the disputed early fragments of the so-called "gospel of peter": once again

The Disputed Early Fragments of the So-Called "Gospel of Peter": Once AgainAuthor(s): Paul FosterSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 49, Fasc. 4 (2007), pp. 402-406Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442573 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:09:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442573?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum An International Quarterly for

New Testament and Related Studies

Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 402-406 www.brill.nl/nt

The Disputed Early Fragments of the So-Called

Gospel of Peter?Once Again

Paul Foster

Edinburgh

Abstract

This article reiterates the argument that contrary to previous proposals five pieces of text

tual or artefactural evidence (P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy. 4009. P. Vindob. G 2325. Ostracon [van Haelst Nr. 741], and P. Egerton 2) cannot be identified with any certainty as early frag ments of the Gospel of Peter or, as in the case of the ostracon, as offering testimony to the

existence of that text. Furthermore, this discussion also responds to the personal attack

made in this journal by Prof. Liihrmann who took exception with my arguments that the

basis for identifying the fragments as witnesses to the Gospel of Peter was extremely slender

and flimsy. Finally, the discussion states categorically, in opposition to Prof. L?hrmanns

assertion, that I have worked directly with the Oxyrhynchus fragments.

Keywords

Gospel of Peter, P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy. 4009. P.Vindob. G 2325, Ostracon (van Haelst

Nr. 741), P.Egerton2

In the final part of the 2006 volume of Novum Testamentum (48/4) an

article was published which responded to an article I had published earlier in the same year in New Testament Studies.x Here I seek to do two things. First to briefly re-state the case that I made in the original article, and

secondly, to respond briefly to the personal attack that was made against me in the article.2

BRILL

u The original article was P. Foster, "Are There Any Early Fragments of the So-Called

Gospel of Peter?\ NTS 52 (2006) 1-28; the response was D. L?hrmann, "Kann es wirklich

keine fr?he Handschrift des Petrusevangeliums geben? Corrigenda zu einem Aufsatz von

Paul Foster", NovT48 (2006) 379-383. 2) I would like to thank the editors o? Novum Testarnentum for allowing me this opportunity to publish a brief response. In particular the support expressed by Dr Harm Hollander has

been greatly appreciated.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156853607X233948



P. Foster I Novum Testarnentum 49 (2007) 402-406 403

In my original article the identification of five pieces of textual or arte

factual evidence that have been suggested as demonstrating the much ear

lier existence of the text from Akhm?m (10759) identified as the Gospel of

Peter was questioned. These five pieces of evidence are: (i) P.Oxy. 2949; (ii)

P.Oxy. 4009; (iii) PVindob. G 2325; (iv) Ostracon (van Haelst Nr. 741); and (v) P. Egerton 2. Without doubt the two most significant pieces of

data covered in the discussion are fragmentary texts from Oxyrhynchus, known as P.Oxy. 2949 and P.Oxy. 4009 respectively. The first has a partial

overlap with G.Pet. 2:3-5 in the initial part of its text, but then goes its

own way. The second has no overlap with the extant portion of text discov

ered as the initial text in a codex unearthed during the Winter season dig of 1886-87 at Akhm?m. The identification of this text as part of the Gospel of Peter is made on the basis of a multiple stage argument. First P.Oxy. 4009 contains a first-person reference (probably in a narrative context),

Xb{zx uoi. Secondly, it was argued that this fragment parallels a dialogue between Jesus and Peter that occurs in 2 Clem. 5.2-4. Thirdly, it was sug

gested that a first-person version of this incident with Peter as the character

speaking in that voice must be a fragment from the now no-longer extant

portion of the Gospel of Peter. Apart from the highly convoluted and

speculative stages in this argument, it is also based upon a large-scale puta tive reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4009 which in effect aligns it closely with

2 Clem. 5.2-4, when actually the only significant item of vocabulary that

the two texts definitely share is the term XvKi?v/IXvKovq?although in

different cases. While reconstruction of fragmentary texts is an important

activity, it must be conducted with some controls. Scholars will obviously differ in relation to the level at which they set such controls. However, in

the present case the limits of plausibility are perhaps becoming too strained. This is due to a number of factors. The lack of shared terminology, the high level of creative reconstruction, the necessity to posit

an intermediate stage

based on the text of 2 Clem. 5.2-4, and also the need to account for the inversion in the order of the "serpents and doves" saying which is not in 2 Clem., but is part of the reconstruction of P.Oxy. 4009.

For these reasons, although based on a more detailed discussion, my

original article strongly refuted the notion that P.Oxy. 4009 could be seen

as a fragment of the Gospel of Peter. The other fragment, P.Oxy. 2949, was

seen as having some kind of relationship to the text of G.Pet. 2:3-5, but the failure to take account of divergence between the two texts has too

readily led to the suggestion that P.Oxy. 2949 is a second-century exemplar of the Gospel of Peter. Rather the possibility should be considered that



404 P. Foster I Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 402-406

P.Oxy. 2949 might reflect an evolving literary, or oral tradition that fed into the text that was discovered at Akhm?m, or even that both P.Oxy. 2949 and the Akhm?m text had independently reworked a common tradition that stood behind both of these texts.

