The Evalution of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues

Author(s): Gerard P. Luttikhuizen

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 158-168
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560655
Accessed: 08-08-2014 14:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum XXX, 2 (1988)

THE EVALUTION
OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN
CHRISTIAN GNOSTIC REVELATION DIALOGUES
by

GERARD P. LUTTIKHUIZEN
Groningen

A characteristic feature of Gnostic revelation dialogues' is the

account of the perplexities and the troubling questions of the recipients prior to the appearance of the heavenly revealer. In the
tractate Zostrianos,e.g., the protagonist of this extensive nonChristian revelation dialogue is worried about the mystery of the
unbegotten Existence and about other metaphysical matters to such
a degree that he decides to deliver himself to the beasts of the desert
for a violent death. But at that moment, the messenger of
knowledge of the eternal Light stood before him and disclosed to
him the aeons of the heavenly realm.2
The initial confusion and ignorance of the recipients is also
emphasized in several Christian Gnostic dialogues. The opening
narrative of the SophiaofJesus Christtells us how after the resurrection of their Lord, the twelve disciples and seven women followers
of Jesus, gathered together on a mountain in Galilee, were
perplexed about the origin of the Universe and about the plan of
salvation. Then the Saviour appeared to them. He laughed and
said: "What are you thinking about? Why are you perplexed?
What are you searching for?" 3 In the Apocryphon
ofJohn, the risen
For definitions of this literary genre see K. Rudolph, "Der gnostische
Literatur
derkoptischen
'Dialog' als literarischesGenus", in P. Nagel (ed.), Probleme
(Wiss. Beitr. der Martin-Luther-Universitat), Halle (Saale), 1968, pp. 85-107;
F. T. Fallon, "The Gnostic Apocalypses", in Semeia14 (1979), pp. 123-158; Ph.
Perkins, The GnosticDialogue,New York 1980, esp. pp. 25-73; M. Krause, "Die
literarischen Gattungen der Apolalypsen von Nag Hammadi", in D. Hellholm
(ed.), Apocalypticismin theMediterraneanWorldand the Near East, Tilbingen 1983, pp.

621-637.
2
Nag Hamm. Cod. VIII, 1, pp. 2,21-4,19.
3 Berlin Codex
(BG 8502) 3, pp. 77,9-79,18; Nag Hamm. Cod. III, 4, pp.
90,14-92,3.
(=NHLE),

The English translation is from The Nag Hammadi Library in English

Leiden 1977, p. 208.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JESUS' TEACHING IN GNOSTIC DIALOGUES

159

Christ appears to John, the son of Zebedee, when this disciple is in

a desert place on the Mount of Olives, pondering over such crucial
questions as: Why was the Saviour sent into the world; who is his
Father, and of what nature is "the aeon to which we shall go"?4
The Letter of Peter to Philip speaks of a revelation of Jesus Christ
granted to the apostels who at the suggestion of Peter had come
together on the Mount of Olives. At the time, the apostles were still
without gnosis, as is indicated by the list of questions with which
they address their Lord. They ask him interalia how they were held
in "this dwelling place" (the cosmic world), how they had come
there, and how they would depart.5
The remarkable thing is that in the above Christian Gnostic texts
the role of the perplexed and ignorant recipients is played by former
disciples ofJesus. What does the report of the lack of knowledge of
the disciples mean in view of the fact that they attended the teaching
of the Saviour during his earthly existence? How are in these texts
the Gnostic revelations of the Saviour related to his earlier
teachings? I will try to answer these questions through a closer
examination of the Letterof Peter to Philip, the Sophia of Jesus Christ,
the Apocryphonof John, and, finally, the Gospel of Mary, originally
Greek texts dating from the second half of the second century or
perhaps from the first half of the third century, known to us in Coptic translations of the fourth century.
1. The Letter of Peter to Philip and the Sophia of Jesus Christ
I distinguish three sections in the Letter of Peter to Philip: 1. the
brief letter that has given this document its name (Nag Hamm.
Cod. VIII, 2, 132, 12-133, 8), 2. the section that concerns us most
at this moment: a dialogue between the resurrected Jesus and the
apostles (133, 8-138, 7), 3. some episodes from the early history of
the apostles (138, 7-140, 27). The Gnostic revelation ofJesus Christ
in the second section of this document is given in the form of
answers to a set of questions raised by the apostles. The Saviour
introduces these answers in the following way: "You yourselves are
witnesses that I spoke all these things to you. But because of your
unbelief I shall say it once more" (135, 5-8). This statement purports that the subsequent revelation does not bring anything new
4
5

BG 2, pp. 19,6-20,18; Nag Hamm. Cod. II, 1, p. 1,5-29; IV, 1, p. 2.

