Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Peter - kefa alef ?
#1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
1Peter 1:1 - ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ??

Shlama to all

I would like someone to explain why the text of 1Pedro in Aramaic this Petros instead of Kefa or Shimon Kefa.
were the copyists that changed of Kefa for Petros? someone has a story about it?

Thank's <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes -->

Nyudraa
Reply
#2
Hi Nyudraa,

Have you read the name of "Petros" in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Qumran Cave 4 (4QM130)?

In that leather fragment, the name Petros is found in a list of names that includes Magnus, Malkiah, Mephibosheth, Hyrcanus, Yannai, Aquila, Zakariel, Eli and Omriel.

Nice mix of Hebrew, Latin and Greek names, in a Hebrew-language fragment.

Why did Shimon refer to himself as "Petros" - well, same reason why Paul went by a Latin name instead of his given name of Shaul. Many people had dual names in that time period, as they do today.

For instance, my father's name was Shimon. But when he arrived in the United States, he went by the name of "David" because it sounded more "American." My mother's name was "Qinno" - but she went by the name of "Mary" here in the States. Again, because it sounded more "American." Ironically, both of their adopted names were in reality Anglicized versions of Semitic names.

Go figure.
Reply
#3
Like Akhi Paul said. Similarly, all of my religious Jewish friends have two names. One in English, and one in Hebrew. Beka is Rivka. Jason is Yonah. Benjamin is Binyamin. Robert is Yaaqov. Etc.
Reply
#4
Dawid and Paul,
The Peshitta Gospels refer to Peter as "Shimon Keefa" whereas it appears that beginning with Acts the Peshitta refers to him as Petros... Unless I am missing something, I am not sure this agrees with either of the scenarios you reference in the posts above... His name actually was Shimon Keefa and he was referred to as such in earlier writings, even when written for Gentile audiences. So why the sudden change of Keefa to Petros in Acts (even Luqa uses Keefa)? I think this is a rather interesting question given the two different naming conventions used in the Peshitta. As always, I appreciate the thoughts anyone cares to share!

Shlama
Reply
#5
brantana Wrote:Dawid and Paul,
The Peshitta Gospels refer to Peter as "Shimon Keefa" whereas it appears that beginning with Acts the Peshitta refers to him as Petros... Unless I am missing something, I am not sure this agrees with either of the scenarios you reference in the posts above... His name actually was Shimon Keefa and he was referred to as such in earlier writings, even when written for Gentile audiences. So why the sudden change of Keefa to Petros in Acts (even Luqa uses Keefa)? I think this is a rather interesting question given the two different naming conventions used in the Peshitta. As always, I appreciate the thoughts anyone cares to share!

Shlama

Hi Brantana,

His name wasn't Shimon Keepa, his name was Shimon bar-Yonah. Keepa, and it's Greek cognate Petros, is a rather unflattering nickname given to him by our Lord. You will notice that Shimon never actually refers to himself as "Keepa", in Aramaic it does not sound very good at all. You will almost never find anyone in any Semitic language named after an inanimate, dumb object like a rock.

The answer to the question of why the sudden change is the same as in the case of the Hebrew Saul in Acts to the Latin Paul in the epistles. People then, like now, have different names they go by. It was very common to have both a Semitic and a Greek name, or even a Latin name, in those days. Just like it's common to have a Semitic and English name today.

Personally, I don't think Shimon really liked the "Keepa" moniker, again, it's not very flattering to call someone by that in Aramaic. I think Meshikha intended to be a bit humorous when He gave him that nickname.

Other people obviously called him by the name, but I really think it might have even been Shimon who insisted on switching to Petros if a nickname were going to be used at all.

It's not really a proper name, by "proper" I mean of course appropriate.

Examine Acts 10:5-6, for example. The only reason the angel said "Shimon who is called Keepa" is to distinguish between him and the Shimon the tanner, at whom's house Keepa was staying.
Reply
#6
Toda Raba Paul,

Quote:His name wasn't Shimon Keepa, his name was Shimon bar-Yonah.
I appreciate the correction. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I still find it odd that Luqa, writer of both Luqa and Acts, would change the name he used to reference Shimon "mid-stream" in his writings. Why would he shift, after referencing Shimon as Shimon Keepa in Luqa then reference him as Shimon Petros in Acts? ... I hope the question makes sense.

