Letters of Paul // Jesus of Nazareth // Extra-Canonical Gospels // Other Topics
| Letters of Paul // Jesus of Nazareth // Extra-Canonical Gospels // Other Topics |
| Dialogue of the Savior [Paul Cohen] |
| Gospel of Mary [Ralph Rogers] |
| Gospel of Peter [Judith H. Blanchard] |
| Gospel of Thomas [Steve Notis] |
| Sanford, John A.: Healing Body and Soul: The Meaning of Illness in the New Testament and Psychotherapy (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 201.6 Sa57hb [Judith Blanchard] |
Krister Stendahl wrote this book while he was professor at the Divinity School of Harvard University. He audience seems to be fairly wide—other scholars, preachers, and biblically trained lay-people.
The thesis is that understanding the context of Paul, especially the relations between Jews and Gentiles, is the essential hermeneutical key rather than the later more introspective concerns of Luther. In "commandment form" he asserts "Seek ye first the original meaning—and all these things shall be yours as well" (p. 36).
The work is structured into four essays.
Evidence evaluated are the text of Paul’s letters, the Book of Acts, historical background regarding Luther and what Stendahl refers to as "the introspective conscience of the West".
My reading experience was fairly good. I liked it especially insofar as Stendahl addresses Paul’s "robust moral conscience" which to me has often seemed to be prideful, even arrogant but Stendahl points out as simply not afflicted by the more introspective, self-referencing Western conscience. The thesis around the relations between Jews and Gentiles is one that I was familiar with so it was good review.
Someone very engrained in the deeply introspective theological tradition of Luther would profit the most from reading this work, either lay or clergy. It could be a difficult read for such a person, given that un-learning what you already think you know is often a difficult experience. I question whether the church of today, often made up of members with little or no theological tradition, would appreciate Stendahl’s counterpoint to Luther given that they might not even know the basic tenor of his thought.
The intended reader seems to range rather widely, in that the work, while it is focused on a rather specialized interest, is also written in clear and uncomplicated language so that nearly anyone could read it. It seems suitable for scholars, pastors and lay-people.
The thesis of the work is that the New Testament should be read as a literary unity as the original publishers intended. When it is approached as a unity insights are available that escape us when we see the text as library of isolated works.
The work is structured into four chapters.
The evidence evaluated are the letters of Paul, historical background from other letter collections, and scholarly research on original documents and the historical context of Paul.
I had a very positive reading experience. I often had the feeling of being in the room with Sherlock Holmes as he tied all the pieces of a mysterious case together in front of all the suspects. The author even ends the work with a tale of woe and intrigue as he conjecturers about Paul’s reasons for wanting to publish his letters! I especially appreciated the idea that the entire New Testament can be seen as one literary unit. That was a completely new idea for me. Moreover, the clear and straightforward writing made it a pleasure to read.
Those who would profit the most from reading this work are those open to new ideas and curious about the origins of the Paul’s letters. Also anyone looking for a unified theory of the New Testament would appreciate it as well. It would be a good read for lay-people, clergy and scholar.
Dr. Trobisch wrote this book in 1994 while still an Associate Professor at the University of Heidelberg. It is a consolidation and popularization of his doctoral thesis: "I dedicated two years of my doctoral studies to finding an answer to (the sequence of Paul’s letters)." P. 20 His invitational, clearly structured style welcomes almost any student of the New Testament into his work. The review of ancient manuscripts may be intimidating to the average reader, but I believe that anyone who gives it a try will be fascinated.
Dr. Trobisch introduces the reader to the earliest extant manuscripts of the New Testament to show that Paul’s letters appear to have been grouped together as 14 (or 13 plus Hebrews), in pretty much the present order from the very beginning. They formed one of the four literary units of the New Testament canon. He then reflects on some of the characteristic features of the letters, including autographic subscriptions, missing letters, digressions, and anachronisms. The evidence in Trobisch’s view is that these letters are consistent with other edited and pub-lished letter collections of the same era and that Paul himself edited Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians as a collection -- an "authorized recension" -- to send to the Church at Ephesus.
This is truly a delightful, compellingly written volume filled with new insights and conclusions. One of these is the possible principle of ordering the letters of Paul: by length, starting with longest, through the seven letters to congregations, beginning again with longest letter to individuals through those three, and ending with Hebrews. Bringing the reader back into the world of second century transcribers and booksellers makes this all very logical.
My second "aha" in the Pauline recension is the possibility that Paul was editing seven letters into the I and II Corinthian corpus, and thus, there are no "missing letters." Again the evidence seems to support this.
Finally, David makes very dramatic the background of conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles against which the entire construction of the New Testament is made, often with Paul the more hateful in his attacks – certainly Peter’s letter appears to acknowledge Paul’s good preaching on behalf of the Gospel.
I loved David’s assertion that "It is the privilege of any ancient text to keep some of its secrets to itself, and it is a matter of honor to respect that." (p. 27) It gives one a sense of the humility and respect for his sources with which he writes. I found myself wondering if scholars like Crossan and Borg would concur. While very scholarly and exhaustively researched, David’s method reminded me of one assembling the pieces of a picture puzzle until a quite unexpected whole emerges.
J. Paul Sampley is Professor of New Testament at the School of Theology at Boston University (a former professor of Steve Notis). Writing in 1991, he intends to reach theological students, as he explains in his preface: "I have tried to keep references to the Greek to a minimum so that there is not too much distraction, but have included them so that the curious student may see patterns in Paul’s choice of terms." (v) As that quote suggests, Sampley transliterates the Greek and explains the terms used very simply.
The two "times" that Sampley refers to are Paul’s frame of reference: between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the parousia or Christ’s return. He sees Paul’s moral reasoning arising from the Christian’s need to live in this interregnum of the no longer/not yet. The seeds of the future are already planted in the transformation of the resurrection, but they are clearly not yet complete. (N.T. Wright makes similar arguments in his response to Marcus Borg about why the bodily resurrection matters; believers are raised with Christ according to Paul, and we share in a new reality, albeit a "groaning in travail" existence.)
