"those who were in the boat worshiped him": not Peter

[Giuseppe]

Lastly, if you are pursuing the idea that Peter is separated from Jesus a book you may find interesting is "Peter -- False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew" by Robert Gundry. I haven't read it so I can't commend it any more than that.

from what I know about Gundry's book, is that for him (and so many other) the sin of Peter was absence of faith, whereas in my view the sin of Peter was a a sin of false knowledge: he didn't know the "real" Jesus.

[perseusomega9]

Good point, Gundry is obviously wrong

[JoeWallack]

Even so, it seems that Peter is not one of the worshippers mentioned in v. 33. Otherwise, why using the construct "those who were in the boat worshiped him" rather than simply "the 12 worshiped him" ? It is implicit a distinction between who is been always in the boat and who isn't.

I see what you are saying, and there may be something to it. It is the specificity of the phrase in its context that supports you, however, and not the verb construction.

JW:
My young apprentice Gundry in his classic False Apostle explains that the natural understanding is Peter's exclusion due to the qualifying phrase. That appears to be the only purpose of its inclusion. Here Gundry goes Midevil on Peter's donkey and points out the following accompanying negatives:

1) The story is "Matthew's" creation.

2) The story begins and ends with Peter's doubt (like a Markan inclusio).

3) Peter's request parallels the earlier Devil's request.

4) Peter's becoming afraid is disobedient to Jesus' instruction to not be afraid a few words earlier.

5) The near drowning of Peter is a reminder of Jesus earlier statement about false teachers who should be drowned.

6) Peter's screaming is a sign of fear which Jesus warned against.

It would seem as though the author has thought of every possible way to discredit Peter here based on Jesus previous sayings.

What Gundry has missed though is the most important part of the story. Note that here Jesus physically saves Peter by stretching out his hand. This is in contrast to Jesus spiritually saving with the figurative works of his hands. This may be a key to the kingdom size problem of "Matthew" in that Gundry is correct that in general "Matthew" embellishes the criticism of Peter but seems to offset it and than some with the Rock of the Church saying. Could it mean that per "Matthew" Peter was authorized to be head of the Church but only in a physical sense and not in a spiritual sense?