Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (100-255 AD) Two Questions

[rakovsky]

The Gnostic "Apocalypse of Peter" comes to us in Coptic from the 4th century documents in the Nag Hammadi library. It was originally written in Greek, but it is much different from the Greek "Apocalypse of Peter" that some of the Church fathers respected.

(Question 1) What range of dates would you give it?

Wikipedia dates it to 100-200 AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter), but the Early Christian Writings (ECW) site dates it to 200-255. The ECW site notes that the Coptic version is a translation from an earlier Greek version.

Andreas Werner writes:

If the text itself, with its mention of the name 'Hermas' at p. 78.18, engages in polemic against the possibility of repentence advocated in the Shepherd of Hermas, this would yield a terminus post quem on grounds of content in the middle of the 2nd century. Apoc. Pet. presupposes and criticizes the structures of a Great Church in process of consolidation, and the appropriation of Peter as the inaugurator of Gnosis is probably also directed against this; these points together with the controversy with other gnostics suggest placing the document at the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd.
(New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 702)

Already in Cerinthus' Apocryphon of James (c.100 AD) one can see conflict between Cerinthus and the mainstream canonical Church, so I am skeptical about Werner's suggestion that the existence of conflict in the documents shows that it dates from c.200 AD.

On the other hand, the "Shepherd of Hermas" is dated to about 88-160 AD. This is because the Shepherd says for Clement to send copies of the "Shepherd" abroad, and Clement began his papacy in 88 AD. My guess is that the "Shepherd" was written in the mid-2nd century, which in turn suggests to me that the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter was written in the mid-2nd century or later.

Here is where the text appears to identify a Hermas who opposes the truth and sets up a law against what the text presents as Christ's teachings:

"But many others, who oppose the truth and are the messengers of error, will set up their error and their law against these pure thoughts of mine, as looking out from one (perspective) thinking that good and evil are from one (source). They do business in my word. And they will propagate harsh fate. The race of immortal souls will go in it in vain, until my Parousia. For they shall come out of them - and my forgiveness of their transgressions, into which they fell through their adversaries, whose ransom I got from the slavery in which they were, to give them freedom that they may create an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones. But those of this sort are the workers who will be cast into the outer darkness, away from the sons of light. For neither will they enter, nor do they permit those who are going up to their approval for their release."

(Question 2) How separate are Christ the Savior and the suffering Jesus in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter? Are they two fully separate persons?
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches, following the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, teach that Jesus and Christ are the same person with the same one soul, with both a human substances and a divine one, a person who took on flesh - a human, physical body - at His Incarnation. The Church came to call the idea that Christ is actually two persons (a divine one and a human one) "Nestorianism", and to call another belief, that Christ only appeared to be human or only appeared to suffer, "Docetism".

Some scholars seem to think that the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter considers Jesus Christ the Savior and the suffering Jesus to be two different persons with different, separate souls. Wikipedia considers the possibility that the text is Docetist:

Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, this one also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

It is unclear whether this text advocates an adoptionist or docetist Christology, but based on its literary parallels with the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, it may well subscribe to the latter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter

Gerard Luttikhiuizen in his essay "The Suffering Jesus and the Invulnerable Christ in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter" sees the text as portraying Christ in two realms simultaneously in the opening of the text, which begins:
"As the Savior was sitting in the temple, in the inner part of the building at the convergence of the tenth pillar, and as he was at rest above the congregation of the living, incorruptible Majesty, he said to me... "
Luttikhiuizen comments:

If we assume that this emendation and its translation are correct, what does the text mean? Is this a reference to the earthly temple in Jerusalem or, rather, to a spiritual temple in the divine world? It is quite probably that the reference is to both places at the same time. ... GApPt[this work] frequently directs the attention to a spiritual dimension in visible reality. In particular, the subsequent phrase, 'and as he was at rest above the congregation of the living incorruptible Majesty', suggests that the Saviour is in his true spiritual environment together with all those who belong tot he Father.

The concluding statement of the text's opening passage goes: "When he (Jesus) had said these things, he (Peter) came to himself." (Bullard's translation)

Luttikhiuizen notes about this statement:

I suggest that the relevant Coptic phrase is laden with far more meaning: after Christ's teachings Peter 'came to himself (ie to his true self)'. This interpretation means that when the Savious had completed his teachings, Peter achieved the state of perfection to which he was called before by Christ: 'You too, Peter, become perfect.... just like me, the one who has chosen you.... (71.5-21).'

