Which Bible translation is the most accurate?

[sojourner]

you're the one that said ''accuracy is not important'' i say that it is and that is why i use the NWTHS over the NRSV. it seams to me if any one does not care for correctness
then any thing like the NRSV would be great .

I never said "accuracy isn't important." I said that the use of "Jehovah" as "God's name" represents a departure from strict textual accuracy. I further said that the use of "Jesus" represented a conscious adoption of a cultural convenience. That is to say, "I know 'Jesus' doesn't appear in the text, but I choose to use the term anyway, since by the use of that term, everyone knows what I'm talking about." But you believe "Jehovah"does appear in the text. It represents a major difference in the impetus for the use of the terms. Your knowledge of accuracy is...inaccurate -- and misplaced.

 

[Shermana]

It seems each translation has certain things that they get right and lots of things that they get either wrong or purposely colored Theologically (i.e. blatantly changed to support doctrine).

For example, the KJV and Douay Rheims gets Mark 7:19 correct, in saying that the Stomach purges all foods, while most modern translations deliberately distort the present tense into the past and twist the grammar to make it say that Jesus changed the dietary restrictions.

The NWT and other minority Scholarly works accurately reflect that John 1:1c should read "And the word was a god" as well as John 10:33 "You make yourself a god", while some like Goodspeed's "An American translation" get the right gist by translating Theos as "Divine", whereas most other translations use "Word was God" purely out of Theological reasons, with invented (and even disputed by other Trinitarians) "rules" like Colwell's to reinforce their traditional rendering.

In many cases though, even the JPS may get things a bit distorted as it's sometimes based more so on KJV rendering, and that's not even touching on the issue of Masoretic text issues.

Sometimes only a single lone translation gets the nuances of the language, such as the Good News Bible accurately translating "Do not take revenge" instead of the most commonly botched "Do not resist an evildoer" that every other translation seems to have. (I will be happy to explain in detail why the Good News version alone gets Matthew 5:39 right but it might be best for a whole thread).

39 But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.

In some cases such as Zechariah 12:10 it's hard to find a single translation that gets it right, judging by how the NT authors read it. In John 9, Jesus quotes it as "him who they pierced", as the pronoun indicator is a bit vague, but the other translations seem to have no problem rendering it as "Me who they have pierced", so Jesus or John must have had either a different version, or its an example of where Theological coloring gives way to blatant inconsistencies, and in cases like this, even the JPS and Jewish translations aren't necessarily better since its a case where the Hebrew, let alone Masoretic rendering is unclear and up to interpretation.

Sometimes like in Psalm 8:5, the translators refuse to accept the idea of Heavenly beings called "gods" and have odd renderings like "Man was made a little lower than God", and then have no problem that Hebrews quotes the verse as "Man was made a little lower than the Angels". In many cases, it seems consistency is not even of concern when it comes to their Theological coloring and fear of ruffling feathers of their audience who arent' familiar with the nuances of the old Israelite culture.

And in some cases, the NLT gets the gist of passages correct where others don't, (and in many cases fails miserably). And manuscript and text-interpolation issues aren't even an issue on this yet.

In some cases the JPS however gets somethings more right that none of the "Christian" leaning translations get, like Psalm 45:6, where it's commonly (and incorrectly) rendered as "Thy throne, O god" when it should be more along the lines of "God is thy throne". Sometimes I wonder if that verse is deliberately distorted, which is clearly talking about a King and not God, for the sake of a Trinitarian rendering of its quote in Hebrews 1:8. Which leads me to the next subject:

An issue I rarely see discussed is that HEBREW HAS NO VOCATIVE. When I see that 'O" before God or whatever, it is definitely annoying. I suppose it helps the reader identify the subject being talked to, but a comma works just as well and doesn't sound as pretensious. "O this, O that".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, I am talking about 2 different manuscripts.

You may be talking about two different. manuscripts, but no translations I know of (from before the NT existed to modern translations like the SV, NRSV, ASV, KJV, etc.) actually use two manuscripts. In my Greek edition of the NT, not only are major variations noted at the bottom in the critical apparatus, but there is an accompanying textual commentary written by Bruce M. Metzger which goes into further detail about which manuscripts and/or manuscript traditions support which variants. What manuscripts do you think exist which are used?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You may be talking about two different. manuscripts, but no translations I know of (from before the NT existed to modern translations like the SV, NRSV, ASV, KJV, etc.) actually use two manuscripts. In my Greek edition of the NT, not only are major variations noted at the bottom in the critical apparatus, but there is an accompanying textual commentary written by Bruce M. Metzger which goes into further detail about which manuscripts and/or manuscript traditions support which variants. What manuscripts do you think exist which are used?

