The Gospel of Peter
By Charles Quarles
Skeptics frequently allege that the true story of the real Jesus appears not
in the four New Testament Gospels but in other “lost gospels” which were
suppressed by the early church. One of these allegedly superior sources is the
Gospel of Peter. This article will summarize the contents of the
Gospel of Peter, discuss the implications of affirming the reliability
of the document, and present compelling evidence that the Gospel of
Peter is later and less reliable than the four NT Gospels.
The so-called Gospel of Peter was discussed by Eusebius of Caesarea
in his Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1-4 (early 4th century).
Eusebius indicated that the document had been a topic of debate in the church
at Rhossus (Ecclesiastical History 6.12.3-6). Although the Bishop of
Antioch, Serapion, had initially approved the document for reading in the
church of Rhossus, upon more careful examination of its contents he rejected
the work. In a letter to the church, Serapion noted that while the document was
generally in accord with the NT Gospels, the Docetists had added some elements
in support of their false teaching. Serapion wrote about the Gospel of
Peter in approximately AD 200 and his discussion which is preserved by
Eusebius constitutes the earliest extant reference to the work.
Until the late 1800s, nothing was known of this mysterious gospel apart from
the brief mention by Serapion, Eusebius and Origen (Commentary on Matthew
10:17; early 3rd century). However, in excavations at
Akhmim Egypt in 1886-87, archaeologists discovered a fragment of a gospel in
the coffin of a Christian monk. The Greek fragment consisted of some sixty
verses and dated to the eighth or ninth century. Because the final verse of the
fragment identifies Simon Peter as the author, most scholars have concluded
that this fragment is a portion of the long lost Gospel of
Peter.
Scholars are not sure of the extent of the original document. The fragment
begins with an allusion to Pilate’s handwashing at the end of Jesus’ trial and
breaks off at the beginning of a description of an appearance of the
resurrected Jesus to his disciples. This portion of the document was apparently
all that was available to the scribe responsible for copying it since ornaments
at the beginning and end of his manuscript indicate that the manuscript is
complete. This ancient scribe copied all of the gospel that was available to
him. On the other hand, Origen claimed that the tradition that Mary’s husband
Joseph had children by a previous marriage was preserved either in the
Gospel of Peter or the Book of James. This may imply that the
Gospel of Peter was much more extensive and included a narrative of
Jesus’ birth. However, Origen’s statement may not be helpful in determining the
original extent of the document since he seems uncertain about the contents of
the Gospel of Peter and since the reference appeared in the
alternative source mentioned by Origen, the Protevangelium of James. At the
very least, the original gospel would have contained an account of Jesus’
trial, crucifixion, resurrection, and at least two post-resurrection
appearances to his disciples.
In its present form, the so-called Gospel of Peter begins as the
trial of Jesus ends. After Pilate washed his hands in display of his innocence
in Jesus’ unjust trial, Joseph of Arimathea asked permission to bury Jesus’
body. In this gospel, the Jews filled the role assigned to the Roman soldiers
in the NT Gospels by mocking, spitting on, striking, and scourging Jesus. The
author of the Gospel also claimed that the Jews were directly responsible for
nailing Jesus to the cross, inscribing the titulus that adorned the
cross, and dividing Jesus’ garments. The Jews refused to break Jesus’ legs and
hasten his death in hopes of prolonging his agony and intensifying his
tortures. The account emphasizes the guilt of the Jews by saying “They
fulfilled all things and completed the measure of their sins on their head”
(17) and “Then the Jews and the elders and the priests recognized what great
evil they had done to themselves and began to grieve and to say ‘Woe on our
sins, the judgment and end of Jerusalem is near’” (25).
Several miracles occurred around the time of Jesus’ death and these drove
many of the Jews to repent of their role in Jesus’ crucifixion. At the moment
of Jesus’ death, the veil in the temple was torn in two. Later when Jesus’
corpse was removed from the cross and touched the ground, an earthquake
occurred. Repentant Jews frightened the scribes, Pharisees, and elders by
declaring that Jesus was innocent. The Jewish leaders asked Pilate to authorize
a Roman guard to ensure that Jesus’ disciples did not steal the body and stage
Jesus’ resurrection. Pilate sent a Roman custodia to guard the tomb.
The guard was accompanied by scribes and elders. The group rolled a stone over
the tomb, sealed it with seven seals, set up camp at the tomb entrance and
began to keep watch. Early in the morning on the Lord’s Day, the heavens opened
and two men surrounded by a bright light descended to the tomb. The stone
sealing the entrance rolled aside all by itself. The men stepped in to escort
Jesus out of the tomb. When they exited the tomb, the men from heaven were so
tall that their heads bumped the sky but the resurrected Jesus was so tall that
his head reached the heavens. A cross floated out of the tomb behind them. A
voice from heaven asked, “Did you preach to those who sleep?” The cross
replied, “Yes.”
The soldiers reported the events to Pilate but at the request of the Jewish
leaders he commanded the soldiers to say nothing about the events to anyone.
Early in the morning Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw a young man in a
shining robe sitting in the tomb who announced that Jesus had risen. In
the next pericope Peter, Andrew, and Levi left the other grieving members of
the Twelve to go to the sea and fish. Unfortunately, the text breaks off no
sooner than the story is introduced.
John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, which is an
organization residing on the theological left, has claimed that the Gospel
of Peter was the product of a complex evolution. The earliest layer of the
Gospel was a hypothetical source called the “Cross Gospel.” Crossan argued that
this early layer served as the only written source for the narrative of Jesus’
death and resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After the production
of the NT Gospels, a later editor inserted material from the four Gospels into
the Cross Gospel. An even later editor noticed tensions between the original
and newer material in this patchwork gospel and polished up the
document.