The scholar also tries to summarize the difference between the divine Jesus and the substitute:

In Christ's explanation, the human body of Jesus was merely a temporary dwelling-place. Moreover, he repudiated this sarkikon as the product ('the son') of quasi-glorious cosmic powers. ... As Christ disclosed in his first words addressed to Peter, 'the principalities [who wanted to attack him]' sought him but could not find him. Christ himself was fully immune to the attacks of the forces of evil. His followers could attain this level of protection if they allowed themselves to be enlightened by Christ's teaching and, accordingly, were prepared to live in this world as strangers and children of light.

It sounds like it is saying that the body is the sufferer and what is seen is the substitute, and that the followers can also achieve this protected state. Perhaps then, the "substitute" is not really a fully separate, other soul, but rather the physical body or a physical, earthly form, since the apostles also have the potential to go from their frail, vulnerable state to Christ's blessed state?
What happens is that in the dialogue, the Savior is in the Temple talking to Peter about how "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, .... the living Jesus", is different from "the son of their glory", whom "they have put to shame". And while the Savior is talking to Peter, the Savior who resembles the laughing one and is filled with the Holy Spirit approaches the Savior and Peter.

Here is the extended passage in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter that talks about the difference between the Jesus laughing on the cross and the one who suffered and received pain:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."

But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was <filled> with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed.

Other translations of two key parts are (1) Jesus' words:
"The one whom you see above the tree, who is glad and is laughing, is the living Jesus. But that one, into whose hands and feet they are driving the nails, in his fleshly counterpart, the substitute... But look at him and Me."
And (2) Peter's narrative:
"Then I looked again and saw someone approaching that resembled the one who was laughing on the tree. He was filled with the Holy Spirit, and I knew him then to be the Savior." (Source: jacksonsnyder.com/sss/pages/Apocalypse%20of%20Peter%20Gnostic.htm)

Next, Jesus explains the differences:

And he said to me, "Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma, which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit."

Another translation of Jesus' explanation goes:

The one whom they crucified was the first-born in the home of demons, in a corruptible vessel with which the god of this world had his way by means of the Law and its cross. But near the first-born you have seen the living Savior, the first in spirit, whom they seized and released, who looks at his assassins with joy, while they are yet confused and divided among themselves. He laughs at their lack of perception, knowing full well that they were born blind and are blind still. The one susceptible to suffering suffered; that is, this one who they perceive with their eyes. But what they have released is my divine body. Yes, I am the all-knowing spirit filled with radiant light! The light which you saw about me is our Heavenly Host, which unite perfect light with my Holy Spirit.

The first translation above puts Jesus' persons as three, with the third person approaching Jesus and Peter, whereas the second translation consolidates Jesus' three into two.

[Dave]

Wow - there is a lot here - I love it

(Question 1) What range of dates would you give it?

This certainly is not my expertise - but let me say. My interest in the Nag Hammadi text is focused upon the secret information exchanged between Resurrected Jesus and His Disciples during the 40 days before Pentecost. The Church (if you can believe them) say Peter was crucified in 64 AD.

The information exchange covers the first century - with additions until the 300s

All of them survive in Translation - no originals - The Introduction by James Robinson in the front of my copy says - and I have it highlighted to always remember.

"... the texts are not to be thought of as coming from one group or movement ... The texts were translated one by one from Greek into Coptic, and not always by translators capable of grasping the profundity or sublimity of what they sought to translate. The translator of a brief section of Plato's Republic clearly did not understand the text ... There is this same kind of hazard in the transmission of the text by a series of scribes who copied them... from increasing corrupt copies, first in Greek and then in Coptic. The number of unintentional errors is hard to estimate, since such a thing as a clean control copy does not exist; nor dose one have, as in the case of the Bible, a quantity of manuscripts of the same text that tend to correct each other when compared." pg 2

The final version of the Roman Canon Book of Mark has several composers from different times -

I understand that the date stamp equates to "more original" or "more pure" / "less corrupt"
As long as it is pre-Rome I am interested

an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones.

I have this section marked as well:

The dead man is mortal Jesus (They cleave to the man of a dead man thinking that they will become pure)

Who is Hermas? I think the passage stands alone without these three words
The Shepherd of Hermas taught a mortal Jesus
The book was originally written in Rome, in the Greek language, (wiki)
It was a favorite of Iranious - therefore even I consider it a deceiving text

Perhaps a later translator added these 3 words out of personal bias
Its addition confuses the text - and I believe that the real goal of Roman Theology

[Dave]

(Question 2) How separate are Christ the Savior and the suffering Jesus in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter? Are they two fully separate persons?