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't understand what you are saying.

You originally asked:

And among the Greek and Hebrew texts we have today, which is the most accurate?

I responded here, basically saying that the question isn't possible to answer and that (for various reasons) it doesn't matter even if there were a "most accurate" manuscript (unless we had the originals). You responded:

Yeah, the major differences are mostly spelling errors, however there are different instances where different words are used, for example the KJV says cattle and the New World Translation says domestic animals. Now there are instances just like that but with the different Hebrew Manuscripts, so which manuscript has the most accurate wording?

The differences you are pointing to ("cattle" vs. "domestic animals") have nothing to do with manuscripts. I can translate the same construction (or word) in Greek or in Hebrew in multiple ways. The difference you point to is not one of manuscripts, but how the same Hebrew word is translated differently in two different English translations. It has nothing to do with manuscripts. There are very, very few differences in biblical translations which have anything to do with manuscripts. Rather, these differences are various panels of experts coming up with different ways of rendering the same phrases, words, etc., in Greek or in Hebrew differently.

The term "manuscript" refers to an actual, physical copy or partial copy (e.g., codex vaticanus) of some biblical text or texts. When editions of the Greek NT or Hebrew OT (or Tanakh) are made, many manuscripts are used and a panel of experts looks at the variations which are not clearly scribal error and determines which of these is likely the original. Often, in editions of ancient texts including biblical texts which are in their original language, something called a critical apparatus is included. It is usually footnotes in the text which correspond to a section at the bottom of the page. Each footnote is a place where manuscripts disagree, and in the case of biblical editions a panel has decided that the variation is likely the one in they included in the main text, but the possibility that it is not is great enough that they include the major variations at the bottom of the page and note which sources support which reading.

No bible edition you've come across is ever based on a Hebrew manuscript and a Greek manuscript. Rather, they are based on lots of manuscripts and how the variations between them have been dealt with (i.e., one version has been determined to be the most likely one). The differences in translations are not due to these variations but to the various ways in which one can translate words in any language into words in any other.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You originally asked:

I responded here, basically saying that the question isn't possible to answer and that (for various reasons) it doesn't matter even if there were a "most accurate" manuscript (unless we had the originals). You responded:


The differences you are pointing to ("cattle" vs. "domestic animals") have nothing to do with manuscripts. I can translate the same construction (or word) in Greek or in Hebrew in multiple ways. The difference you point to is not one of manuscripts, but how the same Hebrew word is translated differently in two different English translations. It has nothing to do with manuscripts. There are very, very few differences in biblical translations which have anything to do with manuscripts. Rather, these differences are various panels of experts coming up with different ways of rendering the same phrases, words, etc., in Greek or in Hebrew differently.

The term "manuscript" refers to an actual, physical copy or partial copy (e.g., codex vaticanus) of some biblical text or texts. When editions of the Greek NT or Hebrew OT (or Tanakh) are made, many manuscripts are used and a panel of experts looks at the variations which are not clearly scribal error and determines which of these is likely the original. Often, in editions of ancient texts including biblical texts which are in their original language, something called a critical apparatus is included. It is usually footnotes in the text which correspond to a section at the bottom of the page. Each footnote is a place where manuscripts disagree, and in the case of biblical editions a panel has decided that the variation is likely the one in they included in the main text, but the possibility that it is not is great enough that they include the major variations at the bottom of the page and note which sources support which reading.

No bible edition you've come across is ever based on a Hebrew manuscript and a Greek manuscript. Rather, they are based on lots of manuscripts and how the variations between them have been dealt with (i.e., one version has been determined to be the most likely one). The differences in translations are not due to these variations but to the various ways in which one can translate words in any language into words in any other.

Are you saying the Jews use a text other than the Torah in translating the Book of Genesis? Which other text did the Jews use in translating the Book of Genesis?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you saying the Jews use a text other than the Torah in translating the Book of Genesis? Which other text did the Jews use in translating the Book of Genesis?

In around 1000 CE, the Leningrad Codex was put together from a number of manuscripts by the Ben Asher family. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is based on this codex. Another such collection was compiled by Jacob Ben Hayyim in the 16th century, and for a while this was printed and widely available as the Second Rabbinic Bible. Currently, the JPS has The Jewish Bible: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures--The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, only
1) The committe behind the translation used multiple masoretic manuscripts
2) They used non-masoretic manuscripts
3) They used non-Hebrew manuscripts

A list of manuscripts can be found on wikipedia: List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts.

