We have now completed our comparison of the fragment with the canonical
Gospels, and are able to form some opinion of its relative antiquity and
relationship to our Gospels. Is it, as apologetic critics assert, a mere
compilation from them, or can it take an independent position beside them,
as a work derived from similar sources, and giving its own version of
early Christian tradition? We have shown that it is not a compilation from
our Gospels, but presents unmistakable signs of being an independent
composition, and consequently a most interesting representation of
Christian thought during the period when our Synoptic Gospels were
likewise giving definite shape to the same traditions. Every part of this
fragment has been set side by side with the corresponding narrative in the
canonical Gospels, and it is simply surprising that a writing, dealing
with a similar epoch of the same story, should have shown such freedom of
handling. That there should be some correspondence between them was
inevitable, but the wonder is not that there should be so much agreement,
but so much divergence; and this wonder increases in proportion as a later
date is assigned to the fragment, and the authority of the canonical
Gospels had become more established.
The theory of “tendency” was sure to be advanced as an explanation of
differences of treatment of the same story, but this seems to us much
exaggerated in what is said of the Gospel according to Peter. That early
Docetic views might be supposed to be favoured by its representations is
very possible; but these are far from being so pronounced as to render it
unacceptable to those not holding such opinions, and the manner in which
Justin and Origen make use of its statements is proof of this. As to its
anti-Judaistic tone, a certain distinction has to be drawn. The
expressions regarding “the Jews,” “their feast” (used in reference to the
Passover), and so on, may be put in the same category as the definition of
the veil of the Temple “of Jerusalem,” as indicating merely a work
probably written out of Judaea, and for Gentile Christians; but in
throwing upon the Jews, much more than on the Roman power, the odium of
having crucified Jesus, the difference between Peter and the canonical
Gospels is really infinitesimal. He certainly represents Pilate as
retiring early from the trial, and leaving it to Herod, in whose
“jurisdiction” it was, after washing his hands of the whole business; but
this is a much more probable account, and perhaps an earlier tradition,
than that which makes a Roman governor present the incredible and
humiliating spectacle of a judge condemning and crucifying a man, in whom
he finds no fault, at the dictation of a Jewish mob. The canonical
Gospels, however, only accentuate the guilt of the Jews by representing
the chief priests and elders, as well as the multitude, obstinately
clamouring for his crucifixion, and finally overcoming Pilate’s scruples.
It is the chief priests and rulers who first seize Jesus and plot for his
betrayal, who spit in his face, buffet and mock him, who prefer to him
Barabbas, and cry: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. xxvii.
25). The expressions of distinct antagonism to the Jews in the fourth
Gospel far exceed any in the Gospel according to Peter. There is,
therefore, no preconceived purpose conceivable to account for the
characteristics of the narrative in this fragment.
That a writer who had our canonical Gospels before him should so depart
from their lines, alter every representation without dogmatic purpose,
insert contradictory statements, and omit episodes of absorbing interest
and passages which would have enriched his narrative, is a theory which
cannot be established. It is obvious that the feeling of the writer is one
of intense devotion and reverence, and it is unreasonable to suppose that
he could have passed over, altered, and contradicted so many points in the
narrative of the Gospels, had he had those works before him.(120) In all
probability he composed his work from earlier records and traditions, of
the existence of which we have evidence in Luke i. 1, and the degree of
resemblance on the one hand, and of discrepancy on the other, proceeds
from independent use of these sources, from which the materials used in
the canonical Gospels may have been drawn. It had not the good fortune of
these Gospels, however, to be adopted by the Church and subjected, like
them, to repeated revisal; but, drifting apart on the stream of time, it
at last comes to us with all its original sins and imperfections on its
head. Of course, any judgment now formed on the Gospel according to Peter
is subject to the unfortunate limitation that we have only a fragment of
the work in our hands; but should the rest be discovered, as we hope, it
will not affect conclusions now based upon the part before us, whatever
may be the final verdict on the whole.
