cheenc03a.pdf

'
.~~~
SIMON PETER
4171
SIMON PETER
to a time shortly anterior to the conferrion of Peter ; for
so long as Jrrus was not himself certain by divine
instance cannot here bc taken as proving the accu~ncy
of the report, for their agreement conies only fro,,,
revelation of the fact of his ~esriahrhip he could not mutual borronhg. In any case, whether the word in
accept the proclamation of it by Peter.
(dl The occurrence itself admits very easily of being
regarded as having taken place in the inner consciourquestion
was spoken by Peter or by another the circunlstance
is too unimportant to allow ur precisely here to
place unqualified confidence in the eldest of the three
ners of Jesus. The participation of Peter, Jamer, and who is followed by the other two. If Jcrus blamed a
John becomes in that care much less active. That they questioner this very fact still added to the importunce of
were present need not be denied ; but their activily the latter (cp below, 5 17) : but such is not the case
would then be limited to this-that, after awaking fium here. Mareaver, the question must not be treated
sleep perhaps, they received a powerful irnprerrion oi apart from the answer of Jesur (' shall receive a hundredthe
wondrous majesty with which Jesus came to meet fold,' etc.). If Jerus ever gave any such promise to his
them after he had heard the hemenly voice. The disciples, we may be certain at least that it was not in
terms in which this had been expressed they would not
in that case hear directly for themselves, but would
connection with a question so rrlf~reeking ar thir. If,
however, the narrative is open to suspicion on this most
afterwards learn from the mouth of Jesus. The important point. it is impossible to feel confidence on
assertion in 2 Pet. 116-r8 thaf Peter himself heard the such a relatively subordinvte matter as the person of the
voice upon the 'holy' mountain doer not fall to be questioner.
taken account of in the mesent connection, in view oi Other notices there are to which a hiriorical kernel:
the pseudonymour charaiter oi thir epistle (see PETEX, or even complete historicity cannot tie denied ; on the
EPISTLES OF, $3 9-rz).
~ne hand they were important enough to
I" the story of the stater in the fish's mouth (only lmtiess
11, xinor
arith impress themselves on human memories
Mt. I?'=+-zr), it has above a11 to be observed that the
and
g, Stater miracle is only announced, not described as historical
on the other hand they were not so
zmportant
in fish.a having happened. All the safer, therefore, kernel,
as to tempt to a departure from
historical accuracv , lco , . the
~
orincinle
~~~
laid
11 the ~uppo~itio" that here we are in down in
mouth,
GOSPELS, 5 13.. COI. 1873, begin.). (=)
presence of a symbolical raying of Jesus. Thus there is no difficulty in believing that Jerus on a
The rmtion contains two r.parate thoughfr, of which the one Sabbath day healed Peter's mother-in-law and other
yould be quire sufficient without the other. (I) Properly rpcrk-
1" Je5"5 and hi3 dirciples do not require to pry the tax, but in
rick persons, but on the following day withdrew himor2er
to avoid offence they do so. The incident contminr the self into solitude and was sought out by Peter and his
pr~uppaiidoo that Jesus is the Mesairh alike whetherthe word. comrades with the view of bringing him back (Mk lag-
.Ltrlbufed to Jesus were ncmally spoken by him, orwhether 38=Lk. 438-43 ; Mt. 814-17 has the healing5 only).
they are erroneously put into his mouth ' along with rhlr it con.
cainr (")also the exhortation to subnlif ko cxisring insfitufionr, (6) That the name Cephas (Peter) war bestowed upon
and thus =pplier equally well alte to the temple tax which Simon by Jerur may in view of what has been said in
exacted in the time of Jerur. and to the Roman suite tax which S
from 10 A.D. ~"wardi war rubrlirured for the temple tax in the - IZ " be reearded as whollv credible even if the date at
tax of Jews (J?s. B/vii. 64 9 213) and. arriculrily undsr
which if was bestowed remains uncertain. Accordinx
nomitian, way r~pro~~i~ zxactd iron, cfriaisnl a13o (see to Mk. (316) it was at the time when the apostles sere
Cnnrsrrr~. g 6. vi~. end).
first chosen. A more aoorooriare occasion but not on
It is in connection with the second of these main that account historicall< 'established would be that of
ideas thaf Peter comer more directly into the story ; he the confession atcaerarea Philippi with which Mt. (1618)
is to fish for the means of paying the tax. As he is a connects it (see MINrsmu, 5 q, end). If Mt. already
fisherman by occupation, the meaning of this symbolical when Peter's call is recorded (4.8) and again at the
saying at once suggests itself; by the exercise of his choosirlg of the apostles (lo2) rays: 'Simon, who ir
craft he will easily be able to earn enough to meet this called Peter.' he is, of course, not to be taken as intend-
~~ ~-
call upon him. Thin feature in the story may point to ing to indicate the time at which the name war given.
the authenticity of the saying as attributed to Jerus : but but simply as wishing to apprise his readers that this
it may also quite well have heen invented, as every one
in later times knew that Peter had been a fisherman.
Aner the death of Jesus it would have been less easy
Simon was the man whom they already icnew as Peter.
Lk. (6x4) likewise has on the occasion of the choosing
of the apostles the words 'Simon, whom he also named
to have itrvented that other feature-that the produce Peter.' By this, however, he perhaps does not mean
of Peter's indtlstry was to serve to Day the tax both for to convey that the name was bestowed by Jerus then,
but only that it had been bestowed by him at one time
or another.
(6) Equally natural is it to recognirr faithful reminiscence
in the statement that in Gethsemvne Jesus took
Peter, lames, and John to watch with him, and that
nevertheless they iell asleep (Mk. 143z-r~=Erlt. 2fJ36-,6).
lo, Other be 'ejected at once, but, at the same time, even although we cannot he certain that thir last
doubtful can just as little be regarded as certaiuly happened three several times. This 1-t doubt, how-
TO this category belong: ever, in no reason for giving the preference to Lk.
elemon t8, a"fhentic.
(=) all those cases in which Peter is repre- (2240~46) who mentions the incident as having occurred
sented as having said something which in some other
gospel is attributed to the disciples at large (hlt. 15x5
Lk.845 Mk.133: see above. sgc. d) or is omitted
vlto~ether nllhough the narrative to which it belongs is
retained in that gospel (MI. 18x1 ar apinst Lk. 174.
but once, and that in the case oi all the disciples, for
as he unquestionably war acqu8inted with Mk. the
simplification here must be explained as due merely to
absence of interest in the details of the story.
I" the care of the raising of Jairus' daughter alsoand
Lk. 1Zrr as against >It. 24rrf. : see 55i).
(a) No difficulty will lie felt in recogniring rrur remi-
(6) To this ciarr falls to be added one 1nrtance of a niscence in the statement that Jesus suffered nu one bur
subordinate action (the preparation far the parrover) la, Jairus, Peter. James. and John to go with him
which only Lk. (228) assigns to Peter (and John) ; see daughter, to the house or (besides the parents of
5 j d; and also-
the girl) to enter the room where she lay
(c) The word which according to all three evangelists 1Mk. 52r-roi
(ilk. 1098 MI. 1927 Lk. 1828) Peter is reported to have
uttered : 'we have left all and foliowed thee.' If the
evangelirts are in other places so little at one as to the
authorship of agiven saying, agreement in this particular