Peter - False Disciple and Apostate
Gundry's Peter - False Disciple and Apostate, due out in September.
Comments
If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.
My Blog: Theological Musings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6g9lfGnFx0If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.
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.
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
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.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
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.
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."
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.
I do not expect too many Catholics will accept their first Pope was apostate.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.
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.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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.
""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."
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
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.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
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.
Indeed. What kind of "if" is that? The assertion falls 26 books short of the whole picture.
What is Gundry's view of the N.T. canon? Unless one adheres to a novel view of their authorship, there are two letters bearing Peter's name in the Book. So do apostates who write letters to a faith community get accepted in the canon of said community of disciples if they are known to be masquerading, and for a period of considerable years?
It is also incredibly ironic that the strongest language (aside from the words of the Lord Jesus Himself - those of John are mild in comparison) in the N.T. against apostates and false disciples is in 2 Peter 2 (then definitively reiterated by Jude).
So let's take a canonical view of Peter. The faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) cannot be contained in Matthew alone. To do so is IMO to look too closely at one thing, excluding many others, and lose perspective.
Grace and peace. <><
Unless one adheres to a novel view of their authorship, there are two letters bearing Peter's name in the Book. So do apostates who write letters to a faith community get accepted in the canon of said community of disciples if they are known to be masquerading, and for a period of considerable years?
What you consider to be a "novel" view is not particularly new. It is fairly certain that the epistles ascribed to Peter could not possibly have been written by him but were written after his demise. Pseudonymous writings are not particularly rare so one should not be surprised by someone writing in Peter's name (or John's, see Revelation).
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
What you consider to be a "novel" view is not particularly new. It is fairly certain that the epistles ascribed to Peter could not possibly have been written by him but were written after his demise. Pseudonymous writings are not particularly rare so one should not be surprised by someone writing in Peter's name (or John's, see Revelation).
George, I respect your opinion, but strongly disagree. I'm almost certain we must pursue further discussion elsewhere, since this thread is bibliographical, not theological. So here is my closing statement.
Pseudonymous writings may be common in history, but not in the canon of sacred scripture. Non-apostolic authorship is novel (not 'new', but 'original/ striking') based on the contents of the letters which bear these names. If pseudonymous, then both "Peter" and "John" would be liars, claiming they were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ.
"John" is categorical: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us; that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)
"Peter" claims being present (as one of 3, including John - Mt.17:1-8) on the Mount of the Transfiguration: For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (2 Pet 1:16-18)
One last thought: if Gundry is right about Peter, why would someone choosing a pseudonym to address the faith community, choose "Peter"?
Grace and peace. <><
One last thought: if Gundry is right about Peter, why would someone choosing a pseudonym to address the faith community, choose "Peter"?
I'm not claiming that Gundry is right about Peter (if for no other reason than the fact that I haven't read his book). I'm only saying that the Petrine Epistles were not written by Peter. The only reason that you can claim that pseudonymity is not found in the bible is that you refuse to accept the evidence on purely theological grounds.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
One last thought: if Gundry is right about Peter, why would someone choosing a pseudonym to address the faith community, choose "Peter"?I'm not claiming that Gundry is right about Peter (if for no other reason than the fact that I haven't read his book). I'm only saying that the Petrine Epistles were not written by Peter. The only reason that you can claim that pseudonymity is not found in the bible is that you refuse to accept the evidence.
Can you (or anyone) suggest logos resources for anyone interested in researching this?
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.
Have a great day,
jmac
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
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!
[Y]