#gospelofpeter

[eli-kittim]

The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods

By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚

The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits

Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).

However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.

As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.

What is more, the Bible has many different literary genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text

Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:

the sons of God had intercourse with the

daughters of human beings.

The NET Bible similarly says:

the sons of God were having sexual

relations with the daughters of humankind.

The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:

the sons of God had intercourse with

women.

These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:

Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,

romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons

of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the

Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian

Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in

Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of

different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:

The fallen ones were in the earth in those

days, and even afterwards when sons of

God come in unto daughters of men, and

they have borne to them -- they are the

heroes, who, from of old, are the men of

name.

It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man

was great in the earth, and that every

intention of the thoughts of his heart was

only evil continually.

The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.

But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”

But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!

The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist

In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!

Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:

The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on

the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New

King James’). These figures, which are

beyond human description, represent the

gods that have come down upon the earth

in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to

whom scripture devotes a brief but

noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who

were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).

Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:

Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the

clouds, and every eye will see Him.

From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.

The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!

Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).

Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!

Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the

serpent of old who is called the devil and

Satan, who deceives the whole world; he

was thrown down to the earth, and his

angels were thrown down with him.

Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:

I saw one of his heads as if it had been

fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was

healed. And the whole earth was amazed

and followed after the beast; they

worshiped the dragon because he gave his

authority to the beast; and they worshiped

the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,

and who is able to wage war with him?’

Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:

For the coming of the Son of Man will be

just like the days of Noah.

It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:

And its end will come with a flood.

In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:

And there was war in heaven, Michael and

his angels waging war with the dragon. The

dragon and his angels waged war.

Conclusion

Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible’s internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah’s Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience.

——-

[gotimothy]

Repost the gospel. The will of God. #God #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Brqncg9FrBj/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=o9p6dxqxju4a

[jamesrthorpe]

Adversus Judaeos, Source Material and The Gospel of Peter

1. INTRODUCTION: AKHMÎM AND OXYRHYNCHUS

Historians of antiquity have long known of the existence of the Gospel of Peter (GPet), but until recent times did not have even fragmentary quotations of the text. Comments in a letter by Bishop Serapon of Antioch quoted in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, and an off-hand mention by Origen in his Commentary on Matthew, indicate that the text was in reasonable circulation in the second and third centuries within at least some Christian communities. Serapon notes of GPet in H. E., vi., 12, 2 that ‘... most of it is indeed in accordance with the true teaching of the Savior, but some things are additions to that teaching, which also we place below for your benefit ...’, at which point (and to the collective dismay of many historians) Eusebius ends his quotation, leaving us without any interaction with the primary text. Eusebius records his own disapproval of the apocryphal gospel in H. E., iii., 3, 2, claiming that ‘not one’ ecclesiastical  writer up until his time had ‘appealed to testimony taken from [GPet]’¹, and elsewhere lists it among the heretical books that should be ‘cast aside as absurd and impious’ (H. E., iii., 25, 6), yet on both occasions he again fails to interact with the actual text. By all accounts, it would have been safe to conclude that, along with innumerable ancient texts, the work had been lost forever.

However, in the winter of 1886-87, a small box was discovered inside the tomb of a monk by a group of French archeologists, at an ancient Christian cemetery in Akhmîm, Egypt - a site less than sixty miles from the location where the more famous Nag Hammadi texts would later be recovered (Crossan, 1988: 3). Inside the box was a small codex of 33 un-numbered leaves, bound in leather, containing a fragment of GPet, along with fragments of the Apocalypse of Peter, 1 Enoch and an account of the martyrdom of Saint Julian (published together in Lods, 1892-93: Plates I-XXXIV). The fragment of GPet (plates II-VI) is typically dated from the 7th to 9th centuries, though the location of the grave could suggest a dating of as late as the 12th century. It is of considerable length, written in Greek, and adorned with various decorations and knotwork. The text begins mid-scene and ends mid-sentence, indicating it is indeed a fragmentary copy of the original GPet.²

