,the ,gospel ,according ,to ,peter      
,a ,study                               
,by ,walter ,r4 ,cassels                
,author of 8,supernatural ,religion0    
,london3 ,longmans1 ,green1 ,and ,co4   
#ahid            ,,contents      ,i     
,,ii  ,,iii  ,,iv  ,v  ,,vi  ,,vii      
,,viii  ,,ix  ,x  ,,xi  ,,xii  ,appendix
  ,footnotes                            
44444    ,forasmuch as many took in hand
 to draw up a narrative concerning the  
matters which have been fully believed  
among us4444    ,,luke i4 #a            
,i      ,egypt1 in our days1 ceasing to 
be any more the land of bondage1 has1 in
  more senses than one1 become a        
veritable ,land of ,promise4 ,it is a   
rich  mine of historical and literary   
wealth1 alas6 most inadequately worked1 
and in that fine climate1 with its clear
 dry air1 the footprints of ,time1      
leaving scarcely a trace1 the treasures 
of an ancient civilisation1 even  of the
 most delicate texture1 have been       
preserved to us with wonderful          

perfection4 ,the habits of the peoples  
that have occupied the land have        
happily combined with the natural       
advantages of the climate1 in           
transmitting to the modern world an     
inheritance of which we are now         
beginning to take possession4 ,the dead 
have long been giving up their  secrets1
 but it is only in recent times that we 
have been able to realise  the fact that
 the tombs of ,egypt may contain many a 
precious work1 now  known to us but in  
name1 and many a writing which may      
change the current  of controversy1 and 
strangely modify many a cherished       
opinion4 ,without  referring here to    
earlier discoveries in support of these 
remarks1 we may  at once pass to the    
more recent1 with which we have         
particularly to do4    ,in the course of
 explorations carried on during the     
winter of #ahhf-hg by  the order of ,m4 
,grbaut1 then ,director of the ,museums 
of ,egypt1 two ,greek  manuscripts were 
discovered in the necropolis of ,akhmm1 

the ancient  ,panopolis1 in ,upper      
,egypt4 ,the first of these was a       
papyrus1 which was  really found by some
 ,fellahs who quarrelled regarding the  
partition of  their precious booty and  
thus allowed the secret to leak out4 ,it
 came to  the knowledge of the ,moudir1 
or ,governor of the ,province1 who      
promptly  settled the dispute by        
confiscating the papyrus1 which he      
forwarded to the  ,museum of ,gizeh at  
,boulaq4 ,this ,,ms4 is a collection of 
problems in  arithmetic and geometry1   
carefully written out1 probably by a    
student1 and  buried with him as his    
highest and most valued achievement4    
,the second manuscript was of much      
higher interest4 ,it was discovered in  
the tomb of a 8monk40 ,it consists of   
thirty-three pages in parchment1        
measuring #f inches in height by #d-    
inches in breadth1 without numbering1   
bound together in pasteboard covered    
with leather1 which has become black    
with time4 ,there is no date1 nor any   

other indication of the approximate  age
 of the ,,ms4 than that which is        
furnished by the characteristics of the 
writing and the part of the cemetery in 
which it was discovered4 ,these  lead to
 the almost certain conclusion1         
according to ,m4 ,bouriant1 who first   
transcribed the text1 that the ,,ms4    
cannot be anterior to the eighth        
century or posterior to the twelfth4    
,the ancient cemetery of ,akhmm         
stretches along to the north and west of
 the hill on which have been  discovered
 tombs of the eighteenth to the         
twentieth dynasties1 and it has  served 
as a burial-place for the ,christian    
inhabitants of the  neighbourhood from  
the fifth to the fifteenth centuries1   
the more ancient  part lying at the foot
 of the hill and extending gradually    
upward for  about #gjj metres4 ,the tomb
 in which the ,,ms4 was found is in a   
position  which approximately tallies1  
as regards age1 with the date indicated 
by  the ,,ms4 itself47#a7 ,of course1   

these indications refer solely to the   
date  of the ,,ms4 itself1 and not to   
the age of the actual works transcribed 
in  its pages4    ,the thirty-three     
sheets of parchment1 forming sixty-six  
pages1 commence  with an otherwise blank
 page1 bearing a rough drawing of a     
,coptic cross1  upon the arms of which  
rise smaller crosses of the same        
description1 and  the letters symbol and
 symbol stand the one on the left1 the  
other on  the right of the lower stem of
 the large cross4 ,over the page        
commences a  fragment of the 8,gospel of
 ,peter10 which continues to the end of 
page #aj1  where it abruptly terminates 
in the middle of a sentence4 ,pages #aa 
and #ab  have been left blank4 ,pages   
#ac to #ai contain a fragment of the    
8,apocalypse  of ,peter10 beginning and 
ending abruptly1 and these have1 either 
by  accident or design1 been bound in   
the volume upside down and in reverse   
order1 so that1 as they actually stand1 
the text commences at page #ai and  ends

 at page #ac4 ,page #bj is again blank1 
and the rest of the volume is  made up  
of two fragments of the ',book of       
,enoch1' the first extending from  the  
#bast to the #ejth page1 and the second1
 written by a different hand1  from the 
#east to the #ffth page4 ,finally1 on   
the inside of the binding1 and  attached
 to it1 is a sheet of parchment on which
 is written in uncials a  fragment of   
the ,greek 8,acts of ,st4 ,julian10     
though which ,st4 ,julian  amongst those
 in the ,calendar does not appear4      
,the ,french ,archeological ,mission    
published in #ahib7b7 the mathematical  
papyrus1 edited by ,m4 ,baillet1 but the
 much more interesting and important    
volume of fragments did not appear until
 #ahic17c7 when they were edited by  ,m4
 ,bouriant4 ,these precious works       
remained1 therefore1 practically hidden 
from the world for five or six years    
after their discovery1 in consequence   
of what is vaguely1 but truly1 described
 as 8vexatious delays10 whilst the      

comparatively uninteresting arithmetical
 work preceded them by more than a      
year4 ,the fragments of the 8,gospel0   
and 8,apocalypse0 of ,peter1 long known 
by references or quotations by the      
,fathers1 make us acquainted1 for the   
first time1 with the writings           
themselves1 and the fragments of the    
8,book  of ,enoch0 give us the ,greek   
text of part of an early work quoted by 
the  writer of the ,epistle of ,jude1   
hitherto only extant in an ,ethiopian   
version4    ,of almost greater interest 
than the actual discovery of these and  
other  precious ,,mss4 from time to     
time1 in a similar way1 is the          
possibility and  probability opened out 
to us that we may yet recover from the  
dead still  more precious works than    
these4 ,the cemetery of ,akhmm stands   
near the  ancient and very important    
city of ,panopolis1 and from a very     
early period  it was the centre of a    
considerable ,christian population4 ,the
 custom of  burying with the dead books 

which were a valued possession during   
life was  probably a survival of the    
same primitive custom in accordance with
 which  also a warrior's horse and dog  
and his weapons were interred with him  
to  serve him again in the world of     
spirits4 ,that books1 at a time when    
their  multiplication was so slow1      
should have been interred with their    
dead  possessor is not only curious but 
very fortunate for us1 and we may yet   
thank the cemetery of ,akhmm for        
preserving safely for us manuscripts    
which in no other way could have escaped
 the effects of time and the  ravages of
 barbarism4    ,the fragments with which
 we are dealing present some            
peculiarities which  deserve a moment's 
notice4 ,the ,gospel according to ,peter
 commences in the  middle of a sentence1
 but being at the top of a page it is   
probably only  part of a manuscript of  
which the earlier portion was either    
lost or  belonged to some one else4 ,the
 fragment1 however1 ends abruptly in the

  middle of a phrase and1 being followed
 by blank pages1 the reasonable         
presumption is that the scribe intended 
to complete the transcription1 but  for 
some reason did not do so4 ,it is       
curious that in a similar way the       
8,apocalypse of ,peter0 is only a       
fragment1 beginning and ending abruptly1
  with a page left blank for            
continuation4 ,did the scribe hastily   
copy stray  leaves of each work1 which  
had fortuitously come in his way1       
leaving room  for more should he be able
 to secure the rest8 or did he break off
 his  copy of the one to take up the    
other1 and with equal restlessness leave
 it  also unfinished8 ,we shall never   
know exactly1 but considering the value 
of  books at that epoch1 the probability
 seems to be that he hastily copied     
such portions of writings as had come   
into his possession1 time or  accident  
preventing the completion of his task4  
,the fragment of the 8,gospel0 of course
 does not bear any name or              

superscription--nor1 indeed1 does the   
8,apocalypse0--but the title is clearly 
deduced from the work itself1 the writer
 saying directly 8but ,i1 ,simon        
,peter10 and thus proving that the      
narrative takes the form of a           
composition by that ,apostle4 ,it may be
 remarked1 merely in passing1 that  it  
is a curious--if not in any way a       
significant--fact that the two          
,christian fragments in this little     
volume should both profess to have been 
written by the ,apostle ,peter4 ,are the
 peculiarities of the fragments which   
we have described due to the passage of 
some one having in his possession  two  
works selected as being believed to     
emanate from the chief of the           
,apostles1 from which there was only    
time to make these extracts8 ,there is  
some reason for thinking that the       
parchment may have previously been used 
for some other writing1 obliterated to  
make way for these fragments4 ,the      
little volume has not altogether escaped

 injury in its long rest by the  side of
 the dead1 and parts of the text have   
had to be supplied by  conjecture2 but1 
on the whole1 the writing is fairly     
legible and1 by the  invaluable aid of  
photography1 it has been copied and     
published with  complete fidelity4      
,before this was done1 that the first   
transcription by  ,m4 ,bouriant should  
have contained errors and omissions     
which led scholars  into mistaken       
conclusions is very intelligible1 but   
the text may now be  considered fairly  
settled1 and the following is a rather  
close and  unpolished translation of the
 8,gospel according to ,peter40         
,,ii      ,,the ,,gospel ,,according    
,,to ,,peter7#d7    7#a7 444 but of the 
,jews no man washed his hands1 neither  
,herod nor any one  of his judges2 and  
as they were not minded to wash1 ,pilate
 rose4 7#b7 ,and  then ,herod the ,king 
commandeth the ,lord to be taken1 saying
 unto them3  8,whatsoever ,i commanded  
that ye should do1 that do unto him40   

7#c7 ,but  there was there ,joseph1 the 
friend of ,pilate and of the ,lord1 and 
knowing  that they are about to crucify 
him1 he came to ,pilate and asked the   
body  of the ,lord for burial4 7#d7 ,and
 ,pilate sent to ,herod and asked for   
his  body4 7#e7 ,and ,herod said3       
8,brother ,pilate1 even if no one had   
begged for  him1 we should have buried  
him2 because the ,sabbath is at hand2   
for it is  written in the ,law3 #8,the  
sun must not go down upon one put to    
death4' 0    7#f7 ,and he delivered him 
to the people before the first day of   
the  ,unleavened bread of their feast4  
,and taking the ,lord they pushed him   
hurrying along1 and said3 8,let us drag 
along the ,son of ,god as we have  power
 over him40 7#g7 ,and they clad him with
 purple and set him on a seat  of       
judgment1 saying3 8,judge justly1 ,king 
of ,israel40 7#h7 ,and one of them      
brought a crown of thorns and set it    
upon the head of the ,lord4 7#i7 ,and   
others standing by spat upon his eyes1  

and others smote him on the cheeks2     
others pierced him with a reed1 and some
 scourged him1 saying3 8,with this      
honour honour we the ,son of ,god40     
7#aj7 ,and they brought two malefactors 
and crucified between them the ,lord2   
but he kept silence as feeling no pain4 
7#aa7 ,and as they set up the cross     
they wrote thereon3 8,this is the ,king 
of ,israel40 7#ab7 ,and they laid the   
clothes before him and distributed them 
and cast lots for them4 7#ac7 ,but  one 
of these malefactors reproved them1     
saying3 8,we have suffered this for  the
 evil which we wrought1 but this man who
 has become the ,saviour of men1  what  
wrong hath he done you80 7#ad7 ,and they
 were angry with him1 and they          
commanded that his legs should not be   
broken1 in order that he might die  in  
torment4    7#ae7 ,now it was mid-day1  
and a darkness covered all ,judaea1 and 
they were  troubled and anxious lest the
 sun should have set whilst he still    
lived1  for it is written for them3     

8,the sun must not go down upon one put 
to  death40 7#af7 ,and one of them said3
 8,give him to drink gall with vinegar20
  and having mixed1 they gave him to    
drink4 7#ag7 ,and they fulfilled all    
things and completed their sins upon    
their own head4 7#ah7 ,now many went    
about with lights1 thinking that it was 
night1 and some fell4 7#ai7 ,and the    
,lord cried aloud1 saying2 8,power1 my  
,power1 thou hast forsaken me60 and     
having spoken1 he was taken up4 7#bj7   
,and the same hour the veil of the      
temple of ,jerusalem was torn in twain4 
7#ba7 ,and then they took out the nails 
from the hands of the ,lord1 and laid   
him upon the earth2 and the whole earth 
quaked1 and great fear came upon  them4 
7#bb7 ,then did the sun shine out1 and  
it was found to be the ninth  hour4     
7#bc7 ,now the ,jews were glad and gave 
his body to ,joseph1 that he  might bury
 it1 for he had beheld the good works   
that he did4 7#bd7 ,and he  took the    
,lord and washed him1 and wrapped him in

 linen1 and brought him  into his own   
grave1 called 8,joseph's ,garden40      
7#be7 ,then the ,jews and the elders and
 the priests1 seeing the evil they  had 
done to themselves1 began to beat their 
breasts and to say3 8,woe for  our sins3
 judgment draweth nigh and the end of   
,jerusalem40 7#bf7 ,and ,i1  with my    
companions1 was mourning1 and being     
pierced in spirit we hid  ourselves2 for
 we were sought for by them as          
malefactors1 and as desiring  to burn   
the temple4 7#bg7 ,over all these       
things1 however1 we were fasting1  and  
sat mourning and weeping night and day  
until the ,sabbath4    7#bh7 ,but the   
scribes and ,pharisees and elders       
assembled themselves  together1 hearing 
that all the people murmured and beat   
their breasts1  saying3 8,if at his     
death these great signs have happened1  
behold how just  a one he is40 7#bi7    
,the elders were afraid and came to     
,pilate beseeching  him and saying3     
7#cj7 8,give us soldiers that we may    

watch his grave for  three days1 lest   
his disciples come and steal him1 and   
the people believe  that he rose from   
the dead and do us evil40 7#ca7 ,pilate1
 therefore1 gave  them ,petronius the   
centurion with soldiers to watch the    
tomb1 and with  them came the elders and
 scribes to the grave4 7#cb7 ,and they  
rolled a  great stone against the       
centurion and the soldiers and set it1  
all who  were there together1 at the    
door of the grave4 7#cc7 ,and they put  
seven  seals2 and setting up a tent     
there they kept guard4 7#cd7 ,and in the
  morning1 at the dawn of the ,sabbath1 
came a multitude from ,jerusalem and    
the neighbourhood in order that they    
might see the sealed-up grave4    7#ce7 
,now1 in the night before the dawn of   
the ,lord's day1 whilst the  soldiers   
were keeping guard over the place1 two  
and two in a watch1 there  was a great  
voice in the heaven4 7#cf7 ,and they saw
 the heavens opened and  two men come   
down from thence with great light and   

approach the tomb4 7#cg7  ,and the stone
 which had been laid at the door rolled 
of itself away by the  side1 and the    
tomb was opened and both the young men  
entered4    7#ch7 ,then those soldiers1 
seeing this1 awakened the centurion and 
the  elders1 for they also were keeping 
watch4 7#ci7 ,and whilst they were      
narrating to them what they had seen1   
they beheld again three men coming  out 
of the tomb and the two were supporting 
the one1 and a cross following  them4   
7#dj7 ,and the heads of the two indeed  
reached up to the heaven1 but  that of  
him that was led by 7#da7 their hands   
rose above the heavens4 ,and  they heard
 a voice from the heavens1 saying3      
8,hast thou preached to them  that are  
sleeping80 7#db7 ,and an answer was     
heard from the cross3 8,yea40  7#dc7    
,these1 therefore1 took counsel together
 whether they should go and  declare    
these things to ,pilate4 7#dd7 ,and     
whilst they were still  considering1 the
 heavens again appeared opened1 and a   

certain man  descending and going into  
the grave4    7#de7 ,seeing these       
things1 the centurion and his men       
hastened to ,pilate by  night1 leaving  
the tomb they were watching1 and        
narrated all things they  had seen1     
fearing greatly and saying3 7#df7       
8,truly he was a ,son of ,god40  ,pilate
 answered and said1 8,i am pure of the  
blood of the ,son of ,god1 but  thus it 
seemed good unto you40 7#dg7 ,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 seen4 7#dh7    
8,for it is better10 they said1  8to lay
 upon us the greatest sins before ,god1 
and not to fall into the  hands of the  
people of the ,jews and be stoned40     
7#di7 ,pilate1 therefore1  commanded the
 centurion and the soldiers to say      
nothing4    7#ej7 ,in the morning of the
 ,lord's day1 ,mary ,magdalene1 a       
disciple of the  ,lord 7through fear of 
the ,jews1 for they burnt with anger1   

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
 them71 7#ea7 took her women friends    
with  her and came to the grave where he
 was laid4 7#eb7 ,and they feared lest  
the  ,jews should see them1 and said3   
8,if we could not on that day in which  
he  was crucified weep and lament1 let  
us do these things even now at his      
grave4 7#ec7 ,but who will roll us away 
the stone that is laid at the door  of  
the grave1 in order that we may enter   
and set ourselves by him and do  the    
things that are due8 7#ed7 ,for great   
was the stone1 and we fear lest  some   
one should see us4 ,and if we should not
 be able to do it1 let us at  least lay 
down before the door that which we bring
 in his memory1 and let  us weep and    
lament till we come to our house40 7#ee7
 ,and they went and  found the tomb     
opened and1 coming near1 they stooped   
down and see there a  certain young man 
sitting in the midst of the tomb1       

beautiful and clad in  a shining        
garment1 who said to them3 7#ef7 8,why  
are ye come8 ,whom seek ye8  ,him who   
was crucified8 ,he is risen and gone    
away4 ,but if ye do not  believe1 stoop 
down and see the place where he lay1    
that he is not there2  for he is risen  
and gone away thither whence he was     
sent40 7#eg7 ,then the  women1          
frightened1 fled4    7#eh7 ,and it was  
the last day of the ,unleavened bread1  
and many went forth1  returning to their
 homes1 the feast being ended4 7#ei7    
,but we1 the twelve  disciples of the   
,lord1 wept and mourned1 and each went  
to his home  sorrowing for that which   
had happened4 7#fj7 ,but ,i1 ,simon     
,peter1 and  ,andrew1 my brother1 took  
our nets and went to the sea1 and there 
was with  us ,levi1 the son of          
,alphaeus1 whom the ,lord4444           
,,iii      ,no one can have studied this
 fragment of the ,gospel according to   
,peter1  with its analogy to1 and still 
more striking divergence from1 the      

canonical ,gospels1 without perceiving  
that we have here a most interesting    
work1 well worth serious examination4   
,the first question which naturally     
arises is connected with the date to be 
assigned to the fragment3 ,is this  a   
part of the work used by many of the    
,fathers and well known amongst them  as
 the ,gospel according to ,peter8 ,we   
must first endeavour to form a  correct 
judgment on this point4    ,eusebius has
 preserved to us the earliest detailed  
notice of the ,gospel  according to     
,peter extant1 in a quotation from      
,serapion1 who became ,bishop  of       
,antioch about ,a4,d4 #aij4 ,eusebius   
says3          ,there is likewise       
another work written by him upon the    
so-called      ,gospel according to     
,peter1 which he composed to refute the 
untruths contained in it1 on account of 
certain in the community      of        
,rhossus who were led away by this      
writing to heretical      doctrines4 ,it
 may be well to set forth some passages 

of this in      which he expresses his  
opinion of the book3        8,for we1   
brethren1 receive both ,peter and the   
other ,apostles even      as ,christ4   
,but the false writings passing under   
their names we      from experience     
reject1 knowing that such things we have
 not      received4 ,when ,i was with   
you1 ,i was under the impression that   
all      held to the right faith and1   
without going through the ,gospel put   
forward by them in the name of ,peter1  
,i said3 #8,if this is the only         
cause of difference amongst you1 let it 
be read4' ,but now1 having              
ascertained from information given to me
 that their minds were in      some mist
 of heresy1 ,i will hasten to come to   
you again2 so1      brethren1 expect me 
shortly4 ,we1 therefore1 brethren1      
knowing of      what heresy was         
,marcianus1 recognise how much he was in
      contradiction with himself17#e7   
not comprehending that which he was     
saying1 as you may perceive from what   

has been written unto you4      ,for we 
borrowed this gospel from others who    
used it3 that is to      say1 from the  
followers of those who introduced it    
before him1      whom we call           
,docetae--for most of its thoughts are  
of this      sect--having procured it   
from them1 ,i was able to go through it1
      and to find1 indeed1 that most was
 according to the right teaching      of
 the ,saviour1 but certain things were  
superadded1 which we      subjoin for   
you407#f7      ,there is little or no   
doubt that the writing before us is a   
fragment of  this 8,gospel according to 
,peter0 of which ,serapion writes47#g7  
,it must  always be remembered1 as we   
examine the evidence for the work1 that 
we  have here only a short fragment1 and
 that it would not be reasonable to     
expect to find in it materials for a    
perfect identification of the work  with
 references to it in writings of the    
,fathers4 ,within the few pages  which  
we possess1 however1 there is sufficient

 justification for  concluding that they
 formed part of the ,gospel current in  
,rhossus4 ,only  one 8,gospel according 
to ,peter0 is mentioned by early        
writers4 ,this  fragment distinctly     
pretends to be a narrative of ,simon    
,peter2 and its  matter is generally    
such as must have satisfied ,serapion's 
ideas of  orthodox doctrine1 if         
suspicion of ,docetic tendencies had not
 made him  believe that it contained a  
superadded leaven of heresy4 ,this may  
not  appear very clearly in the         
fragment1 but we know from other        
sources1 as we  shall presently see1    
that they existed in the ,gospel1 and   
even here the  representation that      
,jesus suffered no pain2 that he is     
always called 8the  ,lord10 or the 8,son
 of ,god20 that his one cry on the cross
 was susceptible  of peculiar           
explanation1 and that he was immediately
 8taken up10 whilst  his body           
subsequently presents aspects not common
 to the canonical  ,gospels1 may have   

seemed to the careful bishop            
sufficiently ,docetic to  warrant at    
least his not very severe condemnation4 
,it is unnecessary to discuss minutely  
the details of ,serapion's letter1      
which1 if vague in parts and open to    
considerable doubt in some important    
respects1 is at least sufficiently clear
 for our purpose in its general         
meaning4 ,nothing is known of the       
,marcianus to whom it refers4 ,the      
bishop  had evidently previously written
 of him1 but the context has not been   
preserved4 ,the ,armenian version1 made 
from a ,syriac text1 reads 8,marcion0   
for 8,marcianus10 but it would be       
premature on this authority to associate
  the episode with that arch-heretic of 
the second century4 ,it is clear from   
the bishop's words that on his previous 
visit to ,rhossus1 at the desire of     
part of the community1 he sanctioned the
 public reading of the ,gospel of       
,peter but1 after personal acquaintance 
with its contents1 he withdrew that     

permission4 ,zahn7#h7 maintains that the
 private reading by members of the      
,christian community1 and not public    
reading at the services of the ,church1 
is dealt with in this letter1 but in    
this he stands alone4 ,the ,index       
expurgatorius had not been commenced in 
the second century1 and it is           
impossible to think that the sanction of
 a bishop was either sought or  required
 for the private reading of individuals4
 ,we have here only an  instance of the 
diversity of custom1 as regards the     
public reading of  early writings1 to   
which reference is made in the writings 
of the ,fathers  and in the ,muratorian 
and other ,canons4 ,in this way the     
,epistle of the  ,roman ,clement1 as    
,eusebius7#i7 mentions1 was publicly    
read in the churches2  as were the      
,epistle of ,soter to the ,corinthians1 
the 8,pastor0 of  ,hermas17#aj7 the     
8,apocalypse of ,peter107#aa7 and       
various ,gospels which did  not         
permanently secure a place in the       

,canon4 ,eusebius1 for instance1  states
 that the ,ebionites made use only of   
the 8,gospel according to the           
,hebrews407#ab7    ,eusebius7#ac7       
mentions a certain number of works      
attributed to the ,apostle  ,peter3 the 
first ,epistle1 generally acknowledged  
as genuine1 8but that  which is called  
the second10 he says1 8we have not      
understood to be  incorporated with the 
testament0 774 ,the other works are1 the
  8,acts of ,peter10 the 8,gospel       
according to ,peter10 the 8,preaching of
  ,peter10 and the 8,apocalypse of      
,peter10 the last being doubtless the   
work  of which a fragment has now been  
discovered in the little volume which   
contains the fragment of the ,gospel    
which we are considering4 ,of these     
,eusebius says that he does not know of 
their being handed down as  ,catholic1  
or universally received by the ,church4 
,the 8,gospel according to ,peter0 is   
directly referred to by ,origen in his  
,commentary on ,matthew4 ,he says3      

