maryhelena

And I hope one that encourages you to see how far this discovery will take you.....:thumbs::clapping::wave2:

andrewcriddle

A version of this is found in some manuscripts of the Toledoth Yeshu. I'm wondering whether there is a confusion here between Simon Peter and one of the early authors of piyyutim such as Simeon b Megas (c 600 CE)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Wout van Bekkum in The Rock on Which the Church is Founded idem The Poetical Qualities of the Apostle Peter considers this story to involve a confusion between Simon Peter and the Jewish hymn writer Simon ben Isaac ben Abun of Mainz c 1000 CE. (via the legend of the Jewish Pope Elhanan and his Father Rabbi Simon. )

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Well it certainly would fit the earliest Jewish sources being no earlier than the 11th century but then again how much do we know about the Gaonic period really?

Against it is the fact that the prayer was known in Mishnaic times, the second was composed during the talmudic period and the concluding part was added during the geonic period. I haven't read the book and I know I should before saying anything but it sounds like a very convoluted explanation:

I will have to read the reference. I want to make clear that my original title had a question mark but there wasn't enough space. I don't know what the origins of this story are. The Nishmat can't have originated with the Apostle Peter but is this a better solution?

The legend of Pope Elhanan is usually dated to the fourteenth century (Jewish Encyclopedia):

As such Rashi's disciple Simkah couldn't have known it. Then we have to posit that he attributed a Mishnaic prayer to a near contemporary (Simhah ben Samuel of Vitry c. 1030 - 1105 CE, Simon ben Isaac ben Abun of Mainz c. 1000 CE). I don't know I can't see it.

What's even worse is that both men lived within 200 miles of one another (Vitry = Marne, France)

I am not seeing how one could have mistaken the work of the other for Peter the Apostle but I will have to read the book. Sounds kooky to me. Here is another author:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mna...0Mainz&f=false

He seems to argue that the Elhanan had a hand in shaping the story but he doesn't reference Simhah ben Samuel of Vitry directly. I think that's the decisive element.

Also worth considering that another near contemporary French Jew, the Tosaphist Rabbeinu Tam (b.1100 CE) wrote that he was "a devout and learned Jew who dedicated his life to guiding gentiles along the proper path". Tam also passed on the traditions that St Peter was the author of the Sabbath and feast-day Nishmat prayer, which has no other traditional author, and also that he authored a prayer for Yom Kippur in order to prove his commitment to Judaism despite his work amongst Gentiles (R. J.D.Eisenstein).

His village is again about 200 miles from Mainz. The explanation doesn't seem to make sense to me.

darstec

Didn't you start out writing that the Jewish story was one thousand years removed from the lifetime of a "Peter"?

What first century (radiocarbon dated) Jewish works do we have mentioning a Peter or a Joshua?

Remember Superman is only about 78 years old and there are literally thousands of literary works mentioning him, including those going back to 1938. On that basis should we maintain Superman is real? After all, a Clark Kent could be found in the phone book back then though not in Smallville nor Metropolis which were as real as Nazareth and Cana in the first century CE.

stephan huller

But that isn't the point here - at least as far as I can see. Thanks to Andrew Criddle's prompting I started to do more research and discovered that the Jews of northern France c 1100 CE had developed an understanding that Peter actually abandoned Christianity and became a Jew again. Of course I think it's nonsense but one always wonders how this nonsense developed into such a strange creation. Jews traditionally have deep hostilities toward Jesus. What prompted them to develop an understanding that not only did Peter change religion but then had a very important role within Judaism?

All I can say is that it is a fascinating intellectual puzzle

charles

I thought 'Peter' wasn't even the apostle's real name. Wasn't his real name Simon? Why then does the Jewish tradition call him Peter if his name was Simon?

Russellonius

Was Peter a Christian?

He had a vision of a sheet and a voice told him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."

Blood is unclean (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:14). Did Peter forget that Jesus had told him to drink his blood?

Apparently so, because after his vision Peter went to the other leaders, James and John, and told them about his vision. Consequently, they issued a decree prohibiting Paul from teaching the drinking of blood! (Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25)

The Pauline Eucharist is nearly the direct opposite of the Nazirite vow which was practiced in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's visit as depicted in Acts.

The word “Christian” appears three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:15-16). I see it associated with Antioch, Rome and Herodians and do not see it associated with Jesus, his followers, Galilee or Jerusalem.

Paul was opposed to the Way, first with violence, then with rhetoric.

The 'Judaizers' wanted people to get circumcised so they could partake in a blood-drinking ritual that was in violation of the Mosaic covenant, the Noahide covenant and the Jerusalem decree. Highly unlikely! It would be simpler to just call them "Jews" and to figure that Paul (and, then later, "Christians") opposed preservation of the covenants but wanted to inherit the traditions of the ancestors anyway.

'Judaizers' are a theological construct. So is the idea that Paul taught the same stuff as the disciples. So is the idea that 'Gentiles' in the NT should not be interpreted as meaning what it actually meant (in both Latin and Greek) in the first century: “people of one's own kind".

If the body and blood of Christ are at the core of Christianity, the group at Jerusalem was not inside the circle.

maryhelena, I'm interested in how you got that Herodians are at the origin of Christianity. I got the same thing.

maryhelena

Hi, Russell

Actually, I've moved on to the Hasmoneans...
Though, of course, some of those Hasmoneans did have some Herodian blood....
I've recently been able to develop my ideas a bit further - some of which are in the 'Is Agrippa II the son of Philip the Tetrarch' thread.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289319

But more can be said - so perhaps in a few days I'll put up a new thread. Thanks for the interest - and see you later in the new thread....

darstec

One need not postulate an actual Jesus to to mess with the current Christians of the 12th century. What better "proof" could there be that Christianity is a false religion than if the heir to the keys, repudiated it? You don't even have to believe Jesus or Peter lived to make up another bogus story.

It could simply be that the 12th century Jews were revolting against the prevalent anti-Semitism of the times.