Kepha not transliterated...why?

[FCEGM]

Understanding Paul's Jewish pun gives the clue. If we read all of chapters one and two of Galatians (and 3 and 15 of 1 Cor.) we see it at work as St. Paul is precise in switching between the names "Peter" and "Kephas". The name "Kephas" (or "Cephas"), as we know, is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name "Kepha" ("Rock) - the name which Our Lord actually used for St. Peter; however, in Greek "Kephas" means something all on its own. In Greek, "Kephas" means "Head" (as in cephalopod). When St. Paul boasts of rebuking "Kephas" he is saying how he even stood up to "the Head" (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul's Greek-speaking audience. So in looking at the alternation between "Peter" and "Kephas", whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter's position of leadership, it's "Kephas" (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter's position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name "Peter" (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul's meaning is strikingly clear.

[MarcoPolo]

I don't know if this helps, but wondering why different writers use different forms can have theological significance. For instance:

Matthew 8:14 When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

Mark 1:30 Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her

Since Matthew had emphasis on Peter being the rock, his use of "Peter's house" invoke's an image of the Church. Then it is Jesus who comes in and "heals" the occupant.

It tells you something about Matthew's theology compared to Mark (or Luke's) emphasis.

[PC Master]

Originally Posted by WynCatholic

Because Rock at that time and in both languages were not used as names. to call Simon by 'Rock' you were addressing his function, His Title Name, as it were.

So you would argue that Kepha (Rock) was a title, much as Messiah was for Jesus, thereby being worthy of translation, instead of transliteration, just as Messiah was translated to Christ?

This angle actually makes a lot of sense. However, if it were indeed a title, and not a name, such as Messiah/Christ, we should expect it to be translated all of the time, and not just part of the time.

Originally Posted by FCEGM

Understanding Paul's Jewish pun gives the clue. If we read all of chapters one and two of Galatians (and 3 and 15 of 1 Cor.) we see it at work as St. Paul is precise in switching between the names "Peter" and "Kephas". The name "Kephas" (or "Cephas"), as we know, is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name "Kepha" ("Rock) - the name which Our Lord actually used for St. Peter; however, in Greek "Kephas" means something all on its own. In Greek, "Kephas" means "Head" (as in cephalopod). When St. Paul boasts of rebuking "Kephas" he is saying how he even stood up to "the Head" (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul's Greek-speaking audience. So in looking at the alternation between "Peter" and "Kephas", whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter's position of leadership, it's "Kephas" (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter's position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name "Peter" (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul's meaning is strikingly clear.

I'll definitely be reading up on this.

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

I don't know if this helps, but wondering why different writers use different forms can have theological significance. For instance:

Matthew 8:14 When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

Mark 1:30 Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her

Since Matthew had emphasis on Peter being the rock, his use of "Peter's house" invoke's an image of the Church. Then it is Jesus who comes in and "heals" the occupant.

It tells you something about Matthew's theology compared to Mark (or Luke's) emphasis.

While I'm not disputing your claim, this does raise the question of what Mark was trying to emphasize here? Why was he not paying special attention to Simon's status as the rock of the church, especially having been a disciple of Simon? What was Mark's focus?

[toaslan]

Originally Posted by PC Master

So you would argue that Kepha (Rock) was a title, much as Messiah was for Jesus, thereby being worthy of translation, instead of transliteration, just as Messiah was translated to Christ?

This angle actually makes a lot of sense. However, if it were indeed a title, and not a name, such as Messiah/Christ, we should expect it to be translated all of the time, and not just part of the time.

The angle strikes me as sensible as well.

But PC's leap, if I understand it, is:
that once we see appear
the translation Petros from Kepha
rather than the transliteration Cephas from Kepha
we should see from that point forward the translation favored over the transliteration--
well, that is a leap.

Joshua/Yah-ho-shu-a (Yashua) is transliterated from this Hebrew through Greek as Yasous/Iesous into English as Jesus. The name throughout would be translated "Jehovah is salvation." The given name "Jesus" is used in the NT until after the Resurrection, when the title/name "Christ" becomes more prominent but the use of "Jesus" also continues (see Acts 2:31-32).

(And the English Christ is transliterated through the Latin Christus and the Greek Christos; but translated from the Hebrew Messias; all meaning "anointed".)

