jakejonesiv

Matthew 16:18-19 makes the astounding claim that the Apostle Peter received from Christ the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church.

Matthew chapter 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock,I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is quite obviously a forgery since it is not mentioned in any other New Testament text.

The second century proto-catholic Church at Rome had taught that their authority was handed down from the apostles. Marcion undercut that claim by introducing the teaching that Paul had exclusively gained the truth by revelation. The Pauline epistles, especially Galatians chapter 1, strongly supported Marcion. The proto-Catholic church had responded by promoting Peter to go one on one with Paul, and had pursued the doctrine of the parallelism of Peter and Paul; that their joint actions had established the Church at Rome. This doctrine is seen plainly in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3.

But Matthew 16:18-19 goes beyond that, and builds the case for the primacy of Peter over all the apostles, including Paul.

The question is, how late in this forgery? Let's review the texts to see if there is a bright dividing line when this text becomes known.

Pauline episltes. No.
Mark. No.
Luke. No.
John. No.
Acts. No.
1 Peter. No.
2 Peter. No.
Any other New Testamnet text. No.
Clement of Rome. No.
Ignatius. No.
Polycarp. No.
Justin Martyr. No.
Tatian. No.
Polycrates. No.
Melito. No.
Irenaeus. No.

OK, we have reached at least 185 CE and no evidence that Matthew 16:18 existed. Suddenly things change.
We begin to find explicit references.
Tertullian, Monogamy, 8,4. (after 213 CE).
Tertullian, Modesty, 21,7. (about 220 CE).

At about the same time that Tertullian explicitly mentions Matt. 16:18, we for the first time start to find other claims for the priority of Peter, but without direct quotation.
"the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute.” Clement of Alexandria, _Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?_ 21,1,3. (210 CE) also Origen, Homily on Exodus, 5,4.

Continuing with the third century Fathers, Cyprin makes many references in the 250's CE.
The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4.
Letter Without heading to the Lapsed, 33(127), 1.
To Florentius Papianus, 66(69),8.
To Quintus, 71,1.

Moving into the fourth century, we see
Aphraates, Treatises, 21,13; Ephraim, Homilies, 4,1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catchetical Lectures, 17,27.

Thus reviewing the evidence, we find the smoking gun with Tertullian. Unsatisfied with the mere equivalency of Peter and Paul, in his hatred for the Marcionites he decided to take Paul down a notch and promote Peter above him.

We find the first reference *ever* to Matthew 16:18-19 in the Prescription against Heretics, chapter 23.
‘Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’
At the same time that Tertullian promoted Peter, he took Paul down a notch by questioning his authority based on revelation.
“Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being. If, however, that unspeakable mystery did leak out, and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually be shown to have been afterwards "caught up into paradise," who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian11.html

The evidence is that Matthew 16:18-19 is an early third century forgery.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

Nice work, Jake. I have a suggestion and a question. First, you might want to consider incorporating the contrast between the passage in question and the very next scene in which Jesus denounces Peter as "Satan". While, with the passage removed, there remains a contrast with approval for recognizing Jesus' true nature, that isn't nearly as much of a 360 degree turn. Second, can you expand on Tertullian's argument against Paul being able to share his revelation? It seems like he is suggesting that everyone knows they can't be spoken but that doesn't make sense and is contrary to Hebrew Scripture where revelations are shared. I don't get it.

jakejonesiv

The contrast between the primacy of Peter, and Peter as Satan was likely unintentional. The scene in which Peter is called Satan goes back to the gospel of Mark, which was carried over by au_GMatthew. The interpolator of Matthew 16:18-19 comes afterwards.

Tertullian, in Prescription 22, makes the first external witness to Matthew 16:18-19. Shortly after this, Tertullian (Prescription 24) launched his attack on Paul's authority from divine revelation by conflating 2 Corinthians 12:4 (Tertullian snatched at "heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak") with all of the other Pauline claims of divine inspiration through direct revelation. It is clear that Tertuallian is misrepresenting Paul, probably because the Marcionites were undercutting proto-orthodox authority with this. See Galatians 1:1-12; cf Irenaeus, AH 3:13:1.

andrewcriddle

In 2 Corinthians 12:4 Paul speaks of hearing things in heaven which cannot be told which man may not utter. Tertullian is responding to the Gnostic claim to have obtained access to this heavenly revelation. Tertullian's argument is that either Paul means revelations impossible to share, in which case the Gnostic claim to share these revelations is absurd, or Paul means revelations forbidden to share, in which case the Gnostic claim to share these revelations slanders Paul by implying that he leaked information that God had forbidden him to disclose.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

That is indeed Tertullian's argument. But it is also quite obvious that Tertullian is misrepresenting Paul. Paul nowhere claimed to have one and only one revelation, that of the "third heaven." Paul clearly claimed divine revelation for authority for his gospel.

Galatians 1 NAB
1 Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,
...
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
...
11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jake

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

I think that Tertullian's main concern is to attack the Gnostic claim to have access to Pauline teachings not found in the canonical Pauline epistles. IMO Tertullian is right that 2 Corinthians 12 cannot be used in support of such a position. I agree with you that Tertullian understates the independence of Paul from the Jerusalem Apostles.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Thanks to both Andrew and Jake for helping me understand Tertullian. On a semi-tangential note, what would be the point of God providing revelations one cannot share? From Tertullian's perspective, I mean.

I was thinking it could be argued as an additional indication of interpolation. So, not just unintentional but a mistake.

It is one thing for an author to describe Peter recognizing Jesus as Christ only to be subsequently chastised for failing to understand and, I think, quite another to start that transition with being named the foundation of the Church.

ynquirer

The sources for the gospel of Matthew are usually supposed to be a) the gospel of Mark, b) Q, and c) specific sources. The fact that this particular pericope does appear neither in Mark nor in Luke means that it belongs in c). By the same token, all material belonging in c) could be thought to be forgeries.

Is the pre-eminence of Peter alien to the rest of the NT. I wouldn’t say that much. Take John 21:15-19

This is not exactly the same pericope, granted. Yet, the fourth gospel has its own way to tell everything. The verses quoted above, which are close to the ending of John, in my opinion, establish a sort of pre-eminence of Peter among the disciples.

If such pre-eminence was not inspired by Matthew, it was inspired by nothing.

mountainman

Momigliano back-handedly questioned whether
we can understand Tertullian as a real person.

The historical figure who contributed the most
to the primacy of St. Peter was Pontifex Maximus
Damasius, after his army was successful in winning
the war-games for the Roman Bishopric. To this
end he renovated the catacombs c.365 CE

judge

Well, you have some evidence (or possibly an argument from silence) but is this evidence actually evidence of your theory or evidence of something else.

It may just as well be evidence that the preeminance of the church of Rome was not such a controversial issue until such a time.

As politics and so called orthodoxy became more prominent issues it became necessary for the Roman church to find some way to justify their grab for power, and so naturally they look for reasons to butress this claim.
So they insist Peter was situated in Rome, and reinterpret this verse accordingly. Despite the fact his very own epistle has him in Babylon.
Christians from the east, of course did not see this verse the same way.
Would they have just accepted this interpolation, at such a late time?

Nestorian Patriarchs