ConnectingGospels
BeyondtheCanonical/Non-CanonicalDivide
Editedby FRANCISWATSON AND SARAHPARKHOUSE
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©OxfordUniversityPress2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017950110
ISBN978–0–19–881480–1
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents
Abbreviations vii
ListofContributors xi
Introduction1
FrancisWatsonandSarahParkhouse
PARTI:BEGINNINGS
1. PraeparatioEvangelica inEarlyChristianGospels15
SimonGathercole
2.Prophets,Priests,andKings:OldTestamentFiguresin Marcion’ s Gospel and Luke 41
DieterT.Roth
3.The ProtevangeliumofJames andtheCreativeRewriting of Matthew and Luke 57
MarkGoodacre
4.Jesus’ Body:ChristologyandSoteriologyintheBody-Metaphors ofthe GospelofPhilip 77
ChristineJacobi
PARTII:MINISTRY
5.RejectionatNazarethinthe GospelsofMark, Matthew, Luke and Tatian 97
MatthewR.Crawford
6.JesusandJudaism:InsideorOutside?The GospelofJohn,the EgertonGospel,andtheSpectrumofAncientChristianVoices125 TobiasNicklas
7.Womeninthe GospelsofMark and Mary 142
ChristopherTuckett
PARTIII:PASSIONANDAFTERMATH
8. ‘MyPower,Power,YouHaveLeftMe’:Christology inthe GospelofPeter 163 HeikeOmerzu
9.AGospeloftheEleven:The EpistulaApostolorum and theJohannineTradition189
FrancisWatson
10.MatterandtheSoul:TheBipartiteEschatologyofthe GospelofMary 216
SarahParkhouse
11.JesusandEarlyChristianIdentityFormation:Reflectionson theSignificanceoftheJesusFigureinEarlyChristianGospels233 JensSchröter
Abbreviations
GOSPELTITLES
EpAp(EpAp)EpistulaApostolorum
GEgerton(GEger) EgertonGospel
GEgyptians(GEgy) GospeloftheEgyptians
GHebrews(GHeb) GospeloftheHebrews
GJohn(GJn) GospelofJohn
GJudas(GJud) GospelofJudas
GLuke(GLk) GospelofLuke
GMarcion(GMcn) Marcion’sGospel
GMark(GMk) GospelofMark
GMary(GMary) GospelofMary
GMatthew(GMt) GospelofMatthew
GPeter(GPet) GospelofPeter
GPhilip(GPhil) GospelofPhilip
GThomas(GTh) GospelofThomas
GTruth(GTr) GospelofTruth
PJames(PJas) ProtevangeliumofJames
OTHERGREEKANDLATINSOURCES
adAutol. Theophilus, AdAutolycum
Adv.Haer. Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses
Adv.Ioan. Jerome, AdversusIoannemHierosolymitanumliber Adv.Marc. Tertullian, AdversusMarcionem
Adv.Pelag.Dial. Jerome, AdversusPelagianosDialogiIII Ant. Josephus, AntiquitatesJudaicae
1Apol. Justin, FirstApology
c.Cels. Origen, ContraCelsum
Comm.inIoh. Origen, CommentaryonJohn Comm.inMatt. Origen, CommentaryonMatthew
viii
Abbreviations
DeCarn.Chr. Tertullian, DeCarneChristi
DeBapt. Tertullian, DeBaptismo
Dial. Justin, DialoguewithTrypho
Exc.Theod. ClementofAlexandria, ExcerptaexTheodoto
Hist.Eccl. Eusebius, HistoriaEcclesiastica
Hom.inLuc. Origen, HomiliesonLuke
Or.Graec. Tatian, OratioadGraecos
Pan. Epiphanius, Panarion
Ref. Hippolytus, Refutatioomniumhaeresium(Philosophoumena)
Strom. ClementofAlexandria, Stromata
Tim. Plato, Timaeus
Vit.Phil.DiogenesLaertius, VitaePhilosophorum
OTHERCOPTICSOURCES
Ap.Jas. ApocryphonofJames
Ap.John ApocryphonofJohn
CGLCopticGnosticLibrary
Dial.Sav. DialogueoftheSaviour
Exeg.Soul ExegesisontheSoul
NHCNagHammadiCodices
Trim.Prot. TrimorphicProtennoia MODERNSOURCES
ABAnchorBible
ABRLAnchorBibleReferenceLibrary
AJBIAnnualoftheJapaneseBiblicalInstitute
AnBibAnalectaBiblica
ARWAWAbhandlungenderRheinisch-WestfälischenAkademieder Wissenschaften
AugAugustinianum
BBRBulletinforBiblicalResearch
BCNHTBibliothèquecoptedeNagHammadi,Textes
BECNTBakerExegeticalCommentaryontheNewTestament
BETLBibliothecaephemeridumtheologicarumlovaniensium
BTBBiblicalTheologyBulletin
BZNWBeiheftezurZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft
CBQCatholicBiblicalQuarterly
CSCOCorpusscriptorumchristianorumorientalium
DCLSDeuterocanonicalandCognateLiteratureStudies
ECEarlyChristianity
EKKEvangelisch-katholischerKommentarzumNeuenTestament
ETLEphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses
ExpTExpositoryTimes
GCSDiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerderersten[drei] Jahrhunderte
HNTHandbuchzumNeuenTestament
HTBHistoiredutextebiblique
HTRHarvardTheologicalReview
ICCInternationalCriticalCommentary IntInterpretation
JBLJournalofBiblicalLiterature
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JEHJournalofEcclesiasticalHistory
JRTheJournalofReligion
JSNTJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament
JSNTSuppJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament,SupplementSeries
JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies
JTSAJournalofTheologyforSouthernAfrica
KEKKritisch-exegetischerKommentarüberdasNeueTestament
LNTSLibraryofNewTestamentStudies
NHMSNagHammadiandManicheanStudies(formerlyNHS)
NHSNagHammadiStudies