Of course, whether or not the text discovered at Akhmîm was indeed from the same Gospel of Peter referenced by Origen and Eusebius was uncertain at best. However, after the discovery of P. Oxy. 2949 at Oxyrhynchus and its subsequent publication in 1972, the connection somewhat more certain.³ P. Oxy. 2949 composes two small, extremely fragmentary strips of papyrus, collectively displaying 18 lines of Greek text. According to P. Oxy. 2949’s editor, R. A. Coles, the exchange between Pilate and Joseph of Arimathea narrated on the larger strip is not found in the canonical gospels, and most closely resembles that narrated in the Akhmîm fragment of GPet, indicating that it is itself a manuscript of the same work⁴ (Browne, 1972: 16). However, perhaps most astonishing is P. Oxy. 2949’s date. Coles identifies the ‘informal slanting’ script as originating from the ‘early third, or possibly the late second century’ (Browne, 1972: 150) - precisely the time that we know GPet was in circulation. So, if these assessments are to be believed, we may have good reason to identify both the Akhmîm fragment and P. Oxy. 2949 as manuscripts of the original Gospel of Peter referenced in antiquity. 

2. THE TEXT AND ITS SOURCE MATERIAL

GPet is the most ancient non-canonical passion narrative that scholars possess today. Its narrative begins mid-scene during Jesus’ trial, and details his crucifixion, burial and resurrection. It explicitly claims to be the work of Simon Peter (v. 60), but as most scholars date it to the second century, it is generally recognized to be pseudepigraphal. Interestingly, some scholars such as Jürgen Denker, point out that every sentence of its text may have been composed by utilizing Old Testament passages in the Psalms and Isaiah (Denker, 1975: 88-89). On this basis, Denker identifies GPet as a Jewish-Christian work, dated reasonably early (composed somewhere between the first two Jewish wars). However, this is heavily disputed, most veraciously because of its content. Raymond Brown notes that GPet is ‘sharply more anti-Jewish than the canonical Gospels’ (1994: 834). Similarly, M. R. James, in the introduction to his translation of GPet, claims that in it, ‘blame is thrown on the Jews whenever possible’ while ‘Pilate is white-washed’ (1924: 90). Indeed, much of GPet’s notoriety stems from the fact that its author seems to go to great lengths to affix blame exclusively to the Jews for the death of Jesus:⁵  

But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor one of his judges. And since they did not desire to wash, Pilate stood up. And then Herod the king commanded that the Lord should be marched off, saying to them, ‘What I have commanded you to do to him, do ye.’ (GPet: 1-2)

And the Jews rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he was one who had seen the many good things he did. (GPet: 23)

Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, having come to know how much wrong they had done themselves, began to beat themselves and say: 'Woe to our sins. The judgment has approached and the end of Jerusalem.' (GPet: 25)

The narrative seems to paint a clear picture of who is at fault here: not only it was the Jews who wanted him killed (as in the canonical accounts), but it was the the Jews and their king who both made and executed the order for his crucifixion - not Pilate (in contrast to the canonicals). Indeed, the Jews are said to record their own guilt in verse 25. The Roman authorities appear to have little, if anything to do with the entire affair. Brown and James argue that, in light of this, it seems unlikely that a Jewish-Christian would have composed such an anti-Jewish text. They instead contend that the work is Docetic origin, having been written sometime in the late second century using all four canonical gospels as its source material.⁶

Of course, not all agree with this evaluation. Crossan claims that Brown’s assessment of both the text’s anti-Jewishness and identification of its source material is ‘flatly wrong’ (1995: 85-86).  With regard to its dependence on the canonical gospels, Crossan contends that the text is at great variance with both the canonical accounts, and what we know from history. Indeed, one with any knowledge of the Roman empire could be excused for seeing some glaring inconsistencies in GPet’s narrative. Crossan lists two: firstly, it seems very unlikely that Herod, a ruler in the northern regions of Galilee and Perea, could order an execution in the southern region of Judea - especially in the presence of Pilate. Secondly, even if Pilate somehow allowed this, it seems unlikely that the Jews would themselves be equipped with the resources required to carry out a crucifixion - a feat which required the ‘trained brutality of a small squad of soldiers’ (Crossan, 1995: 86-87). If the author of GPet was familiar with the canonical passion accounts, Crossan asks, ‘how could Peter get it so wrong?’ (1995: 86). Brown answers this point in The Death of the Messiah, by claiming that the author read the canonical gospels, and changed them to be more anti-Jewish (1994: 1347 note 62).

