The Walking, Talking Cross in the Gospel of Peter: Goodacre vs. Foster

Many are familiar with the walking, talking cross in the Gospel of Peter, but I include the relevant text here for those unacquainted:

But when the morning of the Sabbath dawned, a crowd from Jerusalem and the region round about came that they might see the sealed sepulcher. But in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers kept guard two by two at their post, there was a great voice in heaven. And they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from there in a great brightness and approach the tomb. But that stone which laid at the entrance started of itself to roll and move sidewards, and the tomb was opened and both young men entered.

As those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders, because they also were there to keep watch. And while they were telling what they had seen, again they saw three men coming out from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching to heaven, but that of the one who was led by them overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens, saying: “Have you preached to those who sleep?” And a response was heard from the cross: “Yes.” (Gospel of Peter 9:34-10:42)

Back in 2010 Mark Goodacre, on a blog post, offered a novel proposal for explaining the unusual nature of this scene. He suggested that we should “conjecturally emend the text from σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα, from ‘cross‘ to ‘crucified‘, so that it is no longer a wooden cross that comes bouncing out of the tomb but rather Jesus, the ‘crucified one’ himself.” This would result in the latter half of the passage reading as follows:

And while they were telling what they had seen, again they saw three men coming out from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and the crucified one following them, and the head of the two reaching to heaven, but that of the one who was led by them overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens, saying: “Have you preached to those who sleep? And a response was heard from the crucified one: “Yes.”

Please read Goodacre’s post for more of his argumentation, as he offers reasons in support of his claims.

Paul Foster has just published an article in the Journal of Theological Studies, attempting to rebut Goodacre’s proposal: “Do Crosses Walk and Talk? A Reconsideration of Gospel of Peter 10.39–42″, JTS 64 (2013): 89-104. Here is Foster’s abstract:

There has been a recent upsurge in support for a conjectural emendation in the text of Gos. Pet. 10.39, 42. The proposed change suggests that instead of a moving and talking cross (σταυρόν), the text should be emended to refer to the crucified one (σταυρωθέντα). The motivation for the change is that as it stands the text ‘is almost unbelievably absurd’. This essay seeks to rebut that suggestion on three levels. First, the proposed emendation introduces more problems than it solves. Secondly, elsewhere in the extant portion of the Gospel of Peter there are other indications that the author heightens miraculous elements, especially in relation to inanimate objects becoming animate. Thirdly, while the notion of a walking and talking cross may offend modern sensibilities, it is a plausible idea in its ancient context, and other texts from the period also contain descriptions of moving and articulate crosses.

I am reading Foster’s article and will post my thoughts on this question next week. In the meantime, any thoughts from readers?

P. S. – Goodacre has recently posed the question of whether it is appropriate to respond to blog posts with a peer-reviewed article and people seem divided on the issue (see the comments section).

Michael Kruger’s “10 Basic Facts about the NT Canon”

Michael Kruger, professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, is a blogger worth following. He has been working his way through a series titled “Ten Basic Facts About the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize.” He has published a book on the NT canon as well.

I think I agree with most of what Kruger has said thus far, but I think there are a few places where we might differ slightly. Here are the first 5 “facts” he has given:

#1: “The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”

#2: “Apocryphal Writings are All Written in the Second Century or Later”

#3: “The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books”

#4: “Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture”

#5: “The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century”

Any thoughts?

Review: The Myth of Persecution (Candida Moss)

The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss
Review copy provided by Harper One via TLC Book Tours

On the back of the book, we encounter this summary:

It’s widely accepted that the history of Christianity is steeped in martyrdom. Jesus died on the cross. Most of his Apostles met gory and untimely ends. Many of his early followers were relentlessly and gruesomely persecuted for their beliefs. But what if this history is false? What if many of these stories were systematically exaggerated, forged, and fabricated?

Usually when I encounter the “everything you’ve believed is wrong” approach to book promotion, I meet it with caution. Such tactics tend to be geared toward a popular-level audience, and that is precisely the target of Candida Moss this time as well.

Each of the eight chapters has a clearly discernible thesis, which can be summarized as follows:

Chapter 1 – There were martyrs before Christian martyrs, and there was nothing really unique about ancient Christian martyrdom.

Chapter 2 – Christian martyrdom accounts, including the Passion Narratives, borrowed from Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions, thus proving that Christian martyrdom was not unique.

Chapter 3 – All of the early Christian martyr stories have been fabricated from the outset, altered by the original authors, or reshaped by later editors. None of them is “completely historically accurate,” so “we can’t be sure that they provide us with accurate information about the manner in which the Christians died” (124).

Chapter 4 – Early Christians were not “always and everywhere” persecuted by the Romans. In fact, “they were very rarely the victims of imperial persecution” (161).

Chapter 5 – The Romans perceived Christians to be rude, subversive, disrespectful, threatening, and perhaps seditious. The blend of religion and politics in the ancient world led the authorities to be suspicious of new religious movements.

Chapter 6 – Not all early Christian martyrs “died as meek lambs out of love for Jesus” (213). On the contrary, many were suicidal and some committed physical violence against others.

Chapter 7 – The myth of a “persecuted church” was created primarily in the post-Constantinian era, with Eusebius being the biggest offender in this regard. The subsequent “narrative of persecution and suffering developed to justify and support the institutions of orthodoxy” (245).

Chapter 8 – The myth of persecution has persisted to the present day and has been used to justify oppression and to foster a general attitude of defensiveness among many Christians today, especially those who are politically conservative.

