Did Matthew think that Peter was a False Disciple?

Kevin Emmert has a piece over at CT about Robert Gundry’s controversial new book which argues that Matthew’s Gospel portrays Peter as a false disciple of Jesus.

The book in question is Peter-False Disciple and Apostate According to Saint Matthew and you can watch Gundry’s lecture about his thesis of Matthew’s portrayal of Peter here.

The CT article has some quotes from myself and Craig Keener.

Craig Keener of Asbury Theological Seminary isn’t so sure that Matthews’s account of Peter is so distinctive. “If Matthew was meant to be interpreted in a different way than the rest of the [New Testament], he would have had to be much more explicit,” he said. Matthew’s audience presumably knew Mark’s Gospel and other stories about Peter, who was mentioned in Paul’s letters, he said. Similarly, Bird said readers in the early church would not have treated Matthew as a free-standing narrative. “Matthew may have fully intended his Gospel to be read amidst a wider body of tradition where knowledge of Peter’s restoration and subsequent ministry was fully known.” And that, he noted, is what modern readers have as well.