But is this really the case? Crossan contends that this is a reductionist reading, which fails to recognize the difference between how the Jewish authorities and the Jewish people are presented in GPet. Its earlier verses certainly blame the ‘the Jews’ for condemning Jesus, and, as Crossan points out, ‘if the story stopped with that, Peter would be certainly the most anti-Jewish of the five passion accounts’ (1995: 87). However, in verses 28-30, something interesting occurs:

But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, being assembled together and hearing that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying ‘if at death these exceeding great signs have come to pass, behold how righteous he was!’ The elders were afraid and came to Pilate, entreating him and saying, ‘Give us soldiers that we may watch his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm. (GPet: 28-30)

A clear differentiation is made in these passages between the Jewish people and the Jewish elders. Here, the elders are afraid that the Jewish people would harm them if the body is stolen and rumors of Jesus’ resurrection were to be circulated. This distinction is made even more clear in GPet’s post-resurrection account:

Then all came to him, beseeching him [Pilate] and urgently calling upon him to command the centurion and the soldiers to tell no one what they had seen. ‘For it is better for us,’ they said, ‘to make ourselves guilty of the greatest sin before God than to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned.’ (GPet 47-49a)

Here again, we have the Jewish authorities conspiring with Pilate to swindle the Jewish people. Crossan contends that these verses highlight the authors categorization of the Jews into two groups: ‘first, the authorities, including several groups, and also called simply ‘the Jews’, and, second, ‘the people’ or ‘the people of the Jews’’ (1995: 88). It seems clear that the text is very negative towards the Jewish authorities, but how does its treatment of Jewish people stack up against the canonical gospels? Crossan offers a lengthy discussion of this in Who Killed Jesus? (1995: 88-92), but we will focus on one example here, contrasting the differing accounts of the crowd at Jesus’ crucifixion given in GPet, Matthew and Luke:

Akhmîm GPet 8:28:

... all the people [ho laos hapas] were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying “If at his death these exceeding great signs have come to pass, behold how righteous [dikaios] he was!”

Matthew 27:25 (NRSV):

The people as a whole [pas ho laos] answered, “His blood be on us and our children!”

Luke 23:47-48 (NRSV):

When the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, ‘Certainly this man was innocent [dikaios]’. And when all the crowds who had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they returned home, beating their breasts.

Several things should be noted about the above passages. Firstly, it is clear all three authors had access to similar source material. The identical uses of the phrase ‘beating their breasts’, and the Greek word dikaios in both GPet and Luke, and the invocation of the ho laos hapas/pas ho laos in both GPet and Matthew certainly support this conclusion. This is entirely consistent with Brown’s claim. However, as Crossan points out, while GPet and Luke use this invocation to cite the mass-repentance of the Jewish people, the author of Matthew changes this to instead invoke blood responsibility (Crossan, 1995: 89). It would appear that here, it is Matthew that comes out as the most anti-Jewish account. This turns Brown’s original claim on its head, as Crossan is quick to point out: ‘... if increasing anti-Judaism is used as a norm for chronological progression and dating, the gospel of Peter comes out as the earliest’ (1995: 89). Of course, Crossan does not believe that these are good criterion, however as the above example shows, Brown’s view seems to suffer from a lack of internal consistency, or a real engagement with the text.

So, what can be said about GPet’s source material? Crossan spends two entire works arguing for what he terms the Cross Gospel Hypothesis (1988, 1995). According to this hypothesis, GPet preserves at least part of a much earlier passion source, which he calls the Cross Gospel, which could have been composed ‘as early as the middle of the first century’ (1995: 24). Moreover, he argues that the Cross Gospel is the ‘only single independent source for the passion narrative’, from which the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and GPet all drew their passion accounts ⁷ ⁸ (1995: 25, 30). As for the traditional gospel ‘two-source theory’ (Q and Mark), Crossan accepts this hypothesis - but adds the Cross Gospel as antecedent to both Q and Mark (1995: 31). 

There are several problems with this view, many of which are anticipated by Crossan (1995: 30-35). Perhaps the most devastating is the observation that none of the four gospels ever use the same accounts of events from GPet. Surely this is an indication that we have sunk below the usual educated speculation present in source material hypotheses, into ‘mere’ speculation. There are good reasons for believing the Q-hypothesis; namely that there are large chunks of text present in both Matthew and Luke that are not present in Mark. That there exist similarly good reasons in favor of the Cross Gospel hypothesis, however, is doubtful.

