not a proper name, hence neither of these men are ever called this name. Jesus put the meaning "of sons of thunder" on the pair… It follows Jesus also put upon Simon a meaning, not a proper name.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus says, "Thou art PETROS," is Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42 where He called him "Cephas".

What meaning did Jesus put upon Simon? Scripture says all who confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, via divine revelation, are born again (Rom 10:8ff; John 1:12; 1 John 4:15). It follows Jesus called Simon "Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ". Context supports this exegesis:

KJV  Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17 KJV)

In this Makarism we find an undeveloped double entendre, rather than writing "Son of Jonah" in Greek (huios Iwna, Joh 1:42 TR), Matthew conveys Jesus’ EPITITHEMI via the epithet BARIWNA---Simon is "blessed" for receiving and proclaiming divine revelation just like Jonah the Prophet (cp Mat 12:39-41; 16:4). Having risen from the dead speaking the Word of Life, Simon is just like him = born again. Compare:
5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
 6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
 7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
 8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
 9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.
 10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.
3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
  (Jon 2:5-2:2 KJV)


Only a child of God is given keys to His Kingdom, as Peter was promised the keys then, it follows he was born then.
KJV  Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (Mat 16:19 KJV)

Matthew CONFIRMS Simon is the First (PRWTOS):

 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first (PRWTOS), Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
-Mat 10:2 KJV

As "First Simon" is not followed by "Second Andrew", "Third James" etc... This is not a numbering system.  In addition, the LORD expressly forbade thinking any were PRWTOS in the "Chief" sense:

27 And whosoever will be chief (PRWTOS) among you, let him be your servant: (Mat 20:27 KJV)

Only one likely meaning remains: Simon is the FIRST of the group born of the Gospel of Christ, and Matthew emphasized that by calling Simon "First" and so lists him first.

Peter's confession was unique, the first (PRWTOS) of its kind

Peter's confession was a product of divine revelation of Christ's Name in the heart and mouth hence archetypical of the entire Church (16:17 cp Rom 10:8f)), unlike others which preceded it in time (14:24-33; Mark 6:49-52) but were the product of human emotion and intellect (cf James 2:19f). Observe John doesn't mention a confession when relating the same event (John 6:19-21) and none of these result in a Makarism:

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.  (Joh 1:49-50 KJV)

The parallels between this event and Roman 10:8ff indicate dependence:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:8-10 KJV)

Divine revelation of Jesus' Name is put in Peter's heart and mouth, the word of faith John says is required for eternal life. Peter confessed this publicly, he was the first to do so via divine inspiration.

Corroborating this is Paul's switch from PETROS to KEPHA, in Gal 2:9:

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars -KJV

Evidently Paul switches from PETROS to Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (TR) because PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b). Peter is both a pillar and a KEPHA stone of grace, a small precious stone benefiting the holder:

Therefore Peter failed both as a pillar and as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding light to the Gospel of Christ, Peter cowers in fear following followers James failed to guide correctly, into error…even against the vision God gave him! (Ac 10:34). Ironic indeed for a pillar and a kepha.

As would be expected in unsound eclectic texts, the change from Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) to petros (2:7, Cool is purely random, a property not found in Paul's expositions, who arguably had a reason for every word carefully chosen. That contradicts the claim these are accurate copies.

However, in a footnote Professor Cullmann argues for dependence from these texts:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19. 

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

Implicit in Patristic exegesis is the premise the rock is the divinely revealed truth about Christ
Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick prepared a paper to be delivered at Vatican I (1870), in which he noted that five interpretations of the word "rock" were held in antiquity:
1.     The first declared that the church was built on Peter, endorsed by seventeen fathers.
2.     The second understood the words as referring to all the apostles, Peter being simply the Primate, the opinion of eight fathers.
3.     The third asserted that the words applied to the faith that Peter professed, espoused by forty-four fathers, some of whom are the most important and representative.
4.     The fourth declared that the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the church being built upon him, the view of sixteen fathers.
5.     The fifth understood the term "rock" to apply to the faithful themselves who, by believing in Christ, were made the living stones in the temple of his body, an opinion held by only very few (107–108).- Journal of Biblical apologetics : Volume 3. 2001 (16). Las Vegas, N.V.: Christian Scholar's Press, Inc.. p. 16.

 THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith.-Fragment 92, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
 
"And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. "-John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew LIV.3

"… when Simon Bar Yona {St. Peter} declared that  Our Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God, and on this specific point in FAITH Our Lord Jesus Christ built the Holy Church." -V. Rev. Fr. Boutros Touma Issa, St Ephraim Syriac Orthodox Church

"Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). That the rock spoken of was the faith, not the person of Peter, was a common explanation of the fathers. Owen (Person of Christ, preface) cites the following: "Origen (tractate in Matt. 16) expressly denies the words to be spoken of Peter: ‘If you shall think that the whole church was built on Peter alone, what shall we say of John and each of the apostles? Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter alone? Hilary (Concerning the Trinity 2) says: ‘This is the only immovable foundation; this is the rock of faith confessed by Peter, You are the Son of the living God.’ And Epiphanius (Heresies 39) declares, ‘Upon this rock of assured faith (epi tē petra tautē tēs asphalous pisteōs)  I will build my church.’ ’ One or two more out of Augustine shall close these testimonies (Sermon concerning the Words of the Lord 13): ‘Upon this rock which you have confessed, upon this rock which you have known, saying, You are Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church, that is, on me myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my church." Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (p. 791). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.

