Loading...With this post I conclude my discussion to the Gospel of Peter – although, of course, I’m always happy to engage with any questions you have about it (or anything else). What we have seen so far is that the Gospel was known in antiquity, even though it came to be judged heretical. Our principal source of information about it is in a discussion of the church historian Eusebius, who mentions a Gospel of Peter known to a Syrian bishop Serapion, who eventually judged it inauthentic because it (allegedly) proclaimed a “docetic” understanding of Christ (that he was not really a human being who really suffered).
A Gospel fragment was discovered in 1886 that scholars almost immediately claimed to be a portion of the Gospel of Peter mentioned by Eusebius (and Serapion before him). But is it that? Here are the issues, laid out in brief order. Again, this is lifted from my discussion in my (and Zlatko Plese’s) book The Other Gospels.
***************************************************
The author of this account [the discovered fragment] writes in the first-person on two occasions, once without identifying himself (“I and my companions” v. 26), but the other time indicating that he is none other than the disciple Peter: “But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother…” (v. 60). Here then is a Gospel with the marks of antiquity, written in the name of Peter. Is it the Gospel of Peter known and proscribed by Serapion at the end of the second century?
Unfortunately,
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, THERE IS STILL HOPE!!!
Did the early church Fathers accept any other Gospel as authoritative other than the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
It depends on what you mean by church father. Orthodox fathers went with the four that became canonical, for the most part. But other church wirters had different ones they preferred.
Well by church fathers I’m talking about the traditional church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Iranaeus, Poly Carp, Justin Martyr, and the like. I mean did any of the traditional church fathers use other apocryphal gospels that are not related to the four?
No, the proto-orthodox fathers used some or all of the ones that became canonical, and it’s hard to discern if they thought that there were others that also should be included. There’s one passage in Justin that suggests he may have used the Gospel of Peter, but it’s disputed. None of these, before Ireneus, mentioned that there were four Gospels; and none before him gave the Gospels they used names or authors.
Off topic a bit, but I can’t find a post directly about this. Do you think Peter died in Rome shortly after the fires in Rome (about 65 AD)? This seems to be supported by the majority of scholars I’ve read (which doesn’t mean it reps the majority of scholars there are).
I’ve always assumed so and don’t know of any evidence to the contrary.
I find it interesting the cross has already become a symbol associated with Jesus, in much the same way it is now. I’m not sure this would happen in a society where crucifixions of criminals were commonplace. If Jesus died 100 years ago would churches have images of gallows above the door? If Jesus died 40 years ago would priests all have little electric chairs hanging around their necks? Having a giant talking cross makes me think it was written in a time and place where a cross was only thought of as a symbol of Jesus, and people weren’t used to crucifixions – so more likely later than the other gospels, and not within the Roman empire. Does this make sense or am I missing something?
yes, it’s a striking phenomenon. Although it should be said that Christians did not *depict* the cross in art for several centuries.
If the Gospel of Peter was not included in the canon because parts of it could be open to a docetic interpretation, couldn’t the same objection have be made about Mark, particularly the account of the crucifixion in which Jesus appears to not know what is happening and asks why God had forsaken him (15:34)? This could be interpreted as the divine Christ having left the body of Jesus, could it not? I know you have written many times about the contrast between Mark’s and Luke’s accounts of the crucifixion, but I don’t remember if you addressed whether Mark’s account could lend itself to a docetic interpretation.
Yes, Mark *could* be construed docetically. But so could all the Gospels. Peter simply seems more clearly leaning that way than the others (at least in the eyes of early proto-orthodox writers).
Hi Bart,
could you advise on the name Jesus, is this a Jewish name? Is this how the name is as was or as reflected in the early writings or did the name become introduced in translation to English? I have seen somewhere that the original name was Yeshua, if this is the case why does the English bible not have something like Jesheua ? Please advise on this and thank you for your time.
It all depends on what language you want to give the name in. In Hebrew it’s Yoshua (or Joshua); in Aramaic its Yeshua; in Greek its Iesous; in English its Jesus.
Thank you Bart , but its a bit confusing still, is it Jesus due to meaning in English, is Jesus an English word? Why not use say for example the English translation of Youshua for example? Thanks again and best regards.
Jesus is the transliteration of the Greek word ΙΗΣΟΥΣ. Joshua is the transliteration of the corresponding Hebrew word.
How does the name come to be “Jesus” in English, rather than “Joshua,” which has been an English name since at least the 15th Century?
Joshua is the transliteration of the Hebrew word; Jesus is the transliteration of the Greek word.
Does the book being incomplete have any bearing on the debate? For example, there are a few stupendous accounts in the part gospel that we do have (giant Jesus, walking talking cross, ect). Assuming that the book wasn’t just an account of Jesus’s crucifiction and also included a ministry narrative like most gospels, what are the odds that the miracles Jesus performed were that much more fantastic as well, thus increasing the strength of a docetic interpretation? Is this a legitimate though admittedly weak consideration for scholars or useless speculation?
Yes, many of our questions would be answered if we had the entire book (one of the questions being: was it an entire book!). The text as it stands is not necessarily docetic (probably is not). I’m afraid we have no idea what the other contents (e.g., the miracles) were like in it….