Gundry's next comparison:
Mark 8:27-30 | Matthew 16:13-20 | Evil Editing | Commentary |
27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? 28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. 29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. 30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. |
13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 14 And they said, Some [say] John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. |
1. The previous story that involved Peter/Simon was his drowning story where he was only called "Peter". Here he is now called "Simon Peter". 2. Here Peter identifies Jesus as the son of God but the other disciples had already identified Jesus as the son of God in the Peter drowning story, so Peter not only is not the first to make this identification, he is the last. 3. In contrast to the other disciples who recognized Jesus as the son of God on their own, Peter required divine assistance to do so. 4. The other disciples add "truly" to their recognition making it more definitive. 5. Peter adds "living God" to the description giving it a Jewish Bible flavor and giving the emphasis to God instead of Jesus. 6. The identification is that God is the father of Jesus, not Peter. 7. "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee" indicates specifically that Peter did not believe that Jesus was the son of God after the other disciples confessed that he was in the drowning story. 8. Peter receives a beatitude here but Judas was included in a group that received a beatitude in the previous chapter. 9. "Blessed" here should be "privileged" (same as the previous Chapter). What is important is what you do with the privilege and not that you received it. What you do with it will determine your final judgement. |
Per GMark, "Christ" is old school, associated with the Teaching & Healing Ministry and relatively unimportant compared to "son of God", what's new and associated with the Passion. "Son of God" is given by Revelation (baptism & transfiguration). GMatthew understands and accepts this. GMatthew's edit here of "son of man" contrasts the base question with the answer, "son of God". "Simon Peter" is added to tie to "Simon bar Jonah". |
Observations:
1) Of course Matthew 16 is the big hurdle Gundry must try and leap to demonstrate that GMatthew showed Peter as a false apostle. 16 here on its face seems to indicate an opposite of Gundry, that via significant edit of the Markan base, Jesus explicitly authorizes Peter as the lead apostle.
2) Gundry accepts what is explicit in his base, that Peter was an authorized disciple during Jesus' life. Also, what is implicit, that Peter was the lead authorized disciple during Jesus' life. The big initial difference between source (GMark) and edit (GMatthew) is that GMatthew, in expanding the supposed significance of the original Gospel narrative, now refers to Apostles after Jesus death and indicates that Peter will be the leader.
3) Jesus authorizes Peter to be the lead communicator of Jesus' formula to achieve Heaven and that the results of Peter's efforts will determine Final Judgment. There would seem to be a significant contradiction between this and GMatthew also showing Peter as a false apostle. The only possible try to get out of the contradiction is to distinguish between:
- 1 - Peter's communication of Jesus' words to others
Verses
2 - Peter's individual reaction to Jesus' words
4) In order to present Peter as a false Disciple, Gundry must show that GMatthew:
1 - Has presented Peter negatively to Chapter 16 = Done
2 - Has a subsequent big negative to undo the big positive of 16 = It's already in his base, abandonment and formulaic 3 times denial.
3 - Most importantly, explanation for simultaneous true apostle/false disciple =
- 1) GMatthew has provided the precedent of the Pharisees. They are supposedly hypocrites who do accurately transmit God's law and expect others to follow but don't follow it themselves. GMatthew's editing increases the parallels between the Pharisees and Peter.
2) GMatthew has also provided the prediction of authorized apostles who will be judged false disciples at Final Judgement, again through expanded editing of the base.
3) What's missing so far from GMatthew is specific prediction/description of Peter as both. Peter has already been singled out as comparing to Satan but Satan is a long way from a True Apostle. Gundry righteously has many more observations regarding the above text so stay tuned...
Joseph
The New Porphyry