[b-greek] petros/ptr homonym to petros/keph
Alfred Persson
alpersso at pe.net
Wed Sep 17 11:29:20 EDT 2003
While it certainly is true Keph translates Keph, Job 30:6, I propose
Petros/stone and petros/Peter are homonyms in Greek, spelled the same but
actually meaning entirely different things, similar to Batos 942 & Batos
943.
The data of the NT rules out the Generalization Keph=petros/stone AND
petros/Peter.
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was
Andrew, Simon PETROS/KEPH brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother
Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being
interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus
beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called
CEPHAS/KEPH, which is by interpretation, A PETROS/KEPH.
Christ spoke this in Aramaic, John translates it in Greek. So why did John
switch from petros to Cephas in vs 42a only to explain it is a petros in
42b?
Why was it acceptable to translate Keph as Petros 32 times elsewhere
(without any comment about the Aramaic) but not acceptable in 42a?
Why the sudden need to transliterate Keph as Cephas and not use the usual
petros/Peter?
The only likely answer is that John didn't consider petros/Peter to be
Keph/Cephas.
This is doubly certain as we read John explaining what sort of Keph/Cephas
Christ meant, a petros!!!
For example, if we accept the non literal niv translation: Cephas "(which,
when translated, is Peter)" we then see this switch is unnecessarily
redundant.
In other words, as John is supposed to have consistently translated Cephas
(keph) as Peter (petros) without comment everywhere else, why cause more
labor now?
Why not just show Christ saying "You will be called Peter" (Petros)?
Then John doesn't have to translate just as he is doesn't elsewhere.
The text is unnecessarily redundant if we accept as true the generalization
of petros/stone and petros/Peter.p
On the contrary it appears this switch from petros to Cephas is necessary
precisely because John does not consider petros/Peter is the Greek
translation of Cephas/keph.
What is being indicated is John knows there is a different Aramaic word
underlying petros/Peter and it is not petros/keph.
The context literally understood supports this conclusion: hermeeneuoo
(2059) means "interpretation" (kjv) and not mere meaningless symbol
substitution, this is manifest in the word's usage elsewhere ( Jn 1:38; 9:7
cp Hb 7:2.) The aspect of "connoting, explaining, interpreting what is
meant" is always manifest. Therefore any meaningless "translation" that is
not simultaneously explanatory is not hermeeneuoo.
As one cannot hermeeneuoo "EXPLAIN/interpret when translating" what kind of
Rock Christ meant by calling it "Peter" just as one cannot hermeeneuoo
"EXPLAIN/interpret when translating what kind of dog is meant by calling it
"Fido," Cephas cannot be when interpreted, "petros/Peter." Petros/stone,
yes, Petros/Peter, no.
Clearly John knew nothing of the equation "Cephas/keph" = "Petros/Peter" so
necessary to Catholic eisegesis.
Yes, petros/stone can indeed translate keph and does so in Job 30:6.
However it does not follow that petros/Peter is petros/keph/stone as John
himself rejects the equation.
The same is true of Matthew who in Mt 16:18 inexplicably (if he believed the
generalization petros/Peter=Cephas/petra/keph) switches from "petros" to
"petra."
If indeed both petros and petra here really are translating the same Armaic
word Keph then petros should appear twice.
Matthew is supposed to have translated Keph as Petros/Peter 22 times
elsewhere with no problems, so why the sudden need to switch to petra in
16:18b?
If Christ said in Aramaic "you are keph and upon this keph I will build,"
why didn't Matthew translate keph as petros both times: "You are petros and
upon this petros I will build?"
That he did not indicates Matthew does NOT consider the Aramaic word
underlying petros/Peter to be equivalent to petra/Keph.
If he did he wouldn't have switched.
So also Paul didn't consider petros to be equivalent to Cephas, in Gal 2:9
he purposely switches to Cephas rejecting petros as sufficient for
identification.
If petros=Cephas then both came to be man's names at the same time, in Jn
1:42.
Why then is Cephas able to identify Peter without question, but petros is
not?
Why must Simon be used with petros to identify Peter, 33 times:
Matt. 4:18; 10:2; 16:16; Mk. 3:16; 14:37; Lk. 5:8; 6:14; Jn. 6:68; 13:6, 9,
24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2, 6; 21:2f, 7, 11, 15, 17; Acts 1:13; 10:5, 18,
32; 11:13; 2 Pet. 1:1
Cephas thus has an incompatible property, is not interchangeable with
petros.
Therefore they are not translating the same Aramaic word.
That is elementary logic and the hasty generalization of these words is
unsound.
The proposition petros/Peter and petros/stone are translating different
Aramaic words is mandated by the data.
Certainly Petros/stone and Petros/Peter are homonyms in Greek, spelled the
same but meaning entirely different things.
Now earlier German scholarship theorized there was in Aramaic a name common
among Palestinian Jews of the time meaning "firstborn," PTR PeTeR, Strong's
6363. The context of Mt 16:18 supports that view as does also PRWTOS in Mt
10:2 where "first" is not a numbering of names on the list.
The interpretation of Mt 16:18 as "You are firstborn and upon this very
(truth) the Rock" is parsimonous to the context and the grammar whereas "You
are Rock and upon HER the Rock(Peter)" is not.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list