Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMatt

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMatt

Post by JoeWallack »

Review of Robert Gundry's Peter -- False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew

JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to review Robert Gundry's:

Peter -- False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew

Image

Correspondent Toejam has previously identified this book here:

Is Matthew portraying Peter as false disciple and apostate?

A video summary of Gundry's argument is here:

"Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew," Bob Gundry, Oct. 6, 2014

The issue of how GMatthew portrayed Peter is primarily significant in helping us to understand how the likely original Gospel narrative, GMark, portrayed Peter, in the context of descriptions of the historical Peter. This is because GMatthew used GMark as a base. Also, whereas GMark has a primary objective of discrediting supposed historical witness to Jesus, GMatthew, at least at the end, has an important objective of crediting supposed historical witness to Jesus. This is evidence that GMatthew had little/no source of historical evidence for Jesus independent of GMark. Thus whatever "Matthew" (author) thought about Jesus independently of GMark is secondary historical evidence compared to what "Matthew" thought about GMark.

For that matther, the above raises the question of what was the original ending of GMatthew? Christianity forged an ending to the original Gospel narrative GMark. Why not also the next Gospel GMatthew? It also looks like Christianity forged a beginning to GMatthew. Why not an ending? Did original GMatthew just end with:
And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
A question for another Thread I think. Anyway, this Thread will be limited to a review of Gundry's book.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by Adam »

Have fun, but it's based on a false premise that several of us here agree upon. No gospel is based on any of the others (I. e, gMatthew is NOT based on gMark). Each is based on proto-texts, on one proto-text, or on one proto-text that evolved over time to add more sections. (The first is much of academic scholarship like Burkitt, the second is probably Stephan Huller and Ben Smith, and the last is mine.)
(The context here is the Synoptic Problem, but as for me it applies to gJohn as well, with the alteration that I fit it into the first of my three types, that it's based on proto-texts (the Passion Diary, the Signs Source, the Discourses as written by Nicodemus, and the author/editor's own testimony John 13.)
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13858
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by Giuseppe »

It is more expected that the first Gospel condemned Peter while the second Gospel rehabilitated Peter.
But, according to Gundry, the contrary happened (he thinks that Mark is pro-petrine).

Therefore, I am now more inclined to think that Mark comes after Matthew, and that both are influenced by a distinct first Gospel (anti-petrine).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Gundry's book is dominated by Redaction Criticism:
Redaction criticism, also called Redaktionsgeschichte, Kompositionsgeschichte or Redaktionstheologie, is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. Redaction criticism regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of his or her source materials. Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre; instead, it focuses on how the redactor(s) has shaped and molded the narrative to express his theological goals.
Gundry assumes that GMark was GMatthew's primary source. The bulk of Gundry's book consists of illustrations of how GMatthew has edited GMark to make Peter look even worse. Gundry's overall conclusion is to go so far as to conclude that GMatthew converts GMark's Peter into a false disciple. A surprising conclusion on the surface since it is otherwise generally thought that all subsequent Gospels to GMark, including GMatthew, rehabilitate GMark's Peter to some extent. On to the illustrations:

Mark 1:16-18 Matthew 14:18-20 Evil Editing
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.
4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
19 And he saith unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men.
20 And they straightway left the nets, and followed him.
An only mildly evil edit. "Matthew" (author) knows that Simon was called "Peter" because he has read GMark. But to GMatthew's audience which generally had not only never read GMark but had never read anything, Gundry claims that by immediately tagging Simon as already being called "Peter", GMatthew exorcises his Jesus from giving a special, honorary name to Simon later. My related editorial comment though is that "Mark" is the Jewdie Master of Irony while "Matthew" is but his young apprentice. "Mark's" Jesus' assignment of the name of "Peter" works very well to discredit his Simon in connection with the rocky soil parable of disciple failure.


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
a further point

Mark 1:16 Matthew 4:18 Neil's comment
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ
literal: throwing around in the sea
4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν
literal: casting a net into the sea
Jesus is walking along by the sea when he notices Simon Peter and Andrew “amphiballontas in the sea” (1:16).

The Greek word literally means “to throw around” and is frequently used in reference to nets. Here it is used in connection with the sea, so it is usually translated “casting a net”. But the word “net” does not appear in the text.

