My Theory About the REAL TITLE of the So-Called 'Gospel of Peter'

Clement and Origen are sly foxes. If you've read any of their works and you AREN'T convinced they're holding something back - A LOT BACK in fact - you've likely not read them correctly. I have been wrestling all week with why Clement of Alexandria makes reference to Mark writing 'an account of the Lord's doings' for Peter which represents the exoteric kerygma of the Christian community.

The Alexandrian understanding of Peter - as witnessed by Clement and Basilides - doesn't seem to mesh with what the Roman tradition has developed about 'Peter.'

In my previous post I reminded readers that the whole business about 'Peter' being derived from Petra by way of Kepha doesn't make any sense. Petra and Kepha denote a 'small stone' that can fit in your hand. It is impossible to go from here to all the things that the Church now says about Peter.

So I developed this theory that the name 'Peter' which was given to Simon by Jesus was a title where the letters were just brought over directly from Aramaic - i.e. pe-tav-resh. In other words, that the reason why early writers like Irenaeus don't Matt 16:18 is because it didn't exist at the time and more importantly they derived the name Peter from this other Aramaic root which means 'interpretation' or 'interpreter.'

You go to my previous post to read it all yourself. However as I don't trust my knowledge of Aramaic (and neither should you) I always test my ideas with my best friend Professor Boid, who is leading expert in Semitic languages and matters related to the Bible. For those interested in this alternative etymology here are my three emails to Boid:

1. Have you ever considered thar PTR might have been the disciple's name IN ARAMAIC and it meant something like interpreter or interpretation? That Cephas was thrown in as a diversion to connect him with "the rock" (even though it really only works for those ignorant of Aramaic)?

Boid - Good thinking. Kefa means a pebble or a stone, not a rock or boulder, so it doesn’t work anyway.

2. Could Gospel of Peter mean something like gospel of interpretation if we assume an Aramaic origin and PTR was in the title behind bassora?

Boid - Yes. Piton Bassorah interpretation of the gospel or Bassoret ha-Pitron the gospel of the interpretation. It will work in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Closest in sound is Hebrew Bassoret ha-Pitrah or Aramaic Bassorta de-Fitra.

3. Could the Gospel of Peter have original been a mistranslation of an Aramaic book entitled the Gospel Pesher (Aramaic ptr = Heb pshr)?

Boid - Yes. The root PTR (with tav) exists in Hebrew parallel to PShR.