Πέτρος). (Petros) in John 1:42: Noun Nominative Singular Masculine

Noun: this form names a person, and here it identifies the name Peter rather than an action or quality.

Nominative: this form usually marks a subject or a predicate name, and here it fits the explanatory naming clause.

Singular: this form is singular in this occurrence, so it points to one named person in view.

Masculine: this is the noun's grammatical class in this form, and it does not by itself make a theological claim about gender.

It stands in the clause after ἑρμηνεύεται and explains the name Κηφᾶς.

The grammar is governed by the explanation pattern 'which is translated Peter', so the nominative form serves as the named equivalent in the glossing statement.

It functions as the interpretive name equivalent for Cephas, identifying what the earlier name means in this context.

It is not introducing a new subject or a separate event, and it does not by itself force a distinct doctrinal point.

Moderate: The nominative name supplies the explained equivalent for Cephas in the naming statement.

Nominative name in an explanatory naming clause. gives Peter as the interpreted name equivalent of Cephas. Attached to ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος. Governed by ἑρμηνεύεται. The form names the equivalent in the explanation and should not be expanded into a separate doctrine from grammar alone.

What name does the explanation give for Cephas? The nominative name gives Peter as the interpreted equivalent.

Direct: The naming relation directly affects rendering the explanatory clause as which is translated Peter.

The naming explanation identifies the name correspondence; later theological significance must be argued from wider context.

Nominative name alone supplies office or doctrine: The form gives the name equivalent; the grammar alone does not establish an office or later role.

The witness reads Πέτρος in John 1:42 within the phrase ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

The lemma is Πέτρος, a proper noun used here as the name Peter, with the lexicon note 'rock' as background to the name.

The nominative form fits the translation formula and helps mark the explanatory equivalent, but the sense comes from the whole clause, not from case alone.

Jesus identifies Simon with the name Cephas and then explains that name as Peter, so the verse communicates a naming and renaming action.

Within the Gospel context, the form contributes to the presentation of Simon's new designation and to the reader's understanding of the name connection.

For readers, the form helps clarify that the verse is explaining a name, not merely repeating a label, and it preserves the link between Cephas and Peter.

Do not derive a full theology of Peter's office, character, or authority from this form alone, and do not treat nominative case as overriding the explanatory context.