Kevin Juguilon
29 February 2000
Annotated Bibliography on Matthew 16:13-20

Bigane, John E. Faith, Christ, or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in sixteenth-century Roman Catholic exegesis Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981. Bigane discusses the three major interpretations of the "rock" in Matt 16:18. Bigane states that the predominant Roman Catholic interpretation of the time was that of Peter being the "rock." Bigane contends that the view of Christ as the "rock" is incompatible with the former view with Peter. The view that the "rock" signified the faith that Peter expressed was also a view that could co-exist in a secondary way with the "Peter=rock" view or the "Christ=rock" view. The interpretation of the "rock" is of significant importance in order to determine not only Papal authority, but, more importantly, Peter's personal authority in the Church.

Bivin, D. "Matthew 16:18: The Petros-petras Wordplay- Greek. Aramaic. or Hebrew?" Jerusalem Perspectives. 46-47 (1994). 32-38.

Bornkamm, Gunther, G. Barth, H. J. Held. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Philidelphia: Westminster , 1963.

Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Raymond Brown gives a sweeping overview of the New Testament. He sets out the current theories in approaching biblical interpretation and examines each of the New Testament books, surveying several differing theories and opinions before stating his own take on the given text.

Brown, Raymond. ed. Peter in the New Testament. a collaborative assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1973.

Bubar, W.W. "Killing Two Birds with One Stone: The Utter De(con)struction of Matthew and His Church" BibInt. 3 (1995). 144-157

Carson, D. A. Biblical interpretation and the Church: the problem of contextualization. Nashville: Nelson, 1985

Cheetham, Nicolas, Sir. Keepers of the keys: a history of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II New York: Scribner, 1983.

Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian, 1964. Protestant scholar Cullmann attcmpts to create a bridge between Catholics and Protestants by historically examining the role and person of Peter. Cullmann tries to use an exclusively historical approach in order to retain an objective view of the text. He concludes that Christ commissioned Peter to be the leader and "foundation" of the early Church. However, he claims this leadership was ceded to James and that Christ's commissioning did not allow for successors in Peter's capacity (i.e. popes).

Davies, W. D.: Allison, Dale C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew vol II. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1991. This is a commentary that examines several different sources in its exegetical study of the Gospel of Matthew.

Grant, Michael. Saint Peter: A Biography. New York: Scribner, 1994. Grant attempts reconstruct a biography of the Apostle Peter. He claims that the central difficulty in this reconstruction is that the person of Peter has been distorted throughout history. Each of the Gospel writers, for example, uses him and molds him after their own ideas and desires. Further, depending on a certain group's agenda, the picture of Peter is changed. Grant tries to analyze these differing views and comes up with a complete description of the apostle.

Karrer, Otto. Peter and the church, an examination of Cullmann's thesis. New York: Herder and Herder, 1963. Karrer, a Roman Catholic, responds to and critizes Cullmann's position that papal succession was not given to Peter and that Peter ceded his authority to James. Karrer's primary challenge against Cullmann's work is that alternative theories and explanations are not explored sufficiently. Cullmann takes some passages to be self-evident of his perspective, while not acknowledging that other views are equally valid.

Livius, Thomas S. Peter. bishop of Rome. or, The Roman episcopate of the prince of the apostles. Proved from the fathers, history, and archaeology, and illustrated by arguments from other sources. London: Bums and Oates. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1888.

Luz, Ulrich. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Luz focuses on the elements and thoughts of Judaism that are fundamental to Matthean theology. Matthew uses Jesus as the one who fulfills the Jewish law, but He is also one who is centered with the community. In tcrms of Peter, Luz holds that his unique position as "rock" is only based on his relationship as a disciple of Jesus and not on any personal qualities of the Apostle.

Luz, U. 'The Primacy Text (Mt. 16:18)," Princeton Seminary Bulletin. 12 (1991). 41-55

Mantey, J. R. "Distorted translations in John 20:23. Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18." Review-and-Expositor. 78 (1981). 409-416.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westiminster John Knox, , 1998. Neyroy argues that Matthew was familiar with the traditional ways of giving honer and shame in the world in which Christ lived. This knowledge allowed Hatthew to shape his Gospel accordingly with underlying themes of giving honer and shame. This theme comes into play in areas like the relationship between Matthew and Jesus. The Matthean passage where Jesus names Simon as "Peter" holds a significance that is best understood in the terms of the bestowingof honor.

Overman, Andrew J. Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Ovcrman argues that the Matthean community saw itself, not as Christian, but as Jewish. In this understanding, it is important to see that along with the development of Matthean Judaism was Formative Judaism, which would develop into Rabbinical Judaism. These two communities forming side by side challenged and informed the Matthean community and influenced the formation and content of the Gospel. In terms of Peter, the image of "the keys" and "the rock" inform the Jews of the time that God has given Peter a specific authoritative role.

Perkins, Pheme. Peter: apostle for the whole church. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. An examination of Peter's life as documented in the first through third centuries. The author concludes that Peter is an exemplar of the Christian life, with its triumphs and failures. Perkins looks at how the apostle is portrayed in the New Testament books as well as the works from the later centuries and how different groups interpreted those works. Peter is the "apostle for the whole Church" because he represents each and every Christian in the Church.

Rist, John M. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Even though Matthew and Mark show similarities, Rist claims that it is impossible to establish one as based on the other. Rist meticulously analyzes the differing theories of Marcan primacy and Matthean primacy. Rist feels that beth theories show too many inconsistencies. Therefore he feels that it is most likely that neither evangelist knew of the other's work. If this is the case, then Peter's commission in Matthew is not a later redaction of a primary Marcan text.

Smith, Terence V. Petrine controversies in early Christianity: attitudes towards Peter in Christian writings of the first two centuries. Tuebingen: Mohr, 1985.

Stock, Augustine. The Method and Message of Matthew. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1994. Stock praises the advancement of the historical-critical method, but holds that Narrative criticism is an essential part of Gospel exegesis because the Gospels are, essential, stories about the Christ. By using Narrative criticism, the exegete can understand what was the intent of the finished Matthean Gospel and how the elements of the Gospel relate to the whole story.

Suggs, M. Jack. "Matthew 16:13-20" Interpretation. 39 (1985). 291-295.