VIII
We now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian document—its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.
The fragment commences, “but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.[79] (2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them: ‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’ ” It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by “Herod the King” “to take the Lord” evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading [pg 048] part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising “that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,” and sending him to Herod, “who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.” The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the matter. When, according to our fragment, “Pilate rose,” he seems to have passed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.
At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits. The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in [pg 049] writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying “Not this man, but Barabbas.” There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.
According to the four canonical Gospels,[80] the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is “When even was come” that he goes to [pg 050] Pilate; in Mark it is “When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44): “And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph.” In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.): “A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.” It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (v. 54): “And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,”—which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38): “After these things [the crurifragium and piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.” In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial. “Pilate rose,” and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3. “But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate[81] and of the Lord, and knowing that they [pg 051] are about to crucify (σταυρίσκειν) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said: ‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.’ ” It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii. 50-51), that Joseph was “a councillor” who had “not consented to their counsel and deed,” which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though analogous, tradition.
If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics: “He went in unto Pilate [and] asked for the [pg 052] body of Jesus” (προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,[82] Matthew and Luke; εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Mark). In Peter we have: “He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord” (ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that σταυρίσκειν, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that ταφή only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.
The fragment continues:
And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said: “Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the Son of God as we have power over him.” 7. And they clad him with purple (πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον) and set him on a seat of judgment (καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying: “Judge justly (δικαίως κρῖνε), King of Israel.” 8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying: “With this honour honour we the Son of God.”
Before proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn[83] and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are, “he delivered him to the people” (παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this: “but Jesus he delivered up to their will” (τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.): “Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him.” It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains: “The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus,” &c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2. “And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them: ‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’ ” Who are indicated by [pg 054] the pronoun “them”?[84] Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph, “knowing that they are about to crucify him,” came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod “with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him,” and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.
It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion “before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,” that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he [pg 055] associate with that the circumstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.[85]
The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the clothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring whilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case. The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified. He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.): “Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?” After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.): “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and [pg 056] mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.” In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.): “And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.” The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.): “And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him.” Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other. The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.): “And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.” This passes, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11): “And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.” In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus [pg 057] is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2): “And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.” In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said: “And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!” Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares, “I find no crime in him,” is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.
We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the passage of Peter in which it is said that “they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.” Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just [pg 058] quoted: ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, which are compared with the ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words “and set him on the judgment seat,” understanding the verb καθίζειν to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add αὐτὸν to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin: “For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!” The Septuagint has: αἰτεῖτέ με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν ... λέγοντες. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for “seat of judgment” in the fragment, ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, differ entirely from the ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. The analogous “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?” and the “Hail, King of the Jews,” are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the “Judge justly!” is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the “King of Israel” a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that “others pierced him with a reed” is also a variation [pg 059] from the canonical Gospels, which only say, “they took the reed and smote him on the head.” The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced,” but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.
There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17): “They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called ‘The place of a skull.’ ”
Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10. “And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain.” The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38): “Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left.” Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.): “And there were also two others, malefactors, led with [pg 060] him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called ‘The skull,’ there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.” The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.): “They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called ‘The place of a skull,’ which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.” The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.
It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation. “But he kept silence, as feeling no pain.” We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr. Murray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer “gives them an innocent” (that is, not a Docetic) “interpretation.”
Et in his omnibus unigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig. in Mat. 125.[86]
Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said: “And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith [pg 061] Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.” An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9): “And he [Herod] questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.” In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely—and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel—the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?
In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11. “And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon: ‘This is the King of Israel.’ ” We have here a continuation of the indefinite “they,” which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37): “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;” Mark (xv. 26): “The King of the Jews;” Luke (xxiii. 38): “This is the King of the Jews,” and John (xix. 19): “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title “was written in Hebrew, in [pg 062] Latin, and in Greek,” and further gives a conversation between the “chief priests of the Jews” and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put “that he said, I am King of the Jews,” to which Pilate answered briefly, “What I have written, I have written.” With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?[87]
The author of the fragment continues: 12. “And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (λαχμὸν ἔβαλον) for them.” In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said: “And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots” (βάλλοντες κλῆρον); in Mark (xv. 24): “And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον) upon them, what each should take.” In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34): “And parting his garments among them, they cast lots” (ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.): “The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (λάχωμεν) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots” (ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this passage, and now confront it with all the four [pg 063] Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word λαχμός, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb λαγχάνω, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ἔβαλον κλῆρον. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the λαχμός is decisive proof of his independence.
The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13. “But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”
It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.): “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily, [pg 064] I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic. That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.
This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of the crurifragium which is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares: “And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.” Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so remarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be considered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to [pg 065] the malefactor and not to Jesus.[88] In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of αὐτῷ to Jesus “appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context.”[89] Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of the crurifragium as drawn by the caricaturist from the “Motive” of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence: “Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself”![90] Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the αὐτῷ to the malefactor;[91] but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,[92] and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.
Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest [pg 066] light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the passage seems to be “And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment.” However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment. It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not having his legs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to break his legs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now the crurifragium is here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to [pg 067] breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken. Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as the crurifragium had been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.
Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that the crurifragium was applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts the crurifragium. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.): “The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, [pg 068] they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs “of the first,”—and by this description they imply that they begin at one end—and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs “of the first, and of the other,” they come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the passage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.
The fragment proceeds:
15. Now it was mid-day, and a darkness covered all Judaea, and they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst he still lived, for it is written for them: “The sun must not go down upon one put to death.” 16. And one of them said: “Give him to drink gall with vinegar;” and having mixed, they gave him to drink. 17. And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own head. 18. Now many went about with lights, thinking that it was night, and some fell.[93]
The three Synoptics have an account of this darkness in words which nearly repeat each other. Matthew xxvii. 45: “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour.” Mark (xv. 33): “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth (ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour.” In Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) other details are, as usual, added: “And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole earth (ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour, the sun failing [or rather ‘being eclipsed,’ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος].”[94] It is a very extraordinary circumstance that, whether a miraculous eclipse or not, whether this darkness came over the whole land or the whole earth, the fourth Gospel has either not believed in it, or thought it unworthy of mention, for no reference to the astonishing phenomenon is found in it. Peter, in a [pg 070] manner quite different from the Synoptics, and in fuller detail, describes this darkness and its effect upon the people. For the second time, he refers to a portion of the Jewish law, interpreted from Deut. xxi. 23, to illustrate the anxiety which the supposed going down of the sun had excited. This expression does not favour any theory of his being acquainted with the third Synoptic.