Nag Hamm. Cod. VIII, 2, pp. 134,23-135,2.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

GERARD P. LUTTIKHUIZEN

as compared with the teaching of Jesus "when he was in the body"

(this expression is used three times in the Letterof Peterto Philip: 133,
17; 138, 3; 139, 11). Already the "somatic" Jesus is supposed to
have revealed the Gnostic teachings of this text. It would seem that
the same opinion is expressed in the opening sentence of Peter's
sermon in the third section of the Letterof Peter to Philip: "Indeed,
our Lord Jesus, when he was in the body, indicated everything to
us" (139, 11-12).6 The contention of this writing, however, is that
a repetition was necessary since the apostles had not yet understood
Jesus' teaching. They are called as witnesses of the immutability of
his revelatory message, and, at the same time, criticized for their
lack of faith.
We may take it for granted that there were apologetic, if not
polemic, motives for this appeal to the apostles as well as for the
emphasis on the conformity of the Gnostic doctrines of this text
with the earlier teaching of Jesus: if it was attested by Peter and the
other apostolic witnesses of Jesus' teaching that the Gnostic doctrines allegedly taught by the resurrected were a repetition of words
spoken to them when he was still in the body, the adherents of these
ideas could claim to be the true representatives of the orthodox and
apostolic tradition.7
Our text lays emphasis on the continuity between the teaching of
Jesus and the Gnostic truths allegedly revealed by the resurrected,
but it also claims that the apostles did not believe Jesus' teaching
until the voice of the resurrected addressed them to repeat his
words. While the revelatory teaching of Jesus remained the same,
the attitute of the apostles towards this teaching is supposed to have
changed radically. A distinction is made here between a period of
unbelief and a period of full comprehension. Accordingly, the Letter
of Peter to Philip suggests that the apostles were not able to preach
the Gospel until they were instructed by the risen Jesus.
A few words about the Sophia ofJesus Christ. As observed earlier,
the opening frame-story of this text describes the perplexities of the
6

I adopt the textual reconstruction byJ. E. Menard (La lettrede Pierrea Philippe,
Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi, "Textes" 1, Quebec 1977, p. 37) and
M. W. Meyer (The Letterof Peterto Philip, Soc. of Bibl. Lit., Diss. series 53, Chico
1981, pp. 28 and 43). Cf. the comments by H.-G. Bethge, Der Brief des Petrus an
Berlin 1984), pp. 149 f.
Philippus (diss. Humboldt-Universitat
7 Cf. Th.
Baumeister, "Die Rolle des Petrus in gnostischen Texten", in Acts
of the second internationalCongressof Coptic Studies, Rome 1985, pp. 8 f.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JESUS' TEACHING IN GNOSTIC DIALOGUES

161

twelve disciples and seven women followers of Jesus before the

appearance of the Saviour. Wholly in agreement with the typical
structure of the Gnostic revelation dialogue, the concluding narrative tells how after the revelation by the Saviour, the disciples
were in great, ineffable joy and now felt competent to preach the
Gospel.8 The Sophia of Jesus Christ, however, fails to explain how
those who had witnessed the teaching of the "earthly" Jesus could
be perplexed about questions which, from a Gnostic point of view,
must have been quite elementary and essential. Nor does this
writing indicate in what way the teaching of the resurrected Jesus
was related to his earlier teaching. In fact, the only reminiscence of
Jesus' existence in a human body are the mention of his resurrection from the dead and the reference to his "earlier form" ("the
Saviour appeared not in his earlier form but in the invisible
spirit"). Both references occur in the opening narrative. On the
whole, Jesus is pictured as an otherworldly revealer of mythological
truths.
2. The Apocryphonof John
Quotations by Irenaeus9 indicate that the main teachings of the
Apocryphonof John existed before 185 C.E., the date of the Adversus
Haereses. The narrative framework may be of later date. In some
respects this revelation dialogue bears resemblance to the Sophia of
Jesus Christ and the second section of the Letterof Peterto Philip. But
there are also striking differences. For one thing, the revelation of
Jesus Christ is not delivered in a full session of the apostles (plus
seven women followers in the Sophia ofJesus Christ) but it is granted
to one, obviously trusted disciple, John the son of Zebedee. The
limitation of the audience seems to be connected with another and
more essential difference from the other two revelation dialogues.
In the Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Letter of Peter to Philip, the
disciples are commissioned to preach salvation (or to proclaim the
Gospel) in the world, whereas in the Apocryphonthe true revelatory
knowledge is reserved for John and his "fellow spirits". Particularly at the conclusion of the Gnostic speech of the Saviour and in
the final frame-story the secret character of the relevant teaching is
stressed. We are dealing indeed with an apocryphon,a secret writing.
8

