|
|
|
By Alfred Persson - February 23, 2008 - The word play in Matthew 16:18 is a double entendre on the homonym PETROS.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…"-(Matthew 16:18 KJV)
"Peter" petros (Aramaic ????? ; Greek p?t???) has two meanings, one Aramaic[i], one Greek. Jesus used BOTH in an ASYMMETRIC JANUS PARALLELISM [ii]
Our LORD directed the Aramaic meaning (PeTRos PeTeR) to what precedes-- Simon is the "First" born of the divinely implanted "word of faith" (Romans 10:8)… and the Greek (petros / rock) meaning to what followed, the immutable "truth" p?t?? (from which flows living water the church drinks), upon that rock the church is built
"Thou art Firstborn (PeTRos[iii]) and upon this (immutable life giving) petra (drinking from gave you life), I will build my church."[iv]
Building upon the truth in a saying is possible:
KJV Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(petra):
The immutable truth Jesus is the Son of God is the "life giving petra":
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.
Compare Aramaic and Septuagint versions of: Numbers 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock (kepha/petra)?
Deuteronomy 32:13 3 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock(kepha; petra), and oil out of the flinty rock(petra);
KEPHA "rock, stone..which rock (when bored) will give forth water..."-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica Press, NT, 1996], p. 634).
Jn 1:42. "Thou art Simon" (Hearing), therefore (as you heard the Word of God) you will be a 'lively stone'…"
"Thou art hearing (divine truth), you will be a kepha like me, albeit a small stone (petros), a "lively stone", compare:
1 Peter 2:5 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. Out of the belly of believers flows the life giving truth Jesus is the Son of God, in this manner they are 'lively stones'.
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.-KJV
That is the word play, the Semitic Petros meaning "Firstborn",
and the Greek petros meaning "rock":
Clearly Paul derived Romans 10:6ff from this event:
Romans 10:6-13 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. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
This view is to be preferred above all others suggested to date. Both grammar and syntax have Jesus is speaking TO Simon ABOUT the Rock, therefore he cannot be the rock. Nor can Jesus be both the builder and what He built upon. Nor do confession-rock metaphors exist in scripture, and Peter's thrice denial of Christ shows his was anything but rock-like. Rather Jesus’ use of petra as the truth (Matt. 7:24) upon which a house can be built, and Paul’s metaphor of a life giving petra (1 Cor 10:4), must take precedence over all extra-biblical tradition, the use of which is circular reasoning, if it was influenced in any manner by the Cephas Party's probable exegesis(1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 cp 4:6, Gal 2:9ff). There are many examples of double entendre in the Old Testament, Jesus was an expert on the OT. According to Immanuel Casanowitz there are some 500 examples of Paranomasia in the Old Testament (Boston, 1894). Compare Net Bible footnotes on Matt 9:21; Mark 5:28; Luke 1:78; John 3:16.
Matt 10:2 p??t?? S?µ?? ? ?e??µe??? ??t??? confirms the exegesis.
Some proposed meanings of "First":
1)"First" in a list (cp Rev 21:19), but no other numbers follow. 2)"First called" or "First to see the resurrected Jesus", but nothing in the context suggest that at all. 3)"First among equals" (Mt 16:16), but Jesus addressed the question to all of them (15), indicating no primacy. 4)"First in rank" seeks primary support in the "petros-petra Rock of the church" exegesis of Matt 16:18, which is contrary to Rock metaphor and overwrites grammar and syntax.
The parsimonious exegesis, in light of the existence of an Aramaic PETROS, is:
"The First, Simon, the one called Firstborn(PTR, PETROS)."
Parsimonously interpreted, the NT indicates Simon already had the name PETROS before John 1:42
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Matthew 4:18 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.
