JoeWallack

JW:
It is inconsistent but it doesn't change the fact that the only time "Mark's" Jesus addresses Peter by his old, pre-appointed name "Simon" is at the climax of Peter's Failure (falling asleep on the job). The purpose of Gethsemane was to show that the Spiritual Fight for Jesus/Peter was the most important one. The Physical fight that followed was just a logical consequence of the outcome of the Spiritual fight that preceded it.

The Gospels are full of Contradictory evidence. Don't dismiss a possible conclusion because you have an implication which negates it. There may still be a superior implication(s) that supports it.

JW:
I have the Irony that everything was in place according to the Plan. A designated representative was at the Right place at the Right time with the Right coordinates. Everything about him was Ignored. By those who showed up Ironically for an entirely different reason and by those who didn't even bother to show up. Because no one had Faith. The use of "Peter" here is consistent with the Irony. If the messenger would have been listened to it would have been "Peter".

You are in denial about the Irony.


JW:
My Logic is that "Simon" was used here because the "Peter" title had been lost. IF the Peter title was lost wouldn't it be logical to use a Simon as the replacement?

JW:
But it's rather common for "Mark" to mean something with the Names he chooses to give, isn't it?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Sure, but I tentatively agree with this assessment. I agree that it is plausible that Jesus is using the old name to indicate that Simon is not living up to his mandate as a rock of foundation. I am not dismissing this possible conclusion; I am tentatively embracing it.

Once again I am in agreement. It is my position that the followers of Jesus did not, according both to Mark and to Spike Lee, do the right thing. They failed Jesus. It is my position that, according to Mark, they did nothing to deserve another chance to fulfill their mandate. In fact, if my hypothesis is correct that John 21 preserves a redacted form of the original ending of Mark, then the followers of Jesus completely gave up and went back to their old trade, fishing.

If the Peter title was lost would it not be logical for the author to use Simon in Mark 14 instead of Peter?

On the one hand you argue that Peter was by now such an established title that Mark felt compelled to keep using it in chapter 14 even after it was lost; on the other hand you argue that Mark used Simon in 15.21 because the title Peter had been lost.

Sometimes he does, I think.

Call me old fashioned, but I think that Simon of Cyrene really existed and really had two sons whose names were known to the Marcan readership. That seems to me to be the best way to account for Simon being identified (in addition to his country of origin) by his sons rather than by his lineage.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

If this kind of statement is not against the forum rules, it should be.

My two pence.

Ben.

spin

Why?

spin

Those people who are interested.

The argument was very simple if you read it carefully. Even without knowing what you should know, you still can get the basic idea. If you don't know the terminology, you can learn.

The upshot is that I think that the Greek Khfas could represent both Kephas and Caiaphas.


spin

Amaleq13

It is essentially a personal attack that does nothing to advance the discussion. Stick to the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions about the abilities of participants.

Doug aka Amaleq13, AS:C&H moderator

Toto

And please use the report post button rather than discussing it in thread.

Toto

seeker

I came across something interesting the other day. The Early church borrowed a lot of rituals from the cult of Mithra as well as their holy attire (the mitre the Pope wears is exactly what Mithra Bishops wore, in fact the word 'mitre' derives from Mithra), sayings etc. Oddly enough Mithra is supposed to have been borm froma rock (petros).

The theory I ran across is that the notion of a rock of the church is Mithraic in origin and was adopted by the Christian Church. Matthew, not wanting to acknowledge the pagan origin turned rock (petros) into Peter

TedM

Well, I read it twice, and of course I understood the upshot, but I sure still could not follow the reasoning and how your examples applied. I would think that could be explained in plain English, but, according to you I don't know what I 'should' know, so I guess it's my fault, huh? Maybe someone else here who understands can interpret for me so as to save me from having to learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, since after all I AM interested.

ted

Toto

Ted - I think that spin's astonishment was genuine, and not intended to belittle you. There are different standards around the world as to what consitutes basic literacy.

Here is spin's post: You need to know that we are dealing with three alphabets - Hebrew, Greek, and Roman/English. If people don't have special keyboards, or if they are writing for people who don't have a complete set of fonts, they tend to use a special code for each.

Transliteration is translating a letter in one alphabet into another alphabet. There is a recent thread here on transliteration.

You need to know that eta is the Greek letter for a long e. It is often written as 'h' because that's what it looks like. Kappa is also a Greek letter.

QYP) and QP) are representations of Hebrew. The Q represents a Hebrew letter QOF. The Y represents a Hebrew letter YOD.

spin is just saying that the name of the High Priest that is usually rendered in English as Caiaphas could also be transliterated as Kephas.

Tell me if the above is clear.