The omission of “net” is not to be ignored, for the verb amphiballo without an object also carries the meaning “to vacillate/to be doubtful,” which would make it a particularly apt allusion to the apostles’ behavior . . . .

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by iskander »

GMatthew exorcises his Jesus from giving a special, honorary name to Simon later


Knighthoods in the Greek Testament

It makes no difference how Simon was called . By tradition, clergy receiving a knighthood are not dubbed, as the use of a sword is thought inappropriate for their calling. They are not able to use the title 'Sir'
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by iskander »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
a further point

Mark 1:16 Matthew 4:18 Neil's comment
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ
literal: throwing around in the sea
4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν
literal: casting a net into the sea
Jesus is walking along by the sea when he notices Simon Peter and Andrew “amphiballontas in the sea” (1:16).

The Greek word literally means “to throw around” and is frequently used in reference to nets. Here it is used in connection with the sea, so it is usually translated “casting a net”. But the word “net” does not appear in the text.

The omission of “net” is not to be ignored, for the verb amphiballo without an object also carries the meaning “to vacillate/to be doubtful,” which would make it a particularly apt allusion to the apostles’ behavior . . . .

16 Περιπατῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδε Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σίμωνος, βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς·
17 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων.
18 καὶ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.



Improved translation with “to vacillate/to be doubtful,”
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother vacillating [by] ( into )the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
a further point

Mark 1:16 Matthew 4:18 Neil's comment
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ
literal: throwing around in the sea
4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν
literal: casting a net into the sea
Jesus is walking along by the sea when he notices Simon Peter and Andrew “amphiballontas in the sea” (1:16).

The Greek word literally means “to throw around” and is frequently used in reference to nets. Here it is used in connection with the sea, so it is usually translated “casting a net”. But the word “net” does not appear in the text.

The omission of “net” is not to be ignored, for the verb amphiballo without an object also carries the meaning “to vacillate/to be doubtful,” which would make it a particularly apt allusion to the apostles’ behavior . . . .

JW:
As James Woods said in Contact "That is interesting, isn't it." The Christian lexicons are going to be limited/obfuscate so you have to go to Perseus
4. [select] encompass, beset, “δυσμενὴς ὅρι᾽ ἀμφιβάλλει” B.17.6; “πόλιν φόνῳ” E.Andr.799, cf. Trag.Adesp.127.6(lyr.); ἀ. φῦλον ὀρνίθωνsurround them with nets, S.Ant.344; strike or hit on all sides, “τινὰ βέλεσι” E.HF422.
*b. [select] abs., fish (cf. ἀμφίβληστρον), Ev.Marc.1.16, cf. PFlor.2.119.3 (ii A. D.).
...
III. [select] doubt, “περί τινος” Plb. 39.5.2: also folld. by inf., Hld.5.17; by ὡς . . Ael.NA9.33; by ὅτι . . Hermog.Id.2.10; “περί τινος” Id.Meth.23.
IV. [select] intr., ἀ. εἰς τόπον go into another place, E.Cyc.60.
2. [select] to be doubtful or in dispute, Arist.EE1243a12,25; ἀμφιβάλλειν εἴωθε τὰ φίλτρα are uncertain in their action, Alciphr.1.37:—Pass., to be in dispute, Simp.in Ph.21.11.
Note that Perseus inventories 1:16 as in the context of fishing. As Christian Obvious has pointed out the narrative makes clear that at the Text/Literal level the context of "casting" here is fishing. On the other (use of ) hands (so to speak):
  • 1) I have not seen any example of ancient use of the offending word without an object that was used in the context of fishing.

    2) GMatthew adds "net" to the story.

    3) Even though Textual Criticism accepts that "net" is not original to GMark here, the overwhelming majority of copies added "net":
TVU 11 NA28 Mark 1:16
txt ἀμφιβάλλοντας 01, B, L, 33
Note the variation of the impostors, a good sign of editing of a difficult original.

Thus it's safe to say that GMark's lack of a direct object such as "net" would have been considered unorthodox (so to speak). Looking at possible significance of this observation, KK has righteously pointed out that the offending word without an object can, by the book, have a meaning of doubt. Under Wallack's Criteria for Evidence of Intentional Fiction, an important criterion is does the use connect with the author's overall Theme? Here it clearly does as doubt on the part of the disciples is one of GMark's most important themes.

