In this post and the next few, I will present evidence that the Gospel of Peter (GPet) must precede both GMatt and GLuke. I'll accomplish this by focusing on the figure of the centurion in all three gospels.
GPet gives the centurion at the crucifixion a name: Petronius. This should start ringing bells for readers of Josephus: it's the name of the Syrian governor sent to quell unrest in Judea when Caligula tried to place his effigy in the Jerusalem temple. Publius Petronius gives a speech in Galilee in which he says, according to Flavius Josephus' War of the Jews (2.10.4):
KAI OUK EGW, KAI GAR AUTOS, WSPER UMEIS, EPITASSOMAI
"...and not I, for I myself, like you, am commanded ["set-upon"]."
This speech closely resembles the words of the centurion who comes to Jesus in GMatt 8 and GLuke 7 and asks for his servant, or child (in GMatt, and GLuke sometimes) to be healed. Lk 7:8 has
KAI GAR EGW ANQRWPOS EIMI UPO EXOUSIAN TASSOMENOS
"For I am a man set under authority."
Mt 8:9 has only
KAI GAR EGW ANQRWPOS EIMI UPO EXOUSIAN
("For I am a man under authority")
though Westcott and Hort restore TASSSOMENOS, based on the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus reading, along with some early Latin manuscripts.
So use the Lukan version at least, and compare between:
KAI OUK EGW, KAI GAR AUTOS...EPITASSOMAI
KAI GAR EGW... UPO TASSOMENOS
This pericope has been assigned to Q for some decades now.
But...if the words of the centurion in Lk 7 (and maybe Mt 8) resemble Publius Petronius' words...and a centurion named Petronius shows up at the crucifixion in GPet...they must be related characters. It can't be coincidence. In other words, the two centurions are the same character--a centurion named Petronius, modeled after the real Publius Petronius. But how did this happen?
So did Luke read about the centurion in Mt 8, make a connection with Publius Petronius, consult Josephus' War of the Jews, and add TASSOMENOS to the Matthean account? And did the author of GPet come across the Q pericope in GMatt or GLuke, recognize Publius Petronius' words, and add the name? This scenario would be compatible with Matthean priority.
But this is far-fetched. In the Q pericope, Jesus meets the centurion in Capernaum, and in Josephus, Petronius meets with the Jews in Tiberias--only two miles away. How could this be mere narrative coincidence? And although the Matthean version may have lacked TASSOMENOS, the import of Mt 8:9 remains the same even without it: the centurion is stating that he has his orders to follow. Coincidence seems impossible here.
Instead...the author of the Q pericope must have been reading Josephus' War directly. He lifted Petronius, along with his words, directly from there, and put them in his gospel.
And this same passage in Josephus must be the source of the name "Petronius" in GPet as well. Meaning...the Q pericope, and the figure of Petronius at the crucifixion, must have been composed at the same time...by the same person.
We just decided that the name "Petronius" must have been introduced by the very person responsible for the Q pericope. GMatt and GLuke have the Q pericope, but not the name Petronius--apparently they are both influenced here by GMark, which doesn't name the centurion at the cross. But they both knew the original version, i.e. the Q gospel, since they both contain the pericope. And GPet must also have known the original version--because, GPet mentions a centurion named Petronius. So GPet knew Q, and testifies to its contents.
Luke seems to preserve the earlier version of the pericope, containing the echo of Josephus' langauge in TASSOMENOS.
In this case, however, I think it's simpler to assume that TASSOMENOS was in Marcion's gospel, and that Luke got the language from Marcion, rather than from GPet. I don't think Luke used GPet for much gospel material, if any, whereas he relied heavily on Marcion, canonical GLuke basically being a de-heresized version of Marcion's gospel.
Does this mean the centurion in that pericope was named "Petronius" in the original Cerinthean version? Not certain. I believe GMatt derives from GPet, which means that Matthew at least edited out the name "Petronius" from the crucifixion. He probably did this under the influence of GMark (and he also found the name too easily confused with Peter).
Note that the centurion in GMark is not related to Petronius at all. Mark's centurion doesn't have a name, and I think he also lacked a name in SGM, since he lacks a name in GJohn. So Mark's centurion is not supposed to be Petronius at all--he's just some centurion who ends up at the cross. (Though I will have interesting things to say about Mark's centurion eventually.) In this case, a post-Markan connection is possible, between Mark's centurion and Josephus' Publius Petronius: they are not similar figures, so it is not unusual coincidence for someone to creatively try and link them together.
And so it's the Q-author who, reading SGM and Josephus' War together (along with pG, I would argue) made a connection between Mark's centurion and Publius Petronius. He elaborated the centurion-at-the-cross character in his gospel, turning him into a fictionalized version of Petronius, and giving him his own pericope.