BG 3, pp. 126,17-127,10;
9 Adv. Haer. I 29.

Nag Hamm. Cod. III, 4, p. 119,8-16.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

GERARD

P. LUTTIKHUIZEN

The opening framework of the Apocryphonof John at least sheds

some light on the relationship between the Gnostic teaching of the
resurrected Jesus and his earlier teaching. It is reported that after
a confrontation with a Pharisee, named Arimanias, John went to
a desert place where he became greatly grieved and brooded over
the questions we mentioned before: the motive for the sending of
the Saviour, the identity of the Father of the Saviour, and the
nature of "the aeon to which we shall go". As to the last mentioned
problem, John is said to have considered the following: "He (the
Saviour) said to us, 'This aeon has received the type of the
imperishable aeon', but he did not teach us concerning that one
(the imperishable aeon) of what kind it is".10 This consideration
gives indeed a clue to the relationship between the pre-Easter
teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the resurrected. Jesus would
have mentioned "the imperishable aeon", but he would not have
taught of what kind it is. If this is supposed to be typical for the
teaching of the "earthly" Jesus, we find in the Apocryphon a
chronological distinction between incomplete or provisional
teaching (the teaching of Jesus before his death and resurrection),
on the one hand, and full and definitive teaching (the secret
teaching of the resurrected), on the other.
Two more observations are in order. Firstly, this distinction cannot be equated with the distinction of the Letter of Peter to Philip
between the initial unbelief of the apostolic witnesses and their final
enlightenment. As we have seen, the interest of the Letterof Peterto
Philip precisely is in the unity and the immutability of the alleged
Gnostic teaching of Jesus. Secondly, it seems to me highly questionable whether the distinction made in the ApocryphonofJohn runs
parallel with the opposition of obscure (or parabolic) and open,
clear language. This oposition can be found in several Gnostic texts
but also in Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the New Testament,
e.g. in Jesus' words in the Gospel of John 16: 25, "Till now I have
spoken in figures; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak
to you in figures, but tell you plainly of the Father". The Apocryphon
of John, however, is not a Gnostic clarification of earlier words of
Jesus; it rather pretends to convey new revelations of Jesus,
-revelations which are quite possibly meant to surpass if not to
replace the teaching of the "earthly" Jesus.
10 BG 2, p. 20,14-18; Nag Hamm. Cod. II, 1, p. 1,26-29 (NHLE,
p. 99).

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JESUS' TEACHING IN GNOSTIC DIALOGUES

