Could Simon Magus have been the Original Peter that the Catholics Wanted to Deliberately Obscure?

I have to admit, just at the moment that I think I am 'certain' about something in early Christianity or that I have come to develop a model that 'works' something comes along and inevitably reminds me how artificial our whole understanding of the early period is.

The identity of 'Peter' is a case in point.

The argument developed in Matt 16:18 just doesn't work. I am not a Protestant reworking arguments against the Catholic Church. The idea that Jesus gave Simon the title 'Kephas' or 'Petros' to honor the disciple as 'the Rock' on which the Church was built doesn't work in either Greek or Aramaic.

Yet when you start to try and fit that little piece of evidence into the canon the whole Catholic tradition suddenly breaks down. For it is certain that our existing tradition is founded on the formula that kepha = 'rock' which again is simply untrue (it means 'pebble' or 'little stone').

Why would someone have wanted to rewrite history in this implausible manner? All that I can say is that we are clearly looking at someone in the post-Irenaean Church of Rome who had a poor grasp of Greek and Aramaic who clearly added Matt 16:18 to the canon.

I think this is beyond question now. I don't say this because I am against the Catholic Church. If anything it makes Irenaeus look almost like an honest broker.

Why does this matter? Because I think that the matter of 'Cephas' isn't nearly as cut and dry as people want it to be. The author of the Hypotyposeis (who is not Clement), Eusebius and various other minor writers of course all put forward that Peter and Cephas were two different individuals. But the thing to keep our eye on is the fact that the Roman canon is meant to be read as if Peter and Cephas were one and the same. As such someone in the early third century Roman Church wanted to establish this idea, and his 'handiwork' was not limited to the addition of Matt 16:18.

The Pauline canon itself has been reworked a number of times with a confusing pattern of 'Cephas' and 'Peter' references which is almost impossible to disentangle.

The one thing that can't entirely disappear is a palpable hostility between the 'Mark' and 'Peter' camps despite the efforts of Irenaeus and Clement to obscure it.

Just a few questions:

1) if the name 'Peter' derives from the Aramaic p-t-r 'to interpret' why is Irenaeus so adamant to ensure that Peter did no actually 'interpreting' in any of the gospels?

This is a fundamental question and it is difficult to answer. Even Clement reports a curious tradition about 'Basilides' writing a gospel which infers again that 'Peter' did no actual interpreting:

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."

Now there is no doubt that Glaucius is a real name but it is undeniable that it is a type of short sword that infantrymen used in the Roman army. So too does 'Basilides' mean 'son of the King.'

Indeed with all these discussions about names it is often overlooked that the two names identified as the 'heads of the Roman Church' - 'Paul' and Peter' - aren't actually birth names or names at all but titles.

In the case of 'Peter' at least we know that his real name was 'Simon.' It is difficult for me to ignore the fact that the Church seemed to have a boogeyman named 'Simon' identified later as 'a magician' that it was contending with. Could the Roman attempt to identify him as 'Cephas' have something to do with heretical implications or associations with the ORIGINAL MEANING of 'Peter' - i.e. 'the interpreter'?

The place to begin is to note how p-t-r is inevitably used in the Bible and Biblical literature. It is associated with the interpretation of dreams and visions. Clearly the Apostle identified as 'Paul' by the Catholic tradition had a 'revelation' which was 'unutterable.' Perhaps an 'interpreter' of this vision was needed.

The other suggestion I have come up with that is that the Gospel of Judas Thomas (the Gospel of Thomas to the rest of you) contains a series of sayings associated with Jesus with no clear 'interpretation.' Perhaps Basilides wrote his gospel called Bassoret ha-Pitrah or Aramaic Bassorta de-Fitra that was mistranslated as 'the Gospel of Peter' in the name of Simon who was credited with being the 'true interpreter' of Jesus.

All that I am certain of here is that both Irenaeus and Clement are eager to distance the gospel written FOR Peter with any association with Basilides.

2. Why is the Catholic tradition so ashamed of Peter's real name 'Simon'?

Okay Jesus might have given Simon the title 'Peter' and 'Peter' has to mean (true) 'interpreter' but why does this necessitate obscuring the real name of the disciple? I can't get over the idea that Peter must have been related to Simon Magus. The Clementine literature which develops so artificially in the late second century seems to go out of its way to have Peter attack 'Simon' that one can almost view it as an attempt to prove that Clark Kent is not Superman (Acts introduces 'Philip' to disprove Simon which is rather odd in itself).

