Gundry's Peter - False Disciple and Apostate, due out in September.
[Y]
This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view. I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.
I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.
No way! But then again i have not read the book.
If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.
Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew
If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry. Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew
I think I've made the comment here before, so I'm going to guess that it is part of what Gundry's going on, but Peter put himself under a hheirem curse (Mk. 14:71). In certain circumstances, to be placed under such a curse is unrecoverable--it is a sentence of death...with strong potential for second death, as well. As a result, I have my own questions about Peter, but Yeishuu`a's interactions with him in Jn. 21:15, 16, 17 implies (though, if you follow to the end of the chapter, does not necessarily or conclusively guarantee) that Peter has found forgiveness for his actions. It's interesting that Gundry is using Matthew as his source for this, since it is Mark who provides the clearest enunciation of the self-cursing act of Peter. My "conclusion" on Peter remains open, though I tend to suspect he is forgiven, though I'm not exactly sure what mechanism brings that to pass.
I intend to address Peter's actions in a book I'm working on, but it will be a while before it comes out--I have others that take precedence. It is most definitely a profound prophetic event with massive implications.
I wonder if Gundry read my post? I think I posted it at least a year or two ago. [:P]
This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view. I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis. I do not expect too many Catholics will accept their first Pope was apostate.
Depends upon G.'s definition of "apostate" I suspect a number of his contemporaries - Jewish and pagan - considered him apostate. So it might be a definition that requires one be apostate in order to support Truth with a capital T. So don't worry about those whose instant response is to consider the consequences of G.'s hypothesis and start planning a new Monty-Python style skit. No complaints from me if Logos wishes to offer it.
""Gundry uses this investigation to support his claim that Matthew portrays Peter as a false disciple and apostate, like Judas Iscariot, and that Peter's denials of Jesus rule him out of God's kingdom.""
Question: Is the Pre-Cross Peter the same as the Post-Pentecost Peter? I would think that anything that Peter says before being told to "Feed my sheep" does not count. I would think that Pentecost was a total reset for all 120 in the upper room - including Peter. [and then Acts shows that they still had more to learn]
Question: Is the Pre-Cross Peter the same as the Post-Pentecost Peter?
I'm trying to give Gundry a fair appraisal - it's quite hard to look at his interpretation without bias - even he seems to acknowledge the novelty of his assertions. I've only heard him present his case in the October 6, 2014 Westmont College lecture video linked in this thread.
In my initial consideration I keep thinking "The cross, the cross, any interpretation must take into account what occurred on Calvary and the proceeding events. This effects everything."
A vigorous assessment of Gundry's position on Peter can be found here.
"In sum, how can Gundry reach such a novel approach, the only one in church history who has ever seen Peter in such a light? First, by deprecating, or really, eliminating harmonization. Second, by a subjective, imaginative assertion of psychology that somehow the church found comfort in Peter’s “good and bad behavior.” Third, the influence of Romanism on the church, as well as the current ecumenical movement toward reproachment [sic] with Roman Catholicism."
His sleight of hand begins with, "If you have only the Gospel of Matthew, what would you think of Peter?" at about the 11:00 mark in the YouTube video referenced above. Given selective evidence and dull listeners, I, too, can "prove" anything.
Here is a link to the text of a response to Gundry's lecture, it was presented as part of the event at Westmont.
(a four page PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=DD1RVZukHtGJsQSb4ICYAw&url=http://www.westmont.edu/institute/documents/GundryResponse.pdf&ved=0CDgQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNGnIAzo4B0QwtjCr51A1I0R_eKX_Q&sig2=skaJnWGgebXgj2Ypb13yGA
EDIT: This response is from Mark L. Sargent, Ph.D. the Provost and Dean of the Faculty at Westmont. Edited in response to Lew's comments below.
If I were a Christian publisher in these times I'd have a hard time finding a yardstick to use to determine what books I wanted to publish.
All I can say is that I'm thankful for the the discussion here as it helped me to evaluate Gundry and decide that for myself I would not buy his material.
Not going to say anything about Gundry's theory, but I did want to point out that this book is in Pre-pub in this collection: https://www.logos.com/product/55073/eerdmans-new-testament-studies-upgrade
I think I've made the comment here before, so I'm going to guess that it is part of what Gundry's going on, but Peter put himself under a hheirem curse (Mk. 14:71). In certain circumstances, to be placed under such a curse is unrecoverable--it is a sentence of death...with strong potential for second death, as well. As a result, I have my own questions about Peter, but Yeishuu`a's interactions with him in Jn. 21:15, 16, 17 implies (though, if you follow to the end of the chapter, does not necessarily or conclusively guarantee) that Peter has found forgiveness for his actions. It's interesting that Gundry is using Matthew as his source for this, since it is Mark who provides the clearest enunciation of the self-cursing act of Peter. My "conclusion" on Peter remains open, though I tend to suspect he is forgiven, though I'm not exactly sure what mechanism brings that to pass. I intend to address Peter's actions in a book I'm working on, but it will be a while before it comes out--I have others that take precedence. It is most definitely a profound prophetic event with massive implications.
Okay, I can't help but comment...
I've been waiting years for your book, David, when is it going to be done?! I sincerely am looking forward to it.
I appreciate your mention of the curse, as I think it's a really important component as well. It does go along with a denial under oath. It appears that Peter is permanently excluded from the Kingdom of God.
So ... despite Peter's unrecoverable "apostasy" -- we do indeed have the cross, do we not? Gundry doesn't mention it at all despite it being at the heart of Matthew's gospel. He got the context of the side story right without connecting the side story to the main story. Paul's statement in Gal 3:13 seems like it's a perfect bridge to the Peter problem. Peter was cursed, and Christ became Peter's curse.
---
I've decided to get the book in Logos. I think it's interesting, but Gundry does rely on a particular view of inerrancy to make his thesis work. He does some hand-waving regarding harmony to establish his view in light of the other gospels.
Gundry's Peter - False Disciple and Apostate, due out in September. Not going to say anything about Gundry's theory, but I did want to point out that this book is in Pre-pub in this collection: https://www.logos.com/product/55073/eerdmans-new-testament-studies-upgrade
Everyone... Just for Barclay's "Paul and the Gift" consider putting in a pre-pub order. In the minds of more than a few, it is THE book of 2015.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/12/11/jesus-creed-books-of-the-year-2015/
Oh, and the $57.99 pre-pub price for the three Eeerdman's books, including Gundry's, is less than Barclay's book alone at Amazon!
