^{page 73 note 1} For a valuable discussion of much of the more recent material on the subject see Obrist, Franz, Echtheitsfragen und Deutung der Primatsstelle Mt. 16, 18 f. in der deutschen protestantischen Theologie der letzten dreiβig Jahre (Münster/Westf. 1960) (NTAbh. 21, 3/4), and the literature listed there, pp. iv-xi. In addition to the works cited there we may mention the following:Google ScholarBetz, O., ‘Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde (Eine Parallele zu Mt 16, 17–19 in den Qumranpsalmen)’, Z.N.W. XLVIII (1957) 49–77;Google ScholarBornkamm, Günther, ‘The authority to “Bind” and “Loose” in the Church in Matthew's gospel: the problem of sources in Matthew's gospel’, Perspective XI (1970), 37–50;Google ScholarCullmann, O., ‘Petrus, Werkzeug des Teufels und Werkzeug Gottes. Die Stellung von Mt. 16, 17–19 in der ältesten Überlieferung’, in Vorträge und Aufsätze (Tübingen/Zürich, 1966), pp. 202–13;Google Scholarvon Dobschütz, E., ‘Matthias als Rabbi und Katechet’, Z.N.W. xxvii (1928), 338–48;Google ScholarDupont, J., ‘La révélation du Fils de Dieu en faveur de Pierre (Mt 16, 17) et de Paul (Ga 1, 16)’, R.Sc.R. LII (1964), 411–20;Google ScholarFuller, R. H., ‘The “Thou art Peter” pericope and the Easter appearances’, McCormick Quarterly XX (1967), 309–15;Google ScholarGoulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London, 1974). pp. 383–93, etc.;Google ScholarKümmel, W.G., ‘Jesus und die Anfänge der Kirche’, St.Th. VII (1953), 1–27;Google ScholarMarxsen, W., ‘Der Fels der Kirche’, in Der ‘Frühkatholizismus’ im Neuen Testament (Biblische Studien 21) (Neukirchen, 1958), pp. 39–54;Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., ‘Some reflections on the “Stone” testimonia in relation to the name Peter’, N.T.S. II (1955–6), 56–8;Google ScholarSeitz, O.J.F., ‘Upon this rock: a critical re-examination of Matt. 16, 17–19’, J.B.L. LXIX (1950), 329–40;Google ScholarVögtle, A., ‘Messiasbekenntnis und Petrusverheißung: zur Komposition Mt 16, 13–23 par.’, in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Beiträge zur Evangelienforschung (Kommentäre u. Beiträge zur A.u.N.T.) (Düsseldorf, 1971), pp. 137–70.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} So, for example, Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946), pp. 39–40, 43–4, 82, etc. He allows the possibility of oral tradition but the main part of vv. 17–19 reveals ‘no obvious sources’ (p. 39).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} John i. 42; I Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, XV. 5; Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14.

^{page 74 note 2} CfBultmann, R., The History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, ET by Marsh, John (Oxford, 1963), pp. 138–41.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} Cfvon Harnack, A., ‘Der Spruch über Petrus als den Felsen der Kirche’, S.B.A. phil.-hist. Kl. (Jg. 1918), 637–54, esp. pp. 646 f. The matter was discussed in some detail by O.J. F. Seitz, loc. cit., who concludes that in its present form Matt. xvi. 17–19 is ‘nothing more than an exceedingly insecure, late fabrication…’ (p. 340). Cf. also Moule, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} So, e.g., Marxsen, op. cit. p. 46; cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 39–40, etc.; Vögtle, loc. cit. pp. 159–70, argues for the ‘secondary’ character of the passage, but (i) allows that it may rest in whole or in part on earlier material, and (ii) that v. 17 may have had a different origin and tradition-history from vv.. 18–19.

^{page 75 note 2} CfBultmann, R., ‘Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewußtsein Jesu und das Petrus-Bekenntnis’, Z.N.W. XIX (1919–20), 165–74, esp. 170 ff.; ‘Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16, 17–19’, Th.Bl. XX (1941), 265–79 (= Exegetica, ausg. u. eingel. v. E. Dinkler (Tübingen, 1967), 255–77); andGoogle ScholarThe History of the Synoptic Tradition, ET by Marsh, John (London, 1963), pp. 258–9, 138–40.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Cf. Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 39–40, 43–4, and Marxsen, loc. cit.

^{page 75 note 4} So Vögtle, op. cit. pp. 163–70.

