Loading...Now *here* is a recorded saying of Jesus I bet you haven’t heard before. Unless you’ve been reading the blog for years. It’s one of my favorites from outside the NT and it has an odd connection to a question I raised yesterday about the Gospel of Peter. As I pointed out then, the “Gospel of Peter” that we have today, which was discovered in 1886, is, unfortunately, only a portion – the only surviving portion – of what was once a complete Gospel. But was it a complete Gospel? Or was it a passion Gospel (like the later Gospel of Nicodemus) that gave an account only of the trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus? That has long been debated.
The weird saying of Jesus I’m talking about is NOT found in that fragment of the Gospel of Peter, but it may help decide whether Peter was a complete Gospel or not.
In recent years a German scholar named Dieter Luhrmann has argued that other portions of the Gospel of Peter have shown up, in very small fragments of papyrus discovered in Egypt. It is a controversial claim. The most interesting possibility, for me, is a papyrus fragment that Luhrmann published called Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4009 (it is the 4009th papyrus published from the huge find of papyri in the trash heap of ancient Oxyrhynchus, Egypt).
To understand why this *might* be a fragment of the Gospel of Peter requires a bit of tricky background. (I hope it’s not too hard to follow. But look, it ain’t quantum physics. So stay with me here!). The papyrus is…
Wanna see more about this? Gotta belong to the blog to read on. But joining is a piece of cake. In fact, it’s cheaper than a piece of cake, at any baker in downtown Chicago. Also fewer calories. So hey, don’t go to Chicago for a lousy piece of cake. Join the blog!
Speaking of odd sayings of Jesus, I have somehow fallen down the rabbit hole that is the debate over the Secret Gospel of Mark and whether it is a forgery. I have read parts of many, many academic papers about handwriting analysis, secret clues, evidence that is disputed, then refuted, omg. I think it’s authentic, but I’m not sure if that’s because I want it to be. I know you’re skeptical, buuuuuut if it was authentic, what would that mean for our understanding of the historical Jesus?
Almost nothing, I’d say. Not sure if you’ve seen my chapter on it in Lost Christianities or the later article I wrote on it in Journal of Early Christain Studies.
Thank you! I will take a look at both!
I just wonder what would be the evidence to actually state categorically that “No one thinks this is something Jesus could be reliably thought to have said” what are the burden of proof on this?
Well, it’s anecdotal. Of the hundreds of scholars I know who talk about such things, I’ve never known (or hear or read) any who thinks it is something Jesus said. But maybe SOME one does!!
The theme of this seems to be “better to be martyred than lose your immortal soul”. Different than the other themes in earlier gospels?
Not much different from what you widely find elsewhere.
Prof Ehrman,
What’s your view on the relation between the 2 Clement saying, POxy 4009 and Matt 10:16, 28 (Luke 12:4,5)?
Also, is the person referred to in this quote God or the devil or someone else: “fear the one who, after you die, has the power to cast your body and soul into the hell of fire”?
You’ll need to quote them both in your question so other blog readers will know waht you’re referring to. Your second question: God.
Thanks for this Bart; a most interesting saying.
one further consideration is the parallel reading in the Gospel of Thomas; saying 39.
“Jesus said, ‘The Pharisees and the Scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered, and have not allowed those who want to enter to do so. But you, be clever as serpents, and innocent as doves.'”
The reference to doves and serpents in POxy 4009 occurrs in a different context to that in Thomas (and the Synoptic context is different again); so the two authors may have found this particular text independently. .
But the intriguing point (for me) is that this is just about the only such instance in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas overlaps with only a selection of the Synoptic text, and has much other material; but there still is a considerable overlap. With any other non-canonical gospel the overlap is minuscule – suggesting that they did not draw on common sources.
Hence, it is highly unlikely that the author of Thomas derived more that a small portion of his text from any supposed shared pool of Jesus traditions.
I’m curious as to the scholarly opinion on the sort-of parallel between this and Matthew 10:28 … Guessing Clement was more directly referring to Matthew and the fragment to which you refer seems to refer to a paraphrase of the same outlook?
Yes, it is a similar tradition; 2 Clement may have had it in mind.
“but fear the one who, after you die, has the power to cast your body and soul into the hell of fire.” Do we know if “Peter” is talking about annihilation-fire or eternal-torment-fire?
Nope.
