Simon + Peter = Simon Peter.

[Ben C. Smith]

This is just a little fishing expedition, as it were. I am collecting instances of the various names of Peter/Cephas/Simon (Symeon), looking for patterns.

It is pretty easy to find all three names for the disciple turned apostle in the gospels. He is introduced in Mark, for example, as Simon who also called Peter. I do not think the synoptics use the Aramaic form of Peter, Cephas, of him, but John does. The gospel of Thomas twice mentions Simon Peter. The gospel of Peter has him writing in the first person, "I, Simon Peter."

In texts that show the clear influence of gospel materials (I am being deliberately vague here so as not to prejudge whether those materials are identical with our canonical set) one can at least sometimes find at least both halves of the name: Simon and Peter/Cephas. For example, Justin Martyr says that Peter was previously known as Simon in Dialogue With Trypho 100. But usually Peter is the name chosen, as in the following passages:

Ignatius to the Romans 4.3: 3 I am not enjoining you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned; they were free, until now I have been a slave. But if I suffer, I will become a freed person who belongs to Jesus Christ, and I will rise up, free, in him. In the meantime I am learning to desire nothing while in chains.

Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 3.1-3: 1 For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection. 2 And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them, "Reach out, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless daimon." And immediately they touched him and believed, having been intermixed with his flesh and spirit. For this reason they also despised death, for they were found to be beyond death. 3 And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them as a fleshly being, even though he was spiritually united with the Father.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2: 1 But such a light of piety shone on the minds of those who heard Peter that they were not nearly satisfied with a single hearing or with an unwritten account of the divine proclamation. And so with all kinds of entreaties they begged Mark (whose Gospel is now in circulation), a follower of Peter, that he might leave behind a written record of the teaching that had been given to them orally. And they did not rest until they had prevailed upon him. To this extent they were the impetus for the writing called the Gospel according to Mark. 2 And they say that when the apostle came to know what had happened, after the Spirit revealed it to him, he delighted in their eagerness and authorized the writing to be read in the churches. Clement passes along this story in the sixth book of the Outlines, and the one who is called Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, corroborates his account, pointing out in addition that Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle, which also they maintain was composed in Rome itself.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4: 4 But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15: 15 "And this is what the elder used to say, 'When Mark was the interpreter of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds—but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him; but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord's sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.'" This then is what Papias says about Mark.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17: 17 And Papias made use of the testimonies found in the first epistle of John, and from the epistle of Peter as well. And he set forth another account about a woman who was falsely accused of many sins before the Lord, which is also found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

However, I have not yet found any mentions of Simon in texts that seem fairly free of gospel materials.

For example, 1 Clement is relatively free of gospel materials, and we find only Peter:

1 Clement 5.4: 4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

Of course, 2 Clement shows some dependence on gospel materials, but we still find only Peter:

2 Clement 5.2-4: 2 For the Lord said, "You will be like sheep in the midst of wolves." 3 But Peter replied to him, "What if the wolves rip apart the sheep?" 4 Jesus said to Peter, "After they are dead, the sheep should fear the wolves no longer. So too you: do not fear those who kill you and then can do nothing more to you; but fear the one who, after you die, has the power to cast your body and soul into the hell of fire."

But more interesting is the contrast between 1 and 2 Peter. 1 Peter is remarkably free of gospel details, and it begins:

1 Peter 1.1a: 1a Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ....

But 2 Peter shows an acquaintance with something like the transfiguration scene, and it begins:

2 Peter 1.1a: 1a Symeon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ....

This use of Symeon not only echoes the name Simon but also recalls Acts 15.14, in which Peter is also called Symeon. The connections here start to get strange and hard to decipher: it is James, supposedly the brother of the Lord, who calls him Symeon in Acts 15.14, and 2 Peter, which also calls him Symeon, bears strong connections with the epistle of Jude, supposedly another brother of the Lord. What is going on there??

But I digress.... The epistles of Paul evince famously slim and/or controversial knowledge of gospel traditions, and the apostle in question is always called Cephas here (or possibly also Peter in Galatians 2, though I consider that passage to be suspect). No Simon.