The most important part of the passage is that in v. 16: “And one of them said: ‘Give him to drink gall with vinegar;’ and having mixed they gave him to drink.” This proceeding is represented as the result of their anxiety at the sun going down whilst Jesus still lived, and the gall and vinegar are regarded as a potion to hasten death. This view is foreign to all of our Gospels. In Matthew xxvii. 48, when Jesus gives the loud cry, “My God, my God,” &c., we read: “And straightway one of them ran and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.” In Mark (xv. 36) the representation is almost the same. In both of these cases death follows almost immediately. In Luke (xxiii. 36) a very different representation is made. There is no such cry connected with it, but it is simply said: “And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself.” In John the episode has quite another, and purely dogmatic, tendency (xix. 28 ff.). It commences immediately after the episode of the mother and the beloved disciple, and without any previous cry: “After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of vinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon [pg 071] hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” Of course the Scripture which is represented as being thus fulfilled is Psalm lxix. 21: “... and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” In all of these Gospels, the potion is simply vinegar, and being evidently associated with this Psalm, it is in no way connected with any baleful intention. The Psalm, however, commences: “They gave me also gall for my meat,” and in connection with the combination of gall with vinegar in Peter, as a potion to hasten death, it may be mentioned that the word which is in the Psalm translated “gall” may equally well be rendered “poison”—as, indeed, is also the case with the Latin “fel.” Peter, by what is said in v. 17—“And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own head”—is more anxious to show that the Jews had put the final touch to their cruel work, in thus completing the death of Jesus, than to refer to the mere fulfilment of the Psalm. The only Gospel which mentions gall is the first Synoptic, in which it is said (xxvii. 34) that when they had brought Jesus to Golgotha before the crucifixion, “They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall; and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.” This is a very different representation from that of Peter, and the potion was obviously that often offered to persons about to suffer, in order to dull sensation. The passage might almost be represented as Docetic, from the writer's intention to show that Jesus refused to adopt a usual method of diminishing pain. There does not seem to be any warrant for supposing that the author of the fragment derived the passage we are examining from our Gospels, from which it is in all essential points distinct.
The narrative of the fragment continues, v. 19: “And the Lord cried aloud, saying, ‘Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me!’ (ἡ δύναμίς μου, ἡ δύναμις, κατέλειψάς με), and having spoken, he was taken up (ἀνελήφθη).” In this passage there is a very marked departure from the tradition followed by our four Gospels. Before considering the actual words of the cry recorded here, it may be desirable to form a general idea of the representations of the Synoptists and of the author of the fourth Gospel regarding the words spoken from the cross.
It might naturally have been supposed that, in describing the course of so solemn an event as the crucifixion, unusual care, securing unusual agreement, would have been exercised by Christian writers, and that the main facts—and still more the last words—of the great Master would have been collected. As we have already seen, however, in no portion of the history is there greater discrepancy in the accounts in the four Gospels, nor greater contradictions upon every point.
The same is the case with regard to what has still to be examined, and notably in the words and cries from the cross. In the first two Synoptics, with the exception of the inarticulate cry “with a loud voice” (Matt. xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37) when yielding up his spirit, the only utterance recorded is one resembling that in Peter (Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34): “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”[95] (ἠλωί ἠλωί λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί? τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν; θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες?). It will be observed that here there is a demonstration of great accuracy, in actually giving the original words used and translating them, which is uncommon in the Gospels. It is all the more extraordinary that neither of the other Gospels gives this [pg 073] cry at all, but that they represent Jesus as uttering quite different words. The third Synoptist represents Jesus immediately after the crucifixion as saying (Luke xxiii. 34): “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” The other evangelists do not evince any knowledge of this, and as little of the episode of the penitent thief (xxiii. 39 ff.)—which we have already considered—in which Jesus uses the remarkable words (v. 43): “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” In Luke, further, the inarticulate cry is interpreted (xxiii. 46): “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said this, he gave up the ghost.” Of this the other Synoptists do not say anything. The author of the fourth Gospel has quite a different account to give from any of the Synoptists. He seems to be ignorant of the words which they report, and substitutes others of which they seem to know nothing. The episode of the penitent thief is replaced by the scene between Jesus and his mother and the disciple “whom he loved” (xix. 25 ff.). Not only is this touching episode apparently unknown to the Synoptists, but the proximity of the women to the cross is in direct contradiction to what we find in Matthew and Mark, for in the former (xxvii. 55 f.) it is said that many women, “among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” were “beholding afar off;” and the latter (xv. 40 f.) reports: “And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.” In the fourth Gospel (xix. 28), Jesus is moreover reported to have said “I thirst,” in order “that the Scripture might be accomplished”—a fact which is not recorded in any of the Synoptics—and [pg 074] having received vinegar upon hyssop, “he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” The last words of Jesus, therefore, according to the fourth Gospel, are different from any found in the three Synoptics. The Gospel of Peter differs as completely from the four canonical Gospels as they do from each other, and the whole account of the agony on the cross given in it is quite independent of them.
The only words recorded by Peter as uttered on the cross are those quoted higher up: “Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,” the second “my” being omitted, and the question of the two Synoptics, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” being changed into a declaration by the omission of ἵνα τί (or εἰς τί, Mark). We have already discussed the Docetic nature of this cry, and are now only considering it in relation to our Gospels. It is obvious that the substitution of “Power, my Power” for “My God, my God” introduces quite a different order of ideas, especially followed as it is by the remarkable statement: “He was taken up.” Eusebius tells us that Aquila rendered the words of Psalm xxii. 1—whence the first two Synoptists take their cry—as ἰσχυρέ μου, ἰσχυρέ μου (“My strong one, my strong one”), but that the more exact sense was ἰσχύσ μου, ἰσχύς μου (“My strength, my strength”);[96] but though this is interesting as in some degree connecting the cry with the Psalm, it does not lessen the discrepancy between Peter and the Gospels, or in the least degree favour the theory of acquaintance with them.
The expression used to describe what follows this cry completes the wide separation between them: “And having spoken, he was taken up” (ἀνελήφθη). In the first Synoptic, after his cry (xxvii. 50), “he yielded up the spirit” (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα), whilst the second [pg 075] and third say (Mark xv. 37, Luke xxiii. 46), “he gave up the ghost” ἐξέπνευσεν, and the fourth Gospel reads (xix. 30), “he delivered up the spirit” (παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα). The representation in Peter is understood to be that the divine descended upon the human Christ in the form of the dove at baptism, and immediately ascended to Heaven again at his death. There is not here, however, any declaration of a double Christ, or any denial of the reality of the Christ's body, such as characterised the later Docetae; indeed, the fact that the dead body is still always spoken of as that of “the Lord” seems distinctly to exclude this, as does the whole subsequent narrative. Whatever Docetism there may be in this fragment is of the earliest type, if indeed its doctrines can be clearly traced at all; but undoubtedly when the sect had become pronounced heretics, orthodox Christians detected their subtle influence in much that was in itself very simple and harmless.
The fragment continues (v. 20): “And the same hour the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem was torn in twain” (διεράγη τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς δύο). This expression the “temple of Jerusalem” is one of those which seem to indicate that the Gospel was written away from Palestine, but in this it probably differs little from most of the canonical Gospels. The statement regarding the veil of the temple is almost the same in the first two Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38). “And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο). In Luke (xxiii. 45) the rent is “in the midst” (μέσον), but otherwise the words are the same. The use of διεράγη instead of the ἐσχίσθη of the three Synoptics is characteristic. The fourth Gospel, strange to say, does not record at all this extraordinary phenomenon of the rending in [pg 076] twain of the veil of the temple. There are some further peculiarities which must be pointed out. The third Synoptist sets the rending of the veil before Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost; whilst in Matthew and Mark it is after the cry and giving up the spirit. Moreover, in Matthew, it is associated with an earthquake, and the rending of the rocks and opening of tombs, and the astounding circumstance that many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many: of all of which the other three Gospels make no mention, nor does Peter in this connection.
