Could someone who is familiar with Greek....

[phatcatholic]

in a post rejecting the claim that Peter is the rock Jesus is referring to in Mat 16, a poster named "fusion" made the following remarks. i think an adequate response requires a knowledge of the Greek, which i unfortunately lack. i know that some of you (micah, spathariossa, and others) are familiar w/ Greek tho. so, maybe you all could help me.

anyway, here's what he said:[list]Regarding the Luke passage: when one reads the text as it stands (i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original"), one is struck with how strange it is that Jesus takes the "long way around" to get to making the equation "Peter = rock" if in fact that is His intention. It would have been much simpler to say, "You are Peter, and on you I will build My church." But He didn’t say that. Instead, here are His words:

kavgw. de, soi le,gw o[ti su. ei= Pe,troj( kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra| oivkodomh,sw mou th.n evkklhsi,an

As we simply translate the passage and attempt to ascertain the meaning, we note that Jesus begins with direct personal address to Peter. "And I say to you (soi)" is singular, addressed to Peter and to Peter alone. This is continued in the first part of the main statement, "You (su,) are (singular) Peter." This is known as direct address. Jesus is speaking in the first person, and Peter is in the second person, being directly addressed by the Lord. Up to this point, all is clear and understandable.

Then we run into the phrase at issue. kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra is indeed singular; there is only one "rock" in view. The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. You insists the referent is Peter. But if it is, why use a demonstrative pronoun at all? Jesus has used two personal pronouns of Peter already in this sentence, soi and su,. He could have easily said, "and upon you the rock," (evpi. se, or evpi. soi, th/| pe,tra). But again, He didn’t. Instead, he switches from direct address to the demonstrative "this." I have expressed this, in non-technical language, as going from second person, "you, Peter," to third person, "this rock." "This rock" is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:

"15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

The confession that Peter gives of the Messiahship of Jesus is the central thought of the entire passage. It is the reason for the trip to Caesarea Philippi. Jesus indicates that Peter has just been the recipient of divine revelation. God, in His grace, has given to Peter an insight that does not find its origin in the will of man, but in God the Father Himself. The content of that confession is, in fact, divine revelation, immediately impressed upon the soul of Peter. This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter’s confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him! Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th| is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself! While Peter falls out of view by Acts 15, the centrality of the Messiahship of Jesus continues in the forefront throughout the recorded history of the primitive Church.

Hence I have suggested that the shift from the direct address of Peter to the use of the demonstrative pronoun, pointing us back to something prior, specifically, the confession of faith, that will function as the foundation of the Church Christ promises to build, is significant and must be explained if you seek to present an interpretation that is to be binding upon all Christians.
. . . .
Next, note that when Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term "this rock" is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of tau,th|), making the differentiation between "Peter" and "this rock" complete, even if one accepts the contention of an Aramaic original without differentiation of the genders, masculine and feminine, of "rock." He is speaking to Peter, about the "rock." Hence the text differentiates between Peter and the rock in two ways: the form of the word, and the person of address.
[/list]
your thoughts? any help would be greatly appreciated.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[spathariossa]

Well he's right about the pronoun being demonstrative, however he is very clearly skipping over one very important point. Petra, or this form Petroi, the original Greek name for Peter, means literally rock. So he isn't saying "You are Peter." He is saying, "You are a rock." Ancient Greek doesn't use an article the way English does. So there is no difference between saying "rock" and "a rock" in the context of a sentence. Therefore, there is no difference between the name Petroi and the noun rock. This is crucially important because calling somebody by name and calling him the very metaphor you are about to use are two very different things. However the Greek can appear to be very non-specific as this author seems to imply.

The demonstrative pronoun usage is also exceedingly clear in this example. He isn't referring back to something earlier as the author of this post indicates. Rather, if we read the whole passage, we see that all of the disciples are present during this proclamation. In addition to this, the demonstrative pronoun actually clarifies the situation. There was no need to call Peter a rock. Why call him a rock and then talk about a rock being the foundation of the Church if you don't mean the man you just called a rock? The demonstrative makes it clear. Upon this rock. Which rock? What is the antecedent for rock? It is clearly petra from the previous line.

So noting that Jesus has an audience we can read the passage as follows: "And I say to you, you are a rock. And upon this rock I shall build my church." In this case, the demonstrative is clearly not out of place. He tells Peter that he is a rock. Then he speaks very clearly that upon this rock the Church shall be built. There is no evidence he wasn't speaking to everyone within hearing when he said this. Clearly Matthew heard Jesus say these words or they would not have been written down for us to be arguing about.

What we see then is that instead of translating Petroi as Peter we can and should translate it as "rock" or "a rock." This instantly clarifies the question of the antecedent, fits the metaphorical scheme, and makes perfect logical sense given the context of the passage.

Edit: My Greek is a bit rusty so I'm not sure if Petroi in that case is a vocative or not. Somebody let me know.

Edited January 19, 2005 by spathariossa

[popestpiusx]

It's been almost 28 years since I studied greek so I don't think I can be much help. I need to brush up a little.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 18 2005, 11:35 PM'] It's been almost 28 years since I studied greek so I don't think I can be much help. I need to brush up a little. [/quote]
Does what I said make sense?

28 years? I'm not even that old for another seven...

[cathqat]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 18 2005, 09:29 PM'] when one reads the text as it stands (i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original") [/quote]
Here's the problem right here. The Aramaic isn't "mythical." John clearly reveals that Jesus renamed Simon [i]in Aramaic[/i]: John 1:42. Simon's new name, according to Jesus, is Kephas (Rock). John then translates the name "Kephas" as "Petros" for the benefit of his Greek reading audience.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 19 2005, 12:41 AM']

28 years? I'm not even that old for another seven... [/quote]
That's ok. I'm not that old for another 4 months.