Intriguing, Scott, but let's remember to restrict the discussion to Greek vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 16th, 2018, 7:08 pm
Here’s some historical background from Michael Heiser’s book THE UNSEEN REALM Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible Michael S. Heiser pgg 283-284. Heiser offers an intriguing possibility for what the rock is. In short the rock is the geographical location, Mt. Hermon and the gates of hell are Bashan. Jesus is telegraphing a theological point by his words at Matthew 16:13-20: “GROUND ZERO: The Gates of Hell The spiritual skirmishes against the powers of darkness are evident throughout Jesus’ ministry. One of the more dramatic is described in Matthew 16:13–20 . Jesus goes with his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asks the famous question, “Who do people say that I am?” Peter answers, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus commends Peter: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ( Matt 16:17–18 ESV ). This passage is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics, who reference it to argue that the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and thus the first pope) and those who oppose that idea. There’s actually something much more cosmic going on here. The location of the incident—Caesarea Philippi—and the reference to the “gates of hell” provide the context for the “rock” of which Jesus is speaking. The location of Caesarea Philippi should be familiar from our earlier discussions about the wars against the giant clans. Caesarea Philippi is adjacent to the Pharpar River. Noting this geography, we can see exactly where Jesus was when he uttered the famous words about “this rock” and the “gates of hell” to Peter. Caesarea Philippi was located in the northern part of the Old Testament region of Bashan, the “place of the serpent,” at the foot of Mount Hermon. 10 Things hadn’t changed much by Jesus’ day, at least in terms of spiritual control. You may have noticed on these maps that Caesarea Philippi was also called “Panias.” The early church historian Eusebius notes: “Until today the mount in front of Panias and Lebanon is known as Hermon and it is respected by nations as a sanctuary. The site was famous in the ancient world as a center of the worship of Pan and for a temple to the high god Zeus, considered in Jesus’ day to be incarnate in Augustus Caesar. 12 As one authority notes: More than twenty temples have been surveyed on Mt. Hermon and its environs. This is an unprecedented number in comparison with other regions of the Phoenician coast. They appear to be the ancient cult sites of the Mt. Hermon population and represent the Canaanite/Phoenician concept of open-air cult centers dedicated, evidently, to the celestial gods. 13 The reference in the quotation to “celestial gods” takes our minds back to the “host of heaven,” the sons of God who were put in authority over the nations at Babel ( Deut 32:8–9 ) who were not to be worshiped by Israelites ( Deut 4:19–20 ; 17:3 ; 29:25 ). The basis for Catholicism’s contention that the Church is built on Peter’s leadership is that his name means “stone.” 14 For sure there is wordplay going on in Peter’s confession, but I would suggest there is also an important double entendre: the “rock” refers to the mountain location where Jesus makes the statement. When viewed from this perspective, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, at “this rock” (this mountain Mount Hermon). Why? This place was considered the “gates of hell,” the gateway to the realm of the dead, in Old Testament times. 15 The theological messaging couldn’t be more dramatic. Jesus says he will build his church—and the “gates of hell” will not prevail against it. We often think of this phrase as though God’s people are in a posture of having to bravely fend off Satan and his demons. This simply isn’t correct. Gates are defensive structures, not offensive weapons. The kingdom of God is the aggressor. 16 Jesus begins at ground zero in the cosmic geography of both testaments to announce the great reversal. It is the gates of hell that are under assault and they will not hold up against the Church. Hell will one day be Satan’s tomb.” Statistics: Posted by Scott Lawson — July 16th, 2018, 6:00 pm
Well, I see you've come a long way from the your "humble introduction," and since January 17th of this year you have become quite the expert. Wondering how much more of the NT than John and 1st John, Mark and Jude that you've read? You have not, in fact, answered my arguments, you have only repeated your assertions in somewhat different words. 1) No, being part of a G-S construction is not an exception the rule, but shows something of the usage of καί. 2) You really want to say that ἀγάπῃ and πνεύματί τε πραΰτητος are "similar or the same types of things?" In that case διδάσκειν καὶ κηρύσσειν (Matt 11:1) are similar or the same type of things, or even better, πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν (Matt 10:10), since νόσος and μαλακία are practical synonyms. In fact for 1 Cor 4:21 two distinctly different things are joined, they are not "the same thing" and do not share the same referent, and in the two examples I just cited, distinctly similar or the same things are joined. If you need another example with τε, consider Acts 23:10, ἁρπάσαι αὐτὸν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἄγειν τε εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν. Do you want to argue that "taking him out of their midst" and "leading him to the camp" are "similar" or "the same thing?" I would suggest at this point also that you avoid expressions like "back at ya" in discussions on this forum. They don't help your case at all. Citing the Greek and making your arguments are sufficient. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 13th, 2018, 6:42 am
Well, I see you've come a long way from the your "humble introduction," and since January 17th of this year you have become quite the expert. Wondering how much more of the NT than John and 1st John, Mark and Jude that you've read? You have not, in fact, answered my arguments, you have only repeated your assertions in somewhat different words. 1) No, being part of a G-S construction is not an exception the rule, but shows something of the usage of καί. 2) You really want to say that ἀγάπῃ and πνεύματί τε πραΰτητος are "similar or the same types of things?" In that case διδάσκειν καὶ κηρύσσειν (Matt 11:1) are similar or the same type of things, or even better, πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν (Matt 10:10), since νόσος and μαλακία are practical synonyms. In fact for 1 Cor 4:21 two distinctly different things are joined, they are not "the same thing" and do not share the same referent, and in the two examples I just cited, distinctly similar or the same things are joined. If you need another example with τε, consider Acts 23:10, ἁρπάσαι αὐτὸν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἄγειν τε εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν. Do you want to argue that "taking him out of their midst" and "leading him to the camp" are "similar" or "the same thing?" I would suggest at this point also that you avoid expressions like "back at ya" in discussions on this forum. They don't help your case at all. Citing the Greek and making your arguments are sufficient. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 13th, 2018, 6:42 am
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. This is not a good argument on more than one level, but particularly here καί coordinates the clauses, not the nouns. In other news, when connecting substantives, when are two items exactly the same? They may have the same referent, but they are certainly not the same. That καί can connect two nouns having the same referent is pretty easily demonstrated, e.g., τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2 Pet 1:11. Secondly, there is a great deal of overlap between τε and καί (!), ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί τε πραΰτητος (1 Cor 4:21), where καί could just as easily have been used. And let's not forget the combination τε καί...
Back at ya.This is not a good argument on more than one level
Precisely. The clauses are being equated as two different things.particularly here καί coordinates the clauses, not the nouns.
I used italics for a reason. I was giving a simple explanation. Same does not by itself fully explain the concept. Which is also why I said, "viewed as" and "similar". The reference to 2 Peter 1:11 you refer to is the Granville sharp construction. It is an exception to the rule. Even if it is not though, I said that my point in the comment was based on the assumption that the author was not utilizing stylistic choice, which could be the case here or anywhere. I don't see how 1 Cor 4:21 challenges my point. πνεύματί and πραΰτητος are being equated as two things that are viewed as similar or the same types of things by Paul. That is the significance of τε!when connecting substantives, when are two items exactly the same?
Precisely. It could have been used, but Paul instead chose to use τε to show that he viewed them as two things of the same type of things. Again, the grammatical and theological significance of τε.where καί could just as easily have been used.
There is no problem with my point here about καί and τε either. If τε and καί are used to together, it means the author is equating two things that are viewed both as the same types of things and different types of things. Statistics: Posted by PhillipLebsack — July 12th, 2018, 8:24 pmAnd let's not forget the combination τε καί
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. This is not a good argument on more than one level, but particularly here καί coordinates the clauses, not the nouns. In other news, when connecting substantives, when are two items exactly the same? They may have the same referent, but they are certainly not the same. That καί can connect two nouns having the same referent is pretty easily demonstrated, e.g., τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2 Pet 1:11. Secondly, there is a great deal of overlap between τε and καί (!), ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί τε πραΰτητος (1 Cor 4:21), where καί could just as easily have been used. And let's not forget the combination τε καί...Hi Jeffery. I'm going to argue from the discourse analysis perspective here. Reading the text here in English and even in the Greek with just a "translation" understanding can make the context appear to suggest that Jesus was referring to Peter here. However, I would like to direct your attention to the word "και". "και" is often translated as "and", but this doesn't help you understand how "και" actually functions. The purpose of "και" is typically to equate two things that are different. This is opposed to "τε" which is meant to equate two things that are viewed as the same or similar. So, with this understanding, from the discourse analysis point of view, (if you strictly go by grammar and ignore the possibilities of stylistic choice by Matthew) "συ ει Πέτρος" and "επι ταυτη τη πέτρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν" are meant to be two different things being equated, as demonstrated by the use of "και". Therefore, it is likely Jesus is not referring to Peter, but instead "ταυτη τη πέτρα" is referring to something else. I'm not saying we can know this with 100% certainty. All i'm saying is that grammatically you can argue that "ταυτη τη πέτρα" does not refer to Peter.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — July 12th, 2018, 9:54 am
Hi Jeffery. I'm going to argue from the discourse analysis perspective here. Reading the text here in English and even in the Greek with just a "translation" understanding can make the context appear to suggest that Jesus was referring to Peter here. However, I would like to direct your attention to the word "και". "και" is often translated as "and", but this doesn't help you understand how "και" actually functions. The purpose of "και" is typically to equate two things that are different. This is opposed to "τε" which is meant to equate two things that are viewed as the same or similar. So, with this understanding, from the discourse analysis point of view, (if you strictly go by grammar and ignore the possibilities of stylistic choice by Matthew) "συ ει Πέτρος" and "επι ταυτη τη πέτρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν" are meant to be two different things being equated, as demonstrated by the use of "και". Therefore, it is likely Jesus is not referring to Peter, but instead "ταυτη τη πέτρα" is referring to something else. I'm not saying we can know this with 100% certainty. All i'm saying is that grammatically you can argue that "ταυτη τη πέτρα" does not refer to Peter. Statistics: Posted by PhillipLebsack — July 12th, 2018, 8:42 am
