Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:14:53.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining Priorities: Another Look at the Gospel of Peter's Relationship to the New Testament Gospels1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Alan Kirk
Alan Kirk
Affiliation:
(Centre for the Study of Religion, 123 St George Street, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E8)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since a fragment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered at Akhmîm in 1886–7, and published in 1892, scholarship has been divided over its relationship to the New Testament gospels. In 1892 J. Armitage Robinson argued that the gospel was a tendentious appropriation of canonical material which contained no traces of a primitive Urevangelium. In 1893 Adolf von Harnack argued tentatively for its independence from the canonical gospels, while Theodore Zahn argued for a late date and complete dependence upon the four gospels. In the flurry of articles and monographs which followed, scholars aligned themselves with one or the other of these two positions, depending upon whether they viewed the new gospel's similarities with, or divergences from, the New Testament gospels as being more decisive. Since both striking similarities and striking divergences appear throughout the Gospel of Peter, a stalemate was soon reached, and scholarly interest in the question declined. In the late 1920s Gardner-Smith could write that ‘interest in the discovery has waned’, and Léon Vaganay that ‘a virtual silence has fallen upon the journals’. In his commentary Vaganay attempted to settle the argument in favour of the Gospel of Peter's dependence. Using literary criticism he showed how the material in the gospel could be seen as a free literary re-working of the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a re-working driven by sectarian and apologetic interests, as well as by the personal predilections of its author.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 572 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Robinson, J. Armitage, The Gospel according to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter (London: Clay, 1892) 30–3Google Scholar.

3 Harnack, A., Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893)Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Petrus (Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1893)Google Scholar.

4 Gardner-Smith, P., ‘The Gospel of Peter’, JTS 27 (1926) 255–71, esp. 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaganay, Léon, L'Èvangile de Pierre (2nd ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1930) 28Google Scholar.

5 Vaganay, , L'Évangile de Pierre, 18, 44, 52, 58, 316Google Scholar.

6 Johnson, B. A., ‘Empty Tomb Tradition in the Gospel of Peter’ (Diss., Harvard University, 1965)Google Scholar.

7 Denker, Jürgen, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums (Europ. Hochschulschr. 23; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1975)Google Scholar built upon Johnson's results, though he himself was less interested in a strict form-critical analysis.

8 Crossan, John Dominic, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985) 134,145–6Google Scholar; idem, The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) 17–20.

9 Koester, Helmut, ‘Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels’, HTR 73 (1980) 105–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Überlieferung und Geschichte der frühchristlichen Evangelienliteratur’, ANRW 25.12 (1984) 1463–542.

10 Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990) 213, 219, 231–8Google Scholar. A similar position is taken by Walter, Nikolaus, ‘Eine vormatthäische Schilderung der Auferstehung Jesu’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 415–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be pointed out that Koester dissents from major aspects of Crossan's thesis (219–20).

11 Brown, Raymond E., ‘The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority’, NTS 33 (1987) 321–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the early period of research on the fragment a similar position was taken by Stanton, V. H., ‘The “Gospel of Peter”: Its Early History and Character Considered in Relation to the History of the Recognition in the Church of the Canonical Gospels’, JTS 2 (1901) 1–25Google Scholar.

12 Neirynck, Frans, ‘The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark’, in The New Testament in Early Christianity (edited by Sevrin, Jean-Marie; Leuven: Leuven University, 1989) 140–57Google Scholar. This article first appeared as a paper read at a Leuven colloquium in August, 1986.

13 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 333–8Google Scholar argues against literary dependence. Because of the paucity of verbatim agreement with, and episodic divergences from, the New Testament narratives, the Gospel of Peter must have taken shape ‘in the 2nd century when, because of a dearth of copies, most Christians' knowledge of written Gospels was through hearing an oral communication that combined and confused details’ (335).

14 This amounts to a recovery of Le'on Vaganay's oft reiterated position in L'Évangile de Pierre, though we shall be arguing, as he did not, that the perceptions of form criticism must be critically integrated with insights arising from consideration of the ancient author's sectarian concerns which affected his (or her) editorial treatment of received traditions.

15 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 333–8, 343, note 60Google Scholar; see also Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 219Google Scholar.

16 Crossan, , Four. Other Gospels, 142–3Google Scholar; idem, Cross That Spoke, 173.

17 Green, Joel B., ‘The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative?’, ZNW 77–8 (1986–7) 293–301, esp. 297Google Scholar. This similarity has been universally noted by scholarship since the fragment's discovery.