Paul’s moral reasoning is set within the Christian community and is therefore never individualistic nor is it overly concerned with those outside the faith. His concern is for the community’s faithful functioning until Christ’s return, and thus he speaks to issues of breaking down the walls that divide the community: Jew and gentile Christians, slave and free, male and female. These tensions are no longer things that matter because they are set within the context of the immanent return of Christ – hopefully within the apostles’ lifetimes. That urgency relativizes issues, leading Paul to counsel Christians to be content with their lot. The measure for all faith and appropriate behavior of the believer is love. Believers are to follow Paul’s example and Christ’s example in growing in the Spirit, producing those actions of faith that will stand the final judgment. Those actions come from gratitude for God’s work of redemption in Christ and anticipation of the coming glory.
Sampley works from the Greek texts of Paul (no specific manuscripts are cited) and takes a rather traditional view of "early and late letters" and those of "questionable Pauline authorship," e.g. Hebrews. "Later Paulinist writings such as Ephesians…, Colossians…, and certainly the pastoral epistles…reflect a later retreat and an accommodation to the broader culture’s practice of subordinating women." (p. 115) He closes with an analysis of our present day as a parallel to Paul’s time: we too live in the now between an old aeon and a new aeon – it is just that the now has stretched out much longer than Paul anticipated! Nonetheless, we must also live in the "ardent expectation of the end." (p. 108)
Although there were no great new insights that I found in reading Sampley, it is a very accessible book, appropriate for a church study group that wants to look at how the community of faith must struggle for love in the midst of diversity. I did not feel that Sampley dealt sufficiently with the controversies between Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders. I appreciated his perspective that some of the elements that "moderns" find difficult with Paul (the seeming suppression of women’s role in the church) must be seen within the context of the specific church (small house gathering) that is being addressed rather than as a rule for a larger, unified church. Sampley does not see Paul preaching a megachurch of united house churches or Church the way it evolved in Catholicism. Feminists may find some easing of their difficulties with Paul in the reading of this book.
This book was written by J. Paul Sampley, Professor of New Testament at the School of Theology, Boston University. The book is concisely and clearly written. It seems to be intended for a wide audience, primarily students, pastors and lay people.
The assumption underlying Sampley’s book is that ancient letters such as Paul’s epistles which have an identifiable author reveal a great deal about how the author thinks, and the assumptions behind the author’s reasoning. As Sampley puts it "To receive the gospel is to receive Paul." (p.1)
Sampley argues that Paul’s theology and moral reasoning are governed by two times. One is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which marks the beginning of the new life of faith for believers. The other is Christ’s return, or Parousia, which will about the end of the present age with God’s judgment, and the beginning of the new age and the fulfillment of God’s purposes. Paul’s concern in all his writings then is how believers are to live and act between these times.
Through a careful reading of Paul’s letters, Sampley shows how Paul reasons that the believers whom he addresses in his letters are living in two worlds at the same time; the present (old) age of sin and death and the future (new) age of God’s kingdom and glory where sin and death are finally and completely overcome. "Walking between the times" like this, communities of believers are faced with very concrete dilemmas concerning how to live in conformity to the new age while still in the midst of this world. In his book, Sampley shows how Paul in all his letters tries to give believers a way to understand and negotiate the challenges and choices they face as they live new and transformed lives in the midst of the present time where the old and the new age overlap.
Sampley structures his work in three parts. First, he establishes Paul’s frame of reference by showing how Paul understood what it meant to live and act between now and the impending end of this age. Second, he shows, through Paul’s letters, how Paul thought followers of Christ were supposed to live and behave. Then finally he tries to show Paul’s process of reasoning; how Paul arrives at his convictions and understanding regarding the appropriate behavior for believers.
The evidence with which Sampley argues his thesis comes solely from his own reading and translation of the Greek texts of Paul’s seven letters, whose authenticity is not disputed by scholars. These letters are; Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
I found Sampley’s book intriguing. Christian communities of faith still "walk between the times" and it is as challenging now as it was for believers in Paul’s time. The longer our congregations live in this overlapping time the less immanent is the time of Christ’s return and the future new age. So our tendency then as communities of faith is to live and act based on the past rather than on the future that is promised by God. However, my experience is that the past in and of itself provides an insufficient foundation for a new, redeemed future.
Oddly enough, as I was reading this book I was reminded of another book; T.H. White’s children’s novel about King Arthur and Merlin The Sword in the Stone. In the story the boy Arthur is puzzled at how his tutor, the magician Merlin, can imagine the things he does and do the amazing things he does. Merlin then tells Arthur his secret. Unlike ordinary folk who live from past to future, Merlin tells Arthur that he lives from the future to the past. Because he has known and experienced what to everyone else is still to come, he is able to imagine and act with assurance in ways that seem extraordinary to others. The insight and reminder Sampley gives in his book about how Paul lived and thought, can be a challenge to communities of faith in the present to live with this same kind of imagination; "walking between the times.".
When this book was published, Ronald Hock was assistant professor of religion at USCatLA.
His interest in the topic is longstanding: his dissertation and several other articles have all been about Paul and his means of livelihood. He states that there is no other book length treatment of this topic, which is his reason for writing this one. An understanding of Paul’s relationship to his work is seen by Hock as being central to understanding parts of the epistles, specifically those dealing with Paul’s defense of, and attitudes towards, his work.
This book is relatively easy to read: it is quite short, and its points are quite clearly articulated. It is written for those with a more than passing interest in the Christian scriptures, I think. We are not apt to find it on a best seller list.
The central thesis of this book is that Paul learned to make tents while apprenticed to his father, and that this practice was not specifically Jewish, but common to Greco-Roman culture of the time. As an apostle he traveled and worked to support himself rather than being dependent on others. Philosophers of the time had the following means of support: charging fees, entering the household of a wealthy person, begging, or working at a skilled or unskilled job. Paul’s concepts of freedom are tied to his choice to not be dependent on income via the first three options listed, but to work with his hands. The debate at Corinth about work was about the various lifestyles which went along with these various means of support. In short chapters, Hock discusses Paul, the trade of tentmaking in that time, Paul’s lifestyle as an artisan-missionary, the debate at Corinth, and conclusions drawn from the material presented.
Hock uses Christian scripture as a starting point, relying less on Acts than on references to work in Paul’s letters, frequently citing the original Greek. He also studied contemporary Greek and Roman culture and work practices, as well as Jewish customs of that period. By doing this he is able to place Paul in a cultural context, which helps to make sense of some of his passion about defending his work practices.
