Das Evangelium Nach Petrus. Text, Kontexte, Intertexte

Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102 93

Th omas J. Kraus & Tobias Nicklas (eds.). Das Evangelium nach Petrus. Text, Kontexte, Intertexte (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band 158), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter 2007, VIII + 384 pp., ISBN 978-3-11-019313-8, € 98.00 (cloth).

For an up-to-date and broad overview of the state of scholarship on the so-called Gospel of Peter (hereafter EvPet), one simply need turn to this col- laboration of twenty chapters by seventeen different authors in German and English. Many of the leaders in the field contribute, covering a range of perspectives, from paleographical to syntactical analysis, from composition to reception history, from theological to social-scientific criticism. Th e editors, Th omas Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, introduce this volume as the second part of a twofold project (p. 2). Th e first appeared in 2004 as their co-authored Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse, half of which was devoted to EvPet, containing a discussion of issues involved in a critical edition, along with patristic attestations, transcriptions and pho- tographs of all possibly relevant manuscripts, fresh German translations with critical notes, fresh English translations, and a research bibliography. In his review of this first volume, Bart Ehrman noted that it provided the groundwork for but not the purchase of a singular missing piece of the scholarly puzzle at this time, namely, an editio princeps.1 Ehrman apparently had in mind a comprehensive edition that not only includes but also attempts to reconcile various possible fragments. Yet as the present volume makes clear, this is far easier said than done, given the many debates and ambiguities about these very fragments and the dating of EvPet in general. On one side of the debate is D. Lührmann, who in this volume summarizes the case he originally made in 1981 for P. O x y. 2949 as an early manuscript of EvPet (31), corroborating on the whole the second century provenance of its text as we know it from the late-written (6th-7th century) Akhmîm codex (P.Cair. 10759). Lührmann also notes his 1993 case for P. O x y. 4009 as part of EvPet (33), and the later possibility he raised for including the long-puzzling P.Vindob.G 2325 and van Haelst 741. On the other side of the debate stand this volume’s editors, who dem- onstrate gracious scholarship by inviting Lührmann’s chapter, even as he critiques their previously stated arguments against the inclusion of P. O x y.

1) Review of Th omas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, eds., Das Petrusevangelium und die Petru- sapokalypse, in: Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 103.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access 94 Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102

4009, P.Vindob.G 2325 and van Haelst 741 and against the significance of P. O x y. 2949 as corroboration of a second century provenance for the text of EvPet as we have it in the Akhmîm fragment. In this volume, it is Peter van Minnen who makes their central case, so to speak. Van Minnen performs a thorough paleographical analysis of the Akhmîm codex, which contains both EvPet and the Apocalypse of Peter (hereafter ApPet). He reads both texts as the product of the same, increasingly fatigued scribe and affirms as likely the scenario that while both texts first arose in Jewish-Christian circles, this late-coming scribe imposed an “anti-Jewish slant . . . on both texts in one go” (59). He concludes with a cautionary note, that the redac- tions evident in comparing P. O x y. 2949 with Akhmîm EvPet, and also Ethi- opic ApPet with Akhmîm ApPet, show how misguided are interpretations of the Akhmîm codex that assume that “it reflected the original, early character of the Gospel of Peter” (60). Th e editors do weigh in for their case, but with more specialized arguments. Th omas Kraus begins his chapter by echoing Van Minnen’s conclusion, pointing out that P. O x y. 2949 represents marginal and somewhat dubious textual evidence, potentially offering „nur einige Wörter“ to the actual text of EvPet. In other words, any textual analysis of EvPet essentially treats of a 6th-7th century codex, not a 2nd century counterpart (63-64). More specifically, he performs a lexical/linguistic analysis of Akhmîm EvPet, arguing against F. Weißengruber’s defense of an early date based on the conjectured use of an optative verb (66), as well as his case for period- idiosyncratic grammar when numerous features weigh against this (67-68). Similarly, Kraus critiques D. Karavidopoulos for his defense of EvPet’s hapax legomena as early, new conventions, and shows that his list of ostensibly rare words are in fact quite amply attested, particularly in the LXX (69-76). Th e other editor, Tobias Nicklas, contributes a reception-historical argument against a second century provenance. Specifically, he thoroughly critiques the over-optimistic claims (e.g., made by Vaganay in his magisterial commentary) of the dependence of Sibylline Oracles, book 8, on EvPet (263-265). He explains similarities as based on commonly known traditions (e.g. in the proto-canonical gospels), and that Sib.Or. 8 and EvPet represent distinct portraits of the crucifixion and resurrection (266-276). In a similar vein, Th omas Karmann refutes the thesis of O. Perler that Melito of Sardis depended on EvPet, going so far as to cast doubt on whether Melito even knew of such a text (216-233). At the end, he adds that P. O x y. 2949 only corroborates an early third century Egyptian provenance for an antecedent of the Akhmîm codex (232) and does not make a