8,some say1 with regard to the brethren 
of  ,jesus1 from a tradition in the     
,gospel entitled according to ,peter1 or
 of  the ,book of ,james1 that they were
 sons of ,joseph by a former wife407#ad7
  ,although this statement does not in  
itself necessarily favour ,docetic      
views1 it is quite intelligible that it 
might be used in support of them  and1  
therefore1 might have been one of the   
passages which excited the  suspicion of
 ,serapion1 more especially as a clear  
statement of this family  relationship  
is not to be found in the canonical     
,gospels4 ,the part of the  ,gospel     
referred to by ,origen is not1          
unfortunately1 contained in the         
fragment1 and consequently cannot be    
verified1 but it is quite in  accordance
 with its general spirit1 and at least  
we have here a distinct  mention of the 
,gospel without any expression of       
unfavourable opinion4 ,what  is more    
important still is the fact that ,origen
 certainly made use of the  ,gospel1    

amongst others1 himself47#ae7           
,jerome7#af7 likewise refers to it1     
after repeating the tradition that the  
,gospel was said to be ,peter's1 which  
,mark composed1 who was his hearer and  
interpreter2 and to the works ascribed  
to ,peter1 which ,eusebius  enumerates1 
he adds another--the 8,judgment of      
,peter10 of which little or  nothing is 
known4    ,theodoret says that the      
,nazarenes made use of the ,gospel      
according to  ,peter47#ag7 ,zahn and    
some others7#ah7 argue against the      
correctness of this  statement2 but     
reasoning of this kind1 based upon      
supposed differences of  views1 is not  
very convincing1 when we consider that  
inferences to be  drawn from            
peculiarities in the narrative in this  
,gospel are neither so  distinct1 nor so
 inevitable1 as to be forced upon a     
simple and uncritical  community1 and   
probably that the anti-,judaistic       
tendency of the whole1 the  strongest   
characteristic of the composition1      

secured its acceptance1 and  diverted   
attention from any less marked          
tendencies4    ,a number of passages    
have been pointed out in the ,didascalia
 and  ,apostolical ,constitutions1      
,origen1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1          
,dionysius of  ,alexandria1 and other   
ancient writers1 showing the use of this
 ,gospel  according to ,peter27#ai7 but 
into these later testimonies it is not  
necessary for us at present to go4 ,that
 the work long continued to  exercise   
considerable influence can scarcely be  
doubted4 ,it is to the  earlier history 
of the ,gospel and its use in the second
 century that we  must rather turn our  
attention4    ,a probable reference to  
the ,gospel of ,peter in ,polycarp's    
8,epistle to the  ,corinthians0 has been
 pointed out by ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4            
,conybeare47#bj7 ,the writer  speaks of 
8the testimony of the cross0 7   71 an  
expression which has puzzled critics a  
good deal4 ,no passage in our  ,gospels 
has hitherto explained it1 but if it be 

referred to the answer  made by the     
cross1 in our fragment1 to the question 
from ,heaven3 8,hast  thou preached to  
them that are sleeping8 ,and an answer  
came from the  cross1 #8,yea1' 0 it     
becomes at once intelligible4 ,mr4      
,taylor7#ba7 suggests  the question     
whether 8the word of the cross0 7   7 in
 #a  ,cor4 i4 #ah is not also connected 
with the same tradition of the speaking 
cross and1 as ,mr4 ,conybeare points    
out1 the context favours the idea1      
although he himself is not inclined to  
admit the interpretation4 ,the words  of
 ,paul are worth quoting3          ,for 
the word of the cross is to them that   
are perishing      foolishness2 but unto
 us which are being saved it is the     
power of      ,god4 #ai4 ,for it is     
written3 8,i will destroy the wisdom of 
the      wise1 and the prudence of the  
prudent will ,i reject20      and so on4
 ,but although he cannot agree in the   
suggestion that ,paul refers  to this   
tradition1 because1 he says1 8,such a   

view seems to me to be too  bold and    
innovating in its character10 ,mr4      
,conybeare goes on to suggest  that the 
incident in ,peter1 with this reply to  
the voice from heaven1 may  be          
one of the 8three mysteries of crying0  
referred to by ,ignatius1      ad ,eph4 
xix4 8,ritschl and ,lipsius10 says      
,lightfoot1 ad locum      8agree that   
two of the three were1 7#a7 the voice at
 the baptism1      7#b7 the voice at the
 transfiguration4 ,for the third 444    
,ritschl      supposes that ,ignatius   
used some other ,gospel containing a    
third      proclamation similar to the  
two others40 ,the ,peter ,gospel seems  
here to supply just what is wanted47#bb7
      ,these suggestions are quoted     
here1 in dealing with ,polycarp1 to show
 that  the supposition that he refers to
 the answer of the cross in the ,gospel 
of  ,peter is not without support in    
other early writings4 ,when it is       
remembered that the doctrine of a       
descent into ,hell has a place in the   

,creed of ,christendom1 it is not       
surprising that it should be dwelt on in
  early writings1 and that a ,gospel    
which proclaims it by a voice from      
,heaven1 coupled with a miraculous      
testimony from the cross1 should be     
referred to4 ,of course it is           
impossible1 in the absence of any       
explicit  declaration1 to establish by  
the passage we are discussing that the  
,gospel  according to ,peter was used by
 ,polycarp1 but there is some           
probability of  it at least1 since no   
other ,gospel contains the episode to   
which the  writer seems to refer4       
,,iv      ,we may now consider whether  
,justin ,martyr was acquainted with it1 
and here  again it may be well to remind
 the reader that we have only a small   
fragment of the ,gospel according to    
,peter to compare with the allusions to 
be found in writings of the ,fathers4   
,in these early works1 few quotations   
are made with any direct mention of the 
source from which they were taken1  and 

as only those parts of ,patristic       
writings which deal with the trial1     
crucifixion and resurrection of ,jesus  
can be expected to present analogies    
with our fragment1 it will readily be   
seen how limited the range of  testimony
 must naturally be4 ,justin ,martyr is  
usually supposed to have  died about    
,a4,d4 #afc-afe17bc7 and his first      
8,apology0 may be dated ,a4,d4  #adg1   
and the 8,dialogue with ,trypho0        
somewhat later4 ,in these writings1     
,justin very frequently refers to facts1
 and to sayings of ,jesus1 making1      
indeed1 some hundred and fifty          
quotations of this kind from certain    
8,memoirs of the ,apostles0 7  71 all of
 which  differ more or less from our    
present canonical ,gospels4 ,he never   
mentions  the name of any author of     
these ,memoirs1 if indeed he was        
acquainted with  one1 unless it be upon 
one occasion1 which is of peculiar      
interest in  connection with our        
fragment4 ,the instance to which we     

refer is the  following4 ,justin says3  
8,the statement also that he ,jesus     
changed the  name of ,peter1 one of the 
,apostles1 and that this is written in  
his  ,peter's ,memoirs as having been   
done1 together with the fact that he    
also  changed the name of other two     
brothers1 who were sons of ,zebedee1 to 
,boanerges--that is1 sons of thunder10  
c47#bd7 ,it was1 of course1 argued  that
 the  here does not refer to ,peter but 
to ,jesus2 or that the word  should be  
amended to  and applied to the          
,apostles2 but the majority  of critics 
naturally decided against such royal    
ways of removing  difficulties1 and were
 forced to admit a reference to         
8,memoirs of ,peter40  ,hitherto1 the   
apologetic explanation has been that the
 allusion of ,justin  must have been to 
the second ,synoptic1 generally referred
 to ,mark1 who was  held by many of the 
,fathers to be the mere mouthpiece and  
8interpreter of  ,peter10 and that this 
reference is supported by the fact that 

the ,gospel  according to ,mark is the  
only one of the four canonical works    
which  narrates these changes of name4  
,this argument1 however1 is disposed of 
by  the fact that our second ,synoptic  
cannot possibly be considered the work  
referred to in the tradition of         
,papias47#be7 ,returning to ,justin1 we 
find  that he designates the source of  
his quotations ten times as 8,memoirs of
  the ,apostles20 five times he calls it
 simply 8,memoirs10 and upon one        
occasion only explains that they were   
written 8by his ,apostles and their     
followers40 ,he never speaks            
indefinitely of 8,memoirs of ,apostles10
 but  always of the collective          
,apostles1 except in the one instance   
which has  been quoted above4 ,in a     
single passage there occurs an          
expression which  must be quoted4       
,justin says3 8,for the ,apostles in the
 ,memoirs composed by  them1 which are  
called ,gospels10 c47#bf7 ,the    has   
very  much the appearance of a gloss in 

the margin of some ,,ms41 which has     
afterwards been transferred to the text 
by a scribe1 as scholars have  before   
now suggested2 but in any case it makes 
little difference in the  argument4     
,it is obvious that the name 8,memoirs0 
cannot with any degree of propriety  be 
applied to our canonical ,gospels2 but  
the discovery of this fragment1  which  
is distinctly written as a personal     
narrative1 throws fresh light  upon the 
subject1 and the title 8,memoirs of     
,peter10 would exactly describe  the    
form in which the ,gospel is written4   
,it may further be suggested  whether it
 does not give us reason for            
conjecturing that the earlier           
documents1 from which our ,gospels were 
composed1 were similarly personal       
narratives or memoirs of those who took 
part in early ,christian  development4  
,the tradition preserved to us by       
,papias distinctly points in  this      
direction3          ,this also the      
,presbyter said3 ,mark having become the

 interpreter      of ,peter1 wrote      
accurately whatever he remembered1      
though he did      not arrange in order 
the things which were either said or    
done by      ,christ4 ,for he neither   
heard the ,lord1 nor followed him2 but  
afterwards1 as ,i said1 accompanied     
,peter1 who adapted his teaching      to
 the occasion1 and not as making a      
consecutive record of the      ,lord's  
oracles47#bg7      ,there can be very   
little doubt that the first teaching of 
,apostles and  early catechists must    
have taken the form of personal         
recollections of  various episodes of   
,christian history and reports of       
discourses and  parables1 with an       
account of the circumstances under which
 they were  delivered4 ,this familiar   
and less impressive mode of tracing     
,christian  history must gradually have 
been eliminated from successive forms of
 the  story drawn up for the use of the 
growing ,church1 until1 in the ,gospels 
adopted into the ,canon1 it had entirely

 disappeared4 ,in the fourth ,gospel1  a
 slight trace of it remains in the      
reference in the third person to the    
writer1 and it is present in parts of   
the ,apocalypse2 but a more marked      
instance is to be found in the 8,acts of
 the ,apostles20 not so much in the     
prologue--which1 of course1 is not      
really part of the book--where the      
author  distinctly speaks in the first  
person1 as in the narrative after the   
call  to ,macedonia 7xvi4 #aj-ag71 where
 the writer falls into the use of the   
first person plural 771 resumes it after
 a break 7xx4 #e-ae71 and  abandons it  
again1 till it is recommenced in xxi4   
#a-ah1 xxvii4 #a1 xxviii4  #af4 ,as the 
author doubtless made use of written    
sources of information1  like the       
writers of our ,gospels1 it is most     
probable that1 in these  portions of the
 ,acts1 he simply inserted portions of  
personal written  narratives which had  
come into his possession4 ,the ,gospel  
according to  ,peter1 which escaped the 

successive revisals of the canonical    
,gospels1  probably presents the more   
original form of such histories4 ,we    
are1 of  course1 unable to say whether  
the change of names referred to by      
,justin  was recorded in earlier        
portions of this ,gospel which have not 
been  recovered1 but the use of the     
double name1 8,i1 ,simon ,peter10       
favours the  supposition that it was4   
,without attaching undue importance to  
it1 it may be well to point out--in     
connection with ,origen's statement     
that1 in the ,gospel according to       
,peter1  the brethren of ,jesus are     
represented as being of a previous      
marriage--that  the only genealogy of   
,jesus which is recognised by ,justin is
 traced  through the ,virgin ,mary1 and 
excludes ,joseph47#bh7 ,she it is who is
  descended from ,abraham1 ,isaac and   
,jacob1 and from the house of ,david4   
,the  genealogy of ,jesus in the        
canonical ,gospels1 on the contrary1 is 
traced  solely through ,joseph1 who     

alone is stated to be of the lineage of 
,david4  ,the genealogies of the first  
and third ,synoptics1 though differing  
in  several important particulars1 at   
least agree in excluding ,mary4 ,in the 
third ,gospel ,joseph goes to ,juda     
8unto the city of ,david1 which is      
called  ,bethlehem1 because he was of   
the house and lineage of ,david407#bi7  
,justin  simply states that ,joseph went
 8to ,bethlehem 444 for his descent was 
from  the tribe of ,judah1 which        
inhabited that region407#cj7 ,justin    
could not1  therefore1 derive his       
genealogies from the canonical ,gospels2
 and his  ,memoirs1 from which he learns
 the ,davidic descent through ,mary     
only1 to  which he refers no less than  
eleven times1 differed from them        
distinctly  on this point4 ,the ,gospel 
according to ,peter1 which1 according to
 ,origen1  contained a statement which  
separated ,jesus from his brethren in   
the  flesh1 in all probability must have
 traced the ,davidic descent through    

,mary4 ,the ,gospel of ,james1 commonly 
called the 8,protevangelium10 to a form 
of which1 at least1 ,origen refers at   
the same time as the ,gospel according  
to ,peter1 states that ,mary was of the 
lineage of ,david47#ca7 ,there are      
other peculiarities in ,justin's account
 of the angelic announcement to  ,mary  
differing distinctly from our canonical 
,gospels17#cb7 regarding some  of which 
,tischendorf was of opinion that they   
were derived from the                   
8,protevangelium20 but there are reasons
 for supposing that they may have  come 
from a still older work1 and if it      
should seem that ,justin made use  of   
the ,gospel according to ,peter1 these  
may also have been taken from it4  ,in  
the absence of the rest of the ,gospel1 
however1 all this must be left  for the 
present as mere conjecture4    ,the     
fragment begins with a broken sentence  
presenting an obviously  different story
 of the trial of ,jesus from that of the
 canonical ,gospels4  8444 but of the   

,jews no man 7   7 washed his hands1    
neither ,herod 7 7 nor any of his       
judges4444 ,pilate rose up  7 74 ,and   
then ,herod the ,king 7  7 commandeth   
the ,lord to be taken10 c4 ,justin in   
one place7#cc7 refers to this trial as  
foretold by the prophetic spirit1 and   
speaks of what was done against the     
,christ 8by ,herod the ,king of the     
,jews1 and the ,jews themselves1 and    
,pilate  who was your governor among    
them1 and his soldiers0 7               
74 ,this combination agrees with the    
representation of the fragment1 and of  
course differs from that of the         
,gospels4 ,in ,dial4 ciii4 ,justin      
repeats this to some extent1 adding that
 he  sent ,jesus 8bound0 774 ,this      
representation does not exist in  ,luke1
 but neither is it found in what we have
 of the ,gospel according to  ,peter1   
though it may have occurred in the      
commencement of the scene to  which we  
are so abruptly introduced4    ,justin  
says in another place3 8,for as the     

prophet said1 worrying him7#cd7  7 71   
they set him 77 upon a judgment seat 7  
71 and said1 #8,judge for us' 7 7407#ce7
 ,in the ,gospel  according to ,peter we
 have3 8,they said1 #8,let us drag along
 77 the  ,son of ,god' 444 and they set 
,him 7 7 upon a seat of judgment  7 71  
saying1 #8,judge justly 7 71 ,king of   
,israel4' 07#cf7 ,this representation is
 different from any in our ,gospels1    
and it has some singular points of      
agreement with our fragment4 ,it has    
frequently been suggested that ,justin1 
in this passage1 makes use of our       
canonical ,gospels with a combination of
 the ,septuagint version of ,isaiah     
lviii4 #b1 #c1 and that this is         
supported by the expression 8as said the
  prophet40 ,this does not sufficiently 
explain the passage1 however4 ,the      
,septuagint version of the part of      
,isaiah lviii4 #b referred to reads3    
--8,they ask me now for just judgment40 
,justin drops the 8just10 which stands  
both in ,isaiah and in the fragment1    

and therefore the omission may be       
considered equally unfavourable to both 
writings as the source4 ,in other       
respects ,justin is nearer the ,gospel  
than  the prophet4 ,on the other hand1  
the proposed use of  as a  transitive   
verb would make the fourth ,gospel1 xix4
 #ac1 read3 8,pilate 444  brought ,jesus
 out1 and set him 77 upon a judgment    
seat 7  710 c42 and it is pretended that
 ,justin may have taken it in this      
sense1 and that by the use of the word  
he betrays his indebtedness to  the     
fourth ,gospel4 ,this use of the verb1  
however1 can scarcely be  maintained4   
,it is impossible to suppose that       
,pilate himself set ,jesus on a         
judgment seat1 as this transitive use of
  would require us to  receive2 and we  
must1 more especially in the absence of 
a distinct object1  receive it as the   
,revisers of the ,new ,testament have   
rightly  done--intransitively3 8,he     
brought ,jesus out and sat down407#cg7  
,in ,justin it  is not ,pilate but the  

,jews who drag ,jesus along1 and put him
 on a judgment  seat1 and the use of the
 ordinary  for the expression of the    
fragment1  8a seat of judgment0 7 71 is 
not surprising in a writer like         
,justin1 who is not directly quoting1   
but merely giving the sense of a        
passage4 ,however this may be1 the whole
 representation is peculiar1 and  the   
conclusion of many critics is that it   
proves ,justin's dependence on  the     
,gospel according to ,peter47#ch7       
,justin1 speaking of an incident of the 
crucifixion1 says3 8,and those who  were
 crucifying him parted his garments 7   
7 amongst  themselves1 casting lots 7 71
 each taking what pleased him1          
according to the cast of the lot 7      
7407#ci7 ,in the ,gospel  according to  
,peter it is said3 8,and they laid the  
clothes 7 7  before him1 and distributed
 them 771 and cast lots 7  7 for them40 
,the use of the peculiar expression     
both  by the ,gospel and ,justin is     
undoubtedly striking1 especially1 as    

,dr4 ,swete  properly points out1 as its
 use in this connection is limited1 so  
far as  we know1 to the ,gospel of      
,peter1 ,justin1 and ,cyril47#dj7 ,it is
 rendered  more important by the fact   
that1 both in the ,gospel and ,justin1  
the  casting of lots is applied to all  
the clothes1 in contradistinction to the
  fourth ,gospel1 in which it is        
connected with the coat alone1 and that 
neither has any mention of the          
,johannine peculiarity that the coat was
  without seam4    ,justin says that    
after he was crucified all the          
8acquaintances of ,jesus  forsook him0 7
    727#da7 and in another  place that  
after his crucifixion 8the disciples who
 were with him  dispersed 77 until he   
rose from the dead407#db7 ,this         
representation is found in the first    
,synoptic only1 but agrees still  better
 with vv4 #bf1 #bg1 and #ei of our      
fragment4 ,elsewhere1 ,justin1 in       
agreement with the fragment1 speaks of  
,herod1 8,king of the ,jews407#dc7      

,further1 he says1 more than once1 that 
the ,jews sent persons throughout  the  
world to spread calumnies against       
,christians1 amongst which was the      
story that 8his disciples stole him by  
night from the grave 7      7 where he  
had been laid when he was unloosed  from
 the cross 7   7407#dd7 ,the first      
,synoptic alone  has the expression     
regarding the disciples stealing the    
body1 using the  same verb1 but our     
fragment alone uses  for the tomb and   
offers a  parallel for the unloosing    
from the cross in v4 #ba4 ,we must1     
however1  point out that the statement  
regarding these emissaries from the     
,jews is  not found at all in our       
canonical ,gospels47#de7    ,it will be 
remembered that1 in the fragment1 the   
only cry from the cross  is3 8 #8,power1
 my ,power1 thou hast forsaken me1' and 
having spoken1 he was  taken up40 ,this 
is one of the most striking variations  
from the canonical  ,gospels4 ,it is    
also claimed as1 perhaps1 the most      

,docetic representation  of the         
fragment1 for the idea was that one     
,christ suffered and rose1 and  another 
flew up and was free from               
suffering47#df7 ,it was believed by the 
,docetae that the ,holy ,spirit only    
descended upon the human ,jesus1 at his 
baptism1 in the shape of a dove4 ,now   
one of the statements of ,justin from   
his ,memoirs1 which has no existence in 
our ,gospels1 was that1 when ,jesus     
went to be baptized by ,john1           
,as ,jesus went down to the water1 a    
fire was also kindled in the            
,jordan2 and when he came up from the   
water1 the ,holy ,spirit like a         
dove fell upon him1 as the ,apostles of 
this very ,christ of ours      wrote 444
 and at the same time a voice came from 
the heavens 444      8,thou art my son1 
this day have ,i begotten thee40        
,justin repeats his version of the words
 a second time in the same              
chapter47#dg7 ,the ,synoptics make the  
voice say3 8,thou art my beloved son2   

in thee ,i am well pleased10 instead of 
the words from ,psalm ii4 #g4 ,now1     
although we have not the part of the    
,gospel according to ,peter in which    
the earlier history of ,jesus is        
related1 it is not improbable that      
,justin's version1 agreeing as it does  
with the later episode in the  fragment 
and with the criticism of ,serapion1 was
 taken from this ,gospel4    ,we refer  
to this point1 however1 for the purpose 
of introducing another  statement of    
,justin1 which may be worth a little    
consideration in  connection with our   
fragment4 ,one of the passages which are
 supposed most  clearly to betray       
,docetic tendencies is the expression1  
v4 #aj1 that when  the ,lord was        
crucified 8he kept silence1 as feeling  
no pain0 7    74 ,it is evident that    
these words may either be taken as      
simply  representing the fortitude with 
which suffering was endured1 or         
understood  to support the view that no 
pain was really suffered1 though this is

 by no  means actually said4 ,now1      
,justin1 in another chapter of his      
8,dialogue with  ,trypho10 in which he  
again refers to the baptism and quotes  
the words of  the voice as above1 cites 
the agony in the garden to prove that   
8the  ,father wished his ,son really to 
suffer 7 7 for our sakes1 and  that we  
may not say that he1 being the ,son of  
,god1 did not feel what was  happening  
and being inflicted upon him407#dh7 ,he 
goes on to say that the  silence of     
,jesus1 who returned no answer to any   
one in the presence of  ,pilate1 was    
foretold in a passage which he quotes4  
,all this1 in connection  with          
representations not found in our        
canonical ,gospels1 may form another    
link with the ,gospel according to      
,peter1 as one of his ,memoirs4 ,justin 
evidently made use of passages like the 
words at the baptism1 to which he  did  
not attach any ,docetic interpretation1 
and it is quite natural that he  should 
argue against the view that ,jesus did  

not really suffer pain1 and  yet read   
quite naturally the words we are        
discussing1 without directly  referring 
to them4 ,it was the practice of these  
early sects to twist  passages1 not     
originally intended to favour them1 into
 evidence for their  views1 and an      
ordinary ,christian might possess a     
,gospel containing them1  in complete   
unconsciousness that it tended in the   
slightest degree to  encourage          
heresy47#di7 ,it is evident from several
 quotations which we have  made1 and    
from others which might be adduced1 that
 ,justin was an example  of this very   
thing4    ,a number of small points     
might be added to these1 but we do not  
go into  them here4 ,a majority of the  
critics who have discussed the question 
are  of opinion that ,justin made use of
 the ,gospel according to ,peter17#ej7  
and  even apologists1 7who as a body    
seem agreed to depreciate the fragment71
  whilst refusing to admit its use by   
,justin1 are not generally very decided 

in their denial nor1 as we shall        
presently see1 inclined to assign it a  
date which excludes the possibility4    
,the case may be summed up in a few     
words4 ,justin undeniably quotes from   
his 8,memoirs of the ,apostles0 facts   
and passages which are not found in our 
,gospels2 he distinctly refers to       
statements as contained in certain      
8,memoirs of ,peter207#ea7 some of these
  variations from the canonical ,gospels
 have linguistic and other parallels  in
 our fragment1 short as it is1 and there
 is reason to suppose that  others would
 have been found in it had the entire   
,gospel been extant for  comparison2 the
 style of the fragment precisely tallies
 with the peculiar  name of 8,memoirs10 
being a personal narrative in the first 
person  singular2 and finally1 there is 
nothing in its composition or character 
which necessitates the assignment of    
such a date to the fragment as would    
exclude the possibility1 or probability1
 of its use by ,justin4            ,v   

,we may now consider whether there is   
any indication of the use of this       
,gospel according to ,peter by the      
author of the 8,epistle of ,barnabas40  
,the  ,epistle is variously dated       
between ,a4,d4 #gj-acb1 apologists      
leaning towards  the earlier date4 ,the 
shortness of the fragment recovered1 of 
course1  diminishes greatly the         
probability of finding any trace of its 
use in so  comparatively brief a work as
 this ,epistle1 but some indications may
 be  pointed out4 ,the fragment states  
that1 being anxious lest the sun should 
set whilst he was still living and the  
law regarding one put to death be       
transgressed1 8one of them said3 #8,give
 him to drink gall with vinegar1'  and  
having mixed they gave him to drink 7   
2    747#eb7 444 ,over all these things1
 however1 we were  fasting 7    77#ec7  
444 the whole people 444  beat their    
breasts 7   444   7407#ed7 ,this        
representation not only differs from the
 canonical ,gospels in 8gall with       

vinegar0 being given to drink1 but in   
the view that it was not given to       
relieve thirst1 but as a potion to      
hasten death17#ee7 and there follow     
various statements regarding fasting and
 mourning4 ,now in ,barnabas  precisely 
the same representation is made4 ,the   
,epistle says3          ,but also when  
crucified1 he had vinegar and gall given
 him to      drink 7      74 ,hear how1 
on      this matter1 the priests of the 
temple have revealed4 ,seeing that      
there is a commandment in ,scripture3   
8,whosoever shall not observe      the  
fast shall surely die10 the ,lord       
commanded1 because he was in      his   
own person about to offer the vessel of 
his spirit for our      sins 444 8,since
 ye are to give me1 who am to offer my  
flesh for      the sins of my new       
people1 gall with vinegar to drink1 eat 
ye      alone1 while the people fasts   
and wails4444 7          444            
7407#ef7      ,there are three          
suppositions as the possible explanation

 of this  similarity3 7#a7 that the     
author of the ,epistle derived his      
statement from  the ,gospel2 7#b7 that  
the author of the ,gospel derived it    
from the ,epistle1  or 7#c7 that both   
drew it from a third and earlier source4
 ,assigning as we  do the later date to 
the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 the first of 
these  hypotheses seems to us the most  
natural and the correct one1 although1  
of  course1 it is impossible to prove   
that both did not derive it from another
  source4 ,the second explanation we    
must definitely reject1 both because we 
consider that priority of date lies with
 the fragment1 and because it does  not 
seem probable that the representation   
originated in the ,epistle4 ,to  admit  
this would be to suppose that the author
 first fabricated the  statement that   
,jesus was given gall and vinegar to    
hasten death1 and then  proceeded       
immediately to explain the circumstance 
by means of the  elaborate gnosis with  
which the ,epistle is filled4 ,it is    

quite undeniable  that the whole        
narrative of the ,gospels grew out of   
the suggestions of  supposed prophetic  
passages in the ,old ,testament1 but the
 author of the  ,epistle introduces the 
statement upon which his explanation is 
based1 with  a simplicity which seems to
 exclude the idea of its being his own  
fabrication3 8,but also1 when crucified1
 he had vinegar and gall given him  to  
drink40 ,there is not the ring here of a
 statement advanced for the  first time1
 but if we suppose that the author had  
read it in such a work  as the ,gospel  
according to ,peter1 it would be quite  
natural4 ,it is not to  be understood   
that we doubt that the account in the   
fragment1 or in our  ,gospels1 was      
suggested by passages in the ,old       
,testament1 but simply that  we do not  
believe that the representation         
originated in this ,epistle1 in         
immediate connection with the elaborate 
explanation given4 ,a tradition1        
gradually influenced by such prophetic  

and other considerations1 may have  been
 embodied by the author of the ,gospel  
in his narrative1 and then the  writer  
of the ,epistle may have seized upon it 
and enlarged upon its  typical          
signification1 but it is not probable   
that he originated it  himself4         
,,vi      ,we do not propose to enter   
here upon an inquiry whether there is   
any  evidence within our short fragment 
that the ,gospel according to ,peter was
  used by other early writers4 ,the     
slight traces which alone we could hope 
to find1 and which several able critics 
do find17#eg7 cannot be decisive of     
anything1 and whilst there may be a     
faint literary interest in pursuing     
such researches1 they need not detain us
 here4 ,a short consideration may1      
however1 be given to ,tatian4 ,some     
critics1 impressed apparently with the  
idea that no early ,gospels can possibly
 be otherwise than dependent on our     
canonical works1 yet having to explain  
the continuous divergence from the      

canonical narratives1 advance the       
suggestion1 that the writer of the      
,gospel according to ,peter may have    
derived all the points which the        
fragment contains1 in common with one or
 more of the canonical ,gospels1  from a
 ,harmony of our ,gospels4 ,now1 the    
only ,harmony of the second century     
which1 they think1 has survived is the  
so-called 8,diatessaron0 of ,tatian4    
,of course1 they find that the          
8,diatessaron0 8might have furnished the
  writer of the fragment with all the   
incidents which he shares with any of   
the ,four ,gospels40 ,dr4 ,swete        
continues3 8,the order in ,peter is not 
always  the same as it seems to have    
been in ,tatian1 but differences of     
order may  be disregarded in our        
inquiry1 since they are equally         
embarrassing if we  assume that the     
writer had recourse to the ,gospels as  
separate books407#eh7    ,not content   
with the conclusion that the ,gospels1  
narrating the very same  history1 might 

have furnished the incidents which they 
have in common1 ,dr4  ,swete proceeds   
8to compare the #8,diatessaron' with our
 fragment1 with the  view of            
ascertaining whether ,tatian would have 
provided the ,petrine writer  with the  
words which he seems to have adopted    
from the ,four ,gospels407#ei7    ,this 
is not the place to discuss again the   
identity of the supposed                
8,diatessaron10 but it will be          
sufficient to point out that we have it 
only  in an ,arabic version1 published  
and translated by ,ciasca1 and a        
translation of the supposed ,armenian   
version of the ,commentary upon it1     
ascribed to ,ephraem1 which again       
,moesinger1 who edited the ,latin       
version  published in #ahgf1 declares to
 be itself translated from the ,syriac4 
,in  these varied transformations of the
 text1 anything like verbal accuracy    
must be regarded as totally lost4 ,the  
object in making the versions was  not1 
of course1 critical fidelity1 and       

variations from canonical texts  would1 
no doubt1 often or always be regarded as
 accidental and to be  corrected4 ,such 
translations can never1 in textual      
criticism1 be accepted  as sufficient   
representations of the original4 ,the   
process1 however1 by  which ,dr4 ,swete 
proceeds to ascertain whether the author
 of the fragment  derives from ,tatian  
the words which he seems to have adopted
 from the  ,four ,gospels1 is to place  
side by side with the ,petrine          
narrative1 in  certain crucial passages1
 the corresponding portions of the      
8,diatessaron10  approximately          
represented in ,greek1 and he selects   
the accounts of the  mockery1 the three 
hours1 the burial1 and the visit of the 
women to the  tomb4 ,he thus explains   
his system3 8,the plan adopted has been 
to  substitute for ,ciasca's translation
 of the ,arabic ,tatian the             
corresponding  portions of the canonical
 ,gospels4 ,the text has been determined
 by a  comparison of ,ciasca's ,latin   

with ,moesinger's ,evangelii            
,concordantis  ,expositio1 and the      
,curetonian ,syriac of ,luke xxiii41    
xxiv4 ,it claims1 of  course1 only to be
 an approximate and provisional         
representation of the  text of the      
original work407#fj7 ,however impartial 
,dr4 ,swete may have tried  to be--and  
without doubt he did endeavour to be    
so--such a test is vitiated  and        
rendered useless by the antecedent      
manipulation of the texts4 ,the  result 
at which he arrives is3 8,this          
comparison does not justify the         
conclusion that the writer of our       
fragment was limited to the use of the  
#8,diatessaron' 0--the exact contents of
 which1 in its original shape1 be it    
noted1 ,dr4 ,swete1 a few lines further 
on1 admits that we do not know1 8so     
that it would be unsafe to draw any     
negative inference0 from certain        
exceptions4          ,on the whole we   
may perhaps claim to have established a 
strong      presumption that the        

,petrine writer employed a ,harmony     
which1 in      its general selection of 
extracts1 and in some of its minuter    
arrangements1 very nearly resembled the 
,harmony of ,tatian4 ,this is      not  
equivalent to saying that he used       
,tatian1 because there is      some     
reason to think that there may have been
 a ,harmony or      ,harmonies earlier  
than ,tatian4444 ,thus the relation of  
the ,petrine      writer to ,tatian     
remains for the present an open         
question2 but      enough has been said 
to render such a relation probable1 if  
further inquiries should lead us to     
place the ,gospel of ,peter      after  
the publication of the                  
8,diatessaron407#fa7      ,it must      
frankly be asserted that the whole of   
this comparison with ,tatian1  and the  
views so curiously expressed regarding  
the result1 are the outcome  of a       
preconceived idea that the ,petrine     
author compiled his ,gospel mainly  from
 the canonical4 ,the divergencies being 

so great1 however1 and the  actual      
contradictions so strong1 it becomes    
necessary to account for them  in some  
way1 and the theory of the use of a     
,harmony is advanced to see  whether it 
may not overcome some of the            
difficulties4 ,it would have been  more 
to the purpose to have inquired whether 
the so-called 8,diatessaron0  did not   
make use of the ,gospel according to    
,peter1 amongst others4    ,in          
connection with this it may be well to  
refer to some remarkable  observations  
of ,professor ,j4 ,rendel ,harris       
regarding the relation of the  ,gospel  
according to ,peter and ,tatian's       
,harmony4 ,when the fragment was  first 
discovered1 he was naturally struck by  
its great importance4 8,the  ,gospel of 
,peter1 even in the imperfect form in   
which it has come down to  us1 is the   
breaking of a new seal1 the opening of a
 fresh door10 he said1  8to those who   
are engaged in the problems presented by
 ,biblical and  ,patristic              

criticism107#fb7 and he very rightly    
proceeded to try to find out  8whether  
,peter has used ,tatian1 or ,tatian     
,peter1 or whether both of them  are    
working upon common sources407#fc7 ,he  
first refers to 8a curious  addition to 
the story of the ,crucifixion1 which can
 be shown1 with a very  high            
probability1 to have once stood in the  
,harmony of ,tatian40 ,the most         
interesting and instructive part of the 
reference is that ,mr4 ,harris had  made
 and published1 some years before the   
discovery of the fragment before  us1   
certain notes on the ,harmony of        
,tatian1 in which he had employed 8the  
method of combination of passages in    
different writers who were known to     
have used the ,harmony1 or different    
texts which were suspected of having    
borrowed from it1 to show that in the   
account of the ,crucifixion there  stood
 a passage something like the following3
          8,they beat their breasts and 
said1 ,woe unto us1 for the things      

which are done to-day for our sins2 for 
the desolation of      ,jerusalem hath  
drawn nigh407#fd7      ,it is           
unnecessary here to quote the way ,mr4  
,harris arrived at this  passage1 which 
he frankly states1 but at once go on to 
compare it with our  fragment4 ,he sums 
up3          ,now the reader will be    
interested to see that the missing      
sentence      which ,i restored to      
,tatian's text has turned up in the     
,gospel of      ,peter1 for we read     
that3 8,the ,jews and the elders and the
 priests1      when they saw what an    
evil deed they had done to themselves1  
began      to beat their breasts and to 
say1 ,woe to our sins1 for the          
judgment and the end of ,jerusalem is at
 hand40 ,did the false ,peter      take 
this from ,tatian1 or was it the other  
way8 or did both of      them use some  
uncanonical writing or tradition87#fe7  
8,there is nothing in what follows in   
the ,arabic ,harmony10 ,mr4 ,harris     
points out1 8which suggests an allusion 

to the desolation of the city1 or  an   
imprecation upon1 or lamentation over1  
themselves407#ff7    ,very few will feel
 any doubt that this is taken from our  
,gospel according  to ,peter1 or        
possibly--for of course there is no     
absolute proof--from the  tradition     
which the writer of that ,gospel also   
used1 and not by the writer  from the   
,harmony2 and it may be suggested that  
the omission of this and  similar       
passages from versions of the ,harmony  
may have been influenced by  the fact   
that1 not forming part of our ,gospels1 
and not agreeing with the  preconceived 
theory of a ,harmony of our four        
,gospels1 such passages were  excluded  
as interpolations4    ,another instance 
given by ,mr4 ,harris is the statement  
in the fragment3  8,then the sun shone  
out1 and it was found to be the ninth   
hour10 which he  compares with the      
language of 8,tatian's0 commentator3    
8,three hours the sun  was darkened1 and
 afterwards it shone out again407#fg7   

,and further3          ,another case of 
parallelism is in the speech of the     
angel to ,mary3      8,he is not here1  
for he is risen1 and has gone away to   
the place      from whence he was sent40
 ,at first sight this looks like a      
wilful      expansion on the part of the
 writer of the ,gospel2 but on a        
reference to the ,persian father        
,aphrahat1 who is more than             
suspected of having used the text of    
,tatian1 we find the words1      8,and  
the angels said to ,mary1 ,he is risen1 
and gone away to him      that sent     
him10 which is very nearly in           
coincidence with the text      of the   
false ,peter47#fh7      ,neither of     
these passages is found in the actual   
text of 8,tatian40  ,finally1 we may    
quote the other instance pointed out by 
,mr4 ,harris3          ,the ,docetic    
quotation from the ,psalm 8,my ,power1  
my ,power1 hast      thou forsaken me80 
is peculiar in this respect1 that the   
second      possessive pronoun is       

wanting1 so that we ought to translate  
it      8,power1 my ,power 4440 ,now1 it
 is curious that ,tatian's text had a   
similar peculiarity1 for ,ephrem gives  
it as 8,god1 my ,god10 and the          
,arabic ,harmony as ,yaiil1 ,yaiili1    
where the added suffix belongs      to  
the possessive pronoun4 ,this is a      
remarkable coincidence1 and      makes  
one suspect that ,tatian had 8,power1 my
 ,power0 in his text1      and that it  
has been corrected away4 ,and it is     
significant that      ,ephrem in        
commenting on the passage1 says3 8,the  
divinity did not      so far depart from
 the humanity as to be cut off from it1 
but only      as regards the power of   
the divinity1 which was hidden both from
      the ,slain and the slayers40 ,this
 looks very suspicious that ,ephrem     
found something in his text of ,tatian  
differing from the words      8,god1 my 
,god407#fi7      ,mr4 ,harris reserves  
his final judgment on this relation     
between ,tatian and  the ,gospel        

according to ,peter2 but as in a later  
article7#gj7 he is not  unwilling to    
allow the date of ,a4,d4 #acj to be     
assigned to the fragment1 it  is        
scarcely to be decided as ,peter quoting
 ,tatian4 ,mr4 ,harris throughout  these
 passages1 however1 states the case in a
 most impartial manner1 and  the reader 
must form his own opinion4    ,we may1  
before leaving 8,tatian10 point out     
another instance of agreement  to which 
,mr4 ,harris does not allude4 ,in the   
,commentary there is the  following     
passage3 8,et dederunt ei bibere acetum 
et fel4 ,acetum ei  porrexerunt1 pro    
felle autem magna ejus miseratio        
amaritudinem gentium  dulcem            
fecit407#ga7 ,it will be remembered that
 this agrees with the  representation of
 the fragment that they gave ,jesus     
8vinegar and gall0 to  drink4    ,all   
these instances may1 indeed1 throw a new
 light upon the ,diapente in  the text  
of ,victor1 which has so exercised      
apologists1 and lead to the  opinion    

that ,tatian's ,harmony was not composed
 out of four ,gospels1 but  out of five4
 ,if it be agreed1 as it is by a        
majority of critics1 that  ,justin made 
use of the ,gospel of ,peter1 the       
probability that his pupil  ,tatian     
likewise possessed the same work1 and   
used it for his ,harmony1 is  immensely 
increased4            ,,vii      ,we    
shall not attempt to fix any even       
approximate date to the ,gospel         
according to ,peter1 although we shall  
presently have to consider its  relation
 to our canonical ,gospels in a way     
which will at least assign it a         
position in time relative to them4      
,harnack1 in the preface to the second  
edition of his article on the fragment1 
suspends his judgment on its  relation  
to our ,gospels1 and will not even      
undertake a sufficient  examination of  
this important question1 so long as     
there remains a hope of  still          
recovering more of the ,gospel4 ,it is  
devoutly to be hoped that the  ,cemetery

 of ,akhmm may still give us more of    
this and other important  early works2  
but there is no reason why we should    
not1 even now1 endeavour  to derive what
 information we can from this           
instalment1 and the worst--or  the      
best--which can happen is that future   
acquisitions may enable us to  correct  
the errors--or confirm the              
conclusions--of the present4 ,so long as
  we confine ourselves to the legitimate
 inferences to be drawn from the  actual
 fragment before us1 we cannot go far   
wrong4    ,it is frequently possible to 
assign well-defined limits within which 
early  works1 whose authors are unknown1
 must have been composed1 when a more   
precise date cannot with certainty be   
fixed4 ,direct references to the        
writing1 or its use1 by writers the     
period of whose literary work is  known1
 may enable us to affirm that it was    
written at least before their  time2 and
 sometimes certain allusions or         
quotations in the work itself  may1 on  

the other hand1 show that it must have  
been composed after a  certain date2 and
 thus limits1 more or less narrow1      
become certain1 within  which its       
production must lie4 ,the ,gospel       
according to ,peter1 as we might        
expect1 contains none of the allusions  
or quotations to which we refer1  and we
 are therefore reduced to the one       
indication of age--reference to1 or  the
 use of it by1 early writers1 leaving   
the approximate date to which it  may be
 set back wholly to conjecture4 ,as we  
have already remarked above1  the       
question whether it is dependent on1 or 
independent of1 our canonical  ,gospels 
has yet to be considered2 but there is  
too much difference of  opinion         
regarding the date of these ,gospels    
themselves to render this more  than a  
relative indication4 ,so far1 the       
opinions of critics assign the  ,gospel 
according to ,peter to dates ranging    
from a period antecedent to our         
,gospels1 in their present form1 to     

about the middle of the second          
century47#gb7    ,the indications of    
style and phraseology given by the      
fragment have of  course to be taken    
into account1 and it may be well1 before
 proceeding  further1 to examine certain
 peculiarities which have been pointed  
out by  writers who assert that the     
composition is decidedly later than our 
canonical ,gospels47#gc7 ,the writer    
never speaks of 8,jesus0 simply1 but    
always as 8the ,lord0 7 74 ,he likewise 
refers to him as the  8,saviour0 77 in  
one place1 and several times as 8a ,son 
of ,god0 7   74 ,now1 with regard to    
these expressions1 they are in constant 
use  throughout the ,new ,testament     
writings1 in the ,gospels themselves1 as
 well  as in the ,epistles of ,paul and 
the ,epistles popularly ascribed to him4
 ,for  instance1  3 ,matt4 xxi4 #c1     
xxviii4 #f27gd7 ,mark xvi4 #ai27ge7     
,luke  vii4 #ac1 x4 #a1 xi4 #ci1 xii4   
#db1 xiii4 #ae1 xvii4 #e1 #f1 xviii4 #f1
 xix4 #h1  #ca1 #cd1 xxii4 #fa1 xxiv4   

#c1 #cd2 ,john vi4 #bc1 xi4 #b1 xiii4   
#ac1 #ad1 xx4 #b1  #ac1 #ah1 #bj1 #bh1  
xxi4 #g1 #ab4 ,it is unnecessary to     
point out passages in the  ,acts and    
,epistles1 for 8the ,lord10 8the ,lord  
,jesus10 or 8the ,lord ,jesus  ,christ10
 is everywhere used1 and indeed no other
 form1 it may be said1 is  adopted4 8,a 
,son of ,god0 7  7 is constantly used in
 the ,gospels  and ,acts4 ,a few        
instances may be given3 ,matt4 viii4    
#bi1 xiv4 #cc1 xvi4 #af1  xxvi4 #fc1    
xxvii4 #dj1 #dc1 #ed2 ,mark i4 #a1 iii4 
#aa1 v4 #g1 xv4 #ci2 ,luke i4 #ce1  ix4 
#da1 viii4 #bh1 xxii4 #gj2 ,john i4 #cd1
 #di1 v4 #be1 x4 #cf1 xi4 #d1 #bg1 xix4 
#g1 xx4 #ca2 ,acts ix4 #bj4 ,of course1 
in the ,epistles the expression is of   
frequent occurrence1 as for instance1   
,rom4 i4 #d1 #i1 v4 #aj2 #a ,cor4 i4 #i2
 #b  ,cor4 i4 #ai2 ,gal4 ii4 #bj1 and   
elsewhere4 ,it is not necessary to show 
that  8,saviour0 is used1 but the       
following may be pointed out3 ,luke ii4 
#aa2 ,john  iv4 #db2 ,acts v4 #ca1 xiii4

 #bc2 and it more frequently occurs in  
the  ,epistles4 ,all of these           
expressions are commonly employed in    
early  ,christian literature1 such as   
the 8,didache10 ,ignatian ,epistles1    
,clement of  ,rome1 ,polycarp1 8,pastor0
 of ,hermas1 and the 8,apology0 of      
,aristides4    ,the principal phrase    
upon which weight is laid by those who  
assign to the  ,gospel according to     
,peter1 from this fragment1 a later date
 than our  canonical works1 is the use  
of   without  to designate 8the  ,lord's
 day0--,sunday2 ,dr4 ,swete calls it    
8the most decisive indication of  the   
relatively late composition of our      
fragment407#gf7 ,after giving some      
instances of a similar expression1 he   
states the case as follows3             
,the name was therefore familiar amongst
 ,eastern ,greek-speaking               
,christians from the end of the first   
century4 ,but ,peter not only      uses 
it freely1 but seems to be unconscious  
that he is guilty of      an anachronism

 when he imports this exclusively       
,christian term      into the ,gospel   
history4   has so completely supplanted 
1 that it is twice used to describe the 
first      ,easter ,day1 in a document  
which usually manifests precision in    
such matters47#gg7      ,it is not quite
 clear what ,dr4 ,swete means when he   
says that ,peter 8uses  it freely10 but 
it would indeed be singular if he seemed
 to be conscious  that he was guilty of 
an anachronism in making use of this or 
any word4  ,the question1 in fact1 is   
whether it is an anachronism or not1 and
 that it  is so is very far from proved 
by any arguments yet brought forward4   
,in the  ,apocalypse1 i4 #aj1 we have   
the use of the term 8the ,lord's day0 7 
71 ,a4,d4 #fh-fi4 ,in the 8,didache10   
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot assigns to the    
first or the beginning of the second    
century1 we meet with  2  and in the    
,ignatian ,epistles1 which those who    
believe in them date 8in the  early     
years of the second century10 there is  

in one place7#gh7   4 ,so far from its  
being surprising that there should not  
be more  authority for such an          
expression1 however1 it seems almost    
more remarkable  that we should have any
 parallels at all1 when we remember how 
few early  writings are extant1 and how 
few of these actually refer to the day  
thus  designated4 ,the ,epistles1 for   
this reason1 may be set aside in a body1
 for  they give no testimony either way1
 with the exception of #a ,cor4 xvi4 #b1
  where 8the first day of the week0 is  
referred to4 ,the three ,synoptics1     
following each other1 and a common      
tradition1 use     each  once1 and the  
fourth ,gospel has the same phrase      
twice1 and the ,acts once2  but this use
 of another expression does not--in the 
face of the use of    in this fragment1 
and of   1 in the ,apocalypse--at all   
show that1 at the same period1 the      
latter phrase was not also current1     
though it may not have supplanted 8the  
first day of the week40 ,the fact  that 

,melito of ,sardis1 8about the middle of
 the second century10 wrote a  treatise 
shows how general that expression had   
become2 and  even ,dr4 ,swete1 as we    
have seen above1 recognises that it was 
8familiar  amongst ,eastern             
,greek-speaking ,christians from the end
 of the first  century40 ,there is      
nothing whatever to warrant the         
conclusion that its use  at the time    
when our ,gospels were written would    
have been an anachronism1  but the fact 
that a different expression happened to 
be used in a few  writings4 ,the author 
of the fragment employs the phrase twice
 only1 and it  is thoroughly consistent 
with his impressive style throughout the
 episode1  that he should apply to the  
time when these astounding events are   
said to  have taken place the           
appropriate term1 already suggested by  
the author of  the ,apocalypse1 of 8the 
,lord's day10 instead of 8the first day 
of the  week40 ,there is nothing more   
difficult1 as is proved every day in our

  time1 than to fix the precise date at 
which words or expressions first  came  
into use1 and especially--in the absence
 of voluminous literature  opposing the 
presumption--the denial of antiquity to 
a work1 on the ground  of its employing 
an expression supposed only to have come
 into general use  a few years later    
than its otherwise probable date1 is    
both rash and  unjustifiable4           
,,viii      ,we now come to the most    
important part of our examination of    
this  fragment1 whether in regard to its
 approximate date or to its intrinsic   
value as an early ,christian            
document--its relation to our canonical 
,gospels4 ,the fragment begins and ends 
with a broken sentence1 but taking  it  
as it stands1 in comparison with the    
same episodes in our four  canonical    
,gospels1 it contains about a fourth    
more matter4 ,it will be seen  that it  
is very far from a ,harmony of the four 
narratives1 and still less  an          
abridgment of their common tradition1   

but it has markedly the character  of an
 independent history drawn from similar1
 but varying1 sources4    ,the fragment 
commences1 8but of the ,jews no man     
washed his hands1 neither  ,herod nor   
any of his judges2 and as they were not 
minded to wash1 ,pilate  rose47#gi7 7#b7
 ,and then ,herod the ,king commandeth  
the ,lord to be taken1  saying unto     
them3 #8,whatsoever ,i commanded that ye
 should do1 that do unto  him4' 0 ,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 ,gospels4 ,herod and other    
,jewish judges must1  according to the  
writer1 have sat along with ,pilate1 but
 the order given  by 8,herod the ,king0 
8to take the ,lord0 evidently shows that
 he is  represented as playing the      
leading part4 ,although the episode of  
the  washing of the hands 7of which so  
much more is made by the author of the  
first ,synoptic1 who alone of the       

canonical ,evangelists refers to it7    
must  have been introduced1 we have no  
means of knowing how far the two        
accounts  may have agreed4 ,both1 at    
least in one shape or another1 adopt a  
tradition  so incredible as that        
representing a ,roman governor coerced  
into  condemning an innocent man1 and   
helplessly going through such a ceremony
  for the purpose of clearing himself   
from responsibility for gross           
injustice4 ,the third ,synoptist is the 
only one of the canonical  ,evangelists 
who prominently brings forward the share
 of ,herod in judging  ,jesus 7xxiii4   
#f-ae71 and he is in curious agreement  
with the spirit of  ,peter's account    
when he represents ,pilate 7xxiii4      
#f-g71 on hearing that  ,jesus was a    
,galilean1 recognising 8that he was of  
,herod's jurisdiction10  and sending him
 to ,herod1 8who himself also was at    
,jerusalem in these  days40 ,the        
statement also 7xxiii4 #ab7 that ,herod 
and ,pilate1 having before  been at     

enmity1 became friends that day through 
this very act recognising  ,herod's     
jurisdiction1 seems to point to a       
tradition coupling ,herod with  the     
trial1 a form of which we have in the   
fragment4 ,all the other ,gospels  are  
not only silent upon the point1 but     
exclude his participation in the        
matter4 ,when1 according to our         
fragment1 8,pilate rose10 he seems to   
have  passed out of all connection with 
the trial and condemnation of ,jesus4   
,at this point1 ,peter represents the   
request for the body of ,jesus as       
having been made but1 before considering
 this part of his narrative1 we  must   
note the portions of the canonical      
account which he altogether omits4  ,the
 first of these to which we must refer  
is the preference of ,barabbas1  which  
all of our four ,evangelists carefully  
relate4 ,considering that his  main     
object in writing this ,gospel1         
according to some critics1 was          
animosity to the ,jews and a desire to  

cast upon them the whole guilt and      
responsibility of the death of ,jesus1  
it is very remarkable that he should    
altogether exclude this picturesque     
episode1 and sacrifice so favourable  an
 opportunity of throwing upon them the  
odium of crying 8,not this man1  but    
,barabbas40 ,there is strong presumptive
 evidence here of his entire            
independence of our four ,gospels1 for  
it is not reasonable to suppose  that1  
if he had them before him1 he could     
deliberately have passed over  such     
striking material4 ,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 ,jesus1 so furiously
 rejected by them4 ,it  is distinctly a 
merit in the narrative of ,peter that he
 does not1 like the  four ,evangelists1 
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 him1    
whom he repeatedly  declares to be      
innocent1 and at last allowing himself  
to be coerced  against his will into    
scourging and crucifying him4           
,according to the four canonical        
,gospels17#hj7 the request of ,joseph   
for the  body of ,jesus is made after he
 has expired on the cross4 ,in ,matthew 
7xxvii4 #eg f47 he is a rich man from   
,arimathaea named ,joseph1 who also     
himself was a disciple of ,jesus1 and he
 goes to ,pilate and asks for the  body1
 which ,pilate commands to be given to  
him4 ,in ,mark 7xv4 #dc7 ,joseph of     
,arimathaea1 a councillor of honourable 
estate1 who also himself was  looking   
for the kingdom of ,god1 boldly goes in 
unto ,pilate and asks for  the body of  
,jesus4 ,according to ,matthew it is    
8,when even was come0 that he  goes to  
,pilate2 in ,mark it is 8,when even was 
now come1 because it was the            
,preparation1 that is1 the day before   
the ,sabbath40 ,in ,matthew1 ,pilate    

simply commands that the body should be 
given2 but in ,mark it is further       
related 7xv4 #dd73 8,and ,pilate        
marvelled if he were already dead3 and  
calling unto him the centurion1 he asked
 him whether he had been any while      
dead4 ,and when he learned it of the    
centurion he granted the corpse to      
,joseph40 ,in ,luke 7xxiii4 #ej f473 8,a
 man named ,joseph1 who was a           
councillor1 a good man and a righteous  
7he had not consented to their  counsel 
and deed71 of ,arimathaea1 a city of the
 ,jews1 who was looking for  the kingdom
 of ,god3 this man went to ,pilate and  
asked for the body of  ,jesus40 ,it is  
implied1 but not said1 that it was      
granted1 and the time is  mentioned     
further on 7v4 #ed73 8,and it was the   
day of the ,preparation1  and the       
,sabbath drew on10--which recalls ,mark4
 ,in ,john 7xix4 #ch73 8,after  these   
things the crurifragium and piercing of 
the side1 ,joseph of  ,arimathaea1 being
 a disciple of ,jesus1 but secretly for 

fear of the ,jews1  asked of ,pilate    
that he might take away the body of     
,jesus3 and ,pilate gave  him leave40   
,in ,peter1 the request is made before  
,jesus is actually sent to  be          
crucified1 and the author is sometimes  
accused of perverting the  narrative by 
introducing it at this time4 ,it is     
impossible to see any  object for so    
altering the sequence of events as given
 by the four  canonical ,gospels1 on the
 supposition that he knew them1 and it  
will be  seen that the time in ,peter's 
narrative is in perfect accord with the 
version which he gives of the trial4    
8,pilate rose10 and it is to be         
inferred that he left the ,praetorium4  
,it is at this moment that ,joseph      
seizes the opportunity of asking for the
 body3 #c4 8,but there was there        
,joseph the friend of ,pilate7#ha7 and  
of the ,lord1 and knowing that they are 
about to crucify 77 him1 he came to     
,pilate and asked the body  of the ,lord
 for burial4 #d4 ,and ,pilate sent to   