NICNTNewInternationalCommentaryontheNewTestament
NIGTCNewInternationalGreekTestamentCommentary
NovTNovumTestamentum
NovTSuppNovumTestamentum,Supplements
NTSNewTestamentStudies
NTTSDNewTestamentTools,StudiesandDocuments
PLMigne,PatrologiaLatina
RBLReviewofBiblicalLiterature
SBLSocietyofBiblicalLiterature
SBLDSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureDissertationSeries
SBRStudiesoftheBibleandItsReception
SEPTSeptuagintCommentarySeries
SNTSMSStudiorumNoviTestamentiSocietasMonographSeries
SNTUStudienzumNeuenTestamentundseinerUmwelt
STACStudienundTextezuAntikeundChristentum
StPatStudiaPatristica
StPatSuppStudiaPatristicaSupplements
TANZTexteundArbeitenzumneutestamentlichenZeitalter
TENTTextsandEditionsforNewTestamentStudy
TQTheologischeQuartalschrift
TUTexteundUntersuchungen
TUGALTexteundUntersuchungenzurGeschichtederaltchristlichen Literatur
VCVigiliaeChristianae
VCSuppSupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae
WMANTWissenschaftlicheMonographienzumAltenundNeuen Testament
WUNTWissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzumNeuenTestament
ZACZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum
ZNTZeitschriftfürNeuesTestament
ZNWZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft x Abbreviations
Introduction
FrancisWatsonandSarahParkhouse
Itisnormal,anditseemsentirelynatural,tospeakof ‘thegospels’ or ‘thefour gospels’.Inanimportantsensetheseexpressionsarefullyjustifiedandshould notbetoohastilydismissedasarbitrary,restrictive,orconfessionallybiased. ThattheNewTestamentcanonicalcollectionincludesfour ‘gospels’—accounts ofJesus’ ministry,teaching,andtheoutcomeofhislife isastatementnot offaithbutoffact,andthisfactisrootedinalongandunbrokenhistoryof communalusethatmaybetracedbacktothesecondcentury.Likeall historicalfacts,however,thecomingintobeingofafour-gospelcollection wasa contingent event:itmighthavebeenotherwise,itwasnotinevitable. Alternativewaysofconstructingthechurch’sdefinitivegospelwereavailable, whetherbyacceptingonetextonlyorbyacknowledgingtheauthenticvoiceof Jesusinanindefiniterangeofliteraryembodiments.Nodoubtmanyfactors wereinvolvedinthewidespreadadoptionofthefourfoldgospelandthe resultingrejectioninprincipleofothergospelsorgospel-liketexts.Only fragmentaryevidencesurvivesofwhatmusthavebeenagradualtrend towardsrelativeuniformity,butitseemslikelythatacommunitymaking primaryuseofthe GospelofMatthew intheearlysecondcenturywouldhave adoptedthefour-gospelcollectionbythemiddleofthethird.Reasonsforthis collectivedecisionforalimitedpluralitycannolongerbetracedindetail,and that ‘decision’ mayhaveconsistedsimplyinagradualtendencytoassimilate andharmonizecommunalusage.Itislikelythatthoseearlytheologianswho explicitlydefendedtheconceptofafourfoldgospelwereproposingaconsensuswithsomebasisinexistingpractice.Thecounter-intuitiveideathat ChristiancommunitieseverywhereshouldformallyacknowledgefourinterrelatedyetdivergentrenderingsofthecoreChristianstorycouldhardlyhave beenpureinvention.Equallycounter-intuitiveforsome,nodoubt,wasthe exclusionofpopulargospelsorgospel-liketextsapartfromthecanonicalfour. Modernscholarlystudyofthegospelshasgenerallybeencontenttofollow thecanonicaldecision,ontheassumptionthatthecanonical/non-canonical
dividehasitsobjectivebasisinfundamentalcharacteristicsofthetexts themselves.Thatmayperhapsbethecase.Yet,givenanintenseshared focusonthe figureofJesus,thedifferenceisunlikelytobesoabsoluteasto precludecomparisonandcontrast.Ratherthanfocusingprimarilyon ‘thefour gospels’,perhapswithjustapassingmentionofnon-canonicaltextsortextfragmentssuchasthe GospelofThomas,the GospelofPeter,orthe Egerton Gospel,wemightenvisageabroaderobjectofstudy,thatofearlyChristian gospelliteratureviewedasasinglethoughdifferentiated field.Framedinthis way,thefourfoldcanonicalgospelwouldbeseentoemergeoutofamore extensiveliteraryactivityinwhichtraditionsaboutJesus’ earthlylifeand teachingwereshapedandcreated presumablyinresponsetopopulardemand forgospel-likeworksfromaburgeoningChristianreading-and-listening public.Itmaybethatthefoursoon-to-becanonicalgospelswerecomposed significantlyearlierthantheirnon-canonicalcounterparts,thatthecanonical gospelsalonepreserveauthenticrecollectionsofthehistoricalJesus,and thatthedistinctionbetweencanonicalandnon-canonicalgospelsrefl ects fundamentaldifferencesofformorcontent.Evenifthesepointsareconceded(andtheymightnotbe),itremainsthecasethatproductionofgospels orgospel-liketextscontinueduncheckedduringtheintervalbetween thecompletionofthelatestofthecanonicalgospels the GospelofJohn or perhaps Luke andIrenaeus ’ proposalthatafourfoldgospelcouldand shouldbeacknowledgedbyall.
Ifwetakeaselectionofnon-canonicaltexts forexamplethe ProtevangeliumofJames,the GospelofMary,andthe MarcioniteGospel threepoints areimmediatelyclear.The firstisthatthesetextsaremorediverseandless homogeneousthanthecanonicalcollection,wherethereisbroadagreement aboutformandcontentinspiteofallthewell-knowndifferences. PJames is partofatrendperceptiblealreadyin GLuke,balancingtheprimitiveemphasis ontheendofJesus’ earthlylifewithanequalandoppositeemphasisonits beginning,whichistracedbackheretotheconceptionandbirthofhismother Mary.In GMary,anotherMary presumablytheMagdalene emergesoutof thecircleofdespairingmaledisciplesfollowingJesus’ departure,communicatingarevelationaboutthedestinyofthesoulthatleavesheraudience divided. GMarcion iscloselyrelatedto GLuke,butopensnotwithanarrative accountofthecircumstancesofJesus’ birthbutwithhissuddenandunheraldeddescentfromheaveninthe fifteenthyearoftheEmperorTiberius.These arethreeverydifferenttextswithlittleifanyoverlapbetweenthem,andtheir differencesshowthatgeneralizationsaboutthecharacterofnon-canonical gospelsshouldbeventuredonlywithcaution.1
1 Thepresentvolumeemploysauniformformatfortitlesofbothcanonicalandnoncanonicalgospels: GMatthew (GMt), GThomas (GTh), PJames(PJas),etc.
Thesecondpointarisingfromoursampleofthreeisthatthedistinction betweencanonicalandnon-canonicalgospelsisrelativetothecommunitiesin whichtheyareregardedassuch.Marcionitecommunitiescontinuedto flourishlongafterthedeathoftheirfounder,andinthatcontextthecanonical gospelwastheoneinwhichtheLorddescendeddirectlyfromheavento embarkonhisministryofhealing,teaching,andrevealingtheunknown Father.Atextreveredasauthoritativeinoneuser-communitymayseemto embodyfalsehoodandheresyforanother.The GospelofJudas mayhavebeen understoodbyitsearlyusersasimpartingahigherwisdomthatsetthemapart fromtheordinaryChristiansofthemainstreamchurchwithitsfourfold gospel.Conversely, GJudas isspecificallysingledoutforcriticismbyIrenaeus, the firstgreatadvocateofthefourfoldgospel.2 Evenwithinasinglecommunity,thedistinctionbetweenthecanonicalandthenon-canonicalmaynot havecorrespondedtoactualpractice.Throughitsnarrativeofthe ‘holy family’,thenon-canonical PJames hashistoricallyexercisedafarwiderand deeperinfluenceoverChristianpietyandpracticethanthecanonical GMark.
Third,alltextswithamoreorlesscredibleclaimtobecountedas ‘gospels’ haveafundamentalpointincommon:theyareallcommittedtooneversion oranotheroftheabsolutistclaimthatJesusisthedefinitiveand finalembodimentofthedivinepurposesforhumankind.Noearlygospelorgospel-like textdeviatesforamomentfromthisimperiousclaim,forexamplebypresentingJesusasjustonepropheticvoiceamongothersorasdecisively significantonlywithinalimitedcontext.Intheirdifferentwaysthesetexts allarticulatethebasicChristianaffirmationthatJesusisLordofall.Gospels canonicalandnon-canonicalcomposeasetofvariationsonthiscommon theme.The fieldofearlyChristiangospelliteratureisdiverseanddivided,yet thesharedterms ‘Christian’ and ‘gospel’ gesturetowardsanunderlying coherencethatsetsthesetextsapartbothfromotherliterarygenresdeployed ordevelopedbyChristianwritersandfromnon-Christiandiscourseonthe divine–humanrelationship.Acriticalpaganreaderofaselectionofearly Christiangospelsmightwellhaveconcludedthattheyallsharethesameset of(dubiousandirrational)convictions.
Thisraisesthefurtherquestionsofwhatconstitutesthe ‘gospel’ genreand whatthecriteriaareforassigningatexttothisgenreratherthananother.Ifthe criteriaarebasedonthecanonicalfour,thena ‘gospel’ isanarrativeaccountof theministryofJesusasthebringerofsalvation,culminatinginhisdeath, burial,andresurrection.ThisdefinitionhasitsrootsinthePaulinesummary ofthepreachedgospelinitsearliestform:thatChristdiedforoursins,thathe wasburiedandthenraisedonthethirdday,thatheappearedrepeatedlyto hisfollowers,andthattheseeventswereallanticipatedintheholyscriptures
Adv.Haer. 1.31.1.
