Part 12

34 The word used in the Gospel is σύρω, to drag along, but Justin’s word is merely the same verb with the addition of δια, διασύρω, to worry, or harass with abuse. Although the English equivalent is thus changed, and conceals the analogy of the two passages, the addition of δια, strictly considered, cannot so change the meaning of σύρω, but rather should imply a continuance of the same action. This is also Dr. Martineau’s view.

35 Καὶ γάρ, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ προφήτης, διασύροντες αὐτὸν ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος καὶ εἶπον; Κρῖνον ἡμῖν. _Apol._ i. 35.

36 Ἔλεγον, Σύρωμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ... καὶ ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, λέγοντες Δικαίως κρῖνε, βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. _Evang. Petri_, 6. Hilgenfeld says regarding this, “Was fehlt noch zu dem Beweise, dass Justinus, wie ich schon 1850 ausgeführt habe, das Petrus-Evg. benutzt hat?” _Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 251.

37 This passage has been discussed at some length by Dr. Martineau (_Nineteenth Century_, October 1893, pp. 647 ff.), in controversy with Mr. T. Rendel Harris (_Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, pp. 234 ff.), as it has frequently before been. Dr. Martineau seems to be in the right upon all points in connection with it.

38 Hilgenfeld, _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1893, pp. 249 ff.; cf. Lods, _De Evang. sec. Petrum_, pp. 12 f.; Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 38 f., 63 f.; Martineau, _Nineteenth Century_, October 1893, pp. 650 f.; cf. Swete, _l.c._ p. xxxiv.

_ 39 Dial._ xcvii.

40 Swete, _l.c._ p. xxxiv. Mr. Rendel Harris says: “I regard it as certain that the reading λαχμὸς implies connection between Justin and Peter, either directly or through a third source accessible to both.” _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 231.

_ 41 Apol._ i. 50.

42 Μετὰ γὰρ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι αὐτὸν οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ διεσκεδάσθησαν, μέχρις ὅτου ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν. _Dial._ liii.; cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 330 ff.

_ 43 Dial._ ciii.

_ 44 Dial._ cviii.

45 Cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 339.

46 Cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii. 12.

_ 47 Dial._ lxxxviii.; cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 316 ff.

_ 48 Dial._ ciii. There is another passage in _Dial._ cxxv., which may be compared: Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ καὶ ναρκᾶν ἔμελλε, τουτέστιν ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν ἀντιλήψει τοῦ πάθους, ὅτε σταυροῦσθαι ἔμελλεν, ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ἡμέτερος, κ.τ.λ.

49 Mr. Murray, for instance, quotes a passage from Origen, using a similar expression to that in our fragment, that Jesus was silent as suffering no pain, with a comment which shows that he did not suspect a Docetic interpretation. _Expositor_, January 1893, pp. 55 f.

50 Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 38 ff.; Lods, _l.c._ pp. 12 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1893, pp. 221, 241, 267; van Manen, _Theol. Tijdschrift_, 1893, pp. 385 f., 551 ff.; Martineau, _Nineteenth Century_, June 1893, p. 910, October, pp. 643 f.; cf. J. Rendel Harris, _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, pp. 227 ff., 231.

51 Cf. Swete, _l.c._ pp. xxxiii. ff.

52 Verse 16.

53 Verse 27.

54 Verse 28.

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.

73 Zahn, _l.c._ pp. 18 ff.; Swete, _l.c._ pp. xliii, f.

74 Zahn considers ὁ κύριος inauthentic in this place, but it stands in A C D, and many other codices, and it is adopted by the Revisers of the N. T.

75 Although this is not part of the Gospel, it is very ancient.

_ 76 L.c._ p. xliii.

_ 77 L.c._ pp. xliii, f.

_ 78 Magn._ ix.

79 Cf. Ἀναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος ἐζήτει ἐξελθεῖν. _Evang. Nicod._ Pars 1. A. ix. 3; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 229.

80 For the sake of brevity these Gospels will be called simply Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

81 Hilgenfeld conjectures that this abrupt mention of Joseph indicates that he must already have been mentioned in the Gospel of Peter. _Zeitschr._ 1893, 11. Heft, pp. 244 f.