Matt. 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” Then Matt. 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in [Gehenna].” So why do scholars doubt the quotation in the papyrus was something Jesus would say, since it so closely parallels what it says in Matthew? Or do they also doubt the quotations in Matthew 10?
Yeah, OK, maybe he did say it! I guess no one thinks so because it’s not attested earlier….
“Ain’t historical scholarship fun?”
Well, since you asked! 😉
To me it is like watching a child receiving a gift and playing with the box!
Of course it is nice to see the child play with it …
And as I watch I get interested in knowing how the box was made …
And then I understand that without the box the giving of the gift would not have been as fun …
Blessed are the children!
I suppose you could say the same thing about scholars who do quantum physics as well. But it doesn’t mean that what they find is not absolutely true.
“I suppose you could say the same thing about scholars who do quantum physics as well.”
I Agree! … Isn’t unboxing fun! 🙂
It is interesting that as a counterbalance you pointed to quantum physics…
And then mentionned the Truth…
As in hebrew the word for truth, as you may know is “hemet”: alef mem tav .. alef, the first letter of the hebrew alphabet, mem, the one in the middle, and tav, the last letter… as the truth is the point where both sides are meeting (physics and spirituality, left and right in democracy, the horizontal and vertical of the cross etc) …..
Oh and btw the fun of unboxing the letter “Mem” the one in the middle! 🙂
Let’s Play! 🙂
Prof Ehrman, you say that ”No one thinks this is something Jesus could be reliably thought to have said”. Am I mistaken or doesn’t John Dominic Crossan think that the GoP is the “cross gospel” that is behind and precedes the synoptics? and if so I’m assuming he thinks this is something the historical Jesus could plausibly have said.
Yes, I’ve retracted that comment. Surely there *are* people who think he said that! But as to Crossan. He actually did not think that the Gospel of Peter was the Cross Gospel that the other Gospels depended on. He argued that the Gospel of Peter was *based* on the Cross Gospel, and that the others were as well, but Peter represented it better than the others, so that it in many instances preserves the older frorm of the tradition. Clever! But not too many people buy it, I’m afraid.
Who’s to say this fragment doesn’t come from another document that is simply providing an alternative version of the same story told in 2 Clement?
Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but the argument seems to be: the implied author of this document is saying something similar to what Peter says in 2 Clement, therefore the author wants you to think he is Peter, so it must come from a Gospel of Peter, and we only know of one Gospel of Peter, therefore this is probably a fragment of the Gospel of Peter we know.
I see how that might be the case, I just think its a bit presumptuous to say it is likely, based on a small fragment and a loose connection.
Yes, the idea is that it is an alternative version. But in a Gospel attributed to Peter. (Hence the first-person narrative)
This follows from my last question and comment, but it is a separate question.
If the “he/him” in this fragment is meant to be Jesus, is it unusual that he isn’t identified as Jesus or called the Lord, rather than he/him? With such a small fragment perhaps not, but what I’m getting at is that it isn’t 100% clear that he/him is Jesus. The conversation is similar but not the same as in 2 Clement. What if he/him is one of the apostles (e.g. Peter), preaching what Jesus taught him, and “I” represents someone else?
Not that unusual since we have so little of the conversation preserved. Often Jesus’ name doesn’t show up once he himself is introduced as the speaker (as is true in most records and fictionalized accounts of conversations)
You certainly make learning about historical scholarship fun. Due to problems caused by my facial disability over the years I have had teeth taken out and now I have no teeth. It gave me some comfort to learn, that if I do end up in the underworld, according to one manuscript I will be given a new set of teeth.
And you could imagine Jesus was prophesying the invention of dentures!
Absolutely fascinating. I was intrigued by your earlier response to another blog member that the Gospel of Peter may have a connection to the Petrine epistles in the NT. Could there be a ‘Petrine community’ behind them in the same way as there was a ‘Johannine community’? Also it is ironic that the epistles made it into the NT whereas the allegedly ‘docetic’ Gospel of Peter didn’t. PS thank you for your earlier response to my request for the lowdown on your latest writing project.
Yes, some have argued precisely that.
Intriguing as ever Bart, thanks. I confess I don’t understand your statement about the Oxyrhynxhus fragment: ‘No-one thinks this is something Jesus could be reliably thought to have said.’
What immediately occurs to me, and as High-Q has pointed out, both Matthew and Luke contain closely similar sayings. Matthew 10:28 ‘And fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’ Luke 12:4-5 ‘And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.’
Could you explain how, as you say, no-one thinks this is something Jesus could be reliably thought to have said, if there are these two close similarities in the NT?
Yes, others have pointed that out. I think I mean that it’s not attested in any early source; but right, I suppose he could have said it.
What if this is an actual case of forgery? That Clement just copied the gospel of Peter destroyed most of this gospel, and just claimed it to be his own writings as books of clement (maybe did some plus and minus to the story)?
Now this gospel of Peter that survived are just fragments and bits of pieces of what might be an entire book that we all want to find and have. But actually, we already have them inside of the “books of clements”?
I don’t know, it’s just one crazy thought ha ha. Thank you Dr. Ehrman????
It’s even a bit more complicated and crazy! 2 Clement doesn’t claim to be written by Clement, so the author is not claiming *anything* in it in his own name!
I don’t think the conversation referred to between Peter and Jesus is that odd at all. It is very concordant with Jesus’s teaching in the NT Gospels and could be consdered merely a conflation of Mat 5:29-30; Mat 10:16-21 and Mat 10:28. There may be no ‘reliable’ textual evidence that the conversation was historical, but I am sure there must be plenty of people famiar with the NT Gospels who, having heard or read the conversation, would ‘think’ it was *possibly* something Jesus could have said. I think it could have been 🙂 . On another note, Mat 10:28 and 2 Clement 5:2-4 refer to the soul *and* the body being thrown into hell. The mention of the body (soma) as well as the soul (psyche) *both* being thrown into the firey Gehenna, might support your notion that hell means anihilation rather than perprtual torture – maybe you have already made this point (I haven’t read your book ‘Heaven & Hell’ yet)
Yikes! Kinda like Clement and Peter are one and the same author (maybe 1 book)? Copies Got mixed up by early christians somewhere somehow along the way and became 2 similar books?
Geez, at one point they stitch many writings and make it 1 book (gospel of John). Now, maybe this is just 1 and they made it 2 ha ha. I don’t know, I’d say either way, it gave christian faith 1 heck of a roller coaster ride (people are just not aware of it in the real sense).
Anyways, thank you again Dr. Ehrman????
Ah! Thanks for the correction. And now that I think about it Crossan would probably reject this as a saying of the historical Jesus as it is a sort of warning of apocalyptic judgment and I believe Crossan doesn’t think Jesus was that sort of figure. Regardless It is a fantastic saying.
Dear Dr. Erhman,
My question necessitates a small preamble. I hope you will bear with me.
A few weeks ago, I heard on CBC radio, a young woman, a member of one of the Canadian First Nations (Amerindian), explaining that if she went to an elder of her tribe to ask for advice, the elder would never answer directly. He would, instead, tell a tale, and the advice would be weaved within the tale.
You say something similar about the Gospel writers. You have to read each one of them as conveying a specific meaning from the author.
In some of your lectures, you state that several passages in the Gospels are almost certainly things that Jesus said since they only make sense in Aramaic.
Since the primary Aramaic sources, whether oral, as the example above, or were written, they each had authors with their own messages to pass. It seems impossible to tell if a particular saying is from Jesus, invented by an Aramaic speaker, or even a quote from another rabbi wrongly attributed.
How can we say if any words in the Gospel were ever said by Jesus?
Yup, that is indeed a real difficult. It’s why the principle of “Aramaicisms” (if a saying makes good sense in Aramaic) is usually not used as a major criterion for deciding if a saying goes back to Jesus. Of course, if it can NOT work in Aramaic, that’s a sure sign he didn’t say it. But if it does work in Aramaic, it coudl have been made up by one of his Aramaic followers or wrongly attributed to him, etc. Other criteria are typically much preferred, for example “dissimilarity” and “independent attestation.” If you do a word search for these you’ll find earlier discussions on the blog. (BTW: I don’t recall ever saying in my lectures or writings that sayings that work in ARamaic are almost certainly things Jesus said. At least I’ve never *thought* that!)
Speaking of “odd saying of Jesus”,
Mark 4:25: “For to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.”
Do you believe that Mark 4:25 is authentic to Jesus? To me, it seems contradictory to Jesus’s apocalyptic message of reversing societal roles and eliminating oppression. However, I can’t imagine why an early Christian would make this quote up.
Yeah, it’s a tricky one. It is often thought to mean that those who have accepted Jesus’ teachings about the coming kingdom (those who have) will inherit it (an then have way more) where as those woh do not accept it (who have not) will lose everything when it comes.