I actually enjoyed reading this once I got into it, because of its clarity and brevity, and Hock’s ability to describe a lifestyle of one who was both an artisan and missionary of a struggling alternative vision of faithful Jewish living. Those with an interest in "tentmaking" ministry, with dual or multiple means of earning a living along with a commitment to teaching/preaching/sharing the "gospel", can find a good description of the prototype of that lifestyle here. And, those interested in the ministry of Paul would benefit from reflecting on this particular view of why and how Paul was a tentmaker.
Will Israel be saved without having to accept Christ as the Messiah according to Romans 11:25-27? Given Germany’s modern history with Christian anti-semitism, it is not surprising that this question, the so-called "Sonderweg," has been a matter of considerable scholarly debate among German interpreters. After presenting current positions W. Keller engages in a thorough exegetical analysis of Romans. The author concludes that, according to Paul, although Christ is the savior of all, not everyone will have to believe in Christ to be saved at Christ's second coming.
The manuscript is the revised version of a dissertation, which was accepted by the Albert-Ludwig-Universtität, Freiburg, under the supervision of Lorenz Oberlinner in 1997. It introduces the readers exceptionally well to the current German debate and includes references to important American works. The argument is well organized and the style is clear and to the point.
It should be noted that Wolfgang Kraus in his Habilitationsschrift, Das Volk Gottes (Tübingen, 1996), worked extensively on the same text passage. Independently of one another, both authors arrive at the same conclusion.
Jerome H. Neyrey wrote Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters in1990 for both the professional biblical interpreter and the traditional reader. The book offers a different perspective as one strives to understand Paul and his writings. It has a focus on both cultural anthropology and social psychology.
Six specific cultural areas structure the work: of purity, rites, body, sin, cosmology and evil or misfortune. These include analytic categories of cosmos, boundaries, order/disorder, deviance, suffering, and witchcraft in the first century. Neyrey discusses the symbolic universe of Pharisaic Judaism. The work gives coherence to the letters by classifying Paul’s perceptions of the places, people and religious activity.
Neyrey compares Paul’s writings using a variety of scholarly social science sources. The book includes an extensive bibliography. While historical background is considered, the work is not done from a historical perspective, but a cultural slant.
At first I found the book repetitious, but soon understood the organizing criteria and the spiral the work takes. It builds chapter by chapter, reflecting the maps by which Paul’s world was ordered. I found it useful to comprehend the communal structure of the first century, comparing it to our own individual based time. This book makes it easier to view Paul as a creature of his own culture and grasp the determination by which he lead. I found myself drawn more to the book as I read through it. It gave me a glimpse of the fundamentalist need for strict organization.
Anyone who is interested in the bible or the Christian faith can profit from reading this book or knowing this information. I produced a sermon on it from a desire to have the members of my congregation understand the cultural history of the bible, not to mention the beginnings of our own Unitarian Universalist faith. Some would view this approach as a stretch, but I found it nourishing.
The author, Alan F. Segal, is a professor of Religion at Barnard College. Primarily, this work is directed to Jewish scholars. It is an attempt to show how we can learn a great deal about the Jewish community of the first century by studying the life and particularly the letters of Paul. The author wants to have his readers reconsider the life of Paul in such a way that we learn not only about Paul himself, but also the community from which he came and the community to which he devoted his mission. I believe that on another level the author wishes to speak to Christian New Testament scholars giving them a fresh approach to understanding the life and mission of this central figure in the development of the early Christian community and its theology.
Essentially, Segal argues that in order to understand Paul we must look at him from the perspective of conversion. He converts from Pharisaic Judaism to become a member of the Christian community. Segal reads Luke and Paul himself in this context in order to understand how Paul begins to retell his own history through the lens of his new faith community. Segal continually makes connections to the modern study of conversion to help us understand the transformation Paul undergoes.
The book is structured according to three distinct periods in the life of Paul: Paul the Jew, Paul the Convert and Paul the Apostle. In each of these sections, Segal attempts to shed new light on his subject by exploring the context of his experience.
Segal, in a fairly exhaustive manner, brings forward original textual material from the New Testament as well as the writings of Josephus, Philo, Hebrew Bible, Mishnah and Talmud. He has a clear command of many Semitic languages including Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic. He reads the New Testament Greek making many linguistic comparisons which in turn helps us to understand how Paul might have viewed his own conversion process. Segal also turns to what I can only assume is the mainstream secondary work of primarily Christian scholars. He uses this material to further support his thesis alternating between refuting the work that discounts Paul’s experience as a Pharisee and his subsequent conversion and highlighting the material that is sympathetic to his argument.
I found the work to be quite dense. Segal tries to respond to all questions that challenge his conclusions. In the process the reader is overwhelmed by textual references. Clearly this is meant for the community of scholars most familiar with the literature cited. He primarily targets Jewish scholars, though Christian scholars will gain a lot from his exploration of context and the psychology of conversion.
John Sanford is the son of Agnes Sanford, famous for her writing in the area of spirituality and healing, and an Episcopal minister. He is himself seminary trained and a Jungian analyst writing for both therapists who wish to take the care of the soul seriously and biblical scholars.
Sanford addresses the spiritual meaning of illness as seen in the healing stories of Jesus’ ministry, the connection between faith and knowledge in the healing process, and the New Testament teachings about the health of the soul. He brings the work of Carl Jung and Fritz Kunkel to bear on a careful analysis of Greek concepts. As an analyst, he sees our task of working toward wholeness as that of individuation, the movement away from egotism and unconsciousness to the true Self (which is the imago dei) and consciousness.
Through the healing stories of Jesus, Sanford points to the three most common understandings of why persons became ill in New Testament times: (1) fate – the man born blind (John 9:1-7); (2) sin, as in the malingering of the lame man at the Pool of Bethzatha (John 5:2-9); and (3) part of a person’s path to individuation and wholeness as in the woman with the flow of blood (Luke 8:42-28). Here he analyses four different Greek words for healing, with the highest being so-zo- or salvation in which one is restored to wholeness in every way and which requires the full participation of the person in his/her healing.
In his second section Sanford distinguishes between knowledge – a category of the intellect – and faith – a category of the soul. This distinction removes them from inherent tension: "Faith sustains the soul in its search for knowledge." (p. 63) Again, Sanford elaborates on five Greek words for knowing, including the highest gno-sis, to know "in the biblical sense" or intimately.