Some may object Matthew wrote his narrative years after the event including knowledge gained later, to identify Simon. However, it's unlikely years after the event; Simon would be unknown to the reader. Observe Mark's account conveys no worries about possible misidentification: Mark 1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. Also Luke: Luke 5:3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. Verse 8 parsimonously interpreted, has Simon known as Petros before the event in John 1:42. From the frequency of surnames we can induce these were commonly used: Bartholomew/Nathanael; Matthew/Levi; Thomas/Didymus; James/Cleopas or Clopas; Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon called Zelotes. PETROS in the New Testament does not give the appearance of a name unique to Simon. It lacks the property of uniqueness as by itself it failed to sufficiently identify Peter: Acts 10:32 32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. Also Galatians (2:9), Paul switched from PETROS to Cephas,in a context asserting his apostleship equal to "the Twelve ", evidently Paul wanted all to know which Jew named PETROS was being critiqued. If Simon's parents nicknamed Simon PETROS "firstborn", then Christ put upon EPITITHEMI additional reference (cp Rev 22:18). However, Mark 3:16 perhaps has Jesus naming Simon PETROS fully, then Jesus took advantage of the existing Aramaic/Greek PETROS.[v] Jesus surnamed Simon PETROS only in Mt 16:18, not in Jn 1:42, there He said “thou art Cephas” It was John who said this Cephas when interpreted, is a petros, not Jesus. John 1:42 …thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. PETROS here is not transliteration, John explains Jesus meant a tiny kepha, a petros. To illustrate, if “dove” was transliterated "xyz" language, and Christ had said: "...Thou shalt be called Dove, which is by interpretation, a bird.” Just as “bird” is not the surname of the one called “Dove”…. petros is not a surname of the one called Cephas. Mt 16:18 is where Christ surnamed him PeTRos, “firstborn” as He is the "PeTeR," the "First" to be born from above by the revelation Jesus is the Son of God. None of the prior confessions of Jesus' deity were a consequence of divine revelation (Matt 16:17), which is an incompatible property rendering it unique. Divine insight would create a depth of belief and perception impossible to achieve by any other method. The confession in Matt 14:33 was most likely the result of fear, compare Mark 4:37-41; John 6:19-21. As for Nathanael's confession (John 1:49)… Jesus' reaction implies He deemed it insufficient (vs 50.). None of the other confessions resulted in a Makarisim (16:17), on which see HOW HONORABLE! HOW SHAMEFUL! A CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S MAKARISMS AND REPROACHES, K. C. Hanson: Semeia 68. "An experimental journal for Biblical criticism.". (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.). KC Hanson's exegesis has Jesus publicly honoring Simon as "barJona," not "Jonah redivivus," but "bar" "son of, after its kind". Like Jonah mentioned just a few verses earlier (16:4), the PeTeR was figuratively risen from the dead and speaking the Word of God which brings life to the repentant. Peter's apostleship should not obscure his office as a prophet of God: Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe…14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, END It is interesting to note both Mark and Luke left clues they omit Matt 16:17b-19: Mark 8:30 “Then he charged them they they should tell
no man of him.” In obedience to Jesus' command, they leave out what is "about him…that thing" being the immutable life giving petra-truth upon which the church is built, that Jesus is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit thereby identifies precisely the immutable truth-petra ("word of faith") upon which the church is built, as being "Jesus is the Son of God," i.e., God the Eternal Son, "the LORD Jesus" (Rom 10:9). John's gospel, written much later, makes this clear (John 3:19; 20:31). Re Gates of Hell; Keys of the Kingdom http://www.geocities.com/letsobeychrist/petros_petra_Upon_This_Rock_II.htm
The grace and peace of our LORD Jesus Christ, God the Eternal Son, be with you. My name is Al Persson, president, Yellow Cab in Hemet, California, USA (951) 926-7598. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] Str.-B.,III 258. “Firstborn” … The Aram[aic]
proper name [PETROS] ????????? (on the various ways of writing
it cf. Str.-B., I, 530 on Mt. 10:2[Also Bockmuehl, Markus, Ftn
2, 3-4 below]) may be connected with [PTR] ??? and if so means
the d?a????o? t?? µ?t?a? ® 872, 27, the firstborn.
Cf. ® ?101, n. 8?; O. Cullmann, Petrus (1952), 13 and n.
