Peter - False Disciple and 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.

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

Clifford B. Kvidahl said:

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 wonder if Gundry read my post? I think I posted it at least a year or two ago. [:P]

David Paul said:

I wonder if Gundry read my post? I think I posted it at least a year or two ago.

Gundry published the notion in 1982 according to this article:  http://defendinginerrancy.com/robert-gundry-declares-peter-apostate/

It's more likely you've read his post. [:P]

David Ames said:

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."

JRS said:

Given selective evidence and dull listeners, I, too, can "prove" anything.

Well put.

JRS said:"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."

a fair summary

JRS said:

His sleight of hand begins with, "If you have only the Gospel of Matthew, what would you think of Peter?"

Gundry's point is about what he thinks the Gospel of Matthew says about Peter.

Clifford B. Kvidahl said:

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

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.

David Paul said:

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.

JAL said:

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. 

Robert said:

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).

Robert said:

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.

William Gabriel said:

George Somsel said:

Robert said:

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?

You might start with the Introduction in 

Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 37B. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.

Donnie Hale said:

George Somsel said:

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.

The only reason you can claim that pseudonymity is found in the bible is that you refuse to accept the rebuttal evidence on purely presuppositional grounds.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Donnie

And precisely what do you conceive my presuppositional grounds to be which would dictate such a refusal?

George Somsel said:

You might start with the Introduction in 

Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 37B. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.

It's nice that it was on sale today. I bought it and read that introduction. I might have to pick up a few move AYB volumes at the sale price, though oddly, the whole collection doesn't appear to be on sale.

Here's what I see John Elliott saying (I am clipping sentences, but I believe I am preserving context):

1. Genre and integrity said:

The genre and integrity of this writing have been a focus of ongoing scholarly debate. Until the advent of modern biblical criticism, 1 Peter was regarded as a genuine letter. This earlier view, however, was called into question by a series of modern scholars.

On the one hand, 1 Peter bears all the typical features of a genuine letter. In terms of its structure, it has the three formal requisites of a genuine letter: (a) a personal epistolary prescript identifying the chief sender and intended recipients (1:1–2), (b) a letter body (1:3–5:11), and (3) a personal epistolary conclusion (5:12–14). 

Although the final and present form of 1 Peter is a letter, the form of its original components has been the subject of sustained debate (surveyed by R. P. Martin 1962; Beasley-Murray 1963, 251–58; Elliott 1966, 11–13; J. N. D. Kelly 1969, 15–20; Dalton 1989,62–71). Adolf von Harnack (1897, 451–65) was the first to claim that 1 Peter consisted of an original homily (1:3–5:11), to which a later teacher or confessor (ca. 90 ce) added an epistolary framework (1:1–2; 5:12–14), dispatching the ensemble as a letter. Soltau (1905) soon concurred, adding instances of supposed “interpolations” to the writing. 

Subsequently this baptismal homily theory, popular among German scholars (e.g., Windisch 1930/1951; Jülicher and Fascher 1931, 199–200; Hauck 1936/1957, 35–36), found favor with others as well.

Elaborations of the composite theory and the assumed cultic setting of 1 Peter proposed that the document does not merely incorporate baptismal material or a baptismal homily but constitutes the transcript of an actual baptismal liturgy.

On the whole, theories such as these, based on the alleged composite character of 1 Peter, must be judged more imaginative than cogent. They find no support in the manuscript evidence, which attests no form of 1 Peter other than its present complete form. Nor is their suspicion about the literary coherence of the letter justified.

The verses of the “epistolary framework” (1:1–2; 5:12–14) are not unrelated to or isolable from the remainder of the letter but are thoroughly consistent lexically and thematically with the content of 1:3–5:11. 

These liturgy proposals were indeed “impressive in their breath-taking ingenuity” (so J. N. D. Kelly 1969, 18) but were mutually inconsistent and excessively conjectural. Consequently they have come under intense criticism and have failed to win scholarly support... Their speculative reconstruction of what is not stated in the text and their arbitrary reading of what is there (including the exaggeration of literary breaks, differences in style, and temporal discontinuities) simply fail to convince. Several of these objections apply equally to the baptismal homily theory.

Accordingly, the theory that 1 Peter, as we now have it, is the product of the combination of independently composed parts is both undemonstrated and unnecessary.

So you're right, if you use Elliott as a start, there indeed are a lot of paths to go down to research this topic. However, Elliott himself calls the pseudonym theory undemonstrated and unnecessary.

I think I'm happy to continue believing in the truth of 1 Pet 1:1.

George Somsel said:

I think that the discussion further on in the introduction is more pertinent to whether or not it was written by Peter

I missed that, thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting that he's willing to call out the scholars of the composite theory for speculating, yet engages in it himself by stating that it was "highly likely" that 1 Peter was composed after the destruction of the Temple. I would need more evidence than "other documents start referring to Rome as Babylon after 70 AD" to disbelieve that Peter wrote the letter. If we're going to speculate, we could also say that Peter set the trend. I'll have to look at Hunzinger.

I took a look at 1 Clement to see the influence of 1 Peter. I find it interesting that Clement would be influenced by the letter if it wasn't genuinely Peter's. He knew the guy and had a high respect for him. I mean, if it wasn't a genuine epistle, I imagine Clement would have rejected it and his language would not have been borrowed from Peter's. In terms of speculation, is that not equally likely?

1 Clement 5 said:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. 

On a slightly different note, I was happy to run across this today. It another piece of evidence that seems to harm Gundry's thesis of Peter's enduring apostasy.

William Gabriel said:

I took a look at 1 Clement to see the influence of 1 Peter. I find it interesting that Clement would be influenced by the letter if it wasn't genuinely Peter's. He knew the guy and had a high respect for him. I mean, if it wasn't a genuine epistle, I imagine Clement would have rejected it and his language would not have been borrowed from Peter's. In terms of speculation, is that not equally likely?

Speculative and questionable.

William Gabriel said:

1 Clement 5 said:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. 

Note that 1 Clement does not refer to the epistle, but to the man.

George Somsel said:

Note 1 Clement does not refer to the epistle, but to the man.

I should have made that a separate post. I had been looking at 1 Clement because Elliott mentions him a couple of times (e.g. "The author of 1 Clement, a letter from Rome to the church of Corinth in about 95 ce, also appears to have known and been influenced by 1 Peter.").

That one paragraph in 1 Clement seems very relevant to the Gundry thread, so I threw it in there. But I only caused confusion while trying to be efficient.