Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (99 page)

7.
Among the similarities between the accounts that Foster writes off (“The Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter,” in
Justin Martyr and His Worlds
, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, 108–9): the use of
in Justin and
in Gospel of Peter; the use of
in both to associate Jesus with a judicial function; and the request for Jesus to judge. These are indeed strong points of contact and cannot be dismissed, as Harnack earlier recognized (
Bruchstücke
, pp. 38–40).

8.
Thornton’s attempt to refute Pilhofer fails to convince. Rather than dealing with Pilhofer’s arguments, for the most part, Thornton makes an argument of his own, that the reference in
Dial
. 106.3 speaks of Jesus “changing” the name of Simon to Peter (not giving him a nickname), and of calling James and John Boanerges. Among our Gospels, these naming events happen only in Mark, so that Justin is referring to Mark as Peter’s Memoir. A good deal rests on Thornton’s claim that in the other Gospels Simon’s name is not actually changed to Peter; for them, Peter is a nickname. But for the Gospel of Peter and Justin, Jesus made a name change. On one hand, the argument fails to take seriously enough the fact that Simon’s name was decidedly
not
permanently changed in Mark, since Jesus calls him “Simon” in 14:37. Moreover, this cannot be an argument that the Gospel of Peter is not being invoked, when the episode is not found in the Akhmim fragment, which provides only portions of the Passion narrative. Thornton’s case is driven in fact by a completely different agenda: he wants to establish that by the time of Justin there was already a fourfold Gospel canon in Rome in the midsecond century, decades before its (otherwise) earliest attestation in Irenaeus. By making Peter’s Memoir Mark, Thornton can show that all four Gospels are quoted in Justin’s work.

9.
“Justins ‘Denkwürdigkeiten der Apostel’ und das Petrusevangelium,” in Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, eds.,
Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontexte, Intertexte
, TU 158 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), pp. 197–214. Although Greschat shows that “his memoirs” is not the Gospel of Mark, but the Gospel of Peter, she does not see the need to posit
direct
literary dependence of Justin.

10.
The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr
(Leiden: Brill, 1967).

11.
E.g., Jerry McCant, “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered,”
NTS
30 (1984): 258–73. See the most recent discussion of Paul Foster,
Gospel of Peter
, pp. 157–65.

12.
The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

13.
Translations are from Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
The Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 371–87.

14.
See Foster,
Gospel of Peter
, 169–72. Crossan’s early dating of the alleged Cross Gospel has not received much support, although he found one convert in Paul Mirecki, author of the ABD article “Gospel of Peter,” vol. 5, pp. 278–81.

15.
Cf. Matt. 27:24.

16.
“The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels: Independence, Dependence of Both?”
Forum
1 (1998): 28. Italics his.

17.
Doketismus
, pp. 78–92.

18.
A. Kirk, “The Johannine Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Social Memory Approach,” in
Jesus in Johannine Tradition
, ed. R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 319–21.

19.
T. Nicklas, “Die ‘Juden’ im Petrusevangelium (PCair. 10759). Ein Testfall,”
NTS
47 (2001): 221.

20.
Joseph Verheyden, “Some Reflections on Determining the Purpose of the ‘Gospel of Peter,’” in Kraus and Nicklas, eds.,
Das Evangelium nach Petrus
, p. 299.

21.
For an overview, see Jonathan Knight,
Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah
, JSPSUp 18 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 28–32.

22.
Richard Bauckham, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Genre, Unity and Date,” in
The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses
, NovTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 363–90.

23.
Il “Martirio di Isaia” non esiste: L’Ascensione di Isaia e le tradizione giudaiche sull’uccisione del profeta
(Bologna: Centro Stampa Baiesi, 1984).

24.
E. Norelli,
L’Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi
(Bologne: Centro editorial dehoniano, 1994).

25.
Translations of C. Detlef G. Müller, in Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha
, vol. 2.

26.
See my discussion on pp. 72–74.

27.
Knight,
Disciples
.

28.
Darrell D. Hannah, “The Ascension of Isaiah and Docetic Christology,”
VC
53 (1999): 165–96.

29.
Darrell D. Hannah, “Ascension,” and Hannah, “Isaiah’s Vision in the Ascension of Isaiah and the Early Church,”
JTS
50 (1999): 80–101.

