We may now consider whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with it, and here
again it may be well to remind the reader that we have only a small
fragment of the Gospel according to Peter to compare with the allusions to
be found in writings of the Fathers. In these early works, few quotations
are made with any direct mention of the source from which they were taken,
and as only those parts of Patristic writings which deal with the trial,
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus can be expected to present analogies
with our fragment, it will readily be seen how limited the range of
testimony must naturally be. Justin Martyr is usually supposed to have
died about A.D. 163-165,(23) and his first “Apology” may be dated A.D.
147, and the “Dialogue with Trypho” somewhat later. In these writings,
Justin very frequently refers to facts, and to sayings of Jesus, making,
indeed, some hundred and fifty quotations of this kind from certain
“Memoirs of the Apostles” (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων), all of which
differ more or less from our present canonical Gospels. He never mentions
the name of any author of these Memoirs, if indeed he was acquainted with
one, unless it be upon one occasion, which is of peculiar interest in
connection with our fragment. The instance to which we refer is the
following. Justin says: “The statement also that he [Jesus] changed the
name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is written in his
[Peter’s] Memoirs as having been done, together with the fact that he also
changed the name of other two brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to
Boanerges—that is, sons of thunder,” &c.(24) It was, of course, argued
that the αὐτοῦ here does not refer to Peter but to Jesus; or that the word
should be amended to αὐτῶν and applied to the Apostles; but the majority
of critics naturally decided against such royal ways of removing
difficulties, and were forced to admit a reference to “Memoirs of Peter.”
Hitherto, the apologetic explanation has been that the allusion of Justin
must have been to the second Synoptic, generally referred to Mark, who was
held by many of the Fathers to be the mere mouthpiece and “interpreter of
Peter,” and that this reference is supported by the fact that the Gospel
according to Mark is the only one of the four canonical works which
narrates these changes of name. This argument, however, is disposed of by
the fact that our second Synoptic cannot possibly be considered the work
referred to in the tradition of Papias.(25) Returning to Justin, we find
that he designates the source of his quotations ten times as “Memoirs of
the Apostles;” five times he calls it simply “Memoirs,” and upon one
occasion only explains that they were written “by his Apostles and their
followers.” He never speaks indefinitely of “Memoirs of Apostles,” but
always of the collective Apostles, except in the one instance which has
been quoted above. In a single passage there occurs an expression which
must be quoted. Justin says: “For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by
them, which are called Gospels,” &c.(26) The ἂ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια has very
much the appearance of a gloss in the margin of some MS., which has
afterwards been transferred to the text by a scribe, as scholars have
before now suggested; but in any case it makes little difference in the
argument.
It is obvious that the name “Memoirs” cannot with any degree of propriety
be applied to our canonical Gospels; but the discovery of this fragment,
which is distinctly written as a personal narrative, throws fresh light
upon the subject, and the title “Memoirs of Peter,” would exactly describe
the form in which the Gospel is written. It may further be suggested
whether it does not give us reason for conjecturing that the earlier
documents, from which our Gospels were composed, were similarly personal
narratives or memoirs of those who took part in early Christian
development. The tradition preserved to us by Papias distinctly points in
this direction:
This also the Presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter
of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did
not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by
Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but
afterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching
to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the
Lord’s oracles.(27)
There can be very little doubt that the first teaching of Apostles and
early catechists must have taken the form of personal recollections of
various episodes of Christian history and reports of discourses and
parables, with an account of the circumstances under which they were
delivered. This familiar and less impressive mode of tracing Christian
history must gradually have been eliminated from successive forms of the
story drawn up for the use of the growing Church, until, in the Gospels
adopted into the Canon, it had entirely disappeared. In the fourth Gospel,
a slight trace of it remains in the reference in the third person to the
writer, and it is present in parts of the Apocalypse; but a more marked
instance is to be found in the “Acts of the Apostles;” not so much in the
prologue—which, of course, is not really part of the book—where the author
distinctly speaks in the first person, as in the narrative after the call
to Macedonia (xvi. 10-17), where the writer falls into the use of the
first person plural (ἡμεῖς), resumes it after a break (xx. 5-15), and
abandons it again, till it is recommenced in xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1, xxviii.
16. As the author doubtless made use of written sources of information,
like the writers of our Gospels, it is most probable that, in these
portions of the Acts, he simply inserted portions of personal written
narratives which had come into his possession. The Gospel according to
Peter, which escaped the successive revisals of the canonical Gospels,
probably presents the more original form of such histories. We are, of
course, unable to say whether the change of names referred to by Justin
was recorded in earlier portions of this Gospel which have not been
recovered, but the use of the double name, “I, Simon Peter,” favours the
supposition that it was.
Without attaching undue importance to it, it may be well to point out—in
connection with Origen’s statement that, in the Gospel according to Peter,
the brethren of Jesus are represented as being of a previous marriage—that
the only genealogy of Jesus which is recognised by Justin is traced
through the Virgin Mary, and excludes Joseph.(28) She it is who is
descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and from the house of David. The
genealogy of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced
solely through Joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David.
The genealogies of the first and third Synoptics, though differing in
several important particulars, at least agree in excluding Mary. In the
third Gospel Joseph goes to Judæa “unto the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.”(29) Justin
simply states that Joseph went “to Bethlehem ... for his descent was from
the tribe of Judah, which inhabited that region.”(30) Justin could not,
therefore, derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels; and his
Memoirs, from which he learns the Davidic descent through Mary only, to
which he refers no less than eleven times, differed from them distinctly
on this point. The Gospel according to Peter, which, according to Origen,
contained a statement which separated Jesus from his brethren in the
flesh, in all probability must have traced the Davidic descent through
Mary. The Gospel of James, commonly called the “Protevangelium,” to a form
of which, at least, Origen refers at the same time as the Gospel according
to Peter, states that Mary was of the lineage of David.(31) There are
other peculiarities in Justin’s account of the angelic announcement to
Mary differing distinctly from our canonical Gospels,(32) regarding some
of which Tischendorf was of opinion that they were derived from the
“Protevangelium;” but there are reasons for supposing that they may have
come from a still older work, and if it should seem that Justin made use
of the Gospel according to Peter, these may also have been taken from it.
In the absence of the rest of the Gospel, however, all this must be left
for the present as mere conjecture.
The fragment begins with a broken sentence presenting an obviously
different story of the trial of Jesus from that of the canonical Gospels.
“... but of the Jews no man (τῶν δὲ Ἰουδαίων οὐδεὶς) washed his hands,
neither Herod (οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης) nor any of his judges.... Pilate rose up
(ἀνέστη Πειλᾶτος). And then Herod the King (Ἡρῴδης ὁ βασιλεὺς) commandeth
the Lord to be taken,” &c. Justin in one place(33) refers to this trial as
foretold by the prophetic spirit, and speaks of what was done against the
Christ “by Herod the King of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate
who was your governor among them, and his soldiers” (Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως
Ἰουδαίων καὶ αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ Πιλάτου τοῦ ὑμετέρου παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς γενομένου
ἐπιτρόπου σὺν τοῖς αὐτοῦ στρατιώταις). This combination agrees with the
representation of the fragment, and of course differs from that of the
Gospels. In Dial. ciii. Justin repeats this to some extent, adding that he
sent Jesus “bound” (δεδεμένον). This representation does not exist in
Luke, but neither is it found in what we have of the Gospel according to
Peter, though it may have occurred in the commencement of the scene to
which we are so abruptly introduced.
Justin says in another place: “For as the prophet said, worrying him(34)
(διασύροντες αὐτὸν), they set him (ἐκάθισαν) upon a judgment seat (ἐπὶ
βήματος), and said, ‘Judge for us’ (Κρῖνον ἡμῖν).”(35) In the Gospel
according to Peter we have: “They said, ‘Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the
Son of God’ ... and they set Him (ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν) upon a seat of judgment
(καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying, ‘Judge justly (Δικαίως κρῖνε), King of
Israel.’ ”(36) This representation is different from any in our Gospels,
and it has some singular points of agreement with our fragment. It has
frequently been suggested that Justin, in this passage, makes use of our
canonical Gospels with a combination of the Septuagint version of Isaiah
lviii. 2, 3, and that this is supported by the expression “as said the
prophet.” This does not sufficiently explain the passage, however. The
Septuagint version of the part of Isaiah lviii. 2 referred to reads:
αἰτοῦσίν με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν—“They ask me now for just judgment.”
Justin drops the “just,” which stands both in Isaiah and in the fragment,
and therefore the omission may be considered equally unfavourable to both
writings as the source. In other respects Justin is nearer the Gospel than
the prophet. On the other hand, the proposed use of καθίζειν as a
transitive verb would make the fourth Gospel, xix. 13, read: “Pilate ...
brought Jesus out, and set him (ἐκάθισεν) upon a judgment seat (ἐπὶ
βήματος),” &c.; and it is pretended that Justin may have taken it in this
sense, and that by the use of the word βῆμα he betrays his indebtedness to
the fourth Gospel. This use of the verb, however, can scarcely be
maintained. It is impossible to suppose that Pilate himself set Jesus on a
judgment seat, as this transitive use of ἐκάθισε would require us to
receive; and we must, more especially in the absence of a distinct object,
receive it as the Revisers of the New Testament have rightly
done—intransitively: “He brought Jesus out and sat down.”(37) In Justin it
is not Pilate but the Jews who drag Jesus along, and put him on a judgment
seat, and the use of the ordinary βῆμα for the expression of the fragment,
“a seat of judgment” (καθέδρα κρίσεως), is not surprising in a writer like
Justin, who is not directly quoting, but merely giving the sense of a
passage. However this may be, the whole representation is peculiar, and
the conclusion of many critics is that it proves Justin’s dependence on
the Gospel according to Peter.(38)
Justin, speaking of an incident of the crucifixion, says: “And those who
were crucifying him parted his garments (ἐμερίσαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ) amongst
themselves, casting lots (λαχμὸν βάλλοντες), each taking what pleased him,
according to the cast of the lot (τοῦ κλήρου).”(39) In the Gospel
according to Peter it is said: “And they laid the clothes (τὰ ἐνδύματα)
before him, and distributed them (διεμερίσαντο), and cast lots (λαχμὸν
ἔβαλον) for them.” The use of the peculiar expression λαχμὸν βάλλειν both
by the Gospel and Justin is undoubtedly striking, especially, as Dr. Swete
properly points out, as its use in this connection is limited, so far as
we know, to the Gospel of Peter, Justin, and Cyril.(40) It is rendered
more important by the fact that, both in the Gospel and Justin, the
casting of lots is applied to all the clothes, in contradistinction to the
fourth Gospel, in which it is connected with the coat alone, and that
neither has any mention of the Johannine peculiarity that the coat was
without seam.
