Loading...On this Easter Sunday I thought it would be appropriate to repost a blog from several years ago on a Gospel not in the New Testament — a Gospel that gives us an actual narrative of the resurrection. I often say that there is no story of Jesus’ resurrection in the the New Testament — and people think I’m nuts. Of *course* there is! No, there’s not. In the New Testament, Jesus is buried on a late Friday afternoon. The action picks up, then, on the third day when the women arrive at the tomb, only to find it empty.
The resurrection happened *between* these two events. It is never narrated. We have no account of Jesus being revived and coming out of the tomb.
But we do from *outside* the New Testament, in a book that some early Christians considered canonical Scripture, the Gospel of Peter. This was an account that was lost for many, many centuries. It deals not just with Jesus’ resurrection (though that is clearly the highlight), but with his trial and crucifixion as well. I give a fairly full summary of what happens in the Gospel and its distinctive emphases here in my earlier post.
******************************
Unfortunately, we have only a fragment of the the Gospel of Peter, which begins smack dab in the middle of an episode and ends, literally, in the middle of a sentence. The fragment comes to us from one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of Christian texts in the nineteenth century.
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!
The gospel of Thomas, Mary and Peter all make a close connection between Peter and Matthew/Levi.
And the supposed gospel of Matthew is the only one to have Jesus say that Peter is the rock upon whom he will build his church.
Shouldn’t this be considered a non-coincidence? ie that the authors of the gospels of Thomas/Mary/Peter all believed Matthew to have actually written the gospel accredited to him?
I don’t see the logic of that, no. None of them says anything about Matthew having written a gospel, let alone having written one called Matthew.
The gospel of thomas makes James the leader after Jesus. And places this passage alongside Jesus asking his disciples “who do you say I am?”. Just as the gospel of Matthew does when Peter is made the leader of the church. In the gospel of Thomas both Peter and Matthew are made to get the question wrong and its Thomas who answers well. So Thomas (the writer who places James as leader) understands Jesus; whereas the “traditional” writer Matthew (who places Peter as leader) misunderstands him.
In the gospel of Mary we have the traditional writer of the first gospel talking to Peter about what rules and laws of Jesus they should preach.
Shouldn’t these be considered as more than a coincidence? That the tradition of Matthew being the writer of the first goes back to at leas the gospels of Thomas and Mary, and that even opponents of orthodoxy accepted that tradition?
Sorry, I don’t see any force in the logic. I’m usually willing to accept a weak argument as at least an argument, but this seems like grasping at straws. disabledupes{ad9d1f48916bc91d8c994d2ed2cedc54}disabledupes
Well lets taken as given that “Thomas” had read “Matthew”. In Matthew’s gospel he reads the story of how Jesus asked his disciples who he was. Peter correctly answers that he is the messiah the son of the living god. And Jesus’s response is to say that he will build his church on Peter the rock.
In his own gospel then “thomas” (promoting James as the leader of church) has this same question posed to the disciples but where Peter and Matthew now answer incorrectly.
In seeking to discredit Peter’s authority to lead, “thomas” also happens, through a remarkable coincidence, to seek to discredit the disciple Matthew (who also gets the question wrong). The traditional author of the very gospel in which Thomas is drawing from is placed alongside Peter in a position of ignorance of the truth of Jesus.
No other disciple is mentioned in the gospel.
So we’re left with two options. The choice of discrediting Matthew is entirely coincidental to tradition of Matthew being the author of the first gospel, or “Thomas” accepted this tradition and wanted to discredit the actual disciple Matthew who backed Peter as leader of the church. Surely we shouldn’t pick the first option?
Sorry, I don’t think it’s persuasive. We just don’t know what kind or how many traditions about which apostles and how many writings by which apostles would have been available to “Thomas.” There are simply too many gaps in our knowledge to make these kinds of leaps.
A wonderful text for Easter Sunday. Thanks for posting it.
