Study of non-canonical Gospel texts is enjoying something of a renaissance in contemporary scholarship on early Christianity, and prominent among these apocryphal Gospels has always been the text known as the Gospel of Peter. The text from the Akhmim codex (P.Cair. 10759) was first published in 1892. Since then at least two other papyri fragments (P.Oxy. 2949 and 4009) have been identified as possible witnesses to the text of the same Gospel (the former with perhaps more certainty than the latter). The Akhmim text, together with other possible witnesses to the text which have been suggested, have recently been edited by Tobias Nicklas and Thomas Kraus in a new critical edition in the GCS (Berlin 2004). The present collection of essays comprises in effect an accompanying volume to that edition, with twenty contributions discussing a wide range of issues generated by this Gospel text and its possible witnesses.

Paul Foster provides a survey of early scholarship on the Akhmim text in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dieter Lührmann reviews his own researches on this Gospel, including his suggestions for identifying a number of other fragments as part of it (P.Oxy. 2949 and 4009, as well as P.Vindob. Gr. 2325, the so-called ‘Fayyum fragment’); in addition he responds to critiques of others, especially Kraus and Foster, who have questioned some of his identifications. Peter van Minnen provides an analysis of the Akhmim codex as a whole (where the text of the Gospel of Peter comprises only one part), including a discussion of the text of the Apocalypse of Peter: he argues that both texts may be all but complete, and that both texts may represent the result of some editing. Two essays provide analyses of the language and style of the Greek text of the Gospel of Peter: Thomas Kraus focuses on the choice of words used, with some discussion of broader methodological issues (for example on what constitutes a ‘hapax legomenon’), and Stanley Porter focuses on a number of aspects of the syntax of the Greek text.

Various essays consider the text of the Gospel of Peter in relation to a range of other texts from antiquity, with various questions raised and discussed. Thomas Hieke discusses the possible Old Testament background to the text. He notes that there are no explicit ‘quotations’ of the Old Testament, but that the Old Testament background illuminates the text at many key points: this serves to highlight the anti-Jewish tendency of the text, but also to present Jesus as messianic in his role as the Isaianic servant (although many of the alleged parallels are not exact and the argument inevitably becomes slightly circular at times). Dominic Crossan raises the issue of the relation of the Gospel of Peter to the canonical Gospels in the New Testament: he repeats his well-known earlier views (that this Gospel might contain parts of a primitive passion source which is independent of the canonical Gospels) and defends these against other criticisms (notably by Brown and Neirynck), arguing too that the Gospel is not ‘anti-Jewish’ but only anti the Jewish authorities. Alan Kirk develops an extended discussion and critique of Helmut Koester and his firm distinction between oral and written traditions, arguing on the basis of more recent studies of ‘cultural memory’ (cf. Assmann) for positing greater flexibility between ‘written’ and ‘oral’ traditions, and highlights ways in which the Gospel of Peter could/should be read in this new paradigm. Judith Hartenstein discusses different possible definitions of what constitutes a ‘Gospel’, arguing for a relatively broad definition (a text giving an account of the earthly activity of Jesus); she also discusses the issue of the possible identification of the newly discovered ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE) with the Gospel of Peter: while there are some similarities between the texts, there is not enough evidence to regard them as stemming from the same original text.

A number of other essays look at later texts in relation to the Gospel of Peter. Martin Meiser considers the general problem of trying to identify any later allusions to it, especially when possible parallels may be due to common use of Old Testament motifs and/or texts. Katharina Greschat looks as possible parallels between the Gospel of Peter and Justin: she finds some common elements, but argues that these may not be due to any literary dependence and may simply reflect common (e.g. anti-Jewish) attitudes of the time, and a similar conclusion is reached by Thomas Karmann in a detailed comparison of the Gospel of Peter and Melito's Paschal Homily. On the other hand, Stanley Jones examines three possible parallels between the Gospel of Peter and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and argues that the author of the latter may have known the text of the Gospel of Peter. István Czachesz considers the Gospel of Peter in relation to apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and Tobias Nicklas looks at possible parallels between it and the Sybilline oracles (bk 8), both arguing against any direct literary relationship.

In a wide-ranging survey of many issues, Joseph Verheyden considers the purpose of the Gospel of Peter, and argues that it should not be over-interpreted. Its well-known anti-Jewish elements are probably typical of the period, and there is no clear tendency in the text to try to replace, or to compete with, existing Gospels: rather, it gives a relatively ‘unreflective’ and ‘popular’ account of the passion story. Matti Myllykoski provides a detailed analysis of the letter of Serapion preserved by Eusebius (one of the few external references to a ‘Gospel of Peter’), discussing what it implies about the possible status of the Gospel, and whether it implies the existence already of a four-Gospel canon; he also discusses whether the Gospel of Peter (i.e. the text in the Akhmim codex) has a ‘docetic’ Christology, arguing against such a view. Heike Omerzu analyses the figure of Pilate as presented in the Gospel of Peter, showing how ambiguous it is. Finally Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele analyse the Gospel from the point of view of attitudes to the body.

This collection of essays provides an immensely valuable resource, covering many of the key issues in discussions of the text so far as well as raising new topics for future studies. It will be invaluable for all future research and the editors are to be warmly thanked for providing such rich fare. The volume will undoubtedly be a standard reference work for future study of this fascinating text from early Christianity.