X
We have still to consider objections raised by Mr. Rendel Harris, however,
concerning the relation between this fragment and the Gospels accepted by
the Church. In a long article in the “Contemporary Review” he tries to
establish the thesis that “_The Gospel of Peter shows everywhere the
traces of a highly evolved prophetic gnosis, and in particular most of the
apparently new matter which it contains is taken from the Old
Testament_.”(121) It would not be possible, without wearying the most
patient of parishioners, to illustrate in any adequate manner the perverse
and hair-splitting ingenuity with which the “highly evolved prophetic
gnosis” went to work, and which, in very parlous fashion, Mr. Harris
applies to Peter; but, fortunately, this will not be necessary here. This
gnosis doubtless began its operation early, and reached a climax towards
the fourth century; but then it had ceased to be creative, and had become
wildly analytical. Nothing then remained for it to do. Mr. Rendel Harris
quotes, with admirable courage, a “significant sentence” from the
“Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta,” a work of St. Sylvia of Aquitaine, or some
other lady traveller of the fourth century, which has recently been
published. She has been relating how the people were instructed in the
mysteries of the faith by readings from the Scriptures, _imprimis_; of the
Psalms predictive of the Messianic sufferings; then of passages from the
Acts and Epistles which bear upon the interpretation of such predictions;
further, the evidence of the prophets; and, to crown all, the story of the
Passion itself from the Gospels. “The object of this service was, as
Sylvia points out, that the people might understand by the Gospel record
that whatever the psalmists and prophets had foretold concerning the
Passion of the Lord had actually taken place.” And now comes the
“significant sentence” to which we referred above, italicised by Mr.
Harris himself: “And so for the space of three hours the people is taught
that _nothing took place which had not been previously foretold, and
nothing had been foretold which had not obtained its fulfilment_.” Mr.
Harris supports the accuracy of Sylvia’s description.(122)
But, whilst frankly admitting the application of this fundamental
principle of the prophetic gnosis, more or less throughout all early
Christian literature, Mr. Harris wishes to limit its influence upon works
received into the canon, into which the two-edged weapon, however, pierces
in spite of him to the sundering apart of soul and body. He says:
Now no history is, in its ultimate analysis, so trustworthy as
Christian history, but if we take the whole body of early
literature, of which the canonical Gospels form the centre and
crown, including Apocalypses, party-gospels, and the like, we
shall find that there never was a body of history which was so
overgrown with legend, and the major part of these legends result
from the irregular study of the Old Testament, probably based on
the synagogue methods of the time of the early Christian teachers.
This reaction of the prophecy upon history colours the style of
authors and affects their statements; and it is only by a close
and careful study of the writers and their methods, that we are
able to discriminate between what is a _bona fide_ allusion in the
Prophets, or what is a trick of style borrowed from the Prophets,
or what is a pure legend invented out of the Prophets.(123)
The immediate object here, of course, is to lay the basis of an indictment
against the fragment; but in this clear and excellent statement, a
principle is enunciated, the application of which cannot be directed as
the writer pleases, but is apt to be as deadly to friends as to foes. Mr.
Harris may attempt to satisfy his doubts, in writing with the impartiality
of a scholar, as he does, with the reservation that “no history is, in its
ultimate analysis, so trustworthy as Christian history,” but he has only
to formulate the reasons for such a statement, to recognise their utter
inadequacy. In so far as he gives us any glimpse of them here, they are of
sad insufficiency. He speaks, a little further on, regarding “the real
need of a critical method that can distinguish between statements that are
genuine history, and statements that are prophetic reflexes. For this
discrimination,” he says, “our main guide is the Canon, which expresses
the judgment of the primitive Christian Church upon its literary
materials; but I think it will be generally felt that we shall need
finer-edged tools than Church customs or decrees in the more difficult
parts of the problem; and certainly we must not assume _a priori_ in a
critical investigation, that there is no trace of legendary accretion in
the Gospel, and no element of genuine fact in what are called the
Apocrypha.”(124) Alas! is not the “main guide” a mere blind leader of the
blind in regard to “the encroachment of prophetic interpretation upon the
historical record”? We have no intention of maintaining here a very
different view of the credibility of Christian history, the arguments
against which we have elsewhere fully stated, but it is desirable, for
reasons which will presently appear, that the fundamental principle of
this attack on the Gospel according to Peter should be clearly understood.