Although it’s written in first person, doesn’t the fact that it’s written in Greek disqualify the disciple Peter as being the author?
In my view, yes. (Or that it’s written at all!) So too all the books claiming to be written by Peter from early Christianity.
Was the Gospel of Peter mentioned by any of the early church fathers in their discussion of heresies, or in any other of their writings? What about the other texts in this manuscript?
Yes, there’s an extended account in Eusebius with reference to a late second-century bishop of Antioch, Serapion. I discussed it on the blog last year: https://ehrmanblog.org/another-book-by-peter-that-could-have-become-scripture/
Mark Goodacre in his blog had a new hypothesis for the walking, talking cross some years ago. Something about “cross” being a misspelling of “crucified one”? But that doesn’t make sense if we already have Jesus as the crucified one.
Sorry for the fragmentary recollection, but I recall that it made that passage read much better. Do you know Goodacre’s hypothesis?
It seems as if the author doesn’t know about Judas’s death as he mentions “But we, the twelve disciples…” Is that just an error or is there some other explanation for why he would mention 12 disciples? It would be too early for Matthias to be already be part of the team.
Paul too speaks of the 12 seeing Jesus after his death; my guess is that not everyone knew the Judas story (stories)
“The soldiers standing guard awaken the centurion, who comes out to see the incredible spectacle.”
So, it sounds like the gospel has the commanding Centurion sleeping at the tomb with a few soldiers standing guard. That would seem to be an awfully denigrated assignment even for the most junior Centurion the hastatus posterior – who still commanded a century of 80.
When Jesus was interred, he was wrapped in a burial shroud which was left behind. This means he must have been naked when he left the tomb. But none of the post-resurrection appearances mention nudity. So where did he get any wardrobe in the interim? Perhaps he entered a clothing store and explained he had just risen from the dead and needed something to wear!
I know the above is pretty silly, but questions like that can be hard to simply dismiss and even harder to answer.
I guess they don’t mention his clothes either. Note: when Samuel appears to Saul he’s fully clothed. Maybe in the afterlife you get your wardrobe returned to you….
This is a very interesting text, and it comes closer to the resurrection than anything in the NT.
But we do not actually SEE the resurrection here either, do we?
We hear a great noise, we see the heavens open up and two men (presumably angels) descend.
We then see the two angels come out of the tomb with the resurrected Jesus.
So Jesus presumably resurrected shortly before that.
But we don’t see it. We do not even know whether the angels see it.
Do yo umean we don’t see Jesus waking up? Nope. We see him leaving the tomb.
Is the tomb so small and narrow that immediately upon waking up Jesus leaves?
Maybe that is what some real tombs are like.
But I don’t think that fits with the two angels going in and then emerging with Jesus.
All three were in the tomb simultaneously.
At least the angels were presumably active the whole time.
So, did Jesus awake before or after the angels entered the tomb?
It could be that Jesus woke up at the “great noise”.
The angels then came to assist the newly resurrected Jesus.
What-s the dating of the Gospel of Peter? If it’s later than the canonical gospels, does this reflect its reliability?
It’s usually dated to 120 CE or so, something like 30 years after the final NT Gospel, John. And yes, that has serious implications for it’s reliability (written about a century after the events it records); but later sources, of course, can preserve much earlier traditions.
Dr. Ehrman:
In your recent debate with Justin Bass about whether Jesus was resurrected, he said that: (1) you conceded that if Mary really appears as claimed, that in turn supports those who claimed to see the resurrected Jesus; (2) there’s nothing in “the literature” where an enemy of Christianity converts to the faith (citing Dale Allison, and discounting instances like the Baal Shem Tov because no enemies of his converted following some associated experience); (3) that Jesus predicted Christianity will go to the ends of the earth (or someone put that phrase on his lips), and it happened, so there must be some truth to the resurrection claims; and (4) people worldwide throughout history have dreamt of or seen Jesus (this doesn’t happen with other religious figures/contexts), including people who’ve never heard of him, and people in other faiths, like historian/theologian Pinchas Lapide, have found the resurrection compelling as an historical event, so that’s further support for its veracity.
