The disputed early fragments of the so-called Gospel of Peter -: Once again

This article reiterates the argument that contrary to previous proposals five pieces of texttual or artefactural evidence (P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy. 4009. P. Vindob. G 2325. Ostracon [van Haelst Nr. 741], and P. Egerton 2) cannot be identified with any certainty as early fragments of the Gospel of Peter or, as in the case of the ostracon, as offering testimony to the existence of that text. Furthermore, this discussion also responds to the personal attack made in this journal by Prof. Luhrmann who took exception with my arguments that the basis for identifying the fragments as witnesses to the Gospel of Peter was extremely slender and flimsy. Finally, the discussion states categorically, in opposition to Prof. Luhrmann's assertion, that I have worked directly with the Oxyrhynchus fragments.