The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (42 page)

⁸⁴
N. T. Wright, “Taking the Text with Her Pleasure: A Post-Post-Modernist Response to J. Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
with Apologies to A. A. Milne, St Paul and James Joyce,”
Theol
96 (1993): 303–10.

⁸⁵
Although many North American scholars are insisting on the priority and independence of the lost Gospels, scholars in Europe have generally not been convinced by their arguments.

⁸⁶
Brown,
Da Vinci Code
.

⁸⁷
J. D. Crossan,
Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of the Canon
(New York: Harper & Row, 1985).

⁸⁸
Crossan,
Historical Jesus
.

⁸⁹
The earliest known reference is in Hippolytus,
Refutation of all Heresies
5.7.20.

⁹⁰
P. Oxy. 1, 654 and 655 contain the Prologue, sayings 1–7, 24, 26–33, 36–39, 77.

⁹¹
For a critical edition of the Coptic and Greek texts, see B. Layton, ed.,
Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 Together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4296 (1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655
(Leiden: Brill, 1989). For an introduction and English translation of the Coptic text, see J. M. Robinson, ed.,
The Nag Hammadi Library in English
(San Francisco: Harper, 1990).

⁹²
Crossan,
Historical Jesus
, 427.

⁹³
W. Schrage,
Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen
, BZNW 29 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964). A helpful summary of his conclusions appears on pp. 1–11.

⁹⁴
C. L. Quarles, “The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Research on the Historical Jesus of John Dominic Crossan,”
CBQ
69 (2007): 517–36.

⁹⁵
R. Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 236–37.

⁹⁶
H.-M. Schenke,
On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas
(Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1998), 1–25, especially p. 25.

⁹⁷
S. Davies,
Thomas and Christian Wisdom
(New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 3; H. Koester,
Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 85; S. Patterson,
The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus
, FFRS (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993), 113–18.

⁹⁸
M. Meyer,
The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, New Translation, with Introductions and Notes
(San Francisco: Harper, 1992), 25.

⁹⁹
S. Patterson, “Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today,” in
The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age
, ed. S. J. Patterson, J. M. Robinson, and H.-G. Bethge (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 43–44; cf. H. Jackson,
The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition
, SBLDS 81 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).

¹⁰⁰
N. Perrin,
Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron
, Academia Biblica 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 193–94. Perrin acknowledged that the theory of Thomas's dependence on Tatian was earlier proposed by Drijvers and Schippers. See Drijvers, “Facts and Problems,” 173; and R. Schippers,
Het Evangelie van Thomas: Aocriefe Woorden van Jezus: Vertaling, inleiding en kommentar
(Kampen: Kok, 1960). The theory that the Gospel of Thomas was first composed in Syriac or dependent on Syriac sources was proposed earlier by A. Guillamont, H. J. W. Drijvers, H. Quecke, K. Rudolph, F. Morard, and A. Strobel. See Perrin,
Thomas
, 6–7, for references; cf. the more recent work by Perrin,
Thomas: The Other Gospel
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007); and the review by C. L. Quarles in
JETS
51 (2008): 158–60.

¹⁰¹
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.3.1–4; 3.25.6; 6.12.3–6.

¹⁰²
Present knowledge of the content of Gospel of Peter is limited since complete texts are no longer extant. The most extensive fragment of the Gospel of Peter begins at the end of Jesus' trial and breaks off at the beginning of a description of a postresurrection appearance of Christ to the Twelve. The original Gospel of Peter may have included an account of Jesus' birth, childhood, youth, adult ministry, etc. This supposition is supported by Origen's claim (
Comm. Matt.
10.17) that the Gospel of Peter claimed that Joseph, Mary's husband, had children from a previous marriage. C. A. Evans,
Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 78–85, has recently suggested that the Akhmim fragment may have been misidentified as the Gospel of Peter since Serapion described the Gospel as docetic (denying that Jesus had a physical body), but the Akhmim fragment has no docetic tendencies.