As for Genesis, as the author of The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition puts it: "No single manuscript or text represents in itself the Hebrew Bible...What we have are texts, editions, translations, and fragments. Each of these preserves a version of the text, and each version has been affected by the vicissitudes of time and transmission"

 

[Brickjectivity]

seams to me if it were as you say a''an amalgam of Latin and Germanic languages '' then the NWTHS would be a version. the NWTHS in not a version .

Hi, Cataway. I mean English is an amalgam of languages that are not at all like Hebrew or Greek. Hebrew is more like Arabic, and Greek is more like Hindi. It is, therefore, impossible to 'Translate' Hebrew or Greek into our language perfectly. To translate something means to move it without rotating it or altering it in any way. The ideal of a Bible translation is to move it from Hebrew to English without changing it, but that is impossible. Its like using a single triangle to fill a rounded hole. English is a rounded language, and Hebrew is a Triangle language. It will never fit perfectly, and there will be gaps.

If Hebrew were more like Spanish it might be possible, or if we could change English into a language structured like Hebrew with a very similar rhythm and feel then it might be possible to translate between the two. As it is, you must always rotate and mangle at least a little.

 

[cataway]

Hi, Cataway. I mean English is an amalgam of languages that are not at all like Hebrew or Greek. Hebrew is more like Arabic, and Greek is more like Hindi. It is, therefore, impossible to 'Translate' Hebrew or Greek into our language perfectly. To translate something means to move it without rotating it or altering it in any way. The ideal of a Bible translation is to move it from Hebrew to English without changing it, but that is impossible. Its like using a single triangle to fill a rounded hole. English is a rounded language, and Hebrew is a Triangle language. It will never fit perfectly, and there will be gaps.

If Hebrew were more like Spanish it might be possible, or if we could change English into a language structured like Hebrew with a very similar rhythm and feel then it might be possible to translate between the two. As it is, you must always rotate and mangle at least a little.

ya i have studied word for word Greek to English ,its very hard to fallow , ya thats English for ya

 

[cataway]

john 1:1 emphatic diaglott

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

In around 1000 CE, the Leningrad Codex was put together from a number of manuscripts by the Ben Asher family. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is based on this codex. Another such collection was compiled by Jacob Ben Hayyim in the 16th century, and for a while this was printed and widely available as the Second Rabbinic Bible. Currently, the JPS has The Jewish Bible: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures--The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, only
1) The committe behind the translation used multiple masoretic manuscripts
2) They used non-masoretic manuscripts
3) They used non-Hebrew manuscripts

A list of manuscripts can be found on wikipedia: List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts.

As for Genesis, as the author of The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition puts it: "No single manuscript or text represents in itself the Hebrew Bible...What we have are texts, editions, translations, and fragments. Each of these preserves a version of the text, and each version has been affected by the vicissitudes of time and transmission"

One more reason why I am currently learning Hebrew.
I don't want anyone to put a bunch of manuscripts into a blender and call it the Bible. I want to read the individual manuscripts themselves.

Why do they need to be blended up in the first place? Is it not because each one is just a little bit different, making the blending process a way to smooth out all of the differences?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One more reason why I am currently learning Hebrew.
I don't want anyone to put a bunch of manuscripts into a blender and call it the Bible. I want to read the individual manuscripts themselves.

That requires a lot more than learning Hebrew. Printed editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts use standardized fonts. They may differ somewhat, but they are easy to read if you know the language. Reading manuscripts requires an entirely different skill set. It can take me forever to read a few lines of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew in an inscription or in a copy (photo or some other image, such as those available for the Sinaiticus online), when reading it in a modern edition would take no time at all. Hebrew is generally easier, because
1) most of the surviving manuscripts are medieval, and thus one doesn't have to deal with the lack of spaces between words and some other problems with Greek & Latin.
2) There are far less.

However, the oldest copies of the Hebrew scriptures aren't usually in Hebrew. They are in Greek or in other Semitic languages like Syriac. Textual critics use these too, as they are important witnesses to the original text.

Why do they need to be blended up in the first place?

In the case of the Hebrew manuscripts, the main manuscripts we have, such as the Leningrad codex, are already blends put together in the middle ages from various manuscripts. We don't have the manuscripts the Ben Asher family who created this codex used to create it. They're gone. We have only the blended work.

Is it not because each one is just a little bit different, making the blending process a way to smooth out all of the differences?

