Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] What we knew about the Gospel of Peter before we had the Gospel of Peter by Bart D. Ehrman, read by John Paul Middlesworth this is the second of my two posts on the Gospel of Peter. When the fragment that we now have was discovered by archaeologists in a cemetery in Egypt in 1886, it was almost immediately recognized as the Gospel of Peter, not because it had a title on it, but because it fits so well a description of the gospel in the writings of Eusebius, the early church historian in two places. In his ten volume History of Christianity from Jesus to his own day around 300 CE, Eusebius mentions the book twice as one of the writings not accepted by the church as scripture Church History 332 and 325. Six and on one other occasion, Eusebius discusses the book at some length in order to show why it had been excluded from consideration from the canon. The story involves Serapion, a bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century. Based on an account that he had read from Serapion's own hand, Eusebius indicates that Serapion had firsthand knowledge of the gospel of Peter and insisted that it not be used as bishop over a large area. Serapion had made a trip among the various churches under his authority, including the church in the syrian village of Rhosus. Upon arriving in Rhosus, he learned that for their worship services, the Christians there used a gospel allegedly written by Peter. At first, Serapion sanctioned the use of the book sight unseen. If Peter had written a gospel, then certainly it was appropriate for use in the church. After returning to Antioch, however, he learned from several informers that the so called gospel of Peter was in favor among a group of heretical believers known as the doceti.
[00:01:53] We do not know exactly what this group was or what beliefs they held. It is usually thought that they subscribe to an alternate understanding of Christ. The term docetism comes from the greek term dokeo, to seem or to appear, and is usually applied to christological views that maintained that Christ was not really human and did not really suffer and die, but only appeared to do so. We know of two major forms of docetic belief in the early church. One form, associated with figures such as marcion of Sinope, held that Jesus was not a real human being, but that he had come from heaven only in the appearance of human flesh.
[00:02:33] His body, in other words, was a phantasm. The other form of docetism, associated with a large number of different gnostic groups, maintained that Jesus himself was a flesh and blood human being, but that he was not to be identified with the Christ.
[00:02:48] The Christ was a divine being who descended from heaven and temporarily united with the man Jesus at his baptism, for example, empowering him for his ministry of teaching and miracles. Then, at the end of Jesus life, before his death, the divine Christ once more separated from him, leaving him to die alone.
[00:03:10] Here again, Christ only appeared to suffer.
[00:03:14] We do not know which if either of these beliefs was held by Serapion's doceti. But once Serapion learned that the group revered the gospel of Peter used in Rosus, he obtained a copy for himself and read it. On the basis of this perusal, he decided that even though most of its account was orthodox, there were some additions to the story that could indeed be used to support a heretical understanding of the gospel. Serapion wrote a small tractate detailing the problems of the book and sent it to the church in Rosus, along with a letter forbidding their future use of the book.
[00:03:49] Over a century later, Eusebius tells the story in church history 612 and quotes from the letter, but he does not quote any of the problematic passages that Serapion detailed in his tractate. This is much to be regretted because it makes it impossible to know with absolute certainty that the gospel of Peter that has now come into our hands is the that Serapion had read at the end of the second century.
[00:04:14] In any event, the gospel more or less disappeared from sight for 1700 years.
[00:04:20] In my next post I'll discuss a fragment of a gospel discovered more recently that some scholars have thought may also have belonged to the gospel of Peter. Given what this other fragment says, it's an intriguing possibility.