,herod and asked for his  body2 #e4 and 
,herod said3 #8,brother ,pilate1 even if
 no one had begged for  him1 we should  
have buried him1 because the ,sabbath is
 at hand1 for it is  written in the     
,law3 ,the sun must not go down upon one
 put to death4' 0 ,it  is to be noted   
that1 whilst in the four canonical      
,gospels the request for  the body is   
immediately followed by the entombment1 
in our fragment the  request is made in 
anticipation1 when a favourable moment  
for the request  presented itself1 and  
the actual reception of the body follows
 later1 in  its proper place4 ,it is    
possible that the statement1 in ,luke   
7xxiii4  #ej-ea71 that ,joseph was 8a   
councillor0 who had 8not consented to   
their  counsel and deed10 which is here 
alone referred to1 may indicate another 
tradition1 of part of which ,peter may  
have availed himself1 and that it       
included his presence at the trial and  
consequently presented the  opportunity 
of at once going to ,pilate4 ,that      

,pilate should send on the  request to  
,herod is only in keeping with the      
representation that he had  withdrawn   
from the trial1 and would not himself   
further interfere in the  matter4 ,the  
mode of carrying on his narrative1 by   
direct utterances put  into the mouths  
of his personages1 is particularly      
characteristic of the  writer1 and forms
 a remarkable feature of his style      
throughout4 ,there is  no sign of       
dependence upon the canonical ,gospels  
in all this3 but1 on the  contrary1 the 
almost complete departure from their    
representations1 in  order and in       
substance1 is only explicable on the    
hypothesis of a  separate1 though       
analogous1 tradition4    ,if we look at 
the language1 we find that critics point
 out one phrase  which is common to the 
three ,synoptics3 8,he went in unto     
,pilate and  asked for the body of      
,jesus0 7        17#hb7 ,matthew and    
,luke2           1 ,mark74 ,in ,peter we
 have3 8,he came to ,pilate and asked   

for  the body of the ,lord0 7           
74 ,it will be observed that the        
language of the three ,synoptists is    
almost exactly the same1 and although   
their interdependence throughout        
requires another explanation1 which need
 not be entered into here1 it is  quite 
unreasonable to infer dependence on the 
part of ,peter from  similarity in these
 few words4 ,it is the description of a 
perfectly simple  action1 in the most   
simple and natural language1 and it is  
difficult to  imagine what other words  
could be used without inflation4 ,all   
the rest of  the episode differs in     
every respect of language1 order and    
substantial  detail4 ,it is right to    
add1 however1 that no great weight is   
attached by  anyone to the point4 ,on   
the other hand1 it may be pointed out   
that  1 in ,peter1 is a most uncommon   
word1 not used in the ,new  ,testament  
at all1 and that  only occurs once in   
the ,new ,testament1 in  ,matt4 xxvii4  
#g4    ,the fragment continues3         

,and he delivered him to the people     
before the first day of the             
,unleavened bread of their feast 7   1  
74 #f4 ,and taking the ,lord they pushed
 him hurrying along1 and      said3     
8,let us drag along 77 the ,son of ,god 
as we have power      over him40 #g4    
,and they clad him with purple 7       7
 and set him on a seat of judgment 7 71 
saying3 8,judge justly 7 71 ,king of    
,israel40 #h4 ,and one      of them     
brought a crown of thorns and set it    
upon the head of the      ,lord4 #i4    
,and others standing by spat in his     
eyes1 and others smote      him on the  
cheeks2 others pierced him with a reed1 
and some      scourged him1 saying3     
8,with this honour honour we the ,son of
 ,god40      ,before proceeding to      
compare this passage with our ,gospels1 
it may be well  to determine who the    
mockers in this fragment really are4 ,it
 is argued by  ,zahn7#hc7 and others1   
that ,herod1 according to this          
representation1 hands  ,jesus over to   

the ,jews1 and that the people1 and not 
the soldiers1 as in  the ,gospels1      
conduct the mockery which is here       
described4 ,it cannot be  denied that   
the words used are1 8he delivered him to
 the people0  7   71 but the question   
is1 whether the meaning is that  he     
actually delivered him into the hands of
 the mob1 and that the  subsequent      
mockery1 scourging1 crucifixion and     
parting of the garments  were performed 
by the people1 or that1 in delivering   
,jesus to the people1  the meaning is   
not rather that he gave him up to their 
demands that he  should be crucified1   
and that all the rest followed between  
soldiers and  people1 as in the other   
narratives4 ,we cannot but affirm that  
this latter  interpretation is the true 
one4 ,in ,luke 7xxiii4 #be7 the form of 
words used  exactly expresses this3 8but
 ,jesus he delivered up to their will0 7
       74 ,but a still more close       
representation  of the case occurs in   
the fourth ,gospel1 where we read 7xix4 

#af f473  8,then1 therefore1 he         
delivered him unto them the people and  
the chief  priests to be crucified4     
,they took ,jesus1 therefore 444 unto   
the place  called1 c4 444 where they    
crucified him40 ,it is only in verse #bc
 that the  narrative goes back and      
explains3 8,the soldiers1 therefore1    
when they had  crucified ,jesus10 c4 ,in
 the fragment1 moreover1 there is an    
important  indication in the portion    
previously quoted1 where we read3 #b4   
8,and then  ,herod the ,king commandeth 
the ,lord to be taken1 saying unto them3
  #8,whatsoever ,i commanded that ye    
should do1 that do unto him4' 0 ,who are
  indicated by the pronoun 8them087#hd7 
,doubtless the context would have       
explained this and probably made clear  
all that follows1 for the orders  given 
must have been regarding the            
crucifixion1 since in the following     
verse 7#c7 it is said that ,joseph1     
8knowing that they are about to crucify 
him10 came to ,pilate4 ,nothing had     

previously been said1 in this fragment1 
of crucifixion4 ,it is not possible to  
admit that the writer intends to        
represent that the people themselves    
carried out the crucifixion1 or that    
the orders given by ,herod were to the  
crowd4 ,herod1 in all probability1 is   
represented as commanding his own       
soldiers1 which would accord with the   
statement in the third ,synoptic 7xxiii4
 #aa71 that ,herod 8with his soldiers   
set him at nought and mocked him10 and  
so on4 ,the doubt only proceeds from    
indefinite statement on the part of the 
writer1 and preconceived ideas on  the  
part of critics4    ,it is evident1 from
 the statement that ,jesus was delivered
 for crucifixion  8before the first day 
of the ,unleavened bread of their       
feast10 that the  ,gospel of ,peter     
adopts the same chronology as the fourth
 ,gospel1 in  contradiction to that of  
the three ,synoptics1 and represents    
,jesus as put  to death on the #adth    
,nisan4 ,his agreement with the fourth  

,gospel1 however1  is limited to the    
mere matter of date1 for on all other   
points the author  takes a widely       
different view4 ,as ,hilgenfeld points  
out1 for him all the  feasts prescribed 
by the ,law are mere ,jewish            
institutions1 and he has none  of the   
,johannine 7xix4 #cc f47 views as to the
 death of ,jesus representing  the      
,paschal offering1 nor does he associate
 with that the circumstances  regarding 
the breaking of the limbs1 and the      
thrust of the spear in his  side1 which 
he altogether omits47#he7    ,the author
 of the fragment is reproached with the 
looseness of his  narrative of the      
mockery1 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 ,jews2 but this is 
not the case4  ,the hurrying along      
commences the mockery in verse #f4 ,then
 in verse #g  begins another episode4   
,they clothe ,jesus in purple and set   

him on the  judgment seat4 ,now1 before 
going into the details of this mockery1 
it is  necessary to consider how the    
narrative in general accords with the   
account in the four canonical ,gospels4 
,in ,peter1 the whole of the mockery  is
 represented as taking place after      
,jesus is delivered to be crucified4    
,he is hustled along1 clothed in purple 
and set upon a seat of judgment2  the   
crown of thorns is put upon his head1   
they spit in his eyes and smite  him on 
the cheeks1 pierce him with a reed and  
scourge him4 ,in the  ,synoptics1       
especially1 the ill-usage is as much as 
possible lengthened and  intensified4   
,in ,matthew1 the mockery begins when   
,jesus is in the house of  ,caiaphas    
7xxvi4 #fg f473 8,then did they spit in 
his face and buffet him2  and some smote
 him with the palms of their hands1     
saying1 ,prophesy unto  us1 thou        
,christ3 who is he that struck thee80   
,after ,pilate causes ,jesus to  be     
scourged1 and delivers him1 the mockery 

begins afresh 7xxvii4 #bg ff473  8,then 
the soldiers of the governor took ,jesus
 into the ,palace and gathered  unto him
 the whole band4 ,and they stripped him1
 and put on him a scarlet  robe4 ,and   
they plaited a crown of thorns and put  
it upon his head1 and a  reed in his    
right hand2 and they kneeled down before
 him and mocked him1  saying1 ,hail1    
,king of the ,jews6 ,and they spat upon 
him and took the reed  and smote him on 
the head4 ,and when they had mocked him 
they took off from  him the robe and put
 on him his garments1 and led him away  
to crucify  him40 ,in ,mark1 the mockery
 also begins in the house of the high   
priest  7xiv4 #fe ff473 8,and some began
 to spit on him1 and to cover his face  
and  to buffet him1 and to say unto him3
 ,prophesy3 and the officers received   
him with blows of their hands40 ,the    
mockery recommences after ,jesus is     
scourged and delivered over to be       
crucified 7xv4 #af ff473 8,and the      
soldiers led him away within the court1 

which is the ,praetorium2 and they  call
 together the whole band4 ,and they     
clothe him with purple1 and  plaiting a 
crown of thorns1 they put it on him2 and
 they begin to salute  him1 ,hail1 ,king
 of the ,jews6 ,and they smote his head 
with a reed1 and did  spit upon him1 and
 bowing their knees1 worshipped him4    
,and when they had  mocked him1 they    
took off from him the purple1 and put on
 him his  garments1 and they led him out
 to crucify him40 ,of course it is      
unnecessary to point out how these two  
accounts depend upon each other4  ,the  
same representation is made in the third
 ,synoptic 7xxii4 #ff ff473 8,and  the  
men that held him mocked him and beat   
him4 ,and they blindfolded him1  and    
asked him1 saying1 ,prophesy3 who is he 
that struck thee8 ,and many  other      
things spake they against him1 reviling 
him40 ,this passes1 as in the  other    
,synoptics1 in the house of the high    
priest1 but the subsequent  mocking does
 not take place after ,pilate delivers  

,jesus to be crucified1  but after he   
has been examined by ,herod 7xxiii4     
#aa73 8,and ,herod with his  soldiers   
set him at nought1 and mocked him1 and  
arraying him in gorgeous  apparel sent  
him back to ,pilate40 ,in the fourth    
,gospel there is only the  one scene of 
mockery1 and that is placed where ,jesus
 is scourged by the  order of ,pilate   
7xix4 #b73 8,and the soldiers plaited a 
crown of thorns and  put it on his head1
 and arrayed him in a purple garment2   
and they came  unto him1 and said3      
,hail1 ,king of the ,jews6 and they     
struck him with their  hands40 ,in many 
respects this is the most incredible of 
the four  narratives1 for the scene is  
reported as taking place in the presence
 of  ,pilate and before his final       
condemnation of ,jesus2 and in the very 
next  verse 7#d7 it is said3 8,and      
,pilate went out again1 and saith unto  
them1  ,behold1 ,i bring him out to you1
 that ye may know that ,i find no crime 
in  him4 ,jesus therefore came out1     

wearing the crown of thorns and the     
purple  garment4 ,and ,pilate saith unto
 them2 ,behold the man60 ,although this 
scene1  which has been the delight of   
artists ever since1 is so picturesque1  
it is  quite evident that it is opposed 
to all that we have in the ,synoptics1  
as  well as in our fragment1 and that   
the representation of ,pilate allowing  
his soldiers in his presence to act in  
such a way1 not to speak of the         
scourging1 to a man accused before him1 
of whom he so strongly declares1  8,i   
find no crime in him10 is quite         
inadmissible4 ,the narrative in ,peter  
is  at variance with all these accounts1
 whilst reproducing a similar           
tradition1 and not varying more from our
 ,gospels than they do from each  other4
 ,the variation1 however1 is not that of
 a writer compiling a  narrative from   
the canonical ,gospels1 but the distinct
 representation of  one independently   
making use of similar1 but separate1    
materials4    ,we have already          

discussed1 in connection with ,justin's 
reference1 the  passage of ,peter in    
which it is said that 8they clad him    
with purple and  set him on a seat of   
judgment1 saying3 ,judge justly1 ,king  
of ,israel40 ,of  course it is argued by
 some that this is derived from the     
fourth ,gospel1  on the strength of the 
words just quoted3      1 which are     
compared with the    of the fourth      
,gospel4 ,it is said that ,archbishop   
,whately used to render these words 8and
  set him on the judgment seat10        
understanding the verb  to be used      
transitively1 and thus stating that     
,pilate actually set ,jesus in mockery  
upon a judgment seat4 ,it is suggested  
that both ,justin1 as we have seen1  and
 ,peter may have misunderstood the      
passage1 and based their statement  upon
 it4 ,now1 although it must be admitted 
that the ,greek may be rendered  in this
 way1 yet it would be necessary to add  
to justify such use of  the verb4 ,in   
connection with this argument they cite 

the words of ,isaiah  lviii4 #b1 in the 
,septuagint version1 referred to by     
,justin3 8,for as the  prophet said1    
they dragged him1 and set him on the    
judgment seat1 and  said3 ,judge for    
us60 ,the ,septuagint has3      444  4  
,it is asserted that the idea of setting
 ,jesus on the judgment  seat came from 
the passage of the fourth ,gospel which 
is quoted above1  understood            
transitively4 ,the representation that  
,pilate actually set ,jesus  on the     
judgment seat1 if linguistically        
defensible1 is rejected by most  critics
 and1 as has already been mentioned1    
amongst others by the ,revisers  of the 
,new ,testament4 ,the words used for    
8seat of judgment0 in the  fragment1   1
 differ entirely from the   of  the     
fourth ,gospel4 ,the analogous          
8,prophesy unto us1 thou ,christ3 who is
 he  that struck thee80 and the 8,hail1 
,king of the ,jews10 are1 of course1    
widely different from the representation
 in ,peter1 in which the 8,judge        

justly60 is evidently in mockery of the 
,messianic claims of ,jesus1 and the    
8,king of ,israel0 a peculiarity of this
 ,gospel to which we shall have to      
refer again further on4 ,the statement  
that 8others pierced him with a  reed0  
is also a variation from the canonical  
,gospels1 which only say1  8they took   
the reed and smote him on the head40    
,the fourth ,gospel has  alone the      
representation of the soldier piercing  
the side of ,jesus with a  spear 8that  
the ,scripture might be fulfilled4444   
,they shall look on him  whom they      
pierced10 but in our fragment the       
representation is made  casually and    
without any appearance of dogmatic      
intention4 ,the crown of  thorns is used
 merely incidentally1 as in the case of 
the ,synoptics1 and  without the        
artistic prominence given to it in the  
fourth ,gospel4    ,there is no mention 
in ,peter of any one bearing the cross1 
and in this  there is a departure from  
the narrative both of the ,synoptics and

 of the  fourth ,gospel4 ,the ,synoptics
 have in common1 as usual1 the story    
regarding  its being laid on the        
shoulders of ,simon of ,cyrene 7,matt4  
xxvii4 #cb f41  ,mark xv4 #ba f41 ,luke 
xxiii4 #bf f471 whom they compelled to  
carry it to  ,calvary4 ,the fourth      
,gospel not only omits this episode1 but
 contradicts it  in good set terms 7xix4
 #ag73 8,they took ,jesus1 therefore2   
and he went out1  bearing the cross for 
himself1 unto the place called #8,the   
place of a  skull4' 0    ,peter does not
 enter into any intermediate detail1 but
 at once says3 #aj4  8,and they brought 
two malefactors and crucified between   
them the ,lord2 but  he kept silence1 as
 feeling no pain40 ,the canonical       
,gospels all narrate  the crucifixion of
 the two malefactors1 but the various   
terms in which  this is done must be    
given for comparison4 ,matthew says     
7xxvii4 #ch73 8,then  are there         
crucified with him two robbers1 one on  
the right hand1 and one  on the left40  

,mark uses almost the same words 7xv4   
#bg74 ,luke1 with some  exercise of his 
usual constructive style1 says the same 
thing 7xxiii4 #cb  f473 8,and there were
 also two others1 malefactors1 led with 
him to be put  to death4 ,and when they 
came unto the place which is called     
#8,the skull1'  there they crucified him
 and the malefactors1 one on the right  
hand and  the other on the left40 ,the  
fourth ,gospel reads 7xix4 #ag f473     
8,they took  ,jesus therefore2 and he   
went out1 bearing the cross for himself1
 unto the  place called #8,the place of 
a skull1' which is called in ,hebrew    
,golgotha3  where they crucified him1   
and with him two others1 on either side 
one1 and  ,jesus in the midst40 ,the    
only remark necessary here is that in   
,peter the  common tradition is given   
with independence and simplicity4    ,it
 is only in the last words of the verse 
that we have an important  variation4   
8,but he kept silence1 as feeling no    
pain40 ,we have already  referred to    

this as one of the recognised ,docetic  
passages of the  fragment1 although     
there is no necessity to read it in this
 sense4 ,mr4  ,murray has pointed out a 
passage in ,origen in which that writer 
8gives  them an innocent0 7that is1 not 
a ,docetic7 8interpretation40           
,et in his omnibus unigenita virtus     
nocita non est1 sicut nec      passa est
 aliquid1 facta pro nobis maledictum1   
cum naturaliter      benedictio esset2  
sed cum benedictio esset1 consumpsit et 
solvit      et dissipavit omnem         
maledictionem humanam4 ,orig4 in ,mat4  
#abe47hf7      ,although there is no    
exact parallel to this in our ,gospels1 
it is worth a  moment's notice that the 
silence of ,jesus during the trial is   
mentioned as  remarkable and as exciting
 wonder4 ,we have not in our fragment1  
unfortunately1 the earlier part of the  
trial1 and cannot1 therefore1 see       
whether the words used have any         
reference to previous representations4  
,in  ,matt4 xxvii4 #ab f41 it is said3  

8,and when he was accused by the chief  
priests and elders1 he answered nothing4
 ,then saith ,pilate unto him1  ,hearest
 thou not how many things they witness  
against thee8 ,and he gave  him no      
answer1 not even to one word3 insomuch  
that the governor marvelled  greatly40  
,an almost identical account is given in
 ,mark4 ,in ,luke it is to  the         
questioning of ,herod that ,jesus is    
silent 7xxiii4 #i73 8,and he ,herod     
questioned him in many words2 but he    
answered him nothing40 ,in the fourth   
,gospel not only is nothing said of the 
silence of ,jesus1 but he is            
represented as answering freely--and in 
the tone of the discourses which        
characterise that ,gospel--the questions
 of ,pilate4 ,now1 in the ,synoptics1   
we have a silence described1 which      
causes the governor to marvel greatly1  
that is not1 however1 when we go into   
detail1 very marked in them1 and is     
excluded by the fourth ,gospel4 ,can a  
silence have been referred to1 in the   

original tradition1 which was connected 
with the trial1 instead of the  cross1  
because it began to receive a ,docetic  
application1 but which we  have1 in its 
earlier form1 in ,peter8    ,in our     
fragment1 the narrative continues3 #aa4 
8,and as they set up the  cross they    
wrote thereon3 #8,this is the ,king of  
,israel4' 0 ,we have here a             
continuation of the indefinite 8they10  
which it becomes at every step more     
impossible to identify otherwise than   
with the soldiers4 ,it is a most        
curious circumstance1 frequently pointed
 out1 that no two of the ,gospels  agree
 even in so plain a matter as should be 
the inscription on the cross1  and that 
the ,gospel of ,peter differs from them 
all4 ,matthew gives it  7xxvii4 #cg73   
8,this is ,jesus1 the ,king of the      
,jews20 ,mark 7xv4 #bf73 8,the  ,king of
 the ,jews20 ,luke 7xxiii4 #ch73 8,this 
is the ,king of the ,jews10 and  ,john  
7xix4 #ai73 8,jesus of ,nazareth1 the   
,king of the ,jews40 ,the author of  the

 fourth ,gospel adds the statement that 
this title 8was written in  ,hebrew1 in 
,latin1 and in ,greek10 and further     
gives a conversation between  the 8chief
 priests of the ,jews0 and ,pilate1 in  
which they complain of this             
superscription1 and wish it to be put   
8that he said1 ,i am ,king of the       
,jews10 to which ,pilate answered       
briefly1 8,what ,i have written1 ,i have
  written40 ,with so many forms to      
select from1 is it reasonable to suppose
  that ,peter would have invented       
another superscription1 if these four   
,gospels had actually been before       
him87#hg7    ,the author of the fragment
 continues3 #ab4 8,and they laid the    
clothes  before him and distributed them
 and cast lots 7 7 for them40  ,in      
,matthew 7xxvii4 #ce7 it is said3 8,and 
when they had crucified him1 they       
parted his garments among them1 casting 
lots0 7 72 in ,mark  7xv4 #bd73 8,and   
they crucify him1 and part his garments 
among them1 casting  lots 7 7 upon them1

 what each should take40 ,in ,luke there
  is a similar statement 7xxiii4 #cd73  
8,and parting his garments among them1  
they cast lots0 7 74 ,in the fourth     
,gospel1 as usual1 we have  further     
details 7xix4 #bc f473 8,the soldiers   
therefore1 when they had  crucified     
,jesus1 took his garments and made four 
parts1 to every soldier a  part2 and    
also the coat3 now the coat was without 
seam1 woven from the top  throughout4   
,they said therefore one to another1    
,let us not rend it1 but  cast lots 77  
for it1 whose it shall be3 that the     
scripture might be  fulfilled1 which    
saith1 ,they parted my garments among   
them1 and upon my  vesture did they cast
 lots0 7 74 ,in discussing the          
connection  of ,justin with the ,gospel 
of ,peter1 we have already partly dealt 
with this  passage1 and now confront it 
with all the four ,gospels4 ,it is      
obvious that  the language of the three 
,synoptics is distinct from that of     
,peter1 who  uses the unusual word 1 not

 found in any of the ,gospels4 ,the     
fourth  ,gospel has the common verb 1   
whilst the quotation from the ,psalm    
7xxii4 #ah71 from which the whole       
episode emanates1 uses the expression   
common to the three ,synoptics1  4      
,there is no reason for  supposing that 
,peter makes use of our ,gospels here1  
and in the absence of  other evidence1  
the  is decisive proof of his           
independence4    ,the author of our     
fragment1 after the crucifixion1 has    
none of the mocking  speeches of the    
four ,gospels1 and he ignores the       
episode of the penitent  thief1 as it is
 told in the third ,synoptic1 but he    
relates1 instead1 how  one of the       
malefactors rebuked the mockers3 #ac4   
8,but one of these  malefactors reproved
 them1 saying3 ,we have suffered this   
for the evil  which we wrought1 but this
 man who has become the saviour of men1 
what  wrong hath he done you8 #ad4 ,and 
they were angry with him1 and they      
commanded that his legs should not be   

broken1 in order that he might die  in  
torment40    ,it will be remembered that
 the episode of the penitent thief is   
given in  ,luke only1 and that the other
 ,gospels do not mention any utterance  
of the  two malefactors said to have    
been crucified with ,jesus4 ,luke's     
narrative  reads 7xxiii4 #ci f473 8,and 
one of the malefactors which were hanged
 railed  on him1 saying3 ,art not thou  
the ,christ8 ,save thyself and us4 ,but 
the  other answered1 and rebuking him   
said1 ,dost thou not even fear ,god1    
seeing  thou art in the same            
condemnation8 ,and we indeed justly3 for
 we receive  the due reward of our      
deeds2 but this man hath done nothing   
amiss4 ,and he  said1 ,jesus1 remember  
me when thou comest in thy kingdom4 ,and
 he said unto  him1 ,verily1 ,i say unto
 thee1 ,to-day shalt thou be with me in 
,paradise40  ,that all the other        
,gospels should have excluded an        
incident like this1  supposing it to    
have really occurred1 is very           

extraordinary1 and the only  conclusion 
to which we can come is either that it  
did not occur1 or that  they were       
ignorant of it4 ,peter has evidently got
 an earlier form of the  story1 without 
those much later touches with which the 
third ,synoptist has  embellished it4   
,the malefactor rebukes the ,jews and   
not his fellow1 and if  he display a    
piety which is not very natural under   
the circumstances1 he  is not in this   
more remarkable than his counterpart in 
the third ,synoptic4  ,that the author  
was not acquainted with the form in     
,luke1 and is quite  uninfluenced by it1
 seems to us manifest4    ,this is      
rendered all the more apparent by the   
continuation in ,peter1 in  which1      
instead of any reply from ,jesus1 or any
 promise of ,paradise1 there  is        
connected with the rebuke of the        
malefactor on the cross a view of the   
crurifragium which is quite foreign to  
the canonical ,gospels4 ,when the       
malefactor had spoken1 instead of their 