Such arguments mainly, but not exclusively, interacted with the work of Prof. Dieter L?hrmann, a distinguished scholar in the field of New Testa

ment, especially in his work on non-canonical texts. Prof. L?hrmann has taken strong exception to my disagreement with his proposed identifica tions of P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy 4009, P.Vindob. G 2325 as fragments of the

Gospel of Peter, along with my rejection of the Ostracon (van Haelst Nr. 741) as containing a description of the apostle Peter as a "gospel-writer".

Although his article made no direct criticism in regard to the central argu ment concerning the incorrect identification of P.Oxy. 2949 and P.Oxy. 4009 as fragments of the Gospel of Peter, there were a number of other

points made by Prof. L?hrmann concerning aspects of the original article to which I now respond.

First Prof. L?hrmann suggests that I have never seen the fragments,3 which is in direct contradiction to what is claimed in my article. He

bases this on his assumption that I say that I consulted the fragments of

P.Oxy 2949 and P.Oxy. 4009 in the Bodleian Library and not the Sackler

Library. Here the record must be set straight. I do not say that I consulted

the fragments in the Bodleian, rather it is stated that they are "held in the

Oxyrhynchus Papyrology Collection of the Bodleian Library in Oxford".4 Here the reference related to the vexed issue of ownership and responsibil ity for housing the Oxyrhynchus fragments. The reference to the Egyptian

Exploration Society which occurs later in the footnote was suggested by Nick Gonis, the reference to the Bodleian as the umbrella organization

responsible for housing the fragments was actually suggested by a librarian in the Sackler, although maybe the even more generic Oxford University

Library Services might have been preferable. Regardless of nomenclature, I am in the fortunate position of having resided in Oxford for four years and over this period have consulted a number of Greek manuscripts in

various locations. I have consulted the two Oxyrhynchus fragments under

discussion on at least three occasions. Prof. L?hrmann is correct that they were housed in the Ashmolean prior to being accessed through the Sackler,

3) L?hrmann, "Kann es wirklich?", 381.

4) Foster, "Any Early Fragments?", 5 n. 17.



P. Foster I Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 402-406 405

and in fact on my first visit to view the fragments I entered through the

Ashmolean.

My article is also deemed deficient because I simply list the dating of

the Akhm?m text as being 7th to 9th century. Here I follow the original

publication report and a number of later scholars who adopt this dating.5 Prof. L?hrmann lists a host of datings (the majority which fall in the period 7th to 9th century),6 but some which date the text to either the 6th or even

the 5th centuries. While I am fully aware of the debate surrounding the

dating of the Akhm?m text, this simply was not my argument in the article.

In order to keep the discussion focused I engaged only on those questions that were central to the main argument of the article, namely that the texts

that have been claimed as providing evidence for the existence of the Gos

pel of Peter in the second century upon close scrutiny do not bear the

weight of this claim.

Prof. L?hrmann also objects to my phrase "Crossan and L?hrmann'.7 He argues that "Die Reihenfolge 'Crossan and L?hrmann (8-10) schlie?lich

macht mich gegen alle Logik, unbewusst oder vielleicht doch gewollt, zu

einen Gefolgsmann von Crossan, ohne dass die sich dazu einstellenden

Assoziationen ausgesprochen werden m?ssen".8 Contrary to what is sug

gested above, the reconstruction given by Crossan was treated first to

"remove" it from the discussion, prior to moving on to the more detailed case mounted by Prof. L?hrmann. The actual formulation "Crossan and

L?hrmann" was not intended to suggest Prof. L?hrmann was a mere fol

lower of Prof. Crossan, the names were simply given in alphabetical order. I was unaware that such an ordering could prove controversial, and unre

servedly apologize if this caused any unintentional offence.

Finally Prof. L?hrmann suggests that somehow I managed to slip my article through the rigorous security measures of New Testament Studies. He states, "Bedauerlich, dass ein Aufatz wie dieser die Sicherungsvorkeh rungen einer so renommierten Zeitschrift ?berwinden konnte".9 Again, it

must be pointed out that not only was my article peer reviewed in New Testament Studies, but that it had been read at the biblical studies seminars

5) Foster, "Any Early Fragments?", 1.

6) L?hrmann, "Kann es wirklich?", 379-80.

7) Foster, "Any Early Fragments?", 10.





406 P. Foster/Novum Testarnentum 49 (2007) 402-406

at the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and was also presented at

the 60th Annual Meeting of SNTS in Halle. On all of these occasions the

paper was warmly received, and I am glad to say that comments received

after publication continue to range from appreciative to expressions that

the paper is seen as fully convincing. The wider scholarly community (myself included) has benefited enor

mously from Prof. L?hrmann's meticulous work especially in the areas of

papyrology and work on early Christian manuscripts. This brief response to perceived weaknesses in my original paper is an attempt to defend myself

against false perceptions and factual errors in Prof. L?hrmann's Novum

Testarnentum article. At present I continue to stand by the arguments pre sented in my original article and can see no strong basis for identifying any of the previously proposed items as representing fragments of the Gospel of Peter, or in the case of the ostracon as providing further testimony to

that document. It is to be hoped that balanced and non-polemical research

may continue into the fascinating text discovered over a century ago at

Akhm?m in an unknown monk's grave.

The decision to solicit and to accept this response for publication was taken independently late in 2006 by Dr. Harm Hollander, who was secretary of AWFuntil the end of 2006. We

regard debate on the matter closed.?The Executive Editors.



the disputed early fragments of the so-called "gospel of peter": once again

Documents