Today's Gospel and "Translated as" - - a pet peeve of mine


#21

In the KJV,
Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
Joh 1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
Joh 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
Joh 1:42 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, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Rendering διδασκαλος as “Master” in v.38 is curious, but they did at least go for a stone in v.42.


#22

:thumbsup:

Peace
James


#23

So - when you see an interesting rock, do you declare, “Look at this interesting Peter!”. ??

Why do you think that this is not the context of “Kepha or Petros”? Isn’t this the very context that we argue with protestants about in regards to Mt 16 and Peter’s (Papal) authority in the Church?

Peace
James


#24

Here is a picture of that famous actor…

PETER HUDSON…:smiley:


#25

The greek uses the same word for translate/interpret Messiah and Teacher but a different, related one for interpreting Petros. John had very good greek so it is unlikely that it is a mistake or oversight. Maybe the different verb indicates Petros has be come the new name of Cephas and doesn’t have the same interpretave key as the other two? Transliteration of πετρος as peter may reflect this better.


#26

Βαπτιζω took on a very technical sense in the early Church which, as we know, means more than just to dip or immerse in water. The transliteration(first into latin and then english) captures something of the sacrament which mere interpretative translation lacks.


#27

No, but when I do, I don’t text you “look at this interesting Rock”! Rather, if I meant ‘rock’, I’d write ‘rock’, but if I meant a name, I’d capitalize it!

If it had been just a noun, and written as ‘petros’, then your take would make sense. It’s not. It’s already a proper name. Therefore, it’s translated into the corresponding name in the target language: Cephas -> Petros -> Peter.

Why do you think that this is not the context of “Kepha or Petros”? Isn’t this the very context that we argue with protestants about in regards to Mt 16 and Peter’s (Papal) authority in the Church?

Different argument. Mt 16 explains the meaning of the name and what it signifies. That’s not the presentation that laid out for us in John 1. There, rather, we simply see a renaming taking place. If He had renamed Simon as ‘Jesus’, would you assert that this is a bad translation, too – that John should have said “which translated, is, ‘God saves’”?!? :rolleyes:

However, there is something subtle and important going on here, as you have intuited!

Look again at the three words that the evangelist interprets for us. The first two are translated (μεθερμηνευόμενον); but Peter’s name is interpreted (ἑρμηνεύεται). (The same root word – ἑρμηνεύω – is in play, but there’s something different going on with Peter’s name.) I would assert that the evangelist is subtly directing our attention to something important: the first two proper nouns – ‘Teacher’ and ‘Christ’ – are titles, and are translated into the correspoding words in Greek; but ‘Kephas’ is different – it’s a name. And, when it’s translated into Greek, Kephas also retains its direct meaning – that is, inasmuch as it’s both a proper name and a generic noun in Aramaic, it likewise is both in Greek.

I think, in a way, I’m trying to have my cake and eat it, too: it is both ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’… but, the translation of Kephas is clearly Petros – Peter. :shrug:


#28

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think the ancient Greek had capital and small letters. If this is the case then when John wrote petros in the text, it was the same at writing Petros or PETROS…and in any case would translate rock or Rock or ROCK…

If I am wrong on this - then I’ve learned something new today…

Different argument. Mt 16 explains the meaning of the name and what it signifies. That’s not the presentation that laid out for us in John 1. There, rather, we simply see a renaming taking place. If He had renamed Simon as ‘Jesus’, would you assert that this is a bad translation, too – that John should have said “which translated, is, ‘God saves’”?!? :rolleyes:

However, there is something subtle and important going on here, as you have intuited!

Look again at the three words that the evangelist interprets for us. The first two are translated (μεθερμηνευόμενον); but Peter’s name is interpreted (ἑρμηνεύεται). (The same root word – ἑρμηνεύω – is in play, but there’s something different going on with Peter’s name.) I would assert that the evangelist is subtly directing our attention to something important: the first two proper nouns – ‘Teacher’ and ‘Christ’ – are titles, and are translated into the correspoding words in Greek; but ‘Kephas’ is different – it’s a name. And, when it’s translated into Greek, Kephas also retains its direct meaning – that is, inasmuch as it’s both a proper name and a generic noun in Aramaic, it likewise is both in Greek.

I think, in a way, I’m trying to have my cake and eat it, too: it is both ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’… but, the translation of Kephas is clearly Petros – Peter. :shrug:

I think you are right in that we are trying to have our cake and eat it too.

The issue I think that that we English speakers know him as Peter…We may or may not know that Peter means rock…but the Translators want us to know that he is talking about the person we know as Peter.
Myself - - and this is just me - - I would think to translate it as, “you will be called Cephas” — which is translated Rock (Peter)”.

Peace
James


#29

Quite so - but I also think we can lose something too.
For example, in the discussion between water baptism and spirit baptism, the one can easily be seen as washing - washing away sin…the other - Baptism of the Spirit, really takes on a much deeper idea of immersion and a change as a result of that immersion.

Peace
James


#30

To-may-to, to-mah-to. :wink:

I could make the equivalent argument that it was intended as a personal name, not a generic noun, and so, what we recognize through capitalization, the evangelist and later translators recognized through their understanding of the interpretations that had been handed down through the centuries. :shrug:

The issue I think that that we English speakers know him as Peter…We may or may not know that Peter means rock…but the Translators want us to know that he is talking about the person we know as Peter.

Interesting insight! If we try to place ourselves in the context of a speaker of Aramaic or Koine Greek, then there’s no distinction here: they wouldn’t even have thought that this was an issue – since for them, it wasn’t! (I could get really technical, from a linguistic perspective, but let’s just point out that, on the level of the words as they exist (as spoken and as written), they’re identical, although the meanings differ: one is a generic noun and the other a name.) So, for them, they would ‘hear’ both, and would have to decide whether the context implied that a name was being used or that a reference to the common noun was being made.

With that in mind, let’s look at the context: “you will be called Cephas – which is translated X”. Earlier, two Hebrew titles were translated into their Greek equivalent, and now we have an Aramaic name:

And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher)…
Andrew said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ)…
Jesus said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Hebrew title -> Greek title
Hebrew title -> Greek title
Aramaic name -> Greek (???)

If you follow the pattern, then you expect a name, not a common noun.

At best, you could argue that Christ was taking a common noun in Aramaic and using it as a proper name. Still, then, the translation would be the Greek word used as a proper name.

Either way, it’s a name being given, not a common noun, so the translation – as a name – makes most sense.


#31

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.