being mollified1 the fragment  declares3
 8,and they were angry with him1 and    
they commanded that his legs  should not
 be broken1 in order that he might die  
in torment40 ,now1 here1  there is a    
point which demands examination4 ,to    
whom does this sentence  refer8 to      
,jesus or the malefactor8 ,it is at     
first sight1 and apart from             
consideration of the style of the       
writer1 a reference to the latter1 but  
on closer examination it seems to us    
more probable that the writer  intended 
it to apply to ,jesus4 ,in any case1 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 
whatever1 and apparently treated the    
order not to  break the legs as applying
 to the malefactor and not to           
,jesus47#hh7 ,in the  first edition of  
his article on the fragment1 ,harnack   
took the view that  more probably the   

malefactor was indicated here1 but in   
his second edition  he withdraws this1  
and adopts the conclusion that the      
reference of  to  ,jesus 8appears more  
acceptable1 both on account of ,john    
xix4 #cb f41 and  also on account of the
 context407#hi7 ,zahn considers the     
whole episode in  ,peter as a caricature
 of the ,gospel tradition1 through the  
author's hatred  of the ,jews1 and      
refers only indirectly to the version of
 the  crurifragium as drawn by the      
caricaturist from the 8,motive0 of the  
fourth ,evangelist1 but does not further
 go into the matter than to say1  with  
mysterious reticence3 8,whoever is of   
another opinion should keep it  to      
himself067#ij7 ,hilgenfeld1 who         
considers the whole passage as quite    
independent of our ,gospels1 regrets    
,harnack's change of view1 and applies  
the  to the malefactor27#ia7 but many   
able critics1 with equal  decision1     
understand it as a reference to         
,jesus17#ib7 and ,harnack himself1  of  

course1 sees that1 even adopting his    
later view1 there is a clear            
contradiction in the account in ,peter  
to the representation of the fourth     
,gospel4 ,to independent criticism1 the 
result is a matter of indifference1  and
 we shall merely state the reasons which
 seem to favour the view that  the      
passage was intended to apply to ,jesus1
 and then present the  consequence if it
 be referred to the malefactor4         
,throughout the whole of the fragment1  
the sustained purpose of the author  is 
to present ,jesus in the strongest      
light1 and subordinate everything to    
the representation of his sufferings and
 resurrection4 ,at the part we are      
considering1 the narrative is of the    
closest and most condensed character3   
the crucifixion between the two         
malefactors2 the silence as feeling no  
pain2 the superscription on the cross1  
and the parting of the garments1  are   
all told without wasting a word4 ,the   
reproach of the malefactor1  apparently 

addressed to those who are parting the  
garments1 is more  intended to increase 
our sympathy for ,jesus than to excite  
it for the  speaker1 and it is certainly
 not the writer's purpose to divert our 
attention from the sufferings of ,jesus 
by presenting those of the generous     
malefactor4 ,rather it is to show that  
the more the high character and  mission
 of ,jesus are set forth1 the more      
bitter becomes the animosity and  hatred
 of the ,jews2 so that1 to the          
remonstrance of the malefactor1 they    
reply by increasing the sufferings of   
,jesus4 ,in short1 the sense of the     
passage seems to be 8,and they1 being   
angered at what was said1 commanded     
that the legs of ,jesus should not be   
broken1 that he might die in  torment40 
,however1 let us take the view that the 
command was given that  the malefactor's
 legs should not be broken1 that he     
might die in torment4  ,it clearly      
follows that1 if he was to be made to   
suffer more by not having  his legs     

broken1 the legs of the other two must  
on the contrary have  been broken4 ,the 
command not to break his legs           
necessarily implies that  otherwise the 
legs of all would have been so broken4  
,there is really no  escape from this   
inference4 ,now the crurifragium is here
 represented as  an act of mercy and to 
hasten death1 but in the immediate      
context we are  told that they were     
troubled and anxious lest the sun should
 have set  whilst ,jesus still lived4   
,no anxiety of this kind is felt lest   
the  malefactors should still be alive1 
and why8 ,because if an exception to    
breaking the legs had been made in one  
case1 and that exception had been       
,jesus1 the malefactors would be        
supposed to be already dead4 ,if1 on the
  contrary1 the legs of ,jesus had been 
broken1 they would not have feared  his 
being alive1 but rather the malefactor  
whose legs had not been broken4  ,jesus 
having been left to linger in torment is
 still alive1 and the potion  of vinegar

 and gall is given to him to produce    
death1 and not to the  malefactor4 ,the 
whole context1 therefore1 shows that no 
means such as the  crurifragium had been
 used with ,jesus to hasten death1 and  
that the  potion was at last given for  
the purpose4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the
 legs  of ,jesus were actually broken1  
and not those of the malefactor1 a most 
complete contradiction of the account in
 the fourth ,gospel is given1 and  of   
the ,scripture which is said in it to   
have been fulfilled4    ,let us now see 
how the account in ,peter compares with 
that in the fourth  ,gospel1 on the     
hypothesis that the writer intended to  
represent that1 in  order to lengthen   
his sufferings1 the legs of ,jesus were 
not broken4 ,it  would follow that the  
crurifragium was applied to the two     
malefactors1  and that ,jesus was left  
to a lingering death by the cruel       
animosity of his  executioners4 ,it     
will1 of course1 be remembered that the 
fourth ,gospel is  the only one which   

recounts the crurifragium4 ,in this     
narrative it is  not represented as an  
act of mercy to shorten the sufferings  
of the  crucified4 ,it is said 7xix4 #ca
 f473 8,the ,jews therefore1 because it 
was  the ,preparation1 that the bodies  
should not remain on the cross upon the 
,sabbath 7for the day of that ,sabbath  
was a high day71 asked of ,pilate that  
their legs might be broken1 and that    
they might be taken away4 ,the  soldiers
 therefore came1 and brake the legs of  
the first1 and of the other  which was  
crucified with him2 but when they came  
to ,jesus1 and saw that he  was dead    
already1 they brake not his legs 444    
that the ,scripture might be  fulfilled1
 ,a bone of him shall not be broken40   
,the object of the author in  relating  
this is obviously dogmatic1 and to show 
the fulfilment of  ,scripture1 but the  
way in which he brings the matter about 
is awkward1 to  say the least of it1 and
 not so natural as that adopted by      
,peter4 ,the  soldiers brake the legs   

8of the first10--and by this description
 they imply  that they begin at one     
end--and proceed to the second1 who     
would be ,jesus2  but not so1 for having
 broken the legs 8of the first1 and of  
the other10  they come to ,jesus1 whom  
they must have passed over4 ,is this    
passing over  of ,jesus in the first    
instance a slight indication of a       
tradition similar  to that which has    
been reproduced in ,peter8 ,however this
 may be1 it is  quite clear that1 while 
the fourth ,gospel deals with the       
episode purely  from a dogmatic point of
 view1 this is completely absent from   
,peter1 who  even leaves it in doubt1   
and as a problem for critics1 whether   
the legs of  ,jesus were broken or not1 
and evidently does not give a thought to
 the  ,johannine representation of      
,jesus as the ,paschal lamb4 ,whichever 
way the  passage in ,peter is construed1
 the entire independence of the writer  
from  the influence of the fourth       
,gospel seems to be certain4    ,the    

fragment proceeds3          #ae4 ,now it
 was mid-day1 and a darkness covered all
 ,judaea1 and      they were troubled   
and anxious lest the sun should have set
 whilst      he still lived1 for it is  
written for them3 8,the sun must not go 
down upon one put to death40 #af4 ,and  
one of them said3 8,give him      to    
drink gall with vinegar20 and having    
mixed1 they gave him to      drink4 #ag4
 ,and they fulfilled all things1 and    
completed their sins      upon their own
 head4 #ah4 ,now many went about with   
lights1 thinking      that it was night1
 and some fell47#ic7      ,the three    
,synoptics have an account of this      
darkness in words which nearly  repeat  
each other4 ,matthew xxvii4 #de3 8,now  
from the sixth hour there was  darkness 
over all the earth 7   7 until the ninth
 hour40  ,mark 7xv4 #cc73 8,and when the
 sixth hour was come1 there was darkness
 over  the whole earth 7   7 until the  
ninth hour40 ,in ,luke 7xxiii4  #dd f47 
other details are1 as usual1 added3     

8,and it was now about the sixth  hour1 
and a darkness came over the whole earth
 7   7 until  the ninth hour1 the sun   
failing or rather #8being eclipsed1'    
407#id7 ,it is a very extraordinary     
circumstance that1 whether a  miraculous
 eclipse or not1 whether this darkness  
came over the whole land  or the whole  
earth1 the fourth ,gospel has either not
 believed in it1 or  thought it unworthy
 of mention1 for no reference to the    
astonishing  phenomenon is found in it4 
,peter1 in a manner quite different from
 the  ,synoptics1 and in fuller detail1 
describes this darkness and its effect  
upon the people4 ,for the second time1  
he refers to a portion of the ,jewish   
law1 interpreted from ,deut4 xxi4 #bc1  
to illustrate the anxiety which the     
supposed going down of the sun had      
excited4 ,this expression does not      
favour any theory of his being          
acquainted with the third ,synoptic4    
,the most important part of the passage 
is that in v4 #af3 8,and one of  them   

said3 #8,give him to drink gall with    
vinegar2' and having mixed they  gave   
him to drink40 ,this proceeding is      
represented as the result of their      
anxiety at the sun going down whilst    
,jesus still lived1 and the gall and    
vinegar are regarded as a potion to     
hasten death4 ,this view is foreign to  
all of our ,gospels4 ,in ,matthew xxvii4
 #dh1 when ,jesus gives the loud cry1   
8,my ,god1 my ,god10 c41 we read3 8,and 
straightway one of them ran and took  a 
sponge and filled it with vinegar1 and  
put it on a reed1 and gave him to       
drink4 ,and the rest said1 ,let be2 let 
us see whether ,elijah cometh to save   
him40 ,in ,mark 7xv4 #cf7 the           
representation is almost the same4 ,in  
both of  these cases death follows      
almost immediately4 ,in ,luke 7xxiii4   
#cf7 a very  different representation is
 made4 ,there is no such cry connected  
with it1  but it is simply said3 8,and  
the soldiers also mocked him1 coming to 
him1  offering him vinegar1 and saying1 

,if thou art the ,king of the ,jews1    
save  thyself40 ,in ,john the episode   
has quite another1 and purely dogmatic1 
tendency 7xix4 #bh ff474 ,it commences  
immediately after the episode of the    
mother and the beloved disciple1 and    
without any previous cry3 8,after this  
,jesus1 knowing that all things are now 
finished1 that the ,scripture might  be 
accomplished1 saith1 ,i thirst4 ,there  
was set there a vessel full of  vinegar2
 so they put a sponge full of vinegar   
upon hyssop1 and brought it  to his     
mouth4 ,when ,jesus therefore had       
received the vinegar1 he said1 ,it  is  
finished2 and he bowed his head and gave
 up his spirit40 ,of course the         
,scripture which is represented as being
 thus fulfilled is ,psalm lxix4 #ba3    
8444 and in my thirst they gave me      
vinegar to drink40 ,in all of these     
,gospels1 the potion is simply vinegar1 
and being evidently associated with     
this ,psalm1 it is in no way connected  
with any baleful intention4 ,the        

,psalm1 however1 commences3 8,they gave 
me also gall for my meat10 and in       
connection with the combination of gall 
with vinegar in ,peter1 as a potion  to 
hasten death1 it may be mentioned that  
the word which is in the ,psalm         
translated 8gall0 may equally well be   
rendered 8poison0--as1 indeed1 is  also 
the case with the ,latin 8fel40 ,peter1 
by what is said in v4  #ag--8;,and they 
fulfilled all things1 and completed     
their sins upon their own  head0--is    
more anxious to show that the ,jews had 
put the final touch to  their cruel     
work1 in thus completing the death of   
,jesus1 than to refer to  the mere      
fulfilment of the ,psalm4 ,the only     
,gospel which mentions gall is  the     
first ,synoptic1 in which it is said    
7xxvii4 #cd7 that when they had  brought
 ,jesus to ,golgotha before the         
crucifixion1 8,they gave him wine to    
drink mingled with gall2 and when he had
 tasted it1 he would not drink40  ,this 
is a very different representation from 

that of ,peter1 and the potion  was     
obviously that often offered to persons 
about to suffer1 in order to  dull      
sensation4 ,the passage might almost be 
represented as ,docetic1 from  the      
writer's intention to show that ,jesus  
refused to adopt a usual method  of     
diminishing pain4 ,there does not seem  
to be any warrant for supposing  that   
the author of the fragment derived the  
passage we are examining from  our      
,gospels1 from which it is in all       
essential points distinct4    ,the      
narrative of the fragment continues1 v4 
#ai3 8,and the ,lord cried  aloud1      
saying1 #8,power1 my ,power1 thou hast  
forsaken me6' 7  1   1  71 and having   
spoken1 he was taken up 7740  ,in this  
passage there is a very marked departure
 from the tradition  followed by our    
four ,gospels4 ,before considering the  
actual words of the  cry recorded here1 
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 cross4    ,it might     
naturally have been supposed that1 in   
describing the course of so  solemn an  
event as the crucifixion1 unusual care1 
securing unusual  agreement1 would have 
been exercised by ,christian writers1   
and that the  main facts--and still more
 the last words--of the great ,master   
would have  been collected4 ,as we have 
already seen1 however1 in no portion of 
the  history is there greater           
discrepancy in the accounts in the four 
,gospels1  nor greater contradictions   
upon every point4    ,the same is the   
case with regard to what has still to be
 examined1 and  notably in the words and
 cries from the cross4 ,in the first two
 ,synoptics1  with the exception of the 
inarticulate cry 8with a loud voice0    
7,matt4  xxvii4 #ej1 ,mark xv4 #cg7 when
 yielding up his spirit1 the only       
utterance  recorded is one resembling   
that in ,peter 7,matt4 xxvii4 #df1 ,mark
 xv4 #cd73  8,eloi1 ,eloi1 lama         

sabachthani8 that is1 ,my ,god1 my ,god1
 why hast thou  forsaken me807#ie7 7   8
  2  1   1    874 ,it will be observed  
that here there is a  demonstration of  
great accuracy1 in actually giving the  
original words  used and translating    
them1 which is uncommon in the ,gospels4
 ,it is all the  more extraordinary that
 neither of the other ,gospels gives    
this cry at  all1 but that they         
represent ,jesus as uttering quite      
different words4 ,the  third ,synoptist 
represents ,jesus immediately after the 
crucifixion as  saying 7,luke xxiii4    
#cd73 8,father1 forgive them2 for they  
know not what  they do40 ,the other     
evangelists do not evince any knowledge 
of this1 and  as little of the episode  
of the penitent thief 7xxiii4 #ci       
ff47--which we  have already            
considered--in which ,jesus uses the    
remarkable words 7v4 #dc73  8,verily ,i 
say unto thee1 ,to-day shalt thou be    
with me in ,paradise40 ,in  ,luke1      
further1 the inarticulate cry is        

interpreted 7xxiii4 #df73 8,and when    
,jesus had cried with a loud voice1 he  
said1 ,father1 into thy hands ,i        
commend my spirit2 and having said this1
 he gave up the ghost40 ,of this  the   
other ,synoptists do not say anything4  
,the author of the fourth ,gospel  has  
quite a different account to give from  
any of the ,synoptists4 ,he seems  to be
 ignorant of the words which they       
report1 and substitutes others of  which
 they seem to know nothing4 ,the episode
 of the penitent thief is  replaced by  
the scene between ,jesus and his mother 
and the disciple 8whom  he loved0 7xix4 
#be ff474 ,not only is this touching    
episode apparently  unknown to the      
,synoptists1 but the proximity of the   
women to the cross is  in direct        
contradiction to what we find in        
,matthew and ,mark1 for in the  former  
7xxvii4 #ee f47 it is said that many    
women1 8among whom was ,mary            
,magdalene1 and ,mary the mother of     
,james and ,joses1 and the mother of the

  sons of ,zebedee0 were 8beholding afar
 off20 and the latter 7xv4 #dj f47      
reports3 8,and there were also women    
beholding from afar3 among whom were    
both ,mary ,magdalene and ,mary the     
mother of ,james the less and of ,joses1
  and ,salome40 ,in the fourth ,gospel  
7xix4 #bh71 ,jesus is moreover reported 
to  have said 8,i thirst10 in order     
8that the ,scripture might be           
accomplished0--a fact which is not      
recorded in any of the ,synoptics--and  
having received vinegar upon hyssop1 8he
 said1 ,it is finished1 and he  bowed   
his head and gave up his spirit40 ,the  
last words of ,jesus1  therefore1       
according to the fourth ,gospel1 are    
different from any found in  the three  
,synoptics4 ,the ,gospel of ,peter      
differs as completely from the  four    
canonical ,gospels as they do from each 
other1 and the whole account  of the    
agony on the cross given in it is quite 
independent of them4    ,the only words 
recorded by ,peter as uttered on the    

cross are those quoted  higher up3      
8,power1 my ,power1 thou hast forsaken  
me10 the second 8my0 being  omitted1 and
 the question of the two ,synoptics1    
8,why hast thou forsaken  me80 being    
changed into a declaration by the       
omission of   7or   1 ,mark74 ,we have  
already discussed the ,docetic nature of
 this cry1 and  are now only considering
 it in relation to our ,gospels4 ,it is 
obvious that  the substitution of       
8,power1 my ,power0 for 8,my ,god1 my   
,god0 introduces  quite a different     
order of ideas1 especially followed as  
it is by the  remarkable statement3 8,he
 was taken up40 ,eusebius tells us that 
,aquila  rendered the words of ,psalm   
xxii4 #a--whence the first two          
,synoptists take  their cry--as  1      
78,my strong one1 my strong one071 but  
that the more exact sense was  1   78,my
 strength1 my  strength0727#if7 but     
though this is interesting as in some   
degree  connecting the cry with the     
,psalm1 it does not lessen the          

discrepancy  between ,peter and the     
,gospels1 or in the least degree favour 
the theory of  acquaintance with them4  
,the expression used to describe what   
follows this cry completes the wide     
separation between them3 8,and having   
spoken1 he was taken up0 774  ,in the   
first ,synoptic1 after his cry 7xxvii4  
#ej71 8he yielded up the  spirit0 7  71 
whilst the second and third say 7,mark  
xv4 #cg1  ,luke xxiii4 #df71 8he gave up
 the ghost0 1 and the fourth ,gospel    
reads 7xix4 #cj71 8he delivered up the  
spirit0 7  74 ,the  representation in   
,peter is understood to be that the     
divine descended upon  the human ,christ
 in the form of the dove at baptism1 and
 immediately  ascended to ,heaven again 
at his death4 ,there is not here1       
however1 any  declaration of a double   
,christ1 or any denial of the reality of
 the  ,christ's body1 such as           
characterised the later ,docetae2       
indeed1 the fact  that the dead body is 
still always spoken of as that of 8the  

,lord0 seems  distinctly to exclude     
this1 as does the whole subsequent      
narrative4  ,whatever ,docetism there   
may be in this fragment is of the       
earliest type1  if indeed its doctrines 
can be clearly traced at all2 but       
undoubtedly when  the sect had become   
pronounced heretics1 orthodox           
,christians detected  their subtle      
influence in much that was in itself    
very simple and  harmless4    ,the      
fragment continues 7v4 #bj73 8,and the  
same hour the veil of the  ,temple of   
,jerusalem was torn in twain0 7         
74 ,this expression the 8temple of      
,jerusalem0 is one  of those which seem 
to indicate that the ,gospel was written
 away from  ,palestine1 but in this it  
probably differs little from most of the
  canonical ,gospels4 ,the statement    
regarding the veil of the temple is     
almost the same in the first two        
,synoptics 7,matt4 xxvii4 #ea1 ,mark xv4
 #ch74  8,and behold1 the veil of the   
temple was rent in twain from the top to

 the  bottom0 7          74 ,in  ,luke  
7xxiii4 #de7 the rent is 8in the midst0 
771 but otherwise the  words are the    
same4 ,the use of  instead of the  of   
the three  ,synoptics is characteristic4
 ,the fourth ,gospel1 strange to say1   
does not  record at all this            
extraordinary phenomenon of the rending 
in twain of the  veil of the temple4    
,there are some further peculiarities   
which must be  pointed out4 ,the third  
,synoptist sets the rending of the veil 
before ,jesus  cried with a loud voice  
and gave up the ghost2 whilst in        
,matthew and ,mark  it is after the cry 
and giving up the spirit4 ,moreover1 in 
,matthew1 it is  associated with an     
earthquake1 and the rending of the rocks
 and opening of  tombs1 and the         
astounding circumstance that many bodies
 of the saints that  had fallen asleep  
were raised1 and coming forth out of the
 tombs after his  resurrection they     
entered into the holy city1 and appeared
 unto many3 of  all of which the other  

three ,gospels make no mention1 nor does
 ,peter in  this connection4    ,the    
narrative in the fragment continues3    
#ba4 ,and then they took out the nails  
from the hands of the ,lord1      and   
laid him upon the earth2 and the whole  
earth quaked1 and great      fear came  
upon them4 #bb4 ,then the sun shone out1
 and it was      found to be the ninth  
hour4 #bc4 ,now the ,jews were glad and 
gave      his body to ,joseph1 that he  
might bury it1 for he had beheld the    
good works that he did47#ig7 #bd4 ,and  
he took the ,lord and washed      him1  
and wrapped him in linen1 and brought   
him into his own grave1      called     
8,joseph's ,garden40      ,this passage 
is full of independent peculiarities4   
,although none of the  canonical        
,gospels1 except ,matthew1 says anything
 of an earthquake1 and the  first       
,synoptist associates it with the moment
 when ,jesus 8gave up the  ghost10      
,peter narrates that when the body of   
the ,lord was unloosed from  the cross1 

the moment it was laid on the ground the
 whole earth quaked  beneath the awful  
burden3 a representation almost grander 
than anything in  the four ,gospels4    
,the canonical ,gospels do not speak of 
the nails being taken out1 and  although
 ,peter states that they were removed   
from the hands1 he does not  refer to   
the feet4 ,the fourth is the only       
canonical ,gospel that speaks of  the   
nails at all1 and there it is not in    
connection with the crucifixion1  but   
the subsequent appearance to the        
disciples and the incredulity of        
,thomas 7xx4 #bj1 #be1 #bg74 ,here also1
 only the marks in the hands are        
referred to4 ,the difference of the two 
representations is so great that  there 
can really be no question of dependence1
 and those who are so eager  to claim   
the use of the fourth ,gospel simply    
because it is the only one  that speaks 
of 8nails0 78the print of the nails07   
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  attached4 ,in the 
third ,synoptic 7xxiv4 #ci71 the        
inference is inevitable  that both hands
 and feet were supposed to be nailed4   
,when the report1 8,the  ,lord is       
risen10 is brought to the eleven1 ,jesus
 is represented as standing  in their   
midst and assuring them that he was not 
a spirit1 by saying3 8,see  my hands and
 my feet1 that it is ,i myself0--meaning
 of course the prints of  the nails in  
both4 ,the statement in ,peter that on  
the occurrence of the  earthquake 8great
 fear came upon them0 7  7 is not even  
mentioned in ,matthew when he narrates  
the earthquake1 which he represents  as 
occurring when ,jesus expired4 ,the     
expression is characteristic of the     
author1 who uses it elsewhere4    ,the  
representation that the sun shone out   
and that the ,jews were glad when  they 
found it was the ninth hour1 and that   
consequently their law1 twice  quoted by

 the author1 would not be broken1 is    
limited to the fragment2 as  is also the
 statement that they gave his body to   
,joseph that he might bury  it1 8for he 
had beheld the good works that he did40 
,as we have already  seen1 the canonical
 ,gospels represent ,joseph as going to 
,pilate at this  time and begging for   
the body of ,jesus1 and it will be      
remembered that1 in  ,mark 7xv4 #dd71 it
 is said that 8,pilate marvelled if he  
were already dead10  and called the     
centurion to ascertain the fact before  
he granted the body4  ,in ,peter1 the   
body was of course given in consequence 
of the previous  order1 when ,pilate    
asked ,herod for it4    ,joseph is      
represented1 here1 as only washing the  
body and wrapping it in  linen 7        
74 ,the first ,synoptist  7xxvii4 #ei7  
says that ,joseph took the body and     
8wrapped it in a clean  linen cloth0 7  
74 ,mark similarly  describes that 7xv4 
#df71 bringing 8a linen cloth and taking
 him down1 he  wound him in the linen   

cloth0 7    74 ,the  third ,synoptist   
has nearly the same statement and words4
 ,the fourth ,gospel  has a much more   
elaborate account to give 7xix4 #ch     
ff474 ,joseph goes to  ,pilate asking   
that he may take away the body1 and     
,pilate gives him leave4  ,he comes and 
takes away the body4 8,and there came   
also ,nicodemus 444  bringing a mixture 
of myrrh and aloes1 about a hundred     
pound weight4 ,so  they took the body of
 ,jesus and bound it in linen clothes 7 
7 with the spices1 as the custom of the 
,jews is to bury40 ,this  account is    
quite different from that in the        
,synoptics1 and equally so from         
,peter's1 which approximates much more  
nearly to that in the latter4    ,peter 
says that ,joseph then 8brought him into
 his own grave1 called  #8,joseph's     
,garden' 0 7      74  ,the account of   
the tomb is much more minute in the     
canonical ,gospels4 ,in  ,matthew       
7xxvii4 #fj71 ,joseph is said to lay the
 body 8in his own new tomb  771 which he

 had hewn out in the rock2 and he rolled
 a great stone  to the door of the tomb 
77 and departed40 ,in ,mark 7xv4 #df71  
he  lays him 8in a tomb 77 which had    
been hewn out of a rock2 and he  rolled 
a stone against the door of the tomb0   
774 ,luke has a new  detail to chronicle
 7xxiii4 #ec73 ,joseph lays him 8in a   
tomb 77 that  was hewn in stone1 where  
never man had yet lain40 ,the first two 
,synopists1  it will be observed1 say   
that ,joseph rolls a stone against the  
entrance to  the tomb3 but neither ,luke
 nor ,peter has this detail1 though the 
former  leaves it to be inferred that it
 had been done1 for 7xxiv4 #b7 the women
  who came on the first day of the week 
find the stone rolled away from the     
tomb4 ,in ,peter1 on the contrary1 the  
stone is rolled against the tomb by  the
 guard and others later1 as we shall    
presently see4    ,in the fourth        
,gospel1 the account has further and    
different details1  agreeing1 however1  
with the peculiar statement of ,luke    

