In regard to the place where this Gospel was written, Zahn suggests Antioch ; Harnack prefers Egypt. Its date cannot be later than the middle of the 2nd cent., probably about 140. Harnack, however, holds that the ¢erminus ad quem is 180.
LireratuRE.—Emmerich, de Evang. sec. Ebroeos, dAigypt. etc., 1807; Schneckenburger, Ueber das Evang. der Aig ypt. 1834 ; Hennecke in Die Apokryphen des NT. See also Hilgen- feld, Harnack, Zahn, in opp, citt., and cf. Resch, Ausserkanon- ische Parallelteate zu den Evangelien, 1894, p. 28.
A. 2. PETER, GOSPEL ACCORDING T0.—
i, Evidence of existence prior to its discovery. 1. Serapion. 2. Origen. 8. Eusebius, etic. 4, Some doubtful testimony. ji. Contents of recently discovered Fragment. iii. Relation to the canonical Gospels. iv. Alleged use by early writers. y. Character and tendencies. vi. Date and place of origin. Literature.
i. EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE PRIOR TO ITS DIS- coveRY.—l. The earliest evidence of the existence of this Gospel is found in a letter of Serapion, who became bishop of Antioch c. 190. Eusebius mentions amongst the memorials of his ‘literary industry ’ a work composed ‘on the so-called Gospel of Peter,’ and gives the following extract from it (HE vi. 12 [McGiffert’s translation, p. 258]): ‘For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. When I visited you, I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, ‘If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read.” But now, having learned from ‘vhat has been told me that their mind was in- volved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to
a
426 APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
you again... . For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetse (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school), we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you fur- ther on.’
2. Origen, writing c. 246, not only mentions this Gospel, but also shows some knowledge of its con- tents. ‘Some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary’ (Com. on Mt. bk. x. 17 [Ante-Nicene Christian Library, p. 424]). Eusebius tells us (HH vi. 21) that Origen was summoned to Antioch by Mammeea, the mother of the emperor Alexander Severus, and ‘a most pious woman,’ though it is not said that she was a Christian. From Ser- apion’s statements about this Gospel it is evident that it was not widely circulated; but if Origen saw it during his visit to Antioch (probably 218), his uncertainty in regard to a particular passage is only what might be expected, and does not de- tract from the value of his testimony to its general character.*
3. Besides quoting Serapion’s estimate of this Gospel, Husebius (c. 324) refers to it twice (HE lil, 3, 25). ‘The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching, and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, be- cause no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.’ In his chapter on the Canon of Holy Scripture, Eusebius classifies the books into Homologoumena or ‘accepted,’ Antilegomena or ‘disputed,’ vd00 or ‘spurious,’ 2.¢. orthodox but not canonical. After enumerating the writings which are placed under these several heads, he adds: ‘ We have felt com- pelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.’
The statement of Jerome (de Vir. Illust. 1) that this Gospel is a heretical work, also the condemna- tion pronounced upon it in the so-called ‘ Gelasian decretal’ (‘evangelium nomine Petri apostoli apo- cryphunv’), are in agreement with, and possibly are based on, the judement of Eusebius. +
4. Historical critics of different schools regard the testimony of Jheodoret (c. 450) as untrust- worthy. He says that this Gospel was used by the Nazarenes, of whom, however, he knows nothing except. that they ‘honour Christ as a righteous man’ (Her. fad. ii, 2). Zahn points out in detail the marks of confusion in Theodoret’s references to the Jewish Christian sects (Geschichte, ii. 743) ; Harnack inserts a note of interrogation, and attaches no more value to this than to most of ‘this historian’s remarkable statements ’ (Chron. i. 623); Hofmann thinks that Theodoret meant the Gospel according to the Hebrews (PRE? i. 663)