PETER—APOCALYPTIC SEER: THE INFLUENCE OF THE APOCALYPSE GENRE ON ...

322 Pages·2013·1.27 MB·English

This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree
(e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following
terms and conditions of use:
• This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are
retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated.
• A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without
prior permission or charge.
• This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining
permission in writing from the author.
• The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or
medium without the formal permission of the author.
• When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title,
awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given.
PETER—APOCALYPTIC SEER:
THE INFLUENCE OF THE APOCALYPSE GENRE ON MATTHEW’S
PORTRAYAL OF PETER
BY
JOHN R. MARKLEY
PHD
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
2012
Abstract 1
Signed Declaration 2
Preface 3
CHAPTER 1 Introduction: 4
The Problem of Peter in Matthew 5
Peter in Matthew as a Persisting Problem 17
The Relevance of Apocalypses 21
Statement of Purpose 23
Overview 24
CHAPTER 2 Methodology: 26
Introduction 26
Clarification of Terminology 26
The Apocalypse Genre 27
Selection of Data 29
Overview of Apocalypses 32
Methodology 41
Conclusion 50
CHAPTER 3 Exclusive Recipients of Revealed Mysteries: 51
Introduction 51
Daniel 53
1 Enoch 56
Jubilees 61
Testament of Levi 63
2 Enoch 64
4 Ezra 66
2 Baruch 73
Apocalypse of Abraham 78
Testament of Abraham 79
3 Baruch 80
Revelation 81
Shepherd of Hermas 83
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 87
Apocalypse of Zephaniah 91
Conclusions 91
CHAPTER 4 Humans Encountering the Divine Realm: 98
Introduction 98
Daniel 100
1 Enoch 104
Jubilees 107
Testament of Levi 108
2 Enoch 109
4 Ezra 112
2 Baruch 118
Apocalypse of Abraham 121
Testament of Abraham 123
3 Baruch 125
Revelation 128
Shepherd of Hermas 131
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 134
Apocalypse of Zephaniah 135
Conclusions 137
CHAPTER 5 Peter and the Disciples as Apocalyptic Seers in the Gospel of Mark:
143
Introduction 143
Jesus’ Enigmatic Proclamation 144
Jesus’ Messianic Identity and Mode 169
Conclusions 188
CHAPTER 6 Peter and the Disciples as Apocalyptic Seers in the Gospel of
Matthew: 197
Introduction 197
Revelation of “These Things” 198
Jesus’ Enigmatic Proclamation 208
Jesus’ Messianic Identity and Mode 240
Personal Eschatology 257
Conclusions 263
CHAPTER 7 Peter’s Significance for Matthew and His Readers: 273
Summary of Research 273
Peter in Matthew 282
Conclusion 302
Works Cited 304
Abstract
This study fills a gap in previous research concerning the portrayal of Peter in
Matthew, especially the research of narrative-critical studies. Although narrative-
critical studies generally recognize that Matthew has portrayed Peter and the disciples
as recipients of revelation at points, they almost entirely neglect the apocalypses or
apocalyptic literature more broadly as a potentially helpful background for this motif,
nor does the motif itself figure significantly into their conclusions. Therefore, Part 1
of this study examines fourteen different Jewish and Christian apocalypses in order to
determine generic aspects of how the apocalypses portray their seers, and to identify
specific textual features that support these generic aspects of a seer’s portrayal. These
specific textual features then provide the guiding coordinates for Part 2, which
assesses the influence of the generic portrayal of apocalyptic seers on the portrayal of
Peter and the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel and main source, Mark’s Gospel. Like
the apocalypses, both Evangelists deploy the features of exclusionary statements,
narrative isolation, dissemination details, and emphasis of cognitive humanity and
emotional-physical humanity to portray Peter and the disciples as the exclusive
recipients of revealed mysteries, and as humans who encounter the mysteries of the
divine realm. This leads to the conclusion that both Evangelists envisaged Peter and
the disciples as apocalyptic seers in some sense. However, Matthew’s redaction of
Markan source material, incorporation of Q source material, and his own special
material yield a more fully developed, or more explicit, portrayal of Peter and the
disciples as apocalyptic seers than his Markan predecessor. The study concludes by
focusing directly on Peter’s significance for Matthew and his earliest audience. The
research suggests that Peter’s significance was, in part, as principal apocalyptic seer,
which requires revision to the predominant scholarly conclusions about Peter in
Matthew.