I am not sure what any of this means, by the way. As I said, this is a fishing expedition. (There are many possibilities that spring to mind. Did authors call him Peter instead of Simon because stories about his famous battle with Simon Magus were easier to tell without two main characters named Simon? Was Peter/Cephas used more because it was a rarer name and could distinguish which person was being spoken of all by itself? Was Peter/Cephas a more attractive name, given that it could be seen as implying that the church was founded upon this Rock?)

But back to the question at hand: are there texts which do not evince much knowledge of gospel traditions but which still call this apostle Simon? More pointedly, would you basically have to know the story of his origins as a fisherman in order to know him as Simon in the first place?

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

.
The Simon/Peter thing is as murky as trying to determine which James was which.

Just to clarify, Ben; when you say

"In texts that show the clear influence of gospel materials (I am being deliberately vague here so as not to prejudge whether those materials are identical with our canonical set) one can at least sometimes find at least both halves of the name: Simon and Peter/Cephas."

I presume you are referring to influence of gospel materials on subsequent texts (ie. influence by gospel texts)

... rather than influence on gospel materials by pre-Gospel texts?

[Adam]

Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John sees "Simon" as distinguishing narrative Source verses (Jn. 1:41, 42) and "Peter" as used by the Editor (1:44, 13:8, 18:26, all three anarthrous). More significant for Teeple's detailed literary analysis, however, is the distinction between arthrous and anarthrous names, that is, whether the best early texts (Neutral or Alexandrine) employ the article before the name or not. He shows that the Editor preferred to use "Simon Peter", compound anarthrous (no article before either name). In the rare instance where "Simon Peter" does include an article "the" he relegates the verse (21:15) to the later Redactor, not the Editor, and similarly assigns to the Redactor the six cases of the arthours "Peter".

[Peter Kirby]

are there texts which do not evince much knowledge of gospel traditions but which still call this apostle Simon? More pointedly, would you basically have to know the story of his origins as a fisherman in order to know him as Simon in the first place?

Not directly answering the OP's question, perhaps, but here is some interesting data all the time.

Epistula Apostolorum
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lorum.html

"Simon" with Cerinthus, a false apostle. Cephas and Peter separate in list.

Kerygmata Petrou
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... etrou.html

"Simon" and "Peter" separately identified... I think. Hypothesized basis text for Recognitions and the Homilies of Clement.

Slavonic Josephus
http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnos ... /gjb-3.htm

Interesting appearance of a Simon "the Essene" rebuking John the Baptist.

JOHN'S PROCLAMATION AND HIS REBUKE OF THE AUTHORITIES.

(Follows on B. J. II. vii. 2.)

1. Now at that time a man went about among the Jews in strange garments; for he had put pelts on his body everywhere where it was not covered with his own hair; 2. indeed to look at he was like a wild man.

p. 104

3. He came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom, saying: "God hath sent me, that I may show you the way of the Law, wherein ye may free yourselves from many holders of power. 4. And there will be no mortal ruling over you, only the Highest who hath sent me." 5. And when the people had heard this, they were joyful. And there went after him all Judæa, that lies in the region round Jerusalem.

6. And he did nothing else to them save that he plunged them into the stream of the Jordan and dismissed them, instructing them that they should cease from evil works, and [promising] that there would [then] be given them a ruler who would set them free and subject to them all that is not in submission; but no one of whom we speak (?),1 would himself be subjected. 7. Some reviled, but others got faith.

8. And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. 9. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and cane and roots and tree-food.2 10. But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you [rather] to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God."

11. And there rose up in anger Simon, an Essæan by extraction, a scribe, and he spake: "We read every day the divine books. 12. But thou, only now come from the forest like a wild animal,—thou darest in sooth to teach us and to mislead the people with thy reprobate words." 13. And he rushed forward to do him bodily violence. 14. But he, rebuking them, spake: "I will not disclose to you the mystery which dwelleth in you, for ye have not desired it. 15. Thereby an untold calamity is come upon you, and because of yourselves."

16. And when he had thus spoken, he went forth to the other p. 105 side of the Jordan; and while no one durst rebuke him, that one did what [he had done] also heretofore.

