Loading...I am devoting this thread to understanding why the Apocalypse of Peter did not make it into the New Testament, when other Petrine books, especially 2 Peter, did make it in. I’ve summarized what happens in both these books, but to contextualize my remarks further, I have to provide information on yet another Petrine book that did not make it in, the “Gospel of Peter.” I’ve talked about this Gospel several times on the blog before, but since it is important to the train of thought here, I need to devote a couple of posts to it again. Here is what I say about the discovery of the manuscript (the manuscript that also contained the Apocalypse of Peter) and its contents. This discussion is taken from my book The Other Gospels, co-authored and edited with my colleague Zlatko Plese.
************************************************************
What we now call the Gospel of Peter was found in one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of Christian texts in the nineteenth century. In the winter season of 1886-87 a French archaeological team headed by M. Grébant was digging in Akhmîm in Upper Egypt, in a portion of a cemetery that contained graves ranging from the eighth to the twelfth centuries CE. They uncovered the grave of a person they took to be a Christian monk, who had been buried with a book. Among other things, the book contained a fragmentary copy of a Gospel written in the name of Peter.
It is a parchment manuscript …
To see the rest of this post, you will need to belong to the blog. If you aren’t a member yet, now’s the best time to join! Your membership fee will all go to charity, and you will learn about early Christianity to your heart’s content!
> “…other Petrine books.”
What is the scholarly view as to whether any of these text (“Apocalyse of…”, “Gospel of…”, “1/2 Peter”, et al) might have been originated from a common source?
That is, they are clearly all ascribed to Peter, but is there anything to indicate that some of them might have (for example) shared an author; or have come out of a common “Petrine Community”; etc?
For that matter, other than being associated with the apostle Peter, to what extent can they be said to hold anything like a shared “world view” or christology/theology?
They have different writing styles, different theological interests, and different overall concerns — so they appear to be different authors, all of whom wanted their readers to think they were Peter.
“…near the end of the Gospel [of Peter], an account of Jesus emerging from the tomb on the third day.The Gospels of the New Testament give no such report, but simply indicate that Jesus had been raised (when the women find the tomb empty).”
Why do you think that the canonical Gospels don’t record an account of Jesus’ resurrection? Even if the first “appearances” of Jesus were visions, why would the Gospel authors say that the tomb was simply found empty rather than that someone actually saw Jesus emerge from the tomb?
It’s a great question. I don’t know!
“It’s a great question. I don’t know!”
Do you think that the fact that the canonical Gospels report that a woman/women found an empty tomb, rather than that they saw Jesus come out of the tomb, makes it any more likely that there is at least a kernel of historical truth in the resurrection narratives, and that the Gospel authors took the hand that they were dealt?
Nope, don’t see why it would. You may want to read my discussion in How Jesus Became God.
My hypothesis — and, of course, this is mere speculation at this point — was that The Resurrection was already very familiar and well-known to the audience for the gospel accounts, so the gospels themselves were merely written as prolegomena, so-to-speak, for the Resurrection of Jesus as Messiah. In that way, maybe we can think of Paul’s writings as the “meat” of the gospel message — i.e. the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus the Messiah, and his imminent return as savior before the final judgment — and, therefore, the gospel narratives were something of a hagiography of this mysterious Christ figure. That would be why the earliest Gospel, Mark, doesn’t have an account of the resurrection, because that’s the part early Christian converts already knew. The biography of Jesus found in the Gospel were meant to supply the details leading up to said resurrection and exaltation.
Very interesting. I know absolutely nothing about such matters, but I am surprised that something buried for roughly a thousand years would not have rotted. Is there some way to explain this? Such as it being buried in a closed jar in a cave?
It has to do with *where* it’s buried. In the dry climate of Egypt, documents can last for well over a millenium.
We have early authors filling in details about Jesus’ life, like childhood miracles. Why do you think the Gospel of Peter is the only account of the actual resurrection? Seems like more people would have taken a stab at describing it. 1. Any chance that many of the early Christians didn’t really believe in a bodily resurrection, so such a story wouldn’t make sense to them, or seemed unnecessary to them? 2. This gospel and 2 Peter imply Jesus preached to the dead before his resurrection. Do we have any descriptive accounts of that in the early writings?
1. There were debates about the bodily resurrection, but even those Christians (the majority, I should think) who subscribed to it didn’t describe it. Not sure why! 2. Earliest description of the “harrowing of hell” is in the amazing Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the Acts of Pilate).
Interesting! Doesn’t Crossan have some unusual views on the Gospel of Peter?
On another note, what do you think about the suggestion (which I have seen in various places online) that γυναῖκα in Matthew 5:28 should be understood as “wife” rather than “woman”? I’m assuming not, since nothing in the context seems to require such a reading.
Yes, he thinks the *source* for Gospel of Peter, the “cross Gospel” as he calls it, was also the source for the canonical Gospels but htat Peter preserves it *better* than they. γυνη can mean both woman and wife, so determining the meaning is based on teh context.
Mr. Ehrman, Jesus presumably was killed for saying he was king of the yehudim (jews)… the apostols where jewish… the mother of Jesus was jewish and we know how important the mother’s ‘jewishness” is for the jews… and I’m not even getting into the importance of King David’s lineage… and yet, at some point in history there was a cut… it stoped being we (the jews)… and started being us and them (the jews)!
I know that in the gospel of John this cut seams to have already happened, yet in Paul’s letter to the Galatian’s he is arguing with Peter about the importance of being jewish. And in this Peter’s apocalypse again we see the cut is in place.
Are there any studies about the actual time this cut took place? (because there was one for sure!)
Huge literature on this. Look on the internet or on Amazon under the title “Parting of the Ways.”
Ok thank you! 🙂
I was without air of so emotional and intense this gospel of Peter.
How many times is Zeus mentioned in the Bible? Was was Barnabas’s real name?
Maybe just in Acts 14?
A little late with my questions….since it wasn’t discovered until the 19th century did historians/theologians knows of its existence? Was it referenced in other writings? Does any of the writings go back to the historical Jesus?
Yup, that was yesterday’s post. And no, it is not more historically accurate than the other Gospels.
For anyone interested further in the Gospel of Peter’s very unusual resurrection scene, here’s one recent explanation of why someone would include a gigantic Jesus and a talking cross:
https://www.academia.edu/16528749/Whence_the_Giant_Jesus_and_his_Talking_Cross_The_Resurrection_in_Gospel_of_Peter_10.39_42_as_Prophetic_Fulfilment_of_LXX_Psalm_18
(you’ll need an academia.edu account, to read the full article, though)
Dr Ehrman –
I’m listening again to Lost Christianities on audiobook, and it sparked a question about the Gospel of Peter: If only the Roman government had the power to order / perform crucifixion and this was known throughout the empire, why would someone have believed the narrative of shifting the responsibility away from Pilate? It would be like in our day someone believing that a mayor could order someone to the electric chair… Motivated reasoning at its finest?
Thanks in advance!
It’s amazing what people will believe. Just turn on certain news channels today!
Touché! Ha. Thanks much
Dr Ehrman –
And, if in GoP Jesus’s head reached above the sky – where (in the 1st century cosmology) was it supposed to be, exactly?
Thanks much.
Heaven!
Thank you. What an odd way to say it – it would seem more impressive to say “head in heaven”.
What’s your favorite aspect of this layer cake? The stuff above the top layer!