Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T14:41:50.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Contribution of Non-Canonical Gospels to the Memory of Jesus: The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter as Test Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2018

Jens Schröter
Jens Schröter*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Theologische Fakultät, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. Email: jens.schroeter@cms.hu-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that the social memory approach makes a significant contribution to the interpretation of the early gospel tradition. This approach helps to overcome an anachronistic distinction between ‘canonical’ and ‘non-canonical’ (or ‘apocryphal’) Gospels by highlighting the way Jesus was portrayed in various Gospels of the first and second century. Early Christian Gospels in general presuppose the post-Easter perspective on Jesus as a divine figure, but depict his activity and teaching in different ways. A closer look at the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter demonstrates how these Gospels take up and continue perspectives which can be observed already in the earlier Gospels in their own ways. Thereby they provide glimpses of different social and theological contexts of second-century Christianity.

Keywords

memory approach‘high Christology’early gospel traditionsecond-century Gospels‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’ portraits of Jesuspost-Easter perspectiverecreation of the Jesus story
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 435 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Paper presented at the SNTS seminar ‘Memory, Narrative, and Christology in the Synoptic Gospels’ at the 72nd meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, 7–11 August in Pretoria. I would like to thank the participants of the seminar for a productive discussion and valuable suggestions. A special thank goes to Kelsie Rodenbiker, who made numerous invaluable suggestions to improve the English style of this article. I am also grateful to Dr Iveta Adams for her careful copy-editing and many helpful recommendations.

References

1 For a more recent overview on these topics, see the contributions in Jesus Handbuch (ed. Schröter, J. and Jacobi, C.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017)Google Scholar, Part B ‘Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Jesusforschung’.

2 I take as a reference point my book Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997)Google Scholar. If I am not mistaken, in this book the memory approach was applied to Jesus studies for the first time in the way it will be used in this paper. For a more recent summary of my view on memory, see ‘Der “erinnerte” Jesus: Erinnerung als geschichtshermeneutisches Paradigma der Jesusforschung’, Jesus Handbuch (n. 1), 112–24.

3 Cf. the thematic issue ‘Jesus and Memory: The Memory Approach in Current Jesus Research’, EC 6/3 (2015).Google Scholar See also Kirk, A. and Thatcher, T., eds., Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (Semeia Studies 52; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005)Google Scholar; Stuckenbruck, L. T., Barton, S. C. and Wold, B. G., eds., Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (WUNT 212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007)Google Scholar; Kirk, A., ‘Memory Theory and Jesus Research’, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. i: How to Study the Historical Jesus (ed. Holmén, T. and Porter, S. E.; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011) 809–42Google Scholar; Butticaz, S. and Norelli, E., eds., Memory and Memories in Early Christianity (WUNT 398: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018)Google Scholar. The next issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus will be devoted to this topic as well.

4 Cf. e.g. Foster, P., ‘Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research,’ JSHJ 10 (2012) 191–227Google Scholar.

5 The expression ‘historical imagination’ plays an important role in R. G. Collingwood's concept of history. Cf. Collingwood, R. G., The Idea of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946; rev. edn with an introduction by van der Dussen, J., 1993)Google Scholar. By using this phrase, Collingwood did not describe historical reconstructions (or constructions) as fictions, but emphasised that ‘history’ is a concept in human minds, based on artefacts of the past.

6 M. Halbwachs, La mémoire collective (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950 [1939]); idem, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1952 [1925])Google Scholar.

7 Cf. Assmann, J., Das kollektive Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engl. trans.: Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar). See also Assmann, A., Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit: Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘Probleme und Chancen der Erinnerungskultur’, Geschichte und Gott. xv. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie (14.–18. September 2014 in Berlin) (ed. Meyer-Blanck, M.; VWGTh 44; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016) 173–85Google Scholar.

8 The memory concept was applied to Jesus studies in this way e.g. by Bauckham, R. A., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, rev. and expanded edn 20172)Google Scholar; McIver, R. K., Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels (Resources for Biblical Study 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2011)Google Scholar.

