Paul Foster: The Gospel of Peter - 2

4. According to Eusebius, in the late second century, Serapion, the bishop of Antioch, forbade a congregation in Rhossos from using the Gospel of Peter because it was conducive to docetic interpretation. Does the Gospel of Peter as attested by the Akhmim Codex have a docetic christology?

Once again, this is a question that occupied research on the Gospel of Peter since its initial publication in 1892. The reason for this is that scholars were guided (or perhaps misguided) by Eusebius’ comments. Eusebius cites Serapion (bishop of Antioch) who writes the following statement to the Christian community at Rhossos about the Gospel of Peter:

'For I myself, when I came among you, imagined that all of you clung to the true faith; and without going through the Gospel put forward by them in the name of Peter, I said, “If this is the only thing that seemingly causes captious feelings among you, let it be read.” But since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come quickly to you; wherefore brothers expect me to come quickly. But we, brothers, gathering to what kind of heresy Marcianus belonged (who used to contradict himself, not knowing what he was saying, as you will learn from what has been written to you), were enabled by others who studied this very Gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of the ideas belong to their teaching) – using [the material supplied] by them, were enabled to go through it and discover that the most part indeed was in accordance with the true teaching of the Saviour, but that some things were added, which also we place below for your benefit.’ Such are the writings of Serapion.' (Eusebius, H.E. 6.12.2-6).

It is instructive to note exactly what Eusebius reports Serapion as saying. Not that the Gospel of Peter itself was Docetic, but that the successors of Marcianus added certain things to this text to make it align with their Docetic tendencies. Serapion tells his readers that he will list those Docetic additions, but unfortunately Eusebius does not continue his citation of Serapion’s treatise, so modern readers are left in the dark about the specific contents.

The first generation of scholars to work on the Gospel of Peter read Eusebius citation of Serapion as saying the Gospel of Peter itself was Docetic. Thus, they looked for Docetic elements in the text. Swete, under the influence of this patristic description, catalogued what he saw as the self-evident docetic features of the text. He listed five examples.

1. The Lord’s freedom from pain at the moment of crucifixion.

2. His desertion by His ‘Power’ at the moment of Death.

3. The representation of His Death as analēpsis, ‘ascension’.

4. The supernatural height of the Angels and especially the Risen Christ.

5. The personification of the Cross.

Such a perspective on the docetic character of the text continued to be reiterated at the commencement of the more recent phase of research, albeit with recognition of the multifaceted nature of docetism and the ambiguous nature of the textual evidence in the Gospel of Peter (Mara, 1973: 107-111; Denker, 1975, 1975: 111-125). This position was challenged by McCant focusing in particular on the first three of Swete’s five points, since these had been the ‘stock-examples’ used to establish the case for the text being docetic (McCant, 1984: 258-273). The text on which the first point was based, ‘he remained silent as one having no pain’ (Gos. Pet. 4.10b), is seen as part of the silence motif of the Gospel of Peter which is not necessarily underpinned by docetic concerns. McCant states, ‘[n]othing in his sources or redactional activity indicates any motivation for negating pain in the Lord’s experience, although GP 4.10b remains ambiguous and neither affirms nor denies the experience of pain.’ (McCant, 1984: 262). The parallel contained in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is perhaps of great importance not only because of the close similarity in terminology, but because it portrays the noble and heroic character of those who suffer obvious pain in silence. Upon being pushed out of the wagon that has transported him to the stadium for martyrdom, Polycarp injures his shin. Yet he does not acknowledge such a wound, rather he walks as one ‘whom nothing had hurt’. Similarly the other supposed examples of Docetism have been considered to be far from compelling in modern research.

