Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Cephas.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Ben C. Smith »

robert j wrote:Ben, an interesting analysis throughout the thread, thanks.

Other than a minor quibble or two, I agree with most of your “overall impression of the course of events” here.
That is, except for what seems to me a squishy use of “the church”.
Yes, you are right. My use of the term was a bit squishy.
In item #1, what “church” are you referring to?
I think that the term "church" at this stage of the Christian history is probably best reserved for individual communities in individual cities and towns. Only later would a clear sense of "the church catholic" arise. So my usage was anachronistic even by my own standards. But I am leaving open the possibility that stories about Peter circulated amongst Christians apart from our extant texts. We have enough examples of Christians in one locality gleaning information from Christians in other localities to leave the possibility open.
In item #3, is there really any need for “church memory” here? Did Mark, other than his fertile imagination, need any more than Paul’s letters for the triumvirate?
No, there is no need for it. But someone who was for some reason convinced that Mark did not possess the epistles of Paul could easily make the other claim, that there was no need for Mark to know the epistles, that information about Peter passed from church to church by Christian travelers would be enough. It is not about need, then, in my judgment; it is about demonstrating which of the two scenarios is more likely (if any), or about demonstrating that both scenarios contributed to the final outcome.

If I have understood you aright in other threads, you belong to the "camp" (not an organized entity, but an overall position) which tends to hold that texts were the main, if not only, means of transmitting information from church to church and from generation to generation. The other "camp" is, of course, that which holds that the churches were alive with vibrant information and tradition passed on from person to person apart from texts. My own sensibilities on this issue are still developing, and in this thread I was leaving open either option. (I have long felt attracted to a position somewhere between the extremes that I used those "camps" to express, but one closer to the "texts" side than to the "traditions" side — without, however, leaving the "traditions" side blank. But I am still making up my mind on this issue. What I refuse to do, however, is to default to one side or the other and then force the other side to prove itself.)
As for Andrew, I’m just spit-balling here. But with Mark prone to cleverness, and Andrew as the next most important disciple after the triumvirate --- I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that the name can be seen as meaning a generic “men”?
What would Mark's message or point or end game be here?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by robert j »

Thanks for your thoughtful responses about "the church".
Ben C. Smith wrote:
robert j wrote:
As for Andrew, I’m just spit-balling here. But with Mark prone to cleverness, and Andrew as the next most important disciple after the triumvirate --- I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that the name can be seen as meaning a generic “men”?
What would Mark's message or point or end game be here?
It's just something that has crossed my mind a time or two, and I just wanted to throw it out there, and leave it at that.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Ben C. Smith »

No problem, Robert.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
spin wrote:I've been working on the notion that Gal 2:7b-8 is an interpolation.
Same here.
If that is true, then it is possible that our Marcan writer(s) had a Galatians letter that did not mention Peter at the time and there was no reason for the gospel writer(s) to need to deal with this Cephas person. He shows/they show no interest in anyone else in the Pauline letters....
Sure, but there is still the matter of the triumvirate. Mark repeatedly mentions an inner circle consisting of Peter, James, and John; and Galatians has three pillars called James, Cephas, and John. No matter how many of the same men are involved in both groups, I am doubtful that this double triumvirate of names is a coincidence. If both groups are historical, then so be it. If, however, one of the groups was modeled on the other, then it virtually has to be the Petrine group being modeled on the one with Cephas, and that means somebody must have made the connection between Peter and Cephas before the Petrine group was founded (in a literary sense).
A James and John were given some status, yoked together as the "sons of thunder", who in Mk 10 seek special position at the right hand and left of Jesus. They are two of the first four disciples. Peter, given his own treatment and conspicuously absent from the special position pericope, seems to be represented as the preeminent disciple (not the case for Cephas in Gal 2), so Peter through perceived eminence gets more focus and in important events is accompanied by James and John as bring-alongs by Jesus... up the mountain or into the garden.... There seems to me nothing in this to suggest any high regard for Peter, James and John, but we see a writer fleshing out events with the few figures available.