9 Cf. Schacter, D. L., ‘The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights from Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience,’ American Psychologist 54 (1999) 182–203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 Cf. Droysen, J. G., Outlines of the Principles of History (trans. by Andrews, E. B.; Boston: Ginn & Company, 1893Google Scholar; original German: Grundriss der Historik: Letzte Druckfassung, Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1882Google Scholar); Collingwood, Idea of History (n. 5).

11 Cf. Gadamer, H. G., Wahrheit und Methode (reprint of the 6th rev. edn, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 305–12Google Scholar.

12 For the so-called ‘apocryphal Gospels’, cf. the following collections: Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993, repr. 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ehrman, B. D. and Plese, Z., The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Markschies, C. and Schröter, J., eds., Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. i: Evangelien und Verwandtes (in zwei Teilbänden) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar; Burke, T. and Landau, B., eds., New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. i (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016)Google Scholar. See also the proceedings of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense 2001: Schröter, J., ed., The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early Christian Theology (BETL 260; Leuven: Peeters, 2013)Google Scholar.

13 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–6.

14 Cf. Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39.

15 For a recent approach to describing the relationship of canonical and non-canonical Gospels, see Watson, F., Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013)Google Scholar. Cf. also Watson, F. and Parkhouse, S., eds., Connecting Gospels: Beyond the Canonical/Non-Canonical Divide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Cf. Deichgräber, R., Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen (SUNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1967)Google Scholar; Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (StNT 7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1972)Google Scholar; M. Hengel, ‘Das Christuslied im frühesten Gottesdienst’, idem, Studien zur Christologie: Kleine Schriften, vol. iv (WUNT 201; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 205–58Google Scholar.

17 Cf. Kramer, W., Christos, Kyrios, Gottessohn: Untersuchungen zu Gebrauch und Bedeutung der christologischen Bezeichnungen bei Paulus und den vorpaulinischen Gemeinden (AThANT; Zurich: Zwingli, 1963)Google Scholar; Hurtado, L. W., Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003) 98–153Google Scholar (on christological language and themes in early Pauline Christology).

18 Cf. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (n. 17), 262–74.

19 ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Mark 2.10).

20 τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ· τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός; (Mark 2.7).

21 Although it is disputed whether the Gospel of Mark presupposes Jesus’ pre-existence, there are at least some features pointing to Jesus’ sending by God, e.g. the mixed quotation from Scripture in 1.2–3, where Jesus is addressed by God himself as his representative.

22 The place of the miracle stories within Mark's overall depiction of Jesus, especially their relationship to the passion events, has been the subject of intense scholarly debate. Without going into detail here, it can be stated that the mighty deeds performed by Jesus in Mark's Gospel serve as descriptions of his extraordinary power bestowed upon him at baptism. These deeds are therefore signs of the God's reign dawning in Jesus’ activity.

23 Mark 6.45–52. For cultural contexts of this account, see Collins, A. Y., Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 328–33Google Scholar.

24 Mark 6.50: θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

25 Cf. Exod 3.14; Deut 32.39; Isa 41.4; 43.10–11; 45.18–19; 48.12; see also John 4.26; 8.28; 9.9; 13.19; 18.6.

26 Matt 14.22–33; 8.23–7. Matt 14.30 alludes to Ps 68.2–3, 15 LXX.

27 Cf. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8–17) (EKK i/2; Zürich/Braunschweig: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990) 27–30Google Scholar, 409.

28 Cf. John 2.22; 12.16.

29 Cf. Dietzfelbinger, C., Der Abschied des Kommenden: Eine Auslegung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden (WUNT 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997)Google Scholar.

30 Cf. J. Zumstein, ‘Die Endredaktion des Johannesevangeliums (am Beispiel von Kapitel 21)’, idem, Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium (AThANT 84; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004 2) 291–315Google Scholar.