Anyway, from the example of "Jesus" and "Christ" it seems that having a Title/Name doesn't short-circuit use of the given name. I'm not sure if the example says anything about translations trumping transliterations.

So Simon can sometimes be called by the translation Petros from Kepha, and sometimes by the transliteration Cephas from Kepha.

Why not?

[aussie_stockman]

In John 1:42, the gospel writer supplies a translation for the word Kepha for his Greek-reading audience that might not have any idea what the Aramaic word Kepha meant. ("...you shall be called Kepha (which is translated Petros)).... So, "Petros" is indeed a TRANSLATION - and NOT an attempt to create a new "nickname" in Greek.

My guess is that Simon was (probably) called "Kepha" in his Aramaic-speaking circles, but when various authors were writing about him, or quoting him in Greek, they would sometimes use "Petros" (and, sometimes not).

"Petros" was a seldom-used word in Koine Greek, but it was indeed used... Twice it was used as "stones for throwing" in II Maccabees (which was written about the time of Christ). It seems like a very infrequent usage, but on the other hand, it was actually used with more frequency than the word "audiophile" is used in English (less than once per one-million words of text), yet we all know - or have at least probably heard - the word audiophile.

So, "Petros" was indeed a translation (as the gospel writer states), and whether it fits with ones particular dogma or not, it meant "small stone" (as is evidenced by it's usage in II Macc, written contemporarily).

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by aussie_stockman

In John 1:42, the gospel writer supplies a translation for the word Kepha for his Greek-reading audience that might not have any idea what the Aramaic word Kepha meant. ("...you shall be called Kepha (which is translated Petros)).... So, "Petros" is indeed a TRANSLATION - and NOT an attempt to create a new "nickname" in Greek.

My guess is that Simon was (probably) called "Kepha" in his Aramaic-speaking circles, but when various authors were writing about him, or quoting him in Greek, they would sometimes use "Petros" (and, sometimes not).

"Petros" was a seldom-used word in Koine Greek, but it was indeed used... Twice it was used as "stones for throwing" in II Maccabees (which was written about the time of Christ). It seems like a very infrequent usage, but on the other hand, it was actually used with more frequency than the word "audiophile" is used in English (less than once per one-million words of text), yet we all know - or have at least probably heard - the word audiophile.

So, "Petros" was indeed a translation (as the gospel writer states), and whether it fits with ones particular dogma or not, it meant "small stone" (as is evidenced by it's usage in II Macc, written contemporarily).

Pulling out my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible from my Protestant days, one reads for Petros (in part): "...a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037)..." (Pg. 77 in the Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, attached.)

Looking at "3037" we see that it refers to Lithos, "a stone..." (Ibid., pg. 59)

So, I disagree with your rendering of Petros as 'small stone.'

Jesus isn't referring to Peter as a 'small stone' in St. Matthew 16:18-19, especially when one realizes that, as one author puts it:

"Since the Aramaic Kephas means 'rock' and 'rock' only; it could not possibly ever mean 'stone'. From this evidence we can conclude that Jesus must have meant that when he renamed Simon, Peter, he meant to apply the title 'Rock', petra, to him."

Source: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/origin_papacy/

Perhaps this is the discussion that the OP wished to avoid, and I apologize for that, but I did feel that this needed a response.

P.S. not that it may make much difference, but my understanding is that II Maccabees predates Christ by about 2 centuries.

[Mintaka]

Sometimes it's Iacob. Sometimes it's Iacobus.

Not every language uses "Jesus," either. Plenty use "Jesu," or other variants.

Names are always getting transliterated, translated, and fiddled around with. Always. Humans just love to do it.

And considering that there are about five to ten different names that Peter gets called (if you include the many, many patronymics and family-relation names he has), it's not surprising that people called him Cephas and Simon Peter and Peter, as well as "Bar Jonah" and "Andrew's brother Peter" and all the rest.

[aussie_stockman]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Pulling out my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible from my Protestant days, one reads for Petros (in part): "...a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037)..." (Pg. 77 in the Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, attached.)

Looking at "3037" we see that it refers to Lithos, "a stone..." (Ibid., pg. 59)

So, I disagree with your rendering of Petros as 'small stone.'

