Peter: How a Flawed Disciple Became Jesus’ Successor on Earth - The BAS Library

Footnotes

1.

See James Finegan, “The Death and Burial of St. Peter,” Biblical Archaeology Review, December 1976; and Julie Skurdenis, “City of the Dead,” Archaeology Odyssey, March/April 2001.

2.

See James F. Strange and Hershel Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1982.

3.

Scholars believe that both Luke and Matthew, in writing their gospels, drew on the Gospel of Mark and a now-lost collection of Jesus’ sayings called Q (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”).

4.

Church tradition conflates the Beloved Disciple with both John the Evangelist and the apostle John.

5.

Later tradition suggests Peter knew Mark, too; according to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, a second-century church leader named Papias claimed that Peter dictated at least parts of the gospel account to the evangelist.

6.

Scholars generally agree that the New Testament letters 1 and 2 Peter were written by someone else, in about 100 C.E., long after Peter had died.

7.

See Ben Witherington III, “Bringing James Out of the Shadows,” BR, June 2003.

8.

Paul’s tradition thus disagrees with the gospels of Matthew and John, which claim that Mary Magdalene, either alone or in the company of other women, was the first to see the resurrected Lord (Matthew 28:9–10; John 21:11–18).

Endnotes

1.

See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 23.

2.

The wordplay depends upon the Greek, “you are Petros and upon this petra (rock) I will build my church” and lends itself more easily to thinking of Peter as foundation for the emerging community than the Aramaic kephā’, which usually designates a stone. Reconstructing the tradition behind Matthew 16:17–19 is controversial. For a conservative view, see W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 2:8-18 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), pp. 621–639. However, ekklēsia (“church”) does not go back to the tradition of Jesus’ sayings. Matthew 16:18 probably attaches this explanation of Simon’s name change to the apostle’s role in establishing the community after Easter (see John Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors [New York: Doubleday, 2001], pp. 224–234).

3.

For a thorough analysis of the variants of the story of Peter’s denial in the Gospels, which concludes that the underlying historical facts involve Jesus’ recognition that actions will bring on a violent response by Jerusalem authorities and that his disciples will fail to measure up in the crisis; that Judas betrayed Jesus; and that Peter denied being one of his followers, and the others fled, see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 587–621. The dramatic expansion of the denial scenes in the Passion accounts probably reflects Peter’s later prominence as a leader of the Jerusalem community.

4.

For detailed analysis, see Brown (Death, pp. 264–279). Since Mark has an anonymous member of the crowd as sword wielder and Peter’s use of a sword appears to contradict Jesus’ comment in John 18:36 (though Jesus has rebuked Peter), the likely truth of the matter is that some member of the arresting group had the sword.

5.

The chronology of Paul’s letters continues to be disputed. See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 29–32.

6.

John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, Anchor Bible Series 37B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 86–88.

7.

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.14.5. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible Series 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 489–490.