June 5, 2009

• Question 147 - The Difference between Petros and Petra

  Question 147 - The Difference between Petros and Petra

   

  My name is Ismael Hernandez.

   

  Here is my question:

   

  I am discussing with an Orthodox priest who insists that in Greek there is a distinction between petra and petros. Petra he says means immovable rock but there is no evidence in any ancient document of petros used that way. Petros can be a large rock but not an immovable rock. Thus, they are not cognates. Do you have any documentary evidence on this besides the verses you mention in Jesus, Peter & the Keys on the use of petra/lithos about the man stumbling on a path?

  Besides he states there is no good reason to think that in Aramaic Jesus used Kepha in both places as in the kind of Aramaic Jesus spoke the word could have been Shu’a.

  Israel,

   

  R. Sungenis: Israel, I checked again with Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon. For Petra it has rock, crag, but nothing about an immobile rock. Bauer's lexicon says the same, except for the second definition it says "stone," and uses Moulton-Milligan for support. For Petros, L&S have "a piece of rock, a stone" and Bauer has "stone." So, depending on the context, there may sometimes be a distinction between the two words. But whether there is a distinction or not, the fact remains that, grammatically speaking, Peter could not be called a Petra because Petra was a feminine name. He was called the next best thing in the masculine form, Petros. Those who try to take advantage of this grammatical fact and force a distinction in definition on the two words are going way beyond what Greek etymology will allow. Greek allows a mixing and matching of these two words, and does not always hold them distinct in every case.

   

  As for whether Jesus spoke in Aramaic, there simply is no positive proof that he did, at least not in Matthew 16. So it is useless to base arguments on the premise that Jesus used Kepha or Shua.

  • 1:41 am
  • 1 Comment