mountainman

The author of the "Gospel of Peter", a new testament apocryphal
manuscript discovered 1886-7, narrates that Jesus walked out of
the tomb supported on both sides by two figures "whose heads
reached to Heaven". Jesus' head reached "above the heavens".

So there we have one of the earliest witnesses to what
happened about the body of Jesus. The witness adds
that not only did the three figures walk out of the tomb,
but in fact the CROSS walked along behind them following.
The CROSS actually speaks, in the gPeter.
It says .....

"YEAH" !!!

Summary gPeter = No body left to be found.
No Cross left to be found.
I wonder what Helena found?
Did it still talk the talk?
Did it still walk the walk?

arnoldo

Besides being a source of amusement to some, the Gospel of Peter is an important document written in the second century which may have some docetic allusions. . .

The other historical significance of this document is that Serapion, who was Bishop of Antioch, judged that Gospel to be a heretical document. Stuart G. Hall, in his book entitled Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, gives the following explanation;

jkhuss1

The Gospel of Peter is a Gnostic Gospel. . .
It was not written by Peter or by a Christian. . .
The Gnostics Teach Heretical false teachings to decieve and cause divisions in the Body of Christ - they seduce and lead astray from the truth of the Word of God. . .

spin

1) How do you know it wasn't written by Peter?

2) Were there any christians at the time reputed to be that of Peter? (And again how would you know?)

Probably the gnostics would have said something analogous to what you've said about those who didn't appreciate gnostic beliefs. If gnosticism had won, those beliefs you prize would be "Heretical false teachings to decieve and cause divisions in the Body of Christ - they seduce and lead astray from the truth of the Word of God. . ."

(And winning is no guarantee of rightness. Just look at the Iraq war. Or the crusades...)


spin

mountainman

That these NT Apocryphal "Hidden Books" were not authored
by a canonical "Christian" is something I have been trying to
argue here for some time. It is interesting that you be so
assertive about this issue, for your own agenda, of course.

Who then was the gPeter authored by and when?
This is the question worth "The Pearl of Great Price".

Of course they did, they had sense. The Hellenistic academics alive
in the fourth century at the time Constantine embraced Christianity
as the new state centralised religion for the ROman empire, resisted
the allure of the new testament canon as the "Holy Writ" of the greeks.

The chronological closure date for the NT apocrypha is uncertain, but
some boundaries are recognised, such as the end of authorship of the
standard set of nt apocrypha in the 4th/5th century, and the change
to the hagiographic literature.

When the authorship of the NT apocrypha commenced is still a mystery.
There is absolutely no consensus amidst the academics, other than they
must have been authored after Mark.

The Hellenistic academic author(s) IMO were certainly not christians.
The NT Apocryphal Acts and Gospels Homerize the HJ and Apostles.
They represent Hellenistic romance narratives based on the characters
in the NT Canon.

This was considered politically seditious by Constantine and the orthodox.
Eusebius does not name an author but states these things are heretical.
Written by heretics.
No author name emerges until the later fourth century.
Who was "Leucius Charinus" and when did he live and write?
What was his motivation for writing the core "Leucian Acts?
Full of docetic references to the HJ.
Full of Hellenistic Gnostic content.
Brilliant fiction which was very popular.

The NT Apocrypha was outlawed by Eusebius and Constantine
and numerous church councils over the next 200 years.

The author was often referred to as "the disciple of the devil".
Who was he?
When did he live and write?

Tertullian says he wrote "out of love for Paul".
This is a rather difficult assertion to believe.
Other even more ludicrous assertions are then made
by Eusebius citing "Tertullian" concerning the possible
identity of the author of the NT Apocryphal Acts.

mountainman

Regarding gPeter ...


The implication of the above is that, in the case of the gPeter, it is far from certain
that the greek papyri represent primary evidence for the early existence of the gPeter.

Most people assume the NT apocrypha were written by gnostics, but that the gnostics were Christians. Know thyself is gnosis. The gnostics were plainly and simply the academic Hellenistic priesthood.

The gnostics examined the NT Canon with great care. They then took a bit of this and a bit of that and made something new. They wove the new bits into unbelievably romantic Hellenistic narratives which featured Bilbo Jesus Baggins and the Twelve taking control of MiddleEarth. The NT apocrypha are fictions of course, but very popular fictions at the time they were authored. Fiction. Good fiction.

Their popularity arose with the Hellenistic resistance to the new Roman religion and the imperial decree that the NT canon should become the Holy Writ of the New God of the Graeco-Roman empire. But these writings pained and wounded and grieved the church of the One Canon. They added bits to what was written, they came up with more details, they introduced a foreign hypostatis. It was gnostic and docetic.

Pilate said Jesus healed by the power of Asclepius. And the Cross walked and talked and said "YES!" The author of these concepts is a gnostic. Everyone assumes the author is christian. Was Longfellow a native American Indian?

The author was a gnostic Hellenistic academic, perhaps of the priesthood which Constantine prohibited from operation c.324 CE, by decree and by destruction using the army.

Toto

Pete - that quote from Evans is designed to counter John Dominic Crossan's very early dating of gPeter. Crossan attempted to argue that gPeter was a very early tradition, dating perhaps to the mid 1st century.