7xix4 #da f473 8,now  in the place where
 he was crucified there was a garden 771
 and in the  garden a new tomb 77       
wherein was never man yet laid4 ,there  
then1  because of the ,jews'            
,preparation 7for the tomb  was nigh at 
hand71 they laid ,jesus40 ,some stress  
has been laid upon the point that  both 
,peter and the fourth ,gospel use the   
word 8garden10 and that none of  the    
,synoptics have it1 and as these critics
 seem to go upon the principle  that any
 statement in ,peter which happens to be
 in any canonical ,gospel1  even        
although widely different in treatment1 
must have been derived from  that       
,gospel1 and not from any similar       
written or traditional source1 from     
which that ,gospel derived it1 they     
argue that this shows dependence on the 
fourth ,gospel4 ,there is certainly no  
evidence of dependence here4 ,in        
,peter1 the grave 77 is simply said to  
be called 8,joseph's ,garden0  7 717#ih7
 and described as 8his own grave40 ,the 

fourth ,gospel  does not identify the   
garden as ,joseph's at all1 but says    
that 8in the  place where he was        
crucified there was a garden10 and in it
 8a tomb0  771 and the reason given for 
taking the body thither is not that  it 
belonged to ,joseph1 but that the tomb  
8was nigh at hand10 and that on  account
 of the ,jews' ,preparation they laid it
 there4 ,the whole explanation  seems to
 exclude the idea that the writer knew  
that it belonged to ,joseph4  ,peter    
simply contributes a new detail to the  
common tradition4 ,there is no          
appearance of his deriving this from our
 canonical ,gospels1 from which he      
differs in substance and in language4   
,neither ,peter nor the ,synoptics know 
anything of the co-operation of         
,nicodemus4    ,the narrative in the    
fragment continues3          #be4 ,then 
the ,jews and the elders and the        
priests1 seeing the evil      they had  
done to themselves1 began to beat their 
breasts 7      7 and to say3 8,woe for  

our sins2 judgment draweth nigh      and
 the end of ,jerusalem40      ,we have  
already discussed this passage in       
connection with the  8,diatessaron10 and
 have now only to consider it as        
compared with our  ,gospels4 ,there is  
no equivalent in any of them1 except    
that the third  ,synoptist 7xxiii4 #dh7 
says that when ,jesus gave up the ghost3
 8,all the  multitude that came together
 to this sight1 when they beheld the    
things  that were done1 returned smiting
 their breasts 7    740 ,the reason for 
this change of mood is1 of course1 the  
eclipse and consequent darkness in the  
third ,synoptic1 and the earthquake  and
 darkness in ,peter2 but in the former  
8all the multitude0 smite their         
breasts1 and in the latter 8the ,jews   
and the elders and the priests40 ,it    
may be suggested whether the words      
inserted in the ancient ,latin ,codex of
  ,st4 ,germain1 8,vae nobis1 quae facta
 sunt hodie propter peccata nostra1     
appropinquavit enim desolatio           

,hierusalem107#ii7 may not have been    
taken  from our ,gospel of ,peter1 for  
an expansion of the original text of the
  third ,synoptic1 by the author of this
 version4    ,the common reference of   
the fragment is to 8the ,jews10 8the    
,jews and the  elders and the priests10 
8the scribes and ,pharisees and elders10
 and 8the  elders and scribes40         
,throughout the same part of the        
narrative in ,matthew1  we have 8the    
scribes and elders10 8chief priests and 
elders of the people0  7this1 most      
frequently71 8chief priests with the    
scribes and elders10 and  in speaking of
 the guard at the sepulchre1 8the chief 
priests and the  ,pharisees40 ,in ,mark1
 the same leaders are named1 whilst in  
,luke we have  8the chief priests and   
captains of the ,temple and elders10    
8the elders of  the people and both the 
chief priests and scribes10 and1        
repeatedly1 the  8chief priests and     
rulers40 ,the fourth ,gospel usually    
cites 8the chief  priests and           

,pharisees10 8chief captains and        
officers of the ,jews10 8the  ,jews10   
and 8the chief priests of the ,jews40   
,there is more analogy1 in this         
respect1 between the fragment and the   
fourth ,gospel than between it and  the 
,synoptics4    ,we come now to an       
important and characteristic part of the
 fragment3          #bf4 ,and ,i1 with  
my companions1 was mourning1 and being  
pierced in      spirit we hid ourselves2
 for we were sought for by them as      
malefactors1 and as desiring to burn the
 temple4 #bg4 ,over all      these      
things1 however1 we were fasting1 and   
sat mourning and      weeping night and 
day until the ,sabbath4      ,there is  
no parallel to this passage in our      
,gospels1 but in the statement  that the
 ,apostles had hidden themselves        
7and--taken in connection with v4  #ei1 
where the same fact is again            
mentioned--this means all the twelve7 we
  have here agreement with the narrative
 of the first and second ,synoptics     

7,matt4 xxvi4 #ef2 ,mark xix4 #ej71 that
 on the arrest of ,jesus 8all the       
disciples left him and fled40 ,this     
passage seems to exclude the incident   
of the sword and ,malchus which1 as     
,hilgenfeld points out17#ajj7 is also   
excluded by a passage in ,justin2 the   
denial of ,peter1 which ,justin equally 
passes over unmentioned2 and the episode
 of the 8beloved disciple0 by the       
cross4 ,the reason given for hiding     
themselves1 that they were accused of   
wishing to burn the temple1 has some    
connection with the tradition1 that     
testimony had been given against ,jesus 
that he had said he could destroy  this 
temple and build it in three days       
7,matt4 xxvi4 #fj2 ,mark xiv4           
#eh747aja7 ,the passage is one of those 
in which the writer speaks in the  first
 person and represents himself as an    
,apostle1 which he still more  clearly  
does1 v4 #fj1 where he distinctly calls 
himself ,simon ,peter4    ,the account  
that the ,apostles were fasting and sat 

mourning and weeping  8night and day    
until the ,sabbath0 7     7  opens out  
an interesting problem4 ,as a rule1 the 
,greek expression would be    1 so if we
 are to take the words actually used as 
deliberately intended to represent the  
time1 we should have to count at  least 
one night and one day between the death 
of ,jesus and the ,sabbath1 or  in other
 words1 that the crucifixion took place1
 not on ,friday1 but upon  ,thursday1   
which1 according to the statement in v4 
#e1 would really be the  #acth ,nisan4  
,a great deal might be said in support  
of this view17#ajb7 but  it need not be 
entered into here4 ,it is probable that1
 as ,harnack  suggests17#ajc7 the author
 really thinks of the whole time from   
the  ,thursday night1 when the arrest   
was made4    ,with the next portion of  
the fragment the narrative of the       
resurrection  may be said to begin3     
#bh4 ,but the scribes and ,pharisees and
 elders assembled themselves            
together 7  71 hearing that all the     

people      murmured and beat their     
breasts1 saying1 8,if at his death these
      great signs have happened1 behold 
how just a one he is40 #bi4 ,the        
elders were afraid 77 and came to       
,pilate 7       7 beseeching him and    
saying1 #cj4 8,give us soldiers that we 
may watch his grave for three days 7    
71 lest his disciples come and steal    
him1 and the      people believe that he
 rose from the dead and do us evil0 7   
1    74 #ca4 ,pilate1 therefore1        
gave them ,petronius the centurion with 
soldiers to watch the tomb      7    71 
and with them came the      elders and  
scribes to the grave 7 74 #cb4 ,and they
 rolled a      great stone 7  7 against 
the centurion and the      soldiers1 and
 set it1 all who were there together1 at
 the door of      the grave 774 #cc4    
,and they put seven seals 7        71   
and setting up a tent there they kept   
guard      774 #cd4 ,and in the morning1
 at the dawn of the ,sabbath1      came 
a multitude from ,jerusalem and the     

neighbourhood in order      that they   
might see the sealed-up grave 7       74
      ,there is no parallel to this     
narrative in any of our canonical       
,gospels  except the first ,synoptic1   
which alone mentions the circumstance   
that a  watch was set over the          
sepulchre1 a fact of which the other    
,gospels seem  quite ignorant1 and      
states that application was made to     
,pilate for a guard  for that purpose4  
,the account in ,matthew is as follows  
7xxvii4 #fb f473          ,now on the   
morrow1 which is the day after the      
,preparation1 the      chief priests and
 the ,pharisees were gathered together  
77 unto ,pilate1 saying1 ,sir1 we       
remember that that      deceiver said1  
while he was yet alive1 ,after three    
days ,i rise      again4 ,command       
therefore that the sepulchre be made    
sure until the      third day1 lest     
haply his disciples come and steal him  
away1 and      say unto the people1 ,he 
rose from the dead3 and the last error  

will be worse than the first 7          
2      1         1    2             74  
,pilate said unto them1 ,ye have a      
guard3 go      your way1 make it as sure
 as ye can4 ,so they went1 and made the 
sepulchre sure 7  71 sealing the stone  
7  71 the guard being with them 7       
74      ,the fact that only one of the  
four canonical ,gospels has any         
reference to  this episode1 or betrays  
the slightest knowledge of any          
precautions taken  to guard the tomb1 is
 remarkable4 ,the analogies in the      
narrative in ,peter  with the general   
account1 and the similarity of the      
language in certain  parts1 together    
with the wide variation in details and  
language generally1  point to the       
conclusion that both writers derive the 
episode from a  similar source1 but     
independently of each other4 ,the casual
 agreement with  continuous             
dissimilarity of statement and style1   
are evidence of the  separate treatment 
of a common tradition1 and put the      

fragment upon a very  different footing 
from the ,synoptics in relation to each 
other4 ,the  absence of verisimilitude  
is pretty nearly equal in both ,gospels1
 but  these traditions grew up1 and were
 unconsciously rounded by the           
contributions of pious imagination4     
,in the fragment it is 8the scribes and 
,pharisees and elders0 7      7 who meet
 together1 but only the  8elders0 go to 
,pilate2 in the ,synoptic1 8the chief   
,priests and the  ,pharisees0 7    7    
meet and go to ,pilate4 ,pilate  gives  
them 8,petronius the centurion with     
soldiers0 to watch the tomb2 in         
,matthew1 he gives them 8a guard10      
bidding them make it sure2 so they go   
and seal the stone1 the guard being with
 them4 ,in ,peter1 the 8elders and      
scribes0 go to the grave1 and themselves
 with the soldiers1 8all who were  there
 together10 roll a great stone and set  
it at the door of the grave4  ,doubtless
 this trait is intended to convey an    
impression of the great size  of the    

stone4 ,a curious peculiarity occurs in 
the statement1 8they roll  the stone    
against the centurion and the soldiers10
 the intention of the  words probably   
being that1 in their suspicious mood1   
they thus protected  themselves from    
possible fraud on the part even of the  
soldiers47#ajd7 ,the  motive for the    
application to ,pilate1 in the fragment1
 is fear on the part  of the elders1 in 
consequence of the murmuring and        
lamentation of the  people1 who are     
represented as being convinced by the   
great signs  occurring at the death of  
,jesus 8how just a one0 he was4 ,this is
 quite a  variation from the ,synoptic  
version1 but both agree in the          
explanation  given to ,pilate of anxiety
 lest the disciples should steal the    
body1 and  say that ,jesus had risen    
from the dead4 ,in ,matthew1 they simply
 8seal the  stone10 but in the fragment 
they put or smear 77 8seven seals0  upon
 it4 ,some important peculiarities then 
occur in the narrative of  ,peter4 ,they

 set up a tent beside the tomb and keep 
guard1 and in the  morning a multitude  
from ,jerusalem and the neighbourhood   
come out to see  the sealed-up grave4   
,there is nothing corresponding to this 
in the  ,synoptic ,gospel4    ,the      
narrative proceeds3          #ce4 ,now1 
in the night before the dawn of the     
,lord's day 7      71 whilst the        
soldiers were keeping guard over the    
place1      two and two in a watch1     
there was a great voice in the heaven4  
#cf4      ,and they saw the heavens     
opened and two men come down from thence
      with great light and approach the 
tomb4 #cg4 ,but the stone which      had
 been laid at the door rolled of itself 
away by the side1 and      the tomb was 
opened and both the young men entered4  
,here commences an account of the       
resurrection very different in every    
respect from that in our canonical      
,gospels1 and the treatment of a        
tradition in some points necessarily    
common to all is evidently  independent4

 ,in ,matthew1 the scene commences with 
an  earthquake--earthquakes are1 indeed1
 peculiar to the first                  
,synoptist--7xxviii4 #b f473 8,and      
behold there was a great earthquake2 for
 an  angel of the ,lord descended from  
heaven1 and came and rolled away the    
stone and sat upon it4 ,his appearance  
was as lightning1 and his raiment  white
 as snow2 and for fear of him the       
watchers did quake and become as  dead  
men40 ,here only one angel comes down1  
whilst in ,peter there are two  men1    
whom some critics--amongst whom may be  
mentioned ,nestle1 with whom  ,harnack  
is inclined to agree1 more especially as
 they are never called  angels1 but     
merely 8two men0--identify as ,moses and
 ,elias4 ,the angel rolls  away the     
stone1 which in ,peter rolls away of    
itself1 and sits upon it1  whilst in    
,peter the two men enter into the tomb4 
,no account is given in  ,mark of the   
opening of the tomb1 the women simply   
finding the stone rolled  away1 and a   

young man 77 sitting on the right side  
arrayed in a  white robe 7xvi4 #d f472  
the author does not mention any         
earthquake4 ,in the  third ,synoptic    
7xxiv4 #b f471 the women also find the  
stone already rolled  away from the     
tomb2 there is no earthquake4 ,when the 
women enter the tomb  they do not find  
8the body of the ,lord ,jesus10 but     
while they are  perplexed two men stand 
by them in dazzling apparel4 ,in the    
fourth ,gospel  7xx4 #ab f471 ,mary1    
coming to the sepulchre1 sees two angels
 in white  sitting--the one at the head1
 the other at the foot--where the body  
of ,jesus  had lain4 ,thus1 to sum up1  
in ,matthew there is one angel1 in ,mark
 one  young man1 in ,luke two men1 in   
the fourth ,gospel two angels1 and in   
,peter  two men descend from heaven to  
the tomb4    ,peter goes on3            
#ch4 ,then these soldiers1 seeing this1 
awakened the centurion and      the     
elders1 for they also were keeping      
watch4 #ci4 ,and whilst they      were  

narrating to them what they had seen1   
they beheld again three      men coming 
out of the tomb and the two were        
supporting the one1      and a cross    
following them4 #dj4 ,and the heads of  
the two indeed      reached up to the   
heaven1 but that of him that was led by 
their      hands rose above the heavens4
 #da4 ,and they heard a voice from the  
heavens saying1 8,hast thou preached to 
them that are sleeping80      #db4 ,and 
an answer was heard from the cross3     
8,yea40      ,of course there is nothing
 corresponding to this in the canonical 
,gospels4  ,in ,matthew1 the watchers   
quake and become as dead men1 but no    
such alarm  is here described4 ,the     
elders and soldiers see the two men who 
had entered  the tomb come out leading a
 third1 and the stately appearance of   
the three  is described with ,oriental  
extravagance47#aje7 ,following the three
 is a  cross1 a very singular           
representation1 more especially as the  
cross  presently speaks4 ,harnack says  

that ,duhms1 who supposes a ,hebraic    
original1 conjectures that the ,hebrew  
word1 which could as well stand for     
8crucified0 as 8cross10 was             
misunderstood by the translator1 and he 
adds  that1 if the original was         
,aramaic1 the matter becomes still      
simpler4  ,however1 ,harnack does not   
seem disposed to adopt the              
suggestion47#ajf7 ,it  is well known    
that in very early works the cross was  
identified with the  crucified1 and     
treated both as a type and as having a  
certain  personality--the living and    
eloquent symbol of victory over         
death47#ajg7    ,the words of the voice 
from the heavens are3 8 #8,hast thou    
preached to them  that are sleeping8'   
and an answer was heard from the cross3 
#8,yea' 0  7  8        74  ,this is     
generally understood as a reference to  
the 8descent into hell10  which was     
early accepted as a dogma by the ,church
 and has a place in the  ,creed1        
although its only clear mention in the  

,new ,testament occurs in #a  ,peter    
iii4 #ah f43 8,because ,christ 444 being
 put to death in the flesh1 but         
quickened in the spirit1 in which also  
he went and preached 77  unto the       
spirits in prison1 which aforetime were 
disobedient20 and 7iv4  #f73 8,for unto 
this end was the ,gospel spoken unto the
 dead40 ,it is a  curious fact that the 
8,gospel according to ,peter10 the      
fragment of which  is first discovered  
in a little volume along with a fragment
 of the  8,apocalypse of ,peter10 should
 thus contain a reference to a doctrine1
 the  only allusion to which in any of  
the canonical writings is contained in a
  so-called 8,epistle of ,peter40       
,hilgenfeld wishes to read   instead of 
1 and disputes the rendering of  as     
8answer10  although he admits that there
 is some support to this as a liturgical
  response47#ajh7 ,he would render this 
passage3 8,du verkndigtest den          
,profanirten und einem ,gehorsam47#aji7 
,von dem ,kreuze her erschallt3 ,ja40   

,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 upright1 but must be  
led2 that1 however much the inanimate   
body of ,jesus may still be called  8the
 ,lord10 his 8,self0 is already in death
 ascended to heaven2 the  selfless      
7selbstlose7 body cannot possibly in the
 meantime have gone  into ,hades47#aaj7 
,in this conclusion1 however1 he is at  
variance with  almost all critics1 who  
generally take the view rendered        
above47#aaa7    ,the passage which we   
have quoted from ,matthew 7xxvii4 #eb   
f47 must be  recalled1 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  ,jesus3 an earthquake 
which rent the rocks and opened the     
tombs1 8and many  bodies of the saints  
that were sleeping 77 were raised2 and  
coming forth out of the tombs after his 
resurrection1 they entered into  the    

holy city and appeared unto many40 ,this
 resurrection of the saints  8that were 
sleeping0 is associated by ,eusebius    
with the descent into  hell17#aab7 and  
it is not improbable that the first     
,synoptist had it in his  mind4 ,it is  
not necessary to point out many early   
references to the  descent into         
hell17#aac7 but an interesting passage  
may be quoted from  ,justin4 ,he accuses
 the ,jews of omitting from the prophecy
 of ,jeremiah in  their copies of the   
,septuagint the following verse3 8,the  
,lord ,god1 the  ,holy one of ,israel1  
remembered his dead who lay sleeping 77 
in  the earth1 and descended to them to 
bring to them the good news of his      
salvation407#aad7 ,it is not known that 
the passage ever really existed in      
,jeremiah but1 notwithstanding1         
,irenaeus quotes it no less than five   
times47#aae7    ,the writer does not    
explain the representation of the three 
who came out  of the tomb1 two of whom  
were 8supporting10 or1 as is            

subsequently said1  leading him1 or     
conducting him1 but this figure1 more   
stately than the  others1 of course1 is 
intended to be recognised as ,jesus4    
,too much has  been said as to the      
weakness supposed to be here described1 
and ,zahn1 who  as much as possible     
ridicules the whole contents of the     
fragment1 says  that 8the raised        
,lazarus1 in comparison with him1 is a  
hero in strength  and life40 ,but is the
 intention here to depict weakness8 ,no 
word is used  which really demands that 
interpretation4 ,as ,dr4 ,swete rightly 
points out1  8the support appears to be 
regarded as nominal only1 since ,he is  
also said  to be #8conducted' 770 7p4   
#ah74 ,it is true that   is twice used  
in ,acts 7ix4 #h1 xxii4 #aa7 to express 
,paul's helplessness  when led by the   
hand after his vision on the way to     
,damascus1 but it does  not in itself   
imply weakness1 and no other hint of    
feebleness is given in  the fragment4   
,the 8touch me not0 of the fourth       

,gospel1 when ,mary ,magdalene          
stretches out her hand to ,jesus1 is    
quite as much a mark of weakness as     
this4 ,it may not unfairly1 on the other
 hand1 be interpreted as a mark of      
honour1 and nothing in ,peter forbids   
this reading4 ,if weakness were         
indicated1 it might be taken as a       
,docetic representation of the condition
  of the human body1 deprived of the    
divine ,christ1 who had ascended from   
the cross4    ,the continuation of the  
narrative in ,peter is as different from
 that of  our canonical ,gospels as its 
commencement3          #dc4 ,these1     
therefore1 took counsel together whether
 they should go      and declare these  
things to ,pilate4 #dd4 ,and whilst they
 were still      considering1 the       
heavens again appeared opened1 and a    
certain man      descending and going   
into the grave4 #de4 ,seeing these      
things1 the      centurion and his men  
hastened to ,pilate by night1 leaving   
the      tomb they were watching1 and   

narrated all things they had seen1      
fearing greatly1 and saying3 8,truly he 
was a ,son of ,god0 7        74 #df4    
,pilate answered and said1 8,i am pure  
of the      blood of the ,son of ,god1  
but thus it seemed good unto you0 7     
1    74 #dg4      ,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 seen1 #dh4 8,for it is    
better10 they said1 8to lay      upon us
 the greatest sins before ,god1 and not 
to fall into the      hands of the      
people of the ,jews and be stoned40 #di4
 ,pilate1      therefore1 commanded the 
centurion and the soldiers to say       
nothing4      ,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 sepulchre1
 so of  course it is the only one which 
gives the sequel to that episode2 but   
this  differs in every respect from the 
account in ,peter4 ,it is as follows    

7xxviii4 #aa f473          ,some of the 
guard came into the city1 and told unto 
the chief      priests all the things   
that were come to pass4 ,and when they  
were      assembled with the elders1 and
 had taken counsel1 they gave large     
money unto the soldiers1 saying1 ,say   
ye1 ,his disciples came by      night   
and stole him away while we slept4 ,and 
if this come to the      governor's     
ears1 we will persuade him1 and rid you 
of care4 ,so      they took the money1  
and did as they were taught3 and this   
saying      was spread abroad among the 
,jews1 and continueth until this day4   
,when the centurion and soldiers in     
,peter go to ,pilate after witnessing   
the  events described as occurring at   
the resurrection1 8fearing greatly0  7  
71 they say1 8,truly he was a ,son of   
,god0 7    74 ,it will be remembered    
that1 in the first ,synoptic1 when the  
centurion and they that were watching   
,jesus saw the earthquake and the       
things that were done when he expired1  

they 8feared exceedingly0  7 71 and     
said1 8,truly this was a ,son of ,god0 7
     74 ,the tradition of the astonished
 centurion bearing such  testimony to   
,jesus is known to both writers1 but    
under different  circumstances1 and     
independently treated4 ,in similar      
fashion1 the reply  put into the mouth  
of ,pilate in ,peter1 8,i am pure of the
 blood 7    7 of the ,son of ,god1 but  
thus it seemed good unto  you10 is1 to a
 certain extent1 the same as ,pilate's  
declaration to the  multitude after     
washing his hands 7xxvii4 #bd f473 8,i  
am innocent of the  blood of this       
righteous man 7        73 see ye to it20
 but in this case1 as well as the other1
 the  details and the language show an  
independent use of a similar source4 ,in
  the ,synoptic1 the centurion and      
soldiers do not go to ,pilate at all1   
but  are bribed by the chief priests and
 elders to say that his disciples stole 
him by night when they slept4 ,they are 
warned by ,pilate to be altogether      

silent1 in ,peter4 ,as the desire of the
 author is represented to be to  remove 
responsibility from ,pilate and throw it
 all upon the ,jews1 it is  difficult to
 conceive that1 if he had this account  
before him1 he could  deliberately have 
left it unused1 and preferred his own   
account4    ,we now come to the visit of
 the women to the sepulchre3            
#ej4 ,in the morning of the ,lord's day1
 ,mary ,magdalene1 a disciple      of   
the ,lord 7through fear of the ,jews1   
for they burnt with anger1      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     
them71 #ea4      took her women friends 
with her and came to the grave where he 
was      laid4 #eb4 ,and they feared    
lest the ,jews should see them1 and     
said3      8,if we could not on that day
 on which he was crucified weep and     
lament1 let us do these things even now 
at his grave4 #ec4 ,but who      will   
roll away the stone that is laid at the 

door of his grave      7                
7 in order that we may enter and set    
ourselves by him      and do the things 
that are due8 #ed4 ,for great was the   
stone 7         71 and we fear lest some
 one should see us4 ,and if      we     
should not be able to do it1 let us at  
least lay down before      the door that
 which we bring in his memory1 and let  
us weep and      lament till we come to 
our home40 #ee4 ,and they went and found
 the      tomb opened and1 coming near1 
they stooped down and see there a       
certain young man sitting in the midst  
of the tomb1 beautiful and      clad in 
a shining garment 7   1              1  
71 who said to them3 #ef4 8,why are     
ye come8 ,whom seek ye8 ,him who was    
crucified8 ,he is risen and gone        
away4 ,but if ye do not believe1 stoop  
down and see the place where      he    
lay1 that he is not there2 for he is    
risen and gone away whence      he was  
sent0 7 8  8    8        2    1         
1   2            74 ,then the women1    

frightened1 fled4      ,we need not     
remark that in all essential points the 
account given here is  different from   
that in our ,gospels4    ,in each of the
 three ,synoptics1 it is said that the  
women saw where ,jesus  was laid1 and   
the first two name ,mary ,magdalene and 
,mary the mother of  ,jesus 7,mark 8the 
other ,mary071 ,matt4 xxvii4 #fa1 ,mark 
xv4 #dg1 ,luke xxiii4  #ee4 ,all four   
canonical ,gospels relate their coming  
to the sepulchre3  ,matthew 7xxviii4    
#a71 8late on the ,sabbath day1 as it   
began to dawn toward  the first day of  
the week20 ,mark 7xvi4 #a71 8when the   
,sabbath was past20  ,luke 7xxiv4 #a71  
8on the first day of the week at early  
dawn20 but only the  second and third   
state that they bring spices to anoint  
,jesus2 in ,matthew  the purpose stated 
being merely 8to see the sepulchre40 ,in
 the fourth  ,gospel1 only ,mary        
,magdalene comes1 and no reason is      
assigned4 ,in ,peter1  ,mary ,magdalene 
only is named1 but she takes her women  

friends1 and though  spices are not     
directly named1 they are distinctly     
implied1 and the object  of the visit to
 the tomb1 admirably described as 8that 
which women are  accustomed to do for   
those who die and are loved by them10   
which they had  not been able to do on  
the day of the crucifixion1 through fear
 of the  ,jews4 ,even now the same fear 
is upon them2 but nothing is said of it 
in  the four ,gospels4    ,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 sepulchre4 8,but who will
 roll us away the  stone that is laid at
 the door of the grave80 7         1    
874 ,in ,matthew1 an angel  had rolled  
away the stone1 but in ,mark the women  
are represented as asking  the same     
question among themselves 7xvi4 #c71    
8,who shall roll us away the  stone from
 the door of the grave80 7          87  
practically in the same words4 ,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 ,synoptics3 ,matt4 xxviii4
 #b1 the angel 8rolled away the  stone0 
7  72 and ,luke xxiv4 #b1 they found    
8the stone  rolled away from the grave0 
7     74  ,the privilege of using a     
similar source of tradition must also be
 accorded  to the author of the         
fragment4    ,the women in ,peter1 after
 a few more words explanatory of their  
purpose in  going to the sepulchre1 use 
an expression to which so much          
importance has  been attached by ,zahn  
that1 to render it intelligible1 it must
 be  connected with the context just    
discussed4 8,but who will roll away the 
stone that is laid at the door of the   
grave1 in order that we may enter  and  
set ourselves by him1 and do the things 
that are due8 ,for great was  the stone 
7    71 and we fear lest some one should
 see  us40 ,now in the second ,synoptic 