Suffering Jesus is of course Christ and Savior
However, not all suffering Christ and Saviors are the one and only Suffering Jesus

Joseph was a Christ and a savior as was Moses, and even Cyrus
We can become Christ, but we cannot become Jesus

Layer upon layer - when is any scripture totally figurative or literal? Usually, both at the same time, dependent upon the layer involved. God's will be done on Earth - as in Heaven. Mirror realities. The Angel of the East fought with the Angel on his way to Daniel - the battle was 40 days long - taking place in an invisible realm effecting this realm.

Gerard Luttikhiuizen in his essay "The Suffering Jesus and the Invulnerable Christ in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter" sees the text as portraying Christ in two realms simultaneously

Substitute on the Cross

I get it - I am not conflicted by this duality that I think we all possess

Did the Spirit of Jesus die upon the cross - NO! He commended it into heaven
The BIOLOGICAL corruptible portion - DID

I don't see how this reality diminishes the divinity of Jesus Christ - we are all that spirit that resided inside this biological shell

[Dave]

Apr 18, 2019 11:47:28 GMT -5 rakovsky said:

the text's opening passage goes: "When he (Jesus) had said these things, he (Peter) came to himself." (Bullard's translation)

Luttikhiuizen notes about this statement:

I suggest that the relevant Coptic phrase is laden with far more meaning: after Christ's teachings Peter 'came to himself (ie to his true self)'. This interpretation means that when the Savious had completed his teachings, Peter achieved the state of perfection to which he was called before by Christ: 'You too, Peter, become perfect.... just like me, the one who has chosen you.... (71.5-21).'

"The Archons cast a trance over Adam which caused him to be sleepy, but it was his perception they dulled ... They make our hearts heavy that we may not pay attention and may not see. So we loose the reflection of the Divine Light within us ... The Archons burden the soul, attracting us to works of evil, and pull us down into oblivion, make us forget who we are. (The Apocrypha of John II 22: 14-10, though 27-20.)" (metahistory.org/Gnostic Catechism)

[rakovsky]

For question 1, one observation that i have is that the gnostic Christian writings were often versions of earlier Christian writings like how Marcion based his Bible on the Christian standard one. So the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter would have come after the non-gnostic "Apocalypse of Peter", which was once famous.

[Rakovskyinguestmode]

For Question 1, it does sound like the author of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is claiming that the mainstream or establishment Christians forged a fraudulent document in the name of a dead man, Hermas. It sounds like the Gnostic writer is talking about The Shepherd of Hermas, which many scholars have theorized may have been a pious fraud forged by mid-2nd Century Christians to make the document appear to be by the 1st Century Roman Christian Hermas, who was dead by the time of the forgery.

So the Gnostic Apocalypse would have been written after The Shepherd of Hermas, ie. in the mid-2nd Century or later.

Another piece of evidence for dating is that it would tend to have been written after the famous non-Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, because Gnostic writings with the same title and theme as a non-Gnostic one would tend to be written in imitation of the latter, since for instance Marcion wrote his Bible books in imitation of the non-Gnostic ones, and because an imitation tends to be made after its model famous text, rather than a famous text being made in imitation of a less famous one.

[rakovsky]

^That was me.

[rakovsky]

Apr 18, 2019 22:17:06 GMT -5 Dave said:

an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones.

Who is Hermas? I think the passage stands alone without these three words
The Shepherd of Hermas taught a mortal Jesus
The book was originally written in Rome, in the Greek language, (wiki)
It was a favorite of Iranious - therefore even I consider it a deceiving text

Perhaps a later translator added these 3 words out of personal bias
Its addition confuses the text - and I believe that the real goal of Roman Theology

Dave,
To answer your question "Who is Hermas?", in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, he refers to a Roman Christian named Hermas. The Bible doesn't give much more information about him. The Muratorian canon said that Shepherd of Hermas was actually written by Pius I's brother Hermas, a different Hermas, under Pius I's papacy (140-155 AD), which places the brother Hermas in that time period. My opinion is that the Shepherd of Hermas was written in 140-155 AD, because the Muratorian Fragment has authority on such a question.

[rakovsky]

Apr 18, 2019 22:38:28 GMT -5 Dave said:

Layer upon layer - when is any scripture totally figurative or literal? Usually, both at the same time, dependent upon the layer involved. 