Jesus isn't referring to Peter as a 'small stone' in St. Matthew 16:18-19, especially when one realizes that, as one author puts it:

"Since the Aramaic Kephas means 'rock' and 'rock' only; it could not possibly ever mean 'stone'. From this evidence we can conclude that Jesus must have meant that when he renamed Simon, Peter, he meant to apply the title 'Rock', petra, to him."

Source: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/origin_papacy/

Perhaps this is the discussion that the OP wished to avoid, and I apologize for that, but I did feel that this needed a response.

P.S. not that it may make much difference, but my understanding is that II Maccabees predates Christ by about 2 centuries.

First, Strongs Concordance is a CONCORDANCE, not an exhaustive lexicon...

It is true that "lithos" was the more common Greek word for stone, but the author you quote, who says "Since the Aramaic Kephas means 'rock' and 'rock' only; it could not possibly ever mean 'stone'. From this evidence we can conclude that Jesus must have meant that when he renamed Simon, Peter, he meant to apply the title 'Rock', petra, to him" is entirely WRONG.

The word kepha is defined in the VERY exhaustive Jastrows Dictionary (Aramaic) as:

rock, stone, ball..; "which rock (when bored) will give forth water and which...";
pearls, jewels; fire-balls; hail-stones; "...thou must remove these stones...";
kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground);
weighed the stones;
precious stones, jewelry; amber; "has he jewelry suspended on it" (his opinion) ie, must his opinion be accepted?;
gave jewelry in trust; give me my jewelry back;
shore, border; like its shore; the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); was hiding himself at the sea-shore; ...the shores of... touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores;
Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra); arch, vault; bundle, sheaf

Secondly - regarding II Maccabees:

"There is a reference in ch. xv. 37 to the Book of Esther, which would preclude any earlier
date of authorship than about 130 B.C. (see Cornill, "Einleitung," p. 252). On the other
hand, II Maccabees was known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Peak, in "The Century Bible," p. 223) and to Philo (see Schürer, l.c. p. 214). The work, therefore, must have been composed about the beginning of the common era."
[Jewish Encyclopedia; 1906]

Maccabees "must have been composed about the beginning of the common era".

"petros" is defined in the VERY exhaustive Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicion as:

A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. 'leave no stone unturned'; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed

It was used three times in Koine Greek: Twice in II Maccabees (and both times, it was used to refer to stones used as weapons - "used by warriors"), and the third time, it was used in John 1:42, as the given definition for kepha.

I'd like to humbly suggest you look at http://www.freetowne.com/pppk

It's just linguistics analysis, but it provides all kinds of references and sources.

[aussie_stockman]

Originally Posted by FCEGM

Understanding Paul's Jewish pun gives the clue. If we read all of chapters one and two of Galatians (and 3 and 15 of 1 Cor.) we see it at work as St. Paul is precise in switching between the names "Peter" and "Kephas". The name "Kephas" (or "Cephas"), as we know, is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name "Kepha" ("Rock) - the name which Our Lord actually used for St. Peter; however, in Greek "Kephas" means something all on its own. In Greek, "Kephas" means "Head" (as in cephalopod). When St. Paul boasts of rebuking "Kephas" he is saying how he even stood up to "the Head" (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul's Greek-speaking audience. So in looking at the alternation between "Peter" and "Kephas", whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter's position of leadership, it's "Kephas" (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter's position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name "Peter" (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul's meaning is strikingly clear.

The most complete Greek-English lexicon (covering Homeric, classical and koine Greek) in current existence is a two-volume work of more than 2,000 pages compiled by .Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, published first in 1843. It is based on examination of thousands of Greek writings from the period of Homer (about 1000 B.C.) to about A.D. 600 -- a period of nearly 1600 years, including the Septuagint and New Testament times. This lexicon lists, with examples, the common meanings of kephale. The list includes more than 25 possible figurative meanings in addition to the literal meaning of physical head of man or beast. The list does not include “authority,” “superior rank,” “leader,” “director,” or anything similar as a meaning. There is an older Greek-Latin thesaurus published in 1851, but written primarily in the sixteenth century. It also gives no meanings such as “authority” or “supreme over.” Apparently, ordinary readers of Greek literature during New Testament times would not think of “final authority,” “superior rank” or “director” as common meanings for the word translated “head.”