PETROS should be added to any list of Aramaic/Hebrew transliterations in the NT---abba; bar; batos; elooi; ephphatha; kokrban; korbanas; lama; mamoonas; maran atha; rhabbi; rhabbouni; rhabitha; rhaka; sabachthani; talitha koum, SIMWN, IAKWBOS, ZEBEDAIOS, IWANNES, BARTHOLOMAIOS, THWMAS, ALPHAIOS, IOUDAS ISKARIOTES (Mat 10:2-4) etc.

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luk 5:39 KJV)

The old wine accepts "Peter is the Rock" and then argues it does not follow Rome's pope is Peter's successor. Many will resist changing their apologetic. However, it is inefficient to refute a lie after agreeing with it.

The "Peter is the rock" theory is pernicious novelty, not this exegesis.

KJV  1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Co 4:6 KJV)

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.

END

ADDENDUM

Gates of Hell Symbolize impotence in death.

KJV  Matthew 16:18 ...and the gates of hell (pulai hadou) shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18 KJV)

KJV  Isaiah 38:10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave(SHEOL; pulai hadou LXX): I am deprived of the residue of my years. (Isa 38:10 KJV)
Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.  4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.  5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.  6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 

"Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" referring to His promise to build His church upon the immutable Truth He is the Christ the Son of God.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?  21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 

KJV  Psalm 9:13 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death: (Psa 9:13 KJV)

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
 (1Co 15:55-57 KJV)

Ephesians 4:8-13  8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.  9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?  10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Satan and Demons are irrelevant to the Gates of Hell; they fear the entrance into the deep:

28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not…
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
 32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked. (Luk 8:33 KJV)


This prefigures the involuntary manner in which Satan and crew are driven into the Lake of fire (Rev 20:10), revealing they are bound first (cp Mat. 22:13), illustrated by their involuntarily rushing to their doom, clearly unable to inflict harm upon anyone else, ever again. God rules in hell, not the devil--- if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. (Psa 139:8 KJV)


"Keys of the kingdom of heaven" open door to all of God’s blessings

A "key" opens, grants access:

52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luk 11:52 KJV)

Compare:
R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened.-Ta’anith 2a

Man ratifies and obeys God’s decrees learned once the keys unbind the Presence of God

 "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."-J.R. Mantey, "The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18."

Peter's new birth precipitated the promise, but it had to wait for the right time:

KJV  Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:19 KJV)

Will give unto you the keys, then future because Jesus’ glorification then future:

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
 (Joh 7:38-39 KJV)

The time was not yet for veil to be rent:
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:20 KJV)

 "Keys"---plural of majesty.

 Compare key to the entire realm of the dead (Rev 20:13), keys of hell and death. Present also is the idea of Death personified , hell (the unseen realm) swallows his victims (Rev 6:Cool. Christ defeated him and took his "keys":

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev 1:18 KJV)

Death as slayer sends everyone into hell, both good and bad (Gen 37:35; Num 16:30-33; Psa  86:13; Eccl 9:10). A "great gulf" divides this realm, the upper (Eccl 3:21; Luk 16:23) is paradise, third heaven (1 Cor 12:2-4 cp 1 Th 4:14) or "Abraham’s bosom; the lower where sinners are in torments (Luke 16:22-26; cp Rev 20:13-15). As all in Adam die (1 Cor 15:22), there is only one key needed into hell.  Hence, the plural of majesty signifies complete authority over death and his realm. Compare "heavens" Mat 3:2; 2 Cor 5:1; Applied to an object, "Crowns" Zech 9:11; Animal, ("Cattles")"Behemoth" Job 40:15.

This immutable life giving truth Jesus is the Christ, God’s Eternal Son, are the "Keys of the Kingdom" opening Heaven to God's Elect, unbinding all the good God has for them.

END
Alfred Persson

Greetings

We have never met, and I'm not responding to anything you may have written or said.


My name is Alfred Persson, amateur researcher and lay apologist for Christ, aka "LetsObeyChrist".


While researching Mat 16:18 I happened upon earlier German scholarship an Aramaic PETROS meaning "firstborn" existed in Christ's day. That was the missing piece of the puzzle; ambiguity vanished.

Now the veil over Romans 10:8ff  is removed, its Paul's take on Peter's confession in Mat 16:17,  Peter is the first of those who called upon the Name of the LORD, after the Divine Word was gifted to him. No need to go to heaven, to bring God's truth down from above, or travel to the deep, to bring it up from its hiding place, because the God in whom we live and move and have our being, will Himself put the life gushing PETRA in our mouth and in our heart:

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 (Rom 10:6-10 KJV)

To make the PETRA known is why the Bible was written:

KJV John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

4 ...many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan 12:4 KJV)

Some have asked why I am sending this...
   I am hoping to replicate my publicizing the Watch Tower Society's use of spiritist Johannes Greber to support their John 1:1 "a god" rendering. (New World Translation)  After I alerted Christian apologists they did this, via email, they made it known to all.

This information is much more important:
1) All religious claim of infallibility is an embarrassment.
2) The grammar expertly conveys the non-verbal content of Jesus' pun, therefore the author was an eyewitness and likely Matthew just as tradition says.
3) Greek Primacy---the Aramaic versions followed the false retranslation of PETROS as Kepha  (except in Joh 1:42 (Old Syriac) Ac 1:13, 1 Pe 1:1, 2 Pe 1:1), therefore these are copies of the Greek texts if my hypothesis is correct.
4) The Textus Receptus Galatians is clearly superior to all eclectic texts--the vacuous switching from Kepha to Petros proof the unproven assumptions undergirding the variant readings in these texts must be unsound. (Added to all the other proofs the Textus Receptus is trustworthy, we have an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence it is the superior text).