Finally, Sanford analyzes what creates illness in the soul: sin. Greek has eight different words for sin, the most frequent of which in the New Testament is hamartia or a missing the mark. Again, bringing in Jungian theory, Sanford maintains that sin and unconsciousness are inseparable. In fact, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the refusal to become conscious, to embrace the Spirit of Truth.
This is an engaging, thought-provoking book that is a "must-read" for every counselor, therapist, and healer. I found it very engaging and well documented. Although Sanford looks at the physical ailments in the New Testament healing stories, clearly he is more concerned and believes religion is more concerned with the illnesses of the soul. In particular he maintains that suffering opens us to truth, healing, and the putting God in the center where the ego is so determined to reside. The biblical reality is inner and spiritual, not outer and material: "The Kingdom is within/among you…" (Luke 17:20) Again, Sanford gives a careful analysis of the Greek for "within" pointing to the centrality of the Self sought in individuation and its need for that to come in relationship or community. Masterful!
Achtemeier is Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. Also, he is editor of the journal, Interpretation and is a past president of the Catholic Biblical Association.
The book is written for both scholars and non-scholars. It should be of interest to members of any Congregation.
The author’s thesis is that contention has always existed in the Church and that it was not overcome, as Acts indicates, in early decades. To illustrate, Achtemeier focuses on the tension between Jewish and gentile Christians in the early Church. Specifically, the relationship between Paul and Jewish Christian authorities in Jerusalem is examined. The author argues that the dispute at Antioch occurred after and as a result of the Jerusalem Apostolic council.
The book examines closely the passages in Acts 9,11&15 and Galatians 1-2 that deal with these matters.
I liked the book. The author makes the point very persuasively that disputes by committed members of the Church have always existed and that they can cause great personal anguish. That the Church excised disunity in its early years is shown to be untrue.
That the apostles themselves could not overcome disunity must be an encouragement to anyone who is experiencing contention in the Congregation. Those persons would profit most from reading Achtemeier’s book.
I understand this is a thesis written to complete a doctorate. This appears obvious because of its manuscript style. It is written to prove the authors ability to interpret by psychoanalytical methods.
Paul may be interpreted using the methodology of Gerd Theissen and psychoanalytic theory. This allows us to evaluate the tension within contradictory writings of Paul. Callan believes himself to be writing a "psychobiography" of Paul or describing Paul’s attitude toward the particular topics.
Pauline Letters in reference to competition and boasting, sexuality, parent and child, and death using both cultural context and psychological analysis.
I found the book dense and hard to understand. I was quite disappointed because I had hoped for a useful understanding of Paul. I would not recommend this book. I suspect it would be far better to seek out Gerd Theissen’s work to begin with.
Elaine Pagels wrote this book in 1975 while Associate Professor of Religion and Chairman of the Department of Religion at Barnard College. (She later wrote The Gnostic Gospels, causing a great stir among the Unitarian Universalists who refused to claim the "Christ," but looking for a way to interpret the Bible in a more "useful way.") The book is directed at New Testament and historical scholars and their familiar assumptions about Paul as an "antignostic."
Ecclesiastical tradition since Irenaeus has directed the course of Pauline interpretation.(p. 164) New Testament scholars need investigate gnostic traditions as new resources in research of Paul’s writings. Thus they might expand their own understanding, or at least, "challenge and extend it." (p. 10) Taking account of the total evidence, the historical theologian will find his or herself more open.
Pauline Letters: Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews.
Writings from the Church Fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen
Valentinian and Marcionite exegetic writings from Gnostics.
Pagels makes a strong case for the idea that strong "Pauline gnostic terminology" came from the gnostic interpretation within the second century. The programmatic assumption of Paul as "antignostic" came from the second-century heresiologists who felt compelled to refute the gnostic claims. Pagels carefully studies the many words of Paul, contrasting the gnostic interpretations. The two points of view are contrasted vividly. Pagels concludes that either extreme – hypergnostic or hyperorthodox – is "unhistorical" and an attempt to read first-century writings with a second-century interpretation. This is not a useful understanding of what Paul said.
Charles W. Hedrick is Professor of Religious Studies and distinguished Scholar at Southwest Missouri State University. He indicates that the book is written with the aim of helping "beginning students appreciate the depth and width of the gap between the Jewish man (Jesus) and the Christian Lord." (p. ix) He is clear about giving no weight to the biases of faith as he approaches historical questions about Jesus, but he is also respectful of faith and asserts that one must not abandon faith in the search either.
This book would make a fine textbook for undergraduates - or even M.Div. students in this age of general biblical illiteracy on the part of most entering theological students. It is one of the best overviews of the history of the search for the historical Jesus in the past two and one half centuries; each chapter concludes with recommended reading; and each chapter has in depth, probing questions labeled "Issues for Study and Discussion." Hedrick gives a summary of the first century gospels’ portraits of Jesus, including the Gospel of Thomas. He introduces the reader to their diversity and similarities and the hypotheses for their order and dependency upon one another. Like most American scholars, he gives high credence to the possibility of a "lost sayings gospel" or "Q". Hedrick also outlines the probable movement from the oral tradition in pre-literate Palestine of the early first century to written manuscripts. Here, like John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity, he is dependent on Milman Parrys’ work in the late 1920s with both the oral roots of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and the contemporary illiterate bards in Yugoslavia. I was a bit surprised that Hedrick does not refer to Crossan’s recent extensive work with this same theme, although I found his treatment far more readable, comprehensible, and compelling.
Hedrick frequently uses parallel passages (in English) to work with the texts, as well as citing and recommending the volumes from Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus through Rudolf Bultmann to the current work of the Jesus Seminar. He outlines the criteria used by many scholars to determine the originality of Jesus sayings, but unlike many scholars, Hedrick stresses the possibility/probability rather than certainty behind any conclusions for authenticity.
Having read widely in this area (from Luke Timothy Johnson to Burt Throckmorton to Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan), I found this to be one of the clearest, most helpful and most comprehensive treatments of the question. It would make a superb textbook. New to me was Hedrick’s lifting up another contribution to the text in addition to authentic Jesus sayings/works and the interpretation of the early church, and that is the sayings of earliest Christian prophets who were oracles proclaiming: "Thus said the Lord." He points out much New Testament evidence that these prophets (including the Apostle Paul) were very active between 30 CE and the second century and that their words probably found their way into the canon as well. [I plan to follow this up with some reading in M.E. Boring, perhaps his The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition.]
