Malachi151

Gospel of Peter:

http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html

Actually this looks like it could be a source for the passion story of both the Mark and John, and its docetic nature fits well for the evolution of the myth without a real Jesus.

What are the thoughts on this passion narrative?

Toto

Gospel of Peter

Crossan wants to make this the earliest passion narrative, but I don't recall that he had any particularly strong reasons. He wanted to trace a development from a story that placed most of the blame on the Jewish leaders but not the Jews, and later canonical versions that blamed "the Jews."

jgibson000

"Fits well" with what?

JG

jgibson000

See his The Cross that Spoke.

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

Claims about the Gospel of Peter's "docetic" nature are debatable. IIRC the main reason for thinking GPeter docetic is the passage narrating Jesus' cry on the cross:

"My power, my power, you have deserted me." As soon as he shouted this it/he(?) was taken up. (5.19)

I don't have names with me now but some scholars have not been convinced that there is anything necessarily docetic here at all in terminology or idiom.

For what it's worth some time ago I wrote down a string of reasons for suspecting that a passion narrative along the lines of what we find in GPeter preceded the gospel of Mark, but later I wrote down another string of reasons to suspect the opposite! I also prepared a table of point by point comparisons of the GPeter with the canonical gospels along with allusions in the GPeter to Old Testament. Links to all 3 can be found here.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Malachi151

Good posts Neil. After re-reading it a few time I think I'm changing my mind as well. It actually looks more like an attempt to create a harmony between Matthew and John to me.

GP looks more like taking Mark or Matthew and putting into more fluid language that doesn't so closely quote the scriptures and personalizes the story more. It seems like a literary improvement on Mark or Matthew, with a harmonization with John.

Ben C Smith

Another common reason is the line in 4.10 about Jesus being silent as if he had no pain. But Crossan rightly points out that the same motif is present in Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.3, and nobody suspected Polycarp of being a docetic phantom.

Ben.

gstafleu

I noticed two significant differences between Gpeter and the canonicals. First, on the cross it says "king of Israel" where the others have "king of the Jews." This removes Judah from the text, which is interesting given that Jerusalem was in Judah, not Israel. It also means that Jesus is no longer king of just the Jews. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Galilee was in Israel, and Galilee is "the land of the gentiles."

Even more striking is the appearance of a speaking cross in 10. What is more, it seems the cross is moving by itself! Such a cross as an independently moving and speaking entity appears nowhere in the canonicals nor anywhere in the NT. As far as I can tell the cross appears almost nowhere in the NT independent of the immediate crucifixion. The only exceptions are the saying "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt 16:24 and similar) and "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Otherwise the cross is always immediately related to the crucifixion and/or Christ (and 1 Cor 1:18 is pretty close to that).

Are those two differences not enough to assign Gpeter to a tradition of its own?

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

As I said, looks more like building on the canonicals to me.

Amaleq13

The true nature of the difference is that the "walking" and talking cross is featured in the only extant effort to depict the actual resurrection.