Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:54:30.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sinful Woman in the Gospel of Peter: Reconstructing the Other Side of P.Oxy. 4009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2009

Matti Myllykoski
Matti Myllykoski
Affiliation:
Faculty of Theology, PL 33, 0014University of Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1993, Dieter Lührmann published a reconstruction of the more intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009. He demonstrated that this side, which he called the recto, consists of passages parallel to Matt 10.16 par., Luke 10.3 and 2 Clem. 5.2–4. He also argued that the passage stems from the Gospel of Peter. However, Lührmann considered it impossible (‘ausgeschlossen’) to reconstruct the other side of the fragment. The aim of the present article is to demonstrate that a full reconstruction of this less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009, lines 1–13, is possible and that it enriches our knowledge of the Gospel of Peter with a new pericope which is an interesting parallel of Luke 7.36–50. The reconstruction also demonstrates that the side reconstructed by Lührmann is actually the verso, and that both sides together point towards the well-known anti-Jewish redactional tendencies of the author of the Gospel of Peter.

Keywords

ManuscriptsOxyrhynchus PapyriGospel of PeterGospel of LukeSin-repentance
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 104 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lührmann, Dieter and Parsons, P. J., ‘4009. Gospel of Peter?’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LX (ed. Coles, R. A., Haslam, M. W. and Parsons, P. J.; London: The British Academy by the Egypt Exploration Society, 1994) 1–5Google Scholar, esp. 1. For a copy of P.Oxy 4009 see http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/P.Oxy

2 Lührmann and Parsons, ‘4009. Gospel of Peter?’, 1. Their conclusion is accepted by Kraus, Thomas J. and Nicklas, Tobias, Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse: Die griechischen Fragmente mit deutscher und englischer Übersetzung (Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I; GCS NF 11; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 59Google Scholar.

3 Foster, Paul, ‘Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?’, NTS 52 (2006) 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 15–16. Foster draws attention to the round E with the extended horizontal line, the narrow A and the broad Θ, again with an extended horizontal line, as well as the broad Δ; they all indicate third century style. He thinks that P.Oxy. 4009 may be best compared with Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and P.Oxy. 2334, both of which are dated to the 3rd century.

4 Lührmann, Dieter, ‘POx 4009: Ein neues Fragment des Petrusevangeliums?’, NovT 35 (1993) 390–410Google Scholar, esp. 395–8. In the presentation above, Lührmann's text is modified by showing in bold only such letters which are unmistakably visible on the fragment itself; cf. also the remarks of Foster, ‘Early Fragments’, 17.

5 Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 62: ‘Die Rekonstruktion ist sehr wohl sinnvoll.’ Three alternative readings may be proposed: (10) ν σπαραχθῶμεν; (15) ὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμεῖν. μὴ φο (20) χω. The reconstruction of line 11 seems to demand too much space, although it is very difficult to present a plausible alternative. Perhaps the copyist left a blank space at the beginning of the line—just like he did at the end of the preceding line—and wrote τότε ὁ κ(ύριο)ς κτλ.?

6 D. Lührmann, ‘POx 4009’ See also Lührmann's German translation on p. 398. See also his extensive study Die apokryph gewordenen Evangelien: Studien zu neuen Texten und zu neuen Fragen (NT.S 112; Leiden: Brill 2004).

7 Bouriant, U., ‘Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch et de quelques écrits attribués à. saint Pierre’, Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire (t. IX, fasc. 1; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892) 94Google Scholar. The manuscript of the Akhmîm fragment has now also been published on the internet: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/GP/GP.html.

8 Lührmann, ‘POx 4009’, 400–401; cf. his even more cautious evaluation in ‘Ein neues Fragment des Petrusevangeliums’, The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (ed. C. Focant; BETL 110; Leuven: Leuven University, 1993) 579–81, 581.

9 Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 63 point to the fact that the I-narrator Peter also appears in many other early Christian documents (1–2 Pet; eth Apoc Pet 2; Acts of Peter and the Twelve [1,30–31 (NHC V,1)]). Foster, ‘Fragments’, 17–19 has criticized Lührmann's identification of the fragment with the Gospel of Peter because the text reconstructed by Lührmann and the traditions preserved in Matt 10.16b and 2 Clem. 5.2–4 cannot be traced back to the same basic forms and because the verbal agreements between these texts are rather slim.

10 Matt 10.28 par. Luke 12.4–5; cf. Clement of Alexandria Exc. ex Theod. 14.3; 51.3; Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 3.18.5; Justin 1. Apol. 19.7; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.5.2.

11 Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity/ London: SCM, 1990) 351Google Scholar.

12 H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 353 thinks that Clement did not receive this tradition from a Gospel harmony but rather from a saying tradition clothed in the form of a dialogue.

