Loading...In this thread I’m discussing several Christian books that were considered by some early groups of believers and church leaders to be bona fide Scripture – written by apostles and inspired by God. All of the books I’m discussing were written by authors who were claiming to be Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. But eventually church fathers became convinced otherwise, and the books were relegated to the trash heap of Christian curiosities.
Here’s one that has become known only in modern times and that has intrigued readers – both scholars and lay folk. What exactly did church leaders find objectionable about it? It was an account of Jesus’ life, a Gospel.
******************************
The Gospel of Peter: A Book That Had Some Supporters
One of the other books found in the small anthology discovered in Akhmim also claimed to be written by Peter, and it too was considered a book of Scripture by at least some Christians. But, like the Apocalypse, it also lost favor and disappeared from sight. This one, however, was a Gospel.
The first surviving reference to the Gospel of Peter comes to us from the writings of Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian apologists and theologians, writing around 150 CE. In his three surviving works Justin quotes the words of Jesus as found in the Gospels of the New Testament but he does not name the books. Not only does he not refer explicitly to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, he does not actually call the accounts of Jesus’ life “Gospels.” He instead refers to them as “Memoirs of the Apostles.” But which apostles? Whose “memoirs” did he have? Oddly, he mentions only one of the accounts known to him by name, and it is not what anyone would expect. It is a Gospel of Peter. Scholars have regularly argued that
This is one of the most intriguing non-canonical books that survives (in part). To learn more, join the blog and keep reading! Click here for membership options
Interesting there’s an assumption that the apostles would understand the nature of Jesus and his teachings after he died. Isn’t there plenty of evidence that they didn’t fully understand him or his teachings when he was standing right in front of them alive?
Yes, I’d never say they “really” understood him in every way. But they did have an “understanding” of him — probably different understandings for different people.
I never thought of Mark as the Gospel of confusion until I read your textbook. And then I imagined that Matthew 28:17’s mention of some disciples’ “doubt” referred to the confusion.
If more books had been accepted into the canon – the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, etc. – do you think it would have changed Christianity in any significant way? It seems to me that people took it where they wanted, regardless, so we have Catholicism, Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons, Witnesses, etc. Do you think it would have made a difference?
I doubt if the Shepherd or the Didache would have led to huge changes; with the Gospel of Peter it would really depend what was in the rest of it (since we have only a portion, and possibly a small portion)
When Paul was going on his missionary journey and stopped in a new location, how would he set up shop? It is more likely he stayed in a friends place, or rented an area or bought a place?
We don’t know for sure, but can we make a prediction from what the text *barely* mentions?
One widely held view ,that I subscribe to, is that he was a leather worker who moved from place to place taking his tools with him; when in a city he located in the leather working district, rented out a shop, and lived above it. I talk about this in my New Testament: A Historical Introduction, as well as in Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene. If you want a full book on it, see Ron Hock, Paul the Tentmaker.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Random question time: I am conversing with someone who believes Paul thought Jesus lived at some unspecific time BEFORE 100BCE. My response has been to use only the 7 authentic epistles (which we both agree date to mid-1stC CE) and to highlight verses which seem to point to Paul understanding the ‘Jesus event’ as having been much more recent, probably within Paul’s own generation. I believe there are four prongs of attack: 1) the references to Jesus’s brothers as contemporaries (Gal 1:19, 1 Cor 9:5); 2) the reference to Jesus having been “sent” “at the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4); 3) the reference to Jesus having been killed by “rulers of this age” (1 Cor 2:8); and 4) the reference to Jesus having risen on the third day after his death/burial (1 Cor 15:3-4) in combination with Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s resurrection as the “first fruits” of an imminently expected mass resurrection (15:20-23)
What do you make of my multi-pronged argument? Aything I’ve missed?
Specifically on point 2), is it fair to interpret “at the fullness of time” as Paul meaning “recently”?
Well, every source that we have that says anything about it indicates it was first century CE; many of these sources are completely independent of the others. (Including Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) So if someone thinks something different, that’s fine. But what could possibly be the evidence?
Another interesting thing about the GP is that Pilate does not order Jesus’ crucifixion, but basically hands him over to a Jewish lynch mob who take Jesus (and the two thieves, apparently) and crucify them themselves, playing up the anti-Jewish “his blood be on us and on our descendants” trope from Matthew. Did that strike any early Christian writers as a problem with this Gospel, or do they seem to have been more or less ok with this rather striking bit of historical revisionism (and anti-Judaism) and focused exclusively on the docetism issue?
We only have one church father who talks about the book (Serapion) and he doesn’t mention that part. But I should point out that the Gospel of John indicates taht Pilate handed Jesus over to *them* to be crucified, and the antecednet of the “them” is the Jewish chief priests.
Is there any evidence that any of the early Christians understood Jesus’s death not so much as an atoning sacrifice “to” God “for” humanity but more as God sacrificing himself “to” humanity as a demonstration of unconditional love and forgiveness? It seems to me that the latter could also be seen as a way of reconciling God and humanity that’s different from atonement. Jesus could be understood as giving his whole life, everything he had, to prove to humanity how much God loves humanity. God is taking the first step in this act of reconciliation. This need not be seen as some new offer of divine love but more as an unambiguous demonstration, in history, of something that has always been true of God.
Do any relatively recent (19th century and later) theologians explore this understanding?
One big advantages of this approach is that Jesus’s death is not seen as a savage substitute for punishing humanity for sin. It’s a more or less natural outcome, in a cruel world, for someone who gives his whole life to humanity out of love. But it still retains the significance and poignancy of Jesus’s death in the history of salvation.
No, I don’t think that’s an ancient understanding. I’m not sure theologians have thought about God sacrificing Jesus *to* humans, since that would suggest humans needed to be placated. But the sacrifice has from the earliest of times been thught of God himself havng to sacrifice his son, an indication of his love.
Is there any humor or laughter in the Gospels, or the NT, or the Bible as a whole? Does anyone ever smile—other than God? I guess Sara laughed when told she would become pregnant at a very advanced age. But that laughter was not considered to be to her credit.
I suppose there is under appreciated irony and satire from Jesus in the Gospels. But that’s not the same as laughter.
If I’m substantially correct why is this the case? Is humor simply not common in ancient Hebrew literature? Is it undignified or an indication of not taking seriously enough one’s duty to God? Would it be a sign of freedom from oppressive beliefs and authorities? Why such a grim outlook on life?
The ancient Greeks had Aristophanes and certainly the Romans had humorous literature—though maybe that didn’t emerge until after the NT period.
If all this is true, that by itself should be reason enough to reject Christianity and maybe Judaism too. I’d be surprised if Islam had any more humor. Buddhism has humor as does Taoism. A down to earth guy like Confucius and his successors must have had humor.
Yes, people laught in the OT. ANd there is humor wihtout laughter — e.g., some of Jesus’ sayings seem humorous (you’re worried about a speck in your brother’s eye when you have a log dangling from yours….)
“Scholars have regularly argued that surely Justin cannot be referring to a book that was later deemed heretical”
Seems like an odd argument from a scholar given that many church leaders listed authoritative books that were later either labeled heretical or not considered canonical.
Are there any books, or chapters of books, out there you’d recommend that directly address the Hebrew proto-gospel hypothesis that you’d recommend? i.e. the equivalent of how “Did Jesus Exist?” addresses mythicist arguments, except explaining why the idea that the synoptics are translations of some lost Hebrew/Aramaic original gospel or proto-Matthew isn’t considered likely by scholars.
I don’t know of any. Most scholars haen’t thought it’s worth devoting much attention to because it’s hardly ever seen as even being a possibility that it’s an older form of Matthew.
Is there any reason to think that, whenever he talked about future annihilation of unrepentant sinners, Jesus was using hyperbole to warn people about the importance of repentance and did not mean it literally? Or that he was speaking in parables? Or that he was really trying to describe people’s present experience and despair as unrepentant sinners?
I’d say it’s possible. But then you’d have to figure out what he meant and what he had in mind really would happen, if it wasn’t what he said. And decide how to show that yoru conclusions are more probable than the other options, including that he meant what he said.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe that Justin Martyr still believed Jesus was “coming soon?”
YOu know, to be honest, I haven’t read Justin carefully enough in the past couple of years to remember. Do you have a passage in mind?