¹⁰³
For a more thorough discussion of the use of the Gospel of Peter in historical Jesus research, see C. L. Quarles, “The Gospel of Peter: Does It Contain a Precanonical Resurrection Narrative?” in
The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue
, ed. R. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 106–20.

¹⁰⁴
Crossan,
Four Other Gospels
, 132–34; id.,
Cross That Spoke
, 16–30; id.,
Historical Jesus
, 429.

¹⁰⁵
Crossan acknowledged Koester's theory that Mark, John, and the
Gos. Pet.
may have independently relied on an earlier source. But he insisted: “Composed by the fifties C. E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [Cross Gospel] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives” (
Historical Jesus
, 429).

¹⁰⁶
The Greek text of the Gospel of Peter utilized is E. Klostermann's text that appears in full in various portions of K. Aland,
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1986). Klostermann's text differs from that of M. G. Mara, the most recent critical edition, in only a few conjectures. For a comparison of these two editions, see F. Neirynck, “Apocryphal Gospels and Mark,” in
The New Testament in Early Christianity: La reception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif
, ed. J.-M. Sevrin (Leuven: University Press, 1989), 140–41.

¹⁰⁷
Inferences drawn from the precise wording of the Gospel of Peter must be tentative since the text of the Gospel that is presently available is most likely significantly different from the original text. The two fragments of the Gospel of Peter from P. Oxy. 2949 are very brief. Based on the alignment of the two fragments suggested by Crossan (
Cross That Spoke
, 8–9), P. Oxy 2949 consists of portions of only 13 lines of text. But even comparisons of the Akhmim text with P. Oxy. 2949 show that the two texts belong to significantly different recensions. Of the 25 words in P. Oxy. 2949, only 15 are shared by the Akhmim manuscript. Although both manuscripts essentially agree, the later manuscript includes new phrases and words not found in the earlier text, employs different vocabulary, and frequently has different grammatical forms. One thus wonders whether the earliest text of the Gospel of Peter is sufficiently preserved in the Akhmim manuscript to make conclusions drawn from redactional investigations truly reliable. For similar concerns from another scholar, see Koester,
Ancient Christian Gospels
, 219. For a more detailed comparison of the available fragments, see J. C. Treat, “The Two Manuscript Witnesses to the Gospel of Peter,” SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 398–99.

¹⁰⁸
Crossan,
Cross That Spoke
, 271.

¹⁰⁹
R. Gundry,
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 584.

¹¹⁰
J. P. Meier,
The Roots of the Problem and the Person
, vol. 1 of
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
(New York: Doubleday, 1991), 117.

¹¹¹
This evidence for dependency was probably the result of the author of the Gospel of Peter's memory of Matthew's account. He apparently did not have copies of the four Gospels open before him as he wrote his Gospel, for in this case one would expect more numerous and sustained verbal parallels and more similarities in the sequence of the pericopes. Brown pointed out that, unlike the Gospel of Peter, Tatian's
Diatessaron
is clearly recognizable in vocabulary and sequence as a harmonization. See R. E. Brown,
The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels
, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1334–36.

¹¹²
See C. L. Quarles, “The Protevangelium of James as an Alleged Parallel to Creative Historiography in the Synoptic Birth Narratives,”
BBR
8 (1998): 139–49, especially pp. 144–49. R. Brown (
Death of the Messiah
, 2:1135) also noted the similarity in the compositional strategies of the Gospel of Peter and the Protevangelium of James: “In terms of literary classification I would regard the
Protevangelium
as a cousin of
GPet
in the same species as the apocryphal gospels. The compositional instincts are much the same, but the author of
Prot. Jas.
had access to written copies of Luke and Matt. On the one hand, it is more elaborately expanded over the canonical Gospels than is
GPet
; on the other hand, when it cites them, it does so with greater preservation of exact vocabulary. Dramatically both works describe eschatological events that the canonical Gospels were content to leave wrapped in silence: the actual birth of Jesus in
Prot. Jas.
19 and the actual resurrection in
GPet
10:39–41.”

