Those "few fragments" are the ones discovered at Akhmim in Egypt, in 1886, by the French archaeologist Urbain Bouriant, buried alongside an Egyptian monk, who may very well have been the monk who made the transcription that he then took with him as a birthday gift for Jesus or his entry ticket into Paradise. Unfortunately neither completed that journey, and they are now on view to anyone who wishes at the Cairo Museum.
"Peter" also has the distinction of being the first non-Canonical Gospel to be rediscovered. Two other papyrus fragments from Oxyrhyncus (P.Oxy 4009 and P.Oxy. 2949), carbon-dated to the 2nd, or possibly the early 3rd century, have turned up since, and some scholars argue that they belong to "Peter", while others just as vehemently disagree. There is so little of any of these fragments that in truth they could be fragments from almost any version of the Jesus narrative.
Quotations from the Bouriant text can be found in a widely-circulated letter of Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch from 190–203 CE, who claims to have found "upon examining it" that "most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour," though he also felt that some parts might encourage its readers to fall into the Docetist heresy, according to which
the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance, without any true reality¹Serapion's full rebuttal of "The Gospel of Peter" is lost, though it is mentioned by Eusebius; but we can assume he also condemned the inclusion of the supernatural, and its "fanciful" (i.e not in agreement with the true, Christian doctrine) depictions of the angels and the descent into Hell, and especially the ability of the Cross itself to speak.
"The Gospel of Peter" is also mentioned by Origen in his "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew" (10:17), where he states that "the Gospel of Peter, together with 'the Book of James'", was the source for the story, which later became Church doctrine, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph "by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary" - a story that was needed if Mary was also to be considered a Virgin, not just when she had Jesus, but forever afterwards.
This comment by Origen has puzzled the scholars, as no version of "The Gospel of Peter" has yet been found which contains the birth or infancy of Jesus, let alone his mother; so the scholars do what scholars always do, and deduce that, since a man as idol-worshipped as Origen cannot simply have been wrong, he must have been referring to another altogether, which happened to bear the same name, "The Gospel Of Peter". This "Gospel of Peter" was condemned as heretical by Serapion, in the letter referenced above, at Rhossos, circa 70–160, which was problematic, because the Rhossos community had already started using it in their liturgy. In case Serapion was insufficient, further condemnations of heresy were issued by Jerome, indirectly by Eusebius, and in the "Decretum Gelasianum" of Pope Gelasius I.
"The Gospel of Peter" explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle Peter, and is therefore included among the pseudepigraphica, on the grounds that it clearly was not written by him. Christian theologians nevertheless like to claim that it may have been based on an earlier text that he did write, or at least authorised.
One fragment is of particular interest: in Matthew (27:46), when Jesus calls out from the Cross, he says "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?" which is a quote from Psalm 22:2 (22:1 in some Christian translations) which Matthew correctly translates as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Peter alters the translation to "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me", which actually isn't etymologically incorrect, given that the gods were understood in the Biblical era as simply the powers that created and sustained the universe, but he also made it a statement, where the original in both Jesus and the cited Psalm were a question.
From this it is deduced that Peter didn't know his scriptures very well, didn't understand theology, and wasn't very good at translating ancient Yehudit into his native tongue, Aramaic, either; all of which may very well be true; all of which is evidenced as proof that this must have been written later on, by a non-Aramaic speaker, despite the belief that this is a Syrian text, and Syrians in those days spoke Aramaic.
Peter then claims that Jesus was taken up to Heaven immediately after saying this, suggesting that he did not actually die. The matter becomes more confused when the text states that Jesus "remained silent, as though he felt no pain", which conflicts emotionally with the "Eli" cry that he has just uttered, and the "heretical" claim that he was able to speak on the Cross even after he died.
The gospel also claims that Peter and the other disciples were not at the Crucifixion because they had gone into hiding, fearing that they were being sought on suspicion of plotting to set fire to the Temple; the inference is that this is the charge for which Jesus was crucified - the Romans would have regarded it as criminal arson and not as a religious matter (except that, when the siege of Jerusalem ended in 70 CE, and in spite of their general's instruction not to, the Roman soldiers gleefully burned the Temple to the ground).
Peter, who of course is famous for denying Christ three times, in this version rejects any accusation of disloyalty by himself or any other disciple; they were merely staying safely underground in order to carry on his mission. Thus does cowardice vindicate itself.