5. What does the Gospel of Peter tell us about growing interest in the figure of Peter in the early church?

At one level – very little! Peter hardly surfaces in the surviving portion of the Akhmîm narrative. He is only explicitly named in the final verse of the text, which states, ‘I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew took our nets and went to the sea’ (Gos. Pet. 14.60). However, when this text is seen alongside the burgeoning literature that circulates in Peter’s name in the second century and beyond, it becomes possible to perceive a wider phenomenon at work. The range of texts encompasses Apocalypses, Acts, Preachings (kerygmatic texts), and Epistles. The Gospel of Peter stands as part of a larger literary tendency where texts are generated around Peter as a central protagonist or the authority behind the text written often in his name. In many ways this is unsurprising, and reflects the phenomenon of pseudepigraphical literature, which is widely attested in contemporary ancient literature and beyond. This body of Petrine literature amply illustrates the ongoing production of texts either centred on Peter or written in his name. This growth is consonant with the increasing prestige that Peter enjoyed as a primary source of authority and with his link with the Roman see.

6. What is unique about the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter?

How about a ‘walking talking cross’ for a start! Miraculous elements are heightened, the security measures placed at the tomb are emphasized and specific details absent from canonical accounts are introduced into the story. In many ways the narrative answers the questions of the pious, and it was designed to be used as an apologetic tool that shows the impossibility of the disciples stealing the body of Jesus. Perhaps the best thing is to give readers a flavour of the text by citing the resurrection scene:

34. Now when the morning of the Sabbath dawned a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding region that they might see the tomb which had been sealed. 35. But during the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, while the soldiers were guarding two by two according to post, there was a great voice in the sky. 36. And they saw the heavens were being opened, and two men descended from there, having much brightness, and they drew near to the tomb. 37. But that stone which had been placed at the entrance rolled away by itself and made way in part and the tomb was opened and both the young men went in. 38. Then those soldiers seeing it awoke the centurion and the elders, for they were present also keeping guard. 39. While they were reporting what they had seen, again they saw coming out from the tomb three men, and the two were supporting the one, and a cross following them. 40. And the head of the two reached as far as heaven, but that of the one being led by them surpassed the heavens. 41. And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, ‘Have you preached to those who sleep?’ 42. And a response was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.’

7. Where is the actual Akhmim codex at the moment and what would it be worth it anyone could find it?

This is another question of fundamental importance. In the early 1980s the manuscript was photographed at the Coptic Museum in Cairo. These excellent images were taken by Adam Bülow-Jacobsen and are available online.

It appears that at some stage the manuscript was moved to the Alexandria Library. I have made numerous attempts to ascertain the current whereabouts of the manuscript. In June of this year a colleague, Prof. Dr. Johannes van Oort (Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen & University of Pretoria), wrote to me making the following statement:

“Between June 12–20 I did my utmost in Alexandria to see the Gospel of Peter manuscript, but without any real success. According to all my information, the manuscript is not in Cairo (neither in the Egyptian Museum, nor in the Coptic Museum, or in any of the other ones). Also, I have an explicit statement that it is not in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria. All my indications are that it should be in the Alexandria Library and during a week I visited this location every day. The people there looked in their treasures, but until now they could not find the manuscript.”

As to whether it would be worth finding the manuscript, of course. Apart from being able to conduct a fuller codicological analysis to assess the technology used in the books construction, with improved imaging techniques problematic readings might be clarified.

Why the manuscript went missing is unknown – an accident, an oversight, sequestered, sold – nobody appears to have firm information since the last set of photographs were made.

8. Why should people be interested in the Gospel of Peter?

An excellent question! The text provides a highly informative and interesting window into the way gospel traditions developed and were expanded in the second half of the second century. It also reflects the concerns and beliefs of at least one community of believers in that period. Anybody interested in the study of Christian origins, the transmission of gospel traditions, or the life and piety of second century Christians will be richly rewarded by reading this fascinating gospel text.

Paul Foster: The Gospel of Peter - 1

Paul Foster

The Gospel of Peter: Introduction and Commentary

Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 4

Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Wendy Porter.

Blurb: Since its discovery in 1886/87 there has been no full-scale English-language treatment of the Gospel of Peter. This book rectifies that gap in scholarship by discussing a range of introductory issues and debates in contemporary scholarship, providing a new critical edition of the text and a comprehensive commentary. New arguments are brought forward for the dependence of the Gospel of Peter upon the synoptic gospels. The theological perspectives of the text are seen as reflecting second-century popular Christian thought. This passion account is viewed as a highly significant window into the way later generations of Christians received and rewrote traditions concerning Jesus.

