We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 May 2009
In an article published earlier this year (NTS 55.1: 104–15), a full reconstruction of the less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009 (lines 1–13) was presented, and it was argued that this text belongs to the Gospel of Peter. These 13 lines parallel the Lukan pericope of the sinful woman (Luke 7.45–49) and demonstrate that the Gospel of Peter used manuscripts that represent the Western text of the earlier Gospels. The most notable Western feature, the omission in P.Oxy. 4009 of Luke 7.47b–48, is no coincidence. There are weighty arguments for the omission of these verses in the Lukan original as well.
1 The detailed argument for this reconstruction is presented in Myllykoski, M., ‘The Sinful Woman in the Gospel of Peter: Reconstructing the Enigmatic Other Side of P.Oxy. 4009’, NTS 55 (2009) 104–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Lührmann, Dieter, ‘P. Oxy. 4009: Ein neues Fragment des Petrusevangeliums?’, NovT 35 (1993) 390–410Google Scholar, esp. 395–8.
3 The major critique of Lührmann's view is that of Foster, Paul, ‘Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?’, NTS 52 (2006) 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 17–19. Foster 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.
4 However, it is very difficult to fit Luke 7.50 into lines 14–19.
5 Lührmann, Evangelien, 79–80. The tiny remains of ink in line 3 do not allow a reconstruction. However, line 4 may have included the words πολὺς ὁ before θερισμός.
6 It is interesting to see that some versions of the Diatessaron move from Luke 7.36–50 to the sending out of the disciples in Luke 10. The Pepysian Gospel Harmony (ed. Margery Goates; Early English Text Society, Original Series 157; London: Oxford University, 1922) moves directly from Luke 7.36–50 to the sending out of sixty and twelve disciples. The Arabic version (Diatessaron de Tatien [ed. A.-S. Marmardji; Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1935]) has, after Luke 7.36–50, the order John 2.23–25; Luke 10.1–12; Matt 11.20–24; Luke 10.16–22. Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron (trans. Carmel McCarthy; JSSS 2; Oxford: Oxford University, 1993) has the harvest saying of Matt 9.37 (10.11) follow Luke 7.36–50 (10.8–9).
7 Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Het evangelie von Petrus en de Westerse Text’, in Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 16 (1961) 264–70Google Scholar. See also Denker, J., Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Doketismus (EHS.T 36, Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1975) 26–9Google Scholar.
8 For a survey of Luke 7.47 in the Diatessaron tradition, see Baarda, Tjitze, ‘ “Non-canonical Version” of Luke 7,42b? The Reading τίνα [αὐτῶν] πλεῖον ἠγάπησεν Ascribed to the Diatessaron’, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis (FS J. Delobel; ed. Denaux, A.; BETL 161; Leuven: Leuven University, 2002) 97–129Google Scholar, esp. 121–7.
9 The value of the Western medieval harmonies and the existence of an old Latin version of the Diatessaron have been disputed by Schmid, Ulrich B., ‘In Search of Tatian's Diatessaron in the West’, VigChr 57 (2003) 176–99Google Scholar. For the traditional view on the role of Western harmonies in Diatessaron research, see the discussion of Petersen, William L., Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (VigChrSup 25; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 301–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 On the literary and source-critical problems of the story, see particularly Delobel, J., ‘Lk 7,47 in its Context: An Old Crux Revisited’, The Four Gospels 1992, vol. 2 (FS F. Neirynck; BETL 100-B; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 1581–90Google Scholar, esp. 1581–3.
11 See, e.g., Holtzmann, Julius, Die Synoptiker (HCNT I.1; Tübingen/Leipzig: Mohr 1901) 348Google Scholar.
12 Thus, e.g., Marshall, I. Howard, The Gospel of Luke (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 314Google Scholar, and Kilgallen, John J., ‘Forgiveness of Sins (Luke 7:36–50)’, NovT 40 (1998) 105–16Google Scholar, esp. 110–11. Roloff, Jürgen, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus: Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd ed. 1973) 161–3Google Scholar, finds the story historically reliable but suggests that vv. 44–46 and 50 were added later.
13 Fitzmyer, Joseph, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 686–7Google Scholar, excludes vv. 47c–50 as a Lukan redaction which served to combine the apophthegma (vv. 36–40, 44–47ab) and the parable (vv. 41–43). Fitzmyer also mentions Church fathers and modern scholars who read the story in these terms.
14 For example, Haenchen, Ernst, Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2nd ed. 1968) 471CrossRefGoogle Scholar, finds an original connection between v. 44a and v. 50 and proposes a simple traditional ending: ‘Jesus said to the woman: “Go in peace.” ’ The whole speech of Jesus in vv. 44b–49, in turn, is a Lukan addition that introduces the declaration of forgiveness. According to Delobel (‘Lk 7,47’, 1589), precisely the declaration of Jesus in v. 47a is added by Luke. He suggests that the Markan parallel in Mark 14.3–9 provided the basic setting of the story—anointing of Jesus by a woman at a meal—while the story of the sinful woman, including the parable, stemmed from the oral tradition.
15 Henss, W., Das Verhältnis zwischen Diatessaron, christliche Gnosis und ‘western Text’ (BZNW 33; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) 24–31Google Scholar.
16 Baarda, ‘Non-canonical Version’, 99–119.
17 …et quoniam apud Pharisaeum, recumbente eo, peccatrix mulier osculabatur pedes eius et unguebat unguento, et quaecumque propter eam dixit ad Symonem Dominus de duobus debitoribus;…
18 Paed. 2.8.61.2: Ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν γυνὴ μηδέπω τοῦ λόγου μεταλαβοῦσα — ἔτι γὰρ ἦν ἁμαρτωλός—, ὅπερ ἡγεῖτο τὸ κάλλιστον εἶναι παρ’ αὐτῇ, τὸ μύρον, τούτῳ τετίμηκε τὸν δεσπότην. Cf. also Origen Comm. in Matth. 12.4: ἐλθοῦσα παρὰ τοὺς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πόδας καὶ βρέχουσα αὐτοὺς τοῖς τῆς μετανοίας δάκρυσι. According to Tertullian Adv. Marc. 4.18, the woman won her pardon by repentance, which the Creator preferred to sacrifice. The natural social exchange of Jesus with sinners as portrayed by Luke is changed by Clement into the respectful approach of a sinner who strives for her salvation. Other Fathers of the Church offer similar interpretations (Pseudo-Cyprian Ad Novatianum 11; Jerome Comm. in Hos. Prol.; Ambrose Exp. In Luc. 6.12–19; see further Spicq, C., Agapé dans le Nouveau Testament: Analyse des textes I [Paris: Gabalda, 1958] 129–30 n. 3)Google Scholar.