In addition to the fact that the manuscripts are we have are often already "blended", the reason we do the same is because there are important variations. Hebrew relies extensively on the addition of single characters (letters) added before and after words to indicate things which English would convey using whole words and word order. In other words, in Hebrew the difference between having a letter in one manuscript and not having it in another can mean difference like those between the following examples:

"You should not steal"
and
"he didn't steal"

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

That requires a lot more than learning Hebrew. Printed editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts use standardized fonts. They may differ somewhat, but they are easy to read if you know the language. Reading manuscripts requires an entirely different skill set. It can take me forever to read a few lines of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew in an inscription or in a copy (photo or some other image, such as those available for the Sinaiticus online), when reading it in a modern edition would take no time at all. Hebrew is generally easier, because
1) most of the surviving manuscripts are medieval, and thus one doesn't have to deal with the lack of spaces between words and some other problems with Greek & Latin.
2) There are far less.

However, the oldest copies of the Hebrew scriptures aren't usually in Hebrew. They are in Greek or in other Semitic languages like Syriac. Textual critics use these too, as they are important witnesses to the original text.


In the case of the Hebrew manuscripts, the main manuscripts we have, such as the Leningrad codex, are already blends put together in the middle ages from various manuscripts. We don't have the manuscripts the Ben Asher family who created this codex used to create it. They're gone. We have only the blended work.


In addition to the fact that the manuscripts are we have are often already "blended", the reason we do the same is because there are important variations. Hebrew relies extensively on the addition of single characters (letters) added before and after words to indicate things which English would convey using whole words and word order. In other words, in Hebrew the difference between having a letter in one manuscript and not having it in another can mean difference like those between the following examples:

"You should not steal"
and
"he didn't steal"

So there is no problem with taking something that is blended and blending it up even more? Wow that is a sure fire way to water down and alter the truth. That is why I like the Book of Mormon, it is one book with one English translation testifying to the truth of one Church.

 

[Shermana]

So there is no problem with taking something that is blended and blending it up even more? Wow that is a sure fire way to water down and alter the truth. That is why I like the Book of Mormon, it is one book with one English translation testifying to the truth of one Church.

Except that we don't have the original alleged Nephitic to compare this single alleged English translation to. (Neither do we have any evidence of a "Reformed Egyptian" language to compare to) . Without access to these alleged Golden Plates, we don't even know if it's really a "Translation".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So there is no problem with taking something that is blended and blending it up even more? Wow that is a sure fire way to water down and alter the truth.

What "truth"? Why would one copy of Genesis, written centuries or thousands of years earlier, be closer to the truth than looking at all the copies and analyzing them?

That is why I like the Book of Mormon, it is one book with one English translation testifying to the truth of one Church.

Or there's the Catholic church, which claims to represent Jesus' actual desire to have his earthly representatives/authorities be people, not texts, and so started the pople tradition with Peter. They claim to be able to directly speak with God's authority, and be able to interpret the bible because Jesus himself granted them that authority.

The state of textual criticism seems like a poor reason to choose one's religious affiliations.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

What "truth"? Why would one copy of Genesis, written centuries or thousands of years earlier, be closer to the truth than looking at all the copies and analyzing them?



Or there's the Catholic church, which claims to represent Jesus' actual desire to have his earthly representatives/authorities be people, not texts, and so started the pople tradition with Peter. They claim to be able to directly speak with God's authority, and be able to interpret the bible because Jesus himself granted them that authority.

The state of textual criticism seems like a poor reason to choose one's religious affiliations.

I definitely believe in looking at all the copies and analyzing them, however I can't seem to do that when they are all blended up the way they are, which is why I am learning Hebrew.

When Christ was telling Peter "Upon this rock I will build my Church" we do not believe it was Peter Christ was referring to, but rather the rock of personal revelation.
Matthew 16:16-18
"16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

We believe that today God has restored the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth again and has called a prophet and 12 apostles and ordained them the keys of the Aaronic and Melchezideck Priesthood to lead and guide his church in the latter days.

And what is the foundation that we use to build our belief that these events actually happened? Personal revelation, a witness from God telling us individually that these things are true. Without the rock of personal revelation the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would cease to exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I definitely believe in looking at all the copies and analyzing them, however I can't seem to do that when they are all blended up the way they are, which is why I am learning Hebrew.

On a side note, what about Greek? Why the interest only in the OT rather than the NT?

As for learning Hebrew as a way of "unblending" the texts, you will run into problems. The first is that (once again) the most important Hebrew witnesses we have are already "blended". Someone in the middle ages already looked at a bunch of manuscripts and blended them together into one. All we have is the one, not the other manuscripts.