31 Terms such as δίκτυον, γυμνός, τολμᾶν, βόσκειν or ἀρνίον, among others, appear only in chapter 21 of John's Gospel.

32 Cf. Heckel, T., Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (WUNT 120; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 128–90Google Scholar.

33 Rudolf Schnackenburg rightly points out that chapter 21 is not just an addendum (‘Nachtrag’) or an appendix (‘Anhang’) or epilogue, but an editorial closure which provides a key for the readers of that time to understand the whole Gospel (‘redaktionelles Schlußkapitel mit einer sinnerschließenden Funktion für die damaligen kirchlichen Leser’). See idem, Das Johannesevangelium. Dritter Teil: Kommentar zu Kapitel 13–21 (HThK iv/3; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1975) 409Google Scholar.

34 Cf. Kelhoffer, J. A., Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT ii/112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)Google Scholar.

35 The Longer Ending of Mark was already known to Irenaeus, cf. Haer. 3.10.6, quoting Mark 16.19. Sometimes it is assumed that it is also presupposed in the Epistula Apostolorum.

36 In spite of some claims to the contrary, in my perspective it remains most likely that the non-canonical Gospels originated from the second half of the second century onwards. Texts such as ProtJas, Gos. Thom., Gos. Pet., Gos. Mary, Gos. Egerton and some others in all probability originated in the later second or early third century, not in the first, but also not in the fourth or fifth century. I cannot discuss this question here in detail, but there are sufficient reasons for this assumption.

37 Cf. S. Pellegrini, ‘Das Protevangelium des Jakobus’, Antike christliche Apokryphen, i.903–29; Vuong, L. C., Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James (WUNT ii/358; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013)Google Scholar; Vanden Eykel, E. M., ‘But their Faces Were All Looking up’: Author and Reader in the Protevangelium of James (London et al.: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016)Google Scholar.

38 Cf. Johnston, J. J., The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016)Google Scholar.

39 Cf. S. J. Patterson, ‘Jesus meets Plato: The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas and Middle Platonism’, idem, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel (NHMS 84, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013) 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Platonism and the Apocryphal Origins of Immortality in the Christian Imagination or Why do Christians Have Souls that Go to Heaven?’, ibid., 61–91.

40 Cf. Hartenstein, J., Die zweite Lehre: Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen als Rahmenerzählungen frühchristlicher Dialoge (TU 146; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Cf. King, K. L., The Gospel of Mary: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003)Google Scholar, esp. 37–81.

42 Cf. e.g. Freyne, S., Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus Story (London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2004)Google Scholar.

43 Cf. Reed, J. L., Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000)Google Scholar; Chancey, M. A., Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (SNTSMS 134; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fiensy, D. A. and Strange, J. R., eds., Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, vol. i: Life, Culture, and Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014)Google Scholar; vol. ii: The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015)Google Scholar.

44 Cf. S. Freyne, ‘Jesus and the Urban Culture of Galilee’, idem, Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT 125; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 183–207Google Scholar.

45 Cf. Smith, D. M., ‘Jesus Tradition in the Gospel of John’, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. iii: The Historical Jesus (ed. Holmén, T. and Porter, S. E.; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011) 1997–2039Google Scholar.

46 For a description of the fragments, see Hurtado, L. W., ‘The Greek Fragments of the Gospel of Thomas as Artefacts: Papyrological Observations on Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654 and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655’, Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie (ed. Frey, J., Popkes, E. E. and Schröter, J. with the collaboration of C. Jacobi; BZNW 157, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008) 19–32Google Scholar; reprinted in Hurtado, L. W., Texts and Artefacts: Selected Essays on Textual Criticism and Early Christian Manuscripts (LNTS 584; London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018) 167–81Google Scholar. It should be noted, however, that P.Oxy. 655, although often referred to as a fragment of Gos. Thom. in Greek, is a more complicated case. Regarding the differences between the Greek and Coptic texts, it is rather unlikely that this fragment should be regarded as belonging to a Greek version of Gos. Thom.