Had those figures been held in regard I would expect the writer(s) of Mark to have made some remark that reflected their later status. The lack of such remarks to me points against giving significance to the three figures in Gal 2.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Add to this the twin observations that (A) Cephas is portrayed in Galatians as having started well with respect to the gospel, from Paul's perspective, and ended poorly, again from Paul's perspective, and that (B) Peter famously shares this same characteristic of starting well and ending poorly in Mark, and I guess I begin to suspect that Mark is presuming a connection between Cephas and Peter.
That seems hopeful to me. No-one is going to come off well in comparison with the protagonist. I don't see any starting off well in the gospel. This all seems subjective to me and it doesn't bode well enough to hang a parallel on. You need more tangibly specific indicators for parallelisms.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:A James and John were given some status, yoked together as the "sons of thunder", who in Mk 10 seek special position at the right hand and left of Jesus. They are two of the first four disciples. Peter, given his own treatment and conspicuously absent from the special position pericope, seems to be represented as the preeminent disciple (not the case for Cephas in Gal 2), so Peter through perceived eminence gets more focus and in important events is accompanied by James and John as bring-alongs by Jesus... up the mountain or into the garden.... There seems to me nothing in this to suggest any high regard for Peter, James and John, but we see a writer fleshing out events with the few figures available.
I agree with the bit about fleshing out events with the few figures available. But it is the choice of which ones (with which names) that is of some interest.
Had those figures been held in regard I would expect the writer(s) of Mark to have made some remark that reflected their later status. The lack of such remarks to me points against giving significance to the three figures in Gal 2.
Or the lack of such remarks might confirm Paul's words statement that they "were reputed to be pillars... what they were makes no difference" to him. The presence of a James and John at key moments of Jesus' career would explain (to Mark's readers) why they later became pillars. But there is no need to broadcast their status if Mark happened to agree with Paul's assessment of them (even if only for lack of an alternate viewpoint).

Now, I know that this involves some speculation as to motives. But it is speculation in search of a reason for the two triumvirates. I wish I could dismiss the correspondence of names (Peter, James, John // Cephas, James, John, where Cephas is only a fraction of a phoneme away from being a good back translation for Peter) as mere coincidence arising from two separate contingencies (historical in Paul's case, practical in Mark's), as you seem to do, but I fear my suspicions are piqued. It really looks to me like something else is going on besides mere coincidence.
That seems hopeful to me. No-one is going to come off well in comparison with the protagonist. I don't see any starting off well in the gospel. This all seems subjective to me and it doesn't bode well enough to hang a parallel on. You need more tangibly specific indicators for parallelisms.
There is certainly a fair bit of subjectivity to it, sure. But, again, it is not arbitrary, since it is a response to a genuine phenomenon for which I am seeking an explanation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
spin wrote:Had those figures been held in regard I would expect the writer(s) of Mark to have made some remark that reflected their later status. The lack of such remarks to me points against giving significance to the three figures in Gal 2.
Or the lack of such remarks might confirm Paul's words statement that they "were reputed to be pillars... what they were makes no difference" to him. The presence of a James and John at key moments of Jesus' career would explain (to Mark's readers) why they later became pillars. But there is no need to broadcast their status if Mark happened to agree with Paul's assessment of them (even if only for lack of an alternate viewpoint).

Now, I know that this involves some speculation as to motives. But it is speculation in search of a reason for the two triumvirates. I wish I could dismiss the correspondence of names (Peter, James, John // Cephas, James, John, where Cephas is only a fraction of a phoneme away from being a good back translation for Peter) as mere coincidence arising from two separate contingencies (historical in Paul's case, practical in Mark's), as you seem to do, but I fear my suspicions are piqued. It really looks to me like something else is going on besides mere coincidence.
Talking of "two triumvirates" seems to be theory shaping analysis. Paul has his happy threesome in Galatians led by James. The Marcan writer(s) have a twelve, and a Simon and Andrew, and a James and John, and a Simon, who we are told was given the name Peter, and a Peter, and a Peter, James and John. There is not really much of a triumvirate in Mark. We never hear from a James or a John; we do hear of two by that name asking together for seating rights.

It appears to me that you are constructing two triumvirates based on later orthodoxy's equation of Peter with Cephas, an equation not evident in Mark and certainly not in Paul. I fear that the strength of that post hoc equation may be what is piquing your suspicions, though I may easily be wrong.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
That seems hopeful to me. No-one is going to come off well in comparison with the protagonist. I don't see any starting off well in the gospel. This all seems subjective to me and it doesn't bode well enough to hang a parallel on. You need more tangibly specific indicators for parallelisms.
There is certainly a fair bit of subjectivity to it, sure. But, again, it is not arbitrary, since it is a response to a genuine phenomenon for which I am seeking an explanation.
Can you see any real hope of getting beyond the tantalizing parallelism? I can't, but you might have more luck... a more functional perspective than I.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Aleph One »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Now, I know that this involves some speculation as to motives. But it is speculation in search of a reason for the two triumvirates. I wish I could dismiss the correspondence of names (Peter, James, John // Cephas, James, John, where Cephas is only a fraction of a phoneme away from being a good back translation for Peter) as mere coincidence arising from two separate contingencies (historical in Paul's case, practical in Mark's), as you seem to do, but I fear my suspicions are piqued. It really looks to me like something else is going on besides mere coincidence.
How about establishing that (if?) Mark knew Paul's letters, especially Galatians? If examples of a connection can be found that are sufficient enough to convince that Mark drew on Paul, then the likelihood of the 3-Pillars-correspondence being a coincidence would fall sharply (in my estimation). Of course, all that might be barring interference from interpolation issues, which I won't get into.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Aleph One wrote:How about establishing that (if?) Mark knew Paul's letters, especially Galatians? If examples of a connection can be found that are sufficient enough to convince that Mark drew on Paul, then the likelihood of the 3-Pillars-correspondence being a coincidence would fall sharply (in my estimation).
I do not think that spin, for one, would agree with your estimation, since he has already allowed that Mark may have had access to Galatians, yet is still not impressed with the correspondence between the two sets of three men.

I do not have proof that Mark knew Galatians. What I have are (A) collocations of terms and concepts which look suspicious...:

Mark 4.16-17: 16 In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places [τὰ πετρώδη], who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; 17 and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution [διωγμοῦ] arises because of the word, immediately they fall away [σκανδαλίζονται, "are scandalized"].

Mark 8.34: 34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross [σταυρὸν] and follow Me."

Galatians 5.7: 7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Galatians 5.11: 11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted [διώκομαι]? Then the stumbling block [σκάνδαλον, "scandal"] of the cross [σταυροῦ] has been abolished.

...and (B) my observation that Mark has only one actual Peter pericope which does not fall into one of the three patterns I identified, two of which line up with the information about Cephas in Galatians. Neither of these is enough (for me, at any rate), either separately or together, to constitute proof, but it gives me the impression that something is going on, and I am trying to figure out what.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:Talking of "two triumvirates" seems to be theory shaping analysis.
Okay, the term may be a bit pretentious on my part; but I did not start using it until I was already under the impression that something was going on.
Paul has his happy threesome in Galatians led by James. The Marcan writer(s) have a twelve, and a Simon and Andrew, and a James and John, and a Simon, who we are told was given the name Peter, and a Peter, and a Peter, James and John. There is not really much of a triumvirate in Mark.
Here are all instances of Simon/Peter, James, and/or John in conjunction with any other named disciple in the gospel of Mark:

Mark 1.16-20: Simon and Andrew, James and John (×4).
Mark 1.29-30: Simon and Andrew, James and John (×4).
Mark 3.16-19: Simon (called Peter), James and John, and Andrew (×4, but with pattern of 3); plus the rest of the twelve, of course.
Mark 5.37: Peter, James, and John (×3).
Mark 9.2: Peter, James, and John (×3).
Mark 10.35-41: James and John.
Mark 13.3-4: Peter, James and John, and Andrew (×4, but with pattern of 3).
Mark 14.33: Peter, James, and John (×3).