[] Matthew 16.18 Mark Fairpo 7968 at breathemail.net Sun May 25 17:10:42 EDT 2003 [] Re: Digest, Vol 5, Issue 24 Thread closed: [] Matthew 16.18 Dear Mike,I've been collecting bits of Rocks and Stones over time, thank you for some new Greek critique, but if I may supplement your points:Adding to point 1: “and upon this PETROS I will build my church” or even "and upon *you* [HUMAS] I will build my church” - a synonymy contradicting popular Lexicons both old and new.+ It is notable that Mark, Peter's secretary/interpretor, who produced his Gospel from the vantagepoint of Peter, totally omits this exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30). Rather, Mark includes Christ's cause to spurn Peter (see Mk. 8:31-33) that Matthew omits (see Mt. 18:21-23).And more loosely on its Greek... It seems illogical to interpret a man, the first in Christ's baptism, laying only the first stone of a building (which is a transient act) the foundation upon which it is built (which is an abiding thing). For PETRA (rock) is not derived nor so called from Peter, but Simon son of Jona from PETRA, confessing Christ as "the living Stone-rejected by men but chosen by God" (1Pet 2:4-8). IMHO, a proverbial house of mirrors Eph. 2:20-21 (cf. Rev 21:14, Isa. 28:16, Ps. 127:1), 1Cor 3:11 (Augustine on Mt. 16:18) and 1Cor 10:4b.Blessings,Mark FairpoBritish Methodist [] Re: Digest, Vol 5, Issue 24Thread closed: [] Matthew 16.18 Matt 16:18 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net Tue Nov 20 02:19:24 EST 2001 Matt 16:18 Galatians 2:1 on 11/19/01 9:22 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> Matt 16:18: KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS KAI EPI TAUTH TH PETRA> OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU KATISXUSOUSIN AUTHS.> > "In normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi> THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the> speaker AND his interlocutor.Another loose reading of this condition could be the pattern:LEGW or PHMI (same sentence) Pronoun[deomons]This pattern produces some examples worth exploring:Matt. 3:17, 15:7-8, 23:36, Mark 8:12, Luke 11:51Note that Matt. 23:36 meets several criteria, not just one.I don't think that syntax is going to answer this question. A speaker canuse "indirection" when addressing a person or a group. The use of thedemonstrative pronoun is just one example of this.Clay-- Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062 Matt 16:18Galatians 2:1 Matt 16:18 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net Tue Nov 20 00:22:48 EST 2001 poikilos Matt 16:18 Paul,on 11/19/01 6:34 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:> Matt 16:18: KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS KAI EPI TAUTH TH PETRA> OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU KATISXUSOUSIN AUTHS.> > "In normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi> THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the> speaker AND his interlocutor.Wrong. Wrong for several reasons. This syntax pattern:First Reason:***********The pattern: EPI + DEMONS-PN (within 2 words) NOUN (dative case, agree number & case)This pattern only exists in Matt. 16:18. So the argument fails using astrict reading of the conditions stated.Second Reason************Using a loose reading of the conditions stated.A search for LEGW or PHMI (followed by in same sentence) EPI + NOUNproduced some cases where the NOUN after EPI is NOT "outside of thespeaker AND his interlocutor."Take a look at: Matt 23:36, Lk10:9, 19:14, 23:30, Rev 2:24, 6:16Also look at Heb 10:16, Heb 8:8, these are not exactly what we are lookingfor however.Third Reason:***********Statement ignores the use of figurative language.Conclusion:**********Three strikes and your out.Clay-- Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062 poikilosMatt 16:18 [] Matthew 16.18 Mike Gainor jmgainor at ec.rr.com Sun May 25 02:38:06 EDT 2003 [] AP ARTI OPSESTHE (Mat. 26:64) [] Matthew 16.18 Greetings,Surely Matthew 16.18 has crossed this board many a time; yet I hope that there are those who are willing to offer their worthwhile input on it once again. The archives of this board have come up several times in my searches over the past several days, but I have questions that I haven't seen answers to as of yet.I am aware that the most common interpretation is to equate 'petros' and 'petra' on the basis of the wordplay assumed to be inherent in the verse, and on a presumed underlying Aramaic kepa/kepa (Cullman, Fitzmeyer, several others). Aside from my own personal bias, I see reasons to question that interpretation. 1. Why is the reading petros/petra, rather than petros/petros, if the two were "interchangeable" at the time (as, e.g. Cullman)? My thought is that it would have been a poor translation to introduce the enigma if the spoken words were the same (kepa/kepa). How unlikely was petros/petra instead of lithos/petra, if there was a contrast intended (Peter contrasted with Christ), rather than a comparison (Peter with Peter)?2. Could petros/petra (stone/rock) be Aramaic kepa/shua as per David Stark here: http://www.trinitarian.com/articles/article_017.html . This argument seems to have some strength, but I've seen zero in either support for or opposition to it. Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on it.3. Does not the change in both person and gender from 'petros' to 'tautee petra' indicate a likely change in the referent. 4. I have seen many supposedly exegete this verse by saying that 'tautee' following 'kai (epi)' grammatically requires that petra = the immediate precedent petros. This seems to me to be baseless, as it does not hold true in other examples (e.g. Matt 12.45; Luke 19.42; II Corinthians 1.15; 8.7). Am I missing something?5. If petra=shua (as in 2) the kepa/kepa wordplay is nonexistent, and the referent for petra could as well be Christ, as, e.g. John 2.19 "… destroy this temple …"My language skills do not come near to many on this board, and I'm pressing the limits of my current ability to comprehend this verse. I'm reluctant to cave in and join the petros=petra herd if these questions are valid. If anyone can invalidate them for me, please do so. Likewise if you can validate them. Thanks very much.Lovin' Christ and the Truth,Mike Gainor [] AP ARTI OPSESTHE (Mat. 26:64)[] Matthew 16.18 [] Matthew 16.18 addendum Mike Gainor jmgainor at ec.rr.com Sun May 25 02:55:12 EDT 2003 [] Matthew 16.18 [] Re: Digest, Vol 5, Issue 24 There was one other point I thought to raise, but forgot until after I had hit the 'send' button.If it were so clear that Peter = petra, as so many hold today, why did none of the earliest writers who made reference to the passage (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria) make mention of it, while the Shepherd of Hermas (second century) makes a clear allegory that Christ is the petra. Tertullian was the first to make the Peter = petra connection in the third century.Just had to include that.best regards,Mike Gainor [] Matthew 16.18[] Re: Digest, Vol 5, Issue 24 [] Matthew 16.18 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Sun May 25 06:05:01 EDT 2003 [] Matthew 16.18 [] Matthew 16.18 > I am aware that the most common interpretation is to equate> 'petros' and 'petra' on the basis of the wordplay assumed to be> inherent in the verse, and on a presumed underlying Aramaic> kepa/kepa (Cullman, Fitzmeyer, several others). Aside from my own> personal bias, I see reasons to question that interpretation.> > 1. Why is the reading petros/petra, rather than petros/petros, if> the two were "interchangeable" at the time (as, e.g. Cullman)?It can hardly be correct to say that these two words are interchangeable.PETRA is the normal word for a solid rock. Louw&Nida says "bedrock" in theshort gloss and give the following longer explanation: "bedrock (possiblycovered with a thin layer of soil), rocky crags, or mountain ledges, incontrast with separate pieces of rock normally referred to as LIQOS."LIQOS is the normal word for a stone. PETROS is a rare word for stone, and Icould not find any instances of PETROS in the LXX until 2 Maccabees (1:16,4:41). My parser suggests that the plural genitive PETRWN in the LXX isderived from PETROS, but it seems to me that it is more likely derived fromPETRA. PETRA translates any of two common words for rock in Hebrew (tzur andselah).> > 2. Could petros/petra (stone/rock) be Aramaic kepa/shua as per> David Stark here:> http://www.trinitarian.com/articles/article_017.html . This> argument seems to have some strength, but I've seen zero in> either support for or opposition to it. Does anyone have any> opinions or thoughts on it.This is speculative, since we don't know what Jesus might have said inHebrew or Aramaic.> 3. Does not the change in both person and gender from 'petros' to> 'tautee petra' indicate a likely change in the referent.No, not a change in referent, but a change of meaning or semanticproperties. It seems most likely clear from the context that both PETROS andEPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi refer to Peter, but the sense of the two expressionsis not the same. The distinction between sense and reference in a basicprinciple of semantics. One could argue that the reference of the secondterm is broader than the person Peter, and includes a reference to whatPeter had just done.> 4. I have seen many supposedly exegete this verse by saying that> 'tautee' following 'kai (epi)' grammatically requires that petra> = the immediate precedent petros. This seems to me to be> baseless, as it does not hold true in other examples (e.g. Matt> 12.45; Luke 19.42; II Corinthians 1.15; 8.7). Am I missing something?I cannot see how the verses you cite are relevant to Matt 16:18. There areseveral factors involved in deciding the referent, including the position ofthe demonstrative relative to the head noun, but especially the context.> 5. If petra=shua (as in 2) the kepa/kepa wordplay is nonexistent,> and the referent for petra could as well be Christ, as, e.g. John> 2.19 "… destroy this temple …"You seem to suggest that there are two possibilities:a) That PETROS and PETRA both refer to Peter and have the same meaningb) That PETROS refers to Peter and PETRA to Christ.I suggest a third possibility:PETROS refers to Peter, and Jesus is here giving Simon a new name(KEFAS/PETROS). That name is to be a reminder of the incident of Peter'srevelation and his testimony of faith in the Messiah as expressed in the twopreceding verses. There is an intended association between the name PETROSand the word PETRA. PETRA has a symbolic significance of something solidthat is suitable as a foundation to build a "house" on. The context suggeststhat both "revelation" and "faith" are intended associations, and I believeJesus (and Matthew) intended a back reference to the conclusion of thesermon on the mount in 7:15-29 about faith in action and building a house onthe rock.So, I would accept that PETRA refers to Peter as well as to this incident,but the important aspect is the symbolism of a foundation on which Jesus isgoing to build his church. In those cases where Peter did not act as aresult of revelation and in faith, then he himself had left that foundation.Iver Larsen [] Matthew 16.18[] Matthew 16.18 [] Matthew 16.18 Mike Gainor jmgainor at ec.rr.com Sun May 25 11:58:41 EDT 2003 [] Matthew 16.18 [] Matthew 16.18 addendum Mike Gainor----- Original Message -----From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: "Mike Gainor" <jmgainor at ec.rr.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 6:05 AMSubject: RE: [] Matthew 16.18> > 1. Why is the reading petros/petra, rather than petros/petros, if> > the two were "interchangeable" at the time (as, e.g. Cullman)?> > It can hardly be correct to say that these two words are interchangeable.> PETRA is the normal word for a solid rock. Louw&Nida says "bedrock" in the> short gloss and give the following longer explanation: "bedrock (possibly> covered with a thin layer of soil), rocky crags, or mountain ledges, in> contrast with separate pieces of rock normally referred to as LIQOS."> LIQOS is the normal word for a stone. PETROS is a rare word for stone, andI> could not find any instances of PETROS in the LXX until 2 Maccabees (1:16,> 4:41). My parser suggests that the plural genitive PETRWN in the LXX is> derived from PETROS, but it seems to me that it is more likely derivedfrom> PETRA. PETRA translates any of two common words for rock in Hebrew (tzurand> selah).My first inclination is to agree with the parser re PETRWN on the basis ofthe gender. What reason is there to derive the masculine noun from a femineroot, when there is the masculine root?Additionally, I find 4 instances of PETROBOLOS in the LXX, in I Samuel, Job,and Ezekiel, and once in the Apocrypha (Wisdom).I find PETRWN 10 times in the LXX O.T., and once in the Apocrypha, andPETROS twice in the Apocrypha.That makes derivatives of PETROS 14 in the LXX O.T., and 4 in the Apocrypha;I find PETRA and derivatives 88 times in the LXX O.T., and 5 in theApocrypha.That totals PETROS & derivatives:18; and PETRA & derivatives: 93.So, while PETROS is less common, it is a a bit of a stretch to call it'rare'.> >> > 2. Could petros/petra (stone/rock) be Aramaic kepa/shua as per> > David Stark here:> > http://www.trinitarian.com/articles/article_017.html . This> > argument seems to have some strength, but I've seen zero in> > either support for or opposition to it. Does anyone have any> > opinions or thoughts on it.> > This is speculative, since we don't know what Jesus might have said in> Hebrew or Aramaic.But isn't it just as speculative to assume kepa/kepa, for the same reason?Why would not the switch from PETROS to PETRA indicate a likelihood of twodifferent spoken words, when PETROS/PETROS would have preserved thesameness? Or was PETROS so far different from PETRA by definition that itcould not be a foundation stone, or bedrock?Thanks for sharing your thoughts,Mike Gainor> > > 3. Does not the change in both person and gender from 'petros' to> > 'tautee petra' indicate a likely change in the referent.> > No, not a change in referent, but a change of meaning or semantic> properties. It seems most likely clear from the context that both PETROSand> EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi refer to Peter, but the sense of the two expressions> is not the same. The distinction between sense and reference in a basic> principle of semantics. One could argue that the reference of the second> term is broader than the person Peter, and includes a reference to what> Peter had just done.