Loading...This is the second of my two posts on the Gospel of Peter. When the fragment that we now have was discovered by archaeologists in a cemetery in Egypt in 1886, it was almost immediately recognized as the Gospel of Peter, not because it had a title on it, but because it fit so well a description of the Gospel in the writings of Eusebius, the early church historian.
In two places in his ten-volume history of Christianity (from Jesus to his own day around 300 CE) Eusebius mnentions the book twice as one of the writings not accepted by the church as Scripture (Church History, 3. 3. 2; 3. 25. 6). And on one other occasion, Eusebius discusses the book at some length, in order to show why it had been excluded from consideration from the canon.
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!
Unrelated question:
In Mark 9:42, Jesus says:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”
I have heard the claim that Jesus is here condemning pedophiles.
What do you think of this interpretation?
I don’t think so at all. He’s talking about leading children astray from the purity of their faith. Jesus never addresses pedaphilia.
While I understand you are an atheist, if you were to ‘remake’ a bible more in line with your moral beliefs, which books would you include and/or exclude in the Bible? I don’t doubt much like the church fathers who canonized the current series/translations, you have your own moral beliefs that may cloud your judgment, however, I think it would be fascinating, what the result of you performing this mental exercise would look like.
Well, in trms of my moral beliefs I’d probably keep most of the Synoptics and the book of James and get rid of most of the later Deutero-Pauline letters (which support slavery and male domination, among other things) and definitely the book of Revelation.disabledupes{f4e073a118ea7c85751161b0387feffc}disabledupes
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I saw a debate you had with Jimmy Akin about a year or two ago. I was wondering what you thought of this response article he posted – where he essentially takes great offense to you referring to those who were supposedly resurrected at Jesus’ death (in Matthew 27:51-53) as “zombies”. He accuses you of “abusing the English language” in order to mock/attack these claims. Personally, I thought you used the word “zombie” not in a mean spirited way, but as a way to show the unbelievability of the claims. I think this article is mainly Jimmy having an emotional response to you debunking a tradition he strongly believes in.
https://jimmyakin.com/2022/03/zombies-at-the-crucifixion.html
Thank you!
Actually, I never used to use that phrase until I started hearing some evangelical Christian apologists use it, and I thought it was an interesting way to describe them. If Jimmy really believes this is a historical descriptiong, i.e. that actually happened, well more power to him. I wonder how one wuold demonstrate that historically???
Is there any reason to believe that early Christians rejected any authentic letters of Paul as scripture–either bc they wrongly believed that the letters were inauthentic, or for other reasons (such as disagreeing with the contents or finding them to be unimportant)?
Well some certainly did. When you read them you see that he’s attacking Christian opponents left right and center, often in very harsh terms. those people certainly would not have seen the letters as inspired by God! But of course we don’t have any writings from those people. We do have good evidence that some Jewish Christian groups rejected Paul’s authority (since for them he devalued the importance of Torah). But among the proto-orthodox authors whose writings survive, all the letters are simply assumed to be authentic and authoritative.
Also, do you think that any of the non-canonical texts that we know about
contained authentic teachings of Jesus or his 12 apostles that are not found elsewhere in the New Testament?
Some scholars think that some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas may go back to Jesus, but there aren’t any I’d probably put in that camp. I’ll be talking about the agrapha in a post soon, and there are some possibilities there.
Hello Bart. I have a bit of a complex question.
I have come to the view that Mark is specifically a Pauline Gospel written with his theology in mind. Paul’s main idea is obviously that Jesus death and crucifixion was a ransom for the gentiles to not observe the Jewish law and be saved from the apocalypse and join the Kingdom of God. Therefore Mark’s line in Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” seems to make sense in this context.
Matthew however copies this verse in Matthew 20:28 but I think he doesn’t understand Mark’s original meaning of the phrase since Matthew is all about observing the Jewish law and that this is what achieves salvation. Therefore this line may be a case of editorial fatigue since he is using a line from Mark’s theology (Jesus’s death bringing salvation to the many) in a way which does not fit with his own theology (observing the law is what brings salvation).
Do you think I’m right in this assessment? Thanks for your time and all you do.
Interesting question. My view is that Matthew not only retains the verse he retains Mark’s understanding of atonement. I do not think he imagines that keepoing Torah is what brings about atonement; those who believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection for salvation are still meant to keep God’s laws. Mark doesn’t have that view, and it’s very different from Paul’s — but not because it gets rid of the atonment. (Oddly, Luke is the only of our Gospels who gets rid of it: Luke, whose hero in Acts is Paul! Who preaches a gospel, in Acts, without the atonement!)
As Jesus saw himself as soon to fulfill the Jewish prophecy of the Messiah, and become King of Israel, did he expect gentiles to also be a part of the Kingdom of Heaven? Was the qualification for the Kingdom of Heaven of following the Jewish law practical or strictly “ethnic”? Did he expect the Kingdom of Heaven on earth to consist of everywhere on earth, or just Israel? And did he expect other gentile figures of righteousness, perhaps Cyrus the Great or such, to be resurrected in the Kingdom?
Yes, I think the parable of the sheep and the goats, and his statement that “Many would come from East and West” to enter the kingdom, and otehr such passages show that he thought Gentiles would be brought into the kingdom when they lived the way the God of Israel wanted.
Bart,
1) How early do you and other scholars think Docetism existed in the Christian church?
2) How early do Docetic like beliefs show up in the Jewish record?
1. I suppose most everyone (but not completely everyone) agrees that it is found among the opponents of Ignatius (ca. 110 CE). I think it is a couple of decades earlier in 1 John, but not everyone agrees. 2. I’m not award of Jewish support for a Docetic view of Jesus (but I may simply be in a brain fog: so what are you thinking of?)
Restating my second question: Did Jews in the early first century hold beliefs in which they believed God could make something only appear to happen but it really didn’t? Basically, I’m just wondering if the Christian Docetic views about Jesus *had* to be a later development or if there were Jewish beliefs that would have supported such a view immediately after Jesus’ death.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. Certainly angels and God himeself could come down in teh apparance of a human but not really have flesh adn blood.
Can you please give an example or two?
Genesis 18.
Are there any Jewish traditions before the 30s CE where an angel/phantom came to earth and appeared in the likeness of someone who was already alive on earth?
None that I know of, but I’ve not looked for it.
How is it that Serapion learned of a new gospel allegedly written by the apostle Peter and didn’t immediately demand to see it and read it, not to approve it but simply to see what new information it contained? Wouldn’t that have been of paramount importance for a church leader of that age, or any age, really? I mean, if we learned today of a new gospel credited to Peter, people would be clamoring to read it, wouldn’t they?
I’ve often wondered why people don’t do the things that seem to me to be the most obviously important thing in the world to do! And I’m continually amazed at how smart people can be so apathetic towar hunting for evidence and finding the truth. It’s a frustrating world.
In this particular case, if Serapion had a set canon of four Gospels, it would have been a bit different. As it was, he may have had a more fluid understanding of authoritative texts…
Bart,
Oddball question for you related to Docetism. After having a vision of Jesus who then disappeared into thin air, why do you think Peter concluded Jesus was resurrected up to heaven instead of concluding Jesus’ death was in appearance only and Jesus was assumed alive up to heaven? Do you think it’s a close call which interpretation of the event Peter could have concluded (even though it’s obvious which he choose)?
I’m not sure which text you’re thinking of. the Gospel of Peter doesn’t have either of those views.
My question doesn’t relate to any specific text, it’s just a hypothetical question. Do you think Jewish beliefs were available in the 30s such that Jesus’ followers could hypothetically have concluded from a vision of Jesus that Jesus’ death was just an illusion and in reality he was bodily raised up to heaven without ever experiencing death? Or do you think Jewish beliefs supporting such an interpretation did not exist in the ’30s? Basically, I’m just wondering if you think Jewish beliefs that could have supported docetism existed in the ’30s.
I don’t know if any Jews in the Hellenistic diaspora may have had views like that — but given how much many were adopted to Greek culture, I wouldn’t be surprised. But nothing like that is attested in Judaism in Israel at the time to my knowledge.