I have noted already that there is a difference between how these names are treated when our main disciple is called Peter compared to when he is called Simon. Notice that, while he is called Simon, he is part of a group of four disciples paired fraternally, but the very moment (in 3.16) he is called Peter his name is now separated from that of his brother and placed in front of James and John, both now and later throughout the gospel. This means that both times we find this foursome in a situation in which the main disciple is called Peter (not Simon), the order is the same as we find when there is only a threesome (which always omits Andrew, never one of the other four; and Peter never appears with either James or John alone; it is always with the pair).

And sure, Peter appears on his own a lot throughout the gospel. James and John appear together without Peter exactly once (as above), and John appears alone (therefore not on the list above) exactly once, in 9.38. James never appears alone. Those instances may be a matter of simply having to fill in a scene with personnel, but none of them takes away from the pattern displayed above. Why does Mark, as soon as the name becomes Peter instead of Simon, suddenly start putting Peter with James and John even when his brother Andrew is on the scene? I think those scribes who changed the order of names in Galatians 2.9 to Peter, James, and John know the answer to this question.

The data from that list above (and other data already given) are what is piquing my suspicions. I am not trying to pull orthodoxy back into Mark; I am trying to explain what I am seeing.

ETA: Simon, James, and John are also the only 3 disciples in the list in Mark 3.13-19 who bear special nicknames: Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter; James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, to whom (plural) he gave the name Boanerges = sons of thunder. So this is another aspect which binds these three together.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Inventory of references to Simon/Symeon, Peter, and Ceph

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I have noted already that there is a difference between how these names are treated when our main disciple is called Peter compared to when he is called Simon. Notice that, while he is called Simon, he is part of a group of four disciples paired fraternally, but the very moment (in 3.16) he is called Peter his name is now separated from that of his brother and placed in front of James and John, both now and later throughout the gospel. This means that both times we find this foursome in a situation in which the main disciple is called Peter (not Simon), the order is the same as we find when there is only a threesome (which always omits Andrew, never one of the other four; and Peter never appears with either James or John alone; it is always with the pair).

And sure, Peter appears on his own a lot throughout the gospel. James and John appear together without Peter exactly once (as above), and John appears alone (therefore not on the list above) exactly once, in 9.38. James never appears alone. Those instances may be a matter of simply having to fill in a scene with personnel, but none of them takes away from the pattern displayed above. Why does Mark, as soon as the name becomes Peter instead of Simon, suddenly start putting Peter with James and John even when his brother Andrew is on the scene? I think those scribes who changed the order of names in Galatians 2.9 to Peter, James, and John know the answer to this question.

The data from that list above (and other data already given) are what is piquing my suspicions. I am not trying to pull orthodoxy back into Mark; I am trying to explain what I am seeing.
That you can have a casual group of three guys is nothing out of the ordinary. That two of those guys were named James and John is also not strange, given the frequency of those names. There are three or four Jameses in Mark alone (1:19, 3:18, 6:3, and 15:40). The only thing that could make things noteworthy is the equation of Cephas and Peter, which to me is difficult. Going on Mark Cephas is nowhere to be found and Peter already has a few names. Worse, Paul knows nothing about a Simon Peter, nor does he use the putative Greek form of the given name.

You've pointed out that the quadrumvirate is just as frequent as the triumvirate. You could easily think of the triumvirate as the quadrumvirate with Andrew on vacation. :cheeky:
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply