Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

1 Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
2 and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor.
3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou [to it].
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter`s field, to bury strangers in.
8 Wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day.
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom [certain] of the children of Israel did price;
10 and they gave them for the potter`s field, as the Lord appointed me.
11 Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

JoeWallack wrote:I find the insertion less remarkable as the Greek Τότε can have an emphasis of cause so the English translation "then" above may be somewhat misleading (Ben?).

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Gundry's next comparison (worth mentioning):

Mark 14:53-72	Matthew 26:57-75	Evil Editing
... 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, [3]Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? ... 68 [1]But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. 69 [2]And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them. 70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean. 71 [3]But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. 72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, [4]he wept.	... 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, [3]I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. ... 69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. 70 [1]But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, [2]another [maid] saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 [3]And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man. 73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art [one] of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew.	... [3]"Matthew" upgrades Peter's denial to the highest form, an oath. Related to this is that "Matthew" also edited the High Priests demand that Jesus answer with a demand that Jesus answer before God = the ultimate oath. "Matthew" has thus created an even better contrast between Jesus/Peter than his source.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

6 Conclusion: Disqualifying Peter
In this thesis, I have tested Gundry’s description of Matthew’s overall portrayal of
Peter as “apostate” by using the focus of the Caesarea Philippi scene (16:13-23), by
redaction-critical methodology, by exegetical methodology and by thematical methodology.
Matthew’s complex portrayal of Peter reflects his complex relationship to the Gospel
of Mark. Matthew was, nevertheless, reliant on Mark, but simultaneously he seemed
focused on displacing Mark. As the person of Peter shapes Mark’s connection to apostolic
authority, the person of Peter becomes Matthew’s battleground. Matthew gives the
impression that he recognised the reality that Mark displayed a Petrine tradition, and by
rendering Peter as an epiphanic beneficiary in Matthew 16:17-19, he conceded his reliance
on the Gospel of Mark, which was specifically a rich foundation for him. But as his reworking
of Mark reveals, Matthew also regarded Mark as an earnest misrepresentation, and he
chose accordingly to, ironically, introduce this falsity in Peter’s character. Matthew’s
justification appears to have been that he could establish the deficiency of Mark by
illustrating the “apostacy” of Peter—the Rock on whom Jesus would build his church
showed himself to be a sand heap—a paradigmatic, failed disciple. The intertextual
connotation of Matthew’s portrayal of Peter as a failed disciple signifies that the universal
gospel could not be dependent on Peter alone—Mark’s gospel had to be replaced by a
gospel where all Eleven disciples had a sanctioning role (cf. Matthew 28:19-20).1
As one reads the Petrine passages in Matthew, it is obvious that Peter’s notoriety
cannot be used to indicate Primacy. The reverse, undoubtedly, would be nearer to the truth.
A number of notable Matthean key passages come to light which replace 16:17-19. For
example; the uniquely Matthean “walking on the water” pericope, where we discover a
tangible pattern for interpreting the figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel. Peter is intended
to “sink” (14:30-31) so that Jesus, as the one who “saves”, is elevated as the “Son of God”
(14:33). Recognising all eleven verses in Matthew 16:13-23 as a pericope wholly alters the
subtleties of vv. 17-19. Peter is yet again diving head-long into a shocking failure—labelled
as a diabolical skandalon. It is another event of a “comparison/contrast” between Jesus (the
1 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 53.
54
Christ) and Peter, the failed disciple with the same (anticipated) outcome.2 The same
pattern is repeated in the decisive chapters of the Gospel where Peter is ultimately seen
weeping bitterly as he retreats further and further into the darkness, representative of his
separation from Jesus and his failure as a disciple (Matthew 26:75). Reinforcing the
suggestion of perdition in Peter’s bitter weeping (cf. Jesus’ woes on Judas [Matthew 26:24]),
Matthew includes his idiosyncratic version of Judas Iscariot’s penitent, desperate suicide
(distinguished from Acts 1:15-20). Not surprisingly, then, Matthew redacts “and Peter”
(Mark 16:7) from the 28:7 directive to the women at the empty tomb to “‘go quickly and tell
his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to
Galilee; there you will see him’”. Peter will be together with the Eleven while the
resurrected Jesus stands elevated on a mountain peak—a position of divine revelation, and
declares his perfect and absolute “authority in heaven and on earth” (28:16-20)—but, as a
“weed among the wheat” (13:15), he endures as a “non-disciple” and “apostate” amid
faithful and enduring disciples.3 Christology radiates more intensely, in contrast to the
stumbling of “human things”.
4
Matthew 16:13-20 highlights (with other Petrine passages in Matthew), the term
used by Nau—the “Matthew 16:17-19 syndrome”—a patterning of explanatory
ecclesiastical traditions that promotes the allure of a Peter who bids us a living picture of
our faulty but restorable selves. The depictions in Matthew should not devitalise other
depictions in the New Testament. Neither should other depictions weaken the one in
Matthew.5 Nau says any “disconcertion [. . .] at least in the case of Peter, thus turns out to
have been ours”,
6 not Matthew’s. Matthew’s “editorial technique”7 and intent, by
negatively portraying Peter as a skandalon and “false disciple” who apostatised and is
bound for eternal perdition, gives his Gospel extra weight. “False disciple” opposed to “true
disciple”—challenges preponderant beliefs and traditions, to move and inspire us toward a
2 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 110.
3 Gundry, Peter, 100.
4 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 148-9.
5 Gundry, Peter, 108.
6 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 151.
7 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 152.
55
“righteousness that exceeds” (Matthew 5:20), a grace and forgiveness that experiences no
limit (Matthew 18:22), and a loyalty to a Lord who reigns “in heaven and on earth”
(Matthew 28:18).8
Theologically, Luke and John negate Matthew’s representation of Peter as a
“false disciple” and “apostate” fated for perdition by showing him alternatively as
rehabilitated and reinstated after his disowning of Jesus (see Luke 22:31-32; 24:34;
John 21:15-22; Acts 1-12; 15:7-11; cf. Mark 16:7; 1-2 Peter). Or is it reversed, that
Matthew negates Luke and John?9

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.

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.

GMark has a primary objective of discrediting supposed historical witness to Jesus,