However, by far the greatest benefit of this exegesis is the identification of what precisely makes one a member of the One Holy Universal Church. Divine revelation of the Word of God in the believer's heart, publicly confessed, converts the dead into lively stones that "built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1Pe 2:5 KJV)

It is certain our salvation is a work of God:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10 KJV)


5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (Joh 3:5-7 KJV)




I authored everything not attributed to others and consider my material "COPY LEFT", that is, permission granted for use in the service of our LORD Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Father. Please quote accurately.

Email this to others, please!

Peace be to your house!
al

alpersso1@roadrunner.com


How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! (Isa 52:7 KJV)


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,944


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2010, 01:55:29 AM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2010, 12:18:11 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.

That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, was revealed to Peter, it is "divine revelation"

NKJ  Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
 (Mat 16:17 NKJ)

Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but mostly Aramaic, hence the presence of transliterated Aramaic in the gospels. PETROS exists in Aramaic, and when transliterated into Greek, its spelled PETROS, easily confused with the Greek petros meaning "stone, rock."

I cited Professor Markus Bockmuehl for that, so who I am is irrelevant. Who are you, one who can reason on evidence, or a respecter of persons?

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2010, 12:23:59 PM »

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2010, 12:40:26 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 12:48:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2010, 01:01:21 PM »

Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam.

Let's save ourselves some time here:

Alfred, the Orthodox do not believe that St. Peter the Apostle is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18.  We believe that Peter's declaration of faith is the "rock."

At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

LOL.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:01:40 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2010, 01:11:29 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2010, 01:28:20 PM »

Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam.

Let's save ourselves some time here:

Alfred, the Orthodox do not believe that St. Peter the Apostle is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18.  We believe that Peter's declaration of faith is the "rock."

At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

LOL.

I know. Odd you aren't interested in this subject.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2010, 01:29:43 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2010, 01:32:48 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:33:15 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2010, 01:36:51 PM »

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?

I don't recall any counter arguments that were sound, that I couldn't refute.

Why not copy paste the alleged refutation here, and I will answer it.

I am guilty of giving this away, but that is consistent, I never charge for truth, only for taxi rides.

The only "refutations" I received were like the following, which never considered the argument:

You will pardon me if I fail to see that you have made your case.  I think he says, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.  I certainly do not accommodate Rome's foolishness.  But neither do I use the tenuous exegesis to circumvent the obvious.


Its not tenuous at all, it resolves ambiguity which is supposed to be the goal of exegesis. If one doesn't allow their ass to get in the way of their head, they will consider it.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:41:51 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2010, 01:40:22 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2010, 01:44:30 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?


Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:59:10 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2010, 01:53:25 PM »

Alfred, Thankfully, I didn't think the counter-arguments were worth much, but you should still take the time to refute them (in their proper places).

As for why I'm not interested in your article: I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2010, 01:57:19 PM »

Alfred, Thankfully, I didn't think the counter-arguments were worth much, but you should still take the time to refute them (in their proper places).

As for why I'm not interested in your article: I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?

No, I have no obligation to respond. If I hear any sound counter argument, I respond. As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2010, 02:02:38 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
But you are.

Not having had anything to do with freemasonry (which I gather is what you are refering to), I have nothing to repent.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2010, 02:03:41 PM »

I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?

Didn't it go something like Peter made a confession of faith and Jesus responded "You are Petros (Rock) and on this petros I build my church."
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2010, 02:06:10 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
But you are.

Not having had anything to do with freemasonry (which I gather is what you are refering to), I have nothing to repent.

The angel with the all seeing eye in front of a pyramid is masonic.

But if you aren't a Mason, good, at least you have that going for you.

I now recall the article you refer to, in 1987 Martin Abegg (M. Bockmuehl agrees)  says Charlesworth made a mistake, but as far as I know, Charlesworth doesn't think so. I didn't recall the article when I included that quote, its 2004 date made me think it was new material.

So it might be a mistake, but even if so, M. Bockmuehl's exegesis is not, that is documented.


Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. 'Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources.' Journal of Jewish Studies 55: 58-80.

Its online, go to the Jewish studies site

http://www.jjs-online.net/



« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 02:15:47 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2010, 02:11:52 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2010, 02:18:22 PM »

As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Not interested in making any friends here, I see.  Too bad.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2010, 02:18:55 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?

Markus proves PETROS is Aramaic. That means it becomes PETROS in Greek, which is easily confused with PETROS stone.

But in Aramaic, it means "firstborn".

When you put the word "firstborn" in place of "petros" and read Mat 16:18 in context, it makes perfect sense:

You just confessed publicly divine revelation I am the Christ, the Son of the living God....therefore You are firstborn of this truth, and upon this rock like truth I will build my church.

Jesus is speaking TO Peter ABOUT the Rock, therefore Peter cannot be the rock.

Its a rock like truth as Christ is the rock from which springs living water:

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4 NKJ)

compare

 6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. (Exo 17:6 KJV)

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 02:44:28 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2010, 02:22:17 PM »

As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Not interested in making any friends here, I see.  Too bad.

I didn't see that desire in your words. Sure, I love making friends, usually they don't order me around first.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2010, 02:50:59 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?

Markus proves PETROS is Aramaic. That means it becomes PETROS in Greek, which is easily confused with PETROS stone.

But in Aramaic, it means "firstborn".

When you put the word "firstborn" in place of "petros" and read Mat 16:18 in context, it makes perfect sense:

You just confessed publicly divine revelation I am the Christ, the Son of the living God....therefore You are firstborn of this truth, and upon this rock like truth I will build my church.