Interview with Paul Foster:

1. What are the textual witnesses to the Gospel of Peter?

This is not an uncontroversial question. Prior to 1886 there were no known surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of Peter. Then in a winter season dig of 1886/87 at Akhmîm in upper Egypt a team of French archaeologists unearthed a small parchment codex interred in a grave. This codex contained four incomplete texts. The first, occupying pages 2-10, began and ended mid sentence, and was otherwise unknown. However, because it was a gospel-like passion and resurrection account, and since the first person narrator of this account is presented as being Peter, scholars were quick to identify this text as a fragment of the Gospel of Peter. This text had previously been known only from Patristic references to its title or a description given by Eusebius of its use at Rhossos. While the identification of the Akhmîm as being part of the Gospel of Peter is an inference, it is a plausible hypothesis.

This remained the only suggested manuscript of the Gospel of Peter until the 1970s. Then the Oxyrhynchus project published two pieces of papyrus catalogued as P.Oxy. 2949. The larger of the two fragments has some textual overlap with the Gos. Pet. 2.3-5, but also more of the surviving text deviates from the Akhmîm parallel. This partial overlap led Dieter Lührmann to posit that P.Oxy. 2949 was an early witness to the Gospel of Peter. Since then he has also suggested that P.Oxy. 4009, and P.Vindob.G 2325 are textual witnesses to the Gospel of Peter. However, since there is no overlap between these texts and Akhmîm text, and neither self-identifies as the Gospel of Peter, I am hesitant to consider any of these fragments as textual witness to the Gospel of Peter. So for me there is only one likely textual witness to the Gospel of Peter and that is the first text in the codex discovered at Akhmîm, which probably dates to some time from the late 6th to early 9th century.

2. What do you think of Dieter Luhrmann's attempt to date textual traditions of the Gospel of Peter to the second century?

In a word, ‘unconvincing’! While I think that the Gospel of Peter probably originated in the second half of the second century, my assessment would be that we having no manuscript fragments from the second or third centuries. For those who wish to disagree with me, the place to start is with P.Oxy. 2949, since there is some partial overlap with a small part of the Akhmîm text. However, those who wish to see P.Oxy. 2949 as an early fragment of the Gospel of Peter should also account for its divergences from the Akhmîm text form. As I have noted elsewhere, Lührmann’s reconstruction of P.Oxy. 2949 produces a text of 238 letters of which only 44 are shared with the alleged parallel section of text in the Akhmîm codex, or 18.49% of correspondence. There may be some relationship between these two texts, such as parallel forms of a similar tradition, but with over 80% divergence suggesting that they are witnesses to the same text appears problematic. There are numerous parallels between the synoptic gospels that have a far greater degree of textual affinity, but the parallel versions belong to different gospel accounts.

With the other fragments the case is far, far weaker. Lührmann identifies P.Oxy. 4009 as a witness to the Gospel of Peter by using a highly convoluted argument that employs 2 Clement 5.2-4 as a middle term. The details of this argument are complex and highly speculative. Perhaps it is sufficient to note that there is no overlap between P.Oxy. 4009 and the Akhmîm text, Peter is never mentioned in P.Oxy. 4009, and that it is a highly fragmentary text. The identification is based on the way Lührmann reconstructs the text, and it is questionable whether identification should be based on reconstruction rather than those letters actually present on the papyrus. The case of P.VindobG 2325 is weaker still. This fragment preserves a parallel account of the cock-crow story know from Mark 14.27-30. Most scholars read the fragment as a third person narrative because of its affinities to the Markan text. By contrast, Lührmann forces the texts to become a first person narrative due to the way he introduces first person pronouns into his reconstruction. He then concludes that since this text refers to Peter and is a first person narrative, it shares these features with the Akhmîm text and must consequently be a hitherto unknown part of the text. The Akhmîm text itself has no account of the cock-crowing story, perhaps because its starts too late with the end of trial before Pilate.