> > > 4. I have seen many supposedly exegete this verse by saying that> > 'tautee' following 'kai (epi)' grammatically requires that petra> > = the immediate precedent petros. This seems to me to be> > baseless, as it does not hold true in other examples (e.g. Matt> > 12.45; Luke 19.42; II Corinthians 1.15; 8.7). Am I missing something?> > I cannot see how the verses you cite are relevant to Matt 16:18. There are> several factors involved in deciding the referent, including the positionof> the demonstrative relative to the head noun, but especially the context.> > > 5. If petra=shua (as in 2) the kepa/kepa wordplay is nonexistent,> > and the referent for petra could as well be Christ, as, e.g. John> > 2.19 "… destroy this temple …"> > You seem to suggest that there are two possibilities:> a) That PETROS and PETRA both refer to Peter and have the same meaning> b) That PETROS refers to Peter and PETRA to Christ.> > I suggest a third possibility:> > PETROS refers to Peter, and Jesus is here giving Simon a new name> (KEFAS/PETROS). That name is to be a reminder of the incident of Peter's> revelation and his testimony of faith in the Messiah as expressed in thetwo> preceding verses. There is an intended association between the name PETROS> and the word PETRA. PETRA has a symbolic significance of something solid> that is suitable as a foundation to build a "house" on. The contextsuggests> that both "revelation" and "faith" are intended associations, and Ibelieve> Jesus (and Matthew) intended a back reference to the conclusion of the> sermon on the mount in 7:15-29 about faith in action and building a houseon> the rock.> So, I would accept that PETRA refers to Peter as well as to this incident,> but the important aspect is the symbolism of a foundation on which Jesusis> going to build his church. In those cases where Peter did not act as a> result of revelation and in faith, then he himself had left thatfoundation.> > Iver Larsen> [] Matthew 16.18[] Matthew 16.18 addendum [] Matt 16:18 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com Wed May 17 18:34:22 EDT 2006 [] Mark 5:4 [] Matt 16:18 hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi...Without illiciting any theological discussion onwhat/who the rock is, is it fairly cleargrammatically/syntactically to conclude that theintroductory clause SU EI PETROS, in that it ispainfully obvious (stating the obvious), must in someway function as a set-up for the forthcoming PETRAiword usage? Or, are there any othergrammatical/lexical considerations that must beconsidered in this extented context?Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [] Mark 5:4[] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 Bob Fuller rjfjr at mn.rr.com Wed May 17 19:49:41 EDT 2006 [] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 The semantics of the sentence seem to make a distinction between hOTI ...PETROS and the PETRAi clause. In the whole statement he is addressing Peter.The usage of the demonstrative pronoun would seem to indicate that a shifthas taken place.Bob Fuller-----Original Message-----From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mitch LarramoreSent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:34 PMTo: B GreekSubject: [] Matt 16:18hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi...Without illiciting any theological discussion on what/who the rock is, is itfairly clear grammatically/syntactically to conclude that the introductoryclause SU EI PETROS, in that it is painfully obvious (stating the obvious),must in some way function as a set-up for the forthcoming PETRAi word usage?Or, are there any other grammatical/lexical considerations that must beconsidered in this extented context?Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection aroundhttp://mail.yahoo.com--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Matt 16:18[] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net Wed May 17 20:28:19 EDT 2006 [] Matt 16:18 [] OIKONOMIA Mitch,There are contextual and grammatical arguments that make this passage alittle more difficult. The first one is the lexical distinction betweenPETROS and PETRA, which also demonstrates a difference in gender. If youtake this as an actual statement about/to Peter, as you imply by callingattention to "You are Peter," then one may also want to compare what Peterhimself says about the term PETRA in I Peter 2:8 (also see Romans 9:33) orother references to Psalm 118:22 in the NT. The lexical distinction candistinguish between a piece of stone and a rock face or cliff. Thedifference in gender may distinguish between a personal and a materialreference.If this passage does refer to Peter as PETRA, it is singular. On the otherhand, there are many references to Christ as a rock or stone. I hope it wasthe Papacy question you wished to avoid; I can't see how to avoid thelexical or grammatical implications, or the associations of the work PETRAin the rest of the NT.The Shepherd has a very extensive allegory concerning a large white rock,and many pieces of rock used to construct a building (SimilitudesIX.II-XII). In chapter 12 of book 9, He asks the angel: "First of all, Sir"said I, "tell me this: hH PETRA KAI hH PULH TIS ESTIN? hH PETRA, FHSIN,hAUTH KAI hH PULE hO hUIOS TOU QEOU ESTI." What is the rock mass (PETRA) andthe gate? The Rock Mass (PETRA), he said, This and the gate are the Son ofGod." In this entire passage, there are all sorts and sizes of stones, butthis rock mass is Christ. The Shepherd of Hermas is a second centurydocument and was not influenced by the interpretations of the 16th centuryreformers.Dave SmithHudson, NC----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>To: "B Greek" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 18:34Subject: [] Matt 16:18> hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi...> > Without illiciting any theological discussion on> what/who the rock is, is it fairly clear> grammatically/syntactically to conclude that the> introductory clause SU EI PETROS, in that it is> painfully obvious (stating the obvious), must in some> way function as a set-up for the forthcoming PETRAi> word usage? Or, are there any other> grammatical/lexical considerations that must be> considered in this extented context?> > Mitch Larramore> Sugar Land, Texas> > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Matt 16:18[] OIKONOMIA [] Matt 16:18 Bob Fuller rjfjr at mn.rr.com Wed May 17 19:54:12 EDT 2006 [] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 One more thing. It could be that the reference is to the phrase, theformulaic wording SU EI PETROS. We are getting perilously close toout-of-bounds here, but I do not see that such a reference does anyone anyparticular good. Simply giving Cephas a new designation is not, in itself,significant.Bob Fuller-----Original Message-----From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mitch LarramoreSent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:34 PMTo: B GreekSubject: [] Matt 16:18hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi...Without illiciting any theological discussion on what/who the rock is, is itfairly clear grammatically/syntactically to conclude that the introductoryclause SU EI PETROS, in that it is painfully obvious (stating the obvious),must in some way function as a set-up for the forthcoming PETRAi word usage?Or, are there any other grammatical/lexical considerations that must beconsidered in this extented context?Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection aroundhttp://mail.yahoo.com--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Matt 16:18[] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net Wed May 17 20:50:41 EDT 2006 [] Matt 16:18 [] Matt 16:18 Bob's final statement is to the point. It is clear that Jesus was the onewho changed Simeon's name to Peter, and he was called this, in either Greek(PETROS) or Aramaic (KEPHA) throughout the ministry. Peter was the Rock,whether PETRA or not is another matter. But, as Bob said, "Simply givingCephas a new designation is not, in itself,significant," at least to later theological dogmas. But on the other hand,it was significant to Peter that Jesus had given him this name.Dave SmithHudson, NC----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Fuller" <rjfjr at mn.rr.com>To: " List" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 19:54Subject: Re: [] Matt 16:18> One more thing. It could be that the reference is to the phrase, the> formulaic wording SU EI PETROS. We are getting perilously close to> out-of-bounds here, but I do not see that such a reference does anyone any> particular good. Simply giving Cephas a new designation is not, in itself,> significant.> > Bob Fuller> > -----Original Message-----> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Larramore> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:34 PM> To: B Greek> Subject: [] Matt 16:18> > hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi...> > Without illiciting any theological discussion on what/who the rock is, isit> fairly clear grammatically/syntactically to conclude that the introductory> clause SU EI PETROS, in that it is painfully obvious (stating theobvious),> must in some way function as a set-up for the forthcoming PETRAi wordusage?> Or, are there any other grammatical/lexical considerations that must be> considered in this extented context?> > Mitch Larramore> Sugar Land, Texas> > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Matt 16:18[] Matt 16:18 [] Matthew 16:18 question Gene Gardner g_gardner1234 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 20 10:44:04 EST 2008 [] symbol and abbreviations for Church Fathers [] Matthew 16:18 question Is there anything grammatically that would not allow this phrase found in Matthew 16:18: su ei petros kai epi taute to petra oikodomeso mou ton ekklesian To be written as this or something similar: su ei petros kai epi petros oikodomeso mou ton ekklesian Thanks, Gene Gardner ---------------------------------Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. [] symbol and abbreviations for Church Fathers[] Matthew 16:18 question [] Matthew 16:18 question Gene Gardner g_gardner1234 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 20 10:45:14 EST 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 question [] Matthew 16:18 question Is there anything grammatically that would not allow this phrase found in Matthew 16:18: su ei petros kai epi taute to petra oikodomeso mou ton ekklesian To be written as this or something similar: su ei petros kai epi petros oikodomeso mou ton ekklesian Thanks, Gene Gardner ---------------------------------Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [] Matthew 16:18 question[] Matthew 16:18 question [] Matthew 16:18 question Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com Wed Feb 20 11:11:18 EST 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 question [] how big is the font size on Kohlenberger's A ComparativePsalter? On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Gene Gardner wrote:> Is there anything grammatically that would not allow this phrase > found in Matthew 16:18:> su ei petros kai epi taute to petra oikodomeso mou ton ekklesian> To be written as this or something similar:> su ei petros kai epi petros oikodomeso mou ton ekklesiani.e. Matt. 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ...= KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN (our conventional transliteration)Your suggested version:... ἐπὶ πέτρος (Πέτρος) οικοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίανEPI PETROS OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIANIt wouldn't work for (at least) two reasons:(1) The word πέτρος (PETROS) means "a stone" whereas πέτρα (PETRA) means "bedrock" or a solid rock formation; I would not think that building a church on a "stone" would be much better than building it on sand;(2) Even if we did want to build a church on a stone, the form used with the preposition EPI (ἐπὶ) would have to be the dative; I think we'd have to have ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ (EPI TOUTWi TWi PETRWi).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired) [] Matthew 16:18 question[] how big is the font size on Kohlenberger's A ComparativePsalter? [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 00:30:24 EDT 2008 [] On Thayer and BDAG [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.1. Most commentators (and BDAG) seem to take EKKLHSIAN to be the referent of AUTHS (i.e., the gates of hades will not prevail against Jesus's church). Is it possible that the referent for AUTHS is PETRAi - i.e., the gates of hades will not prevail against the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the confession upon which Jesus will build His church (assuming petra refers to what Peter confessed and not to Peter himself)?2. Re: the gates of hades not prevailing: While BDAG seems to view the gates as being unable to defeat the church, is there a basis in the word meanings for thinking that Jesus is saying that it is the church that will be attacking the gates of hades (i.e., the power of death), and hades/death won't be able to withstand the church's onslaught?Eric S. Weiss [] On Thayer and BDAG[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 03:03:35 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Questions regarding accentuation 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different things.2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood. georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________----- Original Message ----From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:30:24 AMSubject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questionsMatthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.1. Most commentators (and BDAG) seem to take EKKLHSIAN to be the referent of AUTHS (i.e., the gates of hades will not prevail against Jesus's church). Is it possible that the referent for AUTHS is PETRAi - i.e., the gates of hades will not prevail against the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the confession upon which Jesus will build His church (assuming petra refers to what Peter confessed and not to Peter himself)?2. Re: the gates of hades not prevailing: While BDAG seems to view the gates as being unable to defeat the church, is there a basis in the word meanings for thinking that Jesus is saying that it is the church that will be attacking the gates of hades (i.e., the power of death), and hades/death won't be able to withstand the church's onslaught?Eric S. Weiss --- home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Questions regarding accentuation [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 14:51:03 EDT 2008 [] Questions regarding accentuation [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different > things.> > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.Thanks for your response. My comments:1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in BDF or Smyth or Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often the referent is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of "gates of hades." Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the "gates of hades" to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and function than gates usually have, hence my question. [] Questions regarding accentuation[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 15:05:33 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions I think what we have with "the gates of hell" is a metonymy so that what is referenced is actually hell itself and not the literal gates (are there such?). georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________----- Original Message ----From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:51:03 PMSubject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different > things.> > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.Thanks for your response. My comments:1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in BDF or Smyth or Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often the referent is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of "gates of hades." Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the "gates of hades" to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and function than gates usually have, hence my question. --- home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Sun Jul 20 15:58:19 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of > "gates of hades."> Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For > the "gates of hades"> to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and > function than gates> usually have, hence my question.Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THiPETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OUKATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.PULAI hADOU can be understood as the power of death. The figurative reference is certainly not to 'Hell' but to Hades which was the region of the dead. I would agree with France (Matt. 2007) and others that PULAI hADOU is not used here to represent an aggressive attacker of THS EKKLHSIAS, as if Hades were spewing out demonic forces to attack HN EKKLHSIAN. Rather, the idea is that the power of death, which appears to be invincible will fail and the EKKLHSIA will prevail.Elizabeth Kline [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Sun Jul 20 17:09:29 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth,> On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> > >> 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of >> "gates of hades.">> Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For >> the "gates of hades">> to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and >> function than gates>> usually have, hence my question.>> > > Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi> PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU> KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.> > PULAI hADOU can be understood as the power of death. The figurative reference is certainly not to 'Hell' but to Hades which was the region of the dead. I would agree with France (Matt. 2007) and others that PULAI hADOU is not used here to represent an aggressive attacker of THS EKKLHSIAS, as if Hades were spewing out demonic forces to attack HN EKKLHSIAN. Rather, the idea is that the power of death, which appears to be invincible will fail and the EKKLHSIA will prevail.> > Hh: Thanks, Elizabeth. It is good to look at the way the Greeks conceived of Hades. The following is from a website about Hades in Greek mythology:http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/hades.htmlLord of the UnderworldHades is one of the six Olympians, i.e. one of the six children of Kronos (Cronos) and Rhea. He and his two brothers divided creation into thirds and each took a portion for their own. Hades chose, as his dominion, The Underworld.When mortals kneel before the cold hearted Hades, he metes out somber justice and no one, once there, can ever leave his domain (except, of course, Herakles (Heracles), Odysseus, Orpheus and a few others).HH: The second paragraph seems relevant to understanding how the gates of Hades might not prevail against Christ. "No one, once there, can ever leave" Hades' "domain." Gates can keep in as well as keep out. So if the gates can no longer keep people in Hades, they will have failed (= "not prevail").HH: This web page seems to list all the usage of "Hades" in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Here are references that include "gates":The Iliad (listed by book and line) . 08.367 ...Athene (Athena) tells Hera about the time she helped Herakles (Heracles) when he had to go to Hades of the Gates to retrieve the hound, Kerberos (Cerberus), from the grisly Death God . 09.312 ...Akhilleus (Achilles) tells Odysseus that he detests the gates of Hades as much as he detests a man who speaks one thing and means another . 13.415 ...Deiphobos (Deiphobus) kills Hypsenor and shouts that he has avenged the death of his friend, Asios, and now his friend has company as he goes to Hades of the Gates . 23.071 ...The ghost of Patroklos (Patroclus) stands over the sleeping Akhilleus (Achilles) and urges him to bury him as quickly as possible so that he may pass the gates of HadesThe Odyssey (listed by book and line) . 11.277 ...While in the Underworld, Odysseus learns that the mother/wife of Oedipus, Iokaste (Jocasta), went down to Hades of the Gates because she had hanged herself . 14.156 ...The disguised Odysseus tells the swineherd, Eumaios (Eumaeus), that he detests the gates of Hades as much as he detests a poor man who lies to gain favor . 24.204 ...Odysseus tells Penelope about the ghosts of the dead he saw at the gates of HadesYours,Harold Holmyard [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Sun Jul 20 18:51:51 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions On Jul 20, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Hh: Thanks, Elizabeth. It is good to look at the way the Greeks> conceived of Hades. The following is from a website about Hades in > Greek> mythology:> http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/hades.htmlMatthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THiPETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OUKATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.Harold,As I am sure you know, hAiDHS in the LXX typically translates Sheol and the NT use is a mixed bag, see TDNT. The expression PULAI hADOU in Mat. 16:18 is used with a similar meaning (according to France Matt. 2007) in the following passages. Note that JOB 38:17 is somewhat of a crux.3Mac. 5:51 ἀνεβόησαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ σφόδρα τὸν τῆς ἁπάσης δυνάμεως δυνάστην ἱκετεύοντες οἰκτῖραι μετὰ ἐπιφανείας αὐτοὺς ἤδη πρὸς πύλαις ᾅδου καθεστῶταςOde. 11:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου πορεύσομαι ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπαJob 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι θανάτου πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε ἔπτηξανWis. 16:13 σὺ γὰρ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις καὶ κατάγεις εἰς πύλας ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγειςSol. 16:2 παρ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐξεχύθη ἡ ψυχή μου εἰς θάνατον σύνεγγυς πυλῶν ᾅδου μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦIs. 38:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα3MAC. 5:51 ANEBOHSAN FWNHi MEGALHi SFODRA TON THS hAPASHS DUNAMEWS DUNASTHN hIKETEUONTES OIKTIRAI META EPIFANEIAS AUTOUS HDH PROS PULAIS hAiDOU KAQESTWTASODE. 11:10 EGW EIPA EN TWi hUYEI TWN hHMERWN MOU POREUSOMAI EN PULAIS hAiDOU KATALEIYW TA ETH TA EPILOIPAJOB 38:17 ANOIGONTAI DE SOI FOBWi PULAI QANATOU PULWROI DE hAiDOU IDONTES SE EPTHXANWIS. 16:13 SU GAR ZWHS KAI QANATOU EXOUSIAN ECEIS KAI KATAGEIS EIS PULAS hAiDOU KAI ANAGEISSOL. 16:2 PAR OLIGON EXECUQH hH YUCH MOU EIS QANATON SUNEGGUS PULWN hAiDOU META hAMARTWLOUIS. 38:10 EGW EIPA EN TWi hUYEI TWN hHMERWN MOU EN PULAIS hAiDOU KATALEIYW TA ETH TA EPILOIPAElizabeth Kline [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Sun Jul 20 19:08:49 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions CORRECTION:On Jul 20, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> The expression PULAI hADOU in Mat. 16:18 is used with a similar > meaning (according to France Matt. 2007) in the following passages.3Mac. 5:51 ἀνεβόησαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ σφόδρα τὸν τῆς ἁπάσης δυνάμεως δυνάστην ἱκετεύοντες οἰκτῖραι μετὰ ἐπιφανείας αὐτοὺς ἤδη πρὸς πύλαις ᾅδου καθεστῶταςWis. 16:13 σὺ γὰρ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις καὶ κατάγεις εἰς πύλας ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγειςSol. 16:2 παρ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐξεχύθη ἡ ψυχή μου εἰς θάνατον σύνεγγυς πυλῶν ᾅδου μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦIs. 38:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν ἡμερῶν μου ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα3MAC. 5:51 ANEBOHSAN FWNHi MEGALHi SFODRA TON THS hAPASHS DUNAMEWS DUNASTHN hIKETEUONTES OIKTIRAI META EPIFANEIAS AUTOUS HDH PROS PULAIS hAiDOU KAQESTWTASWIS. 16:13 SU GAR ZWHS KAI QANATOU EXOUSIAN ECEIS KAI KATAGEIS EIS PULAS hAiDOU KAI ANAGEISSOL. 16:2 PAR OLIGON EXECUQH hH YUCH MOU EIS QANATON SUNEGGUS PULWN hAiDOU META hAMARTWLOUIS. 38:10 EGW EIPA EN TWi hUYEI TWN hHMERWN MOU EN PULAIS hAiDOU KATALEIYW TA ETH TA EPILOIPAFrance doesn't mention ODE. 11:10.Elizabeth Kline [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Sun Jul 20 20:26:20 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth,> As I am sure you know, hAiDHS in the LXX typically translates Sheol and the NT use is a mixed bag, see TDNT. HH: I don't have TDNT here, but I know that. Yet there is enough commonality that we should feel comfortable looking for basic comparisons or correspondences, with certain things being changed, of course. The NT feels comfortable referring to Tartarus as a prison for especially evil angels (2 Pet 2:4, a verb form), and this seems compatible with the Greek view of it, reported here by Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TartarusIn classic Greek mythology, below Heaven, Earth, and Pontus is Tartarus, or Tartaros (Greek Τάρταρος, deep place). It is either a deep, gloomy place, a pit, or an abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering that resides within Hades (the entire underworld) with Tartarus being the hellish component. In the Gorgias, Plato (c. 400 BC) wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishment were sent to Tartarus. As a place of punishment, it can be considered a hell.HH: Notice the last statement in this paragraph, as follows:The classic Hades, on the other hand, is more similar to Old Testament Sheol.HH: So there can be places of punishment within Hades, but the article says that the classic Greek ideas of Hades is comparable to biblical Sheol, meaning the rest of Hades apart from Tartarus, I guess. Anyway, the point I was making is that the gates of Hades inducted people into a realm of the dead that was traditionally seen as barring virtually any escape. It seems natural that such a basic concept about Hades would be known in Israel, which used the Greek language and knew Greek culture. Jesus could easily allude to this common concept in Matt 16:18, regardless of OT teaching about a resurrection. For Hades would be inescapable until then, it seemed, and Jesus is the resurrection (John 11:25).> The expression PULAI hADOU in Mat. 16:18 is used with a similar meaning (according to France Matt. 2007) in the following passages. Note that JOB 38:17 is somewhat of a crux.