The debate had a lot of back and forth and interruption, and you didn’t get a chance to thoroughly retort on these points. Do you have any reflections on these? Perhaps worth a post?
How ’bout you raise one at a time (in comments on different days), explain it, and I’ll respond?
Hi Bart,
Are there any non-Christian historical writings before 312AD that highlight the tensions between the Jews and Christians?
The Background for this question:
It turns out that the Palestinian Talmud was first presented about 200AD and other commentaries been added to it later. In this Talmud, Jesus was mentioned as a heretic, but he wasn’t been defamed or mocked there. This doesn’t make sense, does it?!!
Unless there were no true tension between the Jews and Christians before 312AD, except in the mind of some church fathers which didn’t affect the Christian population until after 312AD.
This probably does make more sense: as the Jews at that time were furious at the Romans for the temple destruction, and I can imagine that Christians to them were “the enemies of our true enemy”. And the Christians were busy on converting the Pagans rather than the Jews because: if the Jews didn’t believe in Jesus when he was among them, then how could they believe in him when he is not.
So, I am assuming here that there was no true tension between the Jewish population and the Christian population until the Christians took power after 312AD. Hence the question.
I’m not sure what kinds of writings you’re referring to. What do you have in mind? We have references to Jewish leaders turning Jesus over for punishment in Josephus and Tacitus; a possible reference to a Jewish uprising becaues of Christ in Suetonius, etc. Is that the kind of thing you’re talking about? But why non-Xn writings? (There aren’t many pagan writings about Xns, of course, in the first three centuries) Why would you discount the writings of one of the two disputants if you want to know if there was s dispute? The theme is dominant in the writings of the NT (Gospels, Acts, Paul, Hebrews, Revelation), apostolic fathers (Ignatius, letter of Barnabas), church leaders / theologians (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Serapion, Origen), and on and on.
I would add Marcion to the list.
Let me clarify: the Palestinian Talmud didn’t defame Jesus except that he was a heretic. This could be a note (not an evidence) for a possible anomaly. This anomaly could derive the assumption that I have mentioned in my previous comment.
Now … the Trinitarians today have the upper hand, and many of their leaders are repulsive toward the Unitarians, and the Unitarians approach toward the Trinitarians are through love and tolerance.
But it has been suggested that the Trinitarians before 312AD were approaching their Roman oppressors through love and tolerance until they gain total power after 312AD.
It would be a bit surprising if these Trinitarians (before 312AD) were approaching the Jewish population in manner that is different than the love approach toward their Roman pagans.
Now … All the above is just some deduction of assumptions without any sufficient direct data. And assumptions without data cannot stand firmly in front of assumptions with data. So, I am asking here about possible data.
I will rephrase my previous question as follows:
Are all the available accounts before 312AD suggest true tensions between the Jewish population and the Christian population, or are there some accounts that can suggest otherwise?
I wouldn’t say there were any Trinitarians before 312 CE.
There are very heated debates among scholars of early Christianity about whether there was ever a falling out between Jews and Christians in the early centuries. Even to the middle ages. That may be hard to imagine, but, the argument is that Christian authors *constructed* an argument that did not exist on the ground. The debate is normally referred to as being over the alleged “Parting of the Ways” If you look it up you’ll see. I think that those who think there never was a parting (between Judaism and Xty) are completely wrong, and have written about it. Maybe I’ll post on it down the line.
Yes. I agree. There were no Trinitarians even before 325AD. I just meant the mainstream Christians before 312AD that ended up becoming the Trinitarians in 325AD.
Also, I was comparing the mainstream Christians today with the mainstream Christians before 312AD. But from the boundary of the definition, you are very accurate: there were no Trinitarians before 312AD.