Methodologically, Lührmann’s arguments appear flawed because he reconstructs texts to produce the results he wishes to see. Also, without any textual overlap with the Akhmîm text, P.Oxy. 4009 and P.VindobG 2325 are claimed to be parts of the Gospel of Peter that did not survive in the Akhmîm fragment. This would appear to be beyond proof.

3. What is the relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the canonical Gospels (esp. in light of J.D. Crossan's proposal)?

The issue of The Relationship Between the Gospel of Peter and the canonical Gospels has been "vigorously Debated at all stages of scholarly investigation of this text Since its discovery, with scholars Arguing That It Is Either independent of the canonical gospels or depend upon 'em.J.D. Crossan offered a creative break-through by suggesting a third way, namely that the Gospel of Peter in its final form is dependent on the canonical Gospels, but has embedded in it is an early source, ‘the Cross Gospel’ (perhaps the near pun on Crossan’s name was intended) and this was earlier than the canonical accounts and was in fact used by them as a source for their accounts of the Passion and resurrection. While postulating this third possibility was a brilliant hypothesis, when one examines the contents of the ‘Cross Gospel’ the forms of the traditions it contains still appear to be later than the parallels in the canonical accounts. In the commentary section of my book I spend significant space discussing the tradition history of various pericopae and showing how they align with concerns of second century Christianity. In the end Crossan's hypothesis Remains more bright Than persuasive.

Andrew Gregory on the non-canonical Gospels

As a follow-up to my earlier post on the Gospels making come back, in the latest issue of Evangelical Quarterly (81.1 [2009]: 3-22), Andrew Gregory of Oxford Uni has an excellent article entitled, "The non-canonical gospels and the histoircal Jesus - some reflections on issues and methods".

In the article, Gregory looks at the genre of "Gospel" and asks whether the non-canonicals qualify. Contra Tom Wright, he argues that dismissing them from the genre is premature. We need to remember that many of these Gospels exist only in fragments so it is impossible to determine their literary texture and these non-canonical texts represent a tertiary stage in the development of the Gospel genre which means that they are probably dependent upon the canonical Gospels. Also, there are generic affinities between the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the canonical Gospels in terms of containing a biographical narrative.

Gregory also evaluates the Gospel of the Ebionites, P.Oxy 840, PEgerton 2, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel according to Thomas in terms of their value for being for the historical Jesus. While leaving the door open for some authentic material in the Gospel of Thomas, he is rightly suspect of their historical utility for shedding light of the historical Jesus.

He concludes in the end: "Neither here nor elsewhere in this essay do I wish to argue that any text labelled generically as a gospel must be a reliable source for the historical Jesus. But I oppose utterly any attempt to deny ancient texts this title if that is intended as a way of ruling them out of the discussion without first reading them on their own merits and asking what, if anything they might contribute to a historical reconstruction of what Jesus may have said or done" (p. 20).

A few comments:

1. Gospel genre. A reading of the earliest Gospels (i.e. the canonical one's) gives the impression that a Gospel is a biographical story about Jesus climaxing in his death and resurrection and consists of narrating the a biographical story as a continuation of the story of Israel. The "Gospels" are also an expression of the "gospel" proclaimed in the early church (see further F.F. Bruce, "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45 (1963): 319-39. Of course, who is to say what the limits of the Gospel genre are? There are those who think that the category of "Gospel" should include any document that purports to give an account of the life/teachings of Jesus (see Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975], 614 W. Schneelmelcher 1991: 78; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990], 46). We should also remember the words of Origen, "The Church has Four Gospels, but the heretics have many" (Hom. Luke 1) which implies that the other Gospels are indeed "Gospels" but they do not accord with the "gospel" of the orthodox church.

2. Gospel of Thomas and Authenticity. Gregory suspects that logia 8, 82, 65-66 might have some claim to dominical authenticity. I confess that I am optimistic about the possible authenticity of logia 82, 97, and 98.