163

3. The Gospel of Mary

The Gospelof Mary is the first tractate of the Coptic Berlin Codex
(BG 8502). Apart from the Coptic text, two small papyrus
fragments of the Greek text of the Gospel of Mary have been
On
463 and Oxyrhynchos
discovered
3525).
(Rylands
be
dated
to
the
must
these
early
fragments
palaeographic grounds,
third century. This is an external indication that the Gospelof Mary
was written in the second century.
The text can easily be divided into two distinct sections. Unfortunately, the greater part of the first section (6 out of 9 pages) is
missing. The surviving fragment of this section reports the conclusion of a revelation dialogue between the resurrected Jesus and
Peter, who probably was accompanied by other disciples. The
second section fills a good nine pages in the Coptic manuscript,
four of which, however, are lost. It should be clear that the
fragmentary condition at best allows tentative conclusions with
respect to the character of the text.
At first sight, one is tempted to put the first part of the Gospelof
Mary on a level with other revelation dialogues, particularly with
the dialogues between the Saviour and the assembled disciples in
the second section of the Letterof Peterto Philip and in the Sophia of
Jesus Christ. But upon closer examination, this equation seems to be
quite problematic.
First of all, it is curious to find that the first section is followed
up with an account of the great distress of the disciples and with
their troubling question, "How shall we go to the Gentiles and
preach the gospel of the kingdom of the Son of Man? ..." As we
have seen, the description of the confusion and the ignorance of the
recipients normally belongs to the introductory frame-story of a
Gnostic dialogue. It is even more striking that after this dialogue
with the Saviour, Peter invites Mary Magdalene to disclose the
words of the Saviour which she remembered and which were hidden from the other followers of Jesus. For these reasons we must
assume that essential pieces of knowledge were not yet revealed by
the Saviour in his dialogue with Peter. The disclosure of these
insights follows when Mary communicates the words which the
Saviour had given to her alone. Only after the transmission of these
words by Mary, the apostles are able to go forth and proclaim the
Gospel.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

GERARD

P. LUTTIKHUIZEN

Within the present setting of the Gospel of Mary the dialogue of

the Saviour with Peter and his fellow disciples seems to function as
a preparation for the revelation through Mary Magdalene. This
plan of the work clearly suggests that the full and definitive revelation of the Saviour is accessible only through Mary Magdalene.
Not the dialogue with Peter but the account of the communication
by Mary must be paralleled with the revelation dialogues in the
Gnostic texts discussed above.
While according to the Letterof Peterto Philip, the Gnostic teaching
of Jesus is just a repetition of his earlier words, and the Apocryphon
of John seems to distinguish two forms of teaching, one public and
provisional, the other secret and definitive, it would seem that the
Gospel of Mary reckons with a progression in three stages. It must
be admitted that the preserved fragments of this text do not
explicitly refer to the teaching of Jesus before his death and resurrection. But if even the post-Easter revelations given to Peter were
incomplete and insufficient, this would the more be true of the
teaching of the "earthly" Jesus.
4. Implicationsfor the Evaluation of the New Testament
Accountsof the Teachingof Jesus
We cannot presume a priori that these Gnostic evaluations of the
teaching of the "earthly" Jesus are at the same time evalutions of
the New Testament accounts of this teaching. The following observations will make this clear.
To begin with, we have to allow for the possibility that the relevant ideas about the pre-Easter teaching of Jesus were derived from
other sources than the Gospels of the New Testament. As is wellknown, early-Christian writers may have used oral traditions or
written sources which are now lost. For this reason an allusion e.g.
to a saying of Jesus known to us from one of the canonical Gospels
does not necessarily mean that the author in question was
acquainted with the finished text of this Gospel. We should rather
look for references (first-hand references as we shall see presently)
to elements of the Gospel texts that are clearly redactional.
But we have also to reckon with the possibility that Christian
Gnostic writers of the second or third century made indirectuse of
New Testament texts. Instances of this can be suspected in the
Sophia of Jesus Christ and in the Apocryphonof John. In both writings

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JESUS' TEACHING IN GNOSTIC DIALOGUES