Finally, I am attracted to Hedrick’s perspective that historical criticism and the demands of faith may be seen as terminal points at either end of a world view continuum, along which they may complement rather than contradict one another.
Bart D. Ehrman is Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Religious Studies atthe University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
The author wrote this book for a popular, not academic, audience. Ibelieve his intent is to reach those who are interested in knowing moreabout the historical Jesus but are confused by the great diversity ofmaterial published that I sensed was meant more for academic consumption.
The author wishes to build upon the thesis suggested earlier by AlbertSchweitzer, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was convinced thatthe end of the world would occur in his lifetime. This is the key tounderstanding the historical figure.
Ehrman begins his study by summarizing apocalyptic movements. Specificallyhe calls attention to those people throughout history who have announcedthe coming of the end. He then reviews the sources and identifies why itso hard to know who Jesus was. He brings together many different pieces inorder to construct a coherent picture. With this in hand he proceeds toread the accounts of Jesus through the prism of an apocalyptic prophet. Inhis conclusion he helps the reader, presumably a person of faith, to usethis information as a foundation for his or her life today as we enter thenew millennium.
Ehrman uses the New Testament Gospels as well as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter as his primary sources.
I enjoyed this work very much. Ehrman has an irreverent a biting sense ofhumor. It is clear that he enjoys teaching and brings this energy to hiswriting. You feel as if you are in conversation. Though this book seemsto target the Christian laity, I believe that people of all faiths who havean interest in understanding more about the roots of Christianity throughthe study of the historical Jesus will gain much from Ehrman's work.
M. Eugene Boring is A.A. Bradford Professor of Religious Studies at TexasChristian University. This book is a revision of his 1982 monograph Sayingsof the Risen Jesus, and although less technical and presumes a readingknowledge of English only, it is a scholarly work written for the academiccommunity. Although Boring says that he intends a more general readership, itwould be the sophisticated lay person that could follow his carefulscholarship, detailed argument, and multitude of sources.
We have become accustomed to the search for the historical Jesus, but I think we have not often heard the hypotheses about whose words are those rejected asnot from the mouth of this historical figure. If it is an exacting search forthe Jesus of Nazareth, imagine the search for the early Christian prophetsbetween 30 and 70 CE, who spoke with the prophetic authority of the risenChrist! This is Boring's task, and he does it superbly. Always careful toclarify terms, he defines prophet as: "*an immediately inspired spokespersonfor the risen Jesus, who received intelligible messages that he or she feltimpelled to deliver to the Christian community or, as a representative of thecommunity, to the general public." P. 38 Boring examines the PalestinianJewish context and understanding of these prophets as well as the Hellenisticcontext and understanding. He points to strong distinctions between theecstatic experiences of the Hellenistic oracles (and those in the Corinthianchurch that Paul opposed) and the Christian prophets. He then looks at therole of these prophets in the arising Christian community: as communitymembers and not itinerants, as "called" leaders within the community, ashermeneuts interpreting scripture and present events, and finally asspokespersons for the risen Jesus. He examines the distinctivecharacteristics of prophetic speech in Q, the Synoptics, "M" and "L"materials, and Johannine sayings.
Boring works carefully with the canonical and extracanonical materials, fromthe Didache to the writings of Hellenistic Jews like Philo and Josephus, fromthe earliest rabbinical traditions to the Qumran materials. In his section onthe prophet as hermeneut, he points to early rabbinical tradition where theword for revelation is used synonymously with the word for interpretation. Healso looks carefully at Hebrew scripture's views and understandings of theprophets and the parallels with these early Christian prophets.
While not "light" reading, Boring is a fascinating detective. While thereader often leaves the Jesus Seminar view with a sense of not much left tothe historical figure, Boring brings alive a time in the life of the Christiancommunity when those filled with the Spirit of the Risen Christ knew what hesaid, knew their present apocalyptic context, and believed that the Christ hadmore to say to the community through them. It is an inspiring, illuminatingstudy that challenges the present age of preachers to look at what we proclaimabout our risen Lord! I recommend this as a companion to any reading of thecurrent flurry of historical Jesus volumes.
This book was written by John Dominic Crossan to provide the serious reader with the background historical and anthropological information which informed the life and ministry of Jesus, as well as the detailed structural analysis of many of the stories attributed to Jesus.
In this 425 page book, with its 50 odd pages of appended information, Crossan has written for the serious scholar who seeks to understand the background for and structure of Crossan’s insights about Jesus the person in his time and culture, his unique message, and the transformations of that message done by his interpreters.
The thesis of this work is that various strands of Jewish history and experience converged in Jesus and provided the basis for his ministry, and that these same strands also were the basis for the interpretations of his messages made by the early commentators and believers. The work is structured with chapter headings which name dyads: part one which describes the Roman Empire before, during and in the period up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d.: then and now; war and peace; slave and patron; poverty and freedom. Part two covers the Jewish traditions, and social and religious movements in this same time period: aristocrat and historian; visionary and teacher, peasant and protester; magician and prophet; bandit and messiah; rebel and revolutionary. Part three talks of Jesus: John and Jesus, Kingdom and wisdom, magic and meal, death and burial, resurrection and authority, and a concluding epilogue.
Crossan draws heavily from the histories written by Josephus (aristocrat and historian), and from some contemporary Roman historians. The extensive structural work done to analyze the relationship of various Biblical stories from which Crossan makes his points is Crossan’s own.
I found this to be incredibly dense reading. I have liked other work by Crossan, and I appreciate the level of scholarly work done here, and appreciate knowing this book is available as a resource should I wish to delve more deeply into the life and message of the historical Jesus. Those wishing to do the same searching would benefit from working with this book.
· Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright wrote this work in collaboration in 1999 · The authors intend it to reach a wide range to individuals. On one extreme it is appropriate to scholars researching the historical Jesus debate, on the other it would be good for laypersons.
· The thesis of the book is not a simple question because it is by two authors who differ (Borg more "progressive, Wright more "traditional) and "debate" each topic. They both seem, however, to ask the question, "What can we reasonably know about Jesus?"
· The work is in eight parts in which each author writes a chapter.
· Evidence evaluated is the New Testament text, especially the earliest texts (Mark and Paul), historical background, and scholarly research from the historical Jesus debate.