Jesus is speaking TO Peter ABOUT the Rock, therefore Peter cannot be the rock.
Even if true, so what?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2010, 02:53:51 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

 Now I recall an email I got from Professor Charlesworth regarding this:


The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.

 

James H. Charlesworth

George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature

Director and Editor of the PTS Dead Sea Scrolls Project


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alfred Persson [mailto:alpersso1@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:27 AM
To: Charlesworth, Professor James
Subject: semetic petros in dead sea scrolls?





But when I put the article together, I completely forgot there is some dispute about the name's presence in that fragment.

Both Martin Abegg and M. Bockmuehl in 2006 emails say its not there. Why I forgot that when I put the thesis together is not known. I should have qualified it. But Prof. Charlesworth was asked about their objection, and he stands by it in that email, 2007.


Dear Alfred:

First of all, I did not read your entire email. In my world (30-40 emails a day) brevity is a virtue! So forgive me if I miss an important point past the first screen.

Second, this document has now received its final designation as 4Q341. The M130 was a preliminary number in reference to J.T. Milik’s share of the scrolls. It was published by the highly respected  Joseph Naveh in DJD 36 (p. 291-93) and, alas, no longer includes the name Peter. Charlesworth used a transcription prepared by the renowned maverick editor, John Allegro (who also found the crucifixion in the copper scroll). I doubt if Jim is still finds the name there himself.

best, marty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alfred Persson" <alpersso1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:47 -0700
To: <abegg@twu.ca>
Subject: Qumran Semitic Petros / Greek petros conundrum



Lest I forget again, I've appended this qualification to the quote:

This is disputed by Professors M. Bockmuehl and M. Abegg, but in a Dec. 2007 email Professor Charlesworth replied "the name seems quite possible."
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:11:37 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,944


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.
I know you're not me.  There's only one of me, and I'm the only one qualified for that role, so I'm not looking for applicants.  But lest we get into some Abbot and Costello discussion here, let me point out two simple truths for you:
1.  There is a God.
2.  You're not Him.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2010, 03:02:49 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.
I know you're not me.  There's only one of me, and I'm the only one qualified for that role, so I'm not looking for applicants.  But lest we get into some Abbot and Costello discussion here, let me point out two simple truths for you:
1.  There is a God.
2.  You're not Him.

You want to fight...I don't...cya.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2010, 03:08:17 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2010, 03:16:48 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I know my thesis is "dense", poorly written, but surely it communicated the proposition PETROS is a name in Aramaic with a special meaning "FIRSTBORN, FIRST", not "little rock."

My whole thesis is people mistook it for Greek, when its actually transliterated Aramaic just like the names of other disciples.

Jesus used BOTH meanings in Mat 16:18, in a double entendre. Matthew, fearing Peter would be confused as the Rock,  made the second Aramaic PETROS Petra, in a vain attempt to rule out Peter as the rock of the church. It didn't work.

AND I know it agrees with the Orthodox understanding of the text, I posted it because it might interest you.

Its certainly different.

It doesn't bother me the lexicons haven't been updated to include this information...they will eventually, the exegesis resolves too many ambiguities to be wrong.

I didn't discover this on my own, in Kittel's PETROS, footnote 8 alerted me to it. Cf M. Bockmuehl's article posted above.


« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:24:54 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2010, 03:28:40 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

 Now I recall an email I got from Professor Charlesworth regarding this:


The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.

 

James H. Charlesworth

George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature

Director and Editor of the PTS Dead Sea Scrolls Project


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alfred Persson [mailto:alpersso1@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:27 AM
To: Charlesworth, Professor James
Subject: semetic petros in dead sea scrolls?





But when I put the article together, I completely forgot there is some dispute about the name's presence in that fragment.

Both Martin Abegg and M. Bockmuehl in 2006 emails say its not there. Why I forgot that when I put the thesis together is not known. I should have qualified it. But Prof. Charlesworth was asked about their objection, and he stands by it in that email, 2007.


Dear Alfred:

First of all, I did not read your entire email. In my world (30-40 emails a day) brevity is a virtue! So forgive me if I miss an important point past the first screen.

Second, this document has now received its final designation as 4Q341. The M130 was a preliminary number in reference to J.T. Milik’s share of the scrolls. It was published by the highly respected  Joseph Naveh in DJD 36 (p. 291-93) and, alas, no longer includes the name Peter. Charlesworth used a transcription prepared by the renowned maverick editor, John Allegro (who also found the crucifixion in the copper scroll). I doubt if Jim is still finds the name there himself.

best, marty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alfred Persson" <alpersso1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:47 -0700
To: <abegg@twu.ca>
Subject: Qumran Semitic Petros / Greek petros conundrum



Lest I forget again, I've appended this qualification to the quote:

This is disputed by Professors M. Bockmuehl and M. Abegg, but in a Dec. 2007 email Professor Charlesworth replied "the name seems quite possible."
Again, even if true, so what?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2010, 03:33:07 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:33:27 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2010, 03:36:21 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Congratulations, Alfred. You have resurrected Jonathan Gress. Birds of a feather...

What do you too do with this?

καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ· σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2010, 03:40:09 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Congratulations, Alfred. You have resurrected Jonathan Gress. Birds of a feather...

What do you too do with this?

καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ· σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος

It follows Jesus did not give Simon the name PETROS in John 1:42

When John translates Aramaic into Greek, it is METHERMENEUW, when he explains what the Aramaic means it is HERMENEUW:
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted(HERMENEUW), Master,) where dwellest thou?

