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 1:29-31 Matthew 8:14-15 Evil Editing Commentary
29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
30 Now Simon`s wife`s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her:
31 and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
14 And when Jesus was come into Peter`s house, he saw his wife`s mother lying sick of a fever.
15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose, and ministered unto him.
Gundry's only point here is that "Matthew's" (author) editing of "Simon" to "Peter" reinforces the point already made that GMatthew is exorcising Jesus' bestowal of a supposedly honorary name of "Peter" (Simon was already called "Peter"). Other points here with possible related significance, not mentioned by Gundry:
1) GMark carefully avoids having Peter referred back to as "Simon" until Peter fails to "watch" (3 times) in 14:37.
2) GMark connects sickness to sin. GMatthew has edited the above from Simon and Andrew's house to Peter's house. Sickness in Peter's house. Seems to show Peter in a worse situation.
3) GMark has the famous statement from Jesus that he came to serve and not be served. His literal language can meet that here by having the "them" that were served be the same "they" that told Jesus. GMatthew though clearly has Jesus being served.


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 6:45-52 Matthew 14:22-33 Evil Editing Commentary
45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before [him] unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away.
46 And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.
47 And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
48 And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them:
49 but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out;
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.
22 And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side, till he should send the multitudes away.
23 And after he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when even was come, he was there alone.
24 But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear.
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.
Implicit in Gundry's commentary here is that in general GMatthew's base of GMark was about the disciples in total while the emphasis of GMatthew is about Peter. Specifically Gundry notes:
1. Peter's "if you are" here parallels the Devil's "if you are the son of God" GMatthew 4:3.
2. This also parallels the testing of the Devil.
3. Peter disobeys Jesus' command to not be afraid.
4. Peter's starting to drown parallels the drowning of a false disciple in GMatthew 18:6.
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.
7. The ones who confess Jesus at the end as the son of god are the ones already in the boat which presumably would not include 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.
Note that the author normally finishes their story with what they want the reader to take away from it. GMark finishes with discrediting of all the disciples "they were sore amazed in themselves; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened." GMatthew finishes with the disciples being credited as understanding Jesus was the son of god at the expense of discrediting Peter, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."
I can also not help wondering if GMark's source here was Paul 1 Corinthians 15. The disciples see Jesus but think it was a ghost, Peter, the twelve and than a multitude.



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 7:17-23 Matthew 15:12-20 Evil Editing Commentary
17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, [it] cannot defile him;
19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.
20 And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
23 all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.
12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.
15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.
16 And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding?
17 Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.
Per Gundry:
1) Both have Jesus note the disciples' lack of knowledge. "Matthew" adds the other side, the disciples question Jesus' knowledge of the Pharisees. This contrasts the disciples lack of knowledge with Jesus' knowledge.
2) "Matthew" adds that the Pharisees are "blind guides". Due to the comparisons between the Pharisees and disciples here, this is an implication that the disciples are also blind guides.
3) "Matthew" has Peter become the spokesman here.
4) "Matthew" changes "are you too thus ignorant" to "are you still ignorant", converting the conclusion to a cumulative condemnation.
"Matthew" adds the Pharisees here to "Mark's" story and all descriptions of the Pharisees fit the disciples too = Blind guides that lack understanding. If Jesus' prediction for the Pharisees is condemnation at The Reaping, than why not for Peter/Disciples too, if they have the same qualities.
"Matthew" undoes "Mark's" source of Paul by exorcising the conclusion of "Mark's" story that all foods are clean. Now that is evidence of Markan source, use most of the wording but change the conclusion!
Gundry is laying the groundwork here to make a case that "Matthew" accepted that Peter was the authorized historical leader of the Jesus movement and that Jesus did not predict that Peter would be divinely condemned in Jesus' time, but that Peter would be condemned at the final Judgement, same as any other False Apostle.



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 really enjoy this thread. It's an interesting way to learn some lessons about Matthew.

But I don't get what Matthew is doing in a more general sense. I assume that for Mark it's a theological battle for Paul against Peter. But this is clearly not Matthew's thing. Do you have some ideas about it?
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I really enjoy this thread. It's an interesting way to learn some lessons about Matthew.

But I don't get what Matthew is doing in a more general sense. I assume that for Mark it's a theological battle for Paul against Peter. But this is clearly not Matthew's thing. Do you have some ideas about it?

It's Only For Now

JW:
Gundry is proof-texting GMatthew to create an argument that GMatthew edited GMark to discredit Peter as a proper witness to Jesus. Gundry's main point is that GMatthew in general is expanding the issue of how followers of Jesus will be judged at The Final Judgment and specifically implying that Peter will be judged negatively. Of course you could proof-text an argument the other way, that GMatthew has edited GMark, to improve Peter as witness, especially since sometimes GMatthew ends a pericope with the disciples understanding instead of misunderstanding, and unlike GMark, has a post resurrection reunion.