> HH: But these passages all resemble what I saw in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Some are quite similar. Job 38:17 OG seems to mean:Are the gate of death opened to you in fear? Do the gatekeepers of Hades cower when seeing you?Job 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι θανάτου πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε ἔπτηξανJOB 38:17 ANOIGONTAI DE SOI FOBWi PULAI QANATOU PULWROI DE hAiDOU IDONTES SE EPTHXANHH: Please tell me why this passage is a crux, though? I see it say that God's authority was recognized even in Hades, and that in some sense the gates could be opened for Him.Yours,Harold Holmyard > > 3Mac. 5:51 ἀνεβόησαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ σφόδρα > τὸν τῆς ἁπάσης δυνάμεως δυνάστην > ἱκετεύοντες οἰκτῖραι μετὰ > ἐπιφανείας αὐτοὺς ἤδη πρὸς πύλαις > ᾅδου καθεστῶτας> > Ode. 11:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν > ἡμερῶν μου πορεύσομαι ἐν πύλαις > ᾅδου καταλείψω τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα> > Job 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι > θανάτου πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε > ἔπτηξαν> > Wis. 16:13 σὺ γὰρ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου > ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις καὶ κατάγεις εἰς > πύλας ᾅδου καὶ ἀνάγεις> > Sol. 16:2 παρ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐξεχύθη ἡ ψυχή > μου εἰς θάνατον σύνεγγυς πυλῶν ᾅδου > μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦ> > Is. 38:10 ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῶν > ἡμερῶν μου ἐν πύλαις ᾅδου καταλείψω > τὰ ἔτη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα> > 3MAC. 5:51 ANEBOHSAN FWNHi MEGALHi SFODRA TON THS hAPASHS DUNAMEWS > DUNASTHN hIKETEUONTES OIKTIRAI META EPIFANEIAS AUTOUS HDH PROS PULAIS > hAiDOU KAQESTWTAS> > ODE. 11:10 EGW EIPA EN TWi hUYEI TWN hHMERWN MOU POREUSOMAI EN PULAIS > hAiDOU KATALEIYW TA ETH TA EPILOIPA> > JOB 38:17 ANOIGONTAI DE SOI FOBWi PULAI QANATOU PULWROI DE hAiDOU > IDONTES SE EPTHXAN> > WIS. 16:13 SU GAR ZWHS KAI QANATOU EXOUSIAN ECEIS KAI KATAGEIS EIS > PULAS hAiDOU KAI ANAGEIS> > SOL. 16:2 PAR OLIGON EXECUQH hH YUCH MOU EIS QANATON SUNEGGUS PULWN > hAiDOU META hAMARTWLOU> > IS. 38:10 EGW EIPA EN TWi hUYEI TWN hHMERWN MOU EN PULAIS hAiDOU > KATALEIYW TA ETH TA EPILOIPA> > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Vasile Stancu stancu at mail.dnttm.ro Sun Jul 20 20:02:21 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Just for the sake of setting another track of research, I know that in latertimes the Ottoman Empire was called "The High Gate" (at least it was thusknown in the Romanian countries and it was always regarded as a hostileneighbour). I also know that the main imperial palace in Istanbul is calledTopkapi, which literally means Cannongate. It seems strange to call amagnificent palace or a powerful empire by invoking the image or the notionof a mere gate. It seems to me that in the Ottoman times al least, a gatewas a symbol of figting power or domination. I wonder if such perceptioncould also have been true in NT times?Vasile STANCU [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 23:16:31 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions > It seems natural that such a basic concept about Hades would > be known in Israel, which used the Greek language and knew > Greek culture. Jesus could easily allude to this common > concept in Matt 16:18, regardless of OT teaching about a > resurrection. For Hades would be inescapable until then, it > seemed, and Jesus is the resurrection (John 11:25).Since Jesus doesn't say, "The gates of Hades will not prevail against Me," but says they will not prevail against "it" - i.e., either the church or Peter's confession - I'm not sure that one can assert that He's talking about His resurrection as busting open the gates of Hades. Rather, either His church or those who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which in a sense is His church), are the "it" against which the gates of Hades will not be able to prevail.Eric S. Weiss [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net Sun Jul 20 23:35:44 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Dear Elizabeth, Harold, et al,Considering the intended audience of Matthew, "Would they (including thedisciples at that time) have taken PULAI hADOU not as the Greeks would haveunderstood it, but from the Jewish view point of HADES = SHEOL? I am alsowondering what the DSS have to say on this issue?En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: "greek " < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:58 PMSubject: Re: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> > On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> > > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of> > "gates of hades."> > Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For> > the "gates of hades"> > to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and> > function than gates> > usually have, hence my question.> > Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi> PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU> KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.> > PULAI hADOU can be understood as the power of death. The figurative> reference is certainly not to 'Hell' but to Hades which was the region> of the dead. I would agree with France (Matt. 2007) and others that> PULAI hADOU is not used here to represent an aggressive attacker of> THS EKKLHSIAS, as if Hades were spewing out demonic forces to attack> HN EKKLHSIAN. Rather, the idea is that the power of death, which> appears to be invincible will fail and the EKKLHSIA will prevail.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG.> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1563 - Release Date: 07/20/08 12:59PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services! [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com Mon Jul 21 00:51:18 EDT 2008 [] ACO [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions As noted, gates are defensive mechanisms. They also imprison. I should think the implication is that rather than Hades assaulting the assembly, the assembly will storm and break down the gates of Hades. Can the sense of KATASCUW here not be of firmly planting one's feet, and being strong enough to hold one's ground, i.e., "the gates of Hades will not *hold* against it"?Perhaps to a Jewish audience, for whom Hades is Sheol, the saying means that the assembly will free men from the captivity of fallacious conceptions of life and afterlife? And to a Greek audience, for whom Hades is not only the Greek underworld, but also the Greek god of the dead himself, perhaps it means the assembly will replace the idea of a god of the dead with a god of the living?I see another possible alternative in the next verse (in which Jesus promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of the Heavens), that maybe Hades is being invoked as the opposite of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and represents the entire earth (a kingdom of Man), about to be invaded by the Kingdom of the Heavens (a kingdom of God).Regards,Tom Moorehttp://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=gnt&book=Mt&ch=16> -------Original Message-------> From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> Subject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> Sent: Jul 20 '08 18:51> > > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore> > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent> > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that> > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different> > things.> >> > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church> > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able> > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.> Thanks for your response. My comments:> > 1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in BDF or Smyth or> Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often the referent> is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.> > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of "gates of hades."> Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the "gates of hades"> to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and function than gates> usually have, hence my question.> > > > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] ACO[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [Corrected] Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com Mon Jul 21 00:55:15 EDT 2008 [] UBS2 Distinctiveness [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Correction: KATISCUW> -------Original Message-------> From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>> Subject: Re: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> Sent: Jul 21 '08 04:51> > As noted, gates are defensive mechanisms. They also imprison. I should think the implication is that rather than Hades assaulting the assembly, the assembly will storm and break down the gates of Hades. Can the sense of KATASCUW here not be of firmly planting one's feet, and being strong enough to hold one's ground, i.e., "the gates of Hades will not *hold* against it"?> > Perhaps to a Jewish audience, for whom Hades is Sheol, the saying means that the assembly will free men from the captivity of fallacious conceptions of life and afterlife? And to a Greek audience, for whom Hades is not only the Greek underworld, but also the Greek god of the dead himself, perhaps it means the assembly will replace the idea of a god of the dead with a god of the living?> > I see another possible alternative in the next verse (in which Jesus promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of the Heavens), that maybe Hades is being invoked as the opposite of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and represents the entire earth (a kingdom of Man), about to be invaded by the Kingdom of the Heavens (a kingdom of God).> > Regards,> Tom Moore> http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=gnt&book=Mt&ch=16> > > > -------Original Message-------> > From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> > Subject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> > Sent: Jul 20 '08 18:51> > > > > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore> > > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent> > > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that> > > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different> > > things.> > >> > > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church> > > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able> > > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.> > Thanks for your response. My comments:> > > > 1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in BDF or Smyth or> > Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often the referent> > is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.> > > > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of "gates of hades."> > Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the "gates of hades"> > to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and function than gates> > usually have, hence my question.> > > > > > > > > > ---> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] UBS2 Distinctiveness[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions John Waldrip john.waldrip at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 01:32:32 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions While visiting Israel once an Israeli university professor opined that'gates of hell' was a first century description of the Gentile communitythat typically grew beside Galilean cities.Thus, he said, to pass from the Jewish to the Gentile portion of thecommunity was to pass through the gates of hell.If this be so (and I have not verified this myself) it would be a predictionthat the gospel would penetrate Gentile communities, something unimaginableto a Jewish audience.John S. WaldripOn Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com> wrote:> As noted, gates are defensive mechanisms. They also imprison. I should> think the implication is that rather than Hades assaulting the assembly, the> assembly will storm and break down the gates of Hades. Can the sense of> KATASCUW here not be of firmly planting one's feet, and being strong enough> to hold one's ground, i.e., "the gates of Hades will not *hold* against it"?> > Perhaps to a Jewish audience, for whom Hades is Sheol, the saying means> that the assembly will free men from the captivity of fallacious conceptions> of life and afterlife? And to a Greek audience, for whom Hades is not only> the Greek underworld, but also the Greek god of the dead himself, perhaps it> means the assembly will replace the idea of a god of the dead with a god of> the living?> > I see another possible alternative in the next verse (in which Jesus> promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of the Heavens), that maybe> Hades is being invoked as the opposite of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and> represents the entire earth (a kingdom of Man), about to be invaded by the> Kingdom of the Heavens (a kingdom of God).> > Regards,> Tom Moore> http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=gnt&book=Mt&ch=16> > > > -------Original Message-------> > From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> > Subject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> > Sent: Jul 20 '08 18:51> >> > > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore> > > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent> > > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that> > > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different> > > things.> > >> > > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church> > > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able> > > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.> > Thanks for your response. My comments:> >> > 1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in> BDF or Smyth or> > Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often> the referent> > is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.> >> > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of> "gates of hades."> > Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the> "gates of hades"> > to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and> function than gates> > usually have, hence my question.> >> >> >> >> > ---> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> <http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Mon Jul 21 12:50:02 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Eric,> Since Jesus doesn't say, "The gates of Hades will not prevail > against Me," but says they will not prevail against "it" - i.e., > either the church or Peter's confession - I'm not sure that one > can assert that He's talking about His resurrection as busting > open the gates of Hades. Rather, either His church or those who > confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God > (which in a sense is His church), are the "it" against which > the gates of Hades will not be able to prevail.Eric S. Weiss> HH: The church is the "body of Christ."1Cor. 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Mon Jul 21 15:36:40 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions It was the custom in OT cities for the leaders of the city to assemble at the gate. It was both a public square and a place where plans and important decisions were made. It therefore corresponds somewhat to a modern town hall or even the "White House" or "Downing Street 10". This is why it is used as a metonym for planning meetings and decision making, and also more generally "power".>From TWOT (Theological Workbook of the OT):"The city gate was extremely important in the life of the people, for social, administrative, and business intercourse took place there. The Ugaritic literature gives an interesting parallel here, "He (Daniel) sits in front of the gate, by the dignitaries who are on the threshing floor" (2 Aqht 5.6-7). I Kgs 22:10 says, "The king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting, each on his throne-at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria." Here kings as well as city elders sat to administer justice (Deut 21:19; Josh 20:4). When Absalom laid the groundwork for his insurrection, it was at the gate where he intercepted the people who were coming to see the king (II Sam 15:2). It was considered an honor to sit among the elders at the gate (Prov 31:23).The square (often a threshing floor) in front of the gate was the most natural congregating place, and it was here that the prophets frequently spoke to the people (II Kgs 7:1; Jer 17:19-20, 36:10) and to kings (I Kgs 22:10). It was here that Ezra read and explained the Law to the Jews in Neh 8:1, 3. Legal transactions also took place here (Ruth 4:1; Gen 23:10, 18), and it served as a marketplace as well (II Kgs 7:1).The process of the administration of justice was frequently referred to as "at the gate." Thus Prov 22:22 "(do not) crush the afflicted at the gate" (NASB). Amos 5:15 calls for "justice in the gate."End of quote.I think this is what a Jewish person what probably think about when he heard that the "gates of sheol" would not KATISCUW "conquer, overcome" the church. Satan schemes against it, but will not be able to defeat it. He may win some battles, but not the war.To enter through the "gates of Hades" is a different idea that simply means to die.Iver Larsen----- Original Message ----- From: "Vasile Stancu" <stancu at mail.dnttm.ro>To: "''" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 21. juli 2008 02:02Subject: Re: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> Just for the sake of setting another track of research, I know that in later> times the Ottoman Empire was called "The High Gate" (at least it was thus> known in the Romanian countries and it was always regarded as a hostile> neighbour). I also know that the main imperial palace in Istanbul is called> Topkapi, which literally means Cannongate. It seems strange to call a> magnificent palace or a powerful empire by invoking the image or the notion> of a mere gate. It seems to me that in the Ottoman times al least, a gate> was a symbol of figting power or domination. I wonder if such perception> could also have been true in NT times?> > Vasile STANCU> [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Mon Jul 21 15:49:30 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THiPETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OUKATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.On Jul 20, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> I don't have TDNT here ...Well the article must be half a century old, but J. Jeremias (TDNT VI, 924-928 C. "The Gates of Hades" Mat.16:18) argues that PULAI hADOU Mat.16:18 should NOT be understood as simply a figurative reference to the power of death. Jeremias adopts an eschatological conflict framework, which should be familiar and need no explanation. He brings a lot of evidence, not all of it very convincing, for example his citation from Sir 51:9b is taken from the 12th century fragments found in the Cairo Geniza and translated "... and from the gates of the world of the dead (msh'ri sheol) ". The hebrew as translated in his article doesn't support his 'eschatological conflict framework' and the greek text which is much older (the uncials have some variation in the prepositions noted with brackets)SIR. 51:9 KAI ANUYWSA APO [EPI?] GHS hIKETEIAN MOU KAI hUPER [APO?] QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHNGiven that we don't have a very clear picture of the textual history of this citation, it is still not evidence that supports an eschatological conflict framework. SIR. 51:9b hUPER [APO?] QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHN, if it translates the Hebrew found at the Cairo Geniza seems to support R.T.France see my original post below:PULAI hADOU can be understood as the power of death. The figurativereference is certainly not to 'Hell' but to Hades which was the regionof the dead. I would agree with France (Matt. 2007) and others thatPULAI hADOU is not used here to represent an aggressive attacker ofTHS EKKLHSIAS, as if Hades were spewing out demonic forces to attackHN EKKLHSIAN. Rather, the idea is that the power of death, whichappears to be invincible will fail and the EKKLHSIA will prevail.an aside: SIR. 51:9b hUPER [APO?] QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHNWhat do you make of hRUSEWS here? Perhaps a river? Rivers play a significant role in the geography of Hades.Elizabeth Kline [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net Mon Jul 21 17:13:54 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Dear John,Would have any other source material for the information from the Israeliuniversity professor who referenced? It is an intriguing theory that would benice to view sources to see if it fits the passage and the historical context atthe time of the Christ or earlier.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III----- Original Message ----- From: "John Waldrip" <john.waldrip at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:32 PMSubject: Re: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> While visiting Israel once an Israeli university professor opined that> 'gates of hell' was a first century description of the Gentile community> that typically grew beside Galilean cities.> > Thus, he said, to pass from the Jewish to the Gentile portion of the> community was to pass through the gates of hell.> > If this be so (and I have not verified this myself) it would be a prediction> that the gospel would penetrate Gentile communities, something unimaginable> to a Jewish audience.> > > John S. Waldrip> > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com> wrote:> > > As noted, gates are defensive mechanisms. They also imprison. I should> > think the implication is that rather than Hades assaulting the assembly, the> > assembly will storm and break down the gates of Hades. Can the sense of> > KATASCUW here not be of firmly planting one's feet, and being strong enough> > to hold one's ground, i.e., "the gates of Hades will not *hold* against it"?> >> > Perhaps to a Jewish audience, for whom Hades is Sheol, the saying means> > that the assembly will free men from the captivity of fallacious conceptions> > of life and afterlife? And to a Greek audience, for whom Hades is not only> > the Greek underworld, but also the Greek god of the dead himself, perhaps it> > means the assembly will replace the idea of a god of the dead with a god of> > the living?> >> > I see another possible alternative in the next verse (in which Jesus> > promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of the Heavens), that maybe> > Hades is being invoked as the opposite of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and> > represents the entire earth (a kingdom of Man), about to be invaded by the> > Kingdom of the Heavens (a kingdom of God).> >> > Regards,> > Tom Moore> > http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=gnt&book=Mt&ch=16> >> >> > > -------Original Message-------> > > From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> > > Subject: [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions> > > Sent: Jul 20 '08 18:51> > >> > > > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore> > > > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent> > > > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that> > > > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different> > > > things.> > > >> > > > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church> > > > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able> > > > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.> > > Thanks for your response. My comments:> > >> > > 1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in> > BDF or Smyth or> > > Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often> > the referent> > > is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.> > >> > > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of> > "gates of hades."> > > Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the> > "gates of hades"> > > to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and> > function than gates> > > usually have, hence my question.> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ---> > > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > > mailing list> > > at lists.ibiblio.org> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >> > ---> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > <http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG.> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1563 - Release Date: 07/20/08 12:59PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services! [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net Mon Jul 21 17:25:13 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard wrote:> Eric,> >> Since Jesus doesn't say, "The gates of Hades will not prevail >> against Me," but says they will not prevail against "it" - i.e., >> either the church or Peter's confession - I'm not sure that one >> can assert that He's talking about His resurrection as busting >> open the gates of Hades. Rather, either His church or those who >> confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God >> (which in a sense is His church), are the "it" against which >> the gates of Hades will not be able to prevail.Eric S. Weiss>> >> > > HH: The church is the "body of Christ."> > 1Cor. 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.> > I'll be hanged if I can find anything in the Greek text of Matthew that shows that Matthew subscribed to this notion of the EKKLHSIA, let alone that he was in agreement with everything Paul said or professed. Have I missed something? Or is the above a good example of eisegesis?Jeffrey-- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Mon Jul 21 22:34:54 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Hi, Elizabeth,> > Well the article must be half a century old, but J. Jeremias (TDNT VI, 924-928 C. "The Gates of Hades" Mat.16:18) argues that PULAI hADOU Mat.16:18 should NOT be understood as simply a figurative reference to the power of death. Jeremias adopts an eschatological conflict framework, which should be familiar and need no explanation. He brings a lot of evidence, not all of it very convincing, for example his citation from Sir 51:9b is taken from the 12th century fragments found in the Cairo Geniza and translated "... and from the gates of the world of the dead (msh'ri sheol) ". The hebrew as translated in his > article doesn't support his 'eschatological conflict framework' and the greek text which is much older (the uncials have some variation in the prepositions noted with brackets)> > SIR. 51:9 KAI ANUYWSA APO [EPI?] GHS hIKETEIAN MOU KAI hUPER [APO?] > QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHN> > Given that we don't have a very clear picture of the textual history of this citation, it is still not evidence that supports an eschatological conflict framework. SIR. 51:9b hUPER [APO?] QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHN, if it translates the Hebrew found at the Cairo Geniza seems to support R.T.France see my original post below:> HH: Thank you. The victory over death comes at the end according to Daniel, Revelation, 1 Corinthians 15, Isaiah 25-26 and other passages. The two ideas can both be implied in Matt 16:18 in a broad biblical context.> > PULAI hADOU can be understood as the power of death. The figurative reference is certainly not to 'Hell' but to Hades which was the region of the dead. I would agree with France (Matt. 2007) and others that PULAI hADOU is not used here to represent an aggressive attacker of THS EKKLHSIAS, as if Hades were spewing out demonic forces to attack HN EKKLHSIAN. Rather, the idea is that the power of death, which appears to be invincible will fail and the EKKLHSIA will prevail.