Religion Forum Research Project: God is the Rock

Various | January 25, 2007 | Alamo-Girl

[Alamo-Girl]

The premise to uphold or debunk: (a) That the name of “Rock” was specially announced as a name for God in the Torah (Deut 32:1-4) and that (b) the name has been erased and/or lost in certain translations and thus (c) has had an effect on how Christians understand certain passages in Scripture.

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

We were hashing these things out on another thread here on the Religion Forum. But the thread is huge and has many sidebars and interest changed to more pressing matters – plus we were not on the “radar” of the forum as a whole. It is my hope that other posters here will have information and insight – whether Biblical archeology or theology or language – that will shed some additional light on the subject.

Translations:

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

Background on the Hebrew:

Tzur is Hebrew for "rock". It is also used here:

For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God? – 2 Sam 22:32

Tzur alone and with other word phrases is among the Biblical names or titles of God.

Biblical and Talmudic Names for God

Another common title of YHWH is "the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4,18, 1, 7; I Samuel 2:2; II Samuel 22:32; Isaiah 44:8; Psalm 18:32), thus comparing Him to a high crag on which one finds refuge and safety.

That God is the Rock has not been lost in Judaism, e.g. “Rock of Ages” (Ma’oz Tzur) is the favorite Hanukkah Song.

Nor has it been lost among Christians who have long used the King James Translation which was faithful to interpret literally the Hebrew word tzur to mean Rock instead of God or Mighty One as it is translated in the Septuagint.

Ironically, the Christian hymn Rock of Ages is among their favorites.

The name for God is used in several places in Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel 22 but also appears throughout the Psalms and in Isaiah.

In Isaiah 30:29 and Habbukak 1:12 it is translated in the King James Version to mean Mighty One like in the Septuagint - but everywhere else that I have found it is “Rock”.

The Vulgate omits the name altogether in Deuteronomy 32:4

Why is it important?

From the Jewish perspective

Of all the possible errors a translator could make, missing one of the names or titles of God has to be “right up there.” Rock is one of the common names for God but nevertheless important to Judaism.

The Name of God (Jewish Virtual Library)

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

The Torah is unlike any other manuscript, God breathed and supreme as Christ underscored here:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18

Jewish tradition holds that the Torah existed before the world, that every letter of it is a living creature and that altogether it, too, is a name of God. It is their – and by their hand to the world – greatest gift (since they don't receive Christ.) It is also their mission.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - John 4:22

To me, not translating tzur literally Rock in the Septuagint - is in fact "erasing" a name of God. Moreover, it is not in the Vulgate at all in Deu 32:4.

From the Christian perspective:

The name of God is crucial to all Christians. It is our first plea in the Lord’s prayer:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name….

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:11-12

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13

Surely the name “God is the Rock” will continue to be important in eternity. The Deuteronomy passage is in the “Song of Moses” which will be sung in heaven:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

And Christ used the term Rock in two very important passages. If one misunderstands the Rock to mean something common or someone other than God, then it can lead to error.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. – Matt 7:24-25

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18

Peter and Paul were both Jews – they did not miss the point that God is the Rock as we can see here.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8

What is lost when “God is the Rock” is lost?

To me, the most far reaching loss is in seeing Peter as the Rock in Matt 16:17-18 instead of God. Not that he isn’t “a“ rock but – at the very most, accepting that God is the Rock - his position in Christianity could be no more than Abraham’s in Judaism.

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2

IOW, the foundation of Christianity is God, the Rock. Both the reference to Abraham and to Peter were drawn on top of that name not in lieu of it.

Moreover, I assert that receiving the knowledge that “God is the Rock” can improve our understanding the Old Testament and increase our joy.

As an example, consider the following passage understanding that God is the Rock, that Jesus was smitten, that the Living Water is the Spirit (John 4, 7:38):

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?– Exodus 17:6-7

Or perhaps this one:

And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. – Exodus 33:21-23

Here’s where the debate stands at this time:

Defense of the Vulgate/Septuagint:

The rebuttal so far is that the Septuagint chronologically precedes the Masoretic text, that the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated is no longer available (as far as we know to this date.)

I have not yet received a defense for why the Vulgate omits the term altogether.

Rebuttal to the defense

As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C.

The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (LXX.)

But as to the faithfulness of the Torah itself there is no question. As I have much personally testified, the indwelling Spirit authenticates Scripture and leads us into Truth. (John 14, 15):

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For a good summary of the antiquity of the Torah manuscripts, from IBSS :

The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible)

There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386).