47 Origen, Hom. Luc. 1.2; Hippol. Haer. 5.7.20.

48 The study of Eisele, W., Welcher Thomas? Studien zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte des Thomasevangeliums (WUNT 259; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)Google Scholar, is devoted to the relationship of the Coptic and the Greek text of Gos. Thom.

49 Cf. Luijendijk, A.-M., ‘Reading the Gospel of Thomas in the Third Century: Three Oxyrhynchus Papyri and Origen's Homilies’, Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte (ed. Clivaz, C. and Zumstein, J.; BETL 242, Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 241–67Google Scholar.

50 For a comprehensive treatment of the aspects related to the place of Gos. Thom. within early Christian literature, see Gathercole, S., The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary (TENTS 11; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014) 3–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 This is different in the Pirke Aboth, where the sayings are ascribed to various rabbis who are identified at the beginning of the individual sections.

52 Cf. Schwarz, K., ‘Der “lebendige Jesus” im Thomasevangelium’, Christ of the Sacred Stories (ed. Dragutinovic, P. et al. ; WUNT ii/453; Tübingen 2017) 223–46Google Scholar.

53 Cf. Miroshnikov, I., ‘The Gospel of Thomas and Plato: A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the “Fifth Gospel”’ (Academic diss.; Helsinki, 2016)Google Scholar.

54 For a more recent comprehensive interpretation, see Foster, P., The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary (TENT 4; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Kraus, T. J. and Nicklas, T., eds., Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse: Die griechischen Fragmente mit deutscher und englischer Übersetzung (GCS NF 11, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen i; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Cf. D. Lührmann, ‘“Petrus, der Heilige, der Evangelist, verehren laßt uns ihn”: Neue Funde und Wiederentdeckungen zum Petrusevangelium’, idem, Die apokryph gewordenen Evangelien: Studien zu neuen Texten und neuen Fragmente (NovTSup 112; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 55–104Google Scholar.

56 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12.3–6.

57 Different models to describe this relationship are discussed by Augustin, P., Die Juden im Petrusevangelium: Narratologische Analyse und theologiegeschichtliche Kontextualisierung (BZNW 214; Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2015) 57–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Cf. Augustin, Juden (n. 57); Nicklas, T., ‘Die “Juden” im Petrusevangelium (PCair 10759): Ein Testfall’, NTS 47 (2000) 206–21Google Scholar; Kirk, A., ‘The Johannine Jesus in the Gospel of Peter’, Jesus in Johannine Tradition (ed. Fortna, R. F. and Thatcher, T.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 313–21Google Scholar.

59 Matt 27.62: chief priests and Pharisees; cf. John 18.3; Matt. 28.11–12: chief priests and elders.

60 2.5 and 5.15: ‘It is written for them that the sun should not set on one that had been put to death’; cf. Deut 21.22–3.

61 Cf. Kirk, ‘Johannine Jesus’ (n. 58).

62 Cf. Kirk, A., ‘Tradition and Memory in the Gospel of Peter’, Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontexte, Intertexte (ed. Kraus, T. J. and Nicklas, T.; TU 158; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2007) 135–58Google Scholar. The approach of T. P. Henderson, who regards Gos. Peter as a ‘rewritten gospel’ compared to the New Testament Gospels, is unsatisfactory since the idea of the ‘rewriting’ of Scripture is hardly appropriate for second-century Gospels and their relationship to previous Gospels. The contours of the Jesus story in the second century are still fluid and can hardly be grasped within a model of the ‘rewriting’ of an established framework of Jesus’ activity.

63 Cf. Schröter, ‘Erinnerung’ (n. 2) for the Gospel of Thomas, and Kirk, ‘Tradition and Memory in the Gospel of Peter’ (n. 62) for the Gospel of Peter.

64 The expression ‘updated re-narration’ (‘aktualisierende Neuerzählung’) was used for the Gospel of Peter by Augustin, Juden (n. 57), 98–108.

65 Examples are the Gospel of Mark, Apocalypse of John, Epistle to the Apostles and Wisdom of Jesus Christ.