Could the Editors of the Catholic Canon Have Thrown 'Cephas' as a Diversion from the Real Meaning of Simon's Name

This is going to be very difficult for most people who don't know a thing - and don't want to know a thing - about Aramaic to make sense of the gospel. But here goes anyway ...

I have been trying to figure out why Clement would have mentioned Mark as writing two gospels in the Letter to Theodore. Most scholars focus on the 'Secret' or 'mystical' Gospel of Mark and assume as a kind of 'throw away' that the other text that Mark is acknowledged to have written is our canonical Mark. But I have been writing a great number of posts emphasizing that the text is neither identified by Clement as being called 'the Gospel of Mark' or even a 'gospel' per se. To Theodore reads that:

during Peter's stay in Rome he (Mark) wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed.

Most scholars just assume that this text is the canonical Gospel of Mark which is identified by Papias and Irenaeus. Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." And again "Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative ..." (ibid 10.5)

Now I have noted on a number of occasions here that Papias's testimony isn't as independent from Irenaeus as we might think. Eusebius clearly infers that our text of Papias came through Irenaeus' hands.

The point then is that Irenaeus is connected with two statements in his own work and another in Papias where the Gospel of Mark is identified as Peter's gospel but where Mark is identified as being Peter's 'interpreter.'

What I find so interesting is that Clement never once calls Mark Peter's interpreter. It is Irenaeus who provides the basis for this assumption. Yet could all of Irenaeus' efforts have been used as a way of diverting attention from the fact that Jesus was understood to have given Simon the title 'Peter' because he was the true 'interpreter' of Jesus' word?

It's difficult to say.

As the reader will soon see Irenaeus never once cites Matt 16:18. Perhaps we can safely conclude that THE LATER EDITOR OF IRENAEUS' CANON in Rome wanted to develop the idea that 'Peter' developed from the Aramaic word 'Kepha' (which DOES NOT mean 'rock' but little stone cf. petra/Petros).

You see, I have been thinking all day that Clement actually contradicts Irenaeus in a way in that Clement refers to someone else as the 'interpreter of Peter.' We read:

Basilides is further said to have written a Gospel himself, and to have claimed to be the disciple of a certain Glaucias, who was an "interpreter of Peter."

You see I have known all along that p-t-r IN ARAMAIC means 'interpretation' and petor means 'interpreter.' Pitor is also the title of Balaam the enemy of Israel who is in turn associated with Jesus throughout the rabbinical literature.

Could Jesus have originally bestowed upon Peter the title of 'interpreter' and the business about him being 'a little stone' have been injected by Irenaeus, the editor of our canon as a kind of diversion?

I am working this out with Professor Boid at the very moment. He is a much greater expert on what works and doesn't work in Aramaic. But just take a second look at how the material of the gospel was developed by the Church Fathers and tell me whether or not the key idea is that Simon was the 'true interpreter' of Jesus' words.

Irenaeus

By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognised Christ as the Son of the living God [AH 3.11.6]

This is a key distinction for Irenaeus, for it is Peter and Peter alone who 'interpreted' Jesus to imply that he taught that he himself was the real messiah. The earlier traditions of Christians clearly thought otherwise. It is worth noting that Irenaeus always emphasize not only that Peter was the only true instructor but that the heretics assumed that there was a truth greater than the interpretation given by Peter (Secret Mark?)

It also worth noting that Irenaeus NEVER CITES Matthew 16:18 ("Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church..." This is clearly because these words were not present in Irenaeus' gospel. Irenaeus knew enough Aramaic to see how this whole idea doesn't work. You can't build anything of worth on a stone the size of your hand (which is what a kepha or a petra really is).

Clement of Alexandria

The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5

Clement clearly understands Peter to have been the true 'interpreter' of Jesus teaching. Whether or not this meant that Clement thought that Peter DERIVED from the Aramaic petor is intriguing but unproven.

Tertullian

For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10).

The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church (Modesty 21:9–10)

I happen to think that Tertullian's testimony proves what I have been saying about Irenaeus' work being reworked by Hippolytus and later Roman officials to underscore Roman primacy. I think the business about Peter 'holding the keys' again implies that he is the 'true interpreter. We always speak of 'keys' in hermeneutics. They don't make sense as political metaphors.

The Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2).

Again the emphasis is on Peter as authoritative 'interpreter.'

Origen

[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens (Commentary on Matthew 13:31).

Ephraim the Syrian

[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures (Homilies 4:1)

Ephraim would have known how stupid it was to argue that a kingdom was built on a stone the size of one's hand. He is clearly 'the TRUE interpreter' of Jesus's word again.

All of which is making me wonder whether 'the Gospel of Peter' might well have also meant something like 'the Gospel Pesher' (p-t-r in Jewish Aramaic = p-sh-r in Aramaic).

More later ...