The narrative in the fragment continues:
21. And then they took out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth; and the whole earth quaked, and great fear came [upon them]. 22. Then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. 23. Now the Jews were glad and gave his body to Joseph, that he might bury it, for he had beheld the good works that he did.[97] 24. And he took the Lord and washed him, and wrapped him in linen, and brought him into his own grave, called “Joseph's Garden.”
This passage is full of independent peculiarities. Although none of the canonical Gospels, except Matthew, says anything of an earthquake, and the first Synoptist associates it with the moment when Jesus “gave up the ghost,” Peter narrates that when the body of the Lord was unloosed from the cross, the moment it was laid on the ground the whole earth quaked beneath the awful burden: a representation almost grander than anything in the four Gospels.
The canonical Gospels do not speak of the nails being [pg 077] taken out, and although Peter states that they were removed from the hands, he does not refer to the feet. The fourth is the only canonical Gospel that speaks of the nails at all, and there it is not in connection with the crucifixion, but the subsequent appearance to the disciples and the incredulity of Thomas (xx. 20, 25, 27). Here also, only the marks in the hands are referred to. The difference of the two representations is so great that there can really be no question of dependence, and those who are so eager to claim the use of the fourth Gospel simply because it is the only one that speaks of “nails” (“the print of the nails”) might perhaps consider that the idea of crucifixion and the cross might well be independently associated with a reference to the nails by which the victim was generally attached. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 39), the inference is inevitable that both hands and feet were supposed to be nailed. When the report, “The Lord is risen,” is brought to the eleven, Jesus is represented as standing in their midst and assuring them that he was not a spirit, by saying: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself”—meaning of course the prints of the nails in both. The statement in Peter that on the occurrence of the earthquake “great fear came [upon them]” (φόβος μέγας ἐγένετο) is not even mentioned in Matthew when he narrates the earthquake, which he represents as occurring when Jesus expired. The expression is characteristic of the author, who uses it elsewhere.
The representation that the sun shone out and that the Jews were glad when they found it was the ninth hour, and that consequently their law, twice quoted by the author, would not be broken, is limited to the fragment; as is also the statement that they gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, “for he had beheld the good works that he did.” As we have already seen, [pg 078] the canonical Gospels represent Joseph as going to Pilate at this time and begging for the body of Jesus, and it will be remembered that, in Mark (xv. 44), it is said that “Pilate marvelled if he were already dead,” and called the centurion to ascertain the fact before he granted the body. In Peter, the body was of course given in consequence of the previous order, when Pilate asked Herod for it.
Joseph is represented, here, as only washing the body and wrapping it in linen (λαβὼν δὲ τὸν κύριον ἔλουσε καὶ εἴλησε σινδόνι). The first Synoptist (xxvii. 59) says that Joseph took the body and “wrapped it in a clean linen cloth” (ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι καθαρᾷ). Mark similarly describes that (xv. 46), bringing “a linen cloth and taking him down, he wound him in the linen cloth” (καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι). The third Synoptist has nearly the same statement and words. The fourth Gospel has a much more elaborate account to give (xix. 38 ff.). Joseph goes to Pilate asking that he may take away the body, and Pilate gives him leave. He comes and takes away the body. “And there came also Nicodemus ... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes (καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις) with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.” This account is quite different from that in the Synoptics, and equally so from Peter's, which approximates much more nearly to that in the latter.
Peter says that Joseph then “brought him into his own grave, called ‘Joseph's Garden’ ” (εἰσήγαγεν εἰς ἴδιον τάφον καλούμενον Κῆπον Ἰωσήφ). The account of the tomb is much more minute in the canonical Gospels. In Matthew (xxvii. 60), Joseph is said to lay the body “in his own new tomb (μνημείῳ), which he had hewn out [pg 079] in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb (μνημείου) and departed.” In Mark (xv. 46), he lays him “in a tomb (μνήματι) which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (μνημείου). Luke has a new detail to chronicle (xxiii. 53): Joseph lays him “in a tomb (μνηματί) that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain.” The first two Synopists, it will be observed, say that Joseph rolls a stone against the entrance to the tomb: but neither Luke nor Peter has this detail, though the former leaves it to be inferred that it had been done, for (xxiv. 2) the women who came on the first day of the week find the stone rolled away from the tomb. In Peter, on the contrary, the stone is rolled against the tomb by the guard and others later, as we shall presently see.
In the fourth Gospel, the account has further and different details, agreeing, however, with the peculiar statement of Luke (xix. 41 f.): “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden (κῆπος), and in the garden a new tomb (μνημεῖον) wherein was never man yet laid. There then, because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb [μνημεῖον] was nigh at hand), they laid Jesus.” Some stress has been laid upon the point that both Peter and the fourth Gospel use the word “garden,” and that none of the Synoptics have it, and as these critics seem to go upon the principle that any statement in Peter which happens to be in any canonical Gospel, even although widely different in treatment, must have been derived from that Gospel, and not from any similar written or traditional source, from which that Gospel derived it, they argue that this shows dependence on the fourth Gospel. There is certainly no evidence of dependence here. In Peter, the grave (τάφος) is simply [pg 080] said to be called “Joseph's Garden” (Κήπον Ἰωσηφ),[98] and described as “his own grave.” The fourth Gospel does not identify the garden as Joseph's at all, but says that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden,” and in it “a tomb” (μνημεῖον), and the reason given for taking the body thither is not that it belonged to Joseph, but that the tomb “was nigh at hand,” and that on account of the Jews' Preparation they laid it there. The whole explanation seems to exclude the idea that the writer knew that it belonged to Joseph. Peter simply contributes a new detail to the common tradition. There is no appearance of his deriving this from our canonical Gospels, from which he differs in substance and in language. Neither Peter nor the Synoptics know anything of the co-operation of Nicodemus.
The narrative in the fragment continues:
25. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, seeing the evil they had done to themselves, began to beat their breasts (ἤρξαντο κόπτεσθαι) and to say: “Woe for our sins; judgment draweth nigh and the end of Jerusalem.”
We have already discussed this passage in connection with the “Diatessaron,” and have now only to consider it as compared with our Gospels. There is no equivalent in any of them, except that the third Synoptist (xxiii. 48) says that when Jesus gave up the ghost: “All the multitude that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts (τύπτοντες τὰ στήθη ὑπέστρεφον).” The reason for this change of mood is, of course, the eclipse and consequent darkness in the third Synoptic, and the earthquake and darkness in Peter; but in the former “all the multitude” smite their breasts, and in the latter [pg 081] “the Jews and the elders and the priests.” It may be suggested whether the words inserted in the ancient Latin Codex of St. Germain, “Vae nobis, quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, appropinquavit enim desolatio Hierusalem,”[99] may not have been taken from our Gospel of Peter, for an expansion of the original text of the third Synoptic, by the author of this version.
