Abstract
Markley’s monograph attempts ‘to supplement, clarify, redirect, and perhaps extend particular aspects’ (p. 18) of the current scholarly consensus regarding Matthew’s portrayal of Peter by proposing that the generic portrayal of apocalyptic seers influenced the Matthean portrayal of Peter and the disciples.
The first two chapters review the current scholarly consensus regarding the modified typical disciple view, explain the methodology of the current study, and introduce the various apocalypses surveyed in the following chapters. Chapter 3 analyses how apocalypses portray their seers as ‘exclusive recipients of revealed mysteries’ through ‘exclusionary statements,’ ‘narrative isolation,’ and ‘dissemination details.’ Chapter 4 focuses on the portrayal of apocalyptic seers as ‘humans encountering the divine realm’ by emphasising their ‘cognitive humanity’ and ‘emotional and physical humanity.’ Chapter 5 considers how the portrayal of apocalyptic seers influenced the portrayal of Peter and the disciples in Mark through ‘Jesus’ enigmatic proclamation’ and his ‘messianic identity and mode.’ Particularly focusing on Matthean redaction of Markan material, Chapter 6 analyses how Matthew portrays Peter and the disciples as apocalyptic seers. The monograph concludes with some reflections on how an understanding of the disciples as apocalyptic seers and Peter as the ‘principal apocalyptic seer’ adds to the modified typical disciple view. Most significantly, contextualising Peter in this light aids in the practice of categorising different aspects of the Matthean portrayal of Peter as either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ by offering external control texts through which to better approximate how the ancient author and readers may have interpreted the text.
Markley succeeds in his goal of adding to the conversation of Matthew’s portrayal of Peter. Through his analysis of the commonalities between the general portrayal of apocalyptic seers and that of Peter and the disciples in Matthew and Mark, he brings new and important insights into the study of Peter’s significance in Matthew. Although this monograph clearly conveys how Peter and the disciples are portrayed as humans encountering divine mysteries, it could benefit from considering that such portrayals are not unique to apocalyptic literature. Without this, Markley’s assumption that instances of cognitive humanity automatically imply apocalyptic influence remains unsubstantiated. Thus, his thesis that Matthew portrays Peter as an apocalyptic seer is inconclusive.