DramaQ

Well sure I have! But its moot because I granted the point. If you think it's because I'm "boxed into" that interpretation, I guess that's ok by me.

Yes it does. But it doesn't automatically connect it up with John 21. THIS Peter could have been "told" by HIS Jesus exactly when/where/why/how he would die. Perhaps in a way that justifies his confidence in the timing.

All you really have to connect them is the fact that John's Jesus said "You will die" and Peter's Jesus told him "You will die".

Yet Peter somehow knows his death will be "soon". Did Peter acquire the gift of prophesy too? And if the only thing that Peter got from the prophesy is "You will die" then I'd have to say it's not much of a prophesy.

Actually I didn't make any argument (or conclusions) at all. I simply found the statement to be curious and tossed out a possible interpretation.

Besides, suppose I WAS trying to support a theory that Peter makes such a distinction. Why would citing that sentence be "presupposing" the theory and not simply giving a possible indicator?

I know it could mean something else. And would love to hear how else this enigmatic comment might be taken.

I realize I stepped right into the middle of a good debate, but I'd like to point out that I only mean to be questioning, not adversarial.

Rick Sumner

You are boxed into it

Are you suggesting that "THIS Peter" is, in fact, the author's actual name? The letter is pseudepigraphic. There is only one Peter.

Again, they are the same Peter. Being told the same thing. You would have it that they did so independently. You'll need to argue for that, not just suggest it.

There was no real prophecy. 2Peter got the same thing from it that we do. He was, after all, reading the same book. What, exactly, would you suggest he should have said, why would you suggest he should have said it, why would you suggest his failure to say it indicates that he doesn't know John, and how do you plan to account for the presence of two prophecies of Peter's death--which you are suggesting are independent.

If you can't answer those questions, then the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that there is only one source. John. Which 2Peter read.

Because that sentence makes no distinction between anything, unless you presuppose that Peter is claiming to be an eyewitness to a divine Jesus over and against the "gospel Jesus"--you have to presuppose that the distinction exists.

The most reasonable conclusion, building from above, is that 2Peter knew and accepted the gospels. If he didn't, he wouldn't rely on them.

2Peter is largely a defense of orthodoxy.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

1. Sorry, but can someone with much better resources than me say when the name Peter became productive, ie when people started giving it to their children?

2. And why should Paul use the name Peter in a disturbed passage in Galatians 2, when he has already indicated knowing a person Cephas? (I know that xians believe that Cephas and Peter are the same and that the Cephas that Paul refers to is the gJohn Cephas and the Peter in Galatians 2 therefore is the gospel Peter, but there is no reason for this to be necessary.) One doesn't normally jump from one name unexpectedly to another in the space of a few sentences. It is not good communication to say the least.


spin

Intelligitimate

Interestingly enough, the Greek is something like "I think it right, as long as I am in this tent, to refresh your memory, since I know that the putting off of the tent will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me."

If anything, this makes it sound much less like GJn, but it still looks like an allusion to me. And I don't see anyway to get around 1:17.

DramaQ

No. I was just short-handing it. I was referring to the words attributed to the person identified as Peter in 2Peter. That just seemed more cumbersome than necessary. If “A2Pete�? would clear that up, I’ll use it.

Um…. Since the letter-writer is using the pseudonym “Peter�? and is not the “real�? Peter, then doesn’t that mean there IS more than one “Peter�??

Forgive my naiveté. But you just said they are NOT the same Peter. One is “pseudepigraphic�?. Why should I start with the assumption that A2Pete really speaks for the Peter in the gospels and that referring to one must refer to the other?

The fact that they are not physically the same person (living at the same time) STARTS THEM OUT as independent of one another. What needs to be argued is that they are dependant.

Well, if you don’t mind my paraphrasing you:

“Could you make this argument without presupposing that A2Pete read the gospels? All you've done here is presuppose your conclusions.

Nothing more or less than he did. That he [Peter] knew he was going to die “soon�?.

For exactly the reason he says: that he wants to ensure the message outlives him.

I hope I didn’t suggest that. My playwrighting teacher would have chastised me for a double negative construction like that.

He’d suggest that a better question would be: What POSITIVE evidence do we have that A2Pete DOES know John?

Both “characters�? are named Peter, and both were told “You are going to die�?. That’s not a lot to go on.

But let me try to answer your question more specifically (and please keep in mind that I’m no expert on this).

If I was writing 2 Peter and I had John in front of me, how would I have had Peter says this? How about this:

So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body. It is as the Lord commanded “Feed my sheep�? even if it means I shall be lead away from this life.
You started that paragraph with “There was no real prophecy.�? Well, okay. There are two “prophesies�? given in the literature, but no “real�? prophesies.

How do I plan to account for them? I would suggest the rather unremarkable coincidence that AJohn had Jesus inform his Peter that he would be executed and A2Pete had his Peter told that he would die (possibly at a given time). After all, the idea that any of these people might die for their cause was hardly earth-shattering news.

Why should it be so hard to imagine that two authors, writing at different times in different places (perhaps based on stories heard by both – but even that isn’t necessary) independently had their characters make similar predictions?

It makes a distinction between “cleverly invented stories�? and what the author claims his Peter witnessed.

I’m not presupposing that. It’s simply what A2Pete writes.

A2Pete makes a distinction (of SOME kind). I only posited a possible interpretation. If I had said “Perhaps A2Pete here is talking about ‘false gospels’ then I’d hardly be “presupposing�? the existence of false gospels. Merely asking if that scenario fits the sentence.

Against “cleverly invented stories�??

I had no idea I would enjoy doing this so much. Thanks Rick.

CX

I know we tangled over this once before and I suspect my position has softened, but what of the fact that Cephas and Peter have the same meaning? This is naturally the apologetic basis for equating the two (as well as providing Peter with primacy as the "rock" on which the church is built). I don't have access to an aramaic source for the etymology of Cephas, but PETRON definitely means rock. What of Cephas? Or am I making too much out of a coincidence?

Amaleq13

Accepting your "if", I would guess that 1) Peter was old and 2) circumstances in his life suggested that his opponents were getting sick enough of him to have him executed.

How old is Peter supposed to have been when he was allegedly crucified?

I've always understood this to mean that the author was denying that the stories were "cleverly invented".

spin

The Aramaic KYP' does mean "rock", so the two names mean basically the same thing, just as John and Theodore mean basically the same thing. It's unlikely that names are translated by meaning from one language to another. I know of no examples. No-one for example when Rock Hudson films went to foreign countries changed his name to something more local.

(It could be if it were seen as a title that then it might be translated, as in Augustus/Sebaste.)

"Cephas" is not part of the synoptic tradition. The name is only found (once) in GJohn. It's major use in the NT is by Paul -- and suddenly, in the middle of a passage dealing with Cephas, the text drifts in subject and uses the name Peter.

As I pointed out in round one, the names have been used in parallel in some xian literature, the example given was the Epistle of the Apostles, whose second chapter begins:

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring . . .

Since you asked, I did a quick Google search with "cephas peter" and got this:

a pdf file

which I will now have to digest for relevance.


spin

Toto

For what it is worth, this is the Catholic position

Use of Peter as a proper name Arthur Drews in The Legend of St Peter thinks that Peter (at least the St. Peter who carries the keys to the gate of heaven) was a mythological construct based on Janus and Mithra.

If Rock was a title and not a name, it would make sense to translate it from or to Aramaic / Greek.

spin

I should note that from the Caiaphas tomb in Jerusalem one finds the name Caiaphas rendered both KYF' and KF'. Paul may not have been referring to the notion of "rock" but to an "ordinary" name, Caiaphas, as he represented it.


spin