The entry looks somewhat like this in the 1940 edition of Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie lexicon:

I. a. Physical head of man or beast. Frequently used with preposition such as “down over the head,” or “above the head” or “from head to foot” or “head foremost” or “thrust headlong.” [In our day we would say “head first.”]

b. As the noblest part, periphrasis for the whole person.

c. Life, as in “staking their heads on...”

d.. In imprecation, as in “on my head be it!” [Or Paul’s response in Acts 18:6 to the Jews who opposed him in Macedonia, “Your blood be upon your own heads!”]

II. Of things, extremity.

a. In botany, head of garlic, tubers.

b. In anatomy, base of heart, but also apex; of muscles, origin.

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel; coping of a wall; capital of a column.

d. In plural, source, origin of a river, but singular, mouth; generally, source, origin, starting point.

e. Extremity of a plot of land.

III. A bust of Homer.

IV. Wig, head-dress.

V. Metaphorical

a. Piece de resistance [i.e. main dish of a meal]

b. Crown, completion, consummation.

c. Sum, total.

d. Hand of men; right hand of phalanx

e. Astronomy, Aries [as the gable of the world]

The lexicon gives references to Greek literature for each of these meanings. The lexicographers (with various editions spanning more than 100 years, from 1836 to 1940) apparently found no examples in their study of Greek literature where kephale could have the meaning “one having authority,” “supreme over” or anything similar. (Where other recognized meanings are possible, one cannot assume that the word kephale means chief, authority or superior rank.) These scholars living in 1800s and early 1900s surely could not be accused of being blinded by the “feminist movement,” and thus ignoring references in Greek that supported kephale as meaning “authority.” [1]



What follows is more research concerning the usual meanings for the Greek word kephale:

.

Including its 1968 supplement, the Liddell and Scott lexicon lists forty-eight separate English equivalents of figurative meanings of kephale. None of them implies leader, authority, first or supreme. To confirm that “authority” was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent specialists in ancient Greek literature. They all agreed that the idea of “authority” was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

An examination of other Greek lexicons further supports the Mickelsen’s thesis. None of the following lexicons lists any examples related to “leader” or “authority”: Moulton and Milligan, Friedrich Preisigke, Pierre Chantraine, and E. A. Sophocles gives only one such example from A.D. 952. S.C. Woodhouse lists twenty Greek equivalents for “chief” (p. 129) and twenty-six Greek equivalents for “authority” (p. 54), but kephale is not listed as an equivalent for either of these or for “leader.” [2]

[thenobes]

Originally Posted by PC Master

An interesting question came up in another thread. Here it is:

In the gospels, Simon is supposedly called Kepha, translated into Greek as Petros, from which we transliterate (through French, I believe?) the name Peter.


My question is why would the name Kepha ever have been translated to Petros, and not be consistently translitterated as Cephas (as John and Paul both did in at least some instances)?

Simon, Jesus, Israel, Jacob, and so many other names were transliterated (sound for sound) into other languages from their originals. Why not do the same with Kepha? Does it make sense at all for this particular name to have been a translation of a Hebrew/Aramaic name's meaning instead of a transliteration of the name itself?

Seems the logical reason is that the statement "Thou art rock and upon this rock I will build my church" is a very clear and expressive statement in both Aramaic and Greek IF the word "rock" in each case is translated into the language that is being used.

So a Greek would say "...petros...petra..." while a Jew would say "...kepha...kepha...".

What subsequently happened is that in the hundreds of years following, ,the Greek translation of the statement became the extant one, and remained that way, moving into the common lexicon of the Church..

peace
steve

[aussie_stockman]

Originally Posted by thenobes

Seems the logical reason is that the statement "Thou art rock and upon this rock I will build my church" is a very clear and expressive statement in both Aramaic and Greek IF the word "rock" in each case is translated into the language that is being used.

So a Greek would say "...petros...petra..." while a Jew would say "...kepha...kepha...".

What subsequently happened is that in the hundreds of years following, ,the Greek translation of the statement became the extant one, and remained that way, moving into the common lexicon of the Church..

peace
steve

Actually, no, this is not correct. A Greek would say "petros... petros..."

Cephas is an Anglicization of Kephas, which is a Grecized Kepha. Petros is - whether we like it or not - the TRANSLATION of Kepha, as provided by John 1:42.