Mr. Harris goes on to affirm that the measure of this encroachment is, in
the first two centuries, one of the best indications of documentary date
we possess: “As a test, it will settle the period of many a document, and
perhaps the measure of the appeal to prophecy will even determine the
chronological order of the Gospels themselves: Mark, Luke, John, and
Matthew.”(125) This order will probably surprise a good many readers, and
shake the faith they might perhaps be disposed to repose in the test which
is supposed to have decided it. Mr. Harris applies the test in various
instances to Peter, and we shall briefly examine his results.
It will be remembered that in _v._ 35 f. whilst the soldiers were keeping
watch over the sepulchre, there was a great voice in the heavens, and they
saw the heavens opened, and “two men” (δύο ἄνδρας) came down from thence
with great light, and approach the tomb, and the stone which had been laid
at the door rolled away, and they entered it, but presently they beheld
again three men (τρεῖς ἄνδρας) coming out, and the two were supporting or
conducting the other by the hand, and the lofty stature of the three is
described. Now the “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” by which, according
to Mr. Harris, this representation was composed is as follows, though only
the main lines of the painful process can be given. In the prayer of
Habakkuk (iii. 2), according to the Septuagint, the words which stand in
our Bible, “In the midst of the years make known” reads: “In the midst of
_two lives_” (or of _two living creatures_) “thou shalt be known.” This is
referred in two ways: to “Christ’s incarnation” and to his “Death and
Resurrection.” In the former case the two animals are the ox and the ass
at the Nativity. The interpretation in the second case: the “living
creatures” are the seraphim, two in number, because in Isaiah (vi. 3) “one
called to the other and said:” “and we have only to find a situation in
which Christ is seen between two angels, and the prophecy is fulfilled.
This situation is made in the Gospel of Peter by Christ rising between two
supporting angels.” Mr. Harris endeavours to strengthen this by referring
to Cyril of Alexandria’s comment on the two living creatures (in the
fourth century). Cyril is in doubt whether the two living creatures are
the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Old and New Testament, but recurs
to the earlier interpretation that they are the Cherubim. Mr. Harris also
cites the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Zechariah iii. 7: “If thou wilt
keep the observation of my word, _I will raise thee up in the resurrection
of the dead, and set thy feet walking between the two cherubim_.” Then, as
soon as this identification of the two living creatures had been made, it
was easy, says Mr. Harris, to pass over to the ninety-ninth Psalm, which
Justin(126) affirms to be a prediction of Christ.
A little study of the opening words will show some interesting
parallels with Peter. “The Lord hath reigned! Let the people be
enraged! Sitting on the Cherubim, let the earth be shaken. The
Lord in Zion is great and high above all the people.” Here we have
a parallel to the “Jews burning with rage,” and to the enormous
stature of the risen Christ, and, perhaps to the quaking of the
earth. Nor is it without interest that Justin, having spoken of
this great and high Christ, should turn immediately to another
Psalm (xix.) where the sun is said to come forth as a bridegroom
from his chamber, and to rejoice _as a giant_ to run a race.(127)
In order to be as just as possible, all this has been given in greater
detail than perhaps the case deserves. It seems rather a heavy avalanche
of conjecture to bring down upon Peter, who simply narrates, without the
most distant reference to any prophetic texts; and it is perhaps a little
hard that Justin, who in all probability had the Gospel already written
and before him, should contribute in this casual way to the author’s
discomfiture. However, let us see what there is to be said upon the other
side. The first general remark that may be made is, that it can scarcely
be considered evidence of the later date of Peter to ascribe to him, as
the source of this detail, an elaborate twisting of texts through the
operation of gnosis, which has not been proved to have existed in this
form before the epoch at which he wrote. This is said without any
intention of casting doubt on the general operation of supposed prophetic
passages on the evolution of Gospel history, but merely as questioning
this particular explanation of the mode in which this representation was
originally suggested, and more especially for the purpose of adding that,
whatever reproach of this kind is cast upon the Gospel according to Peter,
must equally be directed against the canonical gospels.