To answer your question Dave,
Some writings like modern historical narratives or engineering manuals are totally literal, but I highly doubt that any scripture is totally literally.
Let's suppose that a Biblical Chronicle on the life of a Biblical figure like Hezekiah or a Biblical war like between Israel and the Philistines is told in the Bible. The story may have been meant by the writer to be literal, but the normal attitude of those who compiled the Bible or even the attitude of pre-Christian Jews who may have edited those Biblical OT books was that these stories had spiritual significance as well. So for instance Hezekiah could have significance as a prefigurement of the Messiah or by serving as a model for future kings to follow. That is, the figure of Hezekiah as a righteous king could have been meant by those ancient Jews to serve as a figure or model for others to follow. Similarly, the battles between Israel and the Philistine could have been seen by those ancient Jews as a model for the Jews' battles with hostile anti-Israelite forces, the battles being spiritual or political/military/literal.

Even literal objects in the Old Testament could have spiritual meanings, like the physical objects used to build and serve in the Temple. The altar was not just a physical stone or set of stones, but rather a place where Israel was to perform atonement or other sacred rituals that had spiritual significance. As such, the altar took on spiritual meaning as an instrument used in the spiritual process. The altar was supposed to be made of uncut rock, perhaps to show it as a spiritually pure or unblemished object, just as the Yom Kippur goats were to be unblemished. The altar was part of a figure or model of man's offering of a pure sacrifice to God.

[rakovsky]

Apr 18, 2019 22:54:17 GMT -5 Dave said:

Apr 18, 2019 11:47:28 GMT -5 rakovsky said:

the text's opening passage goes: "When he (Jesus) had said these things, he (Peter) came to himself." (Bullard's translation)

Luttikhiuizen notes about this statement:

"The Archons cast a trance over Adam which caused him to be sleepy, but it was his perception they dulled ... They make our hearts heavy that we may not pay attention and may not see. So we loose the reflection of the Divine Light within us ... The Archons burden the soul, attracting us to works of evil, and pull us down into oblivion, make us forget who we are. (The Apocrypha of John II 22: 14-10, though 27-20.)" (metahistory.org/Gnostic Catechism)

Very good explanation by you, Dave!
The phrase "to come to oneself" in modern speech can mean that a person woke up and gained consciousness. But in Apocryphon of John II, the writer doesn't mean that we have amnesia literally like a doctor seeing a patient, but rather is talking about how we forgot our nature as we really are, which goes along with our real place in the true order of reality. It is talking about forgetting who we are spiritually. So remembering who we are would mean remembering our true nature as reflected in Gnostic teachings. Dulling Adam's perception and making our hearts heavy so that we may not see doesn't refer to literally a situation like a patient seeing a doctor for physical eye trouble, but rather "seeing" in terms of understanding. 

So Peter coming to himself probably doesn't simply refer to a normal medical condition of a person regaining physical consciousness in the colloquial sense of "coming to oneself", but also in like of what you quoted would suggest that he came to who he really was in a spiritual sense.

This spiritual interpretation would also make sense in the context of how in Gnostic teachings, a person can learn something to rise to a higher spiritual order. So in the story's context, Peter learned things from Jesus and then came to his true spiritual self. The story ends with Peter coming to himself as a result of the teachings.

Finally, if we can look at the concept of Peter coming to himself as not teaching literally that there were two fully separate Peters, so that we should not interpret this phrase in some rigid literal, divisive sense, then we can also extrapolate from this that the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter doesn't mean that there are literally two literally separate, fully divided Jesuses with two separate souls or inner beings.

[rakovsky]

You can read the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter here: gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

For Question 1 (dating), let's consider reasons for dating the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
1) The reference to Hermas could be to the Shepherd of Hermas because it may be criticizing the Shepherd of Hermas as a forgery made in the name of Hermas who was dead at the time of the 1st century Hermas. The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter says that the Christians would "create an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones." The Muratorian Fragment says "but" the Shepherd of Hermas was "very recent", by Hermas the brother of Pius I under the latter's papacy of 140-155 AD. Some scholars think that the Shepherd of Hermas was forged to make itself look like it was from the 1st century under Clement's Papacy (88-99 AD) because of the reference to one "Clement" sending epistles to churches. In that case, if the text was considered by the author of the Gnostic Apo. Peter to have been made in 140-155 to make itself look like a 1st century text, then the Gn. Apocalypse of Peter would have been written after 140 AD. Regardless of whether the text is criticizing Hermas' work as being a forgery, it's still apparently referring to Hermas' work that is likely dated to 140-155 AD.
2) The Gnostic Apo. Peter would tend to be based conceptually (as an apocalypse of Peter) on the widespread, orthodox "Apocalypse of Peter", because Marcion rewrote orthodox texts into Gnostic versions. It's also more likely that the Gnostics, as an offshoot of orthodox Christian community, would create Gnostic texts based on orthodox ones with widespread acceptance rather than the other way around. Domitian ruled in 81 to 96 AD, and the Early Writings website's entry on the orthodox Apocalypse of Peter says that DeSilva notes "most scholars... suggest that the book was written during the last years of Domitian's reign." This would imply that the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter was written likely after 90 AD.
3) According to J. Warner Wallace, "The surviving text is a 4th century manuscript written in the Coptic language" (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-peter/), referring to the Nag Hammadi discovery, so it was likely written in the 4th century or earlier.
4) Henrietta Havelaar notes in her book The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter: Nag-Hammadi-Codex VII,3: "in the leather cover of Codex VII some paper scraps, used to strengthen the cover, were found on which the dates 333, 341, 346 and 348 are written." Thus, the work was likely composed before those dates, since it's in Codex VII.
5) Andrea Molinari writes that T.V. Smith theorizes that Gnostic Apo. Peter

"is related to other Petrine traditions and pseudo-Petrine writings." He singles out particularly the Gospel of Peter which he understands as having been written by a Jewish-Christian "predecessor of the Gnostic group behind [Gnostic] Apoc. Pet."

It makes sense that the Gnostics might make a Gospel of Peter before forging a Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, since thematically gospels Precede Apocalypses. But since the time when the Gospel of Peter is uncertain, ranging from the mid-1st century until Bp. Serapion of Antioch mentioned it in his letter of 190–203 AD, this doesn't provide much certainty about a beginning potential date. 



Further, there are reasons that I don't find persuasive for the dating:
1) Werner argues that "Apoc. Pet. presupposes and criticizes the structures of a Great Church in process of consolidation" and sees this as evidence that it was written at the end of the 2nd century or later, but this to me doesn't give a clear starting date, because even in the mid-1st century in the Book of Acts, Peter was in dispute with Simon Magus, a Samaritan Gnostic, and then in the late 1st century, John was in conflict with the Gnostic Cerinthus.
2) Werner suggests that it is arguing "against the possibility of repentance advocated in the Shepherd of Hermas". But I wasn't able to find anything in the Gnostic Apo. Peter referring to this teaching of the Shepherd of Hermas. Andrea Molinari doesn't accept this interpretation of the Gnostic Apocalypse. She writes:

It is perfectly clear to me from 78.8-11, as it was to Brashler, that the author does accept the idea of post-baptismal forgiveness of sin - 'And I have forgiveness of their transgressions into which they fell because of the adversaries'!

She notes that Brashler sees the argument that the Apocalypse opposes a second repentance as based on a mistranslation of the text. Brashler thinks the term in question should be "imitation remnant" instead of "additional imitation." She is referring to the statement in the Apocalypse of Peter that runs:

And they will propagate harsh fate. The race of immortal souls will go in it in vain, until my Parousia. For they shall come out of them - and my forgiveness of their transgressions, into which they fell through their adversaries, whose ransom I got from the slavery in which they were, to give them freedom that they may create an imitation remnant [or "further imitation"] in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones.

I took the phrase to refer to the Shepherd of Hermas being an "imitation" or forgery that is in the name of a dead man, Hermas. But maybe it refers to a religious community, because of how the terms remnant and imitation are used in the beginning of the Apocalypse of Peter:

But you yourself, Peter, become perfect in accordance with your name with myself, the one who chose you, because from you I have established a base for the remnant whom I have summoned to knowledge. Therefore be strong until the imitation of righteousness - of him who had summoned you, having summoned you to know him in a way which is worth doing because of the rejection which happened to him, and the sinews of his hands and his feet, and the crowning by those of the middle region, and the body of his radiance which they bring in hope of service because of a reward of honor - as he was about to reprove you three times in this night."

3) Havelaar says that since it uses Matthew 16:18-19 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...") on the topic of episcopal authority, as does Tertullian in De Pudicitia, then it was likely written after De Pudicitia, which was in the early 3rd century. But this is not really dispositive, Havelaar acknowledges, because Tertullian could have gotten the idea about using Matthew 16:18-19 from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. I think that Tertullian could have gotten the idea for using Matthew 16 this way even from Matthew 16 itself or from some other text or source (like a preacher) than this Gnostic Apocalypse.

This is basically all there is to go on for Question 1. It must have been written between the mid-1st century and the mid-4th century, and certainly after 140 AD because it is criticizing Hermas and identifying him as a "dead man". I think that it's pretty unlikely that this would be referring to him as a dead man while he was still alive. OK, it could mean "spiritually dead", but it's apparently referring to the Shepherd of Hermas that was probably written in the mid-second century when the 1st century Hermas would have been dead.