I think I can see a clear association of pitrah (interpretation) with the caricature that emerges of Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. Even though these texts have been reworked a thousand times we will see that the use of patar in the dream interpretation narrative in Genesis inevitably comes up.

But let's first look at the use of patar in Genesis. As we all know the baker upon hearing how Joseph interpreted the cupbearer's dream, proceeded to relate his story in the hopes of also hearing a good fortune. Verse 16 states "when the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted, he said to Joseph..." The original text uses the phrase KI TOV PATAR, and it is widely explained that the word TOV here means favorably. It is therefore possible that had the baker gone first leading to Joseph's prophecy of doom, verse 16 may have read "when the chief cupbearer saw KI LO TOV PATAR - how unfavorably he had interpreted, he kept quiet!'

We see patar used particularly with respect to a seer interpreting dreams and visions in Gen. 40:8, telling how the Hebrew seer Joseph interpreted the Pharaoh's dreams:

And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream and [there is] none that can interpret (patar) it: and I have heard say of thee, [that] thou canst understand a dream to interpret (patar) it.

Now when we turn to Peter's attack against Simon it is clear that the head of the Catholic Church not only identifies the context of his name 'Peter' as developing from his being 'the rock' (Matt 16:18) but more importantly that his namesake Simon whom he opposes in the narrative identified himself as 'the true interpreter' of Jesus, once again reinforcing the idea that 'Simon Magus' might well be an earlier version of Simon Peter that the Church wanted to eradicate. We read Peter declare:

But it is manifest that the impious see true visions and dreams, and I can prove it from Scripture. Finally, then, it is written in the law, how Abimelech, who was impious, wished to defile the wife of just Abraham by intercourse, and how he heard the commandment from God in his sleep, as the Scripture says, not to touch her, because she was dwelling with her husband. Pharaoh, also an impious man, saw a dream in regard to the fullness and thinness of the ears of grain, to whom Joseph said, when he gave the interpretation, that the dream had come from God. Nebuchadnezzar, who worshipped images, and ordered those who worshipped God to be cast into fire, saw a dream extending over the whole age of the world. And let no one say, 'No one who is impious sees a vision when awake.' That is false. Nebuchadnezzar himself, having ordered three men to be cast into fire, saw a fourth when he looked into the furnace, and said, 'I see the fourth as the Son of God.' And nevertheless, though they saw apparitions, visions, and dreams, they were impious. Thus, we cannot infer with absolute certainty that the man who has seen visions, and dreams, and apparitions, is undoubtedly pious. For in the case of the pious man, the truth gushes up natural and pure in his mind, not worked up through dreams, but granted to the good through intelligence.

Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, 'Who do they say that I am?' and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), 'You are the Son of the living God.' But He, pronouncing me blessed, pointed out to me that it was the Father who had revealed it to me; and from this time I learned that revelation is knowledge gained without instruction, and without apparition and dreams. And this is indeed the case. For in the soul which has been placed in us by God, there is all the truth; but it is covered and revealed by the hand of God, who works so far as each one through his knowledge deserves. But the declaration of anything by means of apparitions and dreams from without is a proof, not that it comes from revelation, but from wrath. Finally, then, it is written in the law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam, 'If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.' You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, 'It is possible,' then I ask, 'Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.[Clementine Homilies 17:17 - 19]

I can't help but think that 'Simon Magus' is the Simon that Basilides knew and which the Church wanted to get rid of because he was associated with heretical knowledge and tradition.

We see in the Clementine Recognitions a similar pattern. In Book Two Peter accuses Simon of having visions WITHOUT the proper means of interpreting those experiences:

But believe me, that you could never know what light is unless you had received both vision and understanding from light itself; so also in other things. Hence, having received understanding, you are framing in imagination something greater and more sublime, as if dreaming, but deriving all your hints from those five senses, to whose Giver you are unthankful. [Clementine Recognitions 2:51]

I strongly suspect that Basilides' Simon was indeed understood to be the 'interpreter' hence his acquisition of the name 'Peter.' I can't however explain fully why Clement has to distance Basilides so much from Peter saying in effect that 'Basilides wrote a gospel' and then 'Basilides claimed to be a disciple of Glaucius who was an interpreter of Peter.' My hunch however was that Clement was avoiding acknowledging that Basilides wrote the Gospel of Peter has EVERYTHING to do with his efforts to claim that Mark actually wrote the text.

The Alexandrian community was trying to unify its members in the same way as the Catholic tradition wanted to break the tradition completely apart ...