Second Treatise of the Great Seth
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tseth.html

An appearance of the "Simon" substituted on the cross.

For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

Not exhaustive, obviously... some just a little less known than the usual references to Simon here.

It would certainly be possible to cross a document where you learned about one of these Simons without the fisherman connection. The independence/interdependence questions are obviously quite thorny (or perhaps just clearly showing dependence on gospel material...).

Justin Martyr may make the first "straight" reference to Simon, while not presenting a literary narrative.

[Ben C. Smith]

Just to clarify, Ben; when you say

"In texts that show the clear influence of gospel materials (I am being deliberately vague here so as not to prejudge whether those materials are identical with our canonical set) one can at least sometimes find at least both halves of the name: Simon and Peter/Cephas."

I presume you are referring to influence of gospel materials on subsequent texts (ie. influence by gospel texts)

... rather than influence on gospel materials by pre-Gospel texts?

Right. I mean that gospel materials seem to be influencing certain texts, such as 2 Clement and 2 Peter.

[Ben C. Smith]

are there texts which do not evince much knowledge of gospel traditions but which still call this apostle Simon? More pointedly, would you basically have to know the story of his origins as a fisherman in order to know him as Simon in the first place?

Not directly answering the OP's question, perhaps, but here is some interesting data all the time.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lorum.html

"Simon" with Cerinthus, a false apostle. Cephas and Peter separate in list.

Right. I thought about including the Cephas/Peter separation in the Epistula in the OP, but it seems to me to relate only peripherally to my main question. I have actually tried certain scenarios that involve two different men, one named Cephas and the other Peter, who were later conflated into one (with the Epistula being a rare fossil of the original state of affairs), but I have gotten nowhere fast on that issue.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... etrou.html

"Simon" and "Peter" separately identified... I think. Hypothesized basis text for Recognitions and the Homilies of Clement.

Okay, but this is Simon Magus, right? (Not that I object to seeing what happens if we link allegedly different Simons together, but it is not as if Simon in this context clearly means a fisherman called by Jesus, right?)

It would certainly be possible to cross a document where you learned about one of these Simons without the fisherman connection.

My specific question is whether there is a reference to the apostle Peter, calling him Simon (whether in conjunction with the name Peter or not), but without any clear reference in the rest of the text to gospel materials. I guess 2 Peter comes close, though the mountain scene seems pretty clearly to be of a piece with what we find as the transfiguration in the synoptics, as does the emphasis on being an eyewitness. A good example might be 1 Clement, if that text were to have called the apostle Simon Peter rather than just Peter. There are a few dominical words in 1 Clement, but they are not given a clear gospel provenance, so that kind of mention of Simon would have counted to my mind.

[Peter Kirby]

I understand the specific question; nothing obvious comes to mind.

[Secret Alias]

סִימְיונִ = sign Gal, CPA, Syr. SYAP 36:3 : בֵיהּ סִמָנִין ועוֹד סִימְ[י]ונִין it has signs and more signs. (a) milestone Syr. (b) sign of zodiac Syr. GeZA8 5:3 ; . (c) brand, distinctive mark LJLA.

2 example Syr.

3 zenith (?) Syr.
Greek σημεῖον.

[Secret Alias]

This is one of those strange times where a Greek word resembles an Aramaic root:

sym vb. D to mark, define

1 to indicate Gal, Sam, JBA. PTŠab8.c:59[2] : וסיימון they marked (the hour). BT Er 50a(6) : לא מסיים אתריה its place is not indicated. BT Er 50b(5) : ממאי דארבעי מצ<י>ע{י}תא קא מסיים from what (is it clear) that he specifies the four middle (cubits)?.

1 to be marked JBA. BT Pes 88a(44) : מין ומי{ר}<נ>ך תסתים שמעתא the legal tradition will be clarified (by combining) mine [i.e. my statement] and yours.

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=965

Note that the gnostic description of the Demiurge being 'Samael' might be related (cf Jastrow second meaning at bottom of the page).

[Ben C. Smith]

I understand the specific question; nothing obvious comes to mind.

Okay, thanks.