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted(METHERMENEUW), the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), A stone.(Joh 1:38-42 KJV)

Compare:

KJV John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. (Joh 9:7 KJV)

Although HERMENEUW can be found outside scripture as "translate," that is not John's usage. It is unhistorical to read into KEPHA what it became later, a proper name. Here it is an epithet, an idiom, not a name; therefore, John would not translate it into a proper name, rather he is interpreting it to be a stone.

It is parsimonous Christ meant  KEPHA as it is found in the Aramaic Targums, and so John chose the Attic Greek "petros" because it means "small stone":

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies," Aramaic KEPHA Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;  
Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Aramaic KEPHA; Heb. eben  cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious reward.  [That is, a stone for a bribe, to buy favor].
-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud  Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic  Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica  Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635).  

As KEPHA=PETROS (Attic)=LITHOS (Koine) it follows  Christ called Simon a precious "lively stone" which Simon later applies to the church:

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.(1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)

The imagery is derived from Christ---the Rockmass KEPHA/PETRA, which Moses was to strike once (Ex 17:6; 1 Cor 10:4) for living water to come out…
 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock PETRA that followed them: and that Rock PETRA was Christ. (1Co 10:4 KJV)

Believers are little christs" (CHRISTIANOS), lively stones that figuratively purchase favor from God preaching the immutable truth of Christ's Name---mediating life to all who believe.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (Joh 7:38 KJV)


Jesus surnamed Simon by putting upon him an epithet

16 And Simon he surnamed (EPITITHEMI)  Peter (PETROS);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
(Mar 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is an epithet, idiom, not a proper name, hence neither of these men are ever called this name. Jesus put the meaning "of sons of thunder" on the pair… It follows Jesus also put upon Simon a meaning, not a proper name.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus says, "Thou art PETROS," is Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42 where He called him "Cephas".


What meaning did Jesus put upon Simon? Scripture says all who confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, via divine revelation, are born again (Rom 10:8ff; John 1:12; 1 John 4:15). It follows Jesus called Simon "Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ". Context supports this exegesis:

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:43:58 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2010, 03:40:58 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
LOL. I'm sure the Vatican is quaking at your appearance.

We've done quite fine without your help.
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
so we will stick with those with authority who know what they are talking about.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2010, 03:46:30 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
LOL. I'm sure the Vatican is quaking at your appearance.

We've done quite fine without your help.
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
so we will stick with those with authority who know what they are talking about.

Your slipping...not conjuring up the usual number of icons to slay me.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2010, 03:52:28 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I didn't notice your "on the other hand" comment. If you look up Janus Parallelism, and then read Mt 16:18 with the possibility Christ is using both meanings of PETROS---Aramaic "firstborn" and Greek "petros/ stone", in a double entendre, it fits perfectly.

This kind of double entendre occurs in the OT...unlike all the other theories of a pun, which seem contrived and foreign to Christ's manner of teaching.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:56:01 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2010, 03:56:44 PM »

Good point, ialmisry. I forgot that passage, which I think settles the matter: PETROS means rock. Sorry, Alfred!

I presume that the use of PETROS rather than PETRA can only be because PETROS is masculine gender; the feminine PETRA would be inappropriate as a given name for the apostle, for obvious reasons. This also suggests that the wordplay is illusory: Petros was chosen by the evangelist because it was the masculine cognate of PETRA, which is the 'real' translation of Cephas, i.e. a rock large enough to build on.

I think the biggest problem with Alfred's thesis is his claim that St Matthew was practicing some kind of deception on his readers. This is clearly offensive to Orthodox, aside from whatever truth there may be in his thesis that PETROS is Aramaic for 'firstborn'. I find it hard to accept even that anymore, since St John makes it clear that the original Aramaic name was Cephas, not Petros. So even if Petros happens to mean 'firstborn' in Aramaic, that is not the name Christ chose.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2010, 04:01:35 PM »

Good point, ialmisry. I forgot that passage, which I think settles the matter: PETROS means rock. Sorry, Alfred!

I presume that the use of PETROS rather than PETRA can only be because PETROS is masculine gender; the feminine PETRA would be inappropriate as a given name for the apostle, for obvious reasons. This also suggests that the wordplay is illusory: Petros was chosen by the evangelist because it was the masculine cognate of PETRA, which is the 'real' translation of Cephas, i.e. a rock large enough to build on.

I think the biggest problem with Alfred's thesis is his claim that St Matthew was practicing some kind of deception on his readers. This is clearly offensive to Orthodox, aside from whatever truth there may be in his thesis that PETROS is Aramaic for 'firstborn'. I find it hard to accept even that anymore, since St John makes it clear that the original Aramaic name was Cephas, not Petros. So even if Petros happens to mean 'firstborn' in Aramaic, that is not the name Christ chose.

Incorrect, the middle term is undistributed. In Jn 1:42 Christ called Simon Cephas, not petros.  John writing much later interprets Cephas as meaning a petros.

The only place Christ says "Thou art Petros" is in Mat 16:18, and if you read that context carefully, it has the meaning of "PRWTOS" , "first" (cf Mt 10:2).

That's why this lexicon says "probably" when it connects Mat 16:18 and John 1:42, because the connection isn't real, the argument is circular. You must assume Cephas = petros and then it proves Cephas=petros.

"PETROS…Fr. the beginning it was prob. thought of as the Gk. equivalent of the Aramaic Keph Keephas; J 1:42; cf. Mt 16:18"- A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer; University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 654.



I never said Matthew was practicing deception, its odd you read that in my words.

Matthew translated Jesus' Aramaic speech, and mannerism perfectly, communicating precisely what Christ meant.

Reading that as me claiming he deceived others, is offensive...but also reflects upon the quality of your work.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 04:07:09 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2010, 04:51:12 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2010, 05:56:58 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.