Gundry is reMarkable here though in that even most Skeptics would have otherwise been unaware that the evidence exists to create Gundry's argument. The hurdle for Gundry of course is Matthew 16. The two choices seem to be:

1) GMatthew generally makes his Peter worse than GMark's but Peter's witness of the resurrection is what wins him over and that is the dramatic purpose of GMatthew's editing here. = orthodox

2) The combination of GMatthew's negative editing of Peter and expansion of the issue of authorized but false apostles being judged negatively at Final Judgment predicts that Peter was (since "Matthew" wrote long after Peter) a false apostle. = Gundry

2) is also favored by the tone of GMatthew which is anti-establishment. Interestingly, in terms of chronology, Paul and all Canonical Gospels, except for GLuke, are anti-establishment (authority is from whatever the hell Jesus supposedly said rather than his supposed authorized successors). This suggests that orthodox Luke was after GJohn.

KK, I have no conclusion right now between 1) and 2). If I did I would sound like Neil Godfrey, first starting with the conclusion that Israel is occupying, racist, apartheid and genocidal and than developing the evidence to support the conclusion.


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Of potential interest to this thread, a respectful but demurring review of Gundry's book by Larry Hurtado: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... -apostate/.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Hurtado though represents the some of the worst aspects of textual criticism. Yes he's knowledgeable. Yes he has amazing skills. But his brain is rigid when it comes to the historical situation at the beginning of Christianity. I hate when people start saying things like - Matthew would have to have been written before 60 AD etc. No it doesn't necessarily mean that. For instance, Matthew is demonstrated in other respects to have been a repository of information from the Marcionite text - the so-called Antitheses are clearly preserved in closer to the form known to the Marcionites than anything appearing in Mark or Luke. But that requires accepting that our piece of shit gospel collection is exactly that - garbage - which is a non-starter for him and many others. But surely Gundry's observations have some applicability. They are only 'debunked' by the rigid time constraints for the origin of Matthew put forward by people who accept every aspect or at least most aspects of the 'historical nature' of our received Church chronology (i.e. Peter being crucified at a certain date). But is any of this reliable? I find Gundry's observations about anti-Petrine bias in Matthew more substantive than legends about Peter. I always believe in hate. Hate is the only thing that is lasts as Bukowski once said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYbvLuyARDk I don't believe hagiographies.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

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

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: For instance, Matthew is demonstrated in other respects to have been a repository of information from the Marcionite text - the so-called Antitheses are clearly preserved in closer to the form known to the Marcionites than anything appearing in Mark or Luke
I'm glad to see a convert to my view on parts of Matthew. :D

My view is that Matthew quotes parts of the Antithesis in an effort to bend it to his orthodoxy. The Antithesis itself appears to be paraphrases of Paul, Luke (Marcionite version) and OT passages. The OT quotes and summaries in the Marcionite attested portions often are marked by the writer with phrases like "allegory" and "as an example for us." --- I do not hold single authorship in Paul even in Marcionite form, since there are at least three distinguishable schools of interpretation of OT (all heretical) present. But I digress.

I am also glad to see your conversion to 2nd century authorship of the gospels. But I find amusing your comment about hagiographies. All religious literature, whether about a divine being or a human (e.g., a prophet like Isaiah) are hagiographies. It's the nature of the beast.
Secret Alias wrote: But that requires accepting that our piece of shit gospel collection is exactly that - garbage -
Stephen, you have some good insights at times. But I just wish you'd lose the impulse for derogatory comments like this. These say more about your state of mind than the literature. It simply brings you down in the gutter of political mud slinging - which I'm sad to say it what 90% of this is about.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Well part of my 'transformation' into a 'secret alias' is just so that I can say ridiculous things like this. But they are pieces of something patched together. Shit, oatmeal, gold - whatever you want them to be. They do not represent the original ordering of the gospel - so Papias - and there is no reason not to suppose that Marcionite material was not placed inside an allegedly 'Jewish' Christian gospel in the same way as you might cover a buried treasure with dung just to avoid people searching about in it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Of potential interest to this thread, a respectful but demurring review of Gundry's book by Larry Hurtado: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... -apostate/.
JW:
Thanks Ben:
[Hurtado]Moreover, Mark (14:26-31) and Matthew as well (26:30-35) present Peter’s collapse, and the failure of the other apostles, as foretold by Jesus. But both writers (including Matthew, at least to most readers) also picture the failed apostles, except for Judas Iscariot, as restored collectively in encounters with the risen Jesus.
JW:
Not only does GMark likely not have an original post-resurrection reunion, but Hurtado accepts 16:8 as the original ending (comically, he has written that it is a positive ending). I'm sure Hurtado would say that GMark has an implication to support the above but GMark also has an explicit to contradict the above. This is an amazing error to make in a review here.
[Hurtado]Gundry, however, strives to to downplay this by urging that Jesus’ statement is a criticism of Peter, that he required divine revelation. But how is “makarios” (“blessed”) a rebuke?
JW:
Gundry makes a point of claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the offending word means "privileged" rather than "blessed" which fits Gundry's major theme well, GMatthew's acceptance that Peter was an authorized leader of Jesus' promotion. How could Hurtado miss this?

Hurtado's review has other problems as well. I'm not going to Go Godfrey on Hurtado and try to claim that he is/may be either wrong about everything/hasn't read the book/or lying but I think a superior Skeptic of Higher Criticism would conclude that Gundry's argument is better than Hurtado's review of it.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply