Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the New Testament?

Does the Gospel of Peter actually belong in the New Testament? The canon of the New Testament was reserved only for those writings that were either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle.

Since the Gospel of Peter was written in the mid -2nd century, it is not a candidate for inclusion in the New Testament. The numerous embellishments in the Gospel of Peter clearly indicate that it was composed in the 2nd century and was not actually written by the apostle Peter.

The 2nd century date of authorship is in conformity with the modern New Testament scholarship's appraisal of the Gospel of Peter. Therefore, the early church rightly rejected this gospel, which was falsely attributed to Jesus.

Now, the question is, how do we know, why should the Gospel of Peter not be in the New Testament? Well, let me give you some reasons that I wrote an article on karm .org which goes into more detail, but I'm just going to skim over some of the main reasons why the Gospel of Peter does not belong in the New Testament.

The first question we need to ask is, when was the Gospel of Peter actually written, to decide whether it should or should not be in the New Testament? Though the work was actually attributed to the Gospel of Peter in paragraph 14, if you read the Gospel of Peter, contemporary New Testament scholars rightfully know that the Gospel of Peter is a 2nd century AD work.

Most scholars would not date the Gospel before say 130 to 150 AD, when Peter died sometime in the 60s AD, so that's a good 70 to 90 years after Peter's death. They date it to that late date due to the numerous historical errors, including a preponderance of legendary embellishments and a lack of 1st century historical knowledge, and two, the likely dependence of the Gospel of Peter on the New Testament Gospels.

For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us an accurate portrait of Jesus, as accurate as the New Testament Gospels do. There are two big reasons why the Gospel of Peter does not belong in the New Testament.

First of all, there are a number of large historical errors in the Gospel of Peter. First of all, the first historical error is the guilt of the Jews that is talked about in the Gospel of Peter. The confession of the Jewish authorities' guilt in paragraph 7 and paragraph 11 lacks historical credibility.

The confession of the Jewish authorities makes more sense in a context after 70 AD, where the Jews were actually blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem as a result of not accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

Furthermore, the reference to the Jewish scribes and elders saying, For it is better, they say, for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned, likewise reflects a period after 70 AD and is definitely not earlier than the synoptic material.

So basically, before 70 AD, the Jews weren't being explicitly blamed as much for the killing of Jesus as they would have been after. So this likely indicates in paragraph 7 and 11, it's referring to a much later time period when there was a stronger hostility against the Jewish people for the rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

However, there are more historical errors in just that one instance. The second one is the fact that the high priest spends the night in the cemetery. Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Peter possessed very little knowledge of Jewish customs.

According to paragraphs 8 and 10, the Jewish elders and scribes actually camp out in a cemetery as part of the guard keeping watch over the tomb of Jesus. As Craig Evans, a Jesus scholar, wisely notes,.

Given Jewish views of corpse impurity, not to mention fear of cemeteries at night, the author of our fragment is unbelievably ignorant. That's in Evans' Fabricating Jesus, page 83. The ruling priest spending the night in the cemetery, no ruling priest would actually do that.

Due to these serious blunders, it is highly unlikely that this Gospel reflects earlier material than the New Testament Gospels. Instead, the author is most likely far removed from the historical events surrounding Jesus' death and burial.

There's a third key historical error in the Gospel of Peter, and that's the embellishment of the New Testament resurrection accounts. There are a number of apparent embellishments in the Gospel of Peter, especially surrounding the guarding of the tomb and the resurrection.

Now pay attention to these because I think you'll find them interesting. Regarding the guarding of the tomb, there are actually seven seals over the tomb, that's in paragraph 8. And a great multitude from the surrounding area comes to actually see the tomb sealed, whereas the Gospels really don't mention anything like that.

So it seems to be like it's really embellishing the Gospel accounts, making them much more extraordinary, much more symbolic, and much more, you know, out there. So a great multitude comes to see the sealing of the tomb.

Though these are certainly historical possibilities, I mean you can't discount that, it appears to indicate that these are embellishments compared to the more simple accounts in the New Testament Gospels.

The New Testament writers never describe actually how the resurrection took place, since presumably no one was there to witness it other than the guards. Perhaps the most fascinating part of the Gospel of Peter's account is that it actually describes the resurrection of Jesus and how it happened in paragraphs 9 through 10.