Intro to the Apocryphal Gospels

Paul Foster (Edinburgh Uni) has a new book with OUP called The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction. The blurb states:

"This Very Short Introduction offers a clear, accessible, and concise account of the apocryphal gospels--exploring their origins, their discovery, and discussing how the various texts have been interpreted both within and outside the Church. Looking at texts ranging from the Gospels from Nag Hammadi to the Dialogues with the Risen Savior, Paul Foster shows how the apocryphal gospels reflect the diversity that existed within early Christianity, and considers the extent to which they can be used to reconstruct an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus. Foster demonstrates how close analysis of text, contents, and context are vital in assessing the value and authenticity of such ancient documents. Including discussions of controversies and case-studies such as the alleged hoax surrounding the discovery of Secret Mark, Foster concludes that the non-canonical texts, considered in the correct context, can help us reach a more complete understanding of the multi-faceted nature of early Christianity."

See also his other volume The non-canonical Gospels which is an edited collection of previously published works from Expository Times.

Non-Canonical Fallacies

Tony Chartrand-Burke lists faulty arguments in anti-apocrypha apologetics including these:

1. All non-canonical texts are Gnostic.

I agree that this is false, you only have to read Gospel of Peter to figure that one out. What is more, the Gospel of Thomas lacks the sine qua non of Gnosticism which is anti-cosmic dualism or regarding the creator of the universe as an evil demiurge, thus Thomas is probably best characterized as being on a Gnostic trajectory but not quite there yet. Alot of stuff that gets passed off as Gnostic can also be regarded as expressing an acute hellenism or else can be paralleled in Christian/Jewish mystic traditions. But many of the texts are indeed Gnostic as a cursory glance of the NHC shows and trying to say that some of this stuff is not Gnostic just Sapiential often sounds like special pleading.

2. Canonical texts are early while non-canonical texts are late.

There is certainly the possibility that many of the non-canonical texts are either earlier or co-temporous with the canonical writings (it depends when you date the canonicals I guess). But, all things being even, I think we have grounds for seeing the non-canonicals as usually dependent in some form on the canonicals. The Gospel of Thomas I think is definitely dependent on canonical tradition (be it via literary dependency, secondary orality, or from a mediating source like the Diatessaron). Many of the Jewish Gospels sound like diverse renditions of Matthew with some make shift additions.

3. The non-canonical gospels are not "gospels".

Some clearly are, but obviously not all. The Gospel of Peter is a death-resurrection Gospel and may have been part of a larger work that covered the entire ministry and passion of Jesus. The Jewish Christian Gospels were probably modelled on Matthew and followed his outline. But I do not think, pace H. Koester et. al., that Q and Thomas qualify as "Sayings Gospels". The Gospel of Mark, as the first Gospel, is probably the benchmark for any comparisons in terms of genre. To call them "Sayings Gospels" strikes me as a bit of a misnomer since they contain no joined narrative (perhaps a few narrative cameos, but no single story-line can be discerned). Note: I am not implying that a work called "Gospel" is theologically or historically superior to any other work that is not a proper Gospel. The question is does the literary form of the non-canonical documents resemble the literary form of the canonical Gospels. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

4. The writers of non-canonical texts were hostile toward canonical texts.

I think that the authors/editors of Thomas saw their composition as an alternative to the canonical accounts and perhaps even as a rival to them. In some cases, these non-canonical works were merely adaptations or imitations of the canonical documents with no malign intention between them (e.g. Gospel of Peter), at other times an attempt to supplant or replace the other accounts is probable (e.g. Gospel of Thomas), and at other times there is arguably an attempt to indigenize ideas in a literary form analogous to that of the Gospels (e.g. Gospel of Mary or Jewish Christian Gospels).

5. Extant versions of non-canonical texts are their autographs.

I concur, no argument here. Still, if you think you can peel back a fourth century coptic text and discover a first century Greek text benneath, and then map out the various layers of redaction and development inbetween, then you are treading on very thin ice and are arguing for something which simply cannot be proven or falsified. There is nothing wrong with healthy conjecture and making hypothetical proposals, as long as you tell people that it is conjectural and purely hypothetical. Speculation is good and healthy, as long as it does not become dogma.

The key thing is to avoid generalisations and to treat each document on its own merits and on its own terms. Then these fallacies can be avoided.