30.
He appears to be able to see God, but not the “glory” that surrounds him; 9.29, 10.2, 11.24.

31.
Robert G. Hall, “The
Ascension of Isaiah
: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,”
JBL
109 (1990): 289–306. Hall goes beyond what the evidence suggests in reconstructing a number of competing prophet groups in early Christianity; moreover, this set of competitions is probably not the best primary setting for the book. Among other things, Hall appears to overread AscIsa. 3.21–31, seeing it as directed against other groups within Christianity that specifically reject the doctrine of the descent and ascent of the Beloved. As I will argue later, broader issues in the apostasy appear to be involved. The ascent-descent motif does not figure in the passage.

32.
“
The Ascension of Isaiah
: An Example of Early Christian Narrative Polemic,”
JSP
17 (1998): 65–78.

33.
Ibid., p. 65. Emphasis his.

34.
Ibid., p. 74.

35.
See pp. 230–31.

36.
All translations of the Gospel of Thomas are drawn from Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 303–35.

37.
Original Gospel of Thomas
, p. 62, with other reasons also adduced.

38.
Allowed as a possibility by Valantasis,
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 63.

39.
DeConick,
Original Gospel of Thomas
, p. 87.

40.
Contra Valantasis,
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 63.

41.
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 80.

42.
For further interpretation, see A. Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” in R. Uro, ed.,
Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), pp. 163–82.

43.
Both possibilities are suggested by Zlatko Ple
š
e in Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, p. 317, n. 37.

44.
“Wenn ihr nicht den Sabbat zum Sabbat macht?” in
Sprachen Mythen, Mythizismen. Festschrift Walter Beltz
, in
Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft
32 (2001) : 507–17.

45.
Uwe-Karsten Plisch,
The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008), pp. 93–94.

46.
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 113.

47.
Valantasis,
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 116.

48.
Ibid., p. 140.

49.
Original Gospel of Thomas
, p. 165.

50.
This stands in precise contrast, for example, with the Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions
1.59, which instead
affirm
the Scriptural prophets precisely because Christ bears witness to them.

51.
Translation of Thomas Falls,
The Writings of Justin Martyr
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1948). I do not include a discussion of saying 104, where Jesus again appears to denigrate the Jewish practices of prayer and fasting, because I am convinced by the interpretation of DeConick (
Gospel of Thomas
, p. 282), that since fasting was connected in Jewish texts with atonement and demonic battles, Jesus’ response is simply a claim not to have needed atonement and not to have needed help in spiritual warfare. In her opinion, this saying arose in the Thomasine community before they developed anti-Jewish attitudes and lifestyles.

52.
Alistair Stewart-Sykes,
The Didascalia Apostolorum
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), p. 54.

53.
Didascalia apostolorum: The Syriac Version translated and accompanied by the Verona Latin fragments, with an introduction and notes
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1929). See e.g., p. xxxvi.

54.
Paul Bradshaw,
The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship
, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University, 2002), p. 93; and Stewart-Sykes,
Didascalia
, passim.

55.
As just one example, in the account of the Jerusalem conference discussed in 6.12.3 the author indicates that he is the “apostles” and differentiates himself from “James.” But then the author has “I James” speak as if he is one of the twelve and includes himself among the apostolic band: “we, the apostles” (6.12.12, 14).

56.
NB: I will not be following the twenty-four chapter divisions of the manuscripts, as these do not allow for easy cross-referencing and checking, but the more refined book-chapter-verse divisions provided by F. X. Funk and retained by Stewart-Sykes.

57.
Stewart-Sykes,
Didascalia
, p. 24.

58.
“Eine mögliche, vielleicht die plausibelste, Erklärung für die Rahmenabstinenz des ersten Drittels scheint mir die Annahme zu sein, daß die Didaskalie ursprünglich gar nicht als Apostelschrift konzipiert war und lediglich mit Hilfe extensiver Schriftargumentation gegen die Mißstände in der Gemeindepraxis vorgehen wollte.” Georg Schöllgen, “Pseudapostolizität und Schriftgebrauch in den ersten Kirchenordnungen. Anmerkungen zur Begründung des frühen Kirchenrechts,” in
Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift Für Ernst Dassmann
, ed. George Schöllgen and Clemens Scholten (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1996), p. 115.

59.
So also B. Steimer,
Vertex Traditionis
, p. 55.

60.
The author does use a first-person pronoun occasionally before this, e.g., in 1.1.3 (“our” Lord), 1.2.4 (“Let us”), and especially 1.7.17 (“we … you”). But he gives no indication at these points that he is presenting himself as the apostolic band.

61.
Throughout I will be using the translation of Stewart-Sykes,
Didascalia
.