Justin says that after he was crucified all the “acquaintances of Jesus
forsook him” (οἱ γνώριμοι αὐτοῦ πάντες ἀπέστησαν);(41) and in another
place that after his crucifixion “the disciples who were with him
dispersed (διεσκεδάσθησαν) until he rose from the dead.”(42) This
representation is found in the first Synoptic only, but agrees still
better with _vv._ 26, 27, and 59 of our fragment. Elsewhere, Justin, in
agreement with the fragment, speaks of Herod, “King of the Jews.”(43)
Further, he says, more than once, that the Jews sent persons throughout
the world to spread calumnies against Christians, amongst which was the
story that “his disciples stole him by night from the grave (κλέψαντες
αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ μνήματος νυκτός) where he had been laid when he was unloosed
from the cross (ἀφηλωθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ).”(44) The first Synoptic alone
has the expression regarding the disciples stealing the body, using the
same verb, but our fragment alone uses μνῆμα for the tomb and offers a
parallel for the unloosing from the cross in _v._ 21. We must, however,
point out that the statement regarding these emissaries from the Jews is
not found at all in our canonical Gospels.(45)
It will be remembered that, in the fragment, the only cry from the cross
is: “ ‘Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,’ and having spoken, he was
taken up.” This is one of the most striking variations from the canonical
Gospels. It is also claimed as, perhaps, the most Docetic representation
of the fragment, for the idea was that one Christ suffered and rose, and
another flew up and was free from suffering.(46) It was believed by the
Docetae that the Holy Spirit only descended upon the human Jesus, at his
baptism, in the shape of a dove. Now one of the statements of Justin from
his Memoirs, which has no existence in our Gospels, was that, when Jesus
went to be baptized by John,
As Jesus went down to the water, a fire was also kindled in the
Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit like a
dove fell upon him, as the Apostles of this very Christ of ours
wrote ... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens ...
“Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.”
Justin repeats his version of the words a second time in the same
chapter.(47) The Synoptics make the voice say: “Thou art my beloved son;
in thee I am well pleased,” instead of the words from Psalm ii. 7. Now,
although we have not the part of the Gospel according to Peter in which
the earlier history of Jesus is related, it is not improbable that
Justin’s version, agreeing as it does with the later episode in the
fragment and with the criticism of Serapion, was taken from this Gospel.
We refer to this point, however, for the purpose of introducing another
statement of Justin, which may be worth a little consideration in
connection with our fragment. One of the passages which are supposed most
clearly to betray Docetic tendencies is the expression, _v._ 10, that when
the Lord was crucified “he kept silence, as feeling no pain” (ὡς μηδὲν
πόνον ἔχων). It is evident that these words may either be taken as simply
representing the fortitude with which suffering was endured, or understood
to support the view that no pain was really suffered, though this is by no
means actually said. Now, Justin, in another chapter of his “Dialogue with
Trypho,” in which he again refers to the baptism and quotes the words of
the voice as above, cites the agony in the garden to prove that “the
Father wished his Son really to suffer (πάθεσιν ἀληθῶς) for our sakes, and
that we may not say that he, being the Son of God, did not feel what was
happening and being inflicted upon him.”(48) He goes on to say that the
silence of Jesus, who returned no answer to any one in the presence of
Pilate, was foretold in a passage which he quotes. All this, in connection
with representations not found in our canonical Gospels, may form another
link with the Gospel according to Peter, as one of his Memoirs. Justin
evidently made use of passages like the words at the baptism, to which he
did not attach any Docetic interpretation, and it is quite natural that he
should argue against the view that Jesus did not really suffer pain, and
yet read quite naturally the words we are discussing, without directly
referring to them. It was the practice of these early sects to twist
passages, not originally intended to favour them, into evidence for their
views, and an ordinary Christian might possess a Gospel containing them,
in complete unconsciousness that it tended in the slightest degree to
encourage heresy.(49) It is evident from several quotations which we have
made, and from others which might be adduced, that Justin was an example
of this very thing.
A number of small points might be added to these, but we do not go into
them here. A majority of the critics who have discussed the question are
of opinion that Justin made use of the Gospel according to Peter,(50) and
even apologists, (who as a body seem agreed to depreciate the fragment),
whilst refusing to admit its use by Justin, are not generally very decided
in their denial nor, as we shall presently see, inclined to assign it a
date which excludes the possibility. The case may be summed up in a few
words. Justin undeniably quotes from his “Memoirs of the Apostles” facts
and passages which are not found in our Gospels; he distinctly refers to
statements as contained in certain “Memoirs of Peter;”(51) some of these
variations from the canonical Gospels have linguistic and other parallels
in our fragment, short as it is, and there is reason to suppose that
others would have been found in it had the entire Gospel been extant for
comparison; the style of the fragment precisely tallies with the peculiar
name of “Memoirs,” being a personal narrative in the first person
singular; and finally, there is nothing in its composition or character
which necessitates the assignment of such a date to the fragment as would
exclude the possibility, or probability, of its use by Justin.