3: CONCLUSION

 Crossan admits that he has ‘no good answer’ to the above objection, but claims that a source hypothesis need not be perfect, just ‘better than its alternatives’ (1995: 31). Whether or not the so-called Cross Gospel meets this criteria, demands a far more extensive discussion than has been offered here.⁹

 What should be clear from our discussion in this paper, however, is that the Gospel of Peter preserves at least some elements of an early passion narrative, and should be treated with equal historical fervor as those in the canonical tradition.

  Notes

 1 Some scholars, most notably Peter Pilhofer and Bart Ehrman have contended that Eusebius was wrong on this point. Ehrman contends that Justin Martyr’s reference to the Apostle Peter’s ‘memoirs’ in Dial. 106.3:1 is a reference to and endorsement of GPet (Ehrman, 2012: 325; Pilhofer, 1990: 60-78). However, Paul Foster has claimed that Justin is rather making a broader reference to ‘the memoirs of Jesus’ (Foster, 2007: 104-12). Yet another perspective is given by Graham Stanton, who claims that Justin is instead referring to the Gospel of Mark (Stanton, 2004: 100-101).

2 Many have contended that the writer was copying an already fragmentary version of GPet, as the final page of the fragment at Akhmîm leaves enough room for the sentence to be finished (Crossan, 1988: 5).

3 Another fragment discovered at Oxyrhynchus, published as P. Oxy. 4009 has also been identified as belonging to the Gospel of Peter, however the connection is somewhat more spurious, and for the sake of space we have not discussed it here.

4 Albeit, with slightly different wording. For a discussion of the wording differences, see Crossan (1988: 6-7).

5 All quotes from GPet in English are from the Raymond Brown translation of the Akhmîm fragment. Emphasis mine.

6 That is to say, Brown claims that the author of GPet had a ‘distant memory of having heard them [the canonical gospels]’ (1994: 1345). That being said, Brown seems somewhat unsure of his position in the aforementioned chapter.

7 With GPet’s account containing the most complete and true presentation of the Cross Gospel material (1995: 25).

8 Crossan is rather unclear about whether the synoptic dependence is on the Cross Gospel (as stated on 1995: 25) or on GPet itself (as stated on 1995: 30).

9 For a fuller discussion, see Crossan, 1987, 1995; Brown, 2004; Cameron, 1982.

  References

Bouriant, Urbain, 1892. Mèmoires publiès par les membres de la Mission Archèologique Francaise au Caire, T. ix., fasc. 1.

Brown, Raymond E. 1994. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grace. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. with continuous pagination. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.

Browne, G. M., et. al. 1972. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, v. 41. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Cameron, Ron, 1982. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Westminster: John Knox Press.

Crossan, J. D. 1988. The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, New York: Harper & Row.

Crossan, J. D, 1995. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. New York: HarperOne.

Denker, Jürgen, 1975. Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums: Ein Beitrag zur Fruhgeschichte des Doketismus. Berne: Peter Lang.

Ehrman, Bart, 2012. Forgery and Counterforgery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eusebius, 2007. Ecclesiastical History. Trans. Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Foster, Paul, 2007. ‘The Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter’ in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sarah Parvis and idem; 103-12, Minneapolis: Fortress. 

James, M. R., 1924. The Apocryphal New Testament: Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lods, Adolphe, 1892-93. ‘Reproduction en héliogravure du manuscrit d’Enoch et des écrits attribués a Saint Pierre’ in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire, Tome neuvième, 3e Fascicule, 217-235, Ed. Urbain Bouriant. Paris: Leroux.

Origen, 2008. Commentary on Matthew. trans Thomas P. Sheck. Washington: CUA.

Pilhofer, P., 1990. ‘Justin und das Petrusevangelium,’ in ZNW 81: 60-78. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Stanton, Graham, 2004. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[eli-kittim]

The Giant Jesus in the Gospel of Peter

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Bart Ehrman dates the non-canonical Gospel of Peter to ca. 150 ce or earlier. It’s considered to be a pseudepigraphical work. However, according to John Dominic Crossan, it seems to incorporate an early source for the passion-narrative that may predate all other known passion accounts. These scholarly views suggest that this gospel may have been inspired.

