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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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

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, 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 “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 (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

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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 40. And there were 49. And all his

were there beholding also women beholding acquaintance, and

from afar, which had from afar: among the women that

followed Jesus from whom were both Mary followed him from

Galilee, ministering Magdalene and Mary Galilee, stood afar

unto him: 56. among the mother of James off, seeing these

whom was Mary the less and of things, xxiv. 10.

Magdalene, and Mary Joses, and Salome; Now they were Mary

the mother of James 41. who, when he was Magdalene and

and Joses, and the in Galilee, followed Joanna, and Mary

mother of the sons him, and ministered [the mother] of

of Zebedee. unto him.... James, and other

women with them,

xxiii. 50.

57. And when even 42. And when even 50. And behold a man

was come, there came was now come, ... named Joseph, who

a rich man from 43. there came was a councillor, a

Arimathaea, who also Joseph of good man and a

himself was Jesus’ Arimathaea, a righteous, 51. ...

disciple: 58. this councillor of of Arimathaea, a

man went to Pilate, honourable estate, city of the Jews,

and asked for the who also himself was who was looking for

body of Jesus. looking for the the kingdom of God:

kingdom of God: and 52. this man went to

he boldly went in Pilate, and asked

unto Pilate and for the body of

asked for the body Jesus.

of Jesus.

55. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ 40. Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ 49. Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ

γυναῖκες πολλαὶ ἀπὸ γυναῖκες ἀπὸ πάντες οἱ γνωστοὶ

μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν,

αἵτινες ἠκολούθησαν ἐν αἷς καὶ Μαρία ἡ καὶ γυναῖκες αἱ

τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία συνακολουθοῦσαι αὐτῷ

Γαλιλαίας ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας,

διακονοῦσαι αὐτῷ, καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ ὁρῶσαι ταῦτα. (xxiv.

(56) ἐν αἷς ἦν Μαρία καὶ Σαλώμη, (41) αἳ 10) ἦσαν δὲ ἡ

ἡ Μαγδαληνή, καὶ ὅτε ἦν ἐν τῇ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία καὶ

Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου Γαλιλαίᾳ ἠκολούθουν Ἰωάννα καὶ Μαρία ἡ

καὶ Ἰωσὴ μήτηρ, καὶ ἀυτῷ καὶ διηκόνουν Ἰακώβου καὶ αἱ

ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῷ, ... λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς

Ζεβεδαίου. ...

57. Ὀψίας δὲ 42. καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας 50. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ

γενομένης ἦλθεν γενομένης, ... (43) ὀνόματι Ἰωσὴφ

ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων,

ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, Ἀριμαθαίας, εὐσχήμων ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ

τούνομα Ἰωσήφ, ὅς βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ δίκαιος, 51. ... ἀπὸ

καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη αὐτὸς ἦν Ἀριμαθαίας πόλεως

τῷ Ἰησοῦ; 58. οὗτος προσδεχόμενος τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ὃς

προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, προσεδέχετο τὴν

ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Ἰησοῦ. πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον 52. οὗτος προσελθὼν

καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο

τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 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 43. And straightway, 47. While he yet

spake, lo, Judas, while he yet spake, spake, lo, a

one of the twelve, cometh Judas, one of multitude, and he

came, and with him a the twelve, and with that was called

great multitude with him a multitude with Judas, one of the

swords and staves, swords and staves, twelve, went before

from the chief from the chief them;

priests and elders priests and the

of the people. scribes and the

elders.

48. Now he that 44. Now he that and he drew near

betrayed him gave betrayed him had unto Jesus to kiss

them a sign, saying, given them a token, him.

Whomsoever I shall saying, Whomsoever I

kiss, that is he: shall kiss, that is

take him. he; take him,

49. And straightway 45. And when he was

he came to Jesus, come, straightway he

and said, Hail, came to him and

Rabbi; and kissed saith, Rabbi; and

him. kissed him.

50. And Jesus said 48. But Jesus said

unto him, Friend, do unto him, Judas,

that for which thou betrayest thou the

art come. Son of man with a

kiss?

Then they came and 46. And they laid (54. And they seized

laid hands on Jesus hands on him and him and led him

and took him. took him. away.)

51. And lo, one of 47. But a certain 50. And a certain

them that were with one of them that one of them smote

Jesus stretched out stood by drew his the servant of the

his hand, and drew sword, and smote the high priest, and

his sword, and smote servant of the high struck off right

the servant of the priest, and struck ear.

high priest, and off his ear.

struck off his ear.

47. Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ 43. Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι 47. ἔτι αὐτοῦ

λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ

Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν παραγίνεται Ἰούδας ὄχλος, καὶ ὁ

δώδεκα ἦλθεν, καὶ εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, καὶ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς

μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος τῶν δώδεκα προήρχετο

πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ αὐτούς, καὶ

καὶ ξύλων ἀπό τῶν ξὺλων παρὰ τῶν

ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν

πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ γραμματέων καὶ

λαοῦ. πρεσβυτέρων.

48. ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς 44. δεδώκει δὲ ὁ ἤγγισεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ

αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν φιλῆσαι αὐτόν.

σημεῖον λέγων: ὃν ἂν σύσσημον αὐτοῖς

φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν: λέγων: ὃν ἂν φιλήσω,

κρατήσατε αὐτόν. αὐτός ἐστιν:

κρατήσατε αὐτὸν καὶ

ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς.

49. Καὶ εὐθέως 45. Καἰ ἐλθὼν εὐθὺς

προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ προσελθὼν αὐτῷ

εἶπεν: χαῖρε ῥαββεί, λέγει: ῥαββεί, καὶ

καὶ κατεφίλησεν κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν.

αὐτόν.

50. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς 46. οἱ δὲ ἐπέβαλαν 48. Ἰησοῦς δὲ εἶπεν

εἶπεν αὐτῷ: ἑταῖρε, τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ καὶ αὐτῷ: Ἰούδα,

ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, τότε ἐκράτησαν αὐτὸν. φιλήματι τὸν υἱὸν

προσελθόντες τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

ἐπέβαλον τας χεῖρας παραδίδως? (54.

ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ συλλαβόντες δὲ αὐτὸν

ἐκράτησαν αὐτόν. ἤγαγον.)

51. Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν 47. εἷς δὲ τις τῶν 50. καὶ ἐπάταξεν εἷς

μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας παρεστηκότων τις ἐξ αὐτῶν τοῦ

τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν σπασάμενος τὴν ἀρχιερέως τὸν δοῦλον

τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ, μάχαιραν ἔπαισεν τὸν καὶ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ οὖς

καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως αὐτοῦ τὸ δεξιόν.

δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ

ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον.

ὠτίον.

Such close similarity as this, with occasional astonishing omissions of

matter and flagrant contradictions where independent narrative is

attempted, runs 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 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). 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 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, 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 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 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 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.