Paul's letter to the Judaeans

Synoptic problems abound in ancient anonymous literature. Through a triangulation process, one can figure the common source. John Dominic Crossan did this for the Passion.

Some Gospels' sources extend to the burial, Peter's knowledge of the resurrection, and lastly the appearance of Jesus which - they insist - was "somatic".

I keep harping on this, but also shared is The Problem Of Peter, who denied Christ and now asserts himself as leader. Evan Powell must be correct that both John 1-20 and Mark 1-16+John 21 react to that - differently. John presents Peter as a satanic, Judas-like failure; Mark defends Peter from exactly that.

John, for his part, has narrative gaps. These include the never-sealed tomb and that one female witness telling Peter about other witnesses with her. These gaps don't implicate Peter; they don't refute Mark. So John and Mark must relate to an earlier source.

Moving to the aftermath, Mark drops off at 16:8 and leaves John 20 to report on Jesus' visit to the disciples. Luke, here, joins in. Ignatius' letter to Smyrna (I don't care if it's authentic) quotes a third source.

John has more gaps here. But so does Luke. Luke has Peter taking the lead, John asserting it. Then Jesus appears to the disciples - in both cases, omitting Peter by name. Only Ignatius, quoting that noncanonic gospel, presents a coherent pericope. This involves those with Peter.

That first postResurrection tradition, which Mark does not quote - per Powell, Mark wrote John 21 instead - was, like John 21, pro-Petrine. It was not the shared antiPetrine source behind Mark and John.

There's no reason the AntiPetrine Gospel must include a post-Resurrection apparition... nor an empty tomb [UPDATE 5/6 and if it did have one, like John had one, someone must race Peter to it]. As a polemic it might even not have been in narrative form; it might have been a quick epistle to various churches condemning Peter. I think, though, it did so in Christian terms such that its community did assume a Resurrection. At the least it had to address the creed behind 1 Corinthians 15 in the early 50s AD. It would present Peter's experience as asomatic in that case. Like the Secret Book.

Did Paul write this? I don't detect that Paul disliked ol' Rocky himself; Paul mainly worried about James. Maybe this was a later extremist.