Having looked closely at the Gospel of Thomas in chapter three, we will move a little more quickly in this chapter in surveying four other extracanonical Gospels. THE GOSPEL OF PETER Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. A.D. 260-340) states that 1 Peter is accepted and has been used by the ancient elders, but other writings attributed to the apostle are rejected (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1-4). The rejected writings that are attributed to Peter include the second letter (presumably 2 Peter), the apocalypse (that is, the Apocalypse of Peter), the Gospel (that is, the Gospel of Peter), and the preaching (that is, the Preaching of Peter). Later in his history Eusebius refers to the "writings that are put forward by heretics under the name of the apostles containing Gospels such as those of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others besides" (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.6). Still later Eusebius once again mentions the Gospel attributed to Peter, this time in reference to Serapion, bishop of Antioch (in office A.D. 199-211). Eusebius quotes a portion of the bishop's letter, titled "Concerning What Is Known as the Gospel of Peter." Serapion states: 

For our part, brothers, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings that falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us. For I myself, when I came among you, imagined that all of you clung to the true faith; and, without going through the Gospel put forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: "If this is the only thing that seemingly causes a mean spirit among you, let it be read." But since I have now learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you. Therefore, brothers, expect me quickly But we, brothers, gathering to what kind of heresy Marcianus belonged (who used to contradict himself, not knowing what he was saying, as you will learn from what has been written to you), were enabled by others who studied this very Gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we called Docetists (for most of the ideas belong to their teaching)-using [the material supplied] by them, were enabled to go through it and discover that the most part was indeed in accordance with the true teaching of the Savior, but that some things were added, which also we place below for your benefit. (Ecclesiastical History 6.12.3-6) 

The testimony of Serapion confirms the existence of a work known as the Gospel of Peter, a work that emerged sometime in the second century. For us, however, the value of his statement is limited, for almost nothing is said of the contents of the Gospel of Peter and no part of it is actually quoted. To the best of our knowledge, no other church father quotes any part of this Gospel. This lack of specific information will have a bearing on the question of the identity of the various manuscript finds that are thought to relate to this writing. 

In the winter of 1886-1887, during excavations at Akhmim 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 beginning nor the conclusion of the work has survived. Because the apostle Peter appears in the text, narrating in the first person ("But I, Simon Peter" N. 60]), because it seemed to have a docetic orientation (that is, where the physical reality of Jesus is discounted), 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.I Critical assessments of the then newly published Gospel fragment diverged widely, with some scholars, such as Percival Gardner-Smith claiming that the fragment was independent of the New Testament Gospels and others such as Henry Barclay Swete claiming that the fragment is dependent on the New Testament Gospels.' Throughout this debate no one asked if the Akhmim 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, POxy 2949 and POxy 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 Akhmim fragment. The publication of these fragments renewed interest in the Gospel, because it was felt that the identity of the Akhmim fragment as the second-century Gospel of Peter, initially accepted and later rejected by Serapion, was confirmed. Indeed, it has also been suggested that the Fayyum Fragment (PVindob. G 2325) is yet another early fragment of the Gospel of Peter.3 

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 predate them, and "may have served as a source for their respective authors."4 This position has been worked out in detail by John Dominic Crossan, who accepts the identification of the Akhmim 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 Passion accounts in the canonical Gospels are based.' This old tradition is identified as the Cross Gospel. Crossan's provocative conclusion calls for evaluation. I will translate a selection from the Akhmim Gospel fragment that Crossan thinks reflects the earlier Cross Gospel.6 