· I liked it a great deal. The interplay of the two authors was wonderful. It made me wonder why more books are not written in this collaborative way. Together they offer two poles of the current historical Jesus debate. Borg seems to have a more minimalist orientation, that is, he is historically sure about less. He is in a sense a baseline. Wright is more open to the possibility that the gospel accounts are more historically true. If his reading of history is indeed correct then we are able to accord the New Testament with more historicity. Thus, Wright gives us a way to add levels of historicity to that which we might have seen as only metaphor. So if Borg sets up a baseline of credibility, Wright pushes the envelop is very intriguing ways through his historical analysis. Another wonderful thing is that for all their difference there is a palpable sense of deep respect for the opposing opinion and it is evident that each writes out a profound sense of spirituality. I think it's a great book!
· It is a book I would recommend to almost anyone. It would be a fine introduction to Christianity for those who find traditional faith lacking. In this regard it struck me as almost an apologetic of the Christian faith to a postmodern world.
Throckmorton states that the book is written for, "active inquiring church members."
The book’s subject is Jesus Christ and one of His central themes, the dominion of God. Less importance is attached to identifying sayings of the historic Jesus. Rather, the principal focus is on understanding the gospel message regarding Christ. In that connection, Throckmorton provides a hermeneutic in which Christ brings the dominion of God to those who will receive it by faith.
The book begins by presenting some of the difficulties in developing a detailed Jesus biography plus reliable quotes.
Next, the focus shifts to what Throckmorton believes to be "..the major thrust of Jesus’ preaching," the dominion of God. The dominion’s role both in Scripture and in believer’s lives today is defined. Finally, the author addresses two other areas that help to form Jesus’ persona, His teaching on the Law and the resurrection.
To support his thesis the author draws most heavily on the historic development of the Gospels. He also ranges through other OT and NT canonical texts. Important insight is developed through the author’s personal translation of the original languages.
Further, the work of certain theologians, most notably Rudolf Bultmann, is traced. That work precedes the development of Throckmorton’s own hermeneutic regarding Jesus and the dominion of God.
I liked the book very much. Scholarly, but easily read, it is provocative, like good poetry. Out of the author’s deep thought and reflection come a garden of important images that continue to blossom and unfold well after the last page is turned.
Inquiring lay people will learn much from the work; many pastors will revel in it. Throckmorton is an artist, as well as a scholar.
This book sets the stage for the first one-hundred years after the birth of Jesus. It details the economic and social conditions of the groups and communities of Jesus, his disciples and followers, as well as those who were known as "Christ-confessing." The twenty-seven books of the New Testament are set into their context. The geographical areas covered are limited to the areas in which the NT books are set, broadening out to include the places where Paul traveled or the Mediterranean World during the first century of the common era.
The book is divided into four areas: Part One - Economy and Society in the Mediterranean World of the First Century; Part Two - The Land of Israel, the Social History of Judaism, and the Followers of Jesus; Part Three - The Social History of Christ-Confessing Communities in the Cities of the Roman Empire; Part Four - The Social Roles and Social Situations of Women in the Mediterranean World and in Early Christianity. Extensive care has been given to explain social stratification, religious pluralism, the concepts and basic characteristics of the communities, external conflicts, and gender-specific issues.
The authors suggest in the Introduction that it is best not to read their book from cover to cover, but use it as a comprehensive resource for information. The table of contents is detailed and negates the necessity for a subject index. An index of New Testament passages and other ancient sources is included for easy reference to particular text.
Despite the advice of the authors, I began reading this book with page one and continued through. It is somewhat tedious to approach it this way. It is so rich in information that, at best, it gave me an overview of what life was like in the extensive culture into which Jesus was born and lived. I particularly enjoyed the way it places the books and stories into their own particular context for the author and the audience of the NT books. The prejudices and conflicts are addressed in relation to their social circumstances. This reminds me that ancient texts cannot be filtered through our own experiences of society. At the same time, the chapters on women and gender-specific roles prompted me to be thankful for how blessed I am as an educated women in our society today.
Probably written in the second century (Metzger 543), the author of the Gospel of Mary is unknown. Reflecting a strong Gnostic influence, the central figure is considered to be Mary Magdalene.
As with other non-cannonical gospels, the text reflects early traditional thinking regarding the teaching of Jesus. It also reflects early thinking about who should and how to provide ongoing spiritual leadership.
In that regard, Mary models the spiritual leadership provided by some women of her day. Then, as now, that role for women is vigorously resisted by a patriarchal society.
More specifically, the text illustrates two types of leadership that continue to prevail today. The first is the egocentric, contentious, and dull witted approach of the brothers Andrew and Peter. They lead the Church into fearful inaction.
In contrast, Mary exerts a strong, positive call to action under girded by a powerful vision of dialogue with Jesus. Fortunately, she finds support from Levi, who calls the Church to accept positive leadership and to get on with its work.
The Gospel of Mary illustrates ongoing patriarchal and reactionary attitudes that help to cause the North American Church’s steep decline. The Church needs more spiritually oriented and positively inclined leadership as modeled by Mary and Levi.
---------------
Metzger, Bruce M. & Coogan, Michael D., editors: The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Not much for sure!
Initially the Gospel of Thomas was dismissed as gnostic and therefore having little to do with the historic Jesus. Since then some scholars have begun to see it more in the Jewish Wisdom and apocalyptic traditions. The book that I read "The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom" Stevan L. Davies, Seabury Press: New York 1983, which was freely available on the Gospel of Thomas website - http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html (Yes, Thomas has his own site! If you don’t you’re nobody!), strongly advocates for seeing it in the Jewish Wisdom and apocalyptic tradition.
My own opinion is that perhaps a bit of both could be true. Because it struck me as very different from anything else in the Old and New Testament I think it could be Jewish Wisdom and apocalyptic with Gnostic influences. The pronounced esotericism of Thomas makes me see it as connected to this gnostic strand. Indeed, many of the sayings (it is a "sayings" gospel) are obscure, it would seem designedly, and there is a frequent use paradox and strange metaphor.
If this "blended theory" is correct them what we might see in the beliefs of the community who used the Gospel of Thomas is a hybrid of Judaism and Gnosticism. Like George Bush junior I, too, am deeply committed to having it both ways!
Its esoteric nature aside, I appreciated some of the spirituality that I saw in Thomas. The ideas that God’s realm is present now, if we can come to see it, and that there is a divine light within all people are important to me. The perspective of Thomas is that the Image of God still exists within us. This affirmation of "Original Blessing" is a good corrective to years of grim and not particularly helpful theology (in my humble opinion) that "Original Sin" is the bigger part of us.
I have also included below the FAQ from the Gospel to Thomas Website for more information. I’m not too sure about the reliability of some of it. I say that because the site seems to reflect the attitude of "true-believers," that the Gospel of Thomas truly is an essential source. So caveat emptor.
What is the Gospel of Thomas?
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Unless it is merely a collection of materials that mainly were drawn out of the Biblical gospels, as seems unlikely for most if not all of Thomas’ sayings, then Thomas is the most important historical source for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth that exists outside of the Bible. It is the most significant manuscript ever found for the history of earliest Christianity.
When was the Gospel of Thomas written?
This is a question hotly debated by scholars. Many scholars say that it was written at about the same time, even perhaps somewhat before, the gospels in the bible. Their argument is that most of the sayings in Thomas show no signs of having any dependence on, or knowledge of, the Biblical gospels and so Thomas’ sayings derive from oral tradition and not from written Biblical texts. This doesn’t seem to have been possible after the end of the first century when the Biblical texts began to be authoritative in Christianity. Other scholars find bits of evidence that indicate that Thomas was indeed dependent, in part, on Biblical texts, and surmise that the author of Thomas must have edited out almost all indications of the particular styles and ideas of the Biblical authors. Those scholars date Thomas in the mid second century A.D.
Who wrote the Gospel of Thomas?
No one knows. The four canonical gospels and Thomas and other gospels such as the Gospel of Philip (found at Nag Hammadi) were given their names some time in the second century. Scholars of the New Testament generally agree that none of the gospels were written by people who had ever met Jesus of Nazareth during his lifetime. But at a later date names were assigned to them that were associated with famous individuals in the earliest church. The name of the person who supposedly wrote the Gospel of Thomas is given in the first lines of the text as "didymos Judas thomas." The word "didymos" is Greek for twin and the word "thomas" is Aramaic for twin. The individual’s name was Judas, and his nickname "the twin" is given in two languages. The canonical gospels mention a man named Thomas and John calls him didymos thomas. There are also several individuals named Judas mentioned in the canonical gospels in addition to Judas called Iscariot. The bottom line is that we do not know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas and we cannot be sure which Judas mentioned in the New Testament also was nicknamed Thomas.
Where was the Gospel of Thomas found?
Portions of three Greek copies of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago. They are known as Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1 (Oxy P 1) probably written not much later than the year 200, Oxy P 654, which can be dated to the middle or end of the third century, and Oxy P 655 dated not later than A. D. 250 (dating according to Grenfell and Hunt). A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Syria in the Greek language.
Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic. This differentiation is very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic (in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as they believe,Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical, late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the basic perspective of the Gospel of Thomas?
It is that the Kingdom of God is spread out upon the earth now, if people can just come to see it; and that there is divine light within all people, a light that can enable them to see the Kingdom of God upon the earth. Further, the perspective of Thomas is that the Image of God in the beginning (Genesis chapter One) still exists and people can assume that identity, an identity that is neither male nor female. The image of God is differentiated from the fallen Adam of Genesis chapter Two. The Gospel of Thomas advocates that people should restore their identities as the image of God now, and see the Kingdom of God on earth now. Thomas reads the first two chapters of Genesis in a straightforward way, there were two separate creations of mankind; the first is perfect, the second flawed. Rather than waiting for a future end-time Kingdom to come, Thomas urges people to return to the perfect Kingdom conditions of Genesis chapter one. For Thomas Endzeit (the final culmination of things) already existed in the Urzeit (the primordial creative time of the past).
Does the Gospel of Thomas reflect the views of Jesus?
Maybe. There was once a Q gospel and a Mark gospel. These were revised and combined into a Matthew gospel and a Luke gospel. So there were four interrelated texts that testify to a single view of Jesus; that he was a man who predicted the early end of this world and its violent replacement by a future Kingdom of God. If these texts have it right, then Thomas is divergent from Jesus’ own perspectives. But there is also a John gospel testifying to the present reality of God’s Kingdom and the presence of the divine in the world. John’s gospel, like Thomas’ gospel, focuses on the actuality of the divine in the present. So one must decide for oneself whether the John/Thomas perspective reflects Jesus’ own ideas or whether Q/Mark and then subsequently the revised versions called Matthew and Luke do so.
What is Q and what does it have to do with Thomas?
If you realize that Matthew and Luke are revised versions of Mark you will see that an extended set of sayings are in Matthew and Luke that do not occur in Mark. Those sayings, it is generally agreed in scholarship, were taken by both Matthew and Luke from a mid-first century document that consisted of a list of Jesus’ sayings. That document, which German scholars called "Quelle," has come to be known as Q. It does not exist any longer, but it can be recovered by analysis of Matthew and Luke (simply put, Q was the written list of sayings that we find both in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). Q was nothing more than a list of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas is also nothing more than a list of sayings. Many of the sayings are the same, but most of the sayings in Thomas are not in Q. Thomas is the same sort of thing as Q was but Thomas is not Q. Probably Thomas and Q circulated separately in the middle or the later part of the first century. Their points of view are quite different, Thomas stresses the presence of the Kingdom of God now. Q insists that the Kingdom of God will arrive at some future time.
How Many of the Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas come from Jesus?
Who knows for sure? If you take the set of sayings that are in Thomas and that are also in the gospels of Mark or Matthew or Luke (no sayings in Thomas are also in John) then you have a set of sayings that rather reliably come from Jesus. Scholars commonly are so influenced by biblical texts that they assume that any sayings in Thomas that don’t sound like sayings in Matthew/Mark/Luke are therefore not sayings of Jesus. However, it is quite possible that Thomas retains sayings that the biblical gospels don’t retain and, indeed, that Thomas is more reliable as a guide to the sort of thing Jesus said than the biblical gospels are. Matthew/Mark/Luke give by and large the same point of view regarding Jesus as a teacher. Thomas (and to some extent John) gives a somewhat different point of view. Perhaps Thomas’ point of view derives from Jesus himself. Or, perhaps, not.
Why isn’t the Gospel of Thomas in the bible?