165

we find an allusion to the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (28:20). In the Sophia of Jesus Christ the Gnostic Saviour is
characterized as "the one who is with you until the end of the
poverty of the robbers","1 and in the Apocryphonthe actual revelation to John is preceded by the statement, "I am the one who is
with you (plur.) forever".12 Obviously Gnostic authors had a
preference for these words of the risen Jesus for they are also found
in the Letterof Peterto Philip (twice)13 and in the Gnostic Apocalypse
of Peter.14 The echoes of Matthew 28:20 in the Sophia of Jesus Christ
and the Apocryphonof John are remarkable because of the fact that
in both texts further parallels with particular New Testament
passages are very rare, if not wholly absent.'5 It is open to question,
therefore, whether we should conclude from the occurrence of these
well-known words of the risen Lord that the Christian Gnostic
redactors of the Sophia ofJesus Christand the ApocryphonofJohn were
drawing directly on the Gospel of Matthew.'6 They may as well
have been familiar with just this particular statement of the Saviour
through Gnostic traditions.
A similar observation can be made with respect to the introductory frame-story of the Sophia of Jesus Christ. There can be little
doubt that this narrative, speaking about an appearance of the risen
Jesus to his twelve disciples and seven women followers on a mountain in Galilee,17 presupposes the appearance scene in Matthew
28:16-20. But it is far from evident that the composer of this
dialogue setting is directly dependent on the text of Matthew.
There is more reason to assume that he was familiar with elements
of this story through post-Biblical traditions, perhaps through
earlier Gnostic revelation texts. In that case there is a good chance
that the Gospel of Matthew remained a closed book to him. So the
11 BG 3,
p. 94,17-19; Nag Hamm. Cod. III, 4, p. 101,13-15 (NHLE, p. 214).
BG 2, p. 21,18 f.; Nag Hamm. Cod. II, 1, p. 2, 12 f.; IV, 1, p. 3,5 f. Here
the statement serves as a recognition formula. Cf. Perkins, o.c. (n. 1), p. 55.
13
Nag Hamm. Cod. VIII, 2, p. 134,17 f.: "I amJesus Christ who is with you
forever" (recognition formula); 140,22 f.: "Behold, I am with you forever" (part
of a farewell speech, as in Matthew 28:20).
14
Nag Hamm. Cod. VII, 3, p. 84,8 f.: "I shall be with you (sing.) in order
that none of your ennemies will overbear you" (part of farewell speech).
15 Cf. C. M. Tuckett,
Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition, Edinburgh 1986,
pp. 25-27 and 31-35.
16
Against Tuckett, ibid.
17
In BG 3, p. 79,8 f. and Nag Hamm. Cod. III, 4, p. 91,20 this Galilean
mountain is identified as "the one of the Olives".
12

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

GERARD

P. LUTTIKHUIZEN

Christian Gnostic redactors of the Sophia of Jesus Christ and the

Apocryphonof John may have had their ideas about the pre-Easter
teaching of Jesus but they are not likely to pronounce upon the
teaching of Jesus as it is preserved in our canonical Gospels. Their
ideas rather related to their own conception of the content and
meaning of this teaching.18
When we try to find out how the New Testament accounts of the
teaching of Jesus were evaluated by Christian Gnostics, an
examination of the Letterof Peter to Philip will be more rewarding.
The narrative structure of this writing as well as several of its scenes
and some specific expressions are clearly reminiscent of the last
chapter of the Gospel of Luke and the first chapters of the book of
Acts. The most conspicuous parallels may be mentioned.19 The
command of the risen Jesus to the apostels to come together (VIII,
2, pp. 132, 16-20; 133, 6-8; 137, 23f.) reflects Luke 24:49 and Acts
1:4. Philip's separation from the other apostles, for which he is
blamed by Peter (133, 1-5), seems to presuppose the report of the
missionary activity outside Jerusalem of a namesake of the apostle,
Philip the evangelist (Acts 8). The assembly of the apostles on the
Mount of Olives, "the place where they used to come together with
the blessed Christ" (133, 13-17), recalls Luke 22:39, Acts 1:6 and
12, while their return to Jerusalem in great joy (138, 9f.; 139, 4-6)
is reminiscent of Luke 24:52 and Acts 1:12. The document tells
how Peter and the other apostles were filled with holy spirit (139,
14; 140, 9f.; cf. Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31 and passim) and how they
preached salvation in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (139, 6-8;
cf. Luke 24:47; Acts 4:12, 18). Reference is made to the "promise"
given by Jesus (132, 21-133, 1; 137, 25; cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,
8), to the apostles as "witnesses" of Jesus' teaching (135, 4-6; cf.
Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22 etc.), and to Jesus as the "author
18 The only saying of the Apocryphonof John apparently associated with the preEaster teaching of Jesus ("This aeon has received the type of the imperishable
aeon", cf. above, p. 162) is not found in the canonical Gospels. This clearly indicates that the author's conception of the teaching of the "earthly" Jesus was not
based on the Gospels of the New Testament.
19 Cf. K. Koschorke, "Eine gnostische Pfingstpredigt. Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirchlichem Christentum am Beispiel der
'Epistula Petri ad Philippum' ", Zeitschriffiir Theologie und Kirche 74 (1977), pp.
326 f.; Tuckett, o.c. (n. 15), pp. 112 f.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JESUS' TEACHING IN GNOSTIC DIALOGUES

167

(apxTrTy6)of our life" (139, 27f.; 140, 4: "author [of our] rest"; cf.
Acts 3:15 and 5:31).20

The variety of allusions to the Lucan writings, particularly those

to passages and motifs which are usually connected with Luke's
redactional work, suggests that the author is deliberately using
these texts for his own report of the appearances of Jesus in and
near Jerusalem and of the further events in Jerusalem prior to the
dispersion of the apostles in order to preach the Gospel in the world.
It is much more difficult to assess how far the author was
acquainted with any other New Testament book.21
It has been observed above that the Letterof Peterto Philip makes
a chronological distinction between a period in which the apostles
did not believe the alleged Gnostic teaching of Jesus and a period
of full comprehension. I presume that this idea of the spiritual
transformation of the disciples of Jesus enables us to perceive how
the Christian Gnostics who sympathized with the doctrines of the
Letter of Peter to Philip thought about the New Testament writings
known to them. It is a matter of course that the ideas of the Letter
of Peter to Philip were connected by its author and by its Gnostic
readers with the teaching of Jesus as it was understood by the
apostles after their eventual enlightenment by the risen Jesus. But
it is highly doubtful whether the traditions about Jesus and the
apostles in the Lucan writings and in the other books of the New
Testament were evaluated in the same way. It is more in line with
the reasoning of this document to assume that these New Testament accounts were connected with the incompetence and the
ignorance of the apostles in the period beforetheir enlightenment. If
Jesus is considered a messenger of Gnostic wisdom who was not
understood by his followers, such ungnostic presentations of Jesus
and his teaching as are found in the Gospels of the New Testament
are liable to be rejected indeed as products of unbelief and incomprehension.
20
The words spoken by the voice of Jesus in 128, 22-27, "I have often said to
you: it is necessary for you to suffer, it is necessary for you to be brought to
synagogues and governors so that you will suffer", reflect either Matthew 10:17
or Luke 21:12.
21 I doubt whether the two reminiscences
of Matthew 28:20 in 134, 17 f. and
140, 22 f. (quoted in n. 13) prove that the author was directly dependent on the
text of Matthew. Cf. above, p. 165. As observed in the preceding note, the prediction of sufferings in synagogues and under governors can be traced back to Matthew 10:17 as well as to Luke 21:12 (the Coptic text seems to render the passive
form of the Greek aystv or a&tayetv,found in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark).

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

GERARD P. LUTTIKHUIZEN

The author of the Letterof Peterto Philip used materials from LukeActs. This does, however, not mean that he held the Gospel of Luke
and the New Testament Acts in high esteem. The reverse is true:
in claiming that Jesus is a revealer of Gnostic truths-before his
death as well as after his death and resurrection-and in presenting
Peter, the leader and spokesman of the apostles, as a Gnostic
preacher (139, 15-140, 1), he thoroughly criticizes the Lucan
accounts.
As noted earlier, the structure of the extant text of the Gospelof
Mary is likely to disclose how the author thought about the preEaster teaching ofJesus. But it should be stressed that the surviving
fragments do not explicitly refer to this teaching. Furthermore, this
writing does not seem to be particularly interested in the Gospels
of the New Testament either.22 There is no reason to suppose that
a more detailed study of the Gospel of Mary will lead to specific
insights into the author's attitude towards the New Testament
reports of the teaching of Jesus.
22
It may be significant that the few clear New Testament echoes are clustered
at one point, viz. in the farewell speech of the Saviour at the conclusion of the first
part of the text: "When the blessed one had said this, he greeted them all, saying,
'Peace be with you (cf. Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26). Receive my peace to
yourselves (cf. John 14:27). Beware that no one lead you astray (cf. Matthew 24:4;
Mark 13:5), saying, "Lo here" or "Lo there" (cf. Matthew 24:23; Mark 13:21;
Luke 17:23). For the Son of Man is within you (cf. Luke 17:21). Follow after him!
Those who seek him will find him (cf. Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9). Go then and
preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (cf. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15) ...' "
(NHLE, p. 472). With regard to this striking catena of New Testament allusions
Tucket rightly observes: "It was clearly very important for the compiler of this
section of GMary that the speaker be plainly identifiable as Jesus in a way that
was apparently not the case for the rest of the text" (o.c., pp. 41 f.).

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:43:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions