Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gospel of Peter and the MAs

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Mark, One shouldn t place much credence in GPeter, in my opinion, because it shows every sign of having been written later than Matthew. In particular, the
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 04:11 PM 3/2/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >I wonder if anyone has done any work on the Gospel of Peter and the Minor
      >Agreements? I have been struck by one or two things while reading the text
      >recently. One of these is 3.9:
      >
      >KAI hETEROI ESTWTES ENEPTUON AUTOU TAIS OYESI KAI ALLOI TAS SIAGONAS AUTOU
      >ERAPISAN . . .

      Mark,

      One shouldn't place much credence in GPeter, in my opinion, because it shows
      every sign of having been written later than Matthew. In particular, the
      above verse refers to where Jesus was being abused by the soldiers after
      having faced Pilate, as the episode includes the purple robe and the crown
      of thorns. So it does not refer to his earlier trial before the Sanhedrin,
      which involved the query of "Who was it who smote you?" In the incident with
      the soldiers (Mt 27:30), to which GPeter refers, the spat was "at him" in
      Matthew and thus not necessarily into the eyes. (It's curious, though, that
      GPeter has Joseph of A request permission from Pilate to bury the body
      before Jesus' abuse by the soldiers is related -- forcing this latter to be
      a flashback.)

      >But the point about the anomaly in Matthew remains. Why do they say "Who
      is it
      >who smote you" when Jesus is not blindfolded? ...

      As you know, I find the candidate document for Papias' Logia and Matthew's
      source to have been authentic, as set forth in my web site. It indicates a
      simple solution to this problem. Matthew's source in the vicinity of Mt
      26:67-68 involved some of the Council hitting Jesus from behind and then
      taunting him to prophesy who had done it (as well as including the
      spatting). The act of hitting him from behind was edited out by AMt,
      apparently because this behavior for a Council member was just too, too
      sordid and could be omitted. However, AMt then overlooked the problem caused
      by this omission.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.