A Reading of the Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Peter is a fragmentary and pseudepigraphical text about Jesus Christ. It was rejected by the Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon.
A major focus of the surviving fragment is the passion narrative, which ascribes responsibility for Jesus's crucifixion to Herod Antipas rather than Pontius Pilate.
The influential scholar John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Peter, while composed in the 2nd century, draws on a passion narrative source that predates all other known accounts. Crossan argues that this early 'Cross Gospel' influenced both the Gospel of Peter and the synoptic gospels. Bart Ehrman places the Gospel of Peter in the first half of the 2nd century and considers it to have been compiled from oral traditions, independent of the canonical gospels.
The Gospel of Peter was the first non-canonical gospel to have been discovered in modern times. It was recovered in 1886 by the French archaeologist Urbain Bouriant in the modern Egyptian city of Akhmim. The 8th- or 9th-century manuscript had been buried with an Egyptian monk.
The Gospel of Peter is sometimes considered a 'gnostic' gospel although it has few, if any, gnostic features, except the description of Jesus on the cross as silent, 'as if he had no pain'.
The most remarkable elements of the Gospel of Peter are a gigantic Jesus emerging from the tomb and a speaking cross following him. The scholar Mark Goodacre has claimed that the talking cross arises from a mistranslation/corruption of the original text and that the statement of the cross would originally have been a statement of Jesus. While I find this suggestion highly plausible I have not deviated from the usual translation involving a speaking cross.

[@matthewrippingsby5384]

Thank you - a very interesting text!

[@marianusnggoli7578]

Thank ❤

[@theseeker3771]

Sour wine seems like a punishment but it's actually quite nice. It's mixed with water and is called 'Posca' and it was the staple drink of the common people and the legionaries. I like to drink it after hiking or running.

[@milkshaki8628]

perfect

[@justme3515]

Does not appear to be language from a simple fisherman.

[@Nkosi766]

Did you say Herod the king ? The writer is not familiar with history. Herod the king was long dead, his Herod sons was never king.

[@Maxinestabile]

The writer definitely was not familiar with history. The Romans couldn’t give any less of a shit about Jewish tradition. They wouldn’t bury him whether it was the sabbath or not. They’re only very specific circumstances where they would give someone who is crucified a burial that was proper and Jesus did not meet those requirements because he was not only a heretic but also a treasonist so pretty much everyone hated him, except for his followers of course so he would’ve just been thrown in a ditch, or maybe even worse left on the cross until his body rotted away completely because the whole point of crucifixion is to scare the shit out of people, so they don’t commit crimes that would get them crucified, so taking him down, would make no sense

[@chadmccoy8032]

You do realize this is an ancient text right?

[@Nkosi766]

@@chadmccoy8032 so?

[@TexasCoffeeBreak777]

The Gospel story further villainizes Herod, whose son, also called King Herod, or Herod Antipas, was ruling at the time of Jesus' crucifixion around 30 C.E.

[@Nkosi766]

@@TexasCoffeeBreak777 Herod the great ( the father) was the last king of Judea, his sons never ruled as king. I don’t believe so.