1)I'll rephrase it: In Aramaic Christ says:
"You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build."

Matthew, being an eyewitness, notices Christ's body language, that he is not saying Peter is the Rock of the church. Matthew, knowing Aramaic PETROS means "first, firstborn" and the Greek Petros means "rock", understands Christ to using a double entendre to describe the truth Peter just confessed, as a life giving Rock, which just made Peter a member of the church, he was born again when He confessed the PETRA of Christ.

Had Matthew used PETROS twice however, it would mislead Greek speaking people into believing Christ meant Peter is the rock. Therefore, to precisely translate Christ's meaning, the Greek grammer in effect has Christ speaking TO petros ABOUT the petra, thus ruling out Peter as the rock of the church.

I said this was in vain because Roman Catholicism exists,  "vain" being defined as "not yielding the desired outcome."

There was no suggestion he was being dishonest.

2) KJV  John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


John does not attest, he explains Cephas means stone.  That is CONSISTENT with John's use of hermeneuo and methermeneuo in the context and elsewhere. That these are used synonymously elsewhere has less weight than John's use in his gospel. The opposite of stretch, its parsimony, characteristic of true interpretation.

The fact Cephas was not a proper name when Christ spoke this, corroborates my exegesis. Cephas became a proper name as Christianity was established, when Christ spoke this, it was not.

Therefore John is not translating Cephas as Petros, rather its parsimonous he is interpreting it to be a stone.

This is further corroborated by the fact the disciples had Aramaic names, to think Peter didn't is a stretch...it does appear Simon was known as Petros before the event in John 1:42:

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 (Joh 1:40 NKJ)

18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

Those who dispute my thesis violate parsimony, they multiply entities to explain this away.

Parsimony is the "pillar" supporting my argument.

All correct interpretation of reality is parsimonous
. For example,  if we both see someone falling outside our 10th floor window, we would not conclude he was flying to a better location, because that's not parsimonous. We know the laws of physics, and human nature, lead naturally to the conclusion he is falling to his death. To suppose differently, that perhaps he is flying to a better location, requires we multiply entities,  a jet pack; temporary suspension of the laws of physics; he is superman  etc. Those entities must be added to make the conclusion true, hence it is not parsimonous.

3)My thesis explains that switch perfectly.  As you note, Matthew could have translated using PETROS twice, it can be a stone one builds on. And if Christ meant PETROS, why Matthew didn't translate PETROS is inexplicable, Matthew has no problem calling Simon PETROS 23 times, suddenly he can't in Mat 16:18?

Therefore it is parsimonous we conclude Christ didn't mean PETER when he spoke to him about the Rock, that is the best explanation why Matthew didn't translate "You are petros and upon this petros I will build", Christ did not say that.

So Matthew's switch to petra makes sense.

4)If Christ wanted to say "You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build," He would have said it and Matthew could have translated it that way. Nothing stopped John from saying Cephas, so nothing would stop Matthew from translating it that way. He didn't because Christ didn't, that is parsimonous.

5)Only finding many more examples of PETROS as an Aramaic name in Christ's day, meaning "firstborn",  can overturn the "classic" generalization petros = petra. I've tried, and failed to make the case. I post this knowing it will fail to convince, because precise critical thinking is required for acceptance, and most folks aren't willing to apply such precision to religion. They prefer fuzzy logic.

6)Yes, I do claim PETROS was an Aramaic name, not a Greek one, while the evidence shows both Cephas and the Greek, PETROS were established as Greek names by the publication of the NT.

Professor Markus Bockmuehl  cites the documents proving PETROS existed as an Aramaic name independent of Christ.

That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 06:22:23 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2010, 06:37:19 PM »

That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.



I made the final comment only to point out the unsoundness of the argument, that usage doesn't prove derivation, not to support the retranslation theory. Prof. Cullmann generalized the usage, Paul seems to use Cephas differently than he does Petros, to convey status.

CEPHAS
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
KJV 1 Corinthians 3:22  Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
KJV 1 Corinthians 9:5  Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
KJV 1 Corinthians 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
KJV Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 
PETROS
KJV Galatians 1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
KJV Galatians 2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
KJV Galatians 2:8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJV Galatians 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
KJV Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


And he assumed what he hoped to prove, that Cephas was the usual designation...I don't see that at all in the data. Finally, Galatians was written before 1 Corinthians.


If Petros was the Greek translation of Cephas, then they would be used similarly, no difference in usage. Unfortunately this is obscured in the critical texts where Cephas and Petros switch randomly, no apparent reason. That is inconsistent with Paul's demonstrable precision and careful choice of words to make his point.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 07:06:19 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2010, 06:56:01 PM »

The evangelists don't have Christ say "upon this Cephas I will build" because we only have the Greek translation of what He said. To say "ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ Κηφᾶς" would make no sense to a Greek speaker. I was wondering for a while if He was in fact speaking Greek to St Peter, but St John makes it clear that He was speaking Aramaic, that the name He bestowed on St Peter was Cephas, which is translated into Greek as Petros. In light of what St John tells us, we must interpret St Matthew's use of PETROS to be intended as the Greek translation of Cephas.

You are right to say that the simplest explanation is the best, but only the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts. And the fact is that, according to what ALL the gospels taken together tell us, the Aramaic name bestowed by Christ on St Peter was Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is only the Greek translation of the Aramaic original.