It will be remembered that, in the third Synoptic, “two men in shining
apparel” assist at the resurrection, and that in the fourth Gospel Mary
sees in the tomb “two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, the
other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” Here there is an
occasion for applying with equal—or, as we shall presently see,
greater—propriety the argument of “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” to the
writers, and so explaining their representation. But there is more to be
suggested in connection with the matter. In the first and second
Synoptics, only one angel assists at the scene, who in the second Synoptic
is called “a young man” (νεανίσκος). Now the “two men” of great stature in
Peter only go into the tomb and come out again with Jesus; but
subsequently the heavens were again opened (_v._ 44), and a certain man
descends and goes into the tomb and remains there, for when the women come
(_v._ 55) they see there “a certain young man” (νεανίσκος) “sitting in the
midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment,” who speaks to
them as in the two Synoptics, and tells them that “Jesus is gone thither
whence he was sent.” This, then, is the angel who appears in Matthew and
Mark. We have already mentioned that the two men of _v._ 36 have been
identified by some critics as Moses and Elias. The account of the
transfiguration is given in all the Synoptics, though it does not seem to
have been known to the author of the fourth Gospel—although “John” was an
actor in the scene—but that in the third Synoptic is fuller than the rest
(ix. 28 ff). Jesus takes with him Peter and John and James, and goes up
into the mountain to pray; and as he prays his countenance was altered,
and his raiment becomes white and dazzling; “and behold there talked with
him two men (ἄνδρες δύο), which were Moses and Elijah; who appeared in
glory, _and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at
Jerusalem_.” When Peter and the others were fully awake, “they saw his
glory and the two men (δύο ἄνδρας) that stood with him. And it came to
pass, as they were parting from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is
good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elijah: _not knowing what he said_. And
while he said these things there came a cloud, and overshadowed them ...
and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my son, my chosen: hear
ye him.” To this episode Mr. Harris might reasonably apply the test of the
“highly evolved prophetic gnosis;” but in any case, the view that the two
men of the fragment are intended to represent Moses and Elijah—the law and
the prophets—who had so short a time before “spoken of his decease which
he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem,” and who now came, in stature
reaching to the heavens, but less than his which rose above the heavens,
and conducted Jesus the Christ forth from the tomb, in which that decease
had been fulfilled, is in the highest degree probable. Much more might be
said regarding this, but too much time has already been devoted to the
point.
The second application of Mr. Harris’s test is to the sealing of the stone
at the sepulchre with seven seals. The Gospel of Peter simply states that
the stone was sealed with seven seals, and Mr. Harris endeavours to find
some abstruse meaning in the statement, which is peculiar to the fragment
in so far as the number of seals is concerned. Where did Peter get the
idea? Mr. Harris says, first from Zechariah iii. 9: “For behold the stone
that I have set before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes; behold I
will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts;” and the name
Joshua is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus. A reference is also made by the
Fathers of the second century to passages to prove that Christ was the
stone (of stumbling to the Jews, but the corner stone to believers).
“Justin recognised Christ in the stone cut out without hands, of which
Daniel speaks; in the stone which Jacob set for his pillow, and which he
anointed with oil; in the stone on which Moses sat in the battle with
Amalek,” and the like. “Bearing in mind that there was an early tendency
to connect the language of the ‘Branch’ passage with the resurrection, we
can see that the interpretation took a second form, viz. to regard the
stone before the face of Jesus as a prophecy of the stone which closed the
tomb in the evangelic story.” There is evidence, Mr. Harris says, that the
seven eyes were early interpreted by Biblical Targumists to mean seven
seals.
We need not be surprised, then, that the Peter Gospel speaks of
the stone as sealed with seven seals; it is an attempt to throw
the story into closer parallelism with Zechariah, no doubt for
polemic purposes against the Jews. That he uses the curious word
ἐπέχρισαν, which we are obliged, from the exigencies of language,
to translate “they smeared” or “plastered” seven seals, but which
to the writer meant much the same as if he were to say, “they
on-christed seven seals,” is due to the lurking desire to make a
parallel with Christ and the stone directly, and with the anointed
pillar of Jacob. The stone has a chrism.... But this is not all;
in Zechariah (iv. 10) there is a passage, “they shall see the
plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel,” but in the Septuagint it runs,
“they shall see the tin-stone.” How is this to be connected with
the “stone before the face of Joshua or Jesus”? The answer is
found in the pages of the Peter Gospel: “a great crowd came from
Jerusalem and the neighbourhood _to see the tomb which had been
sealed_.” It only remains to identify the stone which they saw
with the tin-stone. Symmachus retranslated the Hebrew word for
“tin” as if it came from the root which means “to separate or
divide,” and in the Gospel of Peter, “the stone which had been
laid on the door of the tomb withdrew (or separated) gradually”
(ἐπεχώρησε παρὰ μέρος).
