Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:50:54.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Jerry W. McCant
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 258 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Notes

[1] Eusebius, H.E. VI.xii. 3.

[2] In addition to Serapion's letter preserved in Eusebius (H.E. XI.xii.3), cf. Jerome, De Vir. iii.l; Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10:17; Justin Martyr, Apology 1.35, 40; Dialogue 97, 106; GP 2:4.

[3] Bouriant, Urbain, ‘Fragment du texte grec du livre d'Enoch et de quelques écrits attribués à saint Pierre’, Memoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique francaise du Caire, tom. IX, fasc. 1 (Paris, 1892), pp. 137–42.Google Scholar Bouriant discovered the fragment at Akhmim (ancient Panopolis) in Upper Egypt.

[4] Robinson, J. Armitage, ‘The Gospel According to Peter’, The Gospel According to Peter and the Revelation of Peter (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1892), pp. 13–14Google Scholar; Zahn, Theodor, Das Evangelium des Petrus (Erlangen, 1893), pp. 143–80Google Scholar; Harris, J. Rendel, A Popular Account of the Newly-Recovered Gospel of St. Peter (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893), p. 35Google Scholar; Turner, C. H., ‘The Gospel of Peter’, JTS 2 (1900–1901), p. 163Google Scholar; Adam Fyfe Findlay, Byways of Early Christian Literature (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1923), p. 90Google Scholar; Moulton, J. H., ‘The Gospel of Peter and the Four’, ET 5 (1893–1894), p. 301Google Scholar; Swete, H. B., ΕΤΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ KATA ΠΕΤΡΟΝ (London: T & T Clark, 1893), pp. 12, 122. For more recent treatmentsGoogle Scholar, cf. Mara, M. G., Évangile de Pierre (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1973), pp. 107–11, 132–40Google Scholar; Denker, Jürgen, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrus-evangeliums. Ein Beitragzur Frühgeschichte des Doketismus (Frankfurt: Herbert Lang Bern, 1975), pp. 111–25.Google Scholar

[5] For example: Semeria, P., ‘L'Evangile de Pierre’, RB (1894), p. 524Google Scholar; MacPherson, John, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, ET 5 (1893–1894), p. 560Google Scholar; Meunier, C., L'Evangile selon saint Pierre (Boulogne sur Mer, 1893), p. vGoogle Scholar; Dibelius, Martin, ‘Die Alttestamentliche Motive’, Botschaft und Geschichte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953), pp. 241–2Google Scholar, and Maurer, Christian, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, NT Apocrypha, ed. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm and Hennecke, Edgar, tr. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), p. 179.Google Scholar The writer is well aware that Christian Maurer suggested that GP might not necessarily be docetic. However, Maurer never argued his case and his hypothesis has never been tested. It is the purpose of this article to argue that Maurer's insightful suggestion was correct that scholars who have said the GP fragment was docetic have not been correct in their assessments.

[6] Vaganay, Leon, L'Évangile de Pierre (Paris: J. Gabalda et Fils, 1930), p. 10Google Scholar doubts the reliability of Eusebius as an archivist. He thinks the church historian ‘forces a little the sense of the letter of Serapion’ and quite properly notes that Eusebius ignored the ‘double witness’ of Serapion that even though there was some heresy, GP was predominantly orthodox.

[7] The ‘double witness’ must not be ignored; Serapion did claim to find error in GP, but he also said that for the most part GP was ‘in accordance with the true teaching of the Savior’.

[8] Dibelius, Martin, Botschaft and Geschichte, pp. 241–2.Google Scholar

[9] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition, ‘The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600)’ (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1976, 3rd printing), Vol. 1, p. 89.Google Scholar

[10] Eusebius H.E. VI.xii.6; Cf. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrine (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 141Google Scholar; Pelikan, Jaroslav, ‘The Emergence of Catholic Tradition (100–600)’, p. 89Google Scholar; Fortescue, Adrian, ‘Docetism’, Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons, 1926), Vol. 4. p. 832.Google Scholar

[11] Pelikan, Jaroslav, ‘The Emergence of Catholic Tradition (100–600)’, p. 174.Google Scholar

[12] Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies viii. Much can be learned about docetism by reading antidocetic literature (i.e. I John; the letters of Ignatius, especially Trallians and Smyrneans; Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses; Tertullian, de carne Christi; Jerome, Adversus Lucifer). Some obviously docetic texts include ‘Latin Infancy Narratives’, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of Peter.

[13] Robinson, J. Armitage, ‘The Gospel According to Peter’, p. 19.Google Scholar

[14] Maurer, Christian, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, p. 184 renders ώς ‘as if’ rather than causally as do Robinson and Vaganay.Google Scholar

[15] This writer argues elsewhere that the four canonical gospels are ‘Peter's’ primary sources.

[16] Only Matthew (26. 57) names the high priest Caiaphas.

[17] Schweizer, Eduard, The Good News According to Mark, tr. Madvig, Donald H. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970), p. 326 f.Google Scholar; Bultmann, Rudolf, The Gospel of John, tr. Beasley-Murray, G. R. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), pp. 661 f.Google Scholar All Septuagintal quotations are from Septuaginta, ed. Rahlfs, Alfred (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935).Google Scholar

[18] Bauer, Walter, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Christian Literature, tr. Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 760.Google Scholar

[19] Bauer, , Lexicon, p. 170.Google Scholar The most common translations of δέ are ‘but’ when a contrast is implied, ‘and’ when a simple connective is desired without a contrast, and frequently it need not be translated at all. In GP there is no correlative use of μέν … δέ.

[20] Bauer, , Lexicon, p. 170Google Scholar; Blass, Friedrich and Debrunner, Albert, A Greek Grammar of the NT and other Early Christian Literature, tr. Funk, Robert W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 231 f.Google Scholar

[21] Examples of such usage in the Synoptic gospels include Mt. 8. 24; Mk. 8. 29; Lk. 5. 16f.; 9. 51; 10. 38;24. 36.

[22] Vaganay, Leon, L'Evangile de Pierre, p. 236.Google Scholar

[23] Denker, Jürgen, Petrusevangelium, p. 120.Google Scholar

[24] Finegan, Jack, Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1969), p. 232.Google Scholar

[25] Martyrdom of Polycarp 8:3.

[26] Lindars, Barnabas, NT Apologetic (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 77 ff. contends that Isa. 53 is deeply imbedded in all NT Passion apologetic.Google Scholar

[27] Kelber, Werner H., ‘Conclusions: From Passion Narrative to Gospel’, The Passion of Mark, ed. Kelber, Werner H. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 161.Google Scholar

[28] Harris, J. Rendel, The Newlv-Recovered Gospel of Peter (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893), p. 29 f.Google Scholar

[29] For Jesus' final word from the cross, Luke prefers a redacted form of Ps. 30. 5 and John possibly gives us a gnostic word from the cross. Cf. Bultmann, Rudolf, John, p. 675.Google Scholar

[30] Lindars, Barnabas, NT Apologetic, p. 90Google Scholar reminds us that Ps. 22 became ‘a quarry for pictorial detail in writing the story of the Passion. Every detail of the tradition has its counterpart in prophecy.’ The same point was made by Dibelius, Martin, Botschaft, 1, p. 223.Google Scholar

[31] Traditionally, this has been taken as a cry of dereliction; on this, see Read, D. H. C., ‘The Cry of Dereliction’, ET 68 (1956–1957), pp. 260–2.Google ScholarBut Dibelius, Martin, From Tradition to Gospel, tr. Lee Woolf, Bertram (New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1965), p. 194 argues that it was an affirmation of faith!Google Scholar

[32] Grundmann, Walter, ‘δύναμις’, TDNT, Vol. 2, p. 297.Google Scholar When God speaks of himself in the first person, ‘power’ is again one of the terms used in the Targums, e.g. Tg. O. Dt. 33. 26, ‘And my power is in the highest heaven.’ Cf. Bruce, F. F., Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the NT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), p. 156.Google Scholar

[33] Moore, G. F., Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), Vol. 1, pp. 374, 472.Google ScholarBoman, T., ‘Das letzte Wort Jesu’, ST 17 (1963), p. 105 says the personal pronoun militates against this view.Google Scholar

[34] Lindars, Barnabas, NT Apologetic, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar Also, cf. Vaganay, Leon, L'Évangile de Pierre, p. 255 f.Google Scholar; Zimmerman, Frank, ‘The Last Words of Jesus’, JBL 66 (1947), pp. 466 f.Google Scholar; Maurer, Christian, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, p. 181Google Scholar allows ‘Power’ as a circumlocution for God, but he thinks GP's usage was a ‘toning down of Jesus' cry of despair’.

[35] Bruce, F. F., Jesus and Christian Origins, p. 156.Google Scholar

[36] For similar uses of ‘power’ cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 61:1–3; 88:2; 105:1, 128:2–3; 120:6; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.vii.2; Acts 8. 10 and discussion of it in Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles, tr. Wilson, R. McL. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971; German original, 1965), p. 303.Google Scholar

[37] Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica X.viii.30.

[38] Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica X.viii.33.

[39] Dibelius, Martin, ‘Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft’, Beiheft zur ZAW 33 (1918), p. 145.Google Scholar

[40] Amos 8. 9 may have stood behind the darkness motif in the canonical gospels. Cf. Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar uber das NT 2 (1951), p. 393Google Scholar; Taylor, Vincent, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London, 1933), p. 593Google Scholar; Achtemeier, Elizabeth, ‘Jesus the Light of the World: The Biblical Understanding of Light and Darkness’, Int 17(1963), p. 446.Google Scholar

[41] Amos 8. 9 associates darkness with the Day of the Lord. The disobedient will be smitten with ‘blindness and confusion and shall grope at noonday’ (μεσημβρία). Cf. Dt. 28. 28–29; Jer. 13. 16 connects darkness and stumbling as Peter does.

