55 Mr. Murray points out that Origen likewise regards the “gall” as
baleful, as he likewise represents with our fragment the breaking of
the limbs as an act of mercy (_Expositor_, January 1892, pp. 56 f.).
Hilgenfeld is quite convinced that the Epistle derives the passage
from Peter (_Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 255 f.).
56 The whole passage may be given here, as arguments are founded upon
it: Ἀλλὰ καὶ σταυρωθεὶς ἐποτίζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ; ἀκούσατε πῶς περὶ
τούτου πεφανέρωκαν οἱ ἱερεῖς τοῦ ναοῦ. γεγραμμένης ἐντολῆς; Ὅς ἂν μὴ
νηστεύσῃ τὴν νηστείαν, θανάτῳ ἐξολεθρευθήσεται, ἐνετείλατο κύριος,
ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτιῶν ἔμελλεν τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ
πνεύματος προσφέρειν θυσίαν, ἵνα καὶ ὁ τύπος ὁ γενόμενος ἐπὶ Ἰσαὰκ
τοῦ προσενεχθέντος ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τελεσθῇ. τί οὖν λέγει ἐν τῷ
προφήτῃ? Καὶ φαγέτωσαν ἐκ τοῦ τράγου τοῦ προσφερομένου τῇ νηστείᾳ
ὑπὲρ πασῶν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. προσέχετε ἀκριβῶς καὶ φαγέτωσαν οἱ ἱερεῖς
μόνοι πάντες τὸ ἔντερον ἄπλυτον μετὰ ὄξους. πρὸς τί? ἐπειδὴ ἐμέ,
ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν μέλλοντα τοῦ λαοῦ μοῦ τοῦ καινοῦ προσφέρειν τὴν σάρκα
μου, μέλλετε ποτίζειν χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους, φάγετε ὑμεῖς μόνοι, τοῦ λαοῦ
νηστεύοντος καὶ κοπτομένου ἐπὶ σάκκου καὶ σποδοῦ, κ.τ.λ. (vii. 3-5).
57 Harnack finds it almost certain that the _Didache_ made use of this
Gospel (_l.c._ pp. 58 f., 80); so also van Manen (_Theol. Tijdschr._
September 1893, pp. 353 f.) and others.
_ 58 L.c._ pp. xxi f.
_ 59 L.c._ pp. xxii f.
_ 60 L.c._ p. xxii, _n._ 1.
_ 61 L.c._ p. xxiv.
_ 62 A Popular Account of the newly recovered Gospel of Peter_, 1893,
pp. v, f.
_ 63 Ib._ p. 75.
_ 64 Ib._ p. 76. It should be stated that the Syriac version of Cureton
to Luke xxiii. 48 gives nearly this sentence, and that the old Latin
Codex of St. Germain reads: “dicentes: Vae nobis, quae facta sunt
hodie propter peccata nostra; appropinquavit enim desolatio
Hierusalem.” Mr. Harris of course refers to these passages. Harnack
considers that this passage is derived from our Gospel according to
Peter (_l.c._ p. 57).
_ 65 L.c._ p. 81. It may be well to give the passage now in Moesinger’s
work: “ ‘_Vae fuit, vae fuit nobis, Filius Dei erat hic._’ Quum
autem eis sol naturalis defecisset, tunc per istas tenebras eis
lucidum fiebat, excidium urbis suae advenisse: ‘venerunt, ait,
judicia dirutionis Jerosolymorum.’ Quia itaque haec urbs non recepit
eum qui eam aedificaverat, restabat ei ut ruinam suam videret.”
_Evang. Concord. Expositio_, 1876, pp. 245 f.
_ 66 L.c._ p. 78.
_ 67 L.c._ pp. 81 f.
_ 68 L.c._ pp. 83 f. Cf. Zahn, _l.c._ p. 65. Zahn considers it in the
highest degree improbable that this was taken by Tatian from Peter,
but the improbability is by no means made out.
_ 69 L.c._ pp. 82 f.
_ 70 Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 236.
_ 71 Ev. Concor. Expos._ p. 245.
72 Lods (before A.D. 150), _Ev. sec. Petrum_, 1893, pp. 26 f.; Robinson
(before A.D. 160), _The Gospel according to Peter_, &c., 1892, p.
32; Harnack (beginning of second century), _l.c._ p. 80; Zahn (A.D.
140-145), _Das Ev. des Petrus_, 1893, p. 75; Kunze (about A.D. 170),
_Das neu aufgefund. Bruchstück des sogen. Petrusev._ 1893, p. 47;
Hilgenfeld (end of first century), _Zeitschr._ 1893, pp. 266 f.;
Swete (A.D. 150-165), _The Akhmîm Fragment_, 1893, p. xlv; von
Schubert (soon after middle of second century), _Die Comp. des
Pseudopetr. Ev. Fragments_, 1893, p. 195; W. C. van Manen (older,
rather than later, than our Gospels), _Theol. Tijdschr. 5de Stuk_,
1893, pp. 565 ff.; Martineau (A.D. 130), _Nineteenth Century_, June
1893, p. 925, September, p. 633; J. Rendel Harris (no objection to
A.D. 130), _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 236.