The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.

The Nash Papyrus dating has been pushed back to approximately 200 BC (Hebrew manuscript collection - University of Cambridge Cambridge University Library) Like the DSS, it contains fragments of Deuteronomy, but not the one we are seeking here.

Nevertheless, the Jews always understood their responsibility to keep the Torah:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deu 4:2

Other resources for Lurkers:

The Hebrew Alphabet wrt the history of the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures.

Ancient Hebrew Translation Project - wrt the translation of poetic form v mechanical v literal

I have also been researching the pseudepigraphra to see what extra-Biblical ancient manuscripts might have to add to the discussion. So far I have found two which may be interesting:

1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock. Fragments of this book were found at Qumran and carbon date to about 200 BC. The scholars suggest these passages were added though in about 100 B.C. The scholars believe the original language was Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Testament of Moses which is supposed to be a summary of Deutoronomy, but is very fragmented and the parts which would address the name, the Rock, may be missing. The scholars dispute the age of the manuscript but put it somewhere between 168 BC and 135 AD. The bearing it may have (if any) to this discussion is that Moses instructs and assures Joshua to protect the Scriptures (last part of chapter 1) in a manner that suggests there will be another find like the Dead Sea Scrolls as we get closer the Christ’s coming:

… I am going to sleep with my fathers. But (you) take this writing so that later you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. You shall arrange them, anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which (God) has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the world, (a place) where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord will surely have regard for his people.

[Quix]

Whew! That was a lot of Scripture to make this point - whatever we are reading from the Holy Scriptures, let us yield to the Spirit so that we are not receiving His Truth with our vision and mind alone but are following where He leads us.

= = =

Indeed.

[Quix]

What's the point of an evangelical making a person a disciple as commanded by the great commission, then have to say, oh well, now I have to run it by Peter? Does not make sense.

= = =

INDEED!

[1000 silverlings]

But only Peter has the keys

Just out of curiosity, just what do you think these keys are? What does the bible say they are? Obviously they are not literal keys, so what are they?

[Claud]

What's the point of an evangelical making a person a disciple as commanded by the great commission, then have to say, oh well, now I have to run it by Peter? Does not make sense.

I don't recall ever saying this actually, or even anything close to it. Can you explain what you mean a little more fully?

Peter's role among the Apostles wasn't to rule over the Church like a dictator, but to protect and defend the original revelation that came to them from Christ. What's the chief executive supposed to do in the U.S....protect and defend the Constitution? That's Peter's role. That's the role of the keys. Not to change, not to arbitrarily rule on a whim, but to hold the fort in the Master's absence and make sure the place doesn't get wrecked in the meantime.

This notion that Peter and the Papacy *interferes* with one's walk with Christ...heavens no. God forbid! It strengthens and guarantees it.

[Quix]

As I regain my energy, I hope to start a thread on

WHAT IS WORSHIP?

Please consider, prayerfully ponder how you each might contribute to such a thread from your own Scriptural, personal experiences.

WHAT IS WORSHIP?

How do we know we are involved in worship?

How do others observe us to be authentically involved in worship?

How does God detect that our worship is authentic, with heart passion after Him?

What factors, traits characterize worship?

What behaviors characterize worship?

What priority is worship to have in the life of the beliver?

What are the hazards of worship, if any?

What are the contaminants of worship, if any?

What is/are the purpose/purposes; goal/goals of worship?

What is the Biblical result(s) of worship?

What are the Biblical standards of worship?

What is the Biblical model of worship?

[Claud]

Just out of curiosity, just what do you think these keys are? What does the bible say they are? Obviously they are not literal keys, so what are they?

Let's look at the passage. Does King James work for you?:

16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We get an inkling here of what they are from the bolded phrase. "Binding and loosing" being a metaphor for legislative power. The keys represent authority to make laws on earth which will be ratified in heaven. Very sweeping and almost shocking statement that!

Now compare with Isaiah 22:20 ff.:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The investure of the keys to Eliakim and Peter too were investures of authority. That is what the keys have always symbolized in Christian symbolism. Now, what exactly that authority entails is the million dollar question, and as I'm sure you know, Catholics and Orthodox for instance disagree strongly on exactly what the Petrine authority means. Frankly, I think theirs is a better criticism of the Catholic position than to say that Peter was not *given* any authority in the first place, which is plainly contradicted by Scripture.

[1000 silverlings]

okay, that's going to be quite a thread if it gets going

[Quix]

Maybe I'll go ahead and start it with just the questions rather than pontificate first with my own notions.

