Shu'a, petros, petra, lithos, all those fun words

[goldenchild17]

I'd like someone to take a look at this and help me out. I have an idea of what I would say, but I want ya'lls input before I say anything.
________________________
From someone on another board.

Hope this works. I don't have link to site I found this on but I'll try to locate it.

1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.

2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.

Petros, the name given to the Apostle.

Petra, the word used for rock.

3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.

According to Liddell and Scott:

Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...

Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288

E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"

cf. Pl. Lg. 843a

X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."

S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"

Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark [the usual prose word is lithos]

from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)

NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.

Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.

5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

6. The Pe****ta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?

7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas").

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.

Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Pe****ta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.

PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:

Of those times it is translated in the Pe****ta Syriac

9 times by the word SHU`A' ,

6 times by the word KE'PHA' and

1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'

Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:

7 times by the word SHU`A'

(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)

3 times by the word KE'PHA'

(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.

[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable).

[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.

In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.

[Guest Eremite]

"Petra" is feminine.

Simon was a man.

Jesus was giving Simon a new name.

Jesus couldn't give Simon a female name (Petra). All his Jewish friends would laugh at him. It's like he rode around Galilee in a girl's bike.

So the word was tweaked for a man. Hence, Petros.

[goldenchild17]

Yeah thanks, I understand that bit of it. I'm more considered about the "Shu'a" word.

[phatcatholic]

colin..........want to let u know that i saw this and that i'll respond to it sometime tonight.......

[phatcatholic]

[quote]1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.[/quote]
this is irrelevant. the catholic does not need the existence of an aramaic original to know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that he used the word kepha


[quote]2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.

Petros, the name given to the Apostle.

Petra, the word used for rock.[/quote]
agreed.


[quote]3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.

According to Liddell and Scott:

Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...

Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288

E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"

cf. Pl. Lg. 843a

X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."

S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"

Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark (the usual prose word is lithos)

from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.[/quote]
the catholic admits that in ancient greek poetry, the two greek words were different in meaning. but, the most highly esteemed biblical scholars--both protestant and catholic--assert that by the time scripture was written, this difference in meaning was no longer present. the difference then is [i][b]confined to poetry[/b][/i].


[quote]NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.[/quote]
this then, is incorrect, b/c he bases it on examples from ancient greek poetry. no biblical lexicon i have ever seen defines the two greek words in this way. in order to prove his claim, he will have to provide some objective scholarly source that attributes a difference in meaning to these words, or provide some other work from the same time period as the gospel that uses these two greek words in different ways.


[quote]The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.[/quote]
you have already shown this.


[quote]Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.[/quote]
this he has yet to prove


[quote]4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.[/quote]
the greek word for rock is feminine in gender. that is how it always appears. whenever the word refers to men in other instances (for example, 1 Cor 10:4) petra is always used. it was never changed to adapt to its reference to men, so we have no reason to expect or require Jesus to do the same thing here. in other words, he has no basis w/ which to use this "shoulda, coulda, woulda" argument.


[quote]5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.[/quote]
NOT if there is a very good reason for using two different greek words, despite the use of the same aramaic word. of course that reason would be what we both already know: u can't name Peter "Patricia"


[quote]6. The Pe****ta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?[/quote]
his bias is what causes him to question the accuracy of the translation. he has yet to prove that we have good reason to question it.


[quote]7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas").[/quote]
actually, since we rightly assert that the aramaic came first (at least, b/c that's what Jesus spoke, but most probably also b/c matthew's gospel was originally written in aramaic) it would be more accurate to say that petros is an accurate translation of kepha, not the other way around. afterall, John 1:42 says he was called kepha, which is translated petros.

this distinction may not be necessary to point out tho, just something i noticed.


ok, more in a subsequent post. for some reason, it won't let me make quote boxes past this point......

[phatcatholic]

now, to continue:

[quote]But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.[/quote]
but didn't the aramaic versions come before the greek? is this not what the eastern church asserts? the ECF's seem unanimous on this point.


[quote]Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Pe****ta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.[/quote]
prove it!!. his entire argument hinges on this point, so sources here are critical. i simply have no reason to take his word for it.


[quote]PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:

Of those times it is translated in the Pe****ta Syriac

9 times by the word SHU`A' ,

6 times by the word KE'PHA' and

1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'

Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:

7 times by the word SHU`A'

(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)

3 times by the word KE'PHA'

(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

(1) in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.

(2) in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable).

(3) the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.

In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.[/quote]
the same goes w/ all of this. these claims need substantiation. also, it is my understanding that Jesus would have used the aramaic word [i]evna[/i] if he meant to denote a small rock. i have never heard this shu'a' argument in my life, which seems rather odd if it is supposed to be so blatantly obvious. i have had MANY debates on this topic, and no one has ever presented this shu'a' word for rock before. i need to see some proof.


[quote]9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage (Matthew 16:18) indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.[/quote]
i think i've already shown why this need not be the case

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[thessalonian]

I saw this shu'a arguement long ago. Wish I could remember where. Phat you answer it well. One thing I do find humorous though is that he speaks of the lack of origanals in Aramaic and then speaks of the originals with regard to Greek. We really don't have those either.

It is also humorous that he undermines the Syraic Aramaic texts and then goes ahead and uses them later.

Edited August 1, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

I found this rebuttal to the very article she uses by jesse romerro. Hopefully it will help.

[url="http://jesseromero.com/hoa_rock-greek.htm"]http://jesseromero.com/hoa_rock-greek.htm[/url]

There is only one author on the internet who makes this shua claim. Therefore it is highly suspect. If there was something to it white, svedson, and webster woulld be all over it. Though I suspect that the problem they might have in using it is that it would contradict their previously used arguements.

Here is a Catholic Answers thread that gets in to a discussion on shua vs. Petra that might be of some help as well.

[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=143502"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=143502[/url]

[goldenchild17]

Thanks everybody that was great.

[phatcatholic]

thess, dude, that was the find of the century.

ur the man.....

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 1 2005, 11:54 PM']thess, dude, that was the find of the century.

ur the man.....
[right][snapback]668208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

btw, here's the url for the article we are refuting:

[url="http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html"]http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html[/url]

also, i've been consulting a yahoo group for aramaic scholars about this subject. i'll get back to u all when i have all of their responses.

[goldenchild17]

She does try to provide some lexicon for shua. Check it out. I'm not sure though how we can know anything about this word. [url="http://www.peshitta.org/"]http://www.peshitta.org/[/url] Put 09w4

and click "lexeme" and then hit search. Hit pulls it up, and gives some verses that it claims is used in...

[phatcatholic]

your directions were hard to follow, but i figured it out.

1. go to www.peshitta.org
2. click on "Tools"
3. click on "Lexicon"
4. search for "09w4"
5. click the "Lexeme" Aramaic search field
6. click "Search"

my question is: which one of the words that comes up is the one that is supposed to be Shu`a'? i'm guessing its either Word Number 20989 or 20990. also, i don't know how to read these words to know whether or not that is the actual word she is referring to. SHuOEeA has a few more letters in it.

at any rate, showing this word is used in other verses doesn't prove anything. we already know that kepha is used in both places for "rock" in Mat 16:18. also, since petros and petra have no difference in meaning, we have no basis with which to claim that using kepha for the second rock was a "translation error."

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

I see that on the lexicon it links up to the passages where it is used. Nowhere does it say it is used in Matt. 16