Chris Weimer

Thanks Ben! That should be plenty. I'll have up the second post in the series soon.

Chris Weimer

But we aren't exactly sure that this is even the same Gospel of Peter? I mean, don't get me wrong, there's not a whole lot of reasons otherwise, but still we need to be cautious.

S.C.Carlson

Paul Foster has an article in the latest NTS making exactly this point.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

This is strictly true only if we remain skeptical about papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2949. If the reconstruction of line 5 is correct, then the phrase friend of Pilate (Peter 2.3) would seem fairly distinctive (though of course your point is textual comparison, and this fragment allows for very little of that). It is also pretty easy to find in the Akhmîm fragment material that would have led Serapion to claim both that the gospel was written by docetics and that most of it still managed to accord with orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, caution is not at all unwarranted, especially as regards the textual transmission of the text between century II and century VIII (or IX).

Good point.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

I published the next serial on my blog about apocalypticism.

Chris Weimer

OK, returning to Pilate - certainly via Paul we can adduce that the HJ was killed and thought to be raised from the dead. Mark, John, and Peter seem to indicate different traditions concerning the passion narrative, yet essentially they all agree.

I think, though, that Peter's "My Power, my Power" instead of "My God, my God" is evidence of dependence on the synoptics, or at least the immediate source behind it. John's gospel, on the other hand, leaves out the phrase altogether. Methinks that the Psalm 22 quote was created by Mark? Think Elijah Christology with Mark; plus, it explains the lack of full exploitation that Psalm 22 has to offer.

But still, And what of John the Baptist? Perhaps John preceded Christianity and later Christians adopted him? Josephus devotes a fair amount to John, and there's still a surviving religion surrounding him.

Any takers on the use of Pilate as a late polemic against Roman occupation? Perhaps through the schism with Jews they (Mark?) cleared Pilate's blame and put it instead on the Jewish leaders, where then Matthew picked it up and intensified it?

Julian

A few more points about the Gospel of Peter.

I was going to note the Papyri Oxyhynchus 2949 but Ben has already done that. That puts it in Egypt around 200.

It is also worth noting that of the thirty or so papyrus fragments found around the Nile, only one was of Mark while three was of GPeter (two of them can be disputed) which could indicate that GPeter was more popular than GMark. This information is a bit dated, however. Add to this an ostracon slightly pre-dating the Ahkmim find which shows that Peter was considered an evangelist.

Carlson indicated earlier that some question whether the GPeter we have is the same as the one that Serapion prescribed. Am I understanding that correctly? In the Gospel of Peter in the Ahkmim fragment we read:

60 But I, Simon Peter and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord . . . [Emphasis mine]

What arguments was made against identifying this gospel with Serapion's target?

Ehrman dates GPeter as slightly later than the synoptics because he feels that the greater anti-Jewish sentiments escalate along with the development of the gospels and since GPeter is quite anti-Jewish this would put it later. Koester puts it earlier or, at least, its source document.

Lastly, it seems that the Akhmim MS was based on a fragment which might indicate that it was hard to come by a whole gospels in the 8th century. The Akhmim fragment ends in mid-sentence and is followed by two blank pages.

Julian

Julian

I find it curious that Paul does not mention Pilate and the gospels do. Not sure why this is but I suspect that it is significant, pointing to either a later tradition regarding Pilate or a severe separation of trajectories.
I consider GMark to be an out and out gnostic separationist document. I am still amazed that it is in the canon, seeing how there were objections to GPeter. I suspect that Ps. 22 was simply perfect for the departure of the christ spirit, so Mark used it because of its convenience. I think there is a tendency to read GMark with a lot of canonical gospel baggage and that it makes more sense in terms of gnostic views which would point to entirely different early traditions.
Koester, going a little overboard, states that there can be no doubt that Jesus was part of the followers of JBap and that he was baptized by him. While I would not subscribe to that view with quite that amount of certainty I have considered it likely. There must be a reason that JBap is in all four gospels. It must have been common knowledge that Jesus originated from there. Thus it had to be included but in such a way that it clearly elevates Jesus over JBap. In either case, the JBap connection is clearly one of the earliest traditions.
In what way do you see Pilate as anti-roman polemic? I agree that Mark shows anti-roman sentiments as shown, for example, in the exorcism of Legio.

Julian

Chris Weimer

I don't! I was merely trying to figure out where Pilate might have originated. By the gospels time, he's takes no blame.