13 Cf. Ignatius Pol. 2.2: Φρόνιμος γίνου ὡς ὄφις ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ ἀκέραιος εἰς ἀεὶ ὡς ἡ περιστερά. See also Barsanuphius et Joannes Quaest. et resp. 49: Kαὶ γενοῦ «φρόνιμος ὡς ὄφις», ἵνα μὴ πλανήσωσί σε οἱ ἐχθροί σου. «Ἀκέραιος δὲ ὡς αἱ περιστεραί», ἵνα μὴ πολεμήσῃ σε ἡ ἀνταπόδοσις. For the standard edition, see F. Neyt and P. de Angelis-Noah, Barsanuphe et Jean de Gaza, Correspondance, tome I-II (SC 426/427; Paris: Cerf, 1997–98).

14 Thus correctly Lührmann, ‘POx 4009’, 397.

15 Foster, ‘Fragments’, 18–19.

16 Lührmann, ‘POx 4009’, 403: ‘Eine Rekonstruktion des Textes des Verso ist also ausgeschlossen.’

17 Foster, ‘Fragments’, 17.

18 Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 59: ‘Eine sinnvolle Rekonstruktion des Verso gelang bislang allerdings nicht, wenngleich ein Zusammenhang zwischen Rekto und Verso möglich erscheint.’

19 Lührmann, ‘POx 4009’, 402: line 4 συδε…[; line 8 οτι.φει[.]α; line 15 ..]..αι[.

20 Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 60: line 4 συ δεγ[; line 8 οτι.φ'ε'ι[.]α[; line 15 ..]μμαι[.

21 This form is rare, but so is the grammatically more correct ἀφίης. The form ἄφεῖς is attested once in the NT (Rev 2.20) and once in the LXX (Ex 32.32). In Ps-Clem. Hom. 19.6.3, the Codex Parisinus has ἄφεῖς instead of ἀφίης.

22 Cf. Lührmann, Evangelien, 84 who saw in lines 8 and 13 forms of ἀφίημι (‘in welcher Bedeutung auch immer’).

23 For a similar α, see line 16 of the other side.

24 This form is familiar from the Lukan version of the same story (Luke 5.23).

25 I thank Peter Arzt-Grabner for his useful remarks on my reconstruction.

26 Some witnesses for Luke 7.47a (א Α Κ W Ψ et alii) read αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αἱ πολλαί. Cf. also the quotation of John Chrysostom in Ad Theodorum lapsum 17: ἀφίενται αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αἱ πολλαί.

27 Jan Wilson, E., The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations. vol. 2. Luke and John (Eastern Christian Studies 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002) 442Google Scholar.

28 See, e. g., Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron (trans. Carmel McCarthy; JSSSup 2; Oxford: Oxford University, 1993) 10.9: ‘her many sins are forgiven her’. Thus also the Venetian (135: li fia remetù assai peccadi) and the Tuscanian (139: molti peccati le sono perdonati) versions which are printed in Il Diatessaron in volgare italiano: Testi inediti dei secoli XIII–XIV (ed. V. Todesco, A. Vaccari and M. Vattasso; Studi e testi 81; Roma: Bibliotheca apostolica Vaticana, 1938). Codex Fuldensis (Eduard Sievers, Tatian: Lateinisch und altdeutsch mit ausführlichem Glossar [2nd ed.; Paderborn, 1892]; online: http://users.belgacom.net/chardic/html/tatien_intro.html) offers a slightly different reading: remittentur ei peccata multa.

29 Thus particularly Konrad Weiss, ‘Der westliche Text von Lc 7:46 und sein Wert’, ZNW 46 (1955) 242–5. He thinks that the anointing of Jesus' feet was invented by John (12.3) and later interpolated in Luke 7.46. In Luke 7.38, the elliptic expression does not mean that the woman anointed Jesus' feet but that she anointed him. Weiss also states that anointing the feet is an all too extraordinary feature here: ‘Die ehrende Salbung der Füsse an einem Gaste ist an und für sich ein für die Antike ungewöhnlicher, ja unerhörter Vorgang’. If the longer reading is regarded as original, it is strange that the Pharisee does not take offence at this particular action.

30 Thus, a ff2 l (oleo non unxisti pedes meos) and e (oleo pedes meos non unxisti).

31 In Luke 7.45b, א A K L W Δ Ξ and others read διέλειπεν, while B D P Γ Θ Ψ and others prefer διέλιπεν.

32 There is a similar sentence in a homily of John Chrysostom on John (Hom. in. Joh. 59.1; paraphrasing John 8.40): Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν ἀκολουθούντων αὐτῷ· Mὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυφλοί ἐσμεν; see also Catenae in Joannem 364.21: διὸ καὶ εἶπον ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ.

33 Something like εἶπον δὲ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν συνανακείμενων αὐτῷ.

34 Lührmann, Evangelien, 84 assumes that the letters are related to the theme of following Jesus and reconstructs κολ]ουθ[.