Loading...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?
I’ve taken two posts to explain what the Gospel of Peter is, in order to set up this particular post. If you haven’t read the earlier posts, that’s fine. You’ll still get this one. If you have read them, even finer!
As I pointed out in the earlier , 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.
Here’s what I said about this smaller fragment in a post I published many years ago:
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!
1. I’m not clear on why scholars doubt Jesus could have said this. It echoes Matthew 10:16 and 28 and it doesn’t presume any divine or miraculous knowledge. 2. Don’t suppose there’s any reason to associate this gospel with the Q source?
1. I suppose most think it’s too clever by half; 2. Virtually none.
“… a teaching of Jesus prior to his arrest …”
I do not understand why this conversation should happen before Jesus’s arrest.
Why not after the resurrection?
Possibly.
If I may go off-topic, please Dr Ehrman? There is apparently a reference in Plato’s Republic (Book 2) about a righteous man being crucified. There is some debate about whether the Greek word used can mean ‘crucified’. It’s primary meaning is ‘impaled’ but some sources suggest that it can also mean crucified. Some theologians (including the late Pope Benedict) have naturally been interested in this passage, seeing it as some kind of Platonic foreshadowing of the death of Christ. Do you have any views on this, Dr Ehrman?
It’s not the word for “crucify” and in fact is a very weird word. I’m not sure it occurs anywhere else in this form outside the Republic 2.360, and never occurs in any form anywhere in ealry Christian writings, so far as I can tell. But it refers to being impaled on a stake, ont being nailed or tied to a cross.
Hi, Bart,
What can a person do to face the psycho-emotional distress that comes when being confronted with a truth other than the ones they have always believed in? (Regarding religious truth) Who can they turn to? What can they do with the fear they have?
I know your course and I wish you could even consider writing a book in the future.
My feeling is that would be a great help for people
My strong suggestion is to talk with others who have gone through the same thing and are familiar with the experience. And read books about it. And there are plenty of online resources and discussion groups. For one, look up Bart Campolo. He’s a terrific resource.
I do deal with the issue a bit in my discussion of why I left the faith in my book God’s Problem.
Bart, “Why Christianity?” Asked in your book Triumph of Christianity, I posted a response to your email, A connection between Cleopatra, Ptolemy-Caesar and Paul exists unknown to historians, told here
Rome and the Sanhedrin set out to create a peaceful Jewish religion from the remote desert outpost Yathrib, Arabia. Jesus was Egyptian, a Samaritan, born in Yathrib, returning there after the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene (the Zealot) because people who saw him after the Crucifixion thought he had risen from the dead. Rome and the Sanhedrin made him Bishop of Alexandria , a new church: The Coptic Church of Alexandria paid for by Rome, Mark is historically credited for it because Jesus was supposed to be dead, The Gospel of Thomas represents this era of Jesus after 33 AD. In this part of the world the true story of the Cross was known. Jesus taught Egyptian mysticism and held Egyptian knowledge which gave him surrounding healing powers. You are correct that Jesus had a small following, namely his relatives John and James, Peter and Andrew, the fishermen — traveling relatives, not “a following”.. He had no “disciples”, no “apostles”, it is myth made up by Paul’s traveling connpanions paid for by Rome, of which Jesus was not party to. A complete narrative is in my book “The Incarnation: Cleopatra’s Story of Jesus” — Egyptian Mysticism.
What do Jesus or the early Christians think of Baptism? Is it necessary for salvation? Is it mandatory to have baptism if one wants to go the heaven\kingdom of god?
Not in the way it is in some denominations today. Jesus himself was baptized but he was expecting the cominging kingdom, not a new religion, and so didn’t teach about it’s importance per se, so far as we know The ealry Xns assumed that it was simply part of coming into the community of Jesus’ followers and so took it for granted; later it became very much a requirement in some places, wiht instruction in the faiht to procede it.
Bart,
What is the consensus of scholars on the dating of the Gospel of Peter? And what leads them to this conclusion? I thought that John Dominic Crossan and others in the minority think that it may have been written before Mark? What is the basic argument leading them to think that? Do you think their arguments carry any weight? Short questions that probably have answers that need an entire course! Thank you.
Crossan (I only know of one scholar who agrees with him! But possibly others do?) thinks that the *source* for the Gospel of Peter was used also by Mark, but that Peter preserves it more accurately. I don’t see any grounds for thinking so, but he does tend to date sources most people see as later as in ffact earlier. The vast majority of scholars (again, virtually all that I know) think that it is early second century, as evidenced in its heightened anti-Judaism, its apparent use of Matthew etc., it’s highly legendary charcter, etc.
Got it. Ok, that makes more sense. I too notice that Crossan tends to date documents earlier than other scholars. He was the first biblical scholar that introduced me to the field and the first book I read was his Jesus – A Revolutionary Biography. I only am now realizing that he tends to be in the minority on various topics. Now that I’ve been reading your books and articles I’ll have to go back and read his books again and see if he can re-convince me that Jesus didn’t have an apocalyptic view because you sure have. I’m a theoretical physicist and I have to say that I can follow your logic and methodology much better than I can his, Borg’s and Funk’s. I find myself always frustratingly re-reading their sentences and thinking “Geesh…theoretical physics is a helluva lot easier.” Thanks again.
Hi bart
I heard that a resent study named “The hands
that wrote the bible” carbon dated 11-12 daniel in qumran from 180bc-170bc. Think dr.Kipp Davis mention it it this video in 38:33(time) https://youtu.be/4hI214-sD6g?si=d3iw7lX7LTOQGfk3.
But i am very skeptical of this study because the lingistic dating of the fragments in qumran go to 130bc the most , some have said that 11-12 fragments are even later(100bc) like dr.Kipp Davis. And i think the historical evitence shows that even if it was in 130 bc
1. dead sea scrolls writters intressted in just that kind of text, 2. The book of Daniel was probably war propaganda.
3.it didin’t need to be cannon
4.The fragments dated to about 130bce were minimal and primitive compared to fragment from the start of the 1st century.
But what do you think?
I think I”ve already answered this? We can’t carbon date mss withthat level of prcision. But since the book was written in the 160s, there’s nothing in particular that precludes that date per se.
Is it possible to get such carbon daiting to early?
Yes, in theory you can carbon date any organic material.
Has the fragment been authenticated, or is it possibly “forged”?
It’s definitely ancient, if that’s what you’re asking. It’s not really written by Peter, though, so in that sense would be an ancient fogery.
But if it was a post-Resurrection conversation (and was from the Gospel of Peter), wouldn’t that imply that it *was* a complete gospel, including Jesus’ ministry? Or am I reading too much into that?
No, it would show that the Gospel indicated Jesus had spoken with his disciples after his resurrection, not that it recounted his public ministry.
Right – I suppose I was just wondering how likely it would be to have a gospel that included only Jesus’ death and resurrection appearances/conversations without a pre-Passion narrative also(?) I suppose there’s no way to know?
There are Gospels like that; check out the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Pilate Gospels (e.g., in my book The Other Gospels)
Bart, I’m a new subscriber with possibly an old question: Are you purely a scholar, re gnosticism and early Christianity? Have you recorded, somewhere, personal beliefs or your life philosophy about spirituality?
(I’m an esoteric Christian, and a science-oriented person.)
Re the subject matter here, I don’t see why Jesus couldn’t have said that to Peter. Clement seems reliable.
I don’t have any personal stake in either; I’m an agnostic/atheist. I talk about my views a good bit on the blog and in some of my books, Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem and Heaven and Hell — all explaining how I moved away from being a committed Christain.