To po18guy and jcrichton in particular:
It is clear that Peter was adressed with different names. But there is a difference between Andrew calling Peter “Simon”, as it was his brother’s name, and Jesus calling him “Peter” as his function. I see no problem here; plus, it is two different people referring or talking to him.
what happens in Galatians 2 (even in Greek) is that :
- it is one person referring to Peter all along, namely Paul.
- He switches from Peter to Cephas without any apparent reason.
; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Peter and Cephas have the same meaning, so it is not like Jesus calling Simon by his name and then by his function/name Peter.
7 αλλα τουναντιον ιδοντες οτι πεπιστευμαι το ευαγγελιον της ακροβυστιας καθως πετρος της περιτομης 8 ο γαρ ενεργησας πετρω εις αποστολην της περιτομης ενηργησεν και εμοι εις τα εθνη 9 και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην 10 μονον των πτωχων ινα μνημονευωμεν ο και εσπουδασα αυτο τουτο ποιησαι 11 οτε δε ηλθεν πετρος εις αντιοχειαν κατα προσωπον αυτω αντεστην οτι κατεγνωσμενος ην
As I said, it is not about translations, because the Greek reads the same, except for the last Petros. If some translations have a more homogeneous use of Peter’s name (one instead of two) then it would be an editor choice not to follow the original text where the “three pillars” are listed: James, Cephas, John.
I don’t see why Peter wouldn’t be Cephas, but then why this shift in Galatians? Why using the aramean version of the name, if he already used the greek one in the same epistle, a couple of sentences before?