As to why St Matthew refers to St Peter as Petros, while translating the 'rock' of the church as PETRA, is perhaps less clear, but I don't believe the right explanation is because PETROS is actually an Aramaic word. Firstly, PETROS is everywhere inflected as a Greek masculine o-stem noun; surely if it were Aramaic it would not be declined like a Greek word? Secondly, there is the unshakable testimony of St John, that Petros is in fact the translation of Cephas. No Orthodox is free to interpret this as some kind of error on St John's part. As a Protestant, of course, you are free to think what you like, but don't imagine you will convince any of us that St John was somehow mistaken. It is not a matter of using fuzzy logic, but of being absolutely faithful to the Gospel.

The only reason I gave your theory credence at first was because I had quite simply forgotten the passage of St John, where he establishes the equivalence of Cephas and Petros beyond any doubt. Once ialmisry reminded me of it, I had no choice but to reject your theory. No number of German "new critics" has any weight against St John the Theologian.

Now I might be wrong about this, but I think St Matthew switches from Petros to PETRA for the following reasons: the intended meaning of CEPHAS was "large rock or outcrop", the kind you can build on. The most accurate translation in Greek would be PETRA. However, since that is a feminine noun, it would not be appropriate to give that as a name for St Peter in the Greek version, so the evangelists chose PETROS. Whenever they refer to the person of St Peter, therefore, they use PETROS (that is, when they are not using the Aramaic word CEPHAS as a proper name). However, in the particular passage of St Matthew where we first hear the name, Christ explains his choice of name by saying that "upon this rock I will build My church". The Aramaic original for 'rock' was also CEPHAS. Here, of course, it would not make sense to Greek readers to say "upon this little stone I will build My church", and so St Matthew switches to more accurate PETRA. Thus, Christ did not intend any subtle word-play, but the PETROS-PETRA alternation appears to be an illusion brought about by the difficulties of translating CEPHAS into Greek. In the Aramaic original, I presume Christ used CEPHAS both as St Peter's new name, and as the "rock" of his confession. Fortunately, the words for large and small rock in Greek are similar enough that the original Aramaic pun is not lost completely in translation.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2010, 07:14:55 PM »

re John 1:42

Parsimony, neither Cephas in Aramaic, or PETROS in Greek, were proper names when Christ spoke Jn 1:42, therefore Christ is calling Simon "a stone," not Mr. "Cephas". As it is not a proper name, John is not translating it as "Peter", he is saying "cephas in Aramaic is stone in Greek."


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2010, 07:21:43 PM »

My thesis alone is consistent, the generalization petros is from cephas is not. There is no rosetta stone proving that connection, its a conclusion based upon generalizing different things as being the same = circular reasoning.

It is fact, Christ did not call Simon "Mr Petros" in John 1:42, because Cephas was not a proper name when He spoke this.

Neither was Petros in Greek.

And John 1:40 implies Simon already had the name Petros before verse 42.

PARSIMONY.

I never said parsimony was the shortest explanation, I said its the one that rests exclusively on fact and doesn't require we invent data to make it believable.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2010, 07:36:28 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.

1)I'll rephrase it: In Aramaic Christ says:
"You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build."

Petros is Greek. Even if it was in Aramaic, Petros is a Greek loan or rather name, if what you are saying were correct. Which would make no sense as both Aramaic ("b'khur") and Greek ("prwtotokon") have technical terms for firstborn. And if he used the loan "petros," why wouldn't he use the Greek origin "prwtos."  Why St. Matthew would have Christ mix them up makes no sense, even less sense than your usual eisogesis.

Quote
Matthew, being an eyewitness, notices Christ's body language, that he is not saying Peter is the Rock of the church. Matthew, knowing Aramaic PETROS means "first, firstborn" and the Greek Petros means "rock", understands Christ to using a double entendre to describe the truth Peter just confessed, as a life giving Rock, which just made Peter a member of the church, he was born again when He confessed the PETRA of Christ.

No, he was born again when he was baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Quote
Had Matthew used PETROS twice however, it would mislead Greek speaking people into believing Christ meant Peter is the rock. Therefore, to precisely translate Christ's meaning, the Greek grammer in effect has Christ speaking TO petros ABOUT the petra, thus ruling out Peter as the rock of the church.

Quote
That rules out Christ being the PETROS (which you seem to be claiming)

I said this was in vain because Roman Catholicism exists,  "vain" being defined as "not yielding the desired outcome."

There was no suggestion he was being dishonest.

You are talking about the Omniscent Almighty, and saying He laid a foundation of sand.

Quote
2) KJV  John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John does not attest, he explains Cephas means stone.  That is CONSISTENT with John's use of hermeneuo and methermeneuo in the context and elsewhere. That these are used synonymously elsewhere has less weight than John's use in his gospel. The opposite of stretch, its parsimony, characteristic of true interpretation.

How would you know?  Indeed, reading your posts, we can see you do not practice what you preach, instead indulging in far fledged "arguments."

Quote
The fact Cephas was not a proper name when Christ spoke this, corroborates my exegesis. Cephas became a proper name as Christianity was established, when Christ spoke this, it was not.

So your elaborate argument to "prove" that Christ did not name Peter Peter is nought, and a waste of our time.
So here, definitely a distinction without a difference. I Timothy 6:20. II Timothy 2:16.

I Timothy 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. II Timothy 2:14 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote
Therefore John is not translating Cephas as Petros, rather its parsimonous he is interpreting it to be a stone.

This is further corroborated by the fact the disciples had Aramaic names, to think Peter didn't is a stretch...it does appear Simon was known as Petros before the event in John 1:42:

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 (Joh 1:40 NKJ)

St. John is writing long, long after the event in John 1:42. Long after Matthew 16 was written in fact.

Quote
18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

Those who dispute my thesis violate parsimony, they multiply entities to explain this away.