18 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 329Google Scholar, points out that many scholars consider this pericope to be a special Lukan creation. It may be seen as a sequel to the forgiveness the Lukan Christ extends to his executioners in Luke 23.34.

19 Crossan, himself points to this parallel (Cross That Spoke, 167)Google Scholar.

20 , M. G. Mara, Évangile de Pierre (SC 201; Paris: Cerf, 1973) 118–19Google Scholar, suggests that the combination of the cross being lifted up (Gos. Pet. 4.11a), and the thief's declaration of Christ as Saviour of mankind (Gos. Pet. 4.13c) is a narrative working up of John 12.32, ‘And I, if I am lifted up, will draw all to myself.’ See also John 3.14.

21 Crossan, , Cross That Spoke, 173Google Scholar.

22 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 328Google Scholar.

23 Denker, , Theologiegeschichtliche Stellung, 49Google Scholar, argues, ‘While in Mark and Matthew there are two thieves who revile Jesus, Luke has differentiated them. According to Bultmann, this is a sign of further development, and in fact into two types: the stubborn and the repentant sinner. Gos. Pet. does not know this differentiation. It has one thief speaking, but the opposition between the two thieves is foreign to it. Therefore, Gos. Pet. represents a stage from which the setting into opposition and the dual typecasting can develop. Luke has progressed beyond this stage.’ However, the analysis of the narrative concerns of the author carried out above provides an adequate response to this argument. The author needs just one thief to focus the narrative upon the ‘villainous Jews’ and can comfortably eliminate the other. Furthermore, no ineluctable law governs the development or ‘trajectory’ of a pericope or the vicissitudes it may encounter in the diverse socio-historical settings in which narratives are shaped.

24 Gardner-Smith, , ‘Gospel of Peter’, 256Google Scholar wrote, ‘If we seek a proof that “Peter” did not know John surely we have it here.’

25 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 335Google Scholar.

26 Crossan, , Four Other Gospels, 143–4Google Scholar; idem, Cross That Spoke, 168.

27 Crossan, , Four Other Gospels, 138–9; 145–8Google Scholar, argues for the more primitive character of the ‘gall and vinegar’ statement of Gos. Pet. 5.16 on the grounds that it is closer to the wording in Ps 68.22 and has not yet been split up into different episodes as in the synoptic gospels.

28 Noticed by Brown, (and others), ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 343, note 62Google Scholar.

29 Mara, , Évangile de Pierre, 131–3Google Scholar, notes that Blinzler, Josef, The Trial of Jesus (Westminster: Newman, 1959)Google Scholar, argued that the purpose of the gall and vinegar was to poison Jesus and hasten his death in view of this Scriptural injunction. Crossan, , Cross That Spoke, 209Google Scholar, points to the close connection between gall (χου) and poison. Vaganay, says that Zahn was the first of several scholars to propose this (L'Évangile de Pierre, 254Google Scholar, citing Zahn, , Das Evangelium des Petrus, 31)Google Scholar.

30 See Vaganay, , L'Évangile de Pierre, 261Google Scholar.

31 Mara, , Évangile de Pierre, 102–3Google Scholar, states that the ‘abused and reviled Christ’ is the ‘deep meaning of the account’, and that the narrative strives to depict Christ ‘as the one who fulfills the man of sorrows of Isaiah 50.6’.

32 Mara, , Évangile de Pierre, 121,130–3Google Scholar, argues that the Gospel of Peter has a tendency to make the Jews the actors in bringing about the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies about the Christ. This tendency, Mara asserts, clearly renders the Lord as the subject of 4.14.

33 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 343, note 62Google Scholar comments, ‘It would fit GPs hostility toward the Jews if because of the intercession of the wrongdoer, they punished Jesus.’

34 This is confirmed by Denker, , Theologiegeschichtliche Stellung, 51–2Google Scholar.

35 Mara, , Évangile de Pierre, 130–2Google Scholar argues, as was mentioned above, that the author makes Jews the ones who bring about fulfilment of the OT prophecies regarding Christ. Thus in Gos. Pet. 5.16, the persons who give Jesus a drink (persons of ambiguous identity in the New Testament passion accounts) become Jews.

36 Crossan, , Four Other Gospels, 140–1Google Scholar.

37 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 329Google Scholar.

38 Neirynck, , ‘Apocryphal Gospels’, 155Google Scholar. Neirynck points out the Gospel of Peter likewise locates Pilate's claim to be clean of Christ's blood to a place after the resurrection and suggests that this is another example of a ‘transferred motif’. Compare Matt 27.25.