7xvi4 #d7 we read that the women1       
looking  up1 8see that the stone 77 is  
rolled back2 for it was exceeding       
great0 7   74 ,zahn says3 8,just as     
certainly can the  dependence of the    
,gospel of ,peter on ,mark be proved4 ,a
 proof scarcely to  be refuted lies even
 in the one little word 1 which is      
mechanically  taken from ,mark xvi4     
#c407aaf7 ,to one so willing to be      
convinced1 what  might not be proved by 
many little words in the canonical      
,gospels8 ,it must  be remembered that  
none of our ,synoptics sprang           
full-fledged from the  original         
tradition1 but1 as is recognised by     
every critic competent to  form an      
opinion1 is based on previous works and 
records of tradition1  which gradually  
grew into this more complete form4 ,any 
one who wishes to  realise this should  
examine ,rushbrooke's 8,synopticon10    
which1 at a glance1  will show the      
matter and the language common to our   
first three ,gospels1  and leave little 

doubt as to the common origin of these  
works4 ,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 arrived4 
,we shall arrange it  in parallel       
columns for facility of comparison4     
,,matthew xxvii4         ,,mark xv4     
,,luke xxiii4  #ee4 ,and many women     
#dj4 ,and there were     #di4 ,and all  
his  were there beholding   also women  
beholding   acquaintance1 and  from     
afar1 which had   from afar3 among      
the women that  followed ,jesus from    
whom were both ,mary    followed him    
from  ,galilee1 ministering   ,magdalene
 and ,mary     ,galilee1 stood afar     
unto him3 #ef4 among    the mother of   
,james    off1 seeing these  whom was   
,mary          the less and of          
things1 xxiv4 #aj4  ,magdalene1 and     
,mary    ,joses1 and ,salome2     ,now  
they were ,mary  the mother of ,james   

#da4 who1 when he was   ,magdalene and  
and ,joses1 and the     in ,galilee1    
followed   ,joanna1 and ,mary  mother of
 the sons     him1 and ministered    the
 mother of  of ,zebedee4            unto
 him4444           ,james1 and other    
women with them1                        
xxiii4 #ej4  #eg4 ,and when even        
#db4 ,and when even      #ej4 ,and      
behold a man  was come1 there came   was
 now come1 444      named ,joseph1 who  
a rich man from        #dc4 there came  
was a councillor1 a  ,arimathaea1 who   
also   ,joseph of              good man 
and a  himself was ,jesus'              
,arimathaea1 a          righteous1 #ea4 
444  disciple3 #eh4 this     councillor 
of          of ,arimathaea1 a  man went 
to ,pilate1    honourable estate1       
city of the ,jews1  and asked for the   
who also himself was   who was looking  
for  body of ,jesus4         looking for
 the        the kingdom of ,god3        
kingdom of ,god3 and    #eb4 this man   
went to                         he      

boldly went in      ,pilate1 and asked  
unto ,pilate and        for the body of 
asked for the body     ,jesus4          
of ,jesus4  #ee4          #dj4          
#di4                           1     1  
1                                       
1   1               4 7xxiv4  7#ef7     
1 7#da7     #aj7      1                 
1                          1 444        
4                                    444
  #eg4             #db4         #ej4    
1 444 7#dc7                         1   
1        1         1       1        1   
#ea4 444                            2   
#eh4             4          1           
4  4                         #eb4       
4                4                      
4    ,or take1 for instance1 a few      
verses giving the arrest of ,jesus as   
narrated  by the three ,synoptists3     
,,matthew xxvi4          ,,mark xiv4    
,,luke xxii4  #dg4 ,and while he yet    
#dc4 ,and straightway1   #dg4 ,while he 
yet  spake1 lo1 ,judas1      while he   
yet spake1    spake1 lo1 a  one of the  

twelve1     cometh ,judas1 one of       
multitude1 and he  came1 and with him a 
the twelve1 and with   that was called  
great multitude with   him a multitude  
with   ,judas1 one of the  swords and   
staves1     swords and staves1          
twelve1 went before  from the chief     
from the chief         them2  priests   
and elders     priests and the  of the  
people4         scribes and the         
elders4  #dh4 ,now he that        #dd4  
,now he that        and he drew near    
betrayed him gave      betrayed him had 
unto ,jesus to kiss  them a sign1       
saying1   given them a token1    him4   
,whomsoever ,i shall     saying1        
,whomsoever ,i  kiss1 that is he3       
shall kiss1 that is  take him4          
he2 take him1  #di4 ,and straightway    
#de4 ,and when he was  he came to       
,jesus1      come1 straightway he  and  
said1 ,hail1        came to him and     
,rabbi2 and kissed      saith1 ,rabbi2  
and  him4                   kissed him4 
#ej4 ,and ,jesus said                   

#dh4 ,but ,jesus said  unto him1        
,friend1 do                             
unto him1 ,judas1  that for which thou  
betrayest thou the  art come4           
,son of man with a                      
kiss8  ,then they came and     #df4 ,and
 they laid      7#ed4 ,and they seized  
laid hands on ,jesus    hands on him and
       him and led him  and took him4   
took him4              away47  #ea4 ,and
 lo1 one of     #dg4 ,but a certain     
#ej4 ,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   
hand1 and drew     sword1 and smote the 
high priest1 and  his sword1 and smote  
servant of the high    struck off right 
the servant of the     priest1 and      
struck     ear4  high priest1 and       
off his ear4  struck off his ear4  #dg4 
#dc4         #dg4    1                  
1                    1     1         1  
1                                       
4                  4  #dh4       #dd4   

4   3        1  3   3   1   4        3  
4  #di4           #de4               3  
1   3 1             4  4  #ej4          
#df4        #dh4      3 1           3 1 
1        4                              
8 7#ed4                                 
4                              47  #ea4 
#dg4         #ej4                       
1                               4       
4  4    ,such close similarity as this1 
with occasional astonishing omissions of
  matter and flagrant contradictions    
where independent narrative is          
attempted1 runs through the whole of the
 three ,synoptics4 ,this is not the     
place to enter upon any discussion of   
these phenomena1 or any explanation  of 
the origin of our ,gospels1 but         
apologists may be invited to consider   
the fact before passing judgment on the 
,gospel of ,peter4 ,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 

,gospel2 and even the use of a word     
which has a parallel in them is         
sufficient reason for denouncing the    
author as a plagiarist4 ,it would       
almost seem as if such critics had never
 read the prologue to the third         
,synoptic1 and forgotten the  to which  
its author refers1 when they  limit the 
,christian tradition to these ,gospels1 
which again1 upon  examination1 must    
themselves be limited to two--the       
,synoptic and the  ,johannine1 which in 
so great a degree contradict each other4
    ,to return now to the passage which 
we have to examine4 ,it will be observed
  that the second ,synoptic treats the  
episode of the women in a manner        
different from the other two1 but in the
 same style1 though with very  differing
 details1 as ,peter4 ,we shall show     
reason for believing that both  have    
drawn from the same source1 but that the
 fragment has probably  adhered more    
closely to the original source4 ,in     
,mark 7xvi4 #c f47 the women  are1 as in

 ,peter1 represented as speaking3 8,and 
they were saying among  themselves1     
#8,who shall roll us away the stone from
 the door of the  tomb8' 0 ,here the    
spoken words stop1 and the writer       
continues to  narrate3 8,and looking up1
 they see that the stone is rolled back 
773 for it was 77 exceeding great40 ,it 
is obvious that  the 8was0 here is quite
 out of place1 and it seems impossible  
to avoid the  conclusion that1          
originally1 it must have stood with a   
different context4  ,that different     
context we have in ,peter4 ,the women   
say amongst themselves3  8,who will roll
 us away the stone that is laid at the  
door of the grave1 in  order that we may
 enter0--and1 of course1 in saying this 
they are supposed  to have in their     
minds the stone which they had seen the 
evening before  and1 naturally1 express 
their recollection of it in the past    
tense--8for it  was exceeding great40   
,if the phrase has been mechanically    
introduced1 it  has been so by the      

second ,synoptist1 in whose text it is  
more out of place  than in ,peter4 ,a   
prescriptive right to early traditions  
of this kind  cannot reasonably be      
claimed for any writer1 simply because  
his  compilation has happened to secure 
a place in the ,canon4    ,when the     
women come to the tomb1 they stoop down 
77 and see there  7 7 a certain young   
man 7 7 sitting in the midst of  the    
tomb1 beautiful and clad in a shining   
garment 7     74 ,this is the 8certain  
man0 who  descended when the heavens    
were again opened1 as described in v4   
#dd4 ,the  realistic touch of the women 
stooping to look into the low entrance  
of the  tomb is repeated when the 8young
 man0 bids them 8stoop down0 77  and    
convince themselves that ,jesus had     
risen4 ,this does not occur in any  of  
the ,synoptics2 but in the fourth       
,gospel 7xx4 #e71 ,peter1 it is said1   
8stooping down0 77 sees 77 the clothes4 
,in ,matthew1 the  angel sits upon the  
stone which he has rolled away1 and not 

in the  sepulchre1 and his description  
is 7xxviii4 #c73 8,his appearance was as
  lightning1 and his raiment white as   
snow0 7      1        74 ,in ,mark 7xvi4
 #h71 they see a 8young  man0 77 sitting
 on the right side1 and not in the      
middle1 and he  is 8clad in a white     
robe0 7  74 ,in ,luke 7xxiv4  #d71 two  
men 7 7 stand by the women 8in dazzling 
apparel0 7   74 ,in the fourth ,gospel  
7xx4 #ab71 ,mary sees two angels        
sitting1 the one at the head1 the other 
at the feet1 where the body had  lain1  
but they are simply said to be 8in      
white0 7 74    ,the 8young man0 says to 
the women in ,peter3 8,why are ye come8 
7 87  ,whom seek ye8 7 87 ,him who was  
crucified8 7    87 ,he is risen and gone
 away 7  74 ,but if ye do not  believe1 
stoop down1 and see the place where he  
lay 7       71 that he is not there1 for
 he is risen and gone  away thither     
whence he was sent 7       740 ,in      
,matthew 7xxviii4 #e f47 the angel      
8answered and said unto  the women0 7who

 had not spoken to him1 apparently7     
8,fear not ye3 for ,i  know that ye seek
 ,jesus which hath been crucified 7     
74 ,he is not here1 for he rose 7  1    
71 even as he said4 ,come1 see the place
 where the ,lord lay 7      74 ,and go  
quickly1 and tell his disciples he rose 
from the dead 7   72 and lo1 he goeth   
before you into  ,galilee2 there shall  
ye see him3 lo1 ,i have told you40 ,in  
,mark 7xvi4 #f  f471 this 8young man0 in
 the tomb says3 8,be not amazed2 ye seek
 ,jesus the  ,nazarene which hath been  
crucified 7      74 ,he rose 772 he is  
not here2 behold1 the place where  they 
laid him6 7  2      74 ,but go tell  his
 disciples and ,peter1 ,he goeth before 
you into ,galilee3 there shall ye  see  
him1 as he said unto you40 ,the close   
resemblance of these two accounts  in   
the first and second ,gospels is        
striking1 and scarcely less so is the   
resemblance1 with important variations1 
of the third ,synoptic 7xxiv4 #e  ff474 
,the 8two men in dazzling apparel0 say  

to the women1 who stand with  their     
faces bowed down towards the earth3     
8,why seek ye the living among  the     
dead8 ,he is not here1 but he rose 7  1 
747#aag7  ,remember how he spake unto   
you when he was yet in ,galilee1 saying1
 that  the ,son of man must be delivered
 up into the hands of sinful men1 and be
  crucified1 and the third day rise     
again40 ,the complete change in the     
reference to ,galilee here will be      
observed4    ,the peculiar ending of the
 words of the 8young man0 in ,peter is  
nowhere  found in our ,gospels3 8,he is 
risen and gone away thither whence he   
was  sent40 ,mr4 ,robinson compares with
 this a passage from the #bjth ,homily  
of  ,aphrahat 7ed4 ,wright1 p4 #che73   
8,and the angel said to ,mary1 he is    
risen  and gone away to him that sent   
him40 ,mr4 ,robinson adds3 8,there is   
reason  to believe that ,aphrahat1 a    
,syrian writer1 used ,tatian's ,harmony3
 and thus  we seem to have a second link
 between our ,gospel and that important 

work407#aah7 ,but is it not rather a    
curious position in which to place the  
supposed 8,diatessaron10 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 8,diatessaron0 has quoted the       
passage8 ,it shows how  untrustworthy   
are all arguments regarding early works 
like the  8,diatessaron40 ,looking at   
the other instances which could be      
pointed out1  and to some of which we   
have referred1 we see that everything   
not agreeing  with the ,gospels of the  
,church has been gradually eliminated or
 corrected  into agreement1 and that    
thus the very probable use of the       
,gospel  according to ,peter by ,tatian 
may be concealed4 ,as ,mr4 ,robinson    
further  points out1 however1 the words 
of the angel in ,peter are in direct    
contradiction to those put into the     
mouth of ,jesus in the fourth ,gospel   
7xx4 #ag73 8,i am not yet ascended to   
the ,father40    ,the conclusion of the 

whole episode in ,peter is the short and
  comprehensive phrase3 8,then the      
women1 frightened1 fled0 7     74 ,in   
,matthew1 in obedience to the order of  
the angel to  go and tell his disciples1
 none of which is given in ,peter1 it is
 said  7xxviii4 #h73 8,and they departed
 quickly from the tomb with fear and    
great  joy0 7          71  8and ran to  
bring his disciples word40 ,in ,mark    
7xvi4 #h7 it is said3 8,and  they went  
out and fled from the tomb2 for         
trembling and astonishment had  come    
upon them 7     2       74 ,and they    
said nothing to anyone3 for they were   
afraid0 7 74 ,the running to bring the  
disciples word1 in the  first1 and the  
saying nothing to any one1 of the       
second1 ,synoptic1 is a  case of curious
 contradiction in details4 ,the third   
,gospel twice over  repeats the         
statement that the women told what they 
had heard 8to the  eleven and to all the
 rest0 7xxiv4 #i1 #aj71 but says nothing
 of the  emotions excited by the        

interview1 except the double statement  
7xxiv4 #h71  8,and they remembered his  
words10 and1 #aa1 8,and these words     
appeared in  their sight as idle talk1  
and they disbelieved them40    ,in the  
first ,synoptic1 however 7xxviii4 #i    
f471 as the women go1 the risen  ,jesus 
himself meets them and delivers the same
 order to tell the disciples  to depart 
into ,galilee1 where they shall see him4
 ,the genuine portion of  the second    
,synoptic ends with the words quoted    
above1 and it is only in  the added     
conclusion 7xvi4 #i4 #bj7 that we meet  
with an account of an  appearance to    
,mary ,magdalene in the morning4 ,the   
third ,synoptic relates no  appearance  
to the women or any one that morning2   
but the fourth ,gospel has  the         
appearance of ,jesus to ,mary           
,magdalene1 and a long interview between
  them4 ,now all this is quite          
distinctly excluded from the ,gospel    
according  to ,peter1 and those who     
argue for the dependence of the work on 

our  ,gospels have to explain this      
deliberate omission4    ,the fragment   
proceeds3          #eh4 ,and it was the 
last day of the ,unleavened bread1 and  
many went      forth1 returning to their
 homes1 the feast being ended4 #ei4 ,but
      we1 the twelve disciples of the   
,lord1 wept and mourned1 and each       
went to his home sorrowing for that     
which had happened4 #fj4 ,but ,i1       
,simon ,peter1 and ,andrew1 my brother1 
took our nets and went to the      sea1 
and there was with us ,levi1 the son of 
,alphaeus1 whom the      ,lord4444      
,and so1 at a most interesting point1   
the fragment breaks off1 in the  middle 
of a phrase4 ,this1 it will be observed1
 distinctly excludes the  vision to the 
two disciples in the country1 mentioned 
,mark xvi4 #ab f41  supposing it to be  
that described in the third ,synoptic   
7xxiv4 #ac ff471 of  which long         
narrative no hint is given in ,peter4   
,it also1 of course1  excludes the      
appearance to the disciples in the room1

 described in the  fourth ,gospel 7xix4 
#bj ff471 and the breathing of the ,holy
 ,ghost upon  them1 of which very       
important episode the three ,synoptics  
are equally  ignorant1 as well as the   
second appearance to them and the       
conviction of  the unbelieving ,thomas1 
which only this ,gospel records4 ,we may
 add that  the appearance to the eleven 
as they sat at meat1 related in the     
addition  to the second ,synoptic 7xvi4 
#ad f471 with the mission of the        
apostles  8into all the world10 with    
miraculous powers endowed1 which the    
other  ,gospels do not mention1 is      
likewise excluded by ,peter4    ,this is
 not all that is excluded1 however1 for 
in the fragment reference  is distinctly
 made to the 8twelve disciples10 which  
is an explicit  confirmation of the     
statement made in v4 #bf f41 8,i and my 
companions 444  were fasting and        
mourning10 which makes no exception any 
more than the  similar 8,we1 the twelve 
disciples of the ,lord0 now quoted4     

,supposing this  statement to be        
deliberately made1 and we have no reason
 whatever from  anything in the rest of 
the fragment to doubt it1 this          
completely excludes  the whole of the   
story of a betrayal of his master by    
,judas ,iscariot4  ,various facts must  
be remembered in confirmation of the    
view that the  8betrayal0 of ,jesus by  
,judas ,iscariot was unknown to the     
older tradition4  ,in the ,apocalypse   
7xxi4 #ad7 it is said that upon the     
twelve foundations of  the ,holy ,city1 
the ,new ,jerusalem1 are written 8the   
twelve names of the  twelve apostles of 
the ,lamb40 ,if1 as is generally        
believed1 this  ,apocalypse was written 
by ,john the ,apostle1 is it possible   
that1 if ,judas  had betrayed his master
 in the manner described by the         
canonical ,gospels1  he could           
deliberately have written this1 using   
twice over the 8twelve10  which includes
 that ,apostle8 ,again1 in the first    
epistle to the  ,corinthians 7i4 xv4    

#e71 in relating the supposed           
8appearances0 of ,jesus1  it is said    
that he first appeared to ,cephas3      
8,then unto the twelve407#aai7  ,if the 
point be considered on the mere ground  
of historical probability1  there is    
every reason to consider that the       
betrayal by ,judas is a later  product  
of the 8evolved gnosis40 ,jesus is      
described as going about  everywhere    
with his disciples1 and nothing could   
have been easier1 under  the            
circumstances1 than to follow and       
quietly arrest him1 without any         
betrayal at all4 ,in fact1 there is no  
real need shown for such a betrayal1    
and the older ,christian tradition      
probably did not contain it4 ,it was    
just  the trait which the 8evolved      
gnosis0 would add to the picture from   
such a  passage as ,psalm xli4 #i3      
8,yea1 mine own familiar friend1 in whom
 ,i  trusted1 which did eat of my bread1
 hath lifted up his heel against me10   
and which was given its literal         

fulfilment in the detail mentioned in   
the  first and second ,synoptics 7,matt4
 xxvi4 #bc1 ,mark4 xiv4 #bj71 8,he that 
dipped his hand with me in the dish1 the
 same shall betray me40 ,it may be      
mentioned that ,justin does not appear  
to have known anything of a betrayal  of
 ,jesus1 and that1 in places where1 if  
he had been aware of the episode1  he   
would certainly have referred to it1 he 
passes over it in total  silence4       
,according to the fragment1 ,simon      
,peter1 and at least some of the        
disciples1 must have gone into ,galilee 
without any vision of the risen  ,jesus2
 and probably the last verse1 which is  
broken off so abruptly1  prepares the   
account of such an appearance as is     
described in the  much-questioned last  
chapter of the fourth ,gospel4 ,it is   
worth pointing  out1 as perhaps an      
indication of the tradition which ,peter
 follows1 that  both in the first and   
second ,synoptic the order is given to  
the disciples  to go into ,galilee1     

where they are told that they are to see
 ,jesus4 ,in  spite of this distinct    
order and statement1 the author of the  
first  ,synoptic describes ,jesus as    
immediately after appearing to the      
women1 and  giving the same direction to
 go into ,galilee 7xxviii4 #g1 #aj71    
whilst in  the spurious verses of ,mark 
he nevertheless appears in ,jerusalem to
 ,mary  ,magdalene and to the ,apostles4
 ,the third ,synoptist gives a different
 turn  to the mention of ,galilee2 but  
after the direction to go into ,galilee1
  there to see ,jesus1 the visions      
described are a mere afterthought4 ,in  
,peter1 without any order1 the disciples
 apparently go to ,galilee1 and  there  
probably would be placed the first      
vision of the risen ,jesus4             
,,ix      ,we have now completed our    
comparison of the fragment with the     
canonical  ,gospels1 and are able to    
form some opinion of its relative       
antiquity and  relationship to our      
,gospels4 ,is it1 as apologetic critics 

assert1 a mere  compilation from them1  
or can it take an independent position  
beside them1  as a work derived from    
similar sources1 and giving its own     
version of  early ,christian tradition8 
,we have shown that it is not a         
compilation from  our ,gospels1 but     
presents unmistakable signs of being an 
independent  composition1 and           
consequently a most interesting         
representation of  ,christian thought   
during the period when our ,synoptic    
,gospels were  likewise giving definite 
shape to the same traditions4 ,every    
part of this  fragment has been set side
 by side with the corresponding         
narrative in the  canonical ,gospels1   
and it is simply surprising that a      
writing1 dealing  with a similar epoch  
of the same story1 should have shown    
such freedom of  handling4 ,that there  
should be some correspondence between   
them was  inevitable1 but the wonder is 
not that there should be so much        
agreement1  but so much divergence2 and 

this wonder increases in proportion as a
 later  date is assigned to the         
fragment1 and the authority of the      
canonical  ,gospels had become more     
established4    ,the theory of          
8tendency0 was sure to be advanced as an
 explanation of  differences of         
treatment of the same story1 but this   
seems to us much  exaggerated in what is
 said of the ,gospel according to       
,peter4 ,that early  ,docetic views     
might be supposed to be favoured by its 
representations is  very possible2 but  
these are far from being so pronounced  
as to render it  unacceptable to those  
not holding such opinions1 and the      
manner in which  ,justin and ,origen    
make use of its statements is proof of  
this4 ,as to its  anti-,judaistic tone1 
a certain distinction has to be drawn4  
,the  expressions regarding 8the ,jews10
 8their feast0 7used in reference to the
  ,passover71 and so on1 may be put in  
the same category as the definition of  
the veil of the ,temple 8of ,jerusalem10

 as indicating merely a work  probably  
written out of ,judaea1 and for ,gentile
 ,christians2 but in  throwing upon the 
,jews1 much more than on the ,roman     
power1 the odium of  having crucified   
,jesus1 the difference between ,peter   
and the canonical  ,gospels is really   
infinitesimal4 ,he certainly represents 
,pilate as  retiring early from the     
trial1 and leaving it to ,herod1 in     
whose  8jurisdiction0 it was1 after     
washing his hands of the whole business2
 but  this is a much more probable      
account1 and perhaps an earlier         
tradition1  than that which makes a     
,roman governor present the incredible  
and  humiliating spectacle of a judge   
condemning and crucifying a man1 in whom
  he finds no fault1 at the dictation of
 a ,jewish mob4 ,the canonical          
,gospels1 however1 only accentuate the  
guilt of the ,jews by representing  the 
chief priests and elders1 as well as the
 multitude1 obstinately  clamouring for 
his crucifixion1 and finally overcoming 

,pilate's scruples4  ,it is the chief   
priests and rulers who first seize      
,jesus and plot for his  betrayal1 who  
spit in his face1 buffet and mock him1  
who prefer to him  ,barabbas1 and cry3  
8,his blood be on us and on our         
children0 7,matt4 xxvii4  #be74 ,the    
expressions of distinct antagonism to   
the ,jews in the fourth  ,gospel far    
exceed any in the ,gospel according to  
,peter4 ,there is1  therefore1 no       
preconceived purpose conceivable to     
account for the  characteristics of the 
narrative in this fragment4    ,that a  
writer who had our canonical ,gospels   
before him should so depart  from their 
lines1 alter every representation       
without dogmatic purpose1  insert       
contradictory statements1 and omit      
episodes of absorbing interest  and     
passages which would have enriched his  
narrative1 is a theory which  cannot be 
established4 ,it is obvious that the    
feeling of the writer is one  of intense
 devotion and reverence1 and it is      

unreasonable to suppose that  he could  
have passed over1 altered1 and          
contradicted so many points in the      
narrative of the ,gospels1 had he had   
those works before him47#abj7 ,in all   
probability he composed his work from   
earlier records and traditions1 of  the 
existence of which we have evidence in  
,luke i4 #a1 and the degree of          
resemblance on the one hand1 and of     
discrepancy on the other1 proceeds  from
 independent use of these sources1 from 
which the materials used in  the        
canonical ,gospels may have been drawn4 
,it had not the good fortune of  these  
,gospels1 however1 to be adopted by the 
,church and subjected1 like  them1 to   
repeated revisal2 but1 drifting apart on
 the stream of time1 it  at last comes  
to us with all its original sins and    
imperfections on its  head4 ,of course1 
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 hands2  

but should the rest be discovered1 as we
 hope1 it  will not affect conclusions  
now based upon the part before us1      
whatever  may be the final verdict on   
the whole4            ,x      ,we have  
still to consider objections raised by  
,mr4 ,rendel ,harris1 however1          
concerning the relation between this    
fragment and the ,gospels accepted by   
the ,church4 ,in a long article in the  
8,contemporary ,review0 he tries to     
establish the thesis that 8,the ,gospel 
of ,peter shows everywhere the  traces  
of a highly evolved prophetic gnosis1   
and in particular most of the           
apparently new matter which it contains 
is taken from the ,old                  
,testament407#aba7 ,it would not be     
possible1 without wearying the most     
patient of parishioners1 to illustrate  
in any adequate manner the perverse  and
 hair-splitting ingenuity with which the
 8highly evolved prophetic  gnosis0 went
 to work1 and which1 in very parlous    
fashion1 ,mr4 ,harris  applies to       