The Roman soldiers are described in vivid detail as flagellating Jesus, mocking him, planning who would get his clothes, and deliberately wanting him to die a more painful death and so breaking his legs, though this was not actually the custom. The centurion who kept watch at the tomb is given the name Petronius. Details of the sealing of the tomb, requested of Pilate by the elders of the Jewish community, elaborate upon Matthew 28:66: "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch"; saying instead:
The remainder of the text follows the version in Mark, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear, and then an additional scene, still during Passover, in which the disciples leave Jerusalem. The Gospel ends without any of the physical sightings of Jesus recorded in other texts, or any reference to his being resurrected.
To read such of the text as is still in existence, click here.
____________
¹ definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
This comment by Origen has puzzled the scholars, as no version of "The Gospel of Peter" has yet been found which contains the birth or infancy of Jesus, let alone his mother; so the scholars do what scholars always do, and deduce that, since a man as idol-worshipped as Origen cannot simply have been wrong, he must have been referring to another altogether, which happened to bear the same name, "The Gospel Of Peter". This "Gospel of Peter" was condemned as heretical by Serapion, in the letter referenced above, at Rhossos, circa 70–160, which was problematic, because the Rhossos community had already started using it in their liturgy. In case Serapion was insufficient, further condemnations of heresy were issued by Jerome, indirectly by Eusebius, and in the "Decretum Gelasianum" of Pope Gelasius I.
"The Gospel of Peter" explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle Peter, and is therefore included among the pseudepigraphica, on the grounds that it clearly was not written by him. Christian theologians nevertheless like to claim that it may have been based on an earlier text that he did write, or at least authorised.
 |
| The Akhmim Fragment (detail here) |
From this it is deduced that Peter didn't know his scriptures very well, didn't understand theology, and wasn't very good at translating ancient Yehudit into his native tongue, Aramaic, either; all of which may very well be true; all of which is evidenced as proof that this must have been written later on, by a non-Aramaic speaker, despite the belief that this is a Syrian text, and Syrians in those days spoke Aramaic.
Peter then claims that Jesus was taken up to Heaven immediately after saying this, suggesting that he did not actually die. The matter becomes more confused when the text states that Jesus "remained silent, as though he felt no pain", which conflicts emotionally with the "Eli" cry that he has just uttered, and the "heretical" claim that he was able to speak on the Cross even after he died.
The gospel also claims that Peter and the other disciples were not at the Crucifixion because they had gone into hiding, fearing that they were being sought on suspicion of plotting to set fire to the Temple; the inference is that this is the charge for which Jesus was crucified - the Romans would have regarded it as criminal arson and not as a religious matter (except that, when the siege of Jerusalem ended in 70 CE, and in spite of their general's instruction not to, the Roman soldiers gleefully burned the Temple to the ground).
Peter, who of course is famous for denying Christ three times, in this version rejects any accusation of disloyalty by himself or any other disciple; they were merely staying safely underground in order to carry on his mission. Thus does cowardice vindicate itself.
The Roman soldiers are described in vivid detail as flagellating Jesus, mocking him, planning who would get his clothes, and deliberately wanting him to die a more painful death and so breaking his legs, though this was not actually the custom. The centurion who kept watch at the tomb is given the name Petronius. Details of the sealing of the tomb, requested of Pilate by the elders of the Jewish community, elaborate upon Matthew 28:66: "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch"; saying instead:
"And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulchre; and they affixed seven seals, and they pitched a tent there and guarded it. And early in the morning as the sabbath was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about, that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed."The Resurrection and Ascension, which are described in detail, are not treated as separate events, but occur on the same day:
"And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb. And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea."Having the Cross speak is certainly unusual; having the body float out of the tomb is at the very least unconventional; both have induced scholars to label the text Gnostic, though neither of these are Gnostic fancies - they belong, rather, to the Harry Potter school of fantasy-literature, very amusing for seven year olds, but not of much aetiological value to the over-12s.
The remainder of the text follows the version in Mark, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear, and then an additional scene, still during Passover, in which the disciples leave Jerusalem. The Gospel ends without any of the physical sightings of Jesus recorded in other texts, or any reference to his being resurrected.
To read such of the text as is still in existence, click here.
____________
¹ definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment