We do not propose to enter here upon an inquiry whether there is any
evidence within our short fragment that the Gospel according to Peter was
used by other early writers. The slight traces which alone we could hope
to find, and which several able critics do find,(57) cannot be decisive of
anything, and whilst there may be a faint literary interest in pursuing
such researches, they need not detain us here. A short consideration may,
however, be given to Tatian. Some critics, impressed apparently with the
idea that no early Gospels can possibly be otherwise than dependent on our
canonical works, yet having to explain the continuous divergence from the
canonical narratives, advance the suggestion, that the writer of the
Gospel according to Peter may have derived all the points which the
fragment contains, in common with one or more of the canonical Gospels,
from a Harmony of our Gospels. Now, the only Harmony of the second century
which, they think, has survived is the so-called “Diatessaron” of Tatian.
Of course, they find that the “Diatessaron” “might have furnished the
writer of the fragment with all the incidents which he shares with any of
the Four Gospels.” Dr. Swete continues: “The order in Peter is not always
the same as it seems to have been in Tatian, but differences of order may
be disregarded in our inquiry, since they are equally embarrassing if we
assume that the writer had recourse to the Gospels as separate books.”(58)
Not content with the conclusion that the Gospels, narrating the very same
history, might have furnished the incidents which they have in common, Dr.
Swete proceeds “to compare the ‘Diatessaron’ with our fragment, with the
view of ascertaining whether Tatian would have provided the Petrine writer
with the words which he seems to have adopted from the Four Gospels.”(59)
This is not the place to discuss again the identity of the supposed
“Diatessaron,” but it will be sufficient to point out that we have it only
in an Arabic version, published and translated by Ciasca, and a
translation of the supposed Armenian version of the Commentary upon it,
ascribed to Ephraem, which again Moesinger, who edited the Latin version
published in 1876, declares to be itself translated from the Syriac. In
these varied transformations of the text, anything like verbal accuracy
must be regarded as totally lost. The object in making the versions was
not, of course, critical fidelity, and variations from canonical texts
would, no doubt, often or always be regarded as accidental and to be
corrected. Such translations can never, in textual criticism, be accepted
as sufficient representations of the original. The process, however, by
which Dr. Swete proceeds to ascertain whether the author of the fragment
derives from Tatian the _words_ which he seems to have adopted from the
Four Gospels, is to place side by side with the Petrine narrative, in
certain crucial passages, the corresponding portions of the “Diatessaron,”
approximately represented in Greek, and he selects the accounts of the
mockery, the three hours, the burial, and the visit of the women to the
tomb. He thus explains his system: “The plan adopted has been to
substitute for Ciasca’s translation of the Arabic Tatian the corresponding
portions of the canonical Gospels. The text has been determined by a
comparison of Ciasca’s Latin with Moesinger’s _Evangelii Concordantis
Expositio_, and the Curetonian Syriac of Luke xxiii., xxiv. It claims, of
course, only to be an approximate and provisional representation of the
text of the original work.”(60) However impartial Dr. Swete may have tried
to be—and without doubt he did endeavour to be so—such a test is vitiated
and rendered useless by the antecedent manipulation of the texts. The
result at which he arrives is: “This comparison does not justify the
conclusion that the writer of our fragment was limited to the use of the
‘Diatessaron’ ”—the exact contents of which, in its original shape, be it
noted, Dr. Swete, a few lines further on, admits that we do not know, “so
that it would be unsafe to draw any negative inference” from certain
exceptions.
On the whole we may perhaps claim to have established a strong
presumption that the Petrine writer employed a Harmony which, in
its general selection of extracts, and in some of its minuter
arrangements, very nearly resembled the Harmony of Tatian. This is
not equivalent to saying that he used Tatian, because there is
some reason to think that there may have been a Harmony or
Harmonies earlier than Tatian.... Thus the relation of the Petrine
writer to Tatian remains for the present an open question; but
enough has been said to render such a relation probable, if
further inquiries should lead us to place the Gospel of Peter
after the publication of the “Diatessaron.”(61)
It must frankly be asserted that the whole of this comparison with Tatian,
and the views so curiously expressed regarding the result, are the outcome
of a preconceived idea that the Petrine author compiled his Gospel mainly
from the canonical. The divergencies being so great, however, and the
actual contradictions so strong, it becomes necessary to account for them
in some way, and the theory of the use of a Harmony is advanced to see
whether it may not overcome some of the difficulties. It would have been
more to the purpose to have inquired whether the so-called “Diatessaron”
did not make use of the Gospel according to Peter, amongst others.
In connection with this it may be well to refer to some remarkable
observations of Professor J. Rendel Harris regarding the relation of the
Gospel according to Peter and Tatian’s Harmony. When the fragment was
first discovered, he was naturally struck by its great importance. “The
Gospel of Peter, even in the imperfect form in which it has come down to
us, is the breaking of a new seal, the opening of a fresh door,” he said,
“to those who are engaged in the problems presented by Biblical and
Patristic criticism,”(62) and he very rightly proceeded to try to find out
“whether Peter has used Tatian, or Tatian Peter, or whether both of them
are working upon common sources.”(63) He first refers to “a curious
addition to the story of the Crucifixion, which can be shown, with a very
high probability, to have once stood in the Harmony of Tatian.” The most
interesting and instructive part of the reference is that Mr. Harris had
made and published, some years before the discovery of the fragment before
us, certain notes on the Harmony of Tatian, in which he had employed “the
method of combination of passages in different writers who were known to
have used the Harmony, or different texts which were suspected of having
borrowed from it, to show that in the account of the Crucifixion there
stood a passage something like the following:
“They beat their breasts and said, Woe unto us, for the things
which are done to-day for our sins; for the desolation of
Jerusalem hath drawn nigh.”(64)
It is unnecessary here to quote the way Mr. Harris arrived at this
passage, which he frankly states, but at once go on to compare it with our
fragment. He sums up:
Now the reader will be interested to see that the missing sentence
which I restored to Tatian’s text has turned up in the Gospel of
Peter, for we read that: “The Jews and the elders and the priests,
when they saw what an evil deed they had done to themselves, began
to beat their breasts and to say, Woe to our sins, for the
judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at hand.” Did the false Peter
take this from Tatian, or was it the other way? or did both of
them use some uncanonical writing or tradition?(65)
“There is nothing in what follows in the Arabic Harmony,” Mr. Harris
points out, “which suggests an allusion to the desolation of the city, or
an imprecation upon, or lamentation over, themselves.”(66)
Very few will feel any doubt that this is taken from our Gospel according
to Peter, or possibly—for of course there is no absolute proof—from the
tradition which the writer of that Gospel also used, and not by the writer
from the Harmony; and it may be suggested that the omission of this and
similar passages from versions of the Harmony may have been influenced by
the fact that, not forming part of our Gospels, and not agreeing with the
preconceived theory of a Harmony of our four Gospels, such passages were
excluded as interpolations.
Another instance given by Mr. Harris is the statement in the fragment:
“Then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour,” which he
compares with the language of “Tatian’s” commentator: “Three hours the sun
was darkened, and afterwards it shone out again.”(67) And further:
Another case of parallelism is in the speech of the angel to Mary:
“_He is not here, for he is risen, and has gone away to the place
from whence he was sent._” At first sight this looks like a wilful
expansion on the part of the writer of the Gospel; but on a
reference to the Persian father Aphrahat, who is more than
suspected of having used the text of Tatian, we find the words,
“And the angels said to Mary, He is risen, and gone away to him
that sent him,” which is very nearly in coincidence with the text
of the false Peter.(68)
Neither of these passages is found in the actual text of “Tatian.”
Finally, we may quote the other instance pointed out by Mr. Harris:
The Docetic quotation from the Psalm “My Power, my Power, hast
thou forsaken me?” is peculiar in this respect, that the second
possessive pronoun is wanting, so that we ought to translate it
“Power, my Power ...” Now, it is curious that Tatian’s text had a
similar peculiarity, for Ephrem gives it as “God, my God,” and the
Arabic Harmony as _Yaiil, Yaiili_, where the added suffix belongs
to the possessive pronoun. This is a remarkable coincidence, and
makes one suspect that Tatian had “Power, my Power” in his text,
and that it has been corrected away. And it is significant that
Ephrem in commenting on the passage, says: “The divinity did not
so far depart from the humanity as to be cut off from it, but only
as regards the _power_ of the divinity, which was hidden both from
the Slain and the slayers.” This looks very suspicious that Ephrem
found something in his text of Tatian differing from the words
“God, my God.”(69)
Mr. Harris reserves his final judgment on this relation between Tatian and
the Gospel according to Peter; but as in a later article(70) he is not
unwilling to allow the date of A.D. 130 to be assigned to the fragment, it
is scarcely to be decided as Peter quoting Tatian. Mr. Harris throughout
these passages, however, states the case in a most impartial manner, and
the reader must form his own opinion.
We may, before leaving “Tatian,” point out another instance of agreement
to which Mr. Harris does not allude. In the Commentary there is the
following passage: “_Et dederunt ei bibere acetum et fel._ Acetum ei
porrexerunt, pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium
dulcem fecit.”(71) It will be remembered that this agrees with the
representation of the fragment that they gave Jesus “vinegar and gall” to
drink.
All these instances may, indeed, throw a new light upon the _Diapente_ in
the text of Victor, which has so exercised apologists, and lead to the
opinion that Tatian’s Harmony was not composed out of four Gospels, but
out of five. If it be agreed, as it is by a majority of critics, that
Justin made use of the Gospel of Peter, the probability that his pupil
Tatian likewise possessed the same work, and used it for his Harmony, is
immensely increased.