No one can have studied this fragment of the Gospel according to Peter,
with its analogy to, and still more striking divergence from, the
canonical Gospels, without perceiving that we have here a most interesting
work, well worth serious examination. The first question which naturally
arises is connected with the date to be assigned to the fragment: Is this
a part of the work used by many of the Fathers and well known amongst them
as the Gospel according to Peter? We must first endeavour to form a
correct judgment on this point.
Eusebius has preserved to us the earliest detailed notice of the Gospel
according to Peter extant, in a quotation from Serapion, who became Bishop
of Antioch about A.D. 190. Eusebius says:
There is likewise another work written by him upon the so-called
Gospel according to Peter, which he composed to refute the
untruths contained in it, on account of certain in the community
of Rhossus who were led away by this writing to heretical
doctrines. It may be well to set forth some passages of this in
which he expresses his opinion of the book:
“For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other Apostles even
as Christ. But the false writings passing under their names we
from experience reject, knowing that such things we have not
received. When I was with you, I was under the impression that all
held to the right faith and, without going through the Gospel put
forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: ‘If this is the only
cause of difference amongst you, let it be read.’ But now, having
ascertained from information given to me that their minds were in
some mist of heresy, I will hasten to come to you again; so,
brethren, expect me shortly. We, therefore, brethren, knowing of
what heresy was Marcianus, recognise how much he was in
contradiction with himself,(5) not comprehending that which he was
saying, as you may perceive from what has been written unto you.
For we borrowed this gospel from others who used it: that is to
say, from the followers of those who introduced it before him,
whom we call Docetae—for most of its thoughts are of this
sect—having procured it from them, I was able to go through it,
and to find, indeed, that most was according to the right teaching
of the Saviour, but certain things were superadded, which we
subjoin for you.”(6)
There is little or no doubt that the writing before us is a fragment of
this “Gospel according to Peter” of which Serapion writes.(7) It must
always be remembered, as we examine the evidence for the work, that we
have here only a short fragment, and that it would not be reasonable to
expect to find in it materials for a perfect identification of the work
with references to it in writings of the Fathers. Within the few pages
which we possess, however, there is sufficient justification for
concluding that they formed part of the Gospel current in Rhossus. Only
one “Gospel according to Peter” is mentioned by early writers. This
fragment distinctly pretends to be a narrative of Simon Peter; and its
matter is generally such as must have satisfied Serapion’s ideas of
orthodox doctrine, if suspicion of Docetic tendencies had not made him
believe that it contained a superadded leaven of heresy. This may not
appear very clearly in the fragment, but we know from other sources, as we
shall presently see, that they existed in the Gospel, and even here the
representation that Jesus suffered no pain; that he is always called “the
Lord,” or the “Son of God;” that his one cry on the cross was susceptible
of peculiar explanation, and that he was immediately “taken up,” whilst
his body subsequently presents aspects not common to the canonical
Gospels, may have seemed to the careful bishop sufficiently Docetic to
warrant at least his not very severe condemnation.
It is unnecessary to discuss minutely the details of Serapion’s letter,
which, if vague in parts and open to considerable doubt in some important
respects, is at least sufficiently clear for our purpose in its general
meaning. Nothing is known of the Marcianus to whom it refers. The bishop
had evidently previously written of him, but the context has not been
preserved. The Armenian version, made from a Syriac text, reads “Marcion”
for “Marcianus,” but it would be premature on this authority to associate
the episode with that arch-heretic of the second century. It is clear from
the bishop’s words that on his previous visit to Rhossus, at the desire of
part of the community, he sanctioned the public reading of the Gospel of
Peter but, after personal acquaintance with its contents, he withdrew that
permission. Zahn(8) maintains that the private reading by members of the
Christian community, and not public reading at the services of the Church,
is dealt with in this letter, but in this he stands alone. The _Index
expurgatorius_ had not been commenced in the second century, and it is
impossible to think that the sanction of a bishop was either sought or
required for the private reading of individuals. We have here only an
instance of the diversity of custom, as regards the public reading of
early writings, to which reference is made in the writings of the Fathers
and in the Muratorian and other Canons. In this way the Epistle of the
Roman Clement, as Eusebius(9) mentions, was publicly read in the churches;
as were the Epistle of Soter to the Corinthians, the “Pastor” of
Hermas,(10) the “Apocalypse of Peter,”(11) and various Gospels which did
not permanently secure a place in the Canon. Eusebius, for instance,
states that the Ebionites made use only of the “Gospel according to the
Hebrews.”(12)
Eusebius(13) mentions a certain number of works attributed to the Apostle
Peter: the first Epistle, generally acknowledged as genuine, “but that
which is called the second,” he says, “we have not understood to be
incorporated with the testament” (ἐνδιάθηκον). The other works are, the
“Acts of Peter,” the “Gospel according to Peter,” the “Preaching of
Peter,” and the “Apocalypse of Peter,” the last being doubtless the work
of which a fragment has now been discovered in the little volume which
contains the fragment of the Gospel which we are considering. Of these
Eusebius says that he does not know of their being handed down as
Catholic, or universally received by the Church.
The “Gospel according to Peter” is directly referred to by Origen in his
Commentary on Matthew. He says: “Some say, with regard to the brethren of
Jesus, from a tradition in the Gospel entitled according to Peter, or of
the Book of James, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife.”(14)
Although this statement does not in itself necessarily favour Docetic
views, it is quite intelligible that it might be used in support of them
and, therefore, might have been one of the passages which excited the
suspicion of Serapion, more especially as a clear statement of this family
relationship is not to be found in the canonical Gospels. The part of the
Gospel referred to by Origen is not, unfortunately, contained in the
fragment, and consequently cannot be verified, but it is quite in
accordance with its general spirit, and at least we have here a distinct
mention of the Gospel without any expression of unfavourable opinion. What
is more important still is the fact that Origen certainly made use of the
Gospel, amongst others, himself.(15)
Jerome(16) likewise refers to it, after repeating the tradition that the
Gospel was said to be Peter’s, which Mark composed, who was his hearer and
interpreter; and to the works ascribed to Peter, which Eusebius
enumerates, he adds another—the “Judgment of Peter,” of which little or
nothing is known.
Theodoret says that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel according to
Peter.(17) Zahn and some others(18) argue against the correctness of this
statement; but reasoning of this kind, based upon supposed differences of
views, is not very convincing, when we consider that inferences to be
drawn from peculiarities in the narrative in this Gospel are neither so
distinct, nor so inevitable, as to be forced upon a simple and uncritical
community, and probably that the anti-Judaistic tendency of the whole, the
strongest characteristic of the composition, secured its acceptance, and
diverted attention from any less marked tendencies.
A number of passages have been pointed out in the Didascalia and
Apostolical Constitutions, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius of
Alexandria, and other ancient writers, showing the use of this Gospel
according to Peter;(19) but into these later testimonies it is not
necessary for us at present to go. That the work long continued to
exercise considerable influence can scarcely be doubted. It is to the
earlier history of the Gospel and its use in the second century that we
must rather turn our attention.
A probable reference to the Gospel of Peter in Polycarp’s “Epistle to the
Corinthians” has been pointed out by Mr. F. C. Conybeare.(20) The writer
speaks of “the testimony of the cross” (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ), an
expression which has puzzled critics a good deal. No passage in our
Gospels has hitherto explained it, but if it be referred to the answer
made by the cross, in our fragment, to the question from Heaven: “Hast
thou preached to them that are sleeping? And an answer came from the
cross, ‘Yea,’ ” it becomes at once intelligible. Mr. Taylor(21) suggests
the question whether “the word of the cross” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ) in 1
Cor. i. 18 is not also connected with the same tradition of the speaking
cross and, as Mr. Conybeare points out, the context favours the idea,
although he himself is not inclined to admit the interpretation. The words
of Paul are worth quoting:
For the word of the cross is to them that are perishing
foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of
God. 19. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and the prudence of the prudent will I reject;”
and so on. But although he cannot agree in the suggestion that Paul refers
to this tradition, because, he says, “Such a view seems to me to be too
bold and innovating in its character,” Mr. Conybeare goes on to suggest
that the incident in Peter, with this reply to the voice from heaven, may
be
one of the “three mysteries of crying” referred to by Ignatius,
_ad Eph._ xix. “Ritschl and Lipsius,” says Lightfoot, _ad locum_
“agree that two of the three were, (1) the voice at the baptism,
(2) the voice at the transfiguration. For the third ... Ritschl
supposes that Ignatius used some other Gospel containing a third
proclamation similar to the two others.” The Peter Gospel seems
here to supply just what is wanted.(22)
These suggestions are quoted here, in dealing with Polycarp, to show that
the supposition that he refers to the answer of the cross in the Gospel of
Peter is not without support in other early writings. When it is
remembered that the doctrine of a descent into Hell has a place in the
Creed of Christendom, it is not surprising that it should be dwelt on in
early writings, and that a Gospel which proclaims it by a voice from
Heaven, coupled with a miraculous testimony from the cross, should be
referred to. Of course it is impossible, in the absence of any explicit
declaration, to establish by the passage we are discussing that the Gospel
according to Peter was used by Polycarp, but there is some probability of
it at least, since no other Gospel contains the episode to which the
writer seems to refer.