¹¹³
J. Elliot,
1 Peter
, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 706–10; B. Reicke,
The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context
, ASNU 13 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946), 115–18; E. G. Selwyn, “Unsolved New Testament Problems: The Problem of the Authorship of I Peter,”
ExpTim
59 (1947): 340.

¹¹⁴
M. G. Mara (
évangile de Pierre: Introduction, texte critique, traduction, commentaire et index
, SC 201 [Paris: Gabalda, 1973]) suggested that this reference to the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation is part of a string of such allusions. The glorious Christ's ability to break the seven seals closely matches Rev 5 :1 (p. 170). The loud voice from heaven on the Lord's Day parallels John's experience in Rev 1:10. Rev 11 :11–12, like the Gospel of Peter, describes a loud voice, a resurrection, and an ascent to heaven (pp. 177–78). Revelation 10:1–3 describes a heavenly figure of enormous size (pp. 183–84). Brown (
Death of the Messiah
, 2:1296) commented: “The number seven is commonly symbolic in the Bible, but it is difficult to be certain whether here the seven is just part of the folkloric imagination or has special symbolism. One might appeal to Rev 5:1–5, which has a scroll sealed with seven seals that can be opened by no one in heaven or on earth save by the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David who has triumphed—that could reinforce the obvious meaning of
GPet
that everything was done to make opening the tomb difficult (but the power of God would break through all these human precautions).”

¹¹⁵
Several others have independently recognized the significance of this reference for dating the document. See also A. Kirk, “Examining Priorities: Another Look at the Gospel of Peter's Relationship to the New Testament Gospels,”
NTS
40 (1994): 593. Wright (
Resurrection of the Son of God
, 594) listed this expression, along with seven other elements, as “conclusive evidence for the
Gospel of Peter
being later and more developed than the canonical parallels.”

¹¹⁶
Crossan (
Historical Jesus
, 429) stated that the Cross Gospel was composed by the 50s probably in Sepphoris of Galilee. Other scholars have pointed out additional historical problems in the Gospel of Peter. Brown (
Death of the Messiah
, 2:1232) pointed out that the author portrayed Herod as an observant Jew and as the supreme ruler of Palestine to whom even Pilate was subservient. The Gospel of Peter also has an enormous crowd of Jews from Jerusalem and the surrounding area travel to see the sealed tomb on the Sabbath, in apparent breach of Sabbath regulations (p. 1308). Brown also demonstrated that the author of the Gospel of Peter was confused about the chronology of Jewish feasts (p. 1340).

¹¹⁷
Crossan (
Historical Jesus
, 389) described the cross as a “huge cruciform procession” of individuals who were resurrected along with Jesus; see Crossan,
Who Killed Jesus
, 197. Most scholars have not been convinced by Crossan's interpretation of the speaking cross; see Wright,
Resurrection
, 595.

¹¹⁸
We are indebted to B. J. Creel for pointing out these second-century parallels to the Gospel of Peter first compiled in L. Vaganay,
L'évangile de Pierre
, 2d ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1930), 300. See
Epist. Apost
. 16;
Apoc. Pet.
1;
Shep. Herm.
83.1 (see 89.8; 90.1); 4 Ezra 2:43.

¹¹⁹
See M. Smith,
Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark
(Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973); and id.,
The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark
(New York: Harper & Row, 1973).

¹²⁰
Q. Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,”
CBQ
37 (1975): 48–67.

¹²¹
C. W. Hedrick, “Secret Mark: New Photographs, New Witnesses,”
Fourth R
13 (2000): 3–16.

¹²²
H. Koester,
History and Literature of Early Christianity
, vol. 2 of
Introduction to the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 168–69.