82 Cf. προσελθὼν τῷ Πιλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ._ Evang. Nicod._ Pars I. A. xi. 3; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 234.

_ 83 L.c._ pp. 26 f.

84 Zahn, of course, argues that the commands of Herod can only have been given to the previously named Jews, the judges of Jesus, “and perhaps to their servants” (_und etwa deren Diener_), and he finds fault with Harnack for here bringing in “soldiers” from the canonical Gospels, without warrant from the text. He declares them to be directly excluded by the leading tendency of the Gospel of Peter (_l.c._ p. 27). This supposed “leading tendency,” of hatred of the Jews, is a good deal exaggerated.

_ 85 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 248 f.

86 Murray, _Expositor_, January 1893, pp. 55 f.

87 Van Manen conjectures that the author got this “King of Israel” from the independent use of some Hebrew or Aramaic source. _Tijdschr._ Juli 1893, p. 408.

88 So, for instance, Swete, J. Rendel Harris, Robinson, and others. Others distinctly identify the αὐτῷ with the malefactor: as, for instance, Kunze, _l.c._ p. 22; Von Schubert, _l.c._ pp. 28 f.; cf. Lods, _l.c._ p. 21.

_ 89 L.c._ p. 26.

90 “Wer anderer Meinung ist, sollte sie für sich behalten” (_l.c._ p. 55).

_ 91 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 254.

92 Van Manen, _Theol. Tijdschrift_, 4de Stuk, 1893, pp. 408 f.; Martineau, _Nineteenth Century_, June 1893, p. 911.

93 In the apocryphal work called _Anaphora Pilati_, an account of the crucifixion supposed to be sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius, Pilate is represented as describing the darkness which comes over the whole earth, and saying that the Emperor could not be ignorant “that in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until evening” (ὅτι ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἧψαν λύχνους ἀπὸ ἕκτης ὥρας ἕως ὀψίας). _Anaphora Pilati_, B. 7; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 423.

94 With regard to this addition of Luke, we may refer to a very interesting letter of Dr. Abbott’s in the _Spectator_ of October 21, 1893, from which we take the liberty of extracting the following passage: “In Luke (xxiii. 45) the correct reading is τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος, of which the natural interpretation is, _the sun being eclipsed_. Now, as it was well known that an eclipse could only happen at _new_ moon, and as Passover was at _full_ moon, this would involve a portentous miracle. The probability is that Luke, who was by no means afraid of miracles, meant a miracle here. Not content with saying (with the Synoptics) ‘darkness came over all the land,’ he adds, in order to show that the darkness was miraculous, ‘the sun _being eclipsed_.’ But is this eclipse ‘an invention of a conscious or unconscious romancer’? An examination of the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew will show that it is not. There we find that Jesus uttered a cry to God as abandoning Him. These words caused difficulty from the first. The words ‘my God’ were rendered by some (_e.g._ the Gospel of Peter) ‘my Power;’ by the fourth Gospel the words were omitted; our oldest manuscripts exhibit many variations: ἠλι, ἠλει, ἐλωι; the very bystanders are said to have interpreted the words as referring to Elias failing to help. Now ‘_Elias failing to help_’ might be, in Greek, ἡλείου ἐκλειπόντος, or quite as often ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος, _i.e._ _the sun being eclipsed_. It seems extremely probable, then, that Luke is not here ‘_inventing_’ a miracle, but suggesting, or adopting, an edifying and miraculous interpretation of what seemed to him a non-edifying tradition” (pp. 546 f.).

95 Or “Why didst thou forsake me?”

_ 96 Dem. Ev._ x. 8, p. 494.

97 It is suggested that these words must be taken as sarcasm on the part of those who give the body to Joseph.

98 Harnack suggests that perhaps in the author’s time Joseph’s garden was a known locality (_l.c._ p. 28).

99 The Syriac version of Cureton has nearly the same reading.

_ 100 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 246.

101 It will be remembered that the same accusation is brought against Stephen in Acts. The mockery of the passers-by (Matt. xxvii. 40), “Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself,” is also in the same vein.

102 There is an interesting discussion of the question by Van Manen, _Theol. Tijdschr._ 1893, 4de Stuk, pp. 423 ff.

_ 103 L.c._ p. 28.

104 Dr. Swete also takes this view of the passage, _l.c._ p. 15, _n._ 4.

105 There are, of course, many instances of such exaggeration: Apoc. x. 1 f.; Hermas, Sim. ix. 6; 4 Esdras, ii. 43; _Passio Perp._ c. 10.

_ 106 L.c._ p. 70.

107 Cf. Justin, _Apol._ i. 55: _Dial._ lxxxvi. xci.; Irenaeus, _C. Haer._ ii. 24, 4; v. 17, 3 f. In the _Ev. Nicod._ ii. (Lat. B), in which the descent is fully treated, Jesus Christ is begged to make the sign of the cross: “Et factum est ita, posuitque dominus crucem suam in medio inferni, quae est signum victoriae et usque in aeternum permanebit” (_Evang. Nicodemi_, Pars ii. Latine B. cap. x. (xxvi.); Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 409; _Ep. Barn._ c. 12; Greg. Nyss. _Adv. Jud._ c. 7).

_ 108 Constitt. App._ viii. 12, pp. 259, 13 f.

109 The expression is so peculiar that we give it in the original.

_ 110 L.c._ pp. 263 f. Dr. Martineau translates the passage: “Hast thou preached obedience to them that sleep?” _Nineteenth Century_, June 1893, pp. 917 f.

111 Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 68 f.; Lods, _l.c._ p. 48, although with a ?; Zahn, _l.c._ pp. 22 f.; Robinson, _l.c._ pp. 24 f.; Swete, _l.c._ pp. xiv. 19. (Dr. Swete considers any reference to 1 Pet. iii. 19 improbable.) J. Rendel Harris, _l.c._ pp. 51 f., 89; von Schubert, _l.c._ pp. 101 f.; cf. van Manen, _l.c._ pp. 522 f.; Martineau, _l.c._ pp. 917 f.

_ 112 Dem. Ev._ 500. This is referred to by Dr. Swete, _l.c._ p. 19, _n._ 2.

113 For instance, Ignat. _Ep. Magn._ 9; Hermas, Sim. ix. 16.

_ 114 Dial._ lxxii.

_ 115 Haer._ iii. 20, 4; iv. 22, 1; 33, 1, 12; v. 31, 1.

_ 116 L.c._ p. 52.

117 Westcott and Hort put these words between double brackets, as almost certain interpolations, through the action of “Western influences.”

_ 118 The Gospel according to Peter_, p. 29, n. 1.

119 In the passage 1 Cor. xi. 23 mention is made of a betrayal: “in the night in which he was betrayed,” but without further detail, and it is quite consistent to suppose that the “betrayal” is not attributed to one of the Twelve. However, there is considerable reason for believing that this passage is an interpolation. It is a fact that a betrayal is not alluded to in any other place where we might expect to find it in these Epistles; _e.g._ Rom. iv. 25; viii. 32; Gal. ii. 20.

120 Harnack argues at considerable length that the Gospel according to Peter must have contained the episode of the woman taken in adultery, inserted into the fourth Gospel.

_ 121 Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 217.

_ 122 L.c._ pp. 213 f.

_ 123 L.c._ p. 215.

_ 124 L.c._ p. 216.

_ 125 L.c._ p. 216.

_ 126 Dial._ lxiv.

_ 127 L.c._ pp. 219 ff.

_ 128 L.c._ pp. 221 ff.

_ 129 E.g._ Matt. xii. 45; xv. 34, 37; xxii. 25 f.; Mark viii. 5, 8; xii. 20 ff.; xvi. 9; Luke ii. 36; viii. 2; xi. 26; xx. 29 f.

_ 130 L.c._ p. 222.

_ 131 Apoc._ v. 1 ff.

_ 132 L.c._ p. 224.

_ 133 Ibid._

134 This is not expressed in the text, which Mr. Harris rather strains for his purpose. The correct reading is: “We were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping,” καὶ ἐκαθεζόμεθα πενθοῦντες καὶ κλαίοντες.

_ 135 L.c._ pp. 224 f.

136 Barnabas, 7.

_ 137 L.c._ p. 226.

_ 138 L.c._ pp. 315 f.