Although Crossan’s theory has convinced few in the scholarly community, one
scholar recently claimed “one can expect that all future research on Gos. Pet.
will need to begin with a serious consideration of Crossan’s work” (Paul A.
Mirecki, “Gospel of Peter,” ABD 5:278-81, esp. 280). If true,
Crossan’s theory would have a devastating effect on confidence in the
historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection in the
four Gospels. According to Crossan’s theory, the sole source for the accounts
of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in the four Gospels was a document
that was already so laced with legend as to be wholly unreliable even before it
reached the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The four Gospels would be
unreliable adaptations of an unreliable tradition replete with talking floating
crosses and a super-sized Jesus whose head bumped the heavens when he walked
out of the tomb!
Despite Crossan’s daring claim, the evidence for his theory is very slim. An
impressive number of clues suggest that this gospel postdates even the latest
New Testament book and belongs to the mid-second century. First, a close
analysis of verbal parallels shared by the Gospel of Peter and the
Gospel of Matthew suggests that the Gospel of Peter postdates Matthew
and utilized that Gospel as a source. An example of these parallels is the
account of the guard assigned to Jesus’ tomb. Of the four canonical Gospels,
only Matthew shares with the Gospel of Peter an account of this event.
Both the account in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter refer to the
Pharisees gathering before Pilate to express concern about a staged
resurrection on the third day. Both accounts refer to the guarding and sealing
of the tomb. Both describe the Jews as “the people.” One sustained verbal
parallel clearly indicates a definite literary dependence of one document on
the other. Both Matthew 27:64 and Gospel of Peter 8:30 contain the
precise words “lest his disciple come and steal him.” Crossan argued that the
parallel demonstrated Matthew’s dependence on an early form of the Gospel
of Peter (the Cross Gospel). However, an examination of the vocabulary,
grammar, and style of the two documents strongly favors the dependence of the
Gospel of Peter on Matthew. Robert Gundry, one of the most respected
experts on issues related to Matthew’s style, called the phrase a “series of
Mattheanisms” (Gundry, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 584). Similarly,
John Meier noted “when it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs
point to Matthews priority. . . . The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary
and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the
Gospel of Peter” (Meier, Marginal Jews, 1:117). This is consistent
with a number of other Matthean features appear in the Gospel of Peter
that all point to the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on
Matthew.
Second, other features of the Gospel of Peter suggest that the
gospel not only postdates Matthew, but even postdates the latest book of the NT
canon, the Book of Revelation. For example, although Matthew indicates that the
Roman guard sealed the tomb of Jesus, Gospel of Peter 8:33 adds that
it was sealed with seven seals. The reference to the seven seals conflicts with
the immediate context. Gospel of Peter 8:32-33 states that all the
witnesses present sealed the tomb. However, a minimum of nine witnesses were
present leading readers to expect at least nine seals. The best explanation for
the awkward reference to the seven seals is that the detail was drawn from
Revelation 5:1. This allusion to Revelation fits well with the Gospel of
Peter 9:35 and 12:50 reference to the day of Jesus’ resurrection as the
“Lord’s Day” since this terminology only appears in Revelation in the NT and
first in Revelation out of all ancient Christian literature. The reference to
the “Lord’s Day” in the Gospel of Peter is a shortened form that
appears to be a later development from the original form appearing in
Revelation.
Still other features of the Gospel of Peter fit best with the
historical data if the Gospel of Peter was produced in the mid-second
century. The Gospel of Peter assumes the doctrine of Jesus’ descent
into Hades to preach to the dead. However, this doctrine first appears in the
words of Justin Martyr around AD 150. The talking cross is a feature of other
second-century literature. The Epistula Apostolorum 16 states that
during the second coming Jesus will be carried on the wings of the clouds with
his cross going on before him. Similarly, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 1
describes the returning Christ as coming in a glory seven times as bright as
the sun and with his cross going before his face. In a similar fashion,
beginning in the late first century, Christian texts describe Christ as
possessing gigantic stature. In an allegorical depiction of Jesus’ supremacy
and authority over the church, Shepherd of Hermas 83:1 described Christ as of
such lofty stature that he stood taller than a tower. 4 Ezra 2:43, a portion of
4 Ezra dating to the middle or late third century, referred to the unusual
height of the Son of God. These shared compositional strategies and features
make the most sense if these documents and the Gospel of Peter were
composed in the same milieu.
This evidence confirms the traditional Christian claim that the four NT
Gospels are the most reliable accounts of Jesus’ trial, death, burial, and
resurrection. The accounts of crucifixion and resurrection in the four Gospels
were based on eyewitness testimony rather than naïve dependence on an
unreliable source like the alleged “Cross Gospel.” The Gospel of Peter
(and the so-called Cross Gospel) is clearly later than the NT Gospels and is
sprinkled throughout with imaginative elements and traces of legend. Although
the gospel is helpful for understanding the thought of some sectors of the
church in the mid-second century, it is of little value for understanding the
details of Jesus’ final days on earth. [For a more detailed discussion, see
Quarles, “The Gospel of Peter: Does It Contain a Pre-canonical Resurrection
Narrative?” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T.
Wright in Dialogue (ed. Robert Stewart; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005),
106-120].
Charles L. Quarles
William Peterson Carver, Jr. Research Professor of New Testament and
Greek
Louisiana College