The common reference of the fragment is to “the Jews,” “the Jews and the elders and the priests,” “the scribes and Pharisees and elders,” and “the elders and scribes.” Throughout the same part of the narrative in Matthew, we have “the scribes and elders,” “chief priests and elders of the people” (this, most frequently), “chief priests with the scribes and elders,” and in speaking of the guard at the sepulchre, “the chief priests and the Pharisees.” In Mark, the same leaders are named, whilst in Luke we have “the chief priests and captains of the Temple and elders,” “the elders of the people and both the chief priests and scribes,” and, repeatedly, the “chief priests and rulers.” The fourth Gospel usually cites “the chief priests and Pharisees,” “chief captains and officers of the Jews,” “the Jews,” and “the chief priests of the Jews.” There is more analogy, in this respect, between the fragment and the fourth Gospel than between it and the Synoptics.
We come now to an important and characteristic part of the fragment:
26. And I, with my companions, was mourning, and being pierced in spirit we hid ourselves; for we were sought for by them as malefactors, and as desiring to burn the temple. 27. Over all these things, however, we were fasting, and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.
There is no parallel to this passage in our Gospels, but in the statement that the Apostles had hidden themselves [pg 082] (and—taken in connection with v. 59, where the same fact is again mentioned—this means all the twelve) we have here agreement with the narrative of the first and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 56; Mark xix. 50), that on the arrest of Jesus “all the disciples left him and fled.” This passage seems to exclude the incident of the sword and Malchus which, as Hilgenfeld points out,[100] is also excluded by a passage in Justin; the denial of Peter, which Justin equally passes over unmentioned; and the episode of the “beloved disciple” by the cross. The reason given for hiding themselves, that they were accused of wishing to burn the temple, has some connection with the tradition, that testimony had been given against Jesus that he had said he could destroy this temple and build it in three days (Matt. xxvi. 60; Mark xiv. 58).[101] The passage is one of those in which the writer speaks in the first person and represents himself as an Apostle, which he still more clearly does, v. 60, where he distinctly calls himself Simon Peter.
The account that the Apostles were fasting and sat mourning and weeping “night and day until the Sabbath” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἕως τοῦ σαββάτου) opens out an interesting problem. As a rule, the Greek expression would be ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, so if we are to take the words actually used as deliberately intended to represent the time, we should have to count at least one night and one day between the death of Jesus and the Sabbath, or in other words, that the crucifixion took place, not on Friday, but upon Thursday, which, according to the statement in v. 5, would really be the [pg 083] 13th Nisan. A great deal might be said in support of this view,[102] but it need not be entered into here. It is probable that, as Harnack suggests,[103] the author really thinks of the whole time from the Thursday night, when the arrest was made.
With the next portion of the fragment the narrative of the resurrection may be said to begin:
28. But the scribes and Pharisees and elders assembled themselves together (συναχθέντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους), hearing that all the people murmured and beat their breasts, saying, “If at his death these great signs have happened, behold how just a one he is.” 29. The elders were afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν) and came to Pilate (ἦλθον πρὸς Πειλᾶτον) beseeching him and saying, 30. “Give us soldiers that we may watch his grave for three days (ἵνα φυλάξωμεν τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας), lest his disciples come and steal him, and the people believe that he rose from the dead and do us evil” (μήποτε ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κλέψωσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπολάβῃ ὁ λαὸς ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη, καὶ ποιήσωσιν ἡμῖν κακά). 31. Pilate, therefore, gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb (μετὰ στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν τὸν τάφον), and with them came the elders and scribes to the grave (τὸ μνῆμα). 32. And they rolled a great stone (κυλίσαντες λίθον μέγαν) against the centurion and the soldiers, and set it, all who were there together, at the door of the grave (μνήματος). 33. And they put seven seals (καὶ ἐπέχρισαν ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας), and setting up a tent there they kept guard (ἐφύλαξαν). 34. And in the morning, at the dawn of the Sabbath, came a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood in order that they might see the sealed-up grave (τὸ μνημεῖον ἐσφραγισμένον).
There is no parallel to this narrative in any of our canonical Gospels except the first Synoptic, which alone mentions the circumstance that a watch was set over the sepulchre, a fact of which the other Gospels seem quite ignorant, and states that application was made to Pilate for a guard for that purpose. The account in Matthew is as follows (xxvii. 62 f.):
Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together (συνήχθησαν) [pg 084]unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He rose from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first (ἀσφαλισθῆναι τὸν τάφον ἕως τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας; μήποτε ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ κλέψωσιν αὐτὸν, καὶ εἴπωσιν τῷ λαῷ, Ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν; καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη χείρων τῆς πρώτης). Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure (ἠσφαλίσαντο τὸν τάφον), sealing the stone (σφραγίσαντες τὸν λίθον), the guard being with them (μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίας).
The fact that only one of the four canonical Gospels has any reference to this episode, or betrays the slightest knowledge of any precautions taken to guard the tomb, is remarkable. The analogies in the narrative in Peter with the general account, and the similarity of the language in certain parts, together with the wide variation in details and language generally, point to the conclusion that both writers derive the episode from a similar source, but independently of each other. The casual agreement with continuous dissimilarity of statement and style, are evidence of the separate treatment of a common tradition, and put the fragment upon a very different footing from the Synoptics in relation to each other. The absence of verisimilitude is pretty nearly equal in both Gospels, but these traditions grew up, and were unconsciously rounded by the contributions of pious imagination.
In the fragment it is “the scribes and Pharisees and elders” (οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι) who meet together, but only the “elders” go to Pilate; in the Synoptic, “the chief Priests and the Pharisees” (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) meet and go to Pilate. Pilate gives them “Petronius the centurion with soldiers” to watch the tomb; in Matthew, he gives them “a guard,” bidding them make it sure; so they go and seal [pg 085] the stone, the guard being with them. In Peter, the “elders and scribes” go to the grave, and themselves with the soldiers, “all who were there together,” roll a great stone and set it at the door of the grave. Doubtless this trait is intended to convey an impression of the great size of the stone. A curious peculiarity occurs in the statement, “they roll the stone against the centurion and the soldiers,” the intention of the words probably being that, in their suspicious mood, they thus protected themselves from possible fraud on the part even of the soldiers.[104] The motive for the application to Pilate, in the fragment, is fear on the part of the elders, in consequence of the murmuring and lamentation of the people, who are represented as being convinced by the great signs occurring at the death of Jesus “how just a one” he was. This is quite a variation from the Synoptic version, but both agree in the explanation given to Pilate of anxiety lest the disciples should steal the body, and say that Jesus had risen from the dead. In Matthew, they simply “seal the stone,” but in the fragment they put or smear (ἐπέχρισαν) “seven seals” upon it. Some important peculiarities then occur in the narrative of Peter. They set up a tent beside the tomb and keep guard, and in the morning a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood come out to see the sealed-up grave. There is nothing corresponding to this in the Synoptic Gospel.
