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: 1594
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 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
Note though that 1- makes Peter a true Apostle. 2- makes Peter a false disciple.

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
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Continuing with the critical Gundry Chapter 16:

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.
10. The most critical area of observation for Gundry. "Peter" and "rock" are the same Greek base word.
11. Gundry's biggest point in his entire book is to try and distinguish between "you are Peter" and "upon this rock". Gundry righteously notes that "you are Peter" is second person and "upon this rock" is third person. Also, "Peter" is masculine and "rock" is feminine. The cruncher for Gundry is that "rock" has been previously used by GMatthew to refer to Jesus' words 7:24 (in the feminine and third person of course) "Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:". The context is exactly the same as Chapter 16, behavior for successful final judgement. Both also have the demonstrative pronoun "these/this".
12. Gundry points out that the accompanying description of the rocks in Chapter 16 and 7 is also similar, "The Gates of Hades will not overpower it" with a storm not felling the house built on rock.
13. GMatthew has significantly edited in general to add to Jesus' supposed words.
14. GMatthew has his Jesus' big finish refer to his words, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you:".
1. Gundry notes that "You are Peter" parallels "You are the Christ". GMatthew shows that Peter does not understand what this observation means (what being "the Christ" involves). Is the parallel also intended to show that Peter does not likewise understand what Jesus' "You are Peter" means? Maybe.
2. Gundry argues GMatthew uses the same word to distinguish between Peter and the rock which is Jesus' words. Further support that GMatthew is using the parallel of Peter/rock here as negative to Peter is that GMatthew has already used the same word in not just a negative way, but as a prime example of a negative disciple, in Chapter 13's Parable of the Sower. GMatthew's narrative of Peter will fit the context of the Parable very well. Further, GMatthew's Parable of the Sower follows his base of GMark, so GMatthew likely understood that his base was using the Peter/rock name play as negative to Peter. If GMatthew was using the name play here between Peter and Jesus' words as rock, it would fit the pattern we have seen so far of GMatthew editing increasing the negative casting of Peter that was already in his source.

Observations:
Gundry's not finished yet with Chapter 16, coming up, Gundry goes on the defensive, why Jesus' gifts to Peter here are not straight-forward predictions of Peter's success.


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 »

.
I think we should distinguish between clear cases and ambiguous cases. For example: I think this is a clear case of "evil editing".
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Gundry's next comparison:

Mark 6:45-52 Matthew 14:22-33 Evil Editing Commentary
50 for they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
51 And he went up unto them into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves;
52 for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto the upon the waters.
29 And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

32 And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased.
33 And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
5. The emphasis here is on Peter's doubt which parallels to GMatthew 28:17 where some disciples still doubt after the resurrection.
6. Jesus' words here end with admonishing Peter.
Gundry's emphasis is on specific editing and not so much on general editing. Here GMatthew has taken one of the most critical stories in GMark about the disciples and converted the criticism primarily to Peter.

But Matthew's "evil editing" of Mark 8:27-30 falls into a different category. Let's say:
"evil editing" required some interpretation, interpretation is possible but a bit subtle
EDIT: correction "Mark 8:27-30"
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Continuing with the very critical Gundry Chapter 16:

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.
15. Gundry explains that "keys" means words of Jesus. At the end of the Gospel Jesus gives these keys to all the disciples, "28:20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world".
16. Likewise the anachronism, "18:18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" has Jesus give the binding/loosening move to all the disciples.
17. Presumably Judas is in the audience of 18:18 so Gundry points out that if receipt of this power did not guarantee Judas' success, than it did not guarantee Peter's either.
18. Gundry again invokes the negative precedent of the Pharisees as comparison to Peter here, "23:2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: 23:3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, [these] do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." righteously arguing that the authorized teachers before Peter accurately transmitted instructions but were failures because they did not do as they taught.
19. Gundry scores bonus points in the parallel category for noting the parallel word used, Peter's "keys" is cognate to the Pharisee's "shut out" and Jesus' related curse on the Pharisees, "Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter[.]".
-

Observations:
The key (so to speak) question regarding the above is for:

"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."

To what extent does this statement and the surrounding context/commentary predict that Peter will ultimately be a successful disciple (follow Jesus' teachings) and apostle (communicate Jesus' teachings)?

It seems to be a specific and explicit statement that Peter will be a successful Apostle and the lead Apostle. Peter will properly communicate Jesus' teachings and recipients will gain/lose heaven based on whether they do what they are taught.

The statement though is not explicit regarding Peter's success as a disciple (doing what he teaches). There is an implication that he will be a successful disciple since he is predicted to be a successful Apostle. Gundry has presented many pieces of evidence though to think that GMatthew showed Peter as a false disciple or at least intended to have the reader doubt whether Peter was a true disciple.

Since there is competition here between one clear statement that Peter would be very successful and numerous less clear statements that Peter would not/may not be successful there are a number of possibilities:
  • 1) GMatthew generally presents Peter negatively because that was inherited in the base. GMatthew wants to show successful/historical transition from Jesus to the Church (anachronism) and so makes one big edit to create Peter as the key to transition. Crediting Peter is a necessary consequence in order to claim accurate transmission of what Jesus supposedly taught.

    2) GMatthew accepts the base of Peter being discredited as proper witness to Jesus but adds the key verse not primarily to credit Peter as proper historical witness to Jesus but to claim a historical link between Jesus and the supposed subsequent Church.

    3) The key verse is an addition as evidenced by GMatthew otherwise generally making his Peter worse than it already was in a base that GMatthew accepted as discrediting Peter.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
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 next comparison:

Mark 8:31-33 Matthew 16:21-23 Evil Editing Commentary
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.
22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
1. Gundry argues that these verses are connected to the preceding relying on "From that time" and "must go unto Jerusalem" and the parallel "You are the Christ" vs. You are my stumbling block. The extreme negativity of these verses has a stronger offset to the preceding apparently strongly positive description of Peter since it is connected and follows.
2. GMatthew again edits to make Peter look even worse than a source that already called him Satan. Added to Peter's rebuke is a double negative. Subtracted is Jesus seeing his disciples to increase the emphasis on Peter. The copied "Get thee behind me, Satan" now parallels even better to GMatthew's editing of the Satan tempting story.
3. The cruncher is the addition of "thou art a stumbling-block unto me". GMatthew's other uses of the offending word (13:41-42 & 18:7-9 - GMatthew additions) are all tied to having a religious context of negative Final Judgement to Hell(fire). As if GMatthew could make it any worse, "stumbling-block" (snare) is placed first in the phrase for added emphasis.
Gundry said he changed his mind on the significance of the subtraction of Jesus speaking plainly. He now says it is also negative editing because it makes the interaction more credible. I think Gundry is correct that the subtraction does make the conversation sound more credible (due to the exorcism of GMark's extreme irony that Jesus' teachings & healings were taught in parables but Jesus' passion was taught directly) but now wrong as to the effect on Peter's level of guilt. Gundry's previous position was correct, Peter clearly being told about Jesus' passion makes him guiltier of rejecting it.

Observations:
So regarding the critical (so to speak) Chapter 16 here we seem to have two extremes:
  • 1) Peter first receives High Praise for future transmitting of Jesus' teachings.

    Verses

    2) Peter than receives High Condemnation for current rejection of Jesus' passion.
The question is how the two effect each other. One possibility is that the truth lies in between regarding the orthodox Christian description of Peter:
  • GMark = Peter was a total failure regarding Jesus' promotion

    GMatthew = Peter was a success promoting Jesus teaching but a failure promoting Jesus passion

    GLuke/Acts = Peter and Paul are merged and Peter is now a success at both.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
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 next comparison:

Mark 9:2-8 Matthew 17:1-8 Evil Editing Commentary
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them;
3 and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
6 For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.
7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.
8 And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
1 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:
2 and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.
3 And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.
4 And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
5 While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.
- Gundry points out a number of relatively small edits by GMatthew and claims that all are negative towards Peter even though it is arguable that some or even most are.

Observations:
The Hannibal's Elephant on the Mountain here is the significant lack of coordination between the present Transfiguration story whose point at the text level is to reveal Jesus as God's son with a source of God and the preceding story which explicitly states that God revealed to Peter that Jesus was God's son. There's something seriously wrong here:

Why have an implication here that Peter did not understand/accept that Jesus was God's son if the preceding story explicitly said that he did?

Having GMatthew edit his base of GMark to show that Peter understood/accepted that Jesus was the son of God and as a reward was made the authorized leader of the subsequent Church sure sounds like an orthodox anachronism. But by who? Gundry assumes that 16:16-19 is original. If it is, is there any similar significant lack of coordination in GMatthew? The other possibility of course is that it is not original. Stay tuned...



Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
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 next (uniquely GMatthew):

Matthew 17:24-27 Evil Editing Commentary
24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?
25 He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers?
26 And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free.
27 But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Gundry spins this as being negative to Peter tacking that Peter gives the right answer but either for the wrong reason or at least doesn't know why it is the right answer. Gundry is probably right that this is another type of parallel to Peter knowing what something is, like Jesus being the Christ, but not knowing what that means. However, there is no description of Peter's reaction here (like there normally is) so you could take away an implication here that Jesus just taught Peter something. -



Joseph

The New Porphyry
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

I see a great contradiction in approach of Gundry.

I start assuming that there are only two possibilities for the author of Matthew:

A) the author of Matthew is a proto-catholic who wants to appear as a Jewish Christian (my preferred hypothesis)

B) the author of Matthew is a Jewish Christian. I mean a real follower of the ancient Pillars (Peter, John, James...)

If A is true, then the contradiction in Gundry is obvious: if Peter is a proto-catholic icon, how can he be a negative figure damned for eternity etc?

If B is true, then the contradiction of Gundry is even more great: how can a follower of Pillars damn just the Pillar Peter (and in extenso James and John, too) ?
This is possible, sure. But then you should assume two great hypotheses ad hoc:

1) that the followers of Pillars existed even after 70 CE.

2) the followers of Pillars did renegade the Pillars in Matthew.

It's more expected that the Pillars were exalted or rehabilitated as their more strong evidence of continuity, especially if they had to react against the Paul's fans and their gospels (Mark, Mcn).

This is only my modest opinion, in short.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
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 next comparison:

Matthew 18:21-22 Luke 17:3-4 Evil Editing Commentary
21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.
3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
Gundry's main observation here is that in GMatthew Peter is contrasted with Jesus as having an understanding of the proper level of forgiveness which needs to be significantly corrected by Jesus. GLuke simply gives the story as a teaching of Jesus to a general audience. 1. There is no corresponding story in GMark so the assumption here is that GMatthew/GLuke had a common source other than GMark such as Q.
2. To further Gundry's point about GMatthew's emphasis here on Peter, note that in GLuke the primary subject is the sinner, what is required of a sinner to be forgiven. In GMatthew though the primary emphasis is on the forgiver, what is required of the forgiver regarding whether to forgive or condemn the sinner. Also, Peter here interrupts Jesus' general teaching which does make Jesus' response look more specific/critical to Peter.
3. Since the subject here is forgiveness for repeated sinning it's possible to take GMatthew's story the other way regarding GMatthew's final portrayal of Peter. You could use it as an argument that GMatthew's negative editing of Peter fits a theme that forgiveness is stronger than sinning and can overcome it and compared to GMark, GMatthew's Peter undergoes a more extreme arc of wrongful disciple behavior before being forgiven by Jesus.
4. It's interesting that GMatthew does not give a requirement of repentance here in order to be forgiven. GMatthew's emphasis is on the disciple and not the sinner with extreme requirements for successful disciple behavior. You have to forgive even if the sinner does not repent. GMatthew's problem is competing themes:

1) The successful disciple needs to make an effort to correct wrongful behavior of believers.

Verses:

2) Judgement and punishment is reserved for God at the end.



Joseph

The New Porphyry
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 »

Matthew 18:18-22
18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’
21 Then Peter came and said to him, ‘Lord, if another member of the church* sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?’ 22Jesus said to him, ‘Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven* times.


Peter wants to know how this awesome power should be used. Peter has asked a very thoughtful and necessary question that shows why he is the leader of the disciples.

Jesus answered, there is no limit on the amount of mercy you can dispense.
Post Reply