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102 95 secure connection with the EvPet mentioned by Serapion. Most notable in making this reception-historical critique is Martin Meiser, who takes account of the „spärliche Spuren“ of EvPet, showing that many of its characteristics are corroborated only after the second century in reception-history, including the portrait of the Jews as the direct agents of the crucifixion of Jesus, or describing the removal of nails (190-191). However persuasive this multi-pronged line of argument sounds, it does not place Lührmann in lonely company across the whole volume, given that most of the contributors to the book favor, explicitly or implicitly, a second-century provenance. Th is provenance was taken for granted univer- sally in the earliest Forschungsgeschichte of the Akhmîm codex, which Paul Foster describes in exquisite detail. While English scholars (Swete, Robin- son, Harris) seemed to evince a particular penchant for playing up its heret- ical features (14-21), French (Bouriant, Lods) and German (Harnack, Hilgenfeld) scholars did not substantially differ in interpreting this text as some kind of second century harmonization (however loosely dependent) of the canonical gospels (21-29). Incidentally, this quickly attained consensus seemed to quell the intense initial interest in the text (between 1894-1897), and over the next hundred years novel hypotheses proved scarce, as Foster notes (29-30). Th e case of P. Gardner-Smith, who in 1926 argued against the dependence of EvPet on the canonical gospels, was a notable exception. In 1988 John Crossan laid out perhaps the most novel case of the century by arguing an early date (40s!) for the earliest stratum of EvPet, and its redaction in the middle of the second century to conform to canonical traditions. Crossan himself contributes a chapter to the present volume (117-134), which does not advance any new line of inquiry, but essentially re-packages his original theory by spelling out textual dynamics in terms of independence and dependence, not exclusive dependence (an approach characteristic of nearly everyone before Crossan). Th e other contributors to the volume tend to laud him for blazing a new trail of scholarship that makes much more mod- est claims about dependence, or else acknowledge him in passing for a pro- vocative thesis that has fallen by the wayside. While a first century provenance appears untenable, a second century one still appears fashionable and even defensible in various respects. Stanley Por- ter’s syntactical analysis of the Akhmîm fragment, populated by long, data- base-like lists of syntactical phenomena, does not offer any overall, synthetic conclusions, apparently in keeping with his stated purpose of merely doing the groundwork for an eventual, intertextual comparison (79). However, on

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access 96 Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102 occasion he does note the congruity of syntactical elements of EvPet with certain New Testament texts (80-81,87), which would seem to point to an early (i.e., second century) provenance. Th omas Hieke works through a „leserorientierte intertextuelle Analyse” of Akhmîm EvPet, specifically elaborating its connections to the LXX, including canonical parallels. He concludes that EvPet demonstrates literary creativity, a fresh and interest- provoking engagement with LXX intertexts that is related to, but not dominated by, certain traditions in canonical gospels (113). Th is conclusion nuances but does not displace the provenance commonly held since the late 19th century. In a relatively similar vein, Judith Hartenstein shows how the Passion-history structure of EvPet not only lines up with the canonical gospels, but also with the fairly recently discovered Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium (Pap.Ber. 22220), sharing a first-person witness, an account of the crucifixion as performed by the people of Israel, and a spe- cial role for the cross itself (167). Th e customary dates for UBE would seem to support a mid- to late-second century provenance for EvPet. Two contributors especially employ orality theory to discuss EvPet, with basically congruent results. Alan Kirk picks up on the cultural memory theories of Jan Assmann, noting the oral performative character of written compositions, and defending EvPet together with the canonical gospels as distinct performances of common “group-constitutive Erinnerungsfiguren” (142). EvPet seems to fit best as a relatively late instance of a distinct performance, taking place toward the end of the period of fluid oral-written interplay of the primal-narrative, around the third or fourth generation. István Czachesz adapts cognitive science studies regarding memory and orality to discuss the relationship of EvPet with the Apocryphal Acts. Th e many verbatim and thematic parallels (summarized on 253-254) point to “some kind of intertextual relationship” (255), namely, the common presence of a narrative script (martyr-story), characterized by serial recall and filled in by improvisation (256-260). He notes two possible conclusions: that EvPet and the canonical Gospels “influenced the Apocryphal Acts through secondary orality” (basically in keeping with the views of Ray- mond Brown) or that those gospels themselves continued in “an oral- formative period at the very time during which the Apocryphal Acts (or their relevant parts) were composed” (260). Although neither Kirk nor Czachesz proffer specific dates, their work points to an early- to mid- second century provenance. Other reception-historical work also serves to corroborate this conclusion. F. Stanley Jones makes a tightly argued case, including relevant Syriac texts,

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102 97 for the dependence of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1,27-71 on EvPet. He bases his case on linguistic parallels and common themes unrepre- sented in other writings. Th ese include the reappearance of the sun at the ninth hour, the crowds being disturbed by a heavenly portent, and the con- sequent fear incited among Jewish leaders (238-242). Jones concludes by noting that this dependence points to the currency of EvPet among Gentile Christians “in and around Aelia Capitolina,” and thus away from the literary isolation of Rhossus.2 Katherina Greschat acknowledges that, while no clear literary dependence can be established between the writings of Justin Martyr and EvPet, their shared narrative and thematic features argue for „eine gewisse Nähe” (212), which does not prove, but would seem to lend circumstantial support to a second century provenance. Th eological approaches represented here seem to presume more than establish provenance, but that need not make them less important. Matti Myllykoski lays out a second century background, granting as confirmation both Serapion’s letter (301-303) and P. O x y. 2949 (306-307), before iden- tifying the Christology of EvPet as adoptionist in a particularly Ebionite way, rather than docetic or that of a martyr who endures excruciating pain (313-325). Heike Omerzu undertakes a narrative-critical attempt to sketch a fresh picture of Pilate in EvPet, one quite in contrast to the customary conclusion of Pilate as an innocent figure representing an empire expunged of blame now laid exclusively upon Jews. Pilate’s character interactions are actually cooperative rather than antithetical to the narrative roles of Herod and the Jewish leaders (349). Here the methodology, presuming a unified composition, while not necessarily bound to an early date, does end up pushing against one of the key ideas employed by critics (Van Min- nen, Meiser) of a clear second century provenance for the text of EvPet as we know it in the Akhmîm fragment, namely the idea of later anti-Jewish redaction. Th e final approach represented is a social-scientific and rhetorical analysis of the semiotics of bodies in EvPet by Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele. Th e authors note the inherent ambiguities about the actual text of EvPet and its provenance, leaving the question of date wide open, between the first and seventh centuries (351). Th ey conclude that EvPet constitutes a profoundly counter-cultural performance akin to early Christian martyr stories in which the body of Jesus is wrested from the control of the rulers

2) 244; as that place to which Serapion wrote a letter dealing with EvPet (see Eusebius, h.e. 6,12).

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access 98 Reviews / Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 83-102 from the dramatic outset, is powerful enough to shake the earth even after death, and triumphantly processes from the tomb in an apotheosis that out- does anything to be found in emperor cult lore (360-368). While the authors do not tie their results to issues of provenance, these counter-imperial, martyr-like motifs favor an earlier and narrower timeframe, most likely 2nd or 3rd century. In their introduction, the editors lay out something of a conclusion. Th ey note how numerous overlapping contexts seem to prevent the estab- lishment of a background so necessary as a first step to meaningful inter- pretation (6). Th e ambiguity of textual issues, along with the disparity among the contributions, leaves the editors agnostic about the attempt to find “abschließende Antworten” (7). Reading through this collaborative volume to answer the veritable question of questions about EvPet, this reviewer finds that consensus there is not, but that there is an underlying coherence found in this volume, one that runs quite counter to argument of the editors. Th ere is multifaceted and multilayered coherence across the bulk of the chapters that points to a second century provenance. Th ere is a valid connection of the late 2nd, early 3rd century P. O x y. 2949 with the late 6th, early 7th century Akhmîm fragment. Th e internal evidence, particularly when understood in terms of performance (mnemonic, group- constitutive, or counter-cultural), favors a relatively early provenance. Even while certain reception-historical claims (e.g., regarding Sib.Or. 8 or Melito) are dubious, their refutations, as arguments from silence, cannot disprove such a provenance, and other reception-historical evidence (explicitly in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and various Apocryphal Acts, and “prox- imately” in Justin Martyr and UBE) corroborates it. Even traces of an anti-Jewish bias by the scribe of the Akhmîm fragment does not support the idea of a thorough anti-Jewish re-working of the contents of EvPet, especially since Akhmîm EvPet is simultaneously and cogently both intra- Jewish (favoring Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea and the sympathetic crowds) and anti-Jewish (critiquing Jewish leaders, including Herod, in unfavora- ble partnership with Rome in the person of Pilate), as expected in a Jewish- Christian composition. Th at the overall thrust of this finely edited volume may run against the views of the editors only makes it that much more intriguing and useful. It is absolutely essential to anyone working seriously on the Gospel of Peter.

Point Loma Nazarene University Mark Glen Bilby San Diego, USA [email protected]

Downloaded from Brill.com04/15/2020 12:14:00AM via free access