“The ‘plummet’ of Zerubbabel,” Mr. Harris triumphantly concludes, “is used
by Peter to make history square with prophecy.”(128)
Now again the general remark has to be made that, in order to convict
Peter of a late date, Mr. Harris takes all this “highly evolved gnosis”
wherever he can find it, without consideration of epochs, and in some
parts upon mere personal conjecture. He even confesses that he does not
know the date of the translation of Symmachus, which he nevertheless uses
as an argument. He observes, himself, that it is “a little awkward” that
the stone, which at one time represents Jesus, has to be treated in the
same breath as before the face of Jesus. The terribly complicated and
involved process, by which it is suggested that the author of the Gospel
according to Peter evolved a detail so apparently simple as the sealing of
the sepulchre with seven seals, is difficult enough to follow, and must
have been still more difficult to invent, but in his anxiety to assign a
late date to the fragment, Mr. Harris forgets that, if the number seven is
evidence of it, a large part of the New Testament must be moved back with
the fragment. The Synoptics are full of it,(129) but it is quite
sufficient to point to the Apocalypse, which has this typical number in
almost every chapter: the message to the seven churches; the seven spirits
before the throne; the seven golden candlesticks; the seven stars; seven
lamps of fire burning; seven angels; seven trumpets; seven thunders; the
dragon with seven heads, and seven diadems; the seven angels with seven
plagues; the woman with seven heads, and so on. The most striking and
apposite instance, which Mr. Harris indeed does not pass over, but
mentions as having “a curious and suggestive connection” and “every
appearance of being ultimately derived from the language of
Zechariah,”(130) is the Book which is close sealed with seven seals, and
the Lamb standing as though it had been slain, having seven horns and
seven eyes, which are seven spirits of God, which is found worthy to take
the book and open the seals.(131) Instead of giving the author of the
fragment, who does not make the slightest claim to it, credit for so
extraordinary a feat of synthetic exegesis, is it not more simple and
probable that he used the number seven as a mere ordinary symbol of
completeness? but if more than this be deemed requisite, and the detail
has a deeper mystical sense, he can only be accused of “highly evolved
prophetic gnosis,” in company with the author of the Apocalypse and other
canonical books, and this still gives him a position in the same epoch
with them, more than which, probably, no one demands.
Another instance may be rapidly disposed of. The writer of Peter, Mr.
Harris affirms, was not ignorant of the gnosis of the Cross wrought out by
the Fathers from the Old Testament, on the “Wood” and the “Tree.” One
passage at which they laboured heavily is in Habakkuk ii. 11: “The stone
cries out of the wall, and the cross-beam answers back to it.” Mr. Harris
proceeds:
Now the author of the Peter Gospel has been at work on the
passage; he wishes to make the cross talk, and not only talk, but
answer back; accordingly, he introduces a question: “Hast thou
preached to them that are asleep?” and the response is heard from
the cross, “Yea.” As far as I can suspect, the first speaker is
Christ, the Stone; and the answer comes from the Cross, the Wood.
It is then the Cross that has descended into Hades. But perhaps
this is pressing the writer’s words a little too far.(132)
Is it not also pressing the writer’s thoughts a little too far to suggest
such trains of childish interpretation as the origin of all his
characteristic representations? Mr. Harris, by way of bringing the charge
nearer to Peter, says that the passage of Habakkuk “is quoted by Barnabas,
though no doubt from a corrupted text, with a positive assertion that the
Cross is here intimated by the prophet.”(133) This is not so. The passage
in Barnabas (xii.) reads: “He defineth concerning the Cross in another
prophet, who saith: ‘And when shall these things be accomplished? saith
the Lord. Whensoever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and
whensoever blood shall drop from a tree.’ Again thou art taught concerning
the cross and him that was to be crucified.” This is not a quotation from
Habakkuk, but from 4 Esdras v. 5. This is, however, not of much
importance. It is of greater moment to observe that Mr. Harris, in
applying this test, is only able to “suspect” that, in this episode in
Peter, the speaker who asks the question is Christ the “stone,” and the
answer from the cross, the “wood;” but as the first “speaker” is a voice
“out of the heavens,” it is difficult to connect it with “Christ the
Stone,” to whom the question is actually addressed. According to this, he
puts the question to himself. Such exegesis, applied to almost any
conceivable statement, might prove almost any conceivable hypothesis.