V
We may now consider whether there is any indication of the use of this
Gospel according to Peter by the author of the “Epistle of Barnabas.” The
Epistle is variously dated between A.D. 70-132, apologists leaning towards
the earlier date. The shortness of the fragment recovered, of course,
diminishes greatly the probability of finding any trace of its use in so
comparatively brief a work as this Epistle, but some indications may be
pointed out. The fragment states that, being anxious lest the sun should
set whilst he was still living and the law regarding one put to death be
transgressed, “one of them said: ‘Give him to drink gall with vinegar,’
and having mixed they gave him to drink (Ποτίσατε αὐτὸν χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους;
καὶ κεράσαντες ἐπότισαν).(52) ... Over all these things, however, we were
fasting (ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν ἐνηστεύομεν)(53) ... the whole people ...
beat their breasts (ὁ λαὸς ἅπας ... κόπτεται τὰ στήθη).”(54) This
representation not only differs from the canonical Gospels in “gall with
vinegar” being given to drink, but in the view that it was not given to
relieve thirst, but as a potion to hasten death,(55) and there follow
various statements regarding fasting and mourning. Now in Barnabas
precisely the same representation is made. The Epistle says:
But also when crucified, he had vinegar and gall given him to
drink (ἀλλὰ καὶ σταυρωθεὶς ἐποτίζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ). Hear how, on
this matter, the priests of the temple have revealed. Seeing that
there is a commandment in Scripture: “Whosoever shall not observe
the fast shall surely die,” the Lord commanded, because he was in
his own person about to offer the vessel of his spirit for our
sins ... “Since ye are to give me, who am to offer my flesh for
the sins of my new people, gall with vinegar to drink, eat ye
alone, while the people fasts and wails.... (μέλλετε ποτίζειν
χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους ... τοῦ λαοῦ νηστεύοντος καὶ κοπτομένου).”(56)
There are three suppositions as the possible explanation of this
similarity: (1) that the author of the Epistle derived his statement from
the Gospel; (2) that the author of the Gospel derived it from the Epistle,
or (3) that both drew it from a third and earlier source. Assigning as we
do the later date to the Epistle of Barnabas, the first of these
hypotheses seems to us the most natural and the correct one, although, of
course, it is impossible to prove that both did not derive it from another
source. The second explanation we must definitely reject, both because we
consider that priority of date lies with the fragment, and because it does
not seem probable that the representation originated in the Epistle. To
admit this would be to suppose that the author first fabricated the
statement that Jesus was given gall and vinegar to hasten death, and then
proceeded immediately to explain the circumstance by means of the
elaborate gnosis with which the Epistle is filled. It is quite undeniable
that the whole narrative of the Gospels grew out of the suggestions of
supposed prophetic passages in the Old Testament, but the author of the
Epistle introduces the statement upon which his explanation is based, with
a simplicity which seems to exclude the idea of its being his own
fabrication: “But also, when crucified, he had vinegar and gall given him
to drink.” There is not the ring here of a statement advanced for the
first time, but if we suppose that the author had read it in such a work
as the Gospel according to Peter, it would be quite natural. It is not to
be understood that we doubt that the account in the fragment, or in our
Gospels, was suggested by passages in the Old Testament, but simply that
we do not believe that the representation originated in this Epistle, in
immediate connection with the elaborate explanation given. A tradition,
gradually influenced by such prophetic and other considerations, may have
been embodied by the author of the Gospel in his narrative, and then the
writer of the Epistle may have seized upon it and enlarged upon its
typical signification, but it is not probable that he originated it
himself.