The narrative proceeds:
35. Now, in the night before the dawn of the Lord's day (ἡ κυριακή), whilst the soldiers were keeping guard over the place, two and two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven. 36. And they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from thence with great light and approach the tomb. 37. But the stone which had been laid at the door rolled of itself away by the side, and the tomb was opened and both the young men entered.
Here commences an account of the resurrection very different in every respect from that in our canonical Gospels, and the treatment of a tradition in some points necessarily common to all is evidently independent. In Matthew, the scene commences with an earthquake—earthquakes are, indeed, peculiar to the first Synoptist—(xxviii. 2 f.): “And behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the watchers did quake and become as dead men.” Here only one angel comes down, whilst in Peter there are two men, whom some critics—amongst whom may be mentioned Nestle, with whom Harnack is inclined to agree, more especially as they are never called angels, but merely “two men”—identify as Moses and Elias. The angel rolls away the stone, which in Peter rolls away of itself, and sits upon it, whilst in Peter the two men enter into the tomb. No account is given in Mark of the opening of the tomb, the women simply finding the stone rolled away, and a young man (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side arrayed in a white robe (xvi. 4 f.); the author does not mention any earthquake. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 2 f.), the women also find the stone already rolled away from the tomb; there is no earthquake. When the women enter the tomb they do not find “the body of the Lord Jesus,” but while they are perplexed two men stand by them in dazzling apparel. In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12 f.), Mary, coming to the sepulchre, sees two angels in white sitting—the one at the head, the other at the foot—where the body of Jesus had lain. Thus, to sum up, in Matthew there is one angel, in Mark one young man, in Luke two [pg 087] men, in the fourth Gospel two angels, and in Peter two men descend from heaven to the tomb.
Peter goes on:
38. Then these soldiers, seeing this, awakened the centurion and the elders, for they also were keeping watch. 39. And whilst they were narrating to them what they had seen, they beheld again three men coming out of the tomb and the two were supporting the one, and a cross following them. 40. And the heads of the two indeed reached up to the heaven, but that of him that was led by their hands rose above the heavens. 41. And they heard a voice from the heavens saying, “Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?” 42. And an answer was heard from the cross: “Yea.”
Of course there is nothing corresponding to this in the canonical Gospels. In Matthew, the watchers quake and become as dead men, but no such alarm is here described. The elders and soldiers see the two men who had entered the tomb come out leading a third, and the stately appearance of the three is described with Oriental extravagance.[105] Following the three is a cross, a very singular representation, more especially as the cross presently speaks. Harnack says that Duhms, who supposes a Hebraic original, conjectures that the Hebrew word, which could as well stand for “crucified” as “cross,” was misunderstood by the translator, and he adds that, if the original was Aramaic, the matter becomes still simpler. However, Harnack does not seem disposed to adopt the suggestion.[106] It is well known that in very early works the cross was identified with the crucified, and treated both as a type and as having a certain personality—the living and eloquent symbol of victory over death.[107]
The words of the voice from the heavens are: “ ‘Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?’ and an answer was heard from the cross: ‘Yea’ ” (Ἐκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις? καὶ ὑπακοὴ ἠκούετο ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ὅτι Ναί). This is generally understood as a reference to the “descent into hell,” which was early accepted as a dogma by the Church and has a place in the Creed, although its only clear mention in the New Testament occurs in 1 Peter iii. 18 f.: “Because Christ ... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also he went and preached (ἐκήρυξεν) unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient;” and (iv. 6): “For unto this end was the Gospel spoken unto the dead.” It is a curious fact that the “Gospel according to Peter,” the fragment of which is first discovered in a little volume along with a fragment of the “Apocalypse of Peter,” should thus contain a reference to a doctrine, the only allusion to which in any of the canonical writings is contained in a so-called “Epistle of Peter.” Hilgenfeld wishes to read κοινωμένοις instead of κοιμωμένοις, and disputes the rendering of ὑπακοή as “answer,” although he admits that there is some support to this as a liturgical response.[108] He would render this passage: “Du verkündigtest den Profanirten und einem Gehorsam.[109] Von dem Kreuze her erschallt: Ja.” He argues that there can be no question here of a descent into hell by one coming out of the grave who cannot even hold himself upright, but must be led; that, however much the inanimate body of Jesus may still be called “the Lord,” his “Self” is already in death ascended to heaven; the selfless (selbstlose) body cannot possibly in the meantime [pg 089] have gone into Hades.[110] In this conclusion, however, he is at variance with almost all critics, who generally take the view rendered above.[111]
The passage which we have quoted from Matthew (xxvii. 52 f.) must be recalled, in which the first Synoptic alone of the four canonical Gospels has an account of astonishing events said to have occurred at the death of Jesus: an earthquake which rent the rocks and opened the tombs, “and many bodies of the saints that were sleeping (κεκοιμημένων) were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.” This resurrection of the saints “that were sleeping” is associated by Eusebius with the descent into hell,[112] and it is not improbable that the first Synoptist had it in his mind. It is not necessary to point out many early references to the descent into hell,[113] but an interesting passage may be quoted from Justin. He accuses the Jews of omitting from the prophecy of Jeremiah in their copies of the Septuagint the following verse: “The Lord God, the Holy one of Israel, remembered his dead who lay sleeping (κεκοιμημένων) in the earth, and descended to them to bring to them the good news of his salvation.”[114] It is not known that the passage ever really existed in Jeremiah but, notwithstanding, Irenaeus quotes it no less than five times.[115]
The writer does not explain the representation of [pg 090] the three who came out of the tomb, two of whom were “supporting,” or, as is subsequently said, leading him, or conducting him, but this figure, more stately than the others, of course, is intended to be recognised as Jesus. Too much has been said as to the weakness supposed to be here described, and Zahn, who as much as possible ridicules the whole contents of the fragment, says that “the raised Lazarus, in comparison with him, is a hero in strength and life.” But is the intention here to depict weakness? No word is used which really demands that interpretation. As Dr. Swete rightly points out, “the support appears to be regarded as nominal only, since He is also said to be ‘conducted’ (χειραγωγουμένον)” (p. 18). It is true that χειραγωγεῖν is twice used in Acts (ix. 8, xxii. 11) to express Paul's helplessness when led by the hand after his vision on the way to Damascus, but it does not in itself imply weakness, and no other hint of feebleness is given in the fragment. The “touch me not” of the fourth Gospel, when Mary Magdalene stretches out her hand to Jesus, is quite as much a mark of weakness as this. It may not unfairly, on the other hand, be interpreted as a mark of honour, and nothing in Peter forbids this reading. If weakness were indicated, it might be taken as a Docetic representation of the condition of the human body, deprived of the divine Christ, who had ascended from the cross.
The continuation of the narrative in Peter is as different from that of our canonical Gospels as its commencement:
43. These, therefore, took counsel together whether they should go and declare these things to Pilate. 44. And whilst they were still considering, the heavens again appeared opened, and a certain man descending and going into the grave. 45. Seeing these things, the centurion and his men hastened to Pilate by night, leaving the tomb they were watching, and narrated all things they had seen, fearing [pg 091]greatly, and saying: “Truly he was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ). 46. Pilate answered and said, “I am pure of the blood of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you” (ἐγὼ καθαρεύω τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμῖν δὲ τοῦτο ἔδοξεν). 47. Then they all came to him beseeching and entreating him that he should command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of what they had seen, 48. “For it is better,” they said, “to lay upon us the greatest sins before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned.” 49. Pilate, therefore, commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
As the first Synoptic is the only Gospel which relates the story of the application to Pilate for a guard and the watch at the sepulchre, so of course it is the only one which gives the sequel to that episode; but this differs in every respect from the account in Peter. It is as follows (xxviii. 11 f.):
Some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.