The FACT is this: NOBODY KNOWS what Jesus said in Aramaic. It's just a GUESS.

He could have said "kepha... kepha..."

BUT - he could have equally said "petros... petra..." because both words had become "borrowed" words in Hebrew (at least, according to Dr. David Bivins... but, that's just his theory)

Maybe, just maybe - Jesus used two different words in Aramaic...

Fact is, we got NO IDEA.

All we got is what it says in Greek... "petros... petra....."

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by aussie_stockman

First, Strongs Concordance is a CONCORDANCE, not an exhaustive lexicon...

It is true that "lithos" was the more common Greek word for stone, but the author you quote, who says "Since the Aramaic Kephas means 'rock' and 'rock' only; it could not possibly ever mean 'stone'. From this evidence we can conclude that Jesus must have meant that when he renamed Simon, Peter, he meant to apply the title 'Rock', petra, to him" is entirely WRONG.

The word kepha is defined in the VERY exhaustive Jastrows Dictionary (Aramaic) as:

rock, stone, ball..; "which rock (when bored) will give forth water and which...";
pearls, jewels; fire-balls; hail-stones; "...thou must remove these stones...";
kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground);
weighed the stones;
precious stones, jewelry; amber; "has he jewelry suspended on it" (his opinion) ie, must his opinion be accepted?;
gave jewelry in trust; give me my jewelry back;
shore, border; like its shore; the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); was hiding himself at the sea-shore; ...the shores of... touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores;
Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra); arch, vault; bundle, sheaf

Secondly - regarding II Maccabees:

"There is a reference in ch. xv. 37 to the Book of Esther, which would preclude any earlier
date of authorship than about 130 B.C. (see Cornill, "Einleitung," p. 252). On the other
hand, II Maccabees was known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Peak, in "The Century Bible," p. 223) and to Philo (see Schürer, l.c. p. 214). The work, therefore, must have been composed about the beginning of the common era."
[Jewish Encyclopedia; 1906]

Maccabees "must have been composed about the beginning of the common era".

"petros" is defined in the VERY exhaustive Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicion as:

A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. 'leave no stone unturned'; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed

It was used three times in Koine Greek: Twice in II Maccabees (and both times, it was used to refer to stones used as weapons - "used by warriors"), and the third time, it was used in John 1:42, as the given definition for kepha.

I'd like to humbly suggest you look at http://www.freetowne.com/pppk

It's just linguistics analysis, but it provides all kinds of references and sources.

First let me say that I am not a Biblical language scholar (I teach H.S. Spanish) and that I am learning along the way here. Also, I agree that my use of the Greek Dictionary in my Concordance wasn't the best source to use. With that being said, here are some of my thoughts:

Even if petros, kepha, and petra can mean "small stone" (and I am not qualified to determine that) we are still not at your statement that I take issue with; namely, that "...'Petros' ... meant 'small stone'..."

At best the semantic range would include that (according to your arguments/sources) but that is a far cry from saying that that is the only meaning, and that that is the meaning in St. Matthew 16:18-19. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems that you were implying that it meant "small stone" and nothing more. None of what you have cited from your Lexicon(s) would contradict the Catholic interpretation of the text; especially when one considers that (if I am not mistaken) petra could not be used for Peter (a man) in the Greek language. Are you denying that petros can mean "rock"?

Re: II Maccabees

I suppose we could go back and forth w/ various sources, but fwiw:

"J. Alberto Soggin writes: ... 'The author, Jason of Cyrene (in Cyrenaica), seems to have been a diaspora Jew who lived at Alexandria about 100 BC.' (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 469)"

Source: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2maccabees.html

"Neil J. McEleney writes: 'The second letter, 2 Mc 1:10-2:18, which is undated, is considered substantially authentic and a literary unity by Abel and Starcky (op. cit., 27-30), who assign it to a contemporary of Judas writing in 164.'"

Source: Ibid.

"David A. deSilva writes: 'Assessing the date of the work is difficult. Jason's original history must post-date 161 B.C.E. and may even have been written just before, or shortly after, Judas's death. Goldstein (1983: 71-83), however, places Jason's work as late as 85 B.C.E., after 1 Maccabees. The epitome is generally held to have been composed prior to 50 C.E., given its influence on 4 Maccabees and Hebrews, and probably before 63 B.C.E., given the positive portrayal of relations with Rome (4:11; 8:10, 36; 11:34-36) (van Henten 1997: 51)...'"