(1Cor15.3–7).IfthisPaulineviewisallowedtocontrolthedefinitionof ‘gospel’,somemightarguethatatextsuchas GThomas isnot ‘really’ agospel atall,sinceitlacksthenarrativecharacterandtheemphasisoncrossand resurrectionthatarethehallmarksof ‘real’ gospelssuchastheonesattributed toMatthew,Mark,Luke,andJohn.Itmightalsobearguedthatauthentic gospelsexemplifythegenericconventionsoftheGraeco-Roman bios or vita, the ‘biography’ oftheindividualthatwilloftenproceedinchronological fashionfromthebeginningofsomesignificantindividual’slifetoitsend. Thatwouldeliminatefromthegospelgenreboth PJames,concernedonlywith thebeginningsofJesus’ earthlylife,and GMary,concernedonlywithits(postresurrection)end.EventheMarcionitegospelmightbeexcluded,closethough itistoLuke’s,onthegroundsthatitrejectsthescripturalrootssoimportantto Paulandthecanonicalevangelists.Thusasharpdistinctionhasoftenbeen drawnbetweenthe ‘genuine’ gospelsfoundintheNewTestamentand ‘ apocryphal’ so-calledgospelsthatarenotreallygospelsatall.
Thiscanonicallybaseddefinitionof ‘gospel’ isnotwithoutitsdifficulties, however.First,thefamousPaulinesummaryin1Corinthians15isnotfully representativeevenofPaulhimself:withtheexceptiononlyofthephrase, ‘for oursins’ (v.3),itscreed-likerehearsalofbarefactsomitsanyreferenceto salvation.YetthePaulinegospelismostfundamentally soteriological discourse.Itis ‘thepowerofGoduntosalvation’ (Rom1.16),itscontentand goalbeingthesalvationofitshearersasembodiedinthe figureofJesus. Second,theoralproclamationofthedeathandresurrectionofChristisnotat allthesameasanarrativetextinwhichmuchmoreissaidaboutJesusthan thathediedandwasraised.ThereisoverlapbetweenthePaulinegospeland thefourwrittengospels,butthedifferencesofmediaandcontentarenot negligible.Third,withtheexceptionof GMark (cf.1.1,etc.)thecanonical evangelistsshowlittleinterestintheterm ‘gospel’,whichisindeedentirely absentfrom GLuke and GJohn. IfMarkisconcernedtorelatehistexttothe Paulineproclamation,theothercanonicalevangelistsarenot.Onlyatalater stagearethesetextsdescribedas ‘gospels’ andequippedwithcoordinatedtitles usingthe ‘gospelaccordingto... ’ formulation.
Theterm ‘gospel’ speaksoftheannouncementofsalvationthroughJesus, andthisisnotrestrictedtoasinglemediumorformat.Onthiscriterion GThomas isnolessagospelthan GMatthew.Thisispurelyamatterofgeneric classification,anddoesnotimplyanyclaimtoequalstatusorvalidity.The historicChristiancommunityhasjudgedthatthestatusandvalidityofthese twotextsisquitedifferent,andithaseveryrighttodoso,justasanyonehasan equalrighttoquestionitsjudgement;andyettheclassificationofbothtextsas ‘gospels’ remainsunaffected.Ifancientscribesappendedtobothtextsthetitle, ‘Gospelaccordingto... ’,itistoolatetoeraseit.Sinceliterarygenresare fluid setsofconventionswhichtendtooverlapandinterminglepromiscuously, anomalousorborderlinecasesareonlytobeexpected. GPhilip isacollection
oflooselyconnectedmeditations,onlysomeofwhichhaveanycloselinksto thecontenttypicalofothergospels.The EpistulaApostolorum (EpAp)has muchstrongerlinkstosuchcontent,yetpresentsitselfintheformofaletter. TheboundaryseparatingearlyChristiangospelsfromotherearlyChristian literaturewillbemuchlesssharplydefinedthanthecanonicalboundary.Some textsshouldclearlyberegardedasgospels,othersasgospel-like,othersstillas textswithsomegospel-likefeatures.Thepointisnottocreateanewboundary butrathertoacknowledgethat,withthecanonicalembargolifted,textsas diverseas GPeter, GTruth,andtheso-called Diatessaron allfallwithinthe scopeofearlyChristiangospelliteratureasawhole.Indeed,itisprecisely withinthatwider fieldthatthefourfoldcanonicalgospelcomesintobeingas anewcompositetextinitsownright,greaterthanandotherthanthesum ofitsparts.
EarlyChristiangospelliteraturemaybestudiedasasingle field.Suchan endeavourwouldnot flattenoutdifferences.Itdoesnotimplyequalvalidity foreverytextthatpresentsitselfasagospel.Itisnotmotivatedbyanimus againstthegospelsoftheNewTestamentorbyapartisandesiretochampion theirmarginalizedrivalsattheirexpense.Itdoesnotattempttoundothe canonicaldecision.Yetviewingearlygospelliteratureasawholedoesrequire onetogetbehindthatdecisionandnottoberestrictedbyit.Oneoutcomeof suchaparadigmshiftwillbetodiscovernewperspectivesonthecanonical textsthemselves perspectivesinaccessibletoascholarshipconfinedtothe familiarrepertoireofissuesandapproachesthathavedevelopedaroundthe Synopticgospelsand GJohn.
