The Gospel of Peter: Does it preserve an early tradition?

[rakovsky]

First, it is debated what is the relationship of the Gospel of Matthew to Mark: Which one came first and was relied on by the other.
It is commonly thought that Mark was written first and then Matthew expanded on it.
However, I read of a view that Matthew was written first and Mark was a narrowed down version of Matthew. Origen thought that Matthew was written first, and I read that Mark "corrects" Matthew's grammar or ideas.

Second, Mark's original ending stops without Peter going to the tomb, and with the women leaving in fear and not telling anyone about the tomb or angel there. It also implies that Jesus would meet the disciples in Galilee, and even if the women didn't pass on that message, the apostles could remember Jesus predicting this future meeting to the apostles, as the angel mentioned. So was the end of Mark made to disappear because like gMatthew and the gospel of Peter, Mark's missing ending conflicted with Luke's ending about the meeting with Jesus on Day 1?

Or maybe Mark never went past verse 8, just as some other parts of Matthew and Luke are missing in Mark, like the Incarnation?

Third, what about the gospel of Peter? It is said to be a mid-2nd century work and includes some mid-second century ideas or phrases. However, it's interesting because like (apparently) Matthew it gives the first appearance of Jesus in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. So there is some speculation that it could carry an independent 1st century tradition story about the Passion and Resurrection, even if gPeter is embellished or changed otherwise from that earlier tradition. But if so, how could one prove that it carries an earlier tradition?

What do you think?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Markan priority is as well established as anything in New Testament criticism. Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke both copied Mark. All the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8, and for the most part secular scholars think that was Mark's intended ending (there are thematic reasons to think this in addition to the manuscript evidence). Mark implies a meeting in Galilee and Matthew follows up on it. Luke changes the appearances to Jerusalem then tries to seal off any further appearances outside of Jerusalem with the ascension (Luke is actually the only NT writer to say anything about an ascension. it's his invention). John (probably following Luke, which he seems to know and be responding too) also places the first appearance in Jerusalem, but then somebody else later added a Galilee appearance with a tacked on extra ending.

The Gospel of Peter is 2nd Century, but at least one prominent scholar (John Dominic Crossan) believes that it contains an embedded "cross Gospel' which he thinks was a formative passion which was the basis for Mark's passion. Crossan has not found much agreement for this hypothesis and the majority view is that Peter was later than the canoncals and used them.

[rakovsky]

It's interesting that Paul says jesus appeared first to Peter and the gospel of peter is the only one that naerated a special appearance to Peter besides John 21, which some scholars think was marks original ending. It's the kind of thing that makes me think g Peter could contain an early independent link or element. It's in Galilee and it's a special first appearance to Peter and it corresponds to John 21s basic scheme.

[DCHindley]

It's interesting that Paul says jesus appeared first to Peter and the gospel of peter is the only one that naerated a special appearance to Peter besides John 21, which some scholars think was marks original ending. It's the kind of thing that makes me think gPeter could contain an early independent link or element. It's in Galilee and it's a special first appearance to Peter and it corresponds to John 21s basic scheme.

rak,

It's the old routine "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

IMHO, gPeter contains elements that seem legendary, as in the cross that talks (to promote the doctrine that Jesus preached to the dead while in hades) and angels with heads that reach the sky (see the "Grigori" in Slavonic <2> Enoch). So, I am more inclin3ed to see the gPeter as derivative of John 21, rather than the other way around.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

IMHO, gPeter contains elements that seem legendary, as in the cross that talks (to promote the doctrine that Jesus preached to the dead while in hades) and angels with heads that reach the sky (see the "Grigori" in Slavonic <2> Enoch).

Acts of John 90 has a similar bit about someone's head reaching to the sky:

And we went again: and we saw him at a distance praying. I, therefore, because he loved me, drew nigh unto him softly, as though he could not see me, and stood looking upon his hinder parts: and I saw that he was not in any wise clad with garments, but was seen of us naked, and not in any wise as a man, and that his feet were whiter than any snow, so that the earth there was lighted up by his feet, and that his head touched the heaven.

I suspect that such unearthly descriptions are meant to designate a docetic body. In the gospel of Peter, it is only the resurrection body that is docetic (so far as we can tell from the available text, at any rate), whereas in the Acts of John the preresurrection body is already docetic.

So far as "elements that seem legendary" are concerned, however, do not the canonical gospels contain such things as well (never mind that the entire narrative is quite possibly legendary from start to finish)? I think especially of the resurrected saints in Matthew, the very ascension narrative itself in Luke-Acts, and the miraculous catch of John 21.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

So far as "elements that seem legendary" are concerned, however, do not the canonical gospels contain such things as well (never mind that the entire narrative is quite possibly legendary from start to finish)? I think especially of the resurrected saints in Matthew, the very ascension narrative itself in Luke-Acts, and the miraculous catch of John 21.

That did cross my mind. However, given the symbolic nature of language, this is unavoidable if we hope to communicate anything at all, so I suppose it is a matter of degree.

DCH

[Adam]

I stopped reading Diogenes after his first two sentences. He has obviously ignored all we've accomplished here in BC&H in ECW denying that gMatthew and gLuke are simply expanded copies of Mark.

[Adam]

It's in Galilee and it's a special first appearance to Peter and it corresponds to John 21s basic scheme.

So, I am more inclin3ed to see the gPeter as derivative of John 21, rather than the other way around.
DCH

Better yet, with the Galilean focus, here's more evidence that (the source under) John 21 was the original ending of gMark, That's what was seen or heard of by the writer of the Gospel of Peter.

[rakovsky]

There are things like the incarnation that are in Luke and Matthew but not narrated in mark. So I don't know that mark had to have had an ending. It could have ended on a cliffhanger because the women told no one in verse 8. It's interesting how g Peter lines up with a first appearance to peter, not to the women and it resembles what we might guess mark would have ended as. Mark and Paul don't mention an appearance to the women and nor does gPeter, although I know the excuse that women don't count.

To say that the soldiers or servant of the priest saw jesus like gPeter and g Hebrews says though first is a conflict with Paul who doesn't mention getting to see jesus.

So what is to say that gPeter really does contain an early source? Does Crossan make a good case for this?

[toejam]

It could well be that the Gospel of Peter preserves some traditions that pre-date, or are contemporaneous with, the canonical gospels. But that's like saying that some of the traditions in John might also pre-date or be contemporaneous with the synoptics. Of course. But the hard part is determining the details. At the end of the day, we have to deal with the text as it stands in front of us. In that sense, I think the Gospel of Peter is better described as a 2nd century gospel - post-dating the canonicals - just as we might say that the Gospel of John - in the form we recognize it today - post-dates the synoptics - even though some traditions might be just as old.