1
I hereby affirm that I have composed this thesis and that the work is my own.
The work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification.
___________________________________
John R. Markley
2
Preface
Translations of Scripture in the following study are generally my own, but
sometimes follow the NRSV, and sometimes are slightly modified from the NRSV.
Translations of the apocalypses are from “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,”
edited by James H. Charlesworth. However, translations of 1 Enoch, when different,
follow those found in “1 Enoch 1,” by George W. E. Nickelsburg. For the Shepherd
of Hermas, translations and versification follow “The Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed.,”
edited by Michael W. Holmes.
During my time in Edinburgh, I enjoyed the hospitality of Scotty and Rebecca
Manor, Sean and Leah Turchin, and Jeremy and Katy Kidwell. I am very thankful for
their willingness to open their homes to me and their willingness to share their lives
with me. I am especially indebted to Scotty, whose encouragement and comradery
kept me going at points.
I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Paul Foster and Prof. Larry
Hurtado. Dr. Foster’s guidance was crucial to helping me out of the foggy first stages
of this research. His insightful comments all along have made my work stronger, and
his sense of humor was always refreshing. Prof. Hurtado’s comments on various
methodological issues helped me to untangle my thoughts at points. Both supervisors
repeatedly set aside time from their full schedules to graciously offer their guidance
and advice.
She has waited patiently for our journey to finally arrive at this point, and
now that we are here, I take delight in thanking my wife Anna for all that she is to me
and all that she has done to support my work. She has spent many evenings,
weekends, and entire months alone while I was away working on this thesis. Her
encouragement has fueled my work from the beginning and helped it to its
completion. Her own work has made this research possible. I love you Anna! I would
also like to thank my parents, Robert and Janet Markley, whose love cultivated
within me a desire to learn from Scripture and to pursue wisdom and understanding.
John R. Markley
May, 2012
3
4
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The present study endeavors to make a contribution to one of the most
thoroughly covered subjects in the field of New Testament Studies: Peter in the
Gospel of Matthew.1 This study will approach the evidence from a different direction
than has normally been taken—from the angle of Jewish and early-Christian
apocalypticism. This approach arises from the conviction that the apocalypses, as a
prime literary genre for expressions of apocalypticism and apocalyptic eschatology,
were a substantial component of the literary milieu in which Matthew and his sources
wrote. For this reason, it is valid to investigate the influence that the apocalypses
might have had on Matthew’s portrayal of Peter. When the evidence is approached
from this angle, the portrait of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew is seen through
somewhat different eyes than in previous studies, and so confronts its admirers with
unfamiliar lucidity. In this way, the present study will provide a constructive critique
———————————
1. That Burgess could compile an 82 page selective bibliography on Matthew 16:17-19
alone—which could no doubt be greatly extended since its compilation—indicates both the high
interest in the figure of Simon Peter and the centrality of this passage (and the Gospel of Matthew)
for questions about him (J. Burgess, A History of the Exegesis of Matthew 16:17–19 from 1781 to
1965 [Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1976]). Scholarly focus on this passage is justified on account
of its significance since the Reformation, its uniqueness to Matthew, and the importance of the
Gospel of Matthew in early Christianity. On the last point, Massaux says, “Of all the New Testament
writings, the Gospel of MT. was the one whose literary influence was the most widespread and the
most profound in the Christian literature that extended to the last decades of the second
century…Until the end of the second century, the first gospel remained the gospel par
excellence…the Gospel of Matthew was, therefore, the normative fact of Christian life. It created the
background for ordinary Christianity” (Édouard Massaux, The Apologists and the Didache [ed.
Arthur J. Bellinzoni; vol. 3 of The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature
Before Saint Irenaeus; trans. Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht; New Gospel Studies 5/3; Macon,
GA: Mercer University Press, 1993], 186–87). See also, Wolf-Dietrich Köhler, Die Rezeption des
Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (WUNT 2.24; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1987).
5
of the predominant conclusions of recent scholarship, which have not sufficiently
accounted for the influence of the apocalypse genre on Matthew’s portrayal of Peter.
The thesis of this research is that the portrayal of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew has
been shaped by the generic portrayal of apocalyptic seers.