> > an aside: SIR. 51:9b hUPER [APO?] QANATOU hRUSEWS EDEHQHN> > What do you make of hRUSEWS here? Perhaps a river? Rivers play a > significant role in the geography of Hades.> HH: I am using Accordance, and when I put my cursor on the word hRUSEWS, it says that the word means "flow." But my first thought was that it seemed to be a noun derivative from hROUMAI, so I checked LSJ, which has the entry:hRUSIS, EWS, hH deliverance, QANATOU from death Epigr. Gr. 200 (Cos), LXX Si 51:9.There is a homograph that means "flow," but LSJ does not think it suits Sir 51:9.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Mon Jul 21 23:52:55 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] ACO Jeffrey,>> >>> Since Jesus doesn't say, "The gates of Hades will not prevail >>> against Me," but says they will not prevail against "it" - i.e., >>> either the church or Peter's confession - I'm not sure that one can >>> assert that He's talking about His resurrection as busting open the >>> gates of Hades. Rather, either His church or those who confess that >>> Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which in a sense is >>> His church), are the "it" against which the gates of Hades will not >>> be able to prevail.Eric S. Weiss>>> >> >> HH: The church is the "body of Christ.">> >> 1Cor. 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members >> of it.>> >> > I'll be hanged if I can find anything in the Greek text of Matthew > that shows that Matthew subscribed to this notion of the EKKLHSIA, let > alone that he was in agreement with everything Paul said or > professed. Have I missed something? Or is the above a good example > of eisegesis?HH: Jesus is the Lord of the Church, according to Matthew:Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,Matt. 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”Matt. 22:43 He said to them, “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,Matt. 22:44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet” ’HH: The reason that Hades will not prevail against the Church is because of the resurrection and because of its Lord. I was just generalizing.Yours,Harold Holmyard [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] ACO [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 22 00:15:14 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [Corrected] [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions So, does anyone have any further comment on my conjecture that the referent/antecedent for "it" in "the gates of hades will not prevail against it" could be PETRAi and not necessarily EKKLHSIAN?What are the rules for determining that the nearest agreeable noun must be the antecedent or referent for a pronoun? [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [Corrected][] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Tue Jul 22 03:36:18 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] Codex Sinaiticus Eric,> So, does anyone have any further comment on my conjecture that the > referent/antecedent for "it" in "the gates of hades will not prevail against it" could be > PETRAi and not necessarily EKKLHSIAN?> > What are the rules for determining that the nearest agreeable noun must be the antecedent > or referent for a pronoun?> HH: Normally the nearest possible antecedent is correct.Another factor is topicality. What is the topic in the immediate vicinity. The pronoun is likely to refer back to that. The more prominent the topic, the more likely that it can be referred to by a pronoun.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > > [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] Codex Sinaiticus [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com Tue Jul 22 06:19:36 EDT 2008 [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions [] UBS2 Distinctiveness On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> Matthew 16:18 - KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi> PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU> KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.> ...> 2. Re: the gates of hades not prevailing: While BDAG seems to view > the gates as being> unable to defeat the church, is there a basis in the word meanings > for thinking that Jesus is> saying that it is the church that will be attacking the gates of > hades (i.e., the power of> death), and hades/death won't be able to withstand the church's > onslaught?The "gates of Hades" will not put up a solid resistance against the "Ecclesia" -- but they certainly do seem to be able to withstand the assaults of speculation.This has not been the longest thread we've had on over the years, but it seems to me that it's been one of the most unproductive. While the verse is often quoted and is even engraved in Latin inside the dome of St. Peter's basilica in Rome, it is evident that its arcane depths have not yet been plumbed not convincingly, at least. I find that there are many occasions -- and this is one of them -- when I'm reminded of a snippet of two elegiac couplets constituting Fragment 34 of Xenophanes on the paucity of convincing solutions to some much-discussed questions. Here's how it appears in the standard reference work, Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker;34 SEXT. adv. math. VII 49. 110 PLUT. aud. poet. 2 p. 17 E καὶ τὸ μὲν οὖν σαφὲς οὔτις ἀνὴρ ἴδεν οὐδέ τις ἔσται εἰδὼς ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω περὶ πάντων· εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τύχοι τετελεσμένον εἰπών, αὐτὸς ὅμως οὐκ οἶδε· δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται.KAI TO MEN OUN SAFES OUTIS ANHR IDEN OUDE TIS ESTAIEIDWS AMFI QEWN TE KAI hASSA LEGW PERI PANTWN;EI GAR KAI TA MALISTA TUCOI TETELESMENON EIPWNAUTOS hOMWS OUK OIDE: DOKOS D' EPI PASI TETUKTAI.Here's my own (loose) take on this: "And as for perspicuity, nobody has seen it nor will there ever be any one who has knowledge about the gods and what I'm saying about everything; even if someone should happen to hit the nail right on the head with a statement, even so, he himself doesn't know it. Guesswork is what has turned up in every instance."Pre-socratic phraseology, especially in those authors who wrote verse rather than prose (for the reason that verse is the traditional medium for Wisdom literature in Greek) is itself sometimes less than perspicuous. Use of the adjective SAFHS/ES (σαφής/ές) -- "clear, transparent, perspicuous" in the sense of "true" is characteristically early Greek, perhaps like our "self-evident." The last clause is particularly difficult/ambiguous. DOKOS (δόκος) does mean "opinion" or "fancy" (so LSJ); TETUKTAI (τέτυκται) as a perfect middle-passive of TEUCW (τεύχω) could mean "has been wrought" (if the verb is used in the sense of "make, produce") or "has fallen by chance" (if the verb here is understood as from the lemma TUGCANW (τυγχάνω). Then there's the question whether PASI (πᾶσι) in the phrase EPI PASI (ἐπὶ πᾶσι) should be understood as a masculine or as a neuter. Is every opinionator a guesser or is it every thing about which opinionators have opined that is guesswork. Looks like a case of "quot homines tot sententiae."I'm not offering any hermeneutical theory or proposition of my own here. I just marvel at every fresh instance of questions about what is familiar -- especially in the Biblical text -- for which answers are not so readily found. I guess people don't readily confess that they are "stumped."Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired) [] Matthew 16:18 - two questions[] UBS2 Distinctiveness [] Matt 16:18 -- Two Questions Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com Wed Jul 30 15:02:08 EDT 2008 [] Optative Paradigms [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Hello Folks,First of all, please forgive me for my lateness in contributing to thisthread. And then pardon me for slightly altering the subject heading. Ican't remember exactly what it was and I don't have any previous posts topiggyback off of.Mt 16:18 -- KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAiOIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hAiDOU OU KATISCUSOUSIN AUTHS.If the best commentary on this verse is Heb 2:14-15 (R. Francenotwithstanding)EPEI OUN TA PAIDIA KEKOINWNHKEN hAIMATOS KAI SARKOS, KAI AUTOSPARAPLHSIWS METESCEN TWN AUTWN, hINA DIA TOU QANATOU KATARGHSHi TON TOKRATOS ECONTA TOU QANATOU, TOUT' ESTIN TON DIABOLON, KAI APOLLAXHiTOUTOUS, hOSOI FOBWi QANATOU DIA PANTOS TOU ZHN ENOCOI HSAN DOULEIAS.(cf. Rom 8:15 -- OU GAR ELABETE PNEUMA DOULEIAS PALIN EIS FOBON)then 3 observations seem to follow:1) the PULAI hAiDOU = TON TO KRATOS ECONTA TOU QANATOU or more simply TOKRATOS TOU QANATOU2) hH EKKLHSIA is assaulted (unsuccessfully) by the PULAI hAiDOU and notthe other way round.3) hH EKKLHSIA is assaulted and not hAUTH hH PETRA on which it rests, nomatter what you think hAUTH hH PETRA may represent. Nevertheless I cannotimagine the superstructure being attacked without the foundation alsobeing involved and vice versa.Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.comWest Haven, Connecticut USA____________________________________________________________Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3m5bi0sEktwRQx3Kk3uESjKp6OkjNkR5UHCaYM9M0bmkF5bq/ [] Optative Paradigms[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN This is discussed on page 230 (PDF 242) **Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation**, Richard A. Hoyle, 2008 SIL International http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — October 19th, 2017, 12:54 pm
κάγω δε σόι λέγω ότι συ ει Πέτρος και επι ταυτη τη πέτρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι άδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτής. First of all, please excuse some of the words that don't have all of the accent marks, breath marks and iota subscripts. My Greek keyboard does not have some of those options. Now to the text. Since this is such a controversial passage regarding "επι ταυτη τη πέτρα", I would like to get some feedback on what other NT Greek students believe the pronoun "this" is referring back to in this context only (i.e. Jesus, Peter, or Peter's confession of faith). Can we determine that definitively from a grammatical standpoint? Thanks. Jeffrey Dangel Statistics: Posted by Jeffrey Dangel — October 18th, 2017, 4:04 pm
Another question we could ask is whether John believed the pronoun referent could be clearly identified. Given the number of interpretaions that are possible, it seems that he felt he didn't need to be clear about it in the grammar. A fourth possibility to add to three that you are considering is that it may be that Jesus was pointing at the physical ground.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amHey, Stephen. Thanks for your reply. So, as far as you know, there is no certain way to tell what επι ταύτη τη πέτρα (upon this rock) is referring back to.
Let me add to what TPMc has said by saying that full grammatical (number, gender and case) agreement tend to occur in quite small contexts. Number is derived from the real world, gender is derived from nouns and as TPMc says case is derived from the role that it has taken in the sentence - being an adverb, or depending on the needs of a verb or preposition.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 4:11 amIt wouldn't make any difference if there were another feminine noun in the context. πετρα is feminine; its gender is not affected by anything else it might refer to or be equivalent to. And certainly the case doesn't matter. A noun's case is determined by its use in the sentence, not by anything it might refer to or be in apposition to or whatever.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amSince ταύτη is a Demonstrative Prounoun Dative Feminine Singular, and the definite article τη and the noun πέτρα are both in the Dative Feminine Singular, then basically that is all the grammatical agreement information we are going to get for “upon this rock”? It would be nice if you could go back to Peter, Jesus, or his confession of faith and one of those words was in the Dative Feminine Singular form as well and you would know what “upon this rock” is referring to grammatically. Then, you could say, “yes, I know ταύτη refers to Jesus himself or I know it’s a reference to Peter or his confession. Yet, that is not the case, right?
A comparison of interpretations of scripture will have to look into more than just how the scripture uses the words. There may be certain motivations in the history of how the scriptures were used and applied, that will explain why one method of interpreting or other is supported by one exegete or another. The method you're describing is just one of a number of approaches to finding an understanding of the text. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 21st, 2017, 9:27 amJeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amIn other words, we’re left to interpreting this phrase by means of New Testament word studies and context, as well as what else we know about how Scripture uses these words and concepts in other passages.
Another question we could ask is whether John believed the pronoun referent could be clearly identified. Given the number of interpretaions that are possible, it seems that he felt he didn't need to be clear about it in the grammar. A fourth possibility to add to three that you are considering is that it may be that Jesus was pointing at the physical ground.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amHey, Stephen. Thanks for your reply. So, as far as you know, there is no certain way to tell what επι ταύτη τη πέτρα (upon this rock) is referring back to.