From an eschatological perspective, the giant Jesus coming out of the tomb at the end of days might actually provide the most accurate resurrection narrative to date (cf. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Heb. 9.26-28). The reason for this is obvious. Revelation 1.7 claims that “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.” An average 5-foot or 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, let alone by “every eye” of all them that dwell on the face of the earth. On the other hand, a *giant* Jesus can, in fact, be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Here’s the *resurrection narrative* in the Gospel of Peter (verses 38-40):

Therefore, having seen this, the

soldiers woke up the centurions and elders,

for they were also keeping watch. And

while they were describing to them the

things they had seen, behold, they saw

three men coming out of the tomb, with the

two young men supporting the One . . . And

the head of the two reaching unto to

heaven, but the One of whom they led out

by the hand, His head reached beyond the

heavens.

Thus, there is a description, here, of a giant resurrected Jesus coming out of the tomb. The point is that Jesus will come back to life not as an average human being but rather as a giant. Of all the postmortem appearances of Jesus, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For example, it seems to fit with the Pauline Christ——who’s portrayed as a towering figure——who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8 NRSV)

with the breath of his mouth, annihilating

him by the manifestation of his coming.

It’s also congruent with another, Old Testament, verse in which the Lord appears as a massive, colossal figure: (Isa. 31.5):

Like birds hovering overhead, so the Lord of

hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect

and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it.

In another, apocalyptic, verse, only a great figure of immense proportion can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14):

On that day the Lord with his cruel and

great and strong sword will punish

Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the

twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon

that is in the sea.

That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4 KJV), much like the film characters of Godzilla and King Kong. But which days is Gen. 6.4 referring to? Given that skyscrapers began to be built only in the 20th century, it seems very likely that the “Tower of Babel” (Gen. 11.4) is representative of that same time period, and thus it may have prophetic implications with regard to the end of days. For instance, why does Dan. 9.26, within its description of the last days, declare: “Its end shall come with a flood”? Similarly, why does Lk 17.30 emphatically compare Noah’s flood to the Revelation of Jesus Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the exact same messages that we find in the later apocalyptic versions of the New Testament, especially in the Book of Revelation!

Conclusion

Given that the authors of the canonical gospels are themselves, at times, seemingly unfamiliar with the local geography, customs, feasts, idioms, language, law, and the religion of the Jews, we cannot therefore dismiss the gospel of Peter on similar grounds. The possibility that the gospel of Peter could incorporate the earliest source for the passion-narratives (Crossan), and that it is dated to the first half of the second century, based on independent oral traditions (Ehrman), means that it could have been a candidate for canonicity. In other words, it may turn out to be partly, if not wholly, inspired. Remember that many current books in the Bible were at one time highly controversial and were not given full canonical status until much later.

Finally, the giant resurrected Christ in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to validate and confirm Revelation’s image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven.” Dan. 7.13-14 reads:

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one

like a human being coming with the clouds

of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One

and was presented before him. To him was

given dominion and glory and kingship, that

all peoples, nations, and languages should

serve him. His dominion is an everlasting

dominion that shall not pass away, and his

kingship is one that shall never be

destroyed.

——-

[gotimothy]

Testing hidden messages. #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/BsDwKW8lRjE/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=riucmdhfdnpp

[gotimothy]

The Bible comes from the word biblica, witch means a library of books. #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Br_Uz6bFcKm/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=try8l7t5wgaf

[gotimothy]

Happy birthday Jesus. And to everyone else Merry Christmas. #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bry3NTfFRyL/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=116n7yyvkzkq4

[gotimothy]

Learning to take #public #transportation, should be taught in #highschool or a free #collegeclass. #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Brx-j8Zlqh7/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=kulq6ca4hepa

[gotimothy]

The church has been corrupted by money. #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Brxtx7cFOaX/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1l2h52zsp9r0h

[gotimothy]

The Epic of #Gilgamesh. #kinggilgamesh #shebat #inkadoo #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran #TheGospelOfTimothy (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/BrvSD2UlwW3/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=ww4b02sq0wo1

[gotimothy]

Christians always ask, do we have to see Jesus? The will of God. #God #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Brsidd9FiF6/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1wiobwyk4rxze

[gotimothy]

Christians always ask, do we have to see Jesus? The will of God. #God #JesusChrist #HolySpirit #Christian #DailyBread #Bible #Bibleverse #Bibleverses #Biblequote #biblestudy #quotes #godslove #godsplan #faithbased #jesussaves #redeemed #Inspiration #wordfortheday#KingJesus #TeamJesus #JesusFollower #Timothean #GospelOfTimothy #GospelOfPeter #quran (at Fraser, Michigan) https://www.instagram.com/p/Brsidd9FiF6/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=11anvcdtfrlmi