flameburns> That’s actually an interesting point. I’m not sure that I agree with it, but it’s certainly not something that had crossed my mind before. It’s certainly worthy of further consideration – would God act in this way?
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Names in scripture are transliterated most of the time, and while I haven’t done an exhaustive study on this subject, I’m not sure why it would not be done in the case of Kepha. That’s what I’m asking about here – what reason is there for Kepha to not always have been transliterated as Cephas? Why should it ever have been translated to petros?
I suppose you can argue that they wanted to really point out that Peter was the rock of the church, but I think this argument makes little sense. All of the gospels record Christ’s name as the transliterated Iesous (Jesus), even though Jesus’ name certainly has meaning in its original tongue.
Do you have some theory you’re going to spring on us, or are you just asking?
It’s a linguistic oddity that came up in a thread about Peter being “the rock”. I personally find oddities such as this worthy of investigation, because there’s usually some misunderstanding in such cases.
I never have suggested that Simon Peter was a pebble. That’s generally sloppy scholarship (on the part of protestants) or straw-man argumentation (on the part of Roman Catholics).
In any case, the dual usage is seemingly unique from what I can see. Thus, we have to consider what the possible reasons for this are.
Is it possible that the use of Petros is not actually a translation of Kepha (except, of course in John, where it clearly is indicated as such), but instead is the transliteration of another name Simon possessed (perhaps making the similarity with the Greek word petros a mere coincidence)?
Is there some other possibility I’m missing here? Why would a seemingly “standard” linguistic practice be violated in this case?
I realize most of you will want to simply insist that the traditional understanding is correct, but I’m looking for genuinely interested people with possible ideas here – not folks looking to defend the RCC at any cost. This isn’t a petros/petra discussion, nor is it about the role of Simon in the church. Let’s keep the ad hominem out of it, and address the question I raised.