11; 14, n. 13 (ET [1953], 19, n. 11, 13); O. Betz, “Felsenmann
u. Felsengemeinde,” ZNW, 48 (1957), 65, n. 48.-Footnote
31 Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VI, p. 876
edited by Gerhard Friedrich. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley &
G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
[ii] Amos [1:11] may very well have selected this rare Hebrew noun, moreover, in order to effect a double entendre or Januslike construction.220 220 For the literary phenomenon of “Janus parallelism,” see C. H. Gordon (“New Directions,” BASP 15 [1978] 59–60), on Cant 2:12?*?; idem, “Assymetric Janus Parallelism,” in Eretz Israel 16 [Harry M. Orlinsky Volume; ed. B. A. Levine and A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982] 80*–81*), who defines the phenomenon as “when a polyseme parallels what precedes it with one meaning and what follows it with a different meaning…; it looks both ways but with different faces.” He further adds that the “spirit of punning allows a modicum of phonetic liberty.” See also G. Rendsburg, “Janus Parallelism in Gen 48:26,” JBL 99 (1980) 291–93; D. T. Tsumura, “Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8” JBL 102 (1983) 109–11; E. Zurro, “Disemia de br? y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9:25,” Bib 62 (1981) 546–47. Although not all of the cited examples in these articles are convincing, the phenomenon does exist and merits a special investigation. See also Watson (Hebrew Poetry, 159), who suggests an example from Ugaritic, CTA 3 B ii 24–26, and Jer 2:14–15?*?. For a comprehensive study of this literary phenomenon, see now S. M. Paul, “Polysensuous Polvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” in “Sha?arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991) 147–63. Paul, S. M., & Cross, F. M. (1991). Amos : A commentary on the book of Amos. "The endpapers...display fragments of a leather scroll of Amos (1:3-5)..., dated...1st century C.E., from Qumran Cave 5..."--Editor's note. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (65). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
[iii] Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. 'Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources.' Journal of Jewish Studies 55: 58-80…the currency of Peter's name is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros. [3] 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. [4] A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy. [5] [3] 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 Nyr+p son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon No. 413, pre-73) and Patron Nwr+p son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nah9al H9 ever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –oj as Nw- or Ny -was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176). [4] E.g. y. Mo(ed Qat9. 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, 2:512n.5 and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name sr+yp is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from swr+yp to sr+yp and sr+p. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalizations encountered in the various English translations. swr+p in t. Demai 1.11 is a place name. [5] Noy 1993-95:1 No. 8 (=CIJ 12:643a). Noy's conviction (p.14) that this is a baptismal name seems plausible, but may need to be tempered by the rabbinic use of that name."
[iv] Greek primacy of Matthew (by extension, the entire NT) is also proved by this exegesis as only our Greek copies preserve the indications an Aramaic PETROS existed in Christ's day. All extent Aramaic and Hebrew versions of Matthew follow the retranslation error rendering Simon Petros as Simon Kepha.
[v] "The preference for the form Petros may have been due in part to the fact that in Aramaic there was a proper name Petros, which perhaps had the meaning “first-born.” 12 This, however, is not certain.… 12 J. Levy, Neuhebräisch-chaldäisches Wörterbuch,1876 ff.; Dalman, Aramäisch- neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed., 1922; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol I, p. 530 … 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 swrjp (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with rjp (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.
I find Cullman's comment above inconsistent with the data….and the reason he gives against the "theory of retranslation" is unsound. In Paul's letters "Cephas" always radiates the property of uniqueness to Simon, which property doesn't exist in PETROS at all. If PETROS were derived from Cephas, it would be as unique to Simon as Cephas manifestly was. In Galatians 2:9 Paul considers it necessary to switch from PETROS to Cephas. As the context has Paul asserting his equal standing with the "Twelve" his switch is best explained as implying "I am an apostle equal even to the Cephas, lest you think I am critiquing some other Jew named PETROS."
Moreover, if Cephas=Petros, why petros at all? Why not do as Jn 1:42 and render it Cephas everywhere? Or, if we accept kephas underlies petros, why switch to petra in Mt 16:18? If petros worked just fine in Matt. 4:18; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28f; 15:15; 16:16, 18, 22f; 17:1, 4, 24, 26; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75, why switch to petra in Mt 16:18b? Evidently the theory Simon PETROS is Simon petros "rock" cannot account for the data. |
|
|
|