Let me add to what TPMc has said by saying that full grammatical (number, gender and case) agreement tend to occur in quite small contexts. Number is derived from the real world, gender is derived from nouns and as TPMc says case is derived from the role that it has taken in the sentence - being an adverb, or depending on the needs of a verb or preposition.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 4:11 amIt wouldn't make any difference if there were another feminine noun in the context. πετρα is feminine; its gender is not affected by anything else it might refer to or be equivalent to. And certainly the case doesn't matter. A noun's case is determined by its use in the sentence, not by anything it might refer to or be in apposition to or whatever.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amSince ταύτη is a Demonstrative Prounoun Dative Feminine Singular, and the definite article τη and the noun πέτρα are both in the Dative Feminine Singular, then basically that is all the grammatical agreement information we are going to get for “upon this rock”? It would be nice if you could go back to Peter, Jesus, or his confession of faith and one of those words was in the Dative Feminine Singular form as well and you would know what “upon this rock” is referring to grammatically. Then, you could say, “yes, I know ταύτη refers to Jesus himself or I know it’s a reference to Peter or his confession. Yet, that is not the case, right?
A comparison of interpretations of scripture will have to look into more than just how the scripture uses the words. There may be certain motivations in the history of how the scriptures were used and applied, that will explain why one method of interpreting or other is supported by one exegete or another. The method you're describing is just one of a number of approaches to finding an understanding of the text. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 21st, 2017, 9:27 amJeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amIn other words, we’re left to interpreting this phrase by means of New Testament word studies and context, as well as what else we know about how Scripture uses these words and concepts in other passages.
Another question we could ask is whether John believed the pronoun referent could be clearly identified. Given the number of interpretaions that are possible, it seems that he felt he didn't need to be clear about it in the grammar. A fourth possibility to add to three that you are considering is that it may be that Jesus was pointing at the physical ground.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amHey, Stephen. Thanks for your reply. So, as far as you know, there is no certain way to tell what επι ταύτη τη πέτρα (upon this rock) is referring back to.
Let me add to what TPMc has said by saying that full grammatical (number, gender and case) agreement tend to occur in quite small contexts. Number is derived from the real world, gender is derived from nouns and as TPMc says case is derived from the role that it has taken in the sentence - being an adverb, or depending on the needs of a verb or preposition.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 4:11 amIt wouldn't make any difference if there were another feminine noun in the context. πετρα is feminine; its gender is not affected by anything else it might refer to or be equivalent to. And certainly the case doesn't matter. A noun's case is determined by its use in the sentence, not by anything it might refer to or be in apposition to or whatever.Jeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amSince ταύτη is a Demonstrative Prounoun Dative Feminine Singular, and the definite article τη and the noun πέτρα are both in the Dative Feminine Singular, then basically that is all the grammatical agreement information we are going to get for “upon this rock”? It would be nice if you could go back to Peter, Jesus, or his confession of faith and one of those words was in the Dative Feminine Singular form as well and you would know what “upon this rock” is referring to grammatically. Then, you could say, “yes, I know ταύτη refers to Jesus himself or I know it’s a reference to Peter or his confession. Yet, that is not the case, right?
A comparison of interpretations of scripture will have to look into more than just how the scripture uses the words. There may be certain motivations in the history of how the scriptures were used and applied, that will explain why one method of interpreting or other is supported by one exegete or another. The method you're describing is just one of a number of approaches to finding an understanding of the text. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 21st, 2017, 9:27 amJeffrey Dangel wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 12:56 amIn other words, we’re left to interpreting this phrase by means of New Testament word studies and context, as well as what else we know about how Scripture uses these words and concepts in other passages.
I don't want to quibble too much about metalanguage, but I think the reference is semantic rather than syntactic. Syntactically, αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή or ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ does not necessarily imply a reference unless the context does. If Jesus were pointing to a physical rock on the ground when he said ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, nobody would ask what he was referring to by looking at what he had said previously. It's not the syntax. Which is why the syntax doesn't answer the question here.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan, I question your assertation about it referring to πέτρα. I think it agrees with πετρα in number, case and gender, when it functions syntactically here as a demonstrative adjective with πέτρα or in apposition to πέτρα. In your example, αὕτη is used syntactically as demonstrative pronoun referring back to what was before, viz. the thing that the questioner was gesturing towards. That is a good illustration of a different syntax.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don't want this to get lost - Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP. ταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα. For WAYK folks, it's analogous to this dialogue: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή.
I don't think that's syntactic. When he says "on this rock", everyone thinks, "what rock?", and they have to think about what he just said to look for an answer. And ταύτῃ agrees with πέτρᾳ in the phrase ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, it doesn't syntactically agree with whatever Jesus meant. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amThe demonstrative adjective in Matthew 16:18 lends its demonstrative force to πέτρα. In effect it is saying "there was a πέτρα just mentioned, and I'm gunna build my Church on it."
Perhaps, theology (our own or Biblical) and belief (the Faith). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 24th, 2017, 11:46 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:03 amAnd then context, culture, history, and other things help guide our understanding of which possibilities are most likely.
Jonathan, I question your assertation about it referring to πέτρα. I think it agrees with πετρα in number, case and gender, when it functions syntactically here as a demonstrative adjective with πέτρα or in apposition to πέτρα. In your example, αὕτη is used syntactically as demonstrative pronoun referring back to what was before, viz. the thing that the questioner was gesturing towards. That is a good illustration of a different syntax. The demonstrative adjective in Matthew 16:18 lends its demonstrative force to πέτρα. In effect it is saying "there was a πέτρα just mentioned, and I'm gunna build my Church on it." By confusing reference and agreement, your assertion repeats the same mistake that occurs in the OP. The part of PTMc response that has been quoted as authoritative is in fact incomplete. Any correct answer must indicate that demonstrative-ness is demonstrative-ness and agreement is agreement. It must also say that when used syntactically as a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative indicates that the noun with which it is in apposition to and in agreement with refers to something or someone else in the discourse. The basic principle that the poster needs to come to understand is that at the syntactic level there is agreement, while at the discourse level there is reference. Any clear answer that explains or differentiates between those two is adequate. Any direct answer that does not tease out the difference between syntax and discourse (by either naming them or implying them) is inadequate. (Going into deeper discussion of the grammar - either translational to justify why the English "this" could be used with validity or how this type of demonstrative serves a discourse rather than an emphatic function, iedoes not mean for example this rock and no others - is probably not necessary to bring out this particular point that the original poster has a misunderstanding about). A better than adequate response will foster understanding of what the OP poster needs to understand. To be clearer still, a similar example from any number of those available could provided to illustrate the point and let the poster's mind go through the steps, such as:Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don't want this to get lost - Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP. ταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα. For WAYK folks, it's analogous to this dialogue: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή.
The αὕτη prompts us to think which widow we were just talking about.Mark 12:43 wrote:ἡ χήρα αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ πλεῖον πάντων βέβληκεν τῶν βαλλόντων εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον· This widow we see now, which is the same one as we saw before ...
We are prompted by the τούτου to think about which child was just being talked about in the narrative. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amLuke 2:17 wrote:Ἰδόντες δὲ διεγνώρισαν περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ λαληθέντος αὐτοῖς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου.
And then context, culture, history, and other things help guide our understanding of which possibilities are most likely. Grammar alone is not enough to interpret a passage. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 6:03 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2017, 4:12 pmBasically, once you get free of the constraints of familiar English, with well-worn wheel ruts to guide its interpretation, the possibilities multiply.
I don't want this to get lost - Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP. ταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα. For WAYK folks, it's analogous to this dialogue: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amtimothy_p_mcmahon wrote: ↑October 21st, 2017, 4:11 amIt wouldn't make any difference if there were another feminine noun in the context. πετρα is feminine; its gender is not affected by anything else it might refer to or be equivalent to. And certainly the case doesn't matter. A noun's case is determined by its use in the sentence, not by anything it might refer to or be in apposition to or whatever.
Yes, I used the wrong word.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pmThe point of my penultimate post was to point out the error in this statement:It is incorrect. ταυτη doesn't refer to πετρα. It agrees with πετρα.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα.
Yup. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 1:15 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pm(Agreement is a feature of syntax.) ταύτη ἡ πέτρα refers to something or somebody, which or who is either literally or metaphorically a rock.
Yes, I used the wrong word.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pmThe point of my penultimate post was to point out the error in this statement:It is incorrect. ταυτη doesn't refer to πετρα. It agrees with πετρα.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα.
Yup. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 1:15 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pm(Agreement is a feature of syntax.) ταύτη ἡ πέτρα refers to something or somebody, which or who is either literally or metaphorically a rock.
I agree. I said the referent was found independent of the syntax. There is another level of understanding that shouldn't be ignoredJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmSyntactically, αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή or ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ does not necessarily imply a reference unless the context does.
Gesturing is a non-verbal communicative strategy. Any bodily movement made with the intent of conveying meaning is a speech act. The point of my penultimate post was to point out the error in this statement:Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmIf Jesus were pointing to a physical rock on the ground when he said ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, nobody would ask what he was referring to by looking at what he had said previously.
It is incorrect. ταυτη doesn't refer to πετρα. It agrees with πετρα. (Agreement is a feature of syntax.) ταύτη ἡ πέτρα refers to something or somebody, which or who is either literally or metaphorically a rock. To put it another way, without the ταύτη, we would not be wondering whether the rock was Jesus, Peter's confession or Peter himself (or any other tongue-in-cheek grammatically possible suggestions). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pmJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα.
I agree. I said the referent was found independent of the syntax. There is another level of understanding that shouldn't be ignoredJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmSyntactically, αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολή or ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ does not necessarily imply a reference unless the context does.
Gesturing is a non-verbal communicative strategy. Any bodily movement made with the intent of conveying meaning is a speech act. The point of my penultimate post was to point out the error in this statement:Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmIf Jesus were pointing to a physical rock on the ground when he said ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, nobody would ask what he was referring to by looking at what he had said previously.
It is incorrect. ταυτη doesn't refer to πετρα. It agrees with πετρα. (Agreement is a feature of syntax.) ταύτη ἡ πέτρα refers to something or somebody, which or who is either literally or metaphorically a rock. To put it another way, without the ταύτη, we would not be wondering whether the rock was Jesus, Peter's confession or Peter himself (or any other tongue-in-cheek grammatically possible suggestions). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 24th, 2017, 1:09 pmJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 12:35 pmταυτη is not referring back to anything, it refers to πετρα.
The syntax of English doesn't answer all questions we have about English texts. The syntax of Greek doesn't answer all questions we have about Greek texts. Human beings do interpret these texts differently, even when we have the same grasp of the language. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 24th, 2017, 12:39 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:46 amPerhaps, theology (our own or Biblical) and belief (the Faith).Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:03 amAnd then context, culture, history, and other things help guide our understanding of which possibilities are most likely.
Cf. John 1:42: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?
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. 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. Definetly a Play of words - but what comes first - the Stone or the Name? Yours Peter Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — November 27th, 2013, 7:48 amἤγαγεν αὐτὸν (= Σίμωνα) πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.