Skip to content

Category Archives: Matthew

Matthew 16:18

Peter Streitenberger wrote:
Maybe this passage explains the Name “Petros” out of the function of Simon as a Stone built on the rock (I’m just reasoning a bit)? You’re a Stone and that’s why I call you Petros. Definitely a play of words – but what comes first – the Stone or the Name?

Cf. John 1:42:

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν (= Σίμωνα) πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

There has been considerable discussion over the question whether Κηφᾶς/Cephas, the Aramaic equivalent of Greek πέτρος, is really identical to the apostle Πέτρος, as he is generally thought to be. No doubt Matthew does “etymologize”, but Matthew’s account of the naming and the occasion with which it’s associated doesn’t seem to square with John’s, It’s hard to escape the conclusion that for Matthew the name is associated with the solid foundation of the ἐκκλησία.

Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — November 27th, 2013, 9:57 am

Matthew 13:46


Stephen Carlson » February 26th, 2013, 11:23 am Alan Patterson wrote:I will reread your excellent post, but I want to first thank you for such a detailed answer. To give me a head start, are there any unambiguous examples of 6, which partially reads: it’s basically equivalent to an aorist where no relevance to the current […]

Matthew 3:2


/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε Posted: 19 Sep 2012 12:32 AM PDT Scott, Let me try to distinguish some concepts. Most linguists today adopt a bidimensional aspectual system that distinguishes “aspect” (a.k.a. grammatical aspect or “viewpoint” aspect) and “Aktionsart” (a.k.a. lexical aspect or “situation type” [Carlota Smith] or “procedural characteristics” [Buist Fanning]). […]