Something I've been curious about

[Dream]

In the orignal translation of the Bible, the word "Peter" and "rock" are the same word. So Matthew 16:18 would actually would look like: thou art kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church.

So how is it that the word kepha got translated into two separate words: Peter and rock?

 

[Alexis OCA]

Peter’s authority is rooted in Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 16 that he is the rock upon which the Lord’s Church was to be built. Now I know what some of you are saying: "But Peter can’t be the rock, because in the original Greek of Matthew’s Gospel, there are two different words that are used. Jesus says to Peter, ‘You are petros [which means a little pebble], and on this petra [which means huge stone] I will build my Church.’ So Jesus is really saying, ‘Peter, you’re just a weak human being [a little pebble], and on this huge rock [your confession of faith in me as the Messiah], on that rock of faith I will build my Church. So Peter is not the rock."

This interpretation is wrong for two reasons: First of all, most scholars (both Protestant and Catholic) will tell you that Jesus probably didn’t speak to his disciples in Greek. He spoke to them in Aramaic; and in Aramaic there is no distinction between "big rock" and "little pebble." In Aramaic, there is only one word for rock--kepha. Which means that Jesus actually said, "You are kepha, and on this kepha [meaning Peter himself] I will build my Church." So why did Matthew use petros in his gospel? Simple: petra is the female form of the Greek word for rock. You do not use the female form a word to name a man; you use the masculine form of the word, which in this case is [you guessed it] petros! And by the way, most honest Protestant Scripture scholars will now admit that this is true: that Peter is in fact the rock.

 

[Dream]

But when translated into English, Peter and rock are two copmletly separate words...

 

[Alexis OCA]

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

 

[Rising_Suns]

But when translated into English, Peter and rock are two copmletly separate words...

Separate words to us, yes, but two different contexts of the same word in Aramaic. It seems the translators were simply taking the context of the dialogue into account (as opposed to saying "you are Rock and upon this Peter I will build my Church", or something else).

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[Dream]

Alright, I guess that makes sense.

The whole language translation thing confuses me. I guess I need more of a background in the English language to understand the roots of most words...

 

[Dream]

The more I think about it, the more strange it seems that somebody would have a name that is another literal word in the same language. I mean, my name is Craig, which I am told also means rock. But the thought that my name would literally be Rock seems rather strange.

Oh well, you've got to invent names somehow...

 

[Rising_Suns]

The more I think about it, the more strange it seems that somebody would have a name that is another literal word in the same language. I mean, my name is Craig, which I am told also means rock. But the thought that my name would literally be Rock seems rather strange.

Oh well, you've got to invent names somehow...

Perhaps this aspect of the early linguistics could be likened to that of the Native American/indians of today; having names after pre-existing words to describe things in nature, objects, etc. I would expect most early cultures with young languages did this until they ran out of names and had to start making up new words for names.

 

[Paul S]

The more I think about it, the more strange it seems that somebody would have a name that is another literal word in the same language. I mean, my name is Craig, which I am told also means rock. But the thought that my name would literally be Rock seems rather strange.

Oh well, you've got to invent names somehow...

It does seem weird, but many names do have meanings (now mostly forgotten, unless you look them up) in the languages they came from.

The Latin here is Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. The same word is used, except for the gender - Peter, a man, cannot have a feminine name. The original Greek, as mentioned, uses Petros and petra.

Even in English, we have the name Rocky.

We could translate it as "You are Rock (Kepha) and on this rock (kepha) I will build my church."