Some objections are
based on rather broad tendentious views of the whole Christian message. The
text is to be rejected because it does not square with the rest of Christ’s
teaching. Thus, according to the eschatological theory, Jesus did not intend to
found a society or Church which would continue after Him. He preached the
kingdom of God which He was to inaugurate within a short time when He would reappear
as the Messias in glory. Hence there was no need to make provision for the
future, since He was expecting the consummation of all things in the very near
future. Jesus therefore preached the kingdom of heaven. But instead of this
kingdom there came the Church. Since the Parousia did not take place and the
world continued to move on, the followers of Jesus, in order to survive, were
forced to accommodate themselves to circumstances and to organize themselves
into a society under an authority with gradually came to be considered as
founded by Christ Himself. It follows necessarily from such a conception of the
teaching of Christ that anything implying an enduring organization was wholly
foreign to the mind of Jesus and is therefore to be rejected, since it merely
grew out of the conditions of the later Christian community. Clearly, then, the
present text with its reference to a Church which is to last forever and is
organized under a supreme head, peter and his successors as representatives of
Christ—such a text, so strikingly “ecclesiastical,” cannot be part of the
teaching of Jesus, but corresponds to a later situation and is therefore an interpolation.
It is naturally
impossible at this point to discuss fully the view on which this rejection of
our text is based. It involves a study of the nature of the kingdom as preached
by Christ and of His claims concerning His own Person. A few words of reply to
this revolutionary system must suffice here. There are some words of our Lord’s
which, taken all by themselves, might suggest the idea of an immediate Second
Coming or the like (e.g., Matt. 10:23). But alongside of such passages, which
are admittedly difficult, there are many others which are certainly authentic
and which cannot be construed in the eschatological sense. Thus, in Matthew 13,
several of the Kingdom Parables suggest anything but a kingdom to be
established in a miraculously divine manner and within a short time, not, at
least, in the eschatological sense. Likewise the parts of the instructions in
Matthew 10 which regard the future do not imply a view of the kingdom like that
supposed by the Escathologists. Ao also the choice of the Twelve and the care
given to their training by our Lord imply at least the intention of preparing
for the future. Our Lords teaching concerning Himself should be taken into
account too. Unless we are ready to admit that He was completely mistaken about
His Person and His mission, we cannot consistently force the eschatological system
upon Him. And if we grant that His horizon was not limited to the immediate
future by the thought of the impending kingdom and Second Coming, then we
cannot deny the possibility of His thinking of the future development of His
work and of providing for it.
Some objections are
of a more specific character. It is claimed, for instance, that the text is not
authentic for reasons derived from the context. Thus from the point of view of
the Two Source Theory, the promise betrays itself as an addition since it is
wanting in the Gospel of Mark, the main narrative source of the first Gospel.
And it was not in Q or the Logia, since St. Luke, who also used Q,
does not record these two verses. To this difficulty we may reply that even
from the standpoint of the Two Source Theory of the origin of Matthew,
the conclusion of the critics is unwarranted. For, however, the absence of these
verses from Mark and Luke may be explained, the fact remains that
they have a very pronounced semitic flavor. In addition to the expressions discussed
above, there are, in verse 17, the words, “Simon bar Jona” (Simon, son of Jona),
and “flesh and blood.” Of these semitisms, one at least, the play on words in
verse 18, is explicable only in Aramaic, and points clearly to an Aramaic
original for our text. The linguistic character of the passage, therefore,
establishes its Aramaic origin and, consequently, the early date of the
tradition to which it belongs. Hence from the point of view of language alone
we might hold, even on the Two Source hypothesis, that Matthew added these verses
on the authority of an ancient Aramaic source which we should have no right to
set aside lightly. Abstracting from the Two Source Theory and accepting the
tradition of the Aramaic origin of the first Gospel, we may maintain that the
striking Aramaic character of this text proves that it must have belonged to
the Aramaic Gospel itself.
In favor of this
conclusion, we may add that the promise in verses 17-19 forms the natural
sequel to Peter’s confession in the preceding verses rather than betrays itself
as an adventitious addition. Jesus had not questioned His disciples in order to
find out for Himself, for His own personal information, what people in general
or His disciples thought of Him. His intention was to obtain a profession of
faith from them. When this profession, which He has Himself elicited, is
forthcoming, we should expect Him to make some comment on the answer He has
obtained. This comment we have in the words given in verses 17-19, which thus
form an appropriate conclusion.