df

dfdfd

dfd

Crossan's hypothetical Cross Gospel contains elements that suggest that the Akhmim fragment (or Gospel of Peter) was written after, not prior, to the Synoptic Gospels, particularly the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The confession of the Jewish authorities' guilt (7.25; 11.48), which in itself lacks historical realism, could owe its inspiration in part to Jesus' woe and lament for Jerusalem (Lk 21:20-24; see Lk 23:48) and perhaps to Caiaphas's ominous counsel On 11:49-50). Does it really seem likely that the Akhmim fragment's tradition that the "Jews and elders" expressed grief by acknowledging their sins and the imminence of "judgment and the end of Jerusalem" is early, independent and preSynoptic? Don't such statements reflect the relationship between "Jews" and "Christians" afterA.D. 70, when the various groups and subgroups of Jews were reduced largely to two principal movements (followers of Hillel [and Shammail and Jesus), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 is viewed as the result of the Jews' failure to recognize Jesus as "Messiah"? Is such a statement as "it is better to be guilty of the greatest sin before God than to fall into the hands of the people" earlier than what we find in the Synoptic tradition? Such a statement bears the stamp of enthusiastic Christian exaggeration unrestrained by realistic knowledge of Jewish piety and sentiment. It has, moreover, an antiJewish ring to it as well.

Similarly, the statement of the people in the Akhmim fragment at 8.28 ("all the people were grumbling and murmuring and beating their breasts, saying: `If at his death these great signs have happened, behold how righteous [dikaios] he must have been!'") surely represents an embellishment of Luke 23:47-48: "Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said: `Certainly this man was righteous [dikaios] 'And all the multitudes who assembled to see the sight, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts."

The author of the Akhmim 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 twenty years after the death of Jesus? And if someone did at such an early time, can we really believe that the Evangelist Matthew, who was surelyJewish, 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 (Akhmim 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 versions of the story The appearance of the expression "the Lord's Day" (9.35), of course, is another indication of lateness (see Rev 1:10; Ignatius's Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1), not antiquity The centurion's confession (Akhmim fragment 11.45) appears to reflect Matthew (Mt 27:54; see Mk 15:39; Lk 23:47).7

Finally, can it be seriously maintained that the Akhmim fragment's resurrection account, complete with a talking cross and angels whose heads reach heaven, constitutes the most primitive account? Is this the account that the canonical Evangelists had before them? Or isn't it more prudent to conclude what we have here is still more evidence of the secondary, fanciful nature of this apocryphal writing?8 Doesn't the evidence suggest that the Akhmim 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?

It is difficult to conclude that this material, no matter how deftly pruned and reconstructed (and don't we have here again an example of special pleading?) could possibly constitute the earliest layer of tradition on which the Passion narratives of the New Testament Gospels are dependent. Scholars a generation or two ago found no independent traditions in the Akhmim Gospel fragment. Recently, other scholars have reached similar conclusions. John P Meier describes the fragment as a second-century "pastiche of traditions from the canonical Gospels, recycled through the memory and lively imagination of Christians who have heard the Gospels read and preached upon many a time." Moody Smith's rhetorical question only underscores the problematical dimension of Crossan's hypothesis: "Is it thinkable that the tradition began with the legendary, the mythological, the anti Jewish, and indeed the fantastic, and moved in the direction of the historically restrained and sober?"' Indeed, Crossan's case appears to be another example of special pleading, of wish becoming father to the thought

The evidence strongly suggests that the Akhmim Gospel fragment is a late work, not an early work, even if we attempt to find an earlier substratum, gratuitously shorn of imagined late additions. But more pressing is the question that asks if the existing ninth-century Akhmim Gospel fragment really is a fragment of the second-century Gospel of Peter condemned by Bishop Serapion in the early third century. The extant Akhmim fragment does not identify itself, nor do we have a patristic quotation of the Gospel of Peter to compare it to and possibly settle the questions. Nor is the Akhmim Gospel fragment docetic, as many asserted shortly after its publication. If the fragment is not docetic, then the proposed 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.10 And finally, as Paul Foster has shown, the connection between the Akhmim Gospel fragment and the small papyrus fragments that may date as early as 200-250 is quite tenuous.ll Thus we have no solid evidence that allows us with any confidence to link the extant Akhmim Gospel fragment with a second-century text, whether 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.