Theaimofthepresentbookistoexplorewaysinwhichthestudyofearly Christiangospelsmightproceed.Theapproachtakenistoseek connections acrossthedividebetweencanonicalandnon-canonicalgospelsbywayof thematiccomparisons. Thusfarnon-canonicalgospelshavetypicallybeen studiedinrelativeisolationfromeachother,anddiscussionoftheirrelation totheircanonicalcounterpartsisnormallyconfinedtoissuesofsource criticism.ManyscholarshavedoneandcontinuetodooutstandingpioneeringworkonthegospelsattributedtoJudas,Mary,Peter,orThomas,onthe MarcionitegospelortheTatianic Diatessaron;yettheinterconnectionsbetweenthesetextsandtheircanonicalcounterpartsarerarelyexplored.Study ofthecanonicalgospelstypicallyproceedsasthoughnoothergospelsexisted, secureinthequestionableassumptionthatnon-canonicaltextsaretoolate andtoodifferenttoimpingeontheroutinesofnormalgospelscholarship.
Aspractisedhere,theprojectof connectinggospels doesnotimplyanybias towardssimilarityattheexpenseofdifference.A ‘connection’ simplymarksa pointatwhichonegospelmayusefullybereadinthelightofanother.In Saying52of GThomas,Jesuscriticizeshisdisciples’ appealtoprophetic scripture: ‘Youhaveomittedtheonelivinginyourpresenceandhavespoken ofthedead.’ In GMatthew repeatedappealismadetopropheticscriptureto
confirmandilluminatewhatissaidaboutJesus.Thispointofcontrastremains a ‘connection’ inthesenseemployedhere.Juxtaposedinthisway,thetwo textshighlightacrucialissueonwhichearlyChristiansdisagreed,thequestion whethertheclaimofJesusisself-authenticatingorwhetheritscredibility dependsonthesupportofnormativeancienttexts.Dividedintheanswers theygive,thetwoevangelistsneverthelessengagewiththesamequestion: whatrole,ifany,shouldthepropheticscripturesplayinthepresentationof Jesusasbringerofsalvation?ThereisnoneedtoclaimthatThomas’ negative answertothisquestionisrespondingdirectlytoMatthew’spositiveone, thoughsuchaclaimmightnotbeimplausible.Thepointissimplytodismantlethebarrierthatsooftenseparatescloselyrelatedtextsandtoreadeachfrom thestandpointoftheother.That,inessence,iswhatcontributorstothis volumeareallattemptingtodo.
ThevolumehasbeenorganizedtofollowtheoutlineofJesus’ career,from itsantecedentsthroughtheministrytohisdeathandresurrection anoutline onwhichcanonicalandsomenon-canonicaltextsarebasicallyagreed.It compriseselevenchapterstracingthemesacrossearlyChristiangospels;each contributorevaluatesthemes,motifs,andconnectionsbetweengospelsoneither sideofthecanonical/non-canonicaldivide.Thethematicapproachcanaccommodatewidedifferencesofmethodologyandperspective.Ratherthandictating eitherasynchronicoradiachronicapproach,orpresupposinganyparticular stanceonthestatusofthefourfoldgospel,orprivilegingeithersimilaritiesor differencesacrossthecanonical/non-canonicaldivide,allthatwehaveasked fromourcontributorsisanappreciationoftheintertextualconnectednessof earlyChristiangospels.Wewillherehighlightafewofthethemesthatrecur throughoutthevolume andthroughoutearlyChristiangospelliterature.
The firsttheme tostartatthebeginningoftheChristianmessageandthe beginningofthevolume isthequestionof wherethegospelstorybegins.Fora numberofgospelwriters,theJesuseventswereconsideredtobethefulfilment ofscripture;forothers,Jesus’ comingwasunheraldedbyanysuchpreparation.Thosewhopenned GEgerton, GMatthew,and GPeter belongtothe formercamp;Marcion,tothelatter.SimonGathercoleaddressesthisquestion toothergospels,arguingthat GTruth prefacesthe evangelium witha praeparatioevangelica intheformofaprotologicalmyth;thatthe Gospelofthe Egyptians undercutsscripturebymeansoftheeven-more-ancientSeth;and that GPhilip understandsChristiansalvationtohavebeenanticipatedthroughouthistoryinsacramentalimagesandsymbols,suchasthehumankissingthat depictstheholykissthatconceivesgrace. GMarcion,conversely,makesitclear thattheOldTestament/HebrewBibleforetoldnothingofthesavingactivityof Jesus;and,aswehaveseen, GThomas isequallyforthrightinitsrejectionofany antecedentrevelation,referringtotheprophetsofIsraelas ‘dead’ .