So I'm going to read to you a quote here, and just pay attention because I think it's really interesting, because this is perhaps the biggest embellishment in the Gospel of Peter. So paragraph 9 reads as the following quote.

And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven. And they saw the heavens opened, and two men descended from thence with great light and approached the tomb.

And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part. And the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. When therefore the soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were hard by keeping guard.

And as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him who was led by them over past the heavens.

In other words, it's a giant Jesus whose head reaches up to heaven. Okay, so let's go back to the story. And they heard a voice from the heavens saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.

So we have a giant Jesus in a talking cross, and it actually shows Jesus coming out of the tomb. Now that's very, very much of an embellished account of the New Testament Gospels, which don't describe anything in nearly that much rich embellishment.

This resurrection account does not retain anything of the historical soberness that is in the New Testament resurrection accounts. Instead this description of the resurrection of Jesus has a large angel whose head reached unto the heaven, and a giant Jesus whose head over past the heavens.

Finally, the best example is the talking cross, which again is my personal favorite. The voice from heaven says, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. The cross responds by saying, Yea. While it is possible that there was a giant Jesus whose head surpassed the heavens and a talking cross, it is more likely that this story is probably an embellishment of the simpler empty tomb and resurrection accounts in the New Testament Gospels.

It is probably just another attempt like some other Gnostic Gospels to fill in the gaps in the events surrounding Jesus' life. Now the gap filling occurs in a lot of Gnostic Gospels. You can look at the Infancy Gospel of Thomas where it tries to describe Jesus' life between the ages of say, you know, young Jesus as a youth before age 12 and just account for events that the Gospels basically leave out.

So again, the Gospel of Peter is doing the same thing that other Gnostic Gospels attempt to do. So how anyone could actually think that this resurrection account is as primitive or more primitive than the New Testament Gospels seems quite unreasonable.

Craig Evans wisely notes, Quote,. Can it be seriously maintained that the Gospel of Peter's resurrection account complete with a talking cross and angels whose heads reached out into heaven constitutes the most primitive account?

That's Craig Evans in page 84. So again, I think this is one of the stronger arguments against the Gospel of Peter and this is why the early church did not accept this Gospel and have it in the New Testament.

It was so embellished and it was not anything like the historical soberness we see in the New Testament Gospels. The second main reason why the Gospel of Peter is not in the New Testament is the fact that it likely shows dependence on the New Testament Gospels.

It is difficult to prove exact literary dependence by the Gospel of Peter on the New Testament Gospels. However, there are at least a couple instances in Peter which are best explained by the author having familiarity with the canonical New Testament Gospels.

The Gospel of Matthew is a prime example with its guard in the tomb of Jesus. The Gospel of Peter author likely took this account and embellished it by having Jewish leaders come and camp out in the tomb overnight, which again was not something Jews would do.

This may have served an apologetical purpose of the author of the Gospel of Peter which reflected conditions after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in which there was a polemical dialogue or discussion between Jews and Christians.

Furthermore, the centurion's commission in paragraph 11 appears to also reflect the Gospel of Matthew. Look at Matthew 27 .54, Mark 15 .39, and Luke 23 .47. Finally, the Gospel of Peter's reference to the thief uses the same Greek words in reference to the thief in paragraph 4, which likely reflects the Gospel of Luke in Luke 23 .33 and 39.

So again, he's using the same words we see in the New Testament Gospels. Since the Gospel of Peter is likely a 2nd century work due to the historical errors listed above, it is likely that the Gospel of Peter at least used similar traditions that are found in the New Testament Gospels, if not the Gospels themselves.

This is a much more sober conclusion rather than basing our arguments on source criticism alone, which is often bound in mere speculation of hypothetical sources and layers of editing and redaction. Anyhow, given the numerous embellishments and historical errors, it is likely that the author had some familiarity with the canonical Gospels and combined it with his own speculations.

However, to what extent the author had knowledge of the New Testament Gospels, we may never really know. So, in conclusion, despite the claims of some, the Gospel of Peter does not belong in the New Testament due to its serious embellishments and likely dependence on the New Testament Gospels.

For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us an as accurate portrayal of Jesus as the New Testament Gospels do, and regard it rather as a late composition from the 2nd century AD.