When the centurion and soldiers in Peter go to Pilate after witnessing the events described as occurring at the resurrection, “fearing greatly” (ἀγωνιῶντες μεγάλως), they say, “Truly he was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ). It will be remembered that, in the first Synoptic, when the centurion and they that were watching Jesus saw the earthquake and the things that were done when he expired, they “feared exceedingly” (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα), and said, “Truly this was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος). The tradition of the astonished centurion bearing such testimony to Jesus is known to both writers, but under different circumstances, and independently treated. In [pg 092] similar fashion, the reply put into the mouth of Pilate in Peter, “I am pure of the blood (ἐγὼ καθαρεύω τοῦ αἵματος) of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you,” is, to a certain extent, the same as Pilate's declaration to the multitude after washing his hands (xxvii. 24 f.): “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man (ἀθῶός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ δικαίου τούτου): see ye to it;” but in this case, as well as the other, the details and the language show an independent use of a similar source. In the Synoptic, the centurion and soldiers do not go to Pilate at all, but are bribed by the chief priests and elders to say that his disciples stole him by night when they slept. They are warned by Pilate to be altogether silent, in Peter. As the desire of the author is represented to be to remove responsibility from Pilate and throw it all upon the Jews, it is difficult to conceive that, if he had this account before him, he could deliberately have left it unused, and preferred his own account.
We now come to the visit of the women to the sepulchre:
50. In the morning of the Lord's day, Mary Magdalene, a disciple of the Lord (through fear of the Jews, for they burnt with anger, she had not done at the grave of the Lord that which women are accustomed to do for those that die and are loved by them), 51. took her women friends with her and came to the grave where he was laid. 52. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and said: “If we could not on that day on which he was crucified weep and lament, let us do these things even now at his grave. 53. But who will roll away the stone that is laid at the door of his grave (τίς δὲ ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν λίθον τὸν τεθέντα ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου) in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him and do the things that are due? 54. For great was the stone (μέγας γὰρ ἦν ὁ λίθος), and we fear lest some one should see us. And if we should not be able to do it, let us at least lay down before the door that which we bring in his memory, and let us weep and lament till we come to our home.” 55. And they went and found the tomb opened and, coming near, they stooped down and see there a certain [pg 093]young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment (καὶ προσελθοῦσαι παρέκυψαν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁρῶσιν ἐκεῖ τινα νεανίσκον καθεζόμενον μέσῳ τοῦ τάφου, ὡραῖον καὶ περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λαμπροτάτην), who said to them: 56. “Why are ye come? Whom seek ye? Him who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if ye do not believe, stoop down and see the place where he lay, that he is not there; for he is risen and gone away whence he was sent” (τί ἤλθατε? τίνα ζητεῖτε? μὴ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐκεῖνον? ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν; εἰ δὲ μὴ πιστεύετε, παρακύψατε καὶ ἴδατε τὸν τόπον ἔνθα ἔκειτο, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν; ἀνέστη γὰρ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖ ὅθεναρυ ἀπεστάλη). Then the women, frightened, fled.
We need not remark that in all essential points the account given here is different from that in our Gospels.
In each of the three Synoptics, it is said that the women saw where Jesus was laid, and the first two name Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus (Mark “the other Mary”), Matt. xxvii. 61, Mark xv. 47, Luke xxiii. 55. All four canonical Gospels relate their coming to the sepulchre: Matthew (xxviii. 1), “late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;” Mark (xvi. 1), “when the Sabbath was past;” Luke (xxiv. 1), “on the first day of the week at early dawn;” but only the second and third state that they bring spices to anoint Jesus; in Matthew the purpose stated being merely “to see the sepulchre.” In the fourth Gospel, only Mary Magdalene comes, and no reason is assigned. In Peter, Mary Magdalene only is named, but she takes her women friends, and though spices are not directly named, they are distinctly implied, and the object of the visit to the tomb, admirably described as “that which women are accustomed to do for those who die and are loved by them,” which they had not been able to do on the day of the crucifixion, through fear of the Jews. Even now the same fear is upon them; but nothing is said of it in the four Gospels.
The only part of the words put into their mouths by the author which at all corresponds with anything in the canonical narratives is that regarding the opening of the sepulchre. “But who will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave?” (τίς δὲ ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν λίθον τὸν τεθέντα, ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου?). In Matthew, an angel had rolled away the stone, but in Mark the women are represented as asking the same question among themselves (xvi. 3), “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the grave?” (τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου?) practically in the same words. To appreciate the relative importance of the similarity in this detail it should be remembered that the same words are used with slight grammatical changes in the other two Synoptics: Matt. xxviii. 2, the angel “rolled away the stone” (ἀπεκύλισε τὸν λίθον); and Luke xxiv. 2, they found “the stone rolled away from the grave” (τὸν λίθον ἀποκεκυλισμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου). The privilege of using a similar source of tradition must also be accorded to the author of the fragment.
The women in Peter, after a few more words explanatory of their purpose in going to the sepulchre, use an expression to which so much importance has been attached by Zahn that, to render it intelligible, it must be connected with the context just discussed. “But who will roll away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave, in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him, and do the things that are due? For great was the stone (μέγας γὰρ ἦν ὁ λίθος), and we fear lest some one should see us.” Now in the second Synoptic (xvi. 4) we read that the women, looking up, “see that the stone (λίθος) is rolled back; for it was exceeding great” (ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα). Zahn says: “Just as certainly can the dependence of the Gospel of [pg 095] Peter on Mark be proved. A proof scarcely to be refuted lies even in the one little word ἦν, which is mechanically taken from Mark xvi. 3.”[116] To one so willing to be convinced, what might not be proved by many little words in the canonical Gospels? It must be remembered that none of our Synoptics sprang full-fledged from the original tradition, but, as is recognised by every critic competent to form an opinion, is based on previous works and records of tradition, which gradually grew into this more complete form. Any one who wishes to realise this should examine Rushbrooke's “Synopticon,” which, at a glance, will show the matter and the language common to our first three Gospels, and leave little doubt as to the common origin of these works. It may be useful towards a proper understanding of the problem before us if we give a single illustration of the construction of the Synoptics taken from the very part of the narrative at which we have arrived. We shall arrange it in parallel columns for facility of comparison.
