(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...Did Jesus tell Peter that his “sheep” (followers) did not need to worry about being torn to shreds by the wolves (persecutors), since, well, when they were, they’d be dead anyway?
Celebrating our 14th anniversary of the blog (starting April 2012), I have been posting 14 favorite posts from previous Aprils. This one is from April 2024, on one of my all time favorite Gospel fragments that may be from the otherwise-partially-known Gospel of Peter. It records an intriguing conversation between Jesus and Peter, if nothing else…
******************************
One of the most captivating tiny fragments of a lost Gospel discovered in modern times came from a trash heap excavated from the ancient city of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, one of many thousands of manuscript fragments found there, some of them Christian but most of them non-Christian (most of which were non-literary texts, that is, personal letters, land deeds, divorce certificates, bills of sale, etc.).
Did this fragment come from Gospel of Peter?
The “Gospel of Peter” we have today, which was discovered in 1886, is, unfortunately,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Why don’t you think Jesus could have said this? It sounds very much like Matthew 10:16, 28.
Ah, I don’t think I said Jesus couldn’t have said it. I said that I don’t know anyone who thinks he did. 🙂 (In no small measure becuase it is attested only late in one source)
Hi Bart! I have a question about Marks gospel. If Mark and his audience were gentiles in Rome (Hellenistic culture) could they have interpreted statements like Mark:8:31, the word *must* not referring to Gods plan, but the language of fate/necessity (Ananke?) not as a goddess but the structural force of the universe?
This would mean Mark wouldn’t think God is all powerful and would answer the biggest question in the text why does God let the beloved son die.
It’s possible, of course; but since mark is so ridden with references to the Jewish Scripture and the God of Israel and Jesus as his son doing his will, it seems unlikely. It’s possibly more possible that readers from a pagan tradition would resonate with the view that God’s will is unalterable.
Thank you, Dr Ehrman. Hopefully this isn’t a question I asked when I first read this post 2 years ago, but couldn’t the fragment just be a variant reading of 2 Clement 5:2-4?
It doesn’t seem like it since they are not worded the same way — that is, it does not look like the kinds of alterations scribes make in changing a text but a different form of the story.
I would very much like to read a complete version of the Gospel of Peter if one were ever discovered—it would be a fascinating text. Speaking of manuscripts, I have another question.
It is commonly said that P52 is the earliest New Testament manuscript, but about twenty years ago I came across an argument by a Japanese scholar suggesting that 7Q5 might possibly be earlier. According to him, Metzger（Manuscripts of the Greek Bible） dates 7Q1 to around 100 BC based on its decorative script, yet when discussing 7Q5, he argues that the same style continued to be used until the third century AD, and therefore rejects an early date such as around AD 50. The scholar himself points out that this seems inconsistent, since similar reasoning is used while assigning a relatively early date in one case and a much broader range in the other.
I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough about paleography to evaluate this properly, but I would be very interested in how you personally would assess this argument.
Metzger and most other textual specialists do not think that 7Q5 is a fragment of Mark (or any other NT book). I believe (though I may be wrong) that Kurt Aland made the convincing argument (that it was not a NT fragment).
You didn’t mention….is the Gospel of Peter that we do have written in the first person?
Yes.
I cannot comment to the extent of Peter’s Gospel. But as to “No one thinks this is something Jesus could be reliably thought to have said (well, no one I know, anyway).”, why not? We have Matthew 10:28, presumably a direct quote from Jesus, canonized. Curious.
Such thinking seems to have been commonplace in the early church, and still is today, the soul being immortal and the body being temporary anyway.
They tend not to think it because it is extravagant in ways beyond anything in the words of Jesus we can establish as probalby being said to him.