The majority of Moss’ claims are well supported and effectively expressed. She excels at making her points clear, and this makes the book accessible to a wide readership. It is no longer tenable to claim that Christians of the pre-Nicene era were universally hunted down and slaughtered by the Romans, nor were millions killed. It is also the case that Christians were not the first group to suffer as martyrs. Moss is to be commended for providing a corrective to a narrative that is often mistakenly believed and advocated by many Christians today.

Unfortunately, though, Moss might be guilty of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. In the introduction, she rolls through a long list of examples of conservative Christians employing polemical rhetoric, and then acknowledges in passing that such practices are “not limited only to the writings of conservative politicians” (12). She then gives a lone example of similar polemic from a liberal source. The problem here is that by discussing several instances of conservative polemic, followed by only one case of liberal polemic, she is surely going to lose many of the readers who most need to be informed on this topic (i.e., conservative Christians). Why frame things this way, unless one has an axe to grind against a particular group?

There is also a tendency by Moss to play semantic games at certain points. First, she attempts to distinguish between “persecution” and “prosecution.”

A persecutor targets representatives of a specific group for undeserved punishment merely because of their participation in that group. An individual is prosecuted because that person has broken a law… But there is something different about being prosecuted under a law—however unjust—that is not designed to target or rout out any particular group. It may be unfortunate, it may be unfair, but it is not persecution… (14-15)

So if you happen to be one of the groups affected by an unjust law, you shouldn’t call it persecution, according to Moss. However, the first definition of “persecute” listed in my dictionary is this: “To oppress or harass with ill-treatment.” It seems that Moss wants to change the meaning of words in order to serve her own agenda. And this is not the only such example of word games.

In discussing the apostle Paul’s alleged persecution of Christians, Moss writes the following:

That Paul himself would admit that he had participated in this practice [i.e., “persecuting the church of God”] lends credibility to the narrative of Acts, but it does not prove that Jews persecuted Christians. The primary reason for this is that there were no Christians! Not only did the name ‘Christian’ not yet exist, but the idea of Christians as a group distinct from the rest of Judaism did not exist in the lifetime of the apostles. (133)

Clearly Paul persecuted some group that was identifiable as “distinct from the rest of Judaism.” If not, was he simply persecuting random Jews, without regard to their beliefs or praxis? No evidence supports this, and Moss is merely playing word games on this point.

Occasional errors of fact are present throughout the book. The most glaring one is found in these words: “The canonical Acts of the Apostles ends before Paul even gets to Rome” (77). Obviously, though, Acts 28 describes Paul arriving in Rome.

There is a great deal of valuable material in Moss’ work. It could have been enhanced by adopting a different rhetorical approach. As it stands, however, many of those who would benefit most by reading it will be turned off by its tone.

New Edition of Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

The “black dictionaries” that InterVarsity Press has published, for both the OT and NT, have been invaluable resources for me and many others. It’s hard to believe that the first one, the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, appeared over 20 years ago. The time has come for an entirely new edition to appear. Later this year the second edition of the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels will be published.

It’s important to note that nearly all of the articles are entirely new, and only a handful are revisions of what appeared in the first edition. I was fortunate enough to write the entry on apocryphal gospels. For further information an interview with the editors is available here.

N. T. Wright’s “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” – Some News

Logos Bible Software has just listed its version of N. T. Wright’s upcoming 3-volume set, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, his long-awaited major project on the apostle to the Gentiles. It appears that the contents are as follows:

• Volume 1 – Analyzes Paul’s worldview and theology (i.e., Wright’s own perspective)
• Volume 2 – Surveys and critiques all major studies on Paul in the past 50 years
• Volume 3 – A collection of over 30 of Wright’s most important previously published articles on Paul

HT: Chris Tilling

Adjunct Professors and Health Benefits: 2014′s New Laws

Consider this one of the times I venture completely outside the main topic of this blog…

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an informative article on the situation colleges and universities will face next year (2014) concerning adjunct professors and new laws requiring health benefits for all employees working 30 hours or more. Here is an excerpt:

The Internal Revenue Service this month issued proposed rules for employers that acknowledge the special work circumstances of adjuncts—among them, the way adjuncts rack up work hours outside of the classroom—that need to be considered when evaluating whether their employers must provide them with health benefits.

Under the new law, which takes effect in January 2014, employees who work at least a 30-hour work week must receive health benefits from their employers. Some colleges are concerned about how to tally up the hours adjuncts spend on the job to determine if they have reached that full-time status. Most adjuncts don’t receive health benefits, and the legislation appeared to pave the way for them to finally get access.

I will be curious to see how such calculations are made, considering the many variables involved. I know that I’ve spent 2-3 times as many hours teaching some classes as I have others (with the same credit hours), due to factors such as content, class size, whether it was my first time teaching the course, etc.

2 Important Releases in Gospel Studies in 2013

For those interested in studying the gospels, take note of these two books scheduled for release during the first half of 2013:

James D. G. Dunn – The Oral Gospel Tradition (Eerdmans). Description:

The traditions about Jesus and his teaching circulated in oral form for many years, continuing to do so for decades following the writing of the New Testament Gospels. James Dunn is one of the major voices urging that more consideration needs to be given to the oral use and transmission of the Jesus tradition as a major factor in giving the Synoptic tradition its enduring character.

_______________________________________________________________

Francis Watson – Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Eerdmans). Description:

That there are four canonical versions of the one gospel story is often seen as a problem for Christian faith: for, where gospels multiply, so too do apparent tensions and contradictions that may seem to undermine their truth claims.

In Gospel Writing, Francis Watson argues that differences and tensions between canonical gospels represent opportunities for theological reflection, not problems for apologetics. In exploring this claim, he proposes nothing less than a new paradigm for gospel studies — one that engages fully with the available noncanonical gospel material so as to illuminate the historical and theological significance of the canonical.

Which other ones should I add to my wish list?