| Matthew xxvii. | Mark xv. | Luke xxiii. |
| 55. And many women were there beholding from afar, which had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56. among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. | 40. And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41. who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him.... | 49. And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, seeing these things, xxiv. 10. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other women with them, xxiii. 50. |
| 57. And when even was come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58. this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. | 42. And when even was now come, ... 43. there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God: and he boldly went in unto Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. | 50. And behold a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous, 51. ... of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: 52. this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. |
| 55. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ γυναῖκες πολλαὶ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, αἵτινες ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας διακονοῦσαι αὐτῷ, (56) ἐν αἷς ἦν Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή, καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσὴ μήτηρ, καὶ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου. | 40. Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες ἀπὸ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, ἐν αἷς καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ καὶ Σαλώμη, (41) αἳ ὅτε ἦν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ἠκολούθουν ἀυτῷ καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ, ... | 49. Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ πάντες οἱ γνωστοὶ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, καὶ γυναῖκες αἱ συνακολουθοῦσαι αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ὁρῶσαι ταῦτα. (xxiv. 10) ἦσαν δὲ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία καὶ Ἰωάννα καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς ... |
| 57. Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, τούνομα Ἰωσήφ, ὅς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ; 58. οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. | 42. καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης, ... (43) ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, εὐσχήμων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. | 50. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰωσὴφ βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος, 51. ... ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας πόλεως τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ὃς προσεδέχετο τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 52. οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Ἰησοῦ. |
Or take, for instance, a few verses giving the arrest of Jesus as narrated by the three Synoptists:
| Matthew xxvi. | Mark xiv. | Luke xxii. |
| 47. And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. | 43. And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. | 47. While he yet spake, lo, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; |
| 48. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. | 44. Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, | and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. |
| 49. And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him. | 45. And when he was come, straightway he came to him and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him. | |
| 50. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. | 48. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? | |
| Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took him. | 46. And they laid hands on him and took him. | (54. And they seized him and led him away.) |
| 51. And lo, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. | 47. But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. | 50. And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off right ear. |
| 47. Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθεν, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων ἀπό τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ. | 43. Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξὺλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων. | 47. ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ ὄχλος, καὶ ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα προήρχετο αὐτούς, καὶ |
| 48. ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς σημεῖον λέγων: ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν: κρατήσατε αὐτόν. | 44. δεδώκει δὲ ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν σύσσημον αὐτοῖς λέγων: ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν: κρατήσατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς. | ἤγγισεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ φιλῆσαι αὐτόν. |
| 49. Καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπεν: χαῖρε ῥαββεί, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. | 45. Καἰ ἐλθὼν εὐθὺς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ λέγει: ῥαββεί, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. | |
| 50. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ: ἑταῖρε, ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, τότε προσελθόντες ἐπέβαλον τας χεῖρας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐκράτησαν αὐτόν. | 46. οἱ δὲ ἐπέβαλαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκράτησαν αὐτὸν. | 48. Ἰησοῦς δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: Ἰούδα, φιλήματι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδως? (54. συλλαβόντες δὲ αὐτὸν ἤγαγον.) |
| 51. Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ, καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. | 47. εἷς δὲ τις τῶν παρεστηκότων σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν ἔπαισεν τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον. | 50. καὶ ἐπάταξεν εἷς τις ἐξ αὐτῶν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τὸν δοῦλον καὶ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ οὖς αὐτοῦ τὸ δεξιόν. |
Such close similarity as this, with occasional astonishing omissions of matter and flagrant contradictions where independent narrative is attempted, runs [pg 098] through the whole of the three Synoptics. This is not the place to enter upon any discussion of these phenomena, or any explanation of the origin of our Gospels, but apologists may be invited to consider the fact before passing judgment on the Gospel of Peter. Any coincidence of statement in the narrative of the fragment with any one of the four Gospels is promptly declared to be decisive evidence of dependence on that Gospel; and even the use of a word which has a parallel in them is sufficient reason for denouncing the author as a plagiarist. It would almost seem as if such critics had never read the prologue to the third Synoptic, and forgotten the πολλοί to which its author refers, when they limit the Christian tradition to these Gospels, which again, upon examination, must themselves be limited to two—the Synoptic and the Johannine, which in so great a degree contradict each other.
To return now to the passage which we have to examine. It will be observed that the second Synoptic treats the episode of the women in a manner different from the other two, but in the same style, though with very differing details, as Peter. We shall show reason for believing that both have drawn from the same source, but that the fragment has probably adhered more closely to the original source. In Mark (xvi. 3 f.) the women are, as in Peter, represented as speaking: “And they were saying among themselves, ‘Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?’ ” Here the spoken words stop, and the writer continues to narrate: “And looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back (ἀνακεκύλισται): for it was (ἦν) exceeding great.” It is obvious that the “was” here is quite out of place, and it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that, originally, it must have stood with a different context. That different context we have in Peter. The [pg 099] women say amongst themselves: “Who will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave, in order that we may enter”—and, of course, in saying this they are supposed to have in their minds the stone which they had seen the evening before and, naturally, express their recollection of it in the past tense—“for it was exceeding great.” If the phrase has been mechanically introduced, it has been so by the second Synoptist, in whose text it is more out of place than in Peter. A prescriptive right to early traditions of this kind cannot reasonably be claimed for any writer, simply because his compilation has happened to secure a place in the Canon.
When the women come to the tomb, they stoop down (παρέκυψαν) and see there (ὁρῶσιν ἐκεῖ) a certain young man (τινα νεανίσκον) sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment (ὡραῖον καὶ περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λαμπροτάτην). This is the “certain man” who descended when the heavens were again opened, as described in v. 44. The realistic touch of the women stooping to look into the low entrance of the tomb is repeated when the “young man” bids them “stoop down” (παρακύψατε) and convince themselves that Jesus had risen. This does not occur in any of the Synoptics; but in the fourth Gospel (xx. 5), Peter, it is said, “stooping down” (παρακύψας) sees (βλέπει) the clothes. In Matthew, the angel sits upon the stone which he has rolled away, and not in the sepulchre, and his description is (xxviii. 3): “His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (ἦν δὲ ἡ εἰδέα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀστραπὴ, καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡς χιών). In Mark (xvi. 8), they see a “young man” (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side, and not in the middle, and he is “clad in a white robe” (περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν). In Luke (xxiv. 4), two men (ἄνδρες δύο) stand by the women “in dazzling apparel” (ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ). [pg 100] In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12), Mary sees two angels sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body had lain, but they are simply said to be “in white” (ἐν λευκοῖς).
The “young man” says to the women in Peter: “Why are ye come? (τί ἤλθατε?) Whom seek ye? (τίνα ζητεῖτε?) Him who was crucified? (μὴ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐκεῖνον?) He is risen and gone away (ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν). But if ye do not believe, stoop down, and see the place where he lay (παρακύψατε καὶ ἴδατε τὸν τόπον ἔνθα ἔκείτο), that he is not there, for he is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent (ἀνέστη γὰρ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖ ὅθεν ἀπεστάλη).” In Matthew (xxviii. 5 f.) the angel “answered and said unto the women” (who had not spoken to him, apparently) “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus which hath been crucified (οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ζητεῖτε). He is not here, for he rose (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἠγέρθη γάρ), even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay (δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο). And go quickly, and tell his disciples he rose from the dead (ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν); and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” In Mark (xvi. 6 f.), this “young man” in the tomb says: “Be not amazed; ye seek Jesus the Nazarene which hath been crucified (Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον). He rose (ἠγέρθη); he is not here; behold, the place where they laid him! (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε; ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν). But go tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” The close resemblance of these two accounts in the first and second Gospels is striking, and scarcely less so is the resemblance, with important variations, of the third Synoptic (xxiv. 5 ff.). The “two [pg 101] men in dazzling apparel” say to the women, who stand with their faces bowed down towards the earth: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but he rose (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη).[117] Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” The complete change in the reference to Galilee here will be observed.
