A Recap of Our Research into the Historical Identity of 'Simon Peter'

Perhaps my methodology is flawed but I always begin with the assumption that the reason why the Catholic tradition makes so little sense is that something has been removed to make it appear illogical. Of course, as I noted in a previous post, this is a very charitable assumption. There are atheists who take me to task for not using it to 'condemn' the tradition as a whole.

Nevertheless I can't help but see that all of our lines of research are heading for some great mystical truth which goes beyond the current (corrupted) state of the canon.

Let's push the question of the 'historical Jesus' to the side for the moment and ask an even more basic question - was there a 'historical Peter'? At first glance this seems to be an open and shut case. After all EVERYONE seems to THINK that Peter existed. Why should we doubt that there was such an individual?

Well let's start from the basic consideration. 'Peter' was not his real name. The traditional explanation of the name does not make any sense because a kefa means a stone that can fit in the palm of your hand. Jesus couldn't have identified someone as a kefa if he meant to draw attention to him as the 'little stone that could fit on your hand' upon which the Church was to be built.

The fact that (A) Irenaeus doesn't know this saying (b) Clement doesn't know this saying and (c) both men consisently identify 'Peter' as the one praised for his correct 'interpretation' of the sayings of Jesus leads me to believe that the original title of Simon was not kefa but pitor or some such derivation of the Aramaic root which means 'interpreter.'

Here are two examples of Irenaeus and Clement's identification of 'Peter' as the correct 'interpreter' of Jesus:

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

Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. [Clement Quis Dives Salvetur 21]

In my mind there is very good reasons to believe that Simon was originally identified by Balaam's title (i.e. 'petur'). The problem is that this in turn naturally suggests that something of the 'Simon Magus' story originally applied to 'Peter' in Alexandria. One can't help but get the sense that it was the Roman Church which deliberately manufactured an 'orthodox' robot out of the Alexandrian remembrance of a historical figure who claimed to be 'the second Jesus' (look at the stories of Simon Magus and you'll see what I mean).

The question then which is before us is how far we can take this historical revaluation. Once you start questioning one flimsy piece of the history of the Church the building seems to crumble. However it is my belief that it is possible to see something about this 'Simon' called Peter, something which I believe Mark the historical author of the first gospel did to his 'real name' which few scholars could ever imagine.

I think Mark did indeed transform 'Simon' into a kabbalistic symbol through the interest in the episemon. There is a reason why Mark originally recorded that Jesus was crucified in the sixth hour. It was originally held to be connected with the death of Simon in Rome - i.e. the bit about Simon being crucified upside down.

If Simon was taken to be an expression of the episemon - i.e. the number six - then my familiarity with Jewish mysticism makes clear what Mark argued Simon properly represented viz. the symbol of the creation or better, the Creator. This is why Clement has to reference the martyrdom of Peter in his account of Mark's authorship of the gospel. The idea of the repentance of the Creator is central to Markan/Marcionite thought. It is why all copies of the Gospel of Mark (save from the Alexandrian text known to Eusebius) 'corrected' the sixth hour reading.

Simon is a symbol of the Creator. The idea is central to making sense of the gospel. The non-crufixion of Jesus (remember the docetic tendencies of Marcionitism) is only a foretelling of Peter's fate in Rome AND - as Clement clearly intimates - is the starting point of Mark's gospel writing effort.

The reason Irenaeus latched on to Simon Peter is because he was already identified by some as 'symbolic' of the authority of the Creator Irenaeus wanted to make the center of Roman Christianity (i.e. to distinguish it from the Alexandrian tradition based on the ogdoad).

More to follow ...