The next instance requires us to turn to a passage in Amos (viii. 9-10,
LXX): “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the
sun shall set at midday, ... and I will turn your feasts into wailing and
all your songs to lamentation, and I will lay sackcloth on all loins, and
baldness on every head; and I will set him as the wailing for the beloved,
and those that are with him as a day of grief.” With it, we are told, must
be taken the parallel verse in which Zechariah (xiv. 6, 7) predicts a day
in which “there shall be no light, but cold and frost ... but towards
evening there shall be light.” This was one of the proofs with early
Christians of the events which happened at the crucifixion, and St.
Cyprian, for instance, quotes it. It is also quoted in the sixth Homily of
the Persian Father Aphrahat against the Jews. “The Gospel of Peter did not
apparently possess the gnosis in such a highly evolved form as this,” but
works on the same lines. Mr. Harris then quotes passages from the
fragment, which we shall give after him, with his inserted comments, but
as he does not mark the intervals which occur between them, we shall take
the liberty of inserting the verses from which they are taken between
brackets.
15. It was mid-day and darkness over all the land of Judaea....
22. then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour
[_at evening time it shall be light_]; 23. and the Jews
rejoiced.... 25. and the Jews began to wail [_I will turn your
feasts into mourning_].... 26. We also were fasting and sitting
down (_i.e._ sitting on the ground in sackcloth(134)); [_I will
lay sackcloth on all loins_]. 50. Mary Magdalene had not done at
the tomb as women are wont to do over their dead beloveds, so she
took her friends with her to wail [_I will set him as the Wailing
for the Beloved_].
The writer is, therefore, drawing on the details of prophecy, as
suggested by the current testimonies against the Jews, and most
likely on a written gnosis involving these testimonies. That he
veils his sources simply shows that he is not one of the first
brood of anti-Jewish preachers. If he had been early, he would not
have been artificial or occult.(135)
Now, as before, Mr. Harris uses the eccentricities of a gnosis which he
does not prove to have existed at the time the fragment may have been
written and, for instance, he quotes St. Cyprian, who wrote in the second
half of the third century, and the Persian Father Aphrahat, also a writer
long after the Gospel of Peter was composed, and his remark that the
writer “did not apparently possess the gnosis in so highly evolved a form”
as Aphrahat, is not so much an admission in his favour as to prepare the
reader to be content with inferior evidence. The test, however, quite as
much applies to our Gospels as to the Gospel of Peter. In the previous
working, of which the fragment says nothing, those who pass “wag their
heads” and rail, in each of the Synoptics, in a jubilant way. The first
Synoptic says (xxvii. 45 f.) “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness
over all the land until the ninth hour.” The centurion and those who were
watching “feared exceedingly.” In Mark (xv. 33) there also “was darkness
over the whole earth until the ninth hour,” but in Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) the
resemblance is still more marked. The darkness comes over the whole earth
from the sixth until the ninth hour, “the sun’s light failing.” (48) “And
all the multitudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the
things that were done, _returned smiting their breasts_.” In the fourth
Gospel (xx. 11), Mary goes to the tomb weeping. We shall have more to say
regarding the Gospels presently, but here we need only remark that,
whether in exactly the same way or not, the “highly evolved prophetic
gnosis” has certainly done its work in all of them. In this respect, the
Gospel of Peter merely takes its place with the rest.
There is only one other instance to be noticed here. It refers to some of
the details which the writer of the fragment introduces into the mockery
which precedes the crucifixion. Some of the mockers “prick” Jesus with a
reed; others spat on his eyes. This, Mr. Harris says, is connected with a
view early taken regarding a change of Jewish feasts. In the Epistle of
Barnabas, there is the best exposition of the doctrine that the Feast
should be turned into mourning and the Passover at which Jesus suffered
should be treated as if it had been the Day of Atonement. In Barnabas, the
ritual of the great day is discussed in detail, and the rules of procedure
for the Priests and the People, apparently taken, Mr. Harris thinks, from
a Greek handbook, prove a variety of local usage such as would not have
been suspected from the Scripture, read apart from the rest of the
literature of the time. The “unwashed inwards” of one goat, offered at the
fast for all sins, are to be eaten by the priests alone, with vinegar,
while the people fast and wail in sackcloth and ashes. This goat is one of
two over which lot is cast on the Day of Atonement; the other is the
scape-goat, Azazel, which, according to Barnabas, was to be treated with
contumely, and sent away into the wilderness: “All of you spit on him, and
prick him, and put the scarlet wool on his head,” &c. Now the two goats
both represent Christ, according to Barnabas, “who twists these written
regulations into prophecies of the first and second Advents, and of the
details of the Passion.”