I will look at the “Parting of the Ways” in the search engine, it does seem interesting. Thank you.
Like most skeptics, I believe that the Appearance Stories are theological fabrications. If that is the case, it is odd to me that none of the authors of the canonical Gospels had Jesus exit his sealed tomb in front of a large crowd. If you are going to make things up, why not have the actual resurrection witnessed?
Not sure. Maybe because everyoe knew that the disciples did not come to believe in it right away?
What are the reasons for thinking this Gospel wasn’t based in Peter’s testimony?
It is difficult to find any connections between the themes of the Gospel (severe anti-Judaism; unusual views of Christ, the heightened miraculous character) with anything connected with the apostles in the 50s; the Gospel appears to be familiar with other Gospel traditions produced long after Jesus’ death (esp. the Gospel of Matthew but also John, etc.); and there’s really nothing in it to connect it with Peter at all. By the second century we start getting books alledged produced by Peter (two apocalpyses, two or three letters, etc, along with legenday accounts of his life (e.g., Acts of Peter), so it’s usuallythought this is another of them.
I was listening to Tom Holland’s history podcast and when he was covering Jesus he went over all the facts that historians can determine about Jesus. He also said that Jesus remaining silent in front of Pilate was likely historical and that it may suggest, to some degree, that Jesus was embracing his fate or accepted it on some level. What is your take on this Bart? Did Jesus interpret his impending death as something essential to his ministry, or do you think he would have seen it as undermining everything he was doing?
I used to say that too — but it was not (in my view; I don’t know about Holland’s) because Jesus thought he had to die, but because he really did think he was the messiah and couldn’t well deny it. So he just kept silent. These days, though, I’m not sure there actually was a trial; Pilate may simply have heard he was a trouble maker calling himself the king and condemned him. If there was a trial, we have almost Zero way of knowing what happened or what was said. No one was tkaing notes, and our first record of it comes 40 years later from someone who didn’t know either Aramaci or Latin and wasn’t there (none of Jesus’ followers were there!)
Very true Bart
Have you ever wondered what the next word will be? Could this be a possibility? “Λευεις του Αλφαιου, ον Κυριος [ἠγάπησεν]…” I doubt that “Levi” and “Matthew” were the same person.
Oh yeah, me and hundreds of other scholars! But, regrettably, there’sno way to know.
The Gospel of Peter manuscript is available online here: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/GP/150dpi/55-59.jpg
I’m trying to make out the letters of the last line starting with what looks like “λευ…” It is not what I had expected.
How do you transcribe the letters and what do they spell?
λασσαν — continuing from teh previous line: θαλ. So, altogether, θαλλασσαν, “sea.” You can find the Greek text, among other places, in my book with Z. Plese, Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations.
Re: Your book with Z. Plese, Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations.
I was not aware of this book. Thanks! I can kind of see how the transcription works now. Your transcription Λευεις ὁ του Αλφαιου is better than the one transcribed from H. B. Swete’s on Early Writings: Λευεις του Αλφαιου. I’m amazed at the work of you scholars who can read that ancient script!
If you can read Greek, it doesn’t take long to read manuscripts, just a few hours of instruction usually does it, and some (a lot) of practice.
Dr. Ehrman,
Several notable scholars such as yourself, Crossan, and Lüdemann take the position that Paul and Jesus’ early followers believed that the risen Jesus appeared bodily. (Although you, along with Crossan, Lüdemann, and so forth believe that in actuality they were only visionary experiences). So I’m very clear on that. My question specifically is, if you were to make an estimate, what % of contemporary scholars (meaning qualified scholars in general, regardless of their personal worldview) do you think agree with you and the others that this bodily view was the one indicated by Paul? Even an appraisal in general terms such as “most” “overwhelming majority” “nearly all” are helpful.
I think the vast majority. But I’ve never asked around!