We don’t know how the texts in the bible were chosen. Whatever happened occurred principally in the middle of the second century. However the choices were made, it could well have been that Thomas was unknown to those who made them. Or there might have been elements of Thomas that were distasteful to them. Or, given a preference for narrative biographical gospels, Thomas might have been thought irrelevant. We know hardly anything about the process of canonical gospel choice.
Will the Gospel of Thomas be added to the bible?
No. The biblical canon is not open for debate, it is a closed entity. A church that adds Thomas to its collection of scriptures would move outside the margins of orthodox Christianity and no well-known denomination has the slightest intention of adding Thomas to its scriptures.
In addition to The Complete Gospels, I looked at Chapter VII "The Gospel of Peter" by Christian Maurer and Wilhelm Schneemelcher in New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Editor (1991) and Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon by John Dominic Crossan (1985). Mention of the Gospel of Peter as an apocryphal source go back to Origen and Eusebius. The latter quotes Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, who found the Gospel of Peter being used in the Christian community at Rhossos. "At first (he) sanctioned its reading. Later, on more careful examination, he recognized that alongside much orthodox material there are in it also heretical opinions, which he brings into connection with ‘Docetists’." Then came the remarkable discoveries of modern archeology: first in 1886, the discovery of a papyrus codex in a monk’s grave dating to the 8th/9th century at Akhmim in Upper Egypt which included a fragmentary gospel. Then, in 1972 came the publication of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2949 introducing two tiny fragments of what scholars believe to be the Gospel of Peter. The former is a copy of an earlier manuscript that was also missing both beginning and end, because the copyist added ornamentation before and after his text. These two documents and the quote from Serapion point to the Gospel existing in both Syria and Egypt at the end of the second century or the beginning of the 3rd. The story begins with an allusion to Pilate’s washing his hands at Jesus’ trial, chronicles the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and concludes with Simon Peter and others heading to their fishing nets with perhaps the post-Easter vision to Peter implied in the original. It is impossible to speculate what has been omitted from the original manuscript and whether it was in these missing parts that Serapion and others found the "heretical teachings." Within the extant manuscript, scholars point to three passages as possibly docetic: 4:1 - "But he himself (Jesus) remained silent, as if in no pain." 5:5a - "And the Lord cried out, saying, "My power, (my) power, you have abandoned me." And 5:5b - "and having said this, he was taken up." It was helpful to have Schneemelcher’s clarification of Docetism:
"Docetism is the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality. The human existence and suffering of Christ as pure semblance: this idea served to eliminate the incarnation and Passion of the heavenly Redeemer where they gave offence. Polemic was directed especially against the (bodily) birth and Passion*Jesus Christ is divine Redeemer, who had no contact with matter, however fleeting, because by his very nature and his mission he could not and must not have it." Scholars agree that what we have from these fragments certainly do not confirm the docetic character of the work. However, there is historical struggle with the Rhossos community’s use of it as canonical. Crossan and others have elaborate speculation as to its dating and dependency or independence of the Synoptic gospels. Given the time of its use, the latest date of composition is before the last decade of the second century CE. Crossan proposes a two step process of its composition with the earliest independent unit of a Passion-Resurrection Source (some scholars say the oldest of all accounts composed) and a second stage dependent upon the Synoptic materials, which added the attribution to Peter. He likens this to the composition of John’s gospel.
In many ways, as a 20th century Christian, I found nothing heretical or particularly unique and/or outlandish about this account (again baring in mind that we don’t have either the beginning or end of the gospel). There are multiple pieces that appear in all five gospels. The most notable unique contribution is perhaps Joseph of Arimathea’s request for Jesus body for burial before his crucifixion. Had the Gospel of Peter been included in our present canon in its abbreviated form, it doesn’t seem to add anything to the witness.
What was helpful from the scholarship was the proposal that this gospel came out of a Jewish-Christian community that relied upon Old Testament sayings, especially from the psalms and Isaiah. Jurgen Denker notes: "(The author) attaches himself to his (catechetical) community tradition*above all the OT exegetical tradition." And Helmut Koester agrees: "The passion narrative of the Gospel of Peter is indeed written, sentence for sentence, in the spirit of this ‘scriptural memory.’" Where this gospel was written and more of the nature of the community are unknown. The writings of Serapion regarding the community at Rhossos’ use of the Gospel of Peter, is very reminiscent of Paul’s writing to Corinth and other churches that he founded about their holding to correct doctrine: "For I myself, when I came among you, imagined that all of you clung to the true faith; and, without going through the Gospel put forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: If this is the only thing that seemingly causes captious feelings among you, let it be read. But since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you; wherefore, brethren, expect me quickly." (Serapion as recorded in Eusebius) Thus, it seems that the Pauline and Jerusalem factions are again struggling. Did Paul’s supporters in the canon constructors win out with the exclusion of the Gospel of Peter?
The Dialogue of the Savior is primarily a gospel about baptism. The literary form is that of a dialogue between Jesus and several disciples. It was probably composed in the form in which we have it around 150 C.E. The gospel was written originally in Greek. However, it survives only in one fragmentary Coptic manuscript from Nag Hammadi.
The fragmentary nature of the manuscript makes reading it rather rough going. The critical apparatus is helpful, although many gaps remain that give rise to questions of meaning. According to the introduction, a central question for the author was: "do baptized persons belong in heaven, or should they continue their struggle in the flesh..." It seems to me that the answer provided is that the struggle continues on earth.
In the Dialogue, the disciples have the chance to see the journey of a soul. The little becomes one with the great. The soul is robed in a divine garment. Baptism does not make the heavenly journey unnecessary. It is not a spiritual rebirth. Rather, baptism is symbolic of the journey the soul will make upon death.
According to the editor, the dialogue describes three ‘eras.’ The first concerns the fleeting history of the believer’s soul being redeemed. The second tells of the history of Jesus and the disciples. And, the third is the message of hope that is meant to free the author’s community from the fear of death.
The Dialogue in its present form seems to be a collection of various works that include: a dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, a creation myth, a wisdom list and an apocalyptic vision. Though very different in style and tone from the gospels of the New Testament, the Dialogue shares the interest in not only what Jesus said, but what he meant.
The dialogic style was very appealing to me. It resonated with other Jewish texts that are teachings conveyed through the use of a dialogue between teacher and disciples. It allows a more intimate experience of the teaching, for one is invited to take a seat at the foot of the master.