Loading...I’ve been doing a thread on Lost Gospels as these are represented by fragments of manuscripts that have been discovered and by quotations in the writings of church fathers. I was getting ready to post my favorite one today and then I wondered: Have I talked about that one before on the blog? Turns out, yes! Some years ago.
It is a fragment that MAY be a lost portion of the also otherwise also lost Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter is not *completely* lost: we have a chunk of it. But how large a chunk, we can’t really say. I’ve talked about it on the blog several times, but have decided that I need to say something about it again, to make sense of the fragment that will be coming in a later post.
And to talk about the Gospel of Peter itself will require a couple of posts. So here’s the first.
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!
Hi Bart,
If the gospels did not have names attached to them until mid to late 2nd century there would be 100 ( just picking a random number of copies) copies of the gospel of mark floating around the Mediterranean without a name attached. Would the people or communities with those copies know who wrote it?
Whoever wrote Matthew and Luke had at least one of the unnamed copies . Would they have used so much of it if they had no idea who the source of the gospel was ?
Probably not. But those copies were copied by later copiests who did have an opinion about who wrote the book and followed the then later custom of putting the name on them.
And yes, absolutely, Matthew and Luke would probably be *more* likely to use it if it were anonymous, since otherwise they’d be committing the ancient equivalent of plagiarism (since they’d be taking a named person’s work as their own). They did the same thing with the Q source (anonymous) and the other sources they used.
V. 41, 42: “Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?” And an answer was heard from the cross: “Yea.” I think I may have asked you this before, but Mark Goodacre suggests the original may have used a nomina sacra for “the crucified one” which became “cross” during transmission. It makes more sense that Jesus would be asked the question; it’s not like the cross did the preaching to the dead. Don’t suppose you’re convinced?
You suppose correctly. And asking about what makes “more sense” is a little problematic with an account that describes two angels as tall as mountains supporting a third figure so tall his head couldn’t be seen and a mobile cross coming out of a tomb…..
Dear Bart,
Slightly off topic but is it possible that Jesus was preaching the coming of the kingdom and the Romans decided to execute him of their own volition. The pharisees and the Sadducees actually did not know him and didn’t care. However, later, in order to exonerate the Romans especially given Paul was more successful outside of Jerusalem, in order to shift the blame to someone else, the local religious people were picked as the perfect scape goat?
Yes, I think that’s entirely possible. The problem with it is that the sources are so completley unified in saying thgat hte Jewish authorities were the ones who arrested him. That *may* be a later addition to the story by followers of Jesus who hated Jews, but its consistency in the tradtiion (it’s occurs in the first Christian writing we have, 1 Thessalonians!) makes me thing there’s something to it. disabledupes{c53adbab63bfb5254492171dc519a239}disabledupes
Hi, Bart,
1) What does Jesus mean when he says *for my name’s sake*?
Matthew 19:29 NRSV
[29] And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.
2) What is meant in these comparisons that one out of two will be taken and one left?
Matthew 24:40-41 NRSV
[40] Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
[41] Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.
1. He means forsaking all else to do what he urges them to do in preaching the comingn kingdom.
2. Read the passage right before it. At the flood, most of the word was “taken” (killed); only Noah and his family remained. When the judge of the earth comes, some will be “taken” (destroyed) and others (the saved) will remain.
Is the taking (destruction) of the wicked as said by Jesus at odds or contradictory to the events that are to happen in Revelation’s narrative of the second coming?
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding your question.
I’m sorry. When he describes that the wicked will be taken and the good will remain – is it not a contradiction with the idea of Rapture (its the opposite – the good will be taken) or with the story line in Revelation?
Yup, precisely the opposite view!
Was negativity toward Jews an invention of these early Christians? I’ve read that some “pagans” found Judaism attractive, but issues such as circumcision scared them off . . . until Gentile Christianity took root, and then pagan curiosity led to an increase in the membership of the Jewish cult of Christ, which aided growth of the faith before Constantine. Is there anything to that?
Bart,
Would you want making a post regarding the Shroud of Turin?
Thanks
Not really. It’s a medieval forgery, but I’m not interested in trying to prove it since it would be a waste of time with people who are convinced otherwise by the popular prewss.