I think it likely that at the Sub-text/Figurative level "Mark" (author), a Master of Greek, has intentionally omitted "net" to leave the connection of the meaning of doubt for the native Greek reader/hearer. Regarding Gundry/"GMatthew" redaction I think overall GMatthew is trying to take GMark narrative as literal so even though I accept Gundry's point that often times GMatthew worsens GMark's Peter, GMatthew is more likely to edit out figurative negatives of Peter, not to improve GMatthew's Peter, but to try and make the story sound more literal. GMatthew also likes/loves using the figurative, but in speech and editorial, not narrative.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:Regarding Gundry/"GMatthew" redaction I think overall GMatthew is trying to take GMark narrative as literal so even though I accept Gundry's point that often times GMatthew worsens GMark's Peter, GMatthew is more likely to edit out figurative negatives of Peter, not to improve GMatthew's Peter, but to try and make the story sound more literal. GMatthew also likes/loves using the figurative, but in speech and editorial, not narrative.
Agreed.

JoeWallack wrote:Thus it's safe to say that GMark's lack of a direct object such as "net" would have been considered unorthodox (so to speak). Looking at possible significance of this observation, KK has righteously pointed out that the offending word without an object can, by the book, have a meaning of doubt. Under Wallack's Criteria for Evidence of Intentional Fiction, an important criterion is does the use connect with the author's overall Theme? Here it clearly does as doubt on the part of the disciples is one of GMark's most important themes.
And interestingly, Mark connects the theme of „the doubting disciples“ strongly with the theme of „the sea“.
Mark 4:36-40
36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. ... 37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. … 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, ... 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

Mark 6:45-52
45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side … 48 And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: … 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they ... cried out: … 51 And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. 52 For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.

Mark 8:13-21
13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. … 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? … 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
Taken this for granted, it seems that Mark 4:40 is refering back to 1:16.
Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;
Why fearful are you? Not yet you have faith?
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:Regarding Gundry/"GMatthew" redaction I think overall GMatthew is trying to take GMark narrative as literal so even though I accept Gundry's point that often times GMatthew worsens GMark's Peter, GMatthew is more likely to edit out figurative negatives of Peter, not to improve GMatthew's Peter, but to try and make the story sound more literal. GMatthew also likes/loves using the figurative, but in speech and editorial, not narrative.
Agreed.

JoeWallack wrote:Thus it's safe to say that GMark's lack of a direct object such as "net" would have been considered unorthodox (so to speak). Looking at possible significance of this observation, KK has righteously pointed out that the offending word without an object can, by the book, have a meaning of doubt. Under Wallack's Criteria for Evidence of Intentional Fiction, an important criterion is does the use connect with the author's overall Theme? Here it clearly does as doubt on the part of the disciples is one of GMark's most important themes.
And interestingly, Mark connects the theme of „the doubting disciples“ strongly with the theme of „the sea“.
Mark 4:36-40
36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. ... 37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. … 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, ... 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

Mark 6:45-52
45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side … 48 And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: … 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they ... cried out: … 51 And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. 52 For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.

Mark 8:13-21
13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. … 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? … 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
Taken this for granted, it seems that Mark 4:40 is refering back to 1:16.
Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;
Why fearful are you? Not yet you have faith?
JW:
I think, as is often the case, this goes back to Paul/Fake Paul:

1 Thessalonians 2
12 to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who calleth you into his own kingdom and glory.

13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, [even the word] of God, ye accepted [it] not [as] the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;

15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;

16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

17 But we, brethren, being bereaved of you for a short season, in presence not in heart, endeavored the more exceedingly to see your face with great desire:

18 because we would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan hindered us.
JW:
In GMark the "Sea" represents the divide (figurative and literal) between Jews and Gentiles. Going contrary to the spirit (wind) is just historical commentary, given in figurative language, of the historical disciples being more interested in Jewish Law than faith in Paul's Jesus. When GMark says the disciples "doubted" Jesus that is just a code word for saying they were not primarily promoting faith in Jesus like Paul was. "Did not understand" means did not accept.


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog
Post Reply