Consequently, whether
we consider the peculiarities of the language of these verses or their relation
with the preceding context, there is no solid reason for rejecting their early
date and authenticity. It may be noted in addition that the later the date when
the verses were supposed to have been introduced into the text *during the
second century, according to some), the more difficult it becomes to explain
their origin satisfactorily. We should hardly expect a forger at such a late
date to try to create the impression of authenticity by giving his production
its strong Aramaic flavor. Nor could we explain readily how such an addition
would have passed into all the MSS and into all the ancient versions.
The text is found everywhere in the form in which it is known to us.
There are some variants but they are no more serious than they are in other
parts of the Gospel.
As a final reason
confirming the authenticity of these verses, we may appeal to the unquestionable
fact attested by the New Testament in various places that Simon, the brother of
Andrew, received from Jesus the name of Peter (Kepha’). Such a strange
and significant name, which finds no explanation in the character or
temperament of its bearer, must have been explained on some occasion. This is
just what Matthew reports to have taken place on the occasion of Peter’s confession.
The conclusion from
this review of the arguments against the authenticity of verses 17-19 is that
there is no evidence compelling us either to reject or even to question their authenticity
but rather that a number of reasons speak distinctly and loudly in favor of
that authenticity. And so it is not surprising to see some critics unable or reject
or condemn the text as a whole, rejecting only some words as interpolated. Or,
if they keep the text as it stands, they try to force upon it an altogether
different interpretation. Their frantic and often embarrassed efforts to be rid
of or to adulterate the passage offer eloquent testimony to the importance they
attach to it. (G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church [trans.
John J. Castelot; Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1961], 403-6)
Some mention should
be made here of the rather desperate attempt of Harnack, in his 1918 essay on Peter
as Rock of the Church, to disprove the authenticity of the crucial verse
18. He appeals to the fact that St. Ephraem, in his commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron,
does not quote 18b, but only 18a and c, and that in 18c, instead of “shall not
prevail against it,” he has “shall not prevail against thee.” But, although St.
Ephraem, quotes an incomplete text and has a change of pronouns, it does not follow
that his source, the Diatessaron, had this shorter text and in this
form. For the rest of St. Ephraem’s explanation, wherein he describes the
building of the Church, proves that he was acquainted with 18b also. To say
with Harnack that this knowledge of 18b was derived from the “Separated Gospels”
and not from the Diatessaron is a poor explanation. According to the conclusions
of recent critics who have thoroughly examined this point, all the evidence
shows that St. Ephraem used only the Diatessaron. Hence if it is
admitted that this comment on the verse reveals his knowledge of 18b (even
though he does not quote it), it follows that he read 18b in the Gospel text,
i.e., in the Diatessaron. Therefore, the absence of 18b from the words
of the text quoted by St. Ephraem proves merely that he did not feel bound to
quote the text in full. And if he felt that way, we cannot hold that he must
necessarily have reproduced with scrupulous care the part which he actually did
use. Since he dealt freely with his text by omitting part of it, we may
conclude that he dealt freely with the part which he actually did use. Thus,
though he says “shall not prevail against thee,” there is no real proof
that the Diatessaron had the second person pronoun instead of the third.
Rather, since he omitted 18b with its mention of the rock and of the Church, he
had to change the pronoun “it” to “thee” in order to make sense. This change,
required by the turn he gave the sentence, may have suggested itself to him all
the more readily since, like other commentators of antiquity, he understood
that the gates of hell would not prevail against the rock on which the Church
is built instead of against the Church itself, and he identified the rock with
Peter.
Hence nothing can be
concluded against the traditional text of verse 18 from St. Ephraem’s commentary.
There is no serious evidence that the Diatessaron had an older form
which lacked 18b, and thus there is no external evidence permitting us to
regard this clause as a later insertion into the verse. And even if Harnack had
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that St. Ephraem—and the Diatessaron—did
not read 18b, what would he have proven?
Simply the fact that one father and one version of the Gospel
omitted part of verse 18. What possible conclusion would this solitary instance
permit us to draw regarding the authenticity of the text in the face of its otherwise
universally attested integrity? (Ibid., 409 n. 11)