39 As has been suggested by Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 329Google Scholar, and Vaganay, , L'Évangile de Pierre, 55–6Google Scholar.

40 Crossan, , Four Other Gospels, 141Google Scholar. Crossan appears not to have noticed that this Lukan, phrase surfaces in Gos. Pet. 8.28Google Scholar.

41 Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 329–30Google Scholar.

42 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 234Google Scholar.

43 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 235Google Scholar.

44 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 232Google Scholar. See Denker, , Theologiegeschichtliche Stellung, 43Google Scholar, for some slightly different ideas on the contours of the primitive story.

45 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 71Google Scholar.

46 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 217–18, 232–3Google Scholar.

47 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 235–7Google Scholar.

48 Denker, , Theologiegeschichtliche Stellung, 47Google Scholar;Walter, , ‘Eine vormatthäische Schilderung’, 423Google Scholar. Koester discards the report to the authorities as being an accretion on the primitive story, so he does not make this detail a part of his argumentation.

49 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 233, note 2Google Scholar.

50 Christ's, head is ‘overpassing the heavens’ (Gos. Pet. 10.40)Google Scholar. Compare the further reference to heavenly ascent given in Gos. Pet. 13.56 by the angel: ‘For he has risen and is gone thither whence he was sent.’

51 Denker, himself calls this and ‘appropriate style’, citing a parallel in Acts 26.14Google Scholar, where Paul, and his companions fall to the ground at the sudden shining of a light (Theologiegeschichtliche Stellung, 47)Google Scholar.

52 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 48–9Google Scholar, argues that Matt 28.4 lacks ‘the awakening’, which is ‘the expected accompaniment’ of the ώς νεκρο state brought on by a visionary experience. But not every case of incapacitation induced by a visionary sight is followed by a divine resuscitation. See Dan 5.6; 8.27; Acts 9.4–9.

53 Vaganay, , L'Évangile de Pierre, 289–90Google Scholar.

54 Vaganay, L., L'Évangile de Pierre, 275–8Google Scholar. See also Craig, William Lane, ‘The Guard at the Tomb’, NTS 30 (1984) 273–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Mara, Évangile de Pierre, shows how this pericope is animated by apocalyptic sentiments. Mara suggests that the seven seals placed on the tomb (Gos. Pet. 8.33) echo Rev 5.1, which likewise ‘focuses on the triumphant Lamb, the glorious Christ, the only one capable of opening the seven seals’ (170). The loud voice from heaven on the Lord's, day (Gos. Pet. 9.35)Google Scholar finds a counterpart in John's experience in Rev 1.10. Compare also Rev 11.11–12 which describes a loud voice, a resurrection, and an ascent to heaven (177–8). Rev 10.1–3 describes a cosmic figure of gigantic proportions (183–4).

56 See Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 52–4Google Scholar, and Harnack, , Bruchstücke, 33–4Google Scholar.

57 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 77–8Google Scholar. See also Crossan, , Cross That Spoke, 354–5Google Scholar, and Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 236–7Google Scholar.

58 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 77–8Google Scholar; Crossan, , Cross That Spoke, 354Google Scholar.

59 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 79–80Google Scholar.

60 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 237Google Scholar.

61 BDF 91; BAGD, 601. Bauer cites examples of this usage from classical and hellenistic literature.

62 Johnson, , ‘Empty Tomb Tradition’, 78Google Scholar.

63 Harnack, , Bruchstücke, 29Google Scholar, says ‘Matthew 28.1 offers the obviously older version, not yet influenced by Christian usage.’

64 Koester, , Ancient Christian Gospels, 220–30Google Scholar, et passim; Crossan, , Four Other Gospels, 137, et passimGoogle Scholar.

65 Note the objections of Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 326Google Scholar; Black, C. Clifton II, Review of The Cross That Spoke, JR 69 (1989) 398–9Google Scholar; Green, Joel B., Review of The Cross That Spoke, JBL 109 (1990) 356–8Google Scholar; Fuller, Reginald H., ‘In Search of the Earliest Passion Accounts’, Int 45 (1991) 71–2Google Scholar.

66 This is not to say that the Gospel of Peter preserves absolutely no traces of oral traditions extant in the second century. Gos. Pet. 3.6–7, where Jesus is haled and placed on a judgement seat, is echoed in Justin, Apol. 1.35Google Scholar, suggesting that this depiction may have had a wide enough oral circulation to be available to both writers (Stanton, , ‘The “Gospel of Peter”’, 11–12)Google Scholar.

67 On this point see again Brown, , ‘The Gospel of Peter’, 334Google Scholar.