^{page 75 note 5} Hirsch, E., Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums II (Tübingen, 1941), pp. 306–8, 323.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 6} ‘Du bist Petrus: zum Problem vom Matthaeus 16. 13–26’, Ev. Theol. 13 (1953), p. 51

^{page 75 note 7} Cf. Matt. xxvi. 63, where the High Priest's question to Jesus reflects the same ‘additional’ words as Matt. xvi. 16. The way in which v. 18 refers back to Peter's confession in v. 16 and actually ‘bypasses’ v. 17 is noted by Vögtle, who sees here the presence not of one unit of tradition, but (at least) two: loc. cit. pp. 163–4.

^{page 76 note 1} CfBurney, C. F., The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925), p. 117; J.Jeremias, ‘Golgotha’, Angelas (= ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ) 1 (1926), 68 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Op. cit. p. 69.

^{page 76 note 3} Ibid. pp. 69–70.

^{page 76 note 4} See above, p. 74 n. 3 (SBA, 1918, 637–54).

^{page 77 note 1} Loc. cit. p. 648.

^{page 77 note 2} Loc. cit. p. 646.

^{page 77 note 3} Ibid. pp. 647–8.

^{page 77 note 4} Ibid. pp. 650–1, 653. He takes ‘gates of Hades’ as = death.

^{page 77 note 5} Ibid. pp. 650–1.

^{page 78 note 1} Ibid. p. 653.

^{page 78 note 2} Ibid. p. 651.

^{page 78 note 3} Cf. Hermas, Sim. IX, xii, 1.

^{page 78 note 4} Harnack, loc. cit. p, 648. Some such thought appears to underlie Matt. xvi. 28 par., where the identity of those who areto survive until the coming of the Kingdom is not specified; John xxi. 22–3 may reflect a similar piece of tradition.

^{page 78 note 5} John i. 42; I Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, XV. 5; Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, II, 14.

^{page 78 note 6} Cf. also John xxi. 15–17, where the form Σ⋯μων ᾽Ιω⋯ννου occurs.

^{page 78 note 7} For a discussion of this see Hengel, M., Die Zdoten (Leiden/Köln, 1961) (AGSU 1), pp. 55 ff., esp. p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} It is, of course, possible that John i. 42 represents a correct interpretation of the matter, although not a translation.

^{page 79 note 2} But the underlying assumption of this is that Matt. xvi. 18 is integral; if not, the problem takes on a new aspect.

^{page 79 note 3} Z.N.W. XIX (1919–20), 170–1; cf. also HST pp. 138–40.

^{page 79 note 4} The expression also occurs in I Cor. XV. 50, Eph. vi. 12 and Heb. ii. 14. Dupont (loc. cit. pp. 416–17) argues that these cases reflect a different use of the term from that in Matt. xvi. 17 and Gal. i. 16: only in the latter instances does it have the ‘rabbinical’ meaning ‘earthly’, as against ‘heavenly’. But surely in Eph. vi. 12, at any rate, the contrast is between powers ‘on earth’ and powers ‘ in the heavens’.

^{page 79 note 5} Dupont, J., ‘La révélation du Fils de Dieu en faveur de Pierre (Mt 16, 17) et de Paul (Ga 1, 16)’, R.Sc.R. LII (1964), 411–20, discusses the question in detail.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} Horae Synopticae ² (Oxford, 1909), pp. 7, 32. Examples of the expression occur in the Mishnah at m. Sot. ix. 15 (3 times), m. Yom. viii. 9, m. R.Sh. iii. 8 (twice), etc.

^{page 80 note 2} Cf. the familiar ‘case’-form in rabbinical writings: the use of a story about a person, named or unnamed, as a ‘case’ or ‘example’ of a saying, ruling, bible-text, or other matter in discussion. E.g. m. Ber. ii. 5, where we find (a) a statement that a bridegroom is exempt from saying the Shema on the first night of his wedding or until the going out of the Sabbath if he has not consummated the marriage; followed by (b) a ‘case’ (השעמ = אדבוע) a story about Gamaliel, R.. The story is told to elucidate the nature of the exemption. Such ‘case’-form may also underlie parts of the gospel tradition, e.g. the section on Peter's denial (cf. the writer's article, ‘The Denial-sequence in Mark xiv. 26–31, 66–72’, N.T.S. XVII (1970–1), 426–36; esp. p. 436.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 3} The Semitisms in question do not suggest translation but only an origin in the Aramaic-speaking community. It is significant that neither Matthew Black (An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts ³ (Oxford, 1967)) nor Beyer, Klaus (Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament [SUNT, 1], Göttingen, 1962) lists this verse amongst their instances of Semitism.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 4} 1QH vi. 24. CfBetz, O., ‘Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde’, Z.N.W. XLVIII (1957), 72 ff., 76–7. He holds that ‘the gates of Hades’ is to be understood – in the light of 1QH vi. 24, etc. – as a term for the offensive might of Satan, seen primarily as an ethical concern.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} See below, p. 82. Note however that the pair, δ⋯ειν and λ⋯ειν, are found in Josephus, BJ 1, V, 2 (§III), in precisely the sense of ‘to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind, whom they (the Pharisees) would’ (ET by Thackeray, H. St J., Loeb Classical Library, Josephus, 11, 55 (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1927)).Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Cf. Matt. xi. 25–7 = Luke X. 21–2.

^{page 81 note 3} So Vögtle, loc. cit. pp. 163–70.

^{page 81 note 4} Loc. cit. p. 416.

^{page 81 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 81 note 6} Ibid. p. 417.

^{page 82 note 1} See above, pp. 77–9.

^{page 82 note 2} Th.Bl. XX (1941), 268 = Exegetica, pp. 260–1.

^{page 82 note 3} Thus Easton, B. S., ‘St Matthew 16: 17–19’, A.Th.R. V (1921–2), 156–66, esp. pp. 156, 157, 166.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 4} Bornkamm, G., Perspective XI (1970), 46.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 5} See above, pp. 79–81.

^{page 82 note 6} Cf. also m. Men. xi. 3.

^{page 83 note 1} CfTrilling, W., Das wahre Israel³ (München, 1964) (StANT 10), pp. 106–23; G. Bornkamm, loc. cit. p. 38, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} So Harnack, loc. cit. p. 647; Bultmann, Th.Bl. XX (1941), 270–1 = Exegetica, pp. 263–4.

^{page 83 note 3} Th.Bl. XX (1941), 270 = Exegetica, p. 263.

^{page 83 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 83 note 5} Ibid. p. 274 = Exegetica, p. 270.

^{page 84 note 1} Black, Matthew, ‘The Christological use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971–2), 1–14; esp. pp. 11–13;Google ScholarCarrington, P., According to Mark (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 256–9. It was Matthew Black's paper, given as his presidential address to the S.N.T.S. Conference at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in August 1970, which gave the initial impetus to the writing of this present study.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} For a valuable discussion of the matter, especiallyas regards Acts iv. II, see Ellis, E. Earle, ‘Midraschartige Züge in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte’, Z.N.W. LXII (1971), 94–104; esp. pp. 100–4.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 3} So, for example, in LXX, Lev. xix. 14, I Kgd. XXV. 31, and Ps. cxviii (cxix). 165.

^{page 85 note 1} The case is argued out well by Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), pp. 41–3; cf. alsoGoogle ScholarEllis, E. Earle, Paul's use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 87 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Rom. ix. 32b–33, where the ⋯π᾽ αὐτῷ of v. 33b clearly is intended to refer to both λ⋯θον and π⋯τραν in the preceding lines; x. II picks up the same quotation and continues the identification. Similarly, in I Pet. ii. 8 the two terms ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ are identified with one another and with the previously mentioned ‘stone’ in the citation from Ps. cxvii (cxviii). 22 (I Pet. ii. 7). We are therefore not speaking about an identity of die two terms in a grammatical or philological sense, but in a midrashic way. The same feature might be expected also in other NT passages dealing with the ‘stone’ or the ‘rock’.

^{page 85 note 3} See above, p. 84.

^{page 85 note 4} I.e. ןטלושר ךילמל האנמתאל הכזו ישיר אינב יניב תוה אילכידרא וקיבש אילט

^{page 85 note 5} Note, for example, that the same set of consonants, אילט, this time meaning not ‘child’/‘young man’/‘son’, but ‘lamb’ and, especially, ‘sacrificial lamb’ occurs in v 27.

^{page 86 note 1} Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim (3. Aufl. Leipzig, 1881), 1, 60b (and also Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 2. Aufl. Berlin und Wien, 1924 (= Repr., Darmstadt, 1963), 1, 241 b), under אלכידרא. The shift in meaning recalls the similar ‘to build, to edify’.

^{page 86 note 2} See above, pp. 73 (esp. n. 1), 84 (n. 1), and the articles cited there by Betz and Black.

^{page 86 note 3} See above, p. 84.

^{page 86 note 4} Note how Mark has the more natural Greek form ὑπ⋯, where Matthew and Luke read ⋯π⋯, which would suit a literal translation of Hebrew or Aramaic ןמ.

^{page 86 note 5} The writer has argued elsewhere for the more ‘developed’ nature of ⋯ν⋯στημιin such contexts (The Semitisms of Acts [Oxford, 1965], p. 167). The present case is all the more interesting in the light of the special Lukan element in the resurrection-vision narrative, where the prediction-logion is quoted in its ⋯ναστ⋯ναι-form (Luke xxiv. 7).

^{page 86 note 6} Or should we not perhaps say ‘darashed’ to interpret ‘son’ either by way of Jesus’ special title (the Son of Man) or by means of Dan. ii. 34 and vii. 13?