From: Alfred Persson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 26 2001 - 09:22:43 EDT
In Kittel's, Vol VI, p. 101, footnote 8, it is suggested petros might
translate the Aramaic PTR "firstborn," but this view was rejected in O.
Cullman's own article.
However in Mt 16:18 Kafe is inexplicably rendered petra, retaining its
femininity in contradiction to the assumption petros renders kafe throughout
the Gospels. This indicates kafe Mt 16:18 does not underlie petros.
Moreover in Jn 1:40 petros is dissimilar to petros in vs 42 for Cephas is
not explained by translating it as Peter.
If petros renders peter and not kafe that explains the lexical data neither
were used as proper nouns till the NT established such usage.
An analogy, if batos did not occur in Lk 16:6 all would deny it could mean
liquid measure for it otherwise means "bramble" or "bush."
Moreover when I reviewed the lexical identification of petros with kafe I
found its premises contain hasty generalization and circular reasoning.
To make sure I haven't overlooked something I would love someone defend the
Due to the sensitive nature of this discussion feel free to email me
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:07 EDT