Inlaterchapters,DieterRothandChristineJacobifocuson GMarcion and GPhilip respectively.Rothshowswhyandhow GMarcion,withallits
similaritiesto GLuke,doesnotcontainthe ‘childhoodgospel’ (GLk 1–2)and genealogy(GLk 3.23–38)thattracesthebeginningofJesus’ storybacktothe storyofIsraelandapiouscommunitythatawaitsthecomingoftheMessiah. ThisaccordswithMarcion’swell-knowninsistencethattheFatherofJesusis tobedifferentiatedfromthedeityoftheOldTestamentandhisconsequent rejectionofanypositivecorrelationbetweenJesusandIsrael.Jacobiexplores GPhilip’sclaimthatMary’sconceptionbytheHolySpirit(cf. GMt 1, GLk 1)is erroneous:JesushasahumanfatherandtheSpiritonlycomesintoplayatthe Jordan.Philip’sversionofthegospelstoryiscomparabletoMark’sinatleast onerespect thatitbeginsatthebaptism.Thisquestionofthebeginningof thegospelappearsagaininMarkGoodacre’sexaminationof PJames,which takesyetanotherstanceonthisissue:ratherthanstartingfromthebirthofthe Messiah(GMt 1.18)ortheparentsofJohntheBaptist(GLk 1.5–7),this gospel-liketextplacesthebirthofMary,herperpetualvirginity,andher DavidiclineageattheoutsetoftheJesusstory.
Acloselyrelatedthemeistheissueof whereJesusstandsinrelationto Judaism,andthisisaddressedbyTobiasNicklaswithafocuson GJohn and GEgerton.Nicklasnotesaconvergencebetweenthetwointhat,forboth evangelists,JesusisclearlyaJewish figurewhoisunderstoodthroughtraditionalJewishcategories;yetneithergoasfarastodepicthimteachingTorah, as GMatthew does.Nicklasconstructsa ‘spectrumofJewishness’,stretching from GJudas, GThomas,and GMary onthenon-(orevenanti-)Jewishside, and GEbionites and GMatthew ontheotherside,withtheirdemonstrationof Jewishconcernssuchasfoodlawsandgenealogy. GJohn and GEgerton togetherfallinamiddleposition.RothexploreshowMarcion,ratherthan rejectingJewishtraditionoutright(whichwouldbealltoosimpleandstraightforward),reinterpretsthe figuresofcertainOldTestamentprophets,priests, andkings althoughhisreadingcontinuestodifferemphaticallyfromthatof Luke.Rothfocusesonthetransfigurationscene(GLk/GMcn 9.28–36),arguing that,whereasLuke’sintentionistobringJesus,Moses,andElijahintocontact, Marcionintendsconflict:Jesusistheonetobeheard,asopposedtothe ancientJewishprophetandthelawgiverwithwhomJesusmustnegotiate theredemptionofthecreator-deity’senslavedsubjects.ThequestionofJesus andJudaismalsocomesintoplayinHeikeOmerzu’sexaminationof GPeter, andheretootherelationshipisoppositional.Thisnon-canonicalpassion narrativecontinuesthetrajectoryofitscanonicalcounterpartsinassigning blameforJesus’ deathtotheJewishleadersandcrowds.JensSchröterunderstands ‘theJews’ in GPeter torepresentalaterstageoftheJesustradition,the polemicsuggestingasecond-centurycompositionasopposedtotheearlier inner-JewishdebatebetweenthosewhodidanddidnotprofessJesusasthe Christ,asstillin GMatthew.
Afurtherthemevariouslytreatedacrosstheentirerangeofearlygospel literatureisthatofthecoreidentityofJesushimself, thechristologicalquestion.
ItisoftenassumedthattheJesusofthenon-canonicalgospelsattributedto Mary,Thomas,Peter,orPhilipisradicallyatoddswiththecanonicalJesusof Matthew,Mark,Luke,andJohn.Thisvolumesuggeststhatsuchanassumptionneedsnuancing.Omerzu’sexplorationofthechristologyof GPeter questionswhethertheoften-claimed ‘docetic’ tendenciesareactuallypresent, andconcludesthattheyarenot:thesilentandpassiveJesusof GPeter is comparabletotheJesusofcanonicalgospels,asisevidentwhenthechristologicaltitlesemployedinthistext-fragment(Lord,KingofIsrael,SonofGod) areunderstoodwithintheirnarrativecontext. GPeter expandsthecanonical storiesbyrecountingtherisenLord’semergencefromthetomb,showinga specialinterestinhisresurrectionbody athemesharedwith EpAp,asdiscussedbyFrancisWatson,whoemphasizestheextenttowhichtheevangelist behind EpAp isinvestedinconfirmingthe fleshlinessofJesus’ resurrectedbody, inwhichheengagesinasinglecontinuousinteractionwithhisfemaleand maledisciplesratherthan ‘appearing’ totheminaseriesofdiscreteepisodes. While EpAp hasmuchincommonwith GJohn 20,theemphasisfallsonthe physicalexaminationofJesus’ woundsratherthanonthecommand, ‘Donot touchme’ (GJn 20.17).
