Yes indeed it looks odd. Especially as he removes Mark’s “Simon” at 26:40 (Mk 14:37). I am not aware of any textual differences over Simon Peter either at Mt 16:16 or Mk 8:29. However Matthew has some “M” tradition afterwards (Mt 16:17-19) where he has his fourth “Simon” (his fifth and last use is in another “M” tradition – Mt 17:24-27).Ben C. Smith wrote:Does Simon Peter look odd in Matthew 16.16? Matthew did not get that double name from Mark 8.29, did he?Michael BG wrote:I have pointed out that Lk 5:8would look odd in Mark’s gospel as it is odd in Luke’s because of “Simon Peter”.But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."
It is possible that the “M” tradition had Simon saying that Jesus is the Son of the living God. (Matthew used both names and both titles: one from each tradition.) I think this is the only place in the synoptics where Peter’s father is named so there is a parallel Jesus son of God; Simon son of Jona. In verse 18 Matthew is back using his more normal “Peter”. Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Verse 8 does not fit the story as presented by Luke. The story would make sense without it. It is possible it was a saying that Luke had without much of a context from what can be called the “L” tradition. John does not have Jesus rebuking Peter (Mk 8:32-33 Mt 16:22-23) and not having Lk 5:8 fits this.Ben C. Smith wrote:And yet... Simon Peter's falling down and crying out that he is a sinful man forms no part of John 21. So what do you think is going on here? Why does Luke 5.8 have Simon Peter?Michael BG wrote:“Simon Peter” is not usual in Mark but it appears only once in Luke and 18 times in John.
I always want to know what you think.Ben C. Smith wrote:If you want to know what I think, well, I think that authors who know the full name of the character in question can drop that full name any time they please, even if it is only one time in the entire text (as in Matthew and Luke) or none (as in Mark). In my judgment the name Simon Peter in Luke 5.8 is no more an indication of source than the name Simon Peter in Matthew 16.16 is.
A change in name is often seen as a change of source or something. The use of “Peter” instead of “Cephas" in Gal 2:7-8 is often cited as evidence that these verses were not written by Paul.
I don’t see any statement that the resurrection appearance in Jn 21 is particularly unexpected. I see the normal resurrection motif that the disciples do not recognise Jesus (Jn 21:4, cf. Lk 24:16, Jn 20:14) because the earliest traditions have a heavenly bodily resurrection as per 1 Cor. 15.andrewcriddle wrote: (In John 21 it is implausibly unexpected given the previous appearances).