(Matthew 16:18) This Is Appendix 147 From The Companion Bible. As explained in the notes, the two Greek words
petros and petra are quite distinct, the
former being masculine gender, and the latter feminine. The latter denotes
a rock or cliff, in situ, firm and immovable. The former
denotes a fragment of it, which one traveller may move with his foot in
one direction and another may throw in another. This former word
petros is the Greek translation a kephas, a
stone, which was Peter's name in Aramaic, as was his appellative
"Barjona" (John 1:42). See Appendix 94. III. 3.
It is remarkable that there is only one other
instance (Luke 22: There is thus a special significance in the use of
the word "Peter" in Matthew 16: It was not Peter, the man, who would be the
foundation, for, as we have said, petra is feminine, and
must refer to a feminine noun expressed or implied. That noun could hardly
be any other than homologia, which means a
confession; and it was Peter's confession that was the one
subject of the Father's revelation and the Son's confirmation.
Moreover, in
This is conclusive as to the interpretation. But there are other and later references to these words by AUGUSTINE (A.D. 378), and JEROME (A.D. 305), alike older than any Greek Manuscripts now extant.
In AUGUSTINE'S Sermon In die Pentecostis (Benedictine ed., tom. v. p. 1097; also Pusey's Translation, Sermons on the New Testament, vol. i. p. 215), he explains the reason for this retractation in a paraphrastic citation of the whole context :-
Some have conjectured from these words
"tu dixisti" (thou hast said it) that AUGUSTINE and JEROME must have had in
the Manuscripts from which they translated six letters, which they divided
into two words "SU EIPS"5, taking
EIPS as an abbreviation of EIPAS ( = thou hast
said).
There must have been another division of the same six
letters into three words, which was current even then, for both these
Fathers add " It is evident, however, that these Fathers give only
a paraphrase; and do not profess to be giving an exact
quotation.
One thing, however, is certain, and that is our only
point in this Appendix, videlicet, that the earliest references made to
this passage disclaim all idea of its having any reference to the apostle
Peter, but only to H
1 ei de epi ton hena ekeinon Petron nomizeis hupo tou Theou okiodomeisthai ten pasan ekklesian monon, ti oun phesais peri Ioannou, tou tes brontes, e hekastou ton apostolon. 2 "Quid est quod ait? Et ego dico tibi tu mihi dixisti (tu es Christus filius Dei vivi); et ego dico tibi quia TU mihi dixisti (tu es Christus filius Dei vivi); et ego dico tibi (non sermone casso et nullum habenti opus, sed dico tibi, quia meum dixisse, fecisse est) quia tu es Petrus; et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam." 3 "Dixi in quodam loco de apostolo Petro, quod in illo, quasi in petra, fundata sit ecclesia; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est, ut super hunc intelligetur quem confessus est Petrus : horum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligat lector." (Italics, ours.) 4 "Cum interrogasset ipse Dominus discipulos suos, quis ab hominibus diceretur, et aliorum opiniones recolendo dixissent; quod alii eum dicerent Ioannem, alii Eliam, alii Ieremiam, aut unum ex prophetis, ait illis, 'Vos autem quem Me esse dictis?' Et Petrus, unus pro ceteris, unus pro omnibus, 'Tu es, inquit, Christus filius Dei vivi.' Hoc, optime, veracissime, merito tale responsum accipere meruit : 'Beatus es, Simon Bar Ionae, quia non tibi revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater Meus qui in coelis est : et Ego dico tibi, quia tu dixisti ' : Mihi dixisti audi; dedisti confessionem. Recipe benedictionem ergo : 'Et dico tibi, Tu es Petrus-et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam'". 5 It will be seen from Appendix 94. V. i. 3 that in the Greek manuscripts there was no division between the letters or words until the ninth century. |