Thechristologicalquestionisintimatelyrelatedtoagospel’sunderstanding of thesignificanceofJesus’ resurrection:itisastherisenonethathisidentity ismostfullydisclosed.Gospelssuchas GPhilip and GMary understand theresurrectedSaviour-figureinwaysthatdiffersharplynotonlyfrom theircanonicalorproto-orthodoxcounterpartsbutalsofromeachother.In GPhilip,Jesus’ resurrectionispre-ratherthanpost-mortem,forhimselfasitis fortheelect.AlongsidethedescentoftheSpiritatthebaptism,Jacobiconsiders thePhilipevangelist’sunderstandingofthetransfigurationscene comparable totheSynopticaccountsinthatJesustakeshisdisciplesupamountain,but withtheemphasisonhismanifestationofhistrueheavenlynatureratherthan histransfiguredandshiningface(cf. GMt 17.2andpars.).TheJesusof GPhilip existsindisguise:heappearssmalltothesmall,asanangeltotheangels,and asanordinaryhumantoordinarypeople;histrueformcanonlybeseenby thosewhoareworthy(57.28–58.10).AninspectionofJesus’ post-mortem resurrected fleshwouldhardlysitwellwith GPhilip’schristology.AsJacobi shows,thechristologyofthisarguablylatesecond-centurygospelimpliesa looserelationshipbetweenthehumanandthedivineandcollapsesthe distinctionbetweenJesus’ pre-andpost-Easterexistence.Apost-Eastersetting isclearlyenvisagedin GMary,however,andSarahParkhouse’schaptershows howtheMaryevangelistpresentstherisenSaviourastherevealerofdefinitive eschatologicalandsoteriologicaltruths,communicatedinpersonpriortohis finaldepartureandindirectlythroughMaryafterit.Theresultisa ‘bipartite eschatology’ focusinginturnonthequitedistinctdestiniesofMatterandthe Soul. Theindividualcomponentsofthematerialcosmospresentlyexistin unstablecombinationsbutwilleventuallydissolvebackintothe ‘roots’ from
whichtheyoriginated.MeanwhiletheSoulisunaffectedbythedemiseof heavenandearthbutmustnegotiateherwaypastthegatekeepersofthelower heavensuntilsheattainstheRestofherheavenlyorigin aRestthatmaybe anticipatedhereandnowinvisionaryorsacramentalexperience.Distinctive thoughthis ‘bipartiteeschatology’ mayseem,itslinkstoandanalogieswith Jesus’ eschatologicalinstructionascommunicatedelsewhereinearlygospel literaturearemanyandvarious.ThusthecommonChristianunderstanding ofJesusasthesolemediatorandrevealerofthewayto finalsalvationbranches outintoarangeofdifferentappropriations,yetwithunexpectedconvergences manifestingthemselvesacrossapparentlydivergentideologicalstances.
Theportrayalofthedisciples likewiseundergoesalterationsandrevisionsby eachevangelist.Peteristherockof GMatthew, theevangelistof GPeter,heacts asan ‘adversary’ in GMary,andissubordinatetotheBelovedDisciplein GJohn.ChristopherTuckettcomparestheMaryof GMary withthefemale disciplesin GMark.Throughoutthesetwogospels,heargues,womenprovide positiveexamplesofdiscipleship.In GMark,Peter’smother-in-lawandthe haemorrhagingwomanaredescribedinlanguagethatechoesJesus’ actions, suchasrising,serving,andsuffering(1.29–31;5.26).Itisawomanwho anointshim,recognizinghistruestatus(14.3–9).Themaledisciples,onthe otherhand,failtounderstandJesus,desert,betray,anddenyhim,andarethen absentatthecruciallocationsofthecrossandthetomb.Atthetomb,itisthe womenwhoaregreetedbyadivinemessengerwhoinstructsthemtotellthe disciplesthatJesushasrisenandisonhiswaytoGalilee.Butherethewomen fail insteadofrunningtotellthedisciples,they fleefromthemaninwhite andtellnoone(GMk 16.8). GMary followsasimilarpattern:Maryrecognizes thetruthwherethemenfail.SherecallsaprivatevisionfromtheSaviour,in responsetowhichPeterandAndrewaccuseheroflyingandthusputtheir ownsalvationatrisk.Yet,towardstheendofbothgospels,thewomenare portrayedasfallible.Intheoriginalendingof GMark, thewomenatthetomb fleefromtheangelicbeingtheyencounterthere,ignoringhisinstruction becausetheyareafraid(16.8).In GMary,Maryfallssilentandweepswhen shehearsPeter’sandAndrew’saccusationsagainsther,andhastorelyon Levi,anothermaledisciple,forsupport.Attheirculmination,then,both gospelsmakeaU-turn:thewomen’sfallibilityishighlightedalongsidethe men ’s.In GMark,themessageofChrist’sresurrectionisreceiveddespitethe womenbeingsilent;Mary’sweaknessin GMary isdefendedandhergospelis preached.Tuckettconcludesthatboth GMark and GMary sharethekey motifsofhumanfallibility,forgiveness,and,ultimately,discipleship.
EpAp toooffersadistinctiveportrayalofthedisciples.Elevenapostles arelistedascollectiveauthors,yetthenamesareatoddswithotherlists.As Watsonnotes,Peterloseshisprimacy,PeterandCephasareregardedas separateindividuals,andthereisa ‘JudastheZealot’.Likewise,theidentities ofthewomenatthetombdifferfromthecanonicalgospelaccounts.Inthe
Ethiopicversion,thewomenwhovisitthetombarenamedas ‘Sarah,Martha andMaryMagdalene’,whereasthe ‘threewomen’ intheCopticmanuscript arenamedas ‘MarywhoisofMarthaandMaryMagdalene’.Thenarrative makesitclearthatthereareindeedthreewomen,despiteonlytwonames,and theyaremostprobablytobeidentifiedasthesistersMaryandMartha(GJn 11) andMaryMagdalene(GJn 20).Theevangelist,then,hasremovedMaryand MarthafromtheirJohanninecontextofLazarus’ deathandplacesthemat Jesus’ tomb(EpAp 9.2).Thesistersstillbelongatasiteofresurrection,butthe subjectoftheresurrectionhaschanged.Furthermore,inbeingnamedlast MaryMagdalenerelinquishesherleadingroleintheemptytombnarrativesof GMatthew, GMark, GLuke, GJohn,and GPeter.