Thanks.

[1000 silverlings]

I agree with investures of authority.

We see in Isaiah 22, that "the key is carried upon the shoulder", certainly denoting the care of government, but in Isaiah the government is a monarchy, King David's monarchy. Eliakim (meaning God raises or God sets up) is a symbol of Christ, and He has been entrusted with the House of David (the monarchy). Jesus sits on the throne forever.

We see in Luke 22 that the Apostles are given the Kingdom and 12 thrones. The thrones appear to be equal.

All who go into the Kingdom also receive crowns and a throne

We also judge and are given crowns

1Co 6:2

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Furthermore no one enters the kingdom who is unsaved. Thus salvation is one of the keys, and thus the confession of Peter and our own, is a key. The Sermon on the Mount lists the rest of them.

[Mad Dawg]

We are talking about a statement made in Aramaic and remembered and written in vulgar Greek. I wouldn't bet the ranch on an interpretation that relied on the text alone.

To my way of thinking that's another reason to rely on holy tradition (as opposed to "the traditions of men"). Obviously there is another view which suggests that Jesus didn't speak any language very clearly.

I have seen all I need to see about this kind of debate. What is the maxim? If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

Pound away, and much good may it do you. (Not you personally, you understand, I hope)

[Blogger]

Claud, Yes, there is a play on words here.

Look at the words (particularly the pronouns and adjectives) of the verse again:

Matthew 16:15-19

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus says who do you (to the disciples) say that I am? Peter answers "thou art the Christ..." Jesus says "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah... and I say to YOU, you are a Rock; and, upon this Rock (an it) I will build my church. He then goes back to directly referring to Peter.

As a side note, I was examining the Greek and had a thought. Some of this may hinge on a very small word, Kai (translated 'and') here and the vast majority of places but not always.

The lexicon says: 2532. kai kahee apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

So, if I'm reading my lexicon right, The passage could legitimately be translated:

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, even upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Or... 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, but upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Or.... 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are a Rock, therefore, upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

In all cases, the rock can legitimately (and I believe IS legitimately) be interpreted to be Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

I do not claim to be a Greek Scholar, though I have taken Greek. I would be interested in seeing what others say about this possibility. I'm not saying that kai should be translated differently than it currently is; though I am raising the possibility. Thoughts anyone?

[Kolokotronis]

The position you have advanced is the position of the Orthodox Church. The Peter/rock wording is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, petros/petra. Orthodoxy maintains that the rock Christ is referring to is +Peter's confession of Faith. The real foundation of course is Christ Himself.

The foregoing notwithstanding, that passage and 16:19 clearly demonstrate that +Peter was singled out for a sort of special authority, but not as a leader over the other apostles, which is pretty well demonstrated at the Council of Jerusalem, but rather among the apostles.

The interpretation of this passage by the medieval Church of Rome to imply, or better said, establish, that the Pope had universal immediate jurisdiction over all the bishops because he was the successor of +Peter was and remains likely the major reason for the enduring schism between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

[Blogger]

Is it legitimate to translate Kai in some other way than "and" in this case (particularly since one of the rocks is a personal pronoun and the other is an it.)?

[Blogger]

Peter singled out with a special authority I do not dispute. He was an apostle. The apostles did have a different role in the church than we do today, and Peter was reputed to have been a pillar (one of at least 3). But you do not see him as being above the others. He was just a leader and apostle in the early church.

[Kolokotronis]

"Is it legitimate to translate Kai in some other way than "and" in this case (particularly since one of the rocks is a personal pronoun and the other is an it.)?"

I suppose you could, though I have never seen it translated any other way than "and" and when I read the verse in Greek, I certainly think "and" to the extent I do a mental translation, which, now that I think about it, I don't really do. If you do translate "και" as something other than "and", I think it ruins the word play. Actually the other translations of "και" you mentioned are usually seen in idomatic phrases of the sort we don´t see here.

[Blogger]

Okay. I'm cool with that. I see it as a word play, and find that such an interpretation is supported by the YOU verses THIS in the sentence.

[Kolokotronis]

"Okay. I'm cool with that."

:)

"I see it as a word play, and find that such an interpretation is supported by the YOU verses THIS in the sentence."

Precisely!

[1000 silverlings]

But you do not see him as being above the others. He was just a leader and apostle in the early church

Further evidenced by his own writing: He saw himself as just another elder

1 Peter 5:1

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent sidebar on the "keys." Thank you for the pings!