The mention of vinegar to be eaten with the bitter portion of the
goat, suggested the words of the Psalm: “Gall for my meat and
vinegar for my drink;” the command to spit on the goat and prick
(or pierce) him [which ill-usage, by the way, the Talmud admits to
have been the practice of the Alexandrian Jews], is interpreted by
Barnabas to be a type or a prophecy of Christ “set at naught and
pierced and spat on.” Is there any trace of the gnosis of the two
goats in Peter? If we may judge from the conjunction of the words
in the account of the Mockery, there is a decided trace: “Others
stood and spat on his eyes ... others pricked him with a reed;” it
is Christ as the goat Azazel.
Mr. Harris quotes “an almost contemporary Sibyllist,” “They shall prick
his side with a reed, _according to their law_;” and he continues: “If the
Sybillist is quoting Peter, he is also interpreting him, and his
interpretation is, they shall prick him, as is done to the goat Azazel.”
To make Peter responsible for the ideas or interpretations of the
Sybillist is a little hard. However, let us examine this matter. It is to
be observed that the only innovation in Peter, regarding the spitting, is
the expression that they “spat upon _his eyes_” instead of simply “upon
him,” or “in his face,” as in the Gospels; but upon this nothing turns.
The point is not even mentioned; so it may be dismissed. Regarding the
reed, Peter says they “pierced” him with it, instead of “smote him” with
it. Let us leave the “piercing” aside for the moment. In all other
respects, the contumely is the same in the Gospels. Before the high
priest, in Matthew and Mark (Matt. xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65), they spit in
his face and buffet him, and smite him with the palms of their hands; and
in Luke (xxii. 63 f.) they mock and beat him and revile him. It is curious
that, according to the second Synoptist, all this was foretold, for he
makes Jesus say (x. 33 f.): “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of
man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes: and they
shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and
they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and
shall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again.” After the trial
before Pilate, in Mark (xv. 17 ff.), they put on him a purple robe, and
the crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his hand, and spit upon
him, and take the reed and smite him on the head. In Peter, likewise, they
clothe him in purple, put on his head the crown of thorns, spit upon his
eyes, smite him on the cheeks, and pierce him with a reed.
What difference is there here except the mere piercing? Yes! there is a
difference, for Mr. Harris has forgotten to refer to the scarlet wool put
on the goat Azazel. There is nothing in Peter which corresponds with the
scarlet wool. The robe that is put upon Jesus is purple. Now Barnabas, in
the chapter from which Mr. Harris quotes all these passages, finds this
point of the “scarlet wool” fulfilled in Jesus: “For they shall see him in
that day wearing the long scarlet robe about his flesh.”(136) But if we
look in the first Synoptic we also find this, for we read (xxvii. 28):
“And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe” (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην).
The mere detail of piercing with the reed instead of smiting with it is
trifling compared with this, and in all essential points Mr. Harris’s test
more fitly applies to the first Synoptic than to Peter, and equally so to
the other two.
As for the piercing with the reed, however, we have only to turn to the
fourth Gospel, and we find its counterpart (xix. 34) where one of the
soldiers with a spear pierced the side of Jesus. Why? (36) “That the
Scripture might be fulfilled.... ‘They shall look on him whom they
pierced.’ ” Here is the “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” without any
disguise. If one writer prefer to fulfil one part of Scripture, the other
may select another without much difference in standing. Even Mr. Harris
admits that “the gnosis on which Barnabas works is ultimately based on the
same passage” as that quoted as fulfilled in the fourth Gospel(137); then
what distinction of date is possible when both apply the same gnosis based
on the same texts?