2022 Lenten Bible Study - Prologue

When I had originally asked for suggestions or paths that this Bible Study might follow, one intriguing idea was a look at Peter. Not the canonical books of First and Second Peter, but a discussion of the man himself. 

This seemed like a good idea, at least as a start to examining Matthew’s Gospel account. Peter appears frequently in the gospels, thus this prologue so as to set the stage for when Peter appears. 

What do we know about Peter, the man? There are many traditions and stories that have arisen over time dealing with Peter, but I’m a tad skeptical of “traditional stories” and usually perceive them like the tales of Paul Bunyan (and Babe) or John Henry (the railroad steel-driving man). Most likely a real person serving as the basis for elaborate and extravagant tales that developed over the years. 

Our primary source must be the canonical scriptures, specifically the Gospel authors as well as Luke’s recording of the Acts of the Apostles. There are also references to Peter in some of Paul’s epistles. And yet, even these can’t be seen as scrupulous biographies, but rather our understanding of the man through his words and actions as recorded by the authors. Nevertheless, these are the sources I trust the most. 

I’ll stick to the scriptures. What do we know of the man?  

He was a fisherman, who along with his brother Andrew worked the Sea of Galilee. They apparently had a partnership with James and John, the sons of Zebedee. Just as an aside, although it’s not specifically mentioned in the Bible, they most likely fished for either the Kinneret Sardine which was pickled as a means of preservation or the Tilapia Galilea (the side of fries didn’t originally come with the usual catch).

The legendary name of Tilapia Galilea is the St. Peter Fish—but that’s another story I’ll leave to the fabulists. 

Before I wander to far afield from scriptures into the territory of legend, we also know that Peter was married (or possibly widowed), only because Peter had a mother-in-law living in Capernaum. Neither the name of Peter’s wife nor mother-in-law are mentioned in the scriptures, but clearly there is only one way to obtain a mother-in-law: marriage.

We also know that Peter was part of what could be called Jesus’ “Inner Circle”. Whenever something dramatic was to happen, such as the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Mt. 9:18-26), the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-8), and the Agony In the Garden (Mt. 26:37), it was always Peter, James, and John who would be present—and Peter is always mentioned first. 

Luke relates that after the Ascension of Jesus, Peter takes the lead of the Apostles by designating a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-22). He also opened the church to the gentiles by baptizing Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:1-11, 18) and his authority is not challenged by the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11). 

Although he was clearly a principle figure in Christ’s ministry in the region of Palestine, he did travel outside the region after the Easter event. Paul mentions a visit to Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21) He even possibly visited Corinth as Paul mentions a group of people in Corinth as a party of Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12). Cephas is the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic word for rock. 

The Latin version is Petra, meaning rock. Biblical scholars, based on verses in the canonical book of First Peter, believe that he was in Rome and the early Church Fathers accepted the fact that he was crucified in Rome during the Neroian persecutions (circa 64-67 CE).

 The epistles of First Peter and Second Peter, found in the Christian scriptures are attributed to Peter and are considered canonical. Biblical scholars, however, allow for the fact the St. Peter didn’t necessarily set down at a desk somewhere in Rome, pen in hand, and literally write the texts.  

This is based in part that Peter, as a fisherman, was most likely illiterate as far as reading and writing goes. These skills were not common-place abilities of most people. He may have known some Koiné Greek, the language of the common-folk of the Roman realm, but even the fact that the style of writing was a tad unsophisticated, it is believed that he had a scribe (possibly Silvanus—the one who delivered the first epistle to Asia Minor—1 Peter 5:12) that could have possibly taken dictation.  

It is also possible that after Peter’s death, a companion of Peter (Silvanus?), wrote down things he remembered Peter as saying. We need to remember that early on it was not uncommon to write in the “voice” of a prophet—or other celebrity—keeping alive his teachings. 

Turning the page, there are also other writings (non-canonical) attributed to Peter. 

As for other documents attributed to Peter (GOSPEL OF PETER, ACTS OF PETER, APOCALYPSE OF PETER) the early Church Fathers disallowed them for being Docetic or Gnostic writings falsely attributed to him. Docetism (denies the humanity of Jesus) and Gnosticism (accepts that this world is evil and only the Spirit is good) were first century heresies of the Church. 

It appears that the early Church—or Apostolic—Fathers (the first three, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who may have known the Apostles) had access to more complete documents than the existing fragments that we have of the GOSPEL OF PETER and the APOCALYPSE OF PETER that were found in Akhmim, Egypt (approx. 310 miles south of Cairo on the Nile River) in 1886-1887 with a slightly longer version of the APOCALYPSE OF PETER in Ethiopia in 1910. 

THE GOSPEL OF PETER (let’s call it Akhmim Fragment I) is a fragment of an assumed larger document because the text begins and ends mid-sentences. It is primarily a passion narrative, more detailed than the canonical Gospel accounts. It strikes me as attempting to answer questions that the early church had or to fill in the gaps in detail that the Gospel authors omitted. 

If we are honest, we’ve all had a desire to know more of what actually happened at the Easter event, such as “How big was the rock?” “How was it rolled into and out of place?” “What was the angel like in the tomb?” this fragment answers these sort of questions.

The APOCALYPSE OF PETER (let’s call it Akhmim Fragment II) is also a fragment of an assumed larger document. It, too, begins and ends abruptly. It is framed asa discourse of the Risen Christ to his faithful, offering a vision first of heaven, and then of hell, granted to Peter.

I would almost bet that if we had the full book and not just a fragment, it would run circles around the BOOK OF REVELATION in the canonical scriptures. This is too good not to share an even smaller fragment of the APOCALYPSE OF PETER:

• And the dwellers in that place were clad with the raiment of shining angels, and their raiment was like unto their land.  And angels ran round about them there.  And the glory of them that dwelt there was all equal, and with one voice they praised the Lord God, rejoicing in that place. The Lord saith unto us: This is the place of your leaders (or, high priests), the righteous men.   And I saw also another place over against that one, very squalid; and it was a place of punishment, and they that were punished and the angels that punished them had their raiment dark, according to the air of the place.  And some there were there hanging by their tongues; and these were they that blasphemed the way of righteousness, and under them was laid fire flaming and tormenting them. 

That’s about all I have on St. Peter for now, but I think Frederick Buechner, in his ‘tongue in cheek’ style of writing best describes him. I offer to you the following writing of his as the end to this Prologue: