|
No complete copy of the Gospel of Peter has been discovered.[1] Until the discovery of manuscripts in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Gospel of Peter was virtually unknown, being mentioned only a few times in Christian texts dating prior to the Medieval Period. Eusebius, writing in the first half of the 4th century, quotes Serapion, a late 2nd century bishop of Antioch, as making the following statements about a gospel attributed to Peter:
1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion’s literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter. 2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows: 3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. 4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly. 5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself. 6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on. So much in regard to Serapion. (Church History 6.12.1-6, emphasis mine)[2]
The type of heresy identified with the Gospel of Peter according to Serapion (via Eusebius) was docetism, which held that Jesus only appeared or seemed (δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") to be in the flesh, and that his physical body and resurrection were illusions or that the Spirit of Christ entered into Jesus at baptism and left prior to his death on the cross. It is notable that Serapion mentions that “many things” in the Gospel of Peter were “in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour”, but that it also had “some things added” to it. From this description, it may be that the heresy involved in the text was not readily apparent, but a matter of interpretation.
Other references to the Gospel of Peter in early Christian texts tend to focus on its lack of credible apostolic authorship. Eusebius wrote concerning the Petrine and psuedo-Petrine texts in use by the early church:
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 2. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. 3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class. 4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. (Church History 3.3.1-4, emphasis mine)
and
6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. (Church History 3.25.6-7, emphasis mine)
Jerome, in the 5th century, also mentions the Gospel of Peter as pseudonymous in his discussion of works by Peter, but he may have relied upon the work of Eusebius for his understanding:
[Peter] wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his “Judgment” are rejected as apocryphal. (Lives of Illustrious Men 1, emphasis mine)[3]
Other sources mentioning a Gospel according to Peter are Origen, in the 3rd century, and Theodoretus, in the 5th century. However, both of these texts may have been referring mistakenly to a Petrine text known. Origen seems to have connected it with a “book of James,” probably a reference to the Proto-Gospel of James, which contains stories prior to Jesus’ birth:
And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. (Commentary On Matthew 10.17, emphasis mine)[4]
Theodoretus, writing in the 5th century, makes the following comment, possibly confusing the Gospel of Peter with the Gospel of the Nazareans:
But the Nazoraeans are Jews, honoring Christ as a just man, and using the gospel called according to Peter. (Compendium of Heretical Fables 2.2, emphasis mine)
It is apparent that though it was clearly held to be an heretical and/or pseudonymous text by the previous authors, their recognition and mention of the text alone is evidence that a Gospel attributed to Peter must have been in active use by some Christian groups for at least 4-5 centuries. It would not be until the 19th and 20th centuries until manuscript discoveries provided evidence that the Gospel of Peter was in use at least until the 7th-8th century, and that it was possibly written as early as the 2nd century—with several scholars making the argument that it (or portions of it) was written and in use as early as 1st century. I will take a look at these manuscripts and their impact in the next post in this series.
[1] John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels : Shadows on the Contours of Canon (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985).@126
[2] Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, 10 vols., vol. 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series (Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1995; reprint 1995).
[3] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, trans. Ernest Cushing Richardson, 10 vols., vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series (Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1995; reprint 1995).
[4] Origen, Commentary on Matthew, trans. John Patrick, 10 vols., vol. 9, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).
Research Bibliography on the Gospel of Peter
“P.Cair. 10759: Gospel of Peter.” Photographic Archive of Papyri in the Cairo Museum, 1892.
Brown, Raymond E. “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 321-43.
Brown, Raymond E. “The Passion According to John.” Worship 49:2 (1975): 126-34.
Cameron, Ron. “The Gospel of Peter.” In The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts, edited by Ron Cameron, 76-78. Westminster John Knox Press, 1982.
“P.Oxy.Xli 2949.” In Poxy: Oxyrhynchus Online, edited by R.A. Coles, Paperology Room, Sackler Library, Oxford, 1972.
Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels : Shadows on the Contours of Canon. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Cross That Spoke : The Origins of the Passion Narrative. 1st ed ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Dewey, Arthur J. “'Time to Murder and Create': Visions and Revisions in the Gospel of Peter.” Semeia 49 (1990): 101-27
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures. Oxford Univ Pr, 2005.
Enslin, Morton S. “The Acension Story.” Journal of Biblical Literature (1928): 60-73.
Caesarea, Eusebius of. Church History. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Edited by Phillip Schaff, and Henry Wace. 10 vols. Vol. 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1995. Reprint, 1995.
Foster, Paul. “Are There Any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?” New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 1-28.
Green, Joel B. “The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Christian Passion Narrative?” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 78, no. 3-4 (1987): 293-301.
Green, Joel B. “The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative By John Dominic Crossan.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109, No. 2 (1990): 356-58.
Jerome. Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. Edited by Phillip Schaff, and Henry Wace. 10 vols. Vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1995. Reprint, 1995.
Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2, Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Koester, Helmut. “Written Gospels Or Oral Tradition?
Author(S): Helmut Koester
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 113, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), Pp. 293-297.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, No. 2 (1994): 293-97.
Loader, W. R. G. “The Apocalyptic Model of Sonship: Its Origin and Development in New Testament Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 4 (1978): 525-54.
“P.Oxy.Lx 4009.” In Oxyrynchus Online, edited by D. Luhrmann, and P. J. Parsons, Oxford: Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford, 1994.
Marcus, Joel. “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 1 (2006): 73-87.
McCant, Jerry W. “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 30 258-73.
McCasland, Selby Vernon. “The Basis of Resurrection Faith.” Journal of Biblical Literature 50, No. 3 (1931): 211-26.
McCasland, Selby Vernon. “The Scripture Basis of 'on the Third Day'.” Journal of Biblical Literature 48, No. 3/4 (1929): 124-37.
The Gospel of Peter. Translated by J. Armitage Robinson. Edited by Allan Menzies. 10 vols. Vol. 9, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peadody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Menzies, Allan. “The Gospel of Peter: Introduction.” In 9, edited by Allan Menzies, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.
Miller, Robert J. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholar's Version. Polebridge Press, 1995.
Munoa, Phillip B. “Jesus, the Merkavah, and Martyrdom in Early Christian Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature (2002): 303-25.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, No. 4 (1981): 575-600.
Origen. Commentary on Matthew. Translated by John Patrick. Edited by Allan Menzies. 10 vols. Vol. 9, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peadbody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Edited by Alexander Roberts et al. 10 vols. Ante-Nicene Fathers: 10 Volumes. Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Romanowsky, John W. “When the Son of Man is Lifted Up: the Redemptive Power of the Crucifixion in
the Gospel of John.” Horizons 32:1 (2005): 100-16.
Schaeffer, Susan E. “The Guard At the Tomb (Gos. Pet. 8:28-11:49 and Matt. 27:62-66; 28:2-4, 11-16): a Case of Intertextuality?” In Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, edited by Jr. Lovering, Eugene H., 499-507. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991.
Schaeffer, Susan E. “The Gospel of Peter, the Canonical Gospels, and Oral Tradition.” Dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1991.
Schwartz, Daniel R. “Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102, No. 2 (1983): 259-68.
Shepherd, Jr., Massey Hamilton. “Paul and the Double Resurrection Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 64, No. 2 (1945): 227-40.
Swete, Henry Barclay. Euangelion Kata Petron. The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter. London and New York: Macmillan and co, 1893.
Zimmerman, Frank. “The Last Words of Jesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 66, No. 4 (1947): 465-66.
|