Shlama!
Reply
#7
brantana Wrote:Toda Raba Paul,

Quote:His name wasn't Shimon Keepa, his name was Shimon bar-Yonah.
I appreciate the correction. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I still find it odd that Luqa, writer of both Luqa and Acts, would change the name he used to reference Shimon "mid-stream" in his writings. Why would he shift, after referencing Shimon as Shimon Keepa in Luqa then reference him as Shimon Petros in Acts? ... I hope the question makes sense.

Shlama!

Keepa occurs in Acts 13 times, "Petros" occurs only once in Acts - at the very beginning.

Along this line of inquiry - Why did Paul use Keepa, instead of Petros, when writing to the churches in Corinth and Galatia?
Reply
#8
Toda Raba Paul once again!
Quote:Keepa occurs in Acts 13 times, "Petros" occurs only once in Acts - at the very beginning.
So, Luqa does use both Keepa and Petros in the same book ... wow. Thanks for pointing that out, I obviously came across the first instance of Petros and assumed, using Luqa's instance of Petros and Shimon's letters using Petros (based on this message thread) - oops. But if I hadn't have asked the question, based on bad info or not, I would have been left with a wrong assumption. Best to be corrected than believe an untruth.

brantana Wrote:Along this line of inquiry - Why did Paul use Keepa, instead of Petros, when writing to the churches in Corinth and Galatia?
Any idea, why this back and forth in the names? Since you mentioned this, do you have a theory as to why Paul used "Keepa" in these books ... And of course, why Keepa used Petros in his letters and Luqa used all the above plus Shimon?? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, this has been an interesting thread.
Reply
#9
brantana Wrote:Any idea, why this back and forth in the names? Since you mentioned this, do you have a theory as to why Paul used "Keepa" in these books ... And of course, why Keepa used Petros in his letters and Luqa used all the above plus Shimon?? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, this has been an interesting thread.

Only explanation that makes sense to me now, but confused me as a child, is what I already explained. Relatives would come over for dinner and at the table call my father Shimon, and after a few games of backgammon and a little too much dinner wine an occasional "David" would come out while they argued over the legality of a move.

Dual names are very common in immigrant families. I could see that being the case in 1st-century Israel as well. It obviously was the case.

Luke and Paul called him both names, or all three names (Shimon, Keepa and Petros)..Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek...probably without even thinking about it.
Reply
#10
I see Keefa, Kefa, Keepa from Aramaic sources. What is the origin of Cephas? Is it a Greek or English transliteration?

Thank you
Steve
Reply
#11
CSYhnn Wrote:I see Keefa, Kefa, Keepa from Aramaic sources. What is the origin of Cephas? Is it a Greek or English transliteration?

Thank you
Steve
Dear Steve,

From my small studies so far I believe Keefa, Kefa, and Keepa are equivalent in Aramaic.

It's currently my understanding that "Cepha(s)" is an Anglicization of a Greek transliteration from Kefa. According to my Greek friend George, the "s" on the end is purely a feature of Greek grammar, and not really part of the name. If I recall correctly, Greek (and many other languages) will modify noun endings differently depending on their type & how they're used in the sentence. I think it's called "declension". A noun so modified is referred to as "declined". Similarly, Yeshua becomes Iesou(s) in the Greek (no "sh", so "s" instead). Here's a fun article on declension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension

Peace

-Raymond

P.S.- Please feel free to correct me, anyone. =]
-Raymond
===
dowidh Wrote:People want the apostles to be like them and often they re-imagine them to be more like themselves than what they really are. Like some ... picture white Jesus without a beard, speaking English singing praise and worship music at Church...
Reply
#12
So, does Keepa has anything to do with Petra or Rock? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#13
labanino Wrote:So, does Keepa has anything to do with Petra or Rock? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Yes, it is of the Hebrew/Aramaic word for small rock, perhaps - that was part of a bigger rock. So Keefa(Aramaic) & Kepha (Hebrew) mean rock as well as the Greek word Petros means rock.

So the Greek nickname retained the meaning form it's original Hebrew, Aramaic origin. By this pattern his English nickname would be either Rock or perhaps Pebble(?). So in English translations it would be just as proper to call Shimon by Rock as it was for the Greeks to translate Kepha/Keepa as Petros.

I do not know what the word for rock is in other languages, but in what ever language one would translate the Peshitta into they could use their word for rock (and capitalize the first letter to denote a name) and that would be more proper than for an English translation to use Petros being it is not the original Hebrew/Aramaic nickname. As Petros was to help the Greek speaking people understand the intent of the nickname, so we in English should either call him by his birth name Shimon or his nickname in the original language (i.e.-Kepha/Keepa), or as Rock opposed to Petros unless we are translating from the Greek texts, in which then it would be fine to transliterate Petros (but the intent of the nickname could be lost to those whom do not know the Greek language).

On that note I personally feel as the nickname should either be translated instead of transliterated in order for the target audience to get the intent rather than be left wondering "what's up with the different names?", or transliterated from the original language. What I am saying is - if you are an English speaking person just think Rock when you see Petros unless you are in a Greek state of mind - then by all means think Petros. Remember the nickname is not a proper name in which would be improper to translate, and was intended to convey the definition. So when it comes to English speaking/thinking people we should be reading/thinking "Shimon who was called 'Rock/Pebble' ".
Reply
#14
I'm afraid this would alienate your readers.
Technically, to translate 'Rock' instead of Peter or Petros, would be ok, but you also should keep readers comfortable. This issue also plays a role when a translator decides to transliterate 'marya' or YHWH or whatever into the Bible.

A translater has to choose between his personal opinion and to pass the Word of God without comprising the Message in the best language he/she can.

B.t.w. most people even do not know the meaning of their own name. In Europe, still some e.g. German names (which in fact mean 'sword' or 'bear' or 'strong') are in use, but those names are no longer 'language' (just as Keepha=rock) but just a name.
Reply
#15
distazo Wrote:I'm afraid this would alienate your readers.
Technically, to translate 'Rock' instead of Peter or Petros, would be ok, but you also should keep readers comfortable. This issue also plays a role when a translator decides to transliterate 'marya' or YHWH or whatever into the Bible.

A translater has to choose between his personal opinion and to pass the Word of God without comprising the Message in the best language he/she can.

B.t.w. most people even do not know the meaning of their own name. In Europe, still some e.g. German names (which in fact mean 'sword' or 'bear' or 'strong') are in use, but those names are no longer 'language' (just as Keepha=rock) but just a name.
But Keepha still means rock and always has so your ideology does not apply here. Only ignorant people do not know this and if one educates them, instead of keeping them ignorant, that obstetrical disappears and wallah -problem solve.

Now I will readily admit that not only are the majority of people ignorant of so much but they want to stay that way as well, and to that I say you can not reach them with knowledge because they will reject it. So trying to dummy down the Good News enough so that the majority would accept it would not work because by the time they are able to receive what they already know it would not be the Good News full of wisdom and understanding.

Personally, again, I think that if one has to dummy stuff down to the point that no one is learning anything it is but a waste of time, yeah/nah? But if one's goal is for ignorance to be a future goal then just leave them be - goal achieved. Anyway, my line of thinking is to eradicate the ignorance, instead of breading it, so that the problem of knowledge being of an unknown obstacle (in their way of being able to gain wisdom and understanding) would rather become a thing of the past laughed at. Oh yeah I get a lot of laughs at how lacking in knowledge I was, but was it my fault or was it the ones that sought to keep me that way by just not putting the knowledge before me so I could grow therein.

I mean really when do the so-called teaches think that knowledge triumphs keeping people clueless? Anyway as I said I am not wanting to waste my time trying to teach people in a way that they learn nothing, I would rather teach straight forward truth and let it be a shock for the reader to get over as opposed to give them what I was feed for so many years. And the ones wanting to learn will and the ones that would rather stay ignorant of things I am more than willing to stay out of their way and let them be. As far as I care some one that is willing to feed their itching ears can deal with them.

All that said, it might alienate people that are comfortable in their ignorance unwilling to grow in knowledge and understanding, but not the the ones I'm shooting for. <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: --> <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: --> <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: --> <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)