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

[Secret Alias]

What about the fact that Jesus appears long after three days. The women are said to wait until after the end of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

[rakovsky]

What do you mean what about it? What are you getting at?
It's still a third day resurrection, but the appearances to the disciples seem to go against what we read in Matthew, Luke, and John with third day appearances.

[neilgodfrey]

Many years ago I toyed with the idea that the Gospel of Peter was based on a pre-canonical gospel "tradition". (Not that GPeter was itself pre-Markan.) Wrote up my reasons for this view in An alternative trajectory for Mark, Matthew and Luke?.

Some time afterwards (but still many years ago) as I continued to think about the question I came to the opposite view and wrote that up in Gospel of Peter’s relationship to the canonical gospels.

That second conclusion really disappointed me because I thought my first idea was much more interesting.

[toejam]

I think a better question is: How widespread were some of the traditions that we see as exclusive to the Gospel of Peter in the early Church? There are some good reasons for thinking that Justin Martyr accepted it, or at least some variant of it - 1) that Martyr refers to a gospel under Peter's name, and 2) that he refers to the incident found only in the Gospel of Peter where Jesus is placed on a mock judgement seat and asked to judge, as part of the pre-crucifixion ridicule by the Roman soldiers...

[Ben C. Smith]

Many years ago I toyed with the idea that the Gospel of Peter was based on a pre-canonical gospel "tradition". (Not that GPeter was itself pre-Markan.) Wrote up my reasons for this view in An alternative trajectory for Mark, Matthew and Luke?.

Some time afterwards (but still many years ago) as I continued to think about the question I came to the opposite view and wrote that up in Gospel of Peter’s relationship to the canonical gospels.

That second conclusion really disappointed me because I thought my first idea was much more interesting.

I still think there may be something to the trajectory of Twelve Disciples to Eleven Disciples + Judas. While (as you agree) I think the gospel of Peter itself, as it stands, is a product later than (at least most of) the canonical gospel narratives, it seems quite possible to me that there was a layer of tradition before the Judas narrative in which the Twelve was not imagined as having lost a charter member. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 15.5, Matthew 19.28 = Luke 22.30, and the texts you adduce from Justin Martyr agree with the gospel of Peter in this respect, whereas something like Acts 1.15-26 would be a harmonization of the (earlier?) tradition in which the Twelve remained undiminished in number and the (later?) tradition in which one of the Twelve betrayed Jesus and was thus excluded.

I hold out this possibility at least partly because it is one thing to try to rehabilitate either Judas himself or the numerologically important number 12, quite another to write as if one is unaware that Judas ever fell from grace or that the number 12 was ever reduced to 11.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

I hold out this possibility at least partly because it is one thing to try to rehabilitate either Judas himself or the numerologically important number 12, quite another to write as if one is unaware that Judas ever fell from grace or that the number 12 was ever reduced to 11.

IMHO, the "12" key disciples held positions in Jesus' "revolutionary government". I am not sure if this was supposed to represent cabinet level positions (taxation, propaganda efforts, oversight of the faithful, etc.) or just symbolic representatives of the Judean peoples (after the 12 tribes, tribes which largely no longer existed, so probably artificial designations.

If the latter, Judah & Benjamin may represent "real" tribal designations although this may simply mean "born to Jewish parents" & "a convert or descended from converts" respectively. We know that Judea was divided, by the Romans and perhaps traditionally, into "toparchies" that may have been loosely related to geographical regions associated with the legendary 12 tribes.

If symbolic, then the number of actual members of this body may or may not be 12 for a number of reasons. This could be influenced by internal politics of the movement (internal factions vying for power or influence over policy and procedures).

DCH

[neilgodfrey]

I'm intrigued by the interpretation among those who focus on the literary analysis of the Gospel of Mark that the Twelve in that Gospel remain a unit, no one falling off the wall. The betrayal/denial is the work of the Twelve, from Peter to Judas, not just Judas.

[rakovsky]

One explanation is that the twelve refers to them as a collective, but does not necessarily mean precisely twelve. Elsewhere the bible talks about the seventy apostles. But this need not mean each of the sevent was present someplace.

Another explanation when you see post resurrection mention of the twelve could be that the count includes Matthias.

[MrMacSon]

... 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?

The non-canonical Gospel of Peter? as opposed to the canonical Epistles of Peter?

The non-canonical Gospel of Peter that ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate?

Origen makes mention of the Gospel of Peter as agreeing with the 'tradition of the Hebrews" - the Gospel of Peter is aligned with the Gospel of the Hebrews.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews was known variously, and in various versions, as 'the Gospel according to Peter'; the Gospel according to the Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians.

Origen also mentions a 'Gospel of Peter', together with "the book of James", was the source for the Catholic Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary -

• Origen of Alexandria. "The Brethren of Jesus". Origen's Commentary on Matthew in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX.

[rakovsky]

Origen is not clear to me either that gPeter is GHebrews, nor that both of them have this reference to Mary. This at least refers to the protoevangelium of James.