The second is that Hebrew isn't the only language necessary to learn in order to get at what the most likely original reading is. Once more, while some of our best, most complete copies in Hebrew are so late they are from the middle ages, we have actual manuscripts written in Greek of the same texts (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) which are from the 3rd century. In other words, these Greek translations of the Hebrew are about 700+ years older than the Hebrew manuscripts. Which means while scribes copied manuscript after manuscript over the centuries, and a change happened here, a mistake there, and so on, resulting in a great deal of variation (after all, we're talking centuries of copying and creating new texts). We know there was, because once again one of our most complete and earliest Hebrew manuscripts is the result of the Ben Asher families work in the middle ages, taking various different manuscripts and figuring out what the original reading was (and, once again, we don't have the manuscripts they used; only the resulting "blended" version).

Meanwhile, 7 centuries ealier, we have a translation of the Hebrew manuscripts that were around then, long before the people who made the Hebrew manuscripts we have were even born.

That's without getting into the other languages, from coptic and Gothic to syriac, which are witnesses to the Hebrew scriptures.

When Christ was telling Peter "Upon this rock I will build my Church" we do not believe it was Peter Christ was referring to, but rather the rock of personal revelation.

Then you have an issue. Because the lines read: (17)ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (18) κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν/"and Jesus, responding, said to him, 'blessed you are, Simon Bar-Jona, in that neither flesh nor blood revealed [this] to you, but my father in heaven. And indeed I say to you that you are Rock, and upon that rock I build up my church".

The whole point of calling Peter by that name (which in Greek means "rock") is explained here.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

On a side note, what about Greek? Why the interest only in the OT rather than the NT?

As for learning Hebrew as a way of "unblending" the texts, you will run into problems. The first is that (once again) the most important Hebrew witnesses we have are already "blended". Someone in the middle ages already looked at a bunch of manuscripts and blended them together into one. All we have is the one, not the other manuscripts.

The second is that Hebrew isn't the only language necessary to learn in order to get at what the most likely original reading is. Once more, while some of our best, most complete copies in Hebrew are so late they are from the middle ages, we have actual manuscripts written in Greek of the same texts (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) which are from the 3rd century. In other words, these Greek translations of the Hebrew are about 700+ years older than the Hebrew manuscripts. Which means while scribes copied manuscript after manuscript over the centuries, and a change happened here, a mistake there, and so on, resulting in a great deal of variation (after all, we're talking centuries of copying and creating new texts). We know there was, because once again one of our most complete and earliest Hebrew manuscripts is the result of the Ben Asher families work in the middle ages, taking various different manuscripts and figuring out what the original reading was (and, once again, we don't have the manuscripts they used; only the resulting "blended" version).

Meanwhile, 7 centuries ealier, we have a translation of the Hebrew manuscripts that were around then, long before the people who made the Hebrew manuscripts we have were even born.

That's without getting into the other languages, from coptic and Gothic to syriac, which are witnesses to the Hebrew scriptures.



Then you have an issue. Because the lines read: (17)ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (18) κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν/"and Jesus, responding, said to him, 'blessed you are, Simon Bar-Jona, in that neither flesh nor blood revealed [this] to you, but my father in heaven. And indeed I say to you that you are Rock, and upon that rock I build up my church".

The whole point of calling Peter by that name (which in Greek means "rock") is explained here.

Though I understand the manuscripts we have are blended copies of copies of copies, I still prefer to read the Bible with the least amount of blending possible.

I am also interested in learning Greek, but I figure one language at a time. I could be wrong, but the oldest Biblical manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls and they are written in Hebrew am I right?

Yes I understand that Peter meant rock in Greek, however I still believe Christ was referring to the rock of personal revelation.

You bring up a really good point, how are we to know which manuscript is the most accurate? I believe the answer is in personal revelation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am also interested in learning Greek, but I figure one language at a time.

That's all well and good, but Greek is vital for knowing about the Hebrew scriptures.

I could be wrong, but the oldest Biblical manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls and they are written in Hebrew am I right?

Yes and no. For one thing, the qumran finds aren't all in Hebrew. Many are in aramaic. For another, for certain parts of the OT they are not the oldest.

Yes I understand that Peter meant rock in Greek, however I still believe Christ was referring to the rock of personal revelation.

Then why start a declaration about a rock upon which the church was built by calling simone "rock"?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

That's all well and good, but Greek is vital for knowing about the Hebrew scriptures.


Yes and no. For one thing, the qumran finds aren't all in Hebrew. Many are in aramaic. For another, for certain parts of the OT they are not the oldest.


Then why start a declaration about a rock upon which the church was built by calling simone "rock"?

Why bother say blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not manifest it unto thee but thy father which art in heaven? Was his name Peter before that point or was he suddenly then given the name of Peter?