The Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (the Gospel of Peter?)
The Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (the Gospel of Peter?)
In a discussion of writings attributed to the apostle Peter, church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340) mentions a Gospel of Peter, which Serapion, bishop of Antioch (in office 199–211), condemned as heretical (Hist. Eccl. 6.12.3–6). Serapion quotes no portion of this Gospel, only saying that it was used by Docetists (who asserted, in the spirit of Gnosticism, that the Christ only appeared [Gk. dokeō: “seem, appear”] to be human and die, not in actuality). In the winter of 1886–87, during excavations at Akhmîm in Egypt, a codex was found in the coffin of a Christian monk. The manuscript comprises a fragment of a Gospel, fragments of Greek Enoch, the Apocalypse of Peter, and, written on the inside of the back cover of the codex, an account of the martyrdom of St. Julian. The Gospel fragment bears no name or hint of a title, for neither the incipit nor the explicit has survived. Because the apostle Peter appears in the text, narrating in the first person (v. 60 “But I, Simon Peter”), because it seemed to have a docetic orientation, and because the Gospel fragment was in the company of the Apocalypse of Peter, it was widely assumed that the fragment belonged to the Gospel of Peter mentioned by Eusebius.14
Critical assessments of the newly published Gospel fragment diverged widely, with some scholars claiming that the fragment was independent of the New Testament Gospels and others claiming that the fragment is dependent on the New Testament Gospels.15 Throughout this debate no one seriously asked if the Akhmîm fragment really was part of the second-century Gospel of Peter. It was simply assumed that it was.
Then, in the 1970s and 1980s two more Greek fragments from Egypt were published, P.Oxy. 2949 and P.Oxy. 4009, which with varying degrees of confidence were identified as belonging to the Gospel of Peter. Indeed, one of the fragments was thought to overlap with part of the Akhmîm fragment. The publication of these fragments renewed interest in the Gospel because many felt that the identity of the Akhmîm fragment as the second-century Gospel of Peter, initially accepted and later rejected by Serapion, was confirmed. Indeed, some have suggested that the Fayyum Fragment, or P.Vindob. G 2325, is yet another early fragment of the Gospel of Peter.16
In recent years Helmut Koester and a circle of colleagues and students have given new life to Gardner-Smith's position. According to Koester, the Gospel of Peter's “basis must be an older text under the authority of Peter which was independent of the canonical gospels.” Koester's student Ron Cameron agrees, concluding that this Gospel is independent of the canonical Gospels, may even antedate them, and “may have served as a source for their respective authors.” 17 This position has been worked out in detail by Crossan who accepts the identification of the Akhmîm fragment with Serapion's Gospel of Peter. In a lengthy study that appeared in 1985, Crossan argued that the Gospel of Peter, though admittedly in its final stages influenced by the New Testament Gospel tradition, preserves an old tradition, on which all four of the canonical Gospels' Passion accounts are based.18 This old tradition is identified as the Cross Gospel. Crossan's provocative conclusion calls for evaluation.
The author of the Akhmîm Gospel fragment apparently possessed little accurate knowledge of Jewish customs and sensitivities. According to 8.31 and 10.38 the Jewish elders and scribes camp out in the cemetery as part of the guard keeping watch over the tomb of Jesus. Given Jewish views of corpse impurity, not to mention fear of cemeteries at night, the author of our fragment is unbelievably ignorant. Who could write such a story only 20 years after the death of Jesus? And if someone did at such an early time, can we really believe that the Matthean evangelist, who was surely Jewish, would make use of such a poorly informed writing? One can scarcely credit this scenario.
There are worse problems. The Jewish leaders' fear of harm at the hands of the Jewish people (Akhmîm fragment 8.30) smacks of embellishment if not Christian apologetic. The “seven seals” (8.33) and the “crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside” that “came in order to see the sealed tomb” (9.34) serve an apologetic interest: the resurrection story is well attested. These details are probably secondary to the canonical tradition. The appearance of the expression, “the Lord's day” (hē kyriakē, 9.35), of course, is another indication of lateness (cf. Rev 1:10; Ign. Magn. 9:1), not antiquity. The centurion's confession (Akhmîm fragment 11.45) appears to reflect Matthean influence (Matt 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47).19
Finally, can it be seriously maintained that the Akhmîm fragment's resurrection account, complete with a talking cross and angels whose heads reach heaven, constitutes the most primitive account extant? Is this the account that the canonical evangelists had before them? Or is it not more prudent to conclude what we have here is still more evidence of the secondary, fanciful nature of this apocryphal writing?20 Does not the evidence suggest that the Akhmîm Gospel fragment is little more than a blend of details from the four canonical Gospels, especially from Matthew, that has been embellished with pious imagination, apologetic concerns, and a touch of anti-Semitism?
The evidence strongly suggests that the Akhmîm Gospel fragment is a late work, not an early work, even if we attempt to find an earlier substratum, (gratuitously) shorn of imagined late accretions. But more pressing is the question that asks if the extant ninth-century Akhmîm Gospel fragment really is a fragment of the second-century Gospel of Peter condemned by Bishop Serapion in the early third century. The extant Akhmîm fragment does not identify itself, nor do we have a patristic quotation of the Gospel of Peter with which we could make comparison and possibly settle the questions. Nor is the Akhmîm Gospel fragment Docetic, as many asserted shortly after its publication. If the fragment is not Docetic, then the putative identification of the fragment with the Gospel of Peter is weakened still further. After all, the one thing that Serapion emphasized was that the Gospel of Peter was used by Docetists to advance their doctrines.21 And finally, as Paul Foster has shown, the connection between the Akhmîm Gospel fragment and the small papyrus fragments that may date as early as 200–250 is tenuous.22 Thus, we have no solid evidence that allows us with any confidence to link the extant Akhmîm Gospel fragment with a second-century text, be that the Gospel of Peter mentioned by Bishop Serapion or some other writing from the late second century. Given its fantastic features and coherence with late traditions, it is not advisable to make use of this Gospel fragment for Jesus research.