The peculiar ending of the words of the “young man” in Peter is nowhere found in our Gospels: “He is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent.” Mr. Robinson compares with this a passage from the 20th Homily of Aphrahat (ed. Wright, p. 385): “And the angel said to Mary, he is risen and gone away to him that sent him.” Mr. Robinson adds: “There is reason to believe that Aphrahat, a Syrian writer, used Tatian's Harmony: and thus we seem to have a second link between our Gospel and that important work.”[118] But is it not rather a curious position in which to place the supposed “Diatessaron,” to argue that a passage which it does not now contain was nevertheless in it because a Syrian writer who is supposed to have used the “Diatessaron” has quoted the passage? It shows how untrustworthy are all arguments regarding early works like the “Diatessaron.” Looking at the other instances which could be pointed out, and to some of which we have referred, we see that everything not agreeing with the Gospels of the Church has been gradually eliminated or corrected into agreement, and that thus the very probable use of the Gospel according to Peter by Tatian may be concealed. As Mr. Robinson further points out, [pg 102] however, the words of the angel in Peter are in direct contradiction to those put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth Gospel (xx. 17): “I am not yet ascended to the Father.”
The conclusion of the whole episode in Peter is the short and comprehensive phrase: “Then the women, frightened, fled” (τότε αἱ γυναῖκες φοβηθεῖσαι ἔφυγον). In Matthew, in obedience to the order of the angel to go and tell his disciples, none of which is given in Peter, it is said (xxviii. 8): “And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy” (καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς μεγάλης), “and ran to bring his disciples word.” In Mark (xvi. 8) it is said: “And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them (καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου; εἶκεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καί ἔκστασις). And they said nothing to anyone: for they were afraid” (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ). The running to bring the disciples word, in the first, and the saying nothing to any one, of the second, Synoptic, is a case of curious contradiction in details. The third Gospel twice over repeats the statement that the women told what they had heard “to the eleven and to all the rest” (xxiv. 9, 10), but says nothing of the emotions excited by the interview, except the double statement (xxiv. 8), “And they remembered his words,” and, 11, “And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them.”
In the first Synoptic, however (xxviii. 9 f.), as the women go, the risen Jesus himself meets them and delivers the same order to tell the disciples to depart into Galilee, where they shall see him. The genuine portion of the second Synoptic ends with the words quoted above, and it is only in the added conclusion (xvi. 9. 20) that we meet with an account of an appearance [pg 103] to Mary Magdalene in the morning. The third Synoptic relates no appearance to the women or any one that morning; but the fourth Gospel has the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, and a long interview between them. Now all this is quite distinctly excluded from the Gospel according to Peter, and those who argue for the dependence of the work on our Gospels have to explain this deliberate omission.
The fragment proceeds:
58. And it was the last day of the Unleavened bread, and many went forth, returning to their homes, the feast being ended. 59. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and mourned, and each went to his home sorrowing for that which had happened. 60. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew, my brother, took our nets and went to the sea, and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord....
And so, at a most interesting point, the fragment breaks off, in the middle of a phrase. This, it will be observed, distinctly excludes the vision to the two disciples in the country, mentioned Mark xvi. 12 f., supposing it to be that described in the third Synoptic (xxiv. 13 ff.), of which long narrative no hint is given in Peter. It also, of course, excludes the appearance to the disciples in the room, described in the fourth Gospel (xix. 20 ff.), and the breathing of the Holy Ghost upon them, of which very important episode the three Synoptics are equally ignorant, as well as the second appearance to them and the conviction of the unbelieving Thomas, which only this Gospel records. We may add that the appearance to the eleven as they sat at meat, related in the addition to the second Synoptic (xvi. 14 f.), with the mission of the apostles “into all the world,” with miraculous powers endowed, which the other Gospels do not mention, is likewise excluded by Peter.
This is not all that is excluded, however, for in the fragment reference is distinctly made to the “twelve disciples,” which is an explicit confirmation of the statement made in v. 26 f., “I and my companions ... were fasting and mourning,” which makes no exception any more than the similar “We, the twelve disciples of the Lord” now quoted. Supposing this statement to be deliberately made, and we have no reason whatever from anything in the rest of the fragment to doubt it, this completely excludes the whole of the story of a betrayal of his master by Judas Iscariot. Various facts must be remembered in confirmation of the view that the “betrayal” of Jesus by Judas Iscariot was unknown to the older tradition. In the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) it is said that upon the twelve foundations of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, are written “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” If, as is generally believed, this Apocalypse was written by John the Apostle, is it possible that, if Judas had betrayed his master in the manner described by the canonical Gospels, he could deliberately have written this, using twice over the “twelve,” which includes that Apostle? Again, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (i. xv. 5), in relating the supposed “appearances” of Jesus, it is said that he first appeared to Cephas: “Then unto the twelve.”[119] If the point be considered on the mere ground of historical probability, there is every reason to consider that the betrayal by Judas is a later product of the “evolved gnosis.” Jesus is described as going about everywhere with his disciples, and nothing could [pg 105] have been easier, under the circumstances, than to follow and quietly arrest him, without any betrayal at all. In fact, there is no real need shown for such a betrayal, and the older Christian tradition probably did not contain it. It was just the trait which the “evolved gnosis” would add to the picture from such a passage as Psalm xli. 9: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me,” and which was given its literal fulfilment in the detail mentioned in the first and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark. xiv. 20), “He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” It may be mentioned that Justin does not appear to have known anything of a betrayal of Jesus, and that, in places where, if he had been aware of the episode, he would certainly have referred to it, he passes over it in total silence.
According to the fragment, Simon Peter, and at least some of the disciples, must have gone into Galilee without any vision of the risen Jesus; and probably the last verse, which is broken off so abruptly, prepares the account of such an appearance as is described in the much-questioned last chapter of the fourth Gospel. It is worth pointing out, as perhaps an indication of the tradition which Peter follows, that both in the first and second Synoptic the order is given to the disciples to go into Galilee, where they are told that they are to see Jesus. In spite of this distinct order and statement, the author of the first Synoptic describes Jesus as immediately after appearing to the women, and giving the same direction to go into Galilee (xxviii. 7, 10), whilst in the spurious verses of Mark he nevertheless appears in Jerusalem to Mary Magdalene and to the Apostles. The third Synoptist gives a different turn to [pg 106] the mention of Galilee; but after the direction to go into Galilee, there to see Jesus, the visions described are a mere afterthought. In Peter, without any order, the disciples apparently go to Galilee, and there probably would be placed the first vision of the risen Jesus.