Athemethatrecursfrequentlythroughoutthisvolumeisthatof theprocess ofgospelcomposition.Eachevangelistdrawsonknowntextsortraditions, creativelyinterpretingandrewritingthem aprocessnotedespecially byCrawford,Goodacre,Roth,andWa tson.MatthewCrawfordapplies aredaction-criticalapproachtothe DiatessaronGospel ( τ ὸ δι ὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον),3 withafocusonJesus’ preachinginNazareth,showingthat Tatianadoptsasimilarlycriticalviewofhissourceashispredecessors Matthew,Luke,andMarcion incontrasttotherelativelyfreecomposition of PJames, GPeter,or GThomas.Tatian,then,isasmuchanevangelistasthe canonicalgospelauthor–editors andthe Diatessaron wasandshouldstillbe regardedasagospel.Withasimilarfocusoncompositionalprocess,Goodacre showshow PJames knew,used,andimaginativelyandresourcefullyreworked theinfancyaccountsin GMatthew and GLuke.Atsomepoints, PJames parallelsthecanonicalmaterial;atothers,itisradicallydifferent.Thisevangelistomits,conflates,andexpandsonhissourcematerial,andusesdisagreementsbetween GMatthew and GLuke asaplatformforanewtellingofthe storyofJesus’ birth.Goodacreshowsthatthisevangelistfollowstheexample ofhisSynopticpredecessorsinomittingmaterialthatwouldseemto fitwell intohisownstory:theLukanshepherds(2.8–10)mighthavebeenplaced outsideofthecavein PJames,buttheyarereducedtovanishingpoint.Creative engagementwithearliersourcematerialcanbeexpressedthroughomissionas wellasexpansion. Rothfocusesonthefactthat,forbothMarcionandLuke, theissueisnotsimplyomissionorretentionbutratheracreativeprocess ofinterpretation:bothevangelistsareintheirownwaygrapplingwith theimplicationsofthecomingandmissionofJesus,andeachversionof thegospelshouldbeunderstoodonitsowntermsandnotonlyinrelation totheother.Gospel-writersorauthorsofgospel-likeworksexerciseauthorial freedomtoemend,expand,oromitastheysee fit.AsWatsonshows,this appliesequallytotheauthorof EpAp,especiallyinrelationto GJohn
3 Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. 4.29.6(
Schröterconcludesthevolumewithanoverviewofthedevelopmentof canonicalandnon-canonicalgospelliteratureinearlyChristianitythatdifferentiatesbetweentheformalrecognitionofthefour-gospelcollectionand actualearlyChristianreadingpractices.Hearguesthatthefourgospelswhich weretobecomecanonicalareconnectedonbothliteraryandtheological levels,andthatthisconnectionwasdevelopedatanearlystage.Itisobvious that GMatthew, GMark,and GLuke shareagreatdealincommon,andthat GJohn toorevealsknowledgeoftheSynoptictradition;thelateradditionsof thelongerendingof GMark andthe finalchapterof GJohn strengthenthe convergenceofthefour.Thustheantecedentsofthefour-gospelcollection extendbackbeyonditsexplicitadvocacybywriterssuchasIrenaeusinthelate secondcenturyandOrigeninthethird,accompaniedbyanequallyexplicit rejectionofallothergospels.Inspiteofthisapparentlycleardemarcationof thecanonicalfromthenon-canonical,however,earlyChristianreadingpracticeswerenotsostrict.Somegospels(like GPeter and GHebrews)maynot havebeensimply ‘rejected’;itisjustthattheyultimatelyfailedtogainthesame statusasthefour.Schrötersuggeststhat,whilenon-canonicalgospelsarefor themostpartlaterthanthecanonicalfour,thatdoesnotmaketheminherentlyanddesignedlysubordinatetothem.Rather,thelatertextsrepresent ongoingdevelopmentwithinthegospeltradition,andtheyweregenerally conceivedasalternative,competing,orsupplementaryportrayalsofJesus.
AsSchröternotes,acodexcontainingacanonicalgospelalongsideanoncanonicalonehasneverbeenfound.YetatOxyrhynchusafragmentof GThomas inGreek(POxy1)wasfoundincloseproximitytoafragment of GMatthew (POxy2= P1).Indeed,thetwogospel-booksmayevenhave beenthepropertyofasingleowner.Ifso,thatownermayhavereadeach gospelinfullknowledgeandawarenessoftheother,valuingeachinitsown wayeventhoughonlyoneofthemwasregardedassuitableforliturgical readinginchurch.Suchareadingofcanonicalandnon-canonicalgospels acrossthecanonicalboundaryisalso,inessence,theprojectofthisvolume. Thepointisnottoquestionthesignificanceorintegrityoftheboundary,orto promotetheviewthatallearlygospelliteratureissomehowequalinvalue bothfutileundertakings.Itistosuggestthatnewperspectivesmaybegained notleastonthecanonicalgospelsthemselvesifearlygospelliteratureisviewed asasinglethoughdifferentiated fieldofstudy.