The Problem of Peter in Matthew
In 1979, Jack Kingsbury argued that the figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel
had become a theological problem.2 He based this judgment on the fact that redaction
critics had arrived at two divergent estimations of the Matthean Peter. One view,
associated primarily with Reinhart Hummel, held that Matthew portrayed Peter as
“supreme Rabbi,” who functioned as guarantor of the claim that Matthew’s
community practiced halakah originating from Jesus himself:
Die Kirche als ganze ist Bewahrerin der Tradition und Inhaberin der Lehr-
und Disziplinargewalt; darüber hinaus ist Petrus beides in besonderer und
einmaliger Weise, als “supreme Rabbi.” Dabei liegt auf dem Amt des Petrus
das ungleich größere Gewicht. Denn er ist für Matthäus der Garant der in
seinem Evangelium schriftlich fixierten Tradition, die damit bleibende
Gültigkeit erhält.3
The other view, associated primarily with Georg Strecker, held that Matthew
portrayed Peter as a “typical disciple,” with the result that Peter is a type of the
individual disciple in Matthew’s community:
Die Gestalt des Petrus sprengt den Rahmen der historischen Einmaligkeit der
Leben-Jesu-Situation; sie hat primär nicht historische, sondern typologische
———————————
2. Jack D. Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a Theological
Problem,” JBL 98 (1979): 67–83.
3. Reinhart Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im
Matthäusevangelium (BEvT 33; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1963), 63, who was followed by G.
Bornkamm, “The Authority to ‘Bind’ and ‘Loose’ in the Church in Matthew’s Gospel,” in The
Interpretation of Matthew (ed. Graham Stanton; IRT 3; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 92–95. The
supreme rabbi view is scarcely maintained in more recent scholarship. Notably, this is the position of
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According
to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 647–52. Though they clarify that
“Peter’s prominence seems to be a function of ecclesiology” on account of his concentrated
prominence in 13:53-17:27 (Ibid., 649), and that “there is a sense in which Peter’s primacy reflects
his rôle in salvation-history,” which is analogous to that of Abraham (Ibid., 651). Jesper Svartvik,
“Matthew and Mark,” in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (ed. David C Sim and Boris
Repschinski; LNTS 333; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 43–45, has more recently espoused the
supreme rabbi view.
6
Bedeutung; in ihr konkretisiert sich das Christsein des einzelnen in der
Gemeinde, für das demnach das Nebeneinander von “negativen” und
“positiven” Elementen charakteristisch zu sein scheint.4
As Kingsbury saw it, these divergent views indicated a methodological flaw
in redaction criticism, because both views had failed to fully integrate their
reconstructed portraits of Peter with Matthew’s larger theological concerns—hence
his identification of Peter in Matthew as a “theological problem.” Providing an initial
attempt at such integration, Kingsbury concluded that the supreme rabbi view
attributed too weighty a role to Peter, as uniquely distinct from the other disciples,
and also ignored Jesus’ statements elsewhere that seemed to impinge upon this
view;5 at the same time, he concluded that the typical disciple view neglected an
apparent special focus on Peter in Matthew’s Gospel. He argued for a position
somewhere between the two: Peter was indeed portrayed as a typical disciple, yet he
was also portrayed as having unique salvation-historical primacy. The significance of
this for Matthew’s community is captured when Kingsbury says,
For them [i.e., Matthew’s church], Peter is of course a man of the past. His
place is with the earthly disciples of Jesus, whose ministry, like that of John
and Jesus, was to Israel…He was the “first” one called by Jesus to be his
disciple, and hence enjoyed a primacy among the Twelve that is salvation-
historical in character. As such, he was the “spokesman” of the disciples and
can be regarded as “typical,” positively and negatively, both of them and of
subsequent followers of Jesus.6
Kingsbury states that the typical aspect of Peter’s portrayal had an exemplary
function for Matthew’s church:
Since it is common knowledge that the disciples in the first gospel are
representative of the members of Matthew’s church, we recognize that
Strecker is correct in asserting that the figure of Peter in Matthew’s gospel
———————————
4. Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus
(3rd edition; FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 205.
5. However, Hummel does acknowledge that Peter can be conceived of as “supreme Rabbi”
only in view of the qualifications of 23:8-12: “Das gilt freilich nur mit der in 23:8-12 genannten
Einschränkung” (Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung, 63). Further, Hummel seems to recognize a
degree of typicality in Matthew’s portrayal of Peter: “Wie bei Markus und Lukas ist er der
Repräsentant und Sprecher der Zwölf” (Ibid., 59).
6. Kingsbury, “Figure of Peter,” 80.