Source: Ibid


"The second letter must have been written soon after the death of Antiochus, before the exact circumstances concerning it had become known in Jerusalem, therefore about 163 B.C. That the Antiochus there mentioned is Antiochus IV and not Antiochus III, as many Catholic commentators maintain, is clear from the fact that his death is related in connection with the celebration of the Feast of the Dedication, and that he is represented as an enemy of the Jews, which is not true of Antiochus III."

Source: Bechtel, Florentine. "The Books of Machabees." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 Jun. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09495a.htm>.

[aussie_stockman]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Even if petros, kepha, and petra can mean "small stone" (and I am not qualified to determine that) we are still not at your statement that I take issue with; namely, that "...'Petros' ... meant 'small stone'..."

At best the semantic range would include that (according to your arguments/sources) but that is a far cry from saying that that is the only meaning, and that that is the meaning in St. Matthew 16:18-19. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems that you were implying that it meant "small stone" and nothing more.... Are you denying that petros can mean "rock"?

Well, really, I'm not denying anything at all... I'm just saying that in all their studies of thousands of pages of Greek text, Liddell-Scott-Jones found that petros was used to mean:

A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. 'leave no stone unturned'; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed

*shrug*... My guess is that, looking at the above definition, they didn't find anyplace in those thousands of Greek docs that said "petros = rock". Maybe you know of some ancient Greek texts that use "petros = rock"? If so, please advise... I love getting new info... (you might want to check out the research at freetowne.com/pppk on this)

And - if I remember correctly, I was just pointing out that the use of the word petros in 2 Macc (which was written in Koine Greek) was perfectly consistant with the primary definition of "a stone used by warriors"... So, the MEANING of petros had not changed from Attic Greek to Koine Greek...

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

None of what you have cited from your Lexicon(s) would contradict the Catholic interpretation of the text; especially when one considers that (if I am not mistaken) petra could not be used for Peter (a man) in the Greek language.

Actually, petra could well have been used for the name of a man in the Greek language... Sure, it's feminine... But so is the name Acacia, and it's a mans name. (it's a feminine noun meaning "guilelessness" or "innocense")

As an "aside", I'd add that Kepha is feminine, but it's what Jesus called Peter... Didn't matter if it was a feminine noun or not...

There are LOTS of "male" Greek names that have feminine endings to them: Acacia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba (to name a few)

Same thing happens in virtually EVERY genderized language. In Spanish, the name Rocio (which means "dew") is used as a womans name, but it is a masculine noun...

So - yeh, in fact, petra COULD have been used as a mans name in Greek. I mean, there was not, and still is not, any kind of "rule" that says otherwise... *shrug*

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Re: II Maccabees

I suppose we could go back and forth w/ various sources, but fwiw:

"J. Alberto Soggin writes: ... 'The author, Jason of Cyrene (in Cyrenaica), seems to have been a diaspora Jew who lived at Alexandria about 100 BC.' (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 469)"

Source: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2maccabees.html

"Neil J. McEleney writes: 'The second letter, 2 Mc 1:10-2:18, which is undated, is considered substantially authentic and a literary unity by Abel and Starcky (op. cit., 27-30), who assign it to a contemporary of Judas writing in 164.'"

Source: Ibid.

"David A. deSilva writes: 'Assessing the date of the work is difficult. Jason's original history must post-date 161 B.C.E. and may even have been written just before, or shortly after, Judas's death. Goldstein (1983: 71-83), however, places Jason's work as late as 85 B.C.E., after 1 Maccabees. The epitome is generally held to have been composed prior to 50 C.E., given its influence on 4 Maccabees and Hebrews, and probably before 63 B.C.E., given the positive portrayal of relations with Rome (4:11; 8:10, 36; 11:34-36) (van Henten 1997: 51)...'"

Source: Ibid


"The second letter must have been written soon after the death of Antiochus, before the exact circumstances concerning it had become known in Jerusalem, therefore about 163 B.C. That the Antiochus there mentioned is Antiochus IV and not Antiochus III, as many Catholic commentators maintain, is clear from the fact that his death is related in connection with the celebration of the Feast of the Dedication, and that he is represented as an enemy of the Jews, which is not true of Antiochus III."

Source: Bechtel, Florentine. "The Books of Machabees." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 Jun. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09495a.htm>.

[/quote]

There's really nothing to go back and forth on this one... I myself was surprised to see that a date of "at about the beginning of the common era" was given in the Jewish Encyclopedia... *shrug*

The original quote that I was answering to said that "II Macc was written about 200 BC"...

Obviously, it wasnt, since the Macc Revolt didnt happen till about 164 BC...

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by aussie_stockman

Well, really, I'm not denying anything at all... I'm just saying that in all their studies of thousands of pages of Greek text, Liddell-Scott-Jones found that petros was used to mean:

A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. 'leave no stone unturned'; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed

*shrug*... My guess is that, looking at the above definition, they didn't find anyplace in those thousands of Greek docs that said "petros = rock". Maybe you know of some ancient Greek texts that use "petros = rock"? If so, please advise... I love getting new info... (you might want to check out the research at freetowne.com/pppk on this)

And - if I remember correctly, I was just pointing out that the use of the word petros in 2 Macc (which was written in Koine Greek) was perfectly consistant with the primary definition of "a stone used by warriors"... So, the MEANING of petros had not changed from Attic Greek to Koine Greek...




Actually, petra could well have been used for the name of a man in the Greek language... Sure, it's feminine... But so is the name Acacia, and it's a mans name. (it's a feminine noun meaning "guilelessness" or "innocense")

As an "aside", I'd add that Kepha is feminine, but it's what Jesus called Peter... Didn't matter if it was a feminine noun or not...

There are LOTS of "male" Greek names that have feminine endings to them: Acacia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba (to name a few)

Same thing happens in virtually EVERY genderized language. In Spanish, the name Rocio (which means "dew") is used as a womans name, but it is a masculine noun...

So - yeh, in fact, petra COULD have been used as a mans name in Greek. I mean, there was not, and still is not, any kind of "rule" that says otherwise... *shrug*

There's really nothing to go back and forth on this one... I myself was surprised to see that a date of "at about the beginning of the common era" was given in the Jewish Encyclopedia... *shrug*

The original quote that I was answering to said that "II Macc was written about 200 BC"...

Obviously, it wasnt, since the Macc Revolt didnt happen till about 164 BC...

[/quote]


________________________________________ ________________



Start LionHeart777's response (for clarification):


I don't have access to any other Greek Lexicons, but I think even in the one you cite I see "(a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark" as possibly approximating "rock" since, if I understand correctly, the object in question forms a landmark.

Here are a couple of Protestant scholars who see petros and petra as more or less interchangeable:

However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the pevtra is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between pevtra and Pevtro" is rather insignificant. He asserts:

The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.” Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church. Only Peter is mentioned in this verse, and the pun on his name of course applied to him alone.91

Cullman agrees with Ridderbos’ assessment. He also maintains that since the word pevtra is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-a), the New Testament chose a less usual Greek word which had the masculine ending (-o") for the apostle: Pevtro".92 Cullman goes on to state that there is no essential difference between pevtra and Pevtro", for even though pevtra denoted a “live rock” and Pevtro" meant a “detached stone," the distinction was not strictly observed.93 In several instances, pevtra is used with the meaning “piece of rock” or “stone.”94

Source: http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetic...n-matthew-1618

Re masc/fem names:

I see the point you are getting at but w/ Petros and Petra both masc. and fem. are available. Is that the case in names like Acacia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba? Or are they just one version of the name that works for both men and women (such as Kelly, Shannon, or Shelly in English)? If so, I think you have a better argument, or if you could find Greek men named Petra.

In Spanish, the equivalent would be like John for example. Juan and Juana are available. You would not call a Spanish man Juana. I believe this would be the same in Greek, you would not call a Greek man Petra.


Re II Maccabees:

I perhaps made the mistake of conflating 2nd century B.C. w/ 200 B.C. in my head, or was approximating..or had the date of the events in mind and conflated that w/ the date. (Like I said, I'm on a learning curve here.)

--Nick

[LionHeart777]

Also,

are you sure Kepha is feminine in Aramaic?