Parsimony is the "pillar" supporting my argument.
Oh? Meet the Church:


Quote
All correct interpretation of reality is parsimonous. For example,  if we both see someone falling outside our 10th floor window, we would not conclude he was flying to a better location, because that's not parsimonous. We know the laws of physics, and human nature, lead naturally to the conclusion he is falling to his death. To suppose differently, that perhaps he is flying to a better location, requires we multiply entities,  a jet pack; temporary suspension of the laws of physics; he is superman  etc. Those entities must be added to make the conclusion true, hence it is not parsimonous.

And if the Greek speaking Christians of the first century and after understood that St. Peter was named Rock by Christ, and they did; and if the Aramaic then Syriac speaking Christians of the first century and after understood that St. Peter was named Rock by Christ, and they did'; then we don't have to resort to far fetched explanations either offered by the centuries old Vatican or the young man who just bought Bible Works (c). That is not parsimonous.

Quote
3)My thesis explains that switch perfectly.  As you note, Matthew could have translated using PETROS twice, it can be a stone one builds on. And if Christ meant PETROS, why Matthew didn't translate PETROS is inexplicable, Matthew has no problem calling Simon PETROS 23 times, suddenly he can't in Mat 16:18?


He does: you are the one with a problem.

Quote
Therefore it is parsimonous we conclude Christ didn't mean PETER when he spoke to him about the Rock, that is the best explanation why Matthew didn't translate "You are petros and upon this petros I will build", Christ did not say that.

St. Matthew and the Church says he did.

So Matthew's switch to petra makes sense.

Quote
4)If Christ wanted to say "You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build," He would have said it and Matthew could have translated it that way. Nothing stopped John from saying Cephas, so nothing would stop Matthew from translating it that way. He didn't because Christ didn't, that is parsimonous.


St. Paul uses both Peter and Cephas. No one has been confused by that for two thousand years, until you came along.

Quote
5)Only finding many more examples of PETROS as an Aramaic name in Christ's day, meaning "firstborn",  can overturn the "classic" generalization petros = petra. I've tried, and failed to make the case.


And what have you learned. Evidently nothing.

Quote
I post this knowing it will fail to convince, because precise critical thinking is required for acceptance, and most folks aren't willing to apply such precision to religion. They prefer fuzzy logic.

You display that quite conveniently.

Quote
6)Yes, I do claim PETROS was an Aramaic name, not a Greek one, while the evidence shows both Cephas and the Greek, PETROS were established as Greek names by the publication of the NT
.

The word is Greek. The very form of the word tells us it is not Aramaic. Btw, both "Peter" and "Kepha" have been used as a name continuously by the Aramaic/Syriac speaking Orthodox and non-Orthodox from the time of the Apostles until today.

CAL does have a pTr, pyTr' for "first born," but that further shows this is not the word we are dealing with.  The "y" in the Aramaic and the "-os" in the in what you are arguing rules that out.

Quote
Professor Markus Bockmuehl  cites the documents proving PETROS existed as an Aramaic name independent of Christ.

Good for him. So what?

Quote
That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

News to the Aramaic speaking Christians, but the Germans are free to say what they like.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2010, 07:39:35 PM »

As to why St Matthew refers to St Peter as Petros, while translating the 'rock' of the church as PETRA, is perhaps less clear, but I don't believe the right explanation is because PETROS is actually an Aramaic word. Firstly, PETROS is everywhere inflected as a Greek masculine o-stem noun; surely if it were Aramaic it would not be declined like a Greek word? Secondly, there is the unshakable testimony of St John, that Petros is in fact the translation of Cephas. No Orthodox is free to interpret this as some kind of error on St John's part. As a Protestant, of course, you are free to think what you like, but don't imagine you will convince any of us that St John was somehow mistaken. It is not a matter of using fuzzy logic, but of being absolutely faithful to the Gospel.

The only reason I gave your theory credence at first was because I had quite simply forgotten the passage of St John, where he establishes the equivalence of Cephas and Petros beyond any doubt. Once ialmisry reminded me of it, I had no choice but to reject your theory. No number of German "new critics" has any weight against St John the Theologian.

Now I might be wrong about this, but I think St Matthew switches from Petros to PETRA for the following reasons: the intended meaning of CEPHAS was "large rock or outcrop", the kind you can build on. The most accurate translation in Greek would be PETRA. However, since that is a feminine noun, it would not be appropriate to give that as a name for St Peter in the Greek version, so the evangelists chose PETROS. Whenever they refer to the person of St Peter, therefore, they use PETROS (that is, when they are not using the Aramaic word CEPHAS as a proper name). However, in the particular passage of St Matthew where we first hear the name, Christ explains his choice of name by saying that "upon this rock I will build My church". The Aramaic original for 'rock' was also CEPHAS. Here, of course, it would not make sense to Greek readers to say "upon this little stone I will build My church", and so St Matthew switches to more accurate PETRA. Thus, Christ did not intend any subtle word-play, but the PETROS-PETRA alternation appears to be an illusion brought about by the difficulties of translating CEPHAS into Greek. In the Aramaic original, I presume Christ used CEPHAS both as St Peter's new name, and as the "rock" of his confession. Fortunately, the words for large and small rock in Greek are similar enough that the original Aramaic pun is not lost completely in translation.

Again that explanation doesn't fit the data, Christ is called petra, God is called petra, but Simon cannot be?

NKJ  1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
 (1Co 10:4 NKJ)

LXE  2 Samuel 22:2 And the song was thus: O Lord, my rock(petra), and my fortress, and my deliverer,
 (2Sa 22:2 LXE)

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tags: Petrine Primacy Perssonism 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.301 seconds with 71 queries.