What's interesting about this pericope is that it's clearly related to the other healing of an official's child/servant. We'll discuss this in Part 2.
Very interesting. I would never have noticed this/these parallels.
ReplyDeletePetronius is also demonstrated to have been very close with Marcus Agrippa in the Josephus narrative. I can't believe that Mark on the one hand and Matthew and Luke on the other are talking about different centurions.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that THIS centurion in Matthew 27:54:
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
Is different from THIS centurion in Mark 15:39:
And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"
And again:
Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. [ibid 44,45]
This sounds remarkably similar to me to what is in the Gospel of Peter:
But Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher. And with these the elders and scribes came to the burial place. And having rolled a large stone, all who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, placed it against the door of the burial place. And they marked it with seven wax seals; and having pitched a tent there, they safeguarded it. But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.
But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding) ... And so those people were seeking a common perspective to go off and make these things clear to Pilate; and while they were still considering it through, there appear again the opened heavens and a certain man having come down and entered into the burial place. Having seen these things, those around the centurion hastened at night before Pilate (having left the sepulcher which they were safeguarding) and described all the things that they indeed had seen, agonizing greatly and saying: 'Truly he was God's Son.'
I don't know which centurion you are referencing. Sorry for asking. I am writing with children screaming in the background.
One problem with the idea that in the Gospel of Peter Petronius is the Centurion with a sick slave (or son) at Capernaum is the way that Gospel of Peter makes Petronius an underling of Pilate.
ReplyDeleteThe centurion at Capernaum presumably reported to Herod Antipas, and given the major role of Herod at the crucifixion in the Gospel of Peter it would have been easy to have Herod appoint Petronius to guard the tomb.
The fact that this doesn't happen argues against a Galileean connection for Petronius.
Stephan--yes, I am saying that Mark's centurion was originally a different centurion.
ReplyDeleteRemember that I think canonical Mark is a slightly trimmed version of Secret Mark--*and* I think that GPet used Secret Mark as a source.
So, Secret Mark's centurion came first. GPet then invented the centurion who comes to Jesus asking for a healing, based on a different healing pericope in Secret Mark (originally without a centurion at all) and Josephus' Publius Petronius. He then renamed the centurion at the cross "Petronius".
So the original centurion was just Secret Mark's centurion. GPet turned him into Petronius, and gave him a miracle healing, too, earlier in the gospel.
I'll explain this further in Part 2 (and a Part 3, I think.)
Very interesting about Marcus Agrippa--I'll have to look into it.
Andrew--agreed, but I don't think the author of GPet (whom I still maintain was Cerinthus, but I'll have to post about it) was a stickler for details. In fact now that you mention it, I suspect that Pilate was ordering the centurion around in one of GPet's sources--either Secret Mark or (more likely) the Proto-Gospel--and GPet just kept the detail. The author didn't really care about any contradictions--he was just trying to add a catchy detail. Remember, this is the same author who describes a mass resurrection, and a Jesus whose body reaches into the heavens. He isn't likely to worry about the niceties of political jurisdiction, IMO.
ReplyDeleteBut, if I'm wrong, I leave open the possibility that the author used the words of Petronius in the Q pericope, but used the name in the Passion Narrative. He may not have identified the two centurions, but technically I don't need him to: all I need is the name in one place, and UPO TASSOMENONS/EPITASSOMAI in another.
For what its worth Simone Petrement (Simone Pétrement, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism. Carol Harrison, trans. San Francisco: Harper, 1990. pp.298-314) has I think correctly argued that 'Kerinthos' was a corruption of 'Korinthos' (I think the Aramaic was the correct launching point for this Cerinthus figure as there is no need to explain the change from 'o' to 'e' viz. qrurnta 'Corinthian' cf Jastrow p. 1414).
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the figure you identify as authoring the Gospel of Peter was likely not named 'Cerinthus' at all. He was just 'the Corinthian' i.e. the figure causing trouble in 'Corinth' at least according to the Catholic Apostolikon. My guess his name was Apelles but that isn't the point.
The name Kerinthos really just leads to another dead end.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteFWIW I myself wonder if "Merinthus" is just a misunderstanding of "Maranatha"--the words at the end of the Apocalypse of John (i.e. Revelation).
Or 1 Cor 16:22. I used to hold the opinion you just put forward a long time ago. I abandoned it because I felt it was difficult to base an opinion solely on a reading in Epiphanius especially given Irenaeus's clear attestation for the reading Cerinthos. As someone that used to hold that opinion it is worth noting that only in Samaritan Aramaic does a kaf resemble a mem allowing for the two readings.
ReplyDelete