[42] Senior, Donald P., The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study (Leuven: University Press, 1977), p. 293.Google Scholar

[43] The singular κεΦαλς with the plural αύτν indicates that Israel is again being blamed collectively – at least the rulers who perpetrated this crime.

[44] The implications of suffering and the poisoned drink might possibly be interpreted martyr-ologically but not docetically.

[45] The fulfilment formula apparently does not refer to any OT passage unless it is Amos 8. 9 and the author is placing the crucifixion in the setting of the Day of the Lord motif.

[46] Since δύναμις and ίσχύς are almost synonymous terms (cf. Bauer, Lexicon, p. 384), and since ή ίσχύς μου in Ps. 22. 15 and 38.10 most likely stands behind this passage in GP, a purely physical interpretation of the passage is possible. For the view that the Lord's strength abandoned him in death, cf. M. G. Mara, Évangile de Pierre, p. 137.

[47] Without the allusion to Ps. 22. 1 and the context of GP 5. 19a, the argument that δύναμις indicates docetism might be more convincing.

[48] Bultmann, Rudolf. John, p. 675.Google Scholar

[49] Cf. also Mk. 16.19; Acts 1. 2,11, 22,10.16; Sir. 49. 14.

[50] Delling, G., ‘άναλάμβανεωιν’, TDNT, Vol. 4, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar He claims that ‘in later Jewish literature it is used of death generally’. Cf. Bauer, , Lexicon, p. 56Google Scholar, άνελήμΦθη = ‘has died’.

[51] Mara, M. G., Évangile de Pierre, p. 140.Google Scholar

[52] Bertram, Georg, ‘Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz aus und der Glaube an seine Auferstehung’, Festgabe für Adolf Deissmann (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1927).Google Scholar

[53] Maurer, Christian, ‘The Gospel of Peter’, p. 185.Google Scholar

[54] Moulton, J. H., ‘The Gospel of Peter and the Four’, p. 302.Google Scholar

[55] Mara, M. G., Évangile de Pierre, p. 220.Google Scholar

[56] GP 13. 56 presupposes a pre-existence Christology, but this is still not docetic; cf. Phil. 2. 5–11.

[57] Jesus is not a Christological title, but since that proper name is replaced with the title, Lord, its exclusion becomes important.

[58] Only passages in GP that are paralleled in the four NT gospels are being considered so that it will be shown how ‘Peter’ used and altered his sources.

[59] In the canonical gospels, only John (19. 41) specified that the place of burial was a garden; GP is more explicitly specific and says the place of burial was Joseph's Garden.

[60] This corporeal language stands in sharp contrast to the docetic Jesus of the Acts of John 93 who does not leave footprints in the sand when he walks and appears human only intermittently.

[61] Note the antidocetic use of the imagery of nails in such early Christian literature as Ignatius, Ad Smyrneans 1.2, II; Barnabas V.13; Justin Martyr, I Apology XXXV, Dialogue with Trypho XCV.3; Irenaeus Ad versus Haereses IV.xxxiv.4, V.xxxi.2;Tertulltian Adversus Mercian III.18.

[62] Bultmann, Rudolf, John, p. 694, n. 4.Google Scholar

[63] The term ήλος occurs in the NT only in Jn. 20. 20, 27; there is at least the possibility that ‘Peter’ is dependent on John.

[64] Vaganay, Leon, L'Évangile de Pierre, pp. 259–66.Google Scholar

[65] This was noted by Semeria, J. B., ‘L'Évangile de Pierre’, RB (1894), pp. 522–60.Google Scholar He also argued that GP 2. 3 and 6. 23–24 with the mention of the body was antidocetic.

[66] No judgment concerning the entire GP is possible since only a fragment is now available; speculations about the whole gospel are futile at this time and such speculations do not facilitate the interpretation of that portion of the apocryphal gospel which is now accessible for investigation.

[67] Modesty requires one to admit that Serapion could have had grounds for his judgment based on the whole gospel. Unfortunately, that is a moot question; it cannot be answered on the basis of available data. But, that portion of GP which is accessible to scholars is not a docetic document and those scholars who have claimed since 1886 that it was docetic have been in error. It raises the interesting question whether or not scholars indeed have the same gospel that Serapion banned. Could this be analogous to the two very different Gospels of Thomas?

[68] Hengel, Martin, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 15–21Google Scholar has shown that docetism was one way of disposing of the folly of the cross. Interestingly, the author of GP has not sought to remove the σκάνδαλον of the cross, but rather emphasizes it.

[69] The almost exclusive use of Lord instead of Jesus could have been attractive to a gnostic or docetic mind set, but it has already been shown that ‘Peter’ historicized this title and made it a proper name; thus, its exclusive use is not docetic.