,peter2 but1 fortunately1 this will not 
be necessary here4 ,this  gnosis        
doubtless began its operation early1 and
 reached a climax towards  the fourth   
century2 but then it had ceased to be   
creative1 and had become  wildly        
analytical4 ,nothing then remained for  
it to do4 ,mr4 ,rendel ,harris  quotes1 
with admirable courage1 a 8significant  
sentence0 from the  8,peregrinatio ad   
,loca ,sancta10 a work of ,st4 ,sylvia  
of ,aquitaine1 or some  other lady      
traveller of the fourth century1 which  
has recently been  published4 ,she has  
been relating how the people were       
instructed in the  mysteries of the     
faith by readings from the ,scriptures1 
imprimis2 of the  ,psalms predictive of 
the ,messianic sufferings2 then of      
passages from the  ,acts and ,epistles  
which bear upon the interpretation of   
such predictions2  further1 the evidence
 of the prophets2 and1 to crown all1 the
 story of the  ,passion itself from the 
,gospels4 8,the object of this service  

was1 as  ,sylvia points out1 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
 place40 ,and now comes the             
8significant sentence0 to which we      
referred above1 italicised by ,mr4      
,harris himself3 8,and so for the space 
of three hours the people is taught     
that nothing took place which had not   
been previously foretold1 and  nothing  
had been foretold which had not obtained
 its fulfilment40 ,mr4  ,harris supports
 the accuracy of ,sylvia's              
description47#abb7    ,but1 whilst      
frankly admitting the application of    
this fundamental  principle of the      
prophetic gnosis1 more or less          
throughout all early  ,christian        
literature1 ,mr4 ,harris wishes to limit
 its influence upon works  received into
 the canon1 into which the two-edged    
weapon1 however1 pierces  in spite of   
him to the sundering apart of soul and  

body4 ,he says3          ,now no history
 is1 in its ultimate analysis1 so       
trustworthy as      ,christian history1 
but if we take the whole body of early  
literature1 of which the canonical      
,gospels form the centre and      crown1
 including ,apocalypses1 party-gospels1 
and the like1 we      shall find that   
there never was a body of history which 
was so      overgrown with legend1 and  
the major part of these legends result  
from the irregular study of the ,old    
,testament1 probably based on      the  
synagogue methods of the time of the    
early ,christian teachers4      ,this   
reaction of the prophecy upon history   
colours the style of      authors and   
affects their statements2 and it is only
 by a close      and careful study of   
the writers and their methods1 that we  
are      able to discriminate between   
what is a bona fide allusion in the     
,prophets1 or what is a trick of style  
borrowed from the ,prophets1      or    
what is a pure legend invented out of   

the ,prophets47#abc7      ,the immediate
 object here1 of course1 is to lay the  
basis of an indictment  against the     
fragment2 but in this clear and         
excellent statement1 a  principle is    
enunciated1 the application of which    
cannot be directed as  the writer       
pleases1 but is apt to be as deadly to  
friends as to foes4 ,mr4  ,harris may   
attempt to satisfy his doubts1 in       
writing with the impartiality  of a     
scholar1 as he does1 with the           
reservation that 8no history is1 in its 
ultimate analysis1 so trustworthy as    
,christian history10 but he has only  to
 formulate the reasons for such a       
statement1 to recognise their utter     
inadequacy4 ,in so far as he gives us   
any glimpse of them here1 they are of   
sad insufficiency4 ,he speaks1 a little 
further on1 regarding 8the real  need of
 a critical method that can distinguish 
between statements that are  genuine    
history1 and statements that are        
prophetic reflexes4 ,for this           

discrimination10 he says1 8our main     
guide is the ,canon1 which expresses    
the judgment of the primitive ,christian
 ,church upon its literary  materials2  
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 problem2   
and certainly we must not assume a      
priori in a  critical investigation1    
that there is no trace of legendary     
accretion in  the ,gospel1 and no       
element of genuine fact in what are     
called the  ,apocrypha407#abd7 ,alas6 is
 not the 8main guide0 a mere blind      
leader of the  blind in regard to 8the  
encroachment of prophetic interpretation
 upon the  historical record08 ,we have 
no intention of maintaining here a very 
different view of the credibility of    
,christian history1 the arguments       
against which we have elsewhere fully   
stated1 but it is desirable1 for        
reasons which will presently appear1    
that the fundamental principle of  this 

attack on the ,gospel according to      
,peter should be clearly understood4    
,mr4 ,harris goes on to affirm that the 
measure of this encroachment is1 in  the
 first two centuries1 one of the best   
indications of documentary date  we     
possess3 8,as a test1 it will settle the
 period of many a document1 and  perhaps
 the measure of the appeal to prophecy  
will even determine the  chronological  
order of the ,gospels themselves3 ,mark1
 ,luke1 ,john1 and  ,matthew407#abe7    
,this order will probably surprise a    
good many readers1 and  shake the faith 
they might perhaps be disposed to repose
 in the test which  is supposed to have 
decided it4 ,mr4 ,harris applies the    
test in various  instances to ,peter1   
and we shall briefly examine his        
results4    ,it will be remembered that 
in v4 #ce f4 whilst the soldiers were   
keeping  watch over the sepulchre1 there
 was a great voice in the heavens1 and  
they  saw the heavens opened1 and 8two  
men0 7 7 came down from thence  with    

great light1 and approach the tomb1 and 
the stone which had been laid  at the   
door rolled away1 and they entered it1  
but presently they beheld  again three  
men 7 7 coming out1 and the two were    
supporting or  conducting the other by  
the hand1 and the lofty stature of the  
three is  described4 ,now the 8highly   
evolved prophetic gnosis0 by which1     
according  to ,mr4 ,harris1 this        
representation was composed is as       
follows1 though only  the main lines of 
the painful process can be given4 ,in   
the prayer of  ,habakkuk 7iii4 #b71     
according to the ,septuagint1 the words 
which stand in  our ,bible1 8,in the    
midst of the years make known0 reads3   
8,in the midst of  two lives0 7or of two
 living creatures7 8thou shalt be       
known40 ,this is  referred in two ways3 
to 8,christ's incarnation0 and to his   
8,death and  ,resurrection40 ,in the    
former case the two animals are the ox  
and the ass  at the ,nativity4 ,the     
interpretation in the second case3 the  

8living  creatures0 are the seraphim1   
two in number1 because in ,isaiah 7vi4  
#c7 8one  called to the other and said30
 8and we have only to find a situation  
in  which ,christ is seen between two   
angels1 and the prophecy is fulfilled4  
,this situation is made in the ,gospel  
of ,peter by ,christ rising between two 
supporting angels40 ,mr4 ,harris        
endeavours to strengthen this by        
referring  to ,cyril of ,alexandria's   
comment on the two living creatures 7in 
the  fourth century74 ,cyril is in doubt
 whether the two living creatures are   
the ,father and the ,holy ,spirit1 or   
the ,old and ,new ,testament1 but recurs
  to the earlier interpretation that    
they are the ,cherubim4 ,mr4 ,harris    
also  cites the ,targum of ,jonathan    
,ben ,uzziel on ,zechariah iii4 #g3 8,if
 thou wilt  keep the observation of my  
word1 ,i will raise thee up in the      
resurrection  of the dead1 and set thy  
feet walking between the two cherubim40 
,then1 as  soon as this identification  

of the two living creatures had been    
made1 it  was easy1 says ,mr4 ,harris1  
to pass over to the ninety-ninth ,psalm1
 which  ,justin7#abf7 affirms to be a   
prediction of ,christ4          ,a      
little study of the opening words will  
show some interesting      parallels    
with ,peter4 8,the ,lord hath reigned6  
,let the people be      enraged6        
,sitting on the ,cherubim1 let the earth
 be shaken4 ,the      ,lord in ,zion is 
great and high above all the people40   
,here we have      a parallel to the    
8,jews burning with rage10 and to the   
enormous      stature of the risen      
,christ1 and1 perhaps to the quaking of 
the      earth4 ,nor is it without      
interest that ,justin1 having spoken of 
this great and high ,christ1 should turn
 immediately to another      ,psalm     
7xix47 where the sun is said to come    
forth as a bridegroom      from his     
chamber1 and to rejoice as a giant to   
run a race47#abg7      ,in order to be  
as just as possible1 all this has been  

given in greater  detail than perhaps   
the case deserves4 ,it seems rather a   
heavy avalanche  of conjecture to bring 
down upon ,peter1 who simply narrates1  
without the  most distant reference to  
any prophetic texts2 and it is perhaps a
 little  hard that ,justin1 who in all  
probability had the ,gospel already     
written  and before him1 should         
contribute in this casual way to the    
author's  discomfiture4 ,however1 let us
 see what there is to be said upon the  
other  side4 ,the first general remark  
that may be made is1 that it can        
scarcely  be considered evidence of the 
later date of ,peter to ascribe to him1 
as  the source of this detail1 an       
elaborate twisting of texts through the 
operation of gnosis1 which has not been 
proved to have existed in this  form    
before the epoch at which he wrote4     
,this is said without any  intention of 
casting doubt on the general operation  
of supposed prophetic  passages on the  
evolution of ,gospel history1 but merely

 as questioning  this particular        
explanation of the mode in which this   
representation was  originally          
suggested1 and more especially for the  
purpose of adding that1  whatever       
reproach of this kind is cast upon the  
,gospel according to ,peter1  must      
equally be directed against the         
canonical gospels4    ,it will be       
remembered that1 in the third ,synoptic1
 8two men in shining  apparel0 assist at
 the resurrection1 and that in the      
fourth ,gospel ,mary  sees in the tomb  
8two angels in white sitting1 the one at
 the head1 the  other at the feet1 where
 the body of ,jesus had lain40 ,here    
there is an  occasion for applying with 
equal--or1 as we shall presently see1   
greater--propriety the argument of      
8highly evolved prophetic gnosis0 to the
  writers1 and so explaining their      
representation4 ,but there is more to be
  suggested in connection with the      
matter4 ,in the first and second        
,synoptics1 only one angel assists at   

the scene1 who in the second ,synoptic  
is called 8a young man0 774 ,now the    
8two men0 of great stature in  ,peter   
only go into the tomb and come out again
 with ,jesus2 but  subsequently the     
heavens were again opened 7v4 #dd71 and 
a certain man  descends and goes into   
the tomb and remains there1 for when the
 women come  7v4 #ee7 they see there 8a 
certain young man0 77 8sitting in the   
midst of the tomb1 beautiful and clad in
 a shining garment10 who speaks to  them
 as in the two ,synoptics1 and tells    
them that 8,jesus is gone thither       
whence he was sent40 ,this1 then1 is the
 angel who appears in ,matthew and      
,mark4 ,we have already mentioned that  
the two men of v4 #cf have been         
identified by some critics as ,moses and
 ,elias4 ,the account of the            
transfiguration is given in all the     
,synoptics1 though it does not seem to  
have been known to the author of the    
fourth ,gospel--although 8,john0 was an 
actor in the scene--but that in the     

third ,synoptic is fuller than the rest 
7ix4 #bh ff74 ,jesus takes with him     
,peter and ,john and ,james1 and goes up
  into the mountain to pray2 and as he  
prays his countenance was altered1  and 
his raiment becomes white and dazzling2 
8and behold there talked with  him two  
men 7 71 which were ,moses and ,elijah2 
who appeared in  glory1 and spake of his
 decease which he was about to          
accomplish at  ,jerusalem40 ,when ,peter
 and the others were fully awake1 8they 
saw his  glory and the two men 7 7 that 
stood with him4 ,and it came to  pass1  
as they were parting from him1 ,peter   
said unto ,jesus1 ,master1 it is  good  
for us to be here2 and let us make three
 tabernacles2 one for thee1  and one for
 ,moses1 and one for ,elijah3 not       
knowing what he said4 ,and  while he    
said these things there came a cloud1   
and overshadowed them 444  and a voice  
came out of the cloud1 saying1 ,this is 
my son1 my chosen3 hear  ye him40 ,to   
this episode ,mr4 ,harris might         

reasonably apply the test of the        
8highly evolved prophetic gnosis20 but  
in any case1 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 8spoken of his decease which
  he was about to accomplish in         
,jerusalem10 and who now came1 in       
stature  reaching to the heavens1 but   
less than his which rose above the      
heavens1  and conducted ,jesus the      
,christ forth from the tomb1 in which   
that decease  had been fulfilled1 is in 
the highest degree probable4 ,much more 
might be  said regarding this1 but too  
much time has already been devoted to   
the  point4    ,the second application  
of ,mr4 ,harris's test is to the sealing
 of the stone  at the sepulchre with    
seven seals4 ,the ,gospel of ,peter     
simply states that  the stone was sealed
 with seven seals1 and ,mr4 ,harris     
endeavours to find  some abstruse       
meaning in the statement1 which is      

peculiar to the fragment  in so far as  
the number of seals is concerned4 ,where
 did ,peter get the  idea8 ,mr4 ,harris 
says1 first from ,zechariah iii4 #i3    
8,for behold the stone  that ,i have set
 before ,joshua2 upon one stone are     
seven eyes2 behold ,i  will engrave the 
graving thereof1 saith the ,lord of     
hosts20 and the name  ,joshua is the    
,hebrew equivalent of ,jesus4 ,a        
reference is also made by the  ,fathers 
of the second century to passages to    
prove that ,christ was the  stone 7of   
stumbling to the ,jews1 but the corner  
stone to believers74  8,justin          
recognised ,christ in the stone cut out 
without hands1 of which  ,daniel speaks2
 in the stone which ,jacob set for his  
pillow1 and which he  anointed with oil2
 in the stone on which ,moses sat in the
 battle with  ,amalek10 and the like4   
8,bearing in mind that there was an     
early tendency  to connect the language 
of the #8,branch' passage with the      
resurrection1 we  can see that the      

interpretation took a second form1 viz4 
to regard the  stone before the face of 
,jesus as a prophecy of the stone which 
closed the  tomb in the evangelic       
story40 ,there is evidence1 ,mr4 ,harris
 says1 that the  seven eyes were early  
interpreted by ,biblical ,targumists to 
mean seven  seals4          ,we need not
 be surprised1 then1 that the ,peter    
,gospel speaks of      the stone as     
sealed with seven seals2 it is an       
attempt to throw      the story into    
closer parallelism with ,zechariah1 no  
doubt for      polemic purposes against 
the ,jews4 ,that he uses the curious    
word      1 which we are obliged1 from  
the exigencies of language1      to     
translate 8they smeared0 or 8plastered0 
seven seals1 but which      to the      
writer meant much the same as if he were
 to say1 8they      on-christed seven   
seals10 is due to the lurking desire to 
make a      parallel with ,christ and   
the stone directly1 and with the        
anointed      pillar of ,jacob4 ,the    

stone has a chrism4444 ,but this is not 
all2      in ,zechariah 7iv4 #aj7 there 
is a passage1 8they shall see the       
plummet in the hand of ,zerubbabel10 but
 in the ,septuagint it runs1      8they 
shall see the tin-stone40 ,how is this  
to be connected with      the 8stone    
before the face of ,joshua or ,jesus08  
,the answer is      found in the pages  
of the ,peter ,gospel3 8a great crowd   
came from      ,jerusalem and the       
neighbourhood to see the tomb which had 
been      sealed40 ,it only remains to  
identify the stone which they saw       
with the tin-stone4 ,symmachus          
retranslated the ,hebrew word for       
8tin0 as if it came from the root which 
means 8to separate or      divide10 and 
in the ,gospel of ,peter1 8the stone    
which had been      laid on the door of 
the tomb withdrew 7or separated7        
gradually0      7  74      8,the        
#8plummet' of ,zerubbabel10 ,mr4 ,harris
 triumphantly concludes1 8is used  by   
,peter to make history square with      

prophecy407#abh7    ,now again the      
general remark has to be made that1 in  
order to convict  ,peter of a late date1
 ,mr4 ,harris takes all this 8highly    
evolved gnosis0  wherever he can find   
it1 without consideration of epochs1 and
 in some  parts upon mere personal      
conjecture4 ,he even confesses that he  
does not  know the date of the          
translation of ,symmachus1 which he     
nevertheless uses  as an argument4 ,he  
observes1 himself1 that it is 8a little 
awkward0 that  the stone1 which at one  
time represents ,jesus1 has to be       
treated in the  same breath as before   
the face of ,jesus4 ,the terribly       
complicated and  involved process1 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 seals1 is difficult enough to     
follow1 and must  have been still more  
difficult to invent1 but in his anxiety 
to assign a  late date to the fragment1 

,mr4 ,harris forgets that1 if the number
 seven is  evidence of it1 a large part 
of the ,new ,testament must be moved    
back with  the fragment4 ,the ,synoptics
 are full of it17#abi7 but it is quite  
sufficient to point to the ,apocalypse1 
which has this typical number in  almost
 every chapter3 the message to the seven
 churches2 the seven spirits  before the
 throne2 the seven golden candlesticks2 
the seven stars2 seven  lamps of fire   
burning2 seven angels2 seven trumpets2  
seven thunders2 the  dragon with seven  
heads1 and seven diadems2 the seven     
angels with seven  plagues2 the woman   
with seven heads1 and so on4 ,the most  
striking and  apposite instance1 which  
,mr4 ,harris indeed does not pass over1 
but  mentions as having 8a curious and  
suggestive connection0 and 8every       
appearance of being ultimately derived  
from the language of  ,zechariah107#acj7
 is the ,book which is close sealed with
 seven seals1 and  the ,lamb standing as
 though it had been slain1 having seven 

horns and  seven eyes1 which are seven  
spirits of ,god1 which is found worthy  
to take  the book and open the          
seals47#aca7 ,instead of giving the     
author of the  fragment1 who does not   
make the slightest claim to it1 credit  
for so  extraordinary a feat of         
synthetic exegesis1 is it not more      
simple and  probable that he used the   
number seven as a mere ordinary symbol  
of  completeness8 but if more than this 
be deemed requisite1 and the detail  has
 a deeper mystical sense1 he can only be
 accused of 8highly evolved  prophetic  
gnosis10 in company with the author of  
the ,apocalypse and other  canonical    
books1 and this still gives him a       
position in the same epoch  with them1  
more than which1 probably1 no one       
demands4    ,another instance may be    
rapidly disposed of4 ,the writer of     
,peter1 ,mr4  ,harris affirms1 was not  
ignorant of the gnosis of the ,cross    
wrought out by  the ,fathers from the   
,old ,testament1 on the 8,wood0 and the 

8,tree40 ,one  passage at which they    
laboured heavily is in ,habakkuk ii4    
#aa3 8,the stone  cries out of the wall1
 and the cross-beam answers back to it40
 ,mr4 ,harris  proceeds3          ,now  
the author of the ,peter ,gospel has    
been at work on the      passage2 he    
wishes to make the cross talk1 and not  
only talk1 but      answer back2        
accordingly1 he introduces a question3  
8,hast thou      preached to them that  
are asleep80 and the response is heard  
from      the cross1 8,yea40 ,as far as 
,i can suspect1 the first speaker is    
,christ1 the ,stone2 and the answer     
comes from the ,cross1 the ,wood4       
,it is then the ,cross that has         
descended into ,hades4 ,but perhaps     
this is pressing the writer's words a   
little too far47#acb7      ,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             
representations8 ,mr4 ,harris1 by way of

 bringing the charge  nearer to ,peter1 
says that the passage of ,habakkuk 8is  
quoted by ,barnabas1  though no doubt   
from a corrupted text1 with a positive  
assertion that the  ,cross is here      
intimated by the prophet407#acc7 ,this  
is not so4 ,the passage  in ,barnabas   
7xii47 reads3 8,he defineth concerning  
the ,cross in another  prophet1 who     
saith3 #8,and when shall these things be
 accomplished8 saith  the ,lord4        
,whensoever a tree shall be bended and  
stand upright1 and  whensoever blood    
shall drop from a tree4' ,again thou art
 taught concerning  the cross and him   
that was to be crucified40 ,this is not 
a quotation from  ,habakkuk1 but from #d
 ,esdras v4 #e4 ,this is1 however1 not  
of much  importance4 ,it is of greater  
moment to observe that ,mr4 ,harris1 in 
applying this test1 is only able to     
8suspect0 that1 in this episode in      
,peter1 the speaker who asks the        
question is ,christ the 8stone10 and the
  answer from the cross1 the 8wood20 but

 as the first 8speaker0 is a voice  8out
 of the heavens10 it is difficult to    
connect it with 8,christ the  ,stone10  
to whom the question is actually        
addressed4 ,according to this1 he  puts 
the question to himself4 ,such exegesis1
 applied to almost any  conceivable     
statement1 might prove almost any       
conceivable hypothesis4    ,the next    
instance requires us to turn to a       
passage in ,amos 7viii4 #i-aj1  ,,lxx73 
8,and it shall come to pass in that day1
 saith the ,lord ,god1 that the  sun    
shall set at midday1 444 and ,i will    
turn your feasts into wailing and  all  
your songs to lamentation1 and ,i will  
lay sackcloth on all loins1 and         
baldness on every head2 and ,i will set 
him as the wailing for the beloved1  and
 those that are with him as a day of    
grief40 ,with it1 we are told1 must  be 
taken the parallel verse in which       
,zechariah 7xiv4 #f1 #g7 predicts a day 
in which 8there shall be no light1 but  
cold and frost 444 but towards  evening 

there shall be light40 ,this was one of 
the proofs with early  ,christians of   
the events which happened at the        
crucifixion1 and ,st4  ,cyprian1 for    
instance1 quotes it4 ,it is also quoted 
in the sixth ,homily of  the ,persian   
,father ,aphrahat against the ,jews4    
8,the ,gospel of ,peter did not         
apparently possess the gnosis in such a 
highly evolved form as this10 but  works
 on the same lines4 ,mr4 ,harris then   
quotes passages from the  fragment1     
which we shall give after him1 with his 
inserted comments1 but  as he does not  
mark the intervals which occur between  
them1 we shall take  the liberty of     
inserting the verses from which they are
 taken between  brackets4          #ae4 
,it was mid-day and darkness over all   
the land of ,judaea4444      #bb4 then  
the sun shone out1 and it was found to  
be the ninth hour      at evening time  
it shall be light2 #bc4 and the ,jews   
rejoiced4444 #be4 and the ,jews began to
 wail ,i will turn your      feasts into

 mourning4444 #bf4 ,we also were fasting
 and sitting      down 7i4e4 sitting on 
the ground in sackcloth7#acd772 ,i will 
lay sackcloth on all loins4 #ej4 ,mary  
,magdalene had not done at      the tomb
 as women are wont to do over their dead
 beloveds1 so she      took her friends 
with her to wail ,i will set him as the 
,wailing      for the ,beloved4         
,the writer is1 therefore1 drawing on   
the details of prophecy1 as             
suggested by the current testimonies    
against the ,jews1 and most      likely 
on a written gnosis involving these     
testimonies4 ,that he      veils his    
sources simply shows that he is not one 
of the first      brood of anti-,jewish 
preachers4 ,if he had been early1 he    
would not      have been artificial or  
occult47#ace7      ,now1 as before1 ,mr4
 ,harris uses the eccentricities of a   
gnosis which he  does not prove to have 
existed at the time the fragment may    
have been  written and1 for instance1 he
 quotes ,st4 ,cyprian1 who wrote in the 

second  half of the third century1 and  
the ,persian ,father ,aphrahat1 also a  
writer  long after the ,gospel of ,peter
 was composed1 and his remark that the  
writer 8did not apparently possess the  
gnosis in so highly evolved a form0  as 
,aphrahat1 is not so much an admission  
in his favour as to prepare the  reader 
to be content with inferior evidence4   
,the test1 however1 quite as  much      
applies to our ,gospels as to the       
,gospel of ,peter4 ,in the previous     
working1 of which the fragment says     
nothing1 those who pass 8wag their      
heads0 and rail1 in each of the         
,synoptics1 in a jubilant way4 ,the     
first  ,synoptic says 7xxvii4 #de f47   
8,now from the sixth hour there was     
darkness  over all the land until the   
ninth hour40 ,the centurion and those   
who were  watching 8feared exceedingly40
 ,in ,mark 7xv4 #cc7 there also 8was    
darkness  over the whole earth until the
 ninth hour10 but in ,luke 7xxiii4 #dd  
f47 the  resemblance is still more      

marked4 ,the darkness comes over the    
whole earth  from the sixth until the   
ninth hour1 8the sun's light failing40  
7#dh7 8,and  all the multitudes that    
came together to this sight1 when they  
beheld the  things that were done1      
returned smiting their breasts40 ,in the
 fourth  ,gospel 7xx4 #aa71 ,mary goes  
to the tomb weeping4 ,we shall have more
 to say  regarding the ,gospels         
presently1 but here we need only remark 
that1  whether in exactly the same way  
or not1 the 8highly evolved prophetic   
gnosis0 has certainly done its work in  
all of them4 ,in this respect1 the      
,gospel of ,peter merely takes its place
 with the rest4    ,there is only one   
other instance to be noticed here4 ,it  
refers to some of  the details which the
 writer of the fragment introduces into 
the mockery  which precedes the         
crucifixion4 ,some of the mockers       
8prick0 ,jesus with a  reed2 others spat
 on his eyes4 ,this1 ,mr4 ,harris says1 
is connected with a  view early taken   

regarding a change of ,jewish feasts4   
,in the ,epistle of  ,barnabas1 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 ,atonement4 ,in
 ,barnabas1 the  ritual of the great day
 is discussed in detail1 and the rules  
of procedure  for the ,priests and the  
,people1 apparently taken1 ,mr4 ,harris 
thinks1 from  a ,greek handbook1 prove a
 variety of local usage such as would   
not have  been suspected from the       
,scripture1 read apart from the rest of 
the  literature of the time4 ,the       
8unwashed inwards0 of one goat1 offered 
at the  fast for all sins1 are to be    
eaten by the priests alone1 with        
vinegar1  while the people fast and wail
 in sackcloth and ashes4 ,this goat is  
one of  two over which lot is cast on   
the ,day of ,atonement2 the other is the
  scape-goat1 ,azazel1 which1 according 
to ,barnabas1 was to be treated with    

contumely1 and sent away into the       
wilderness3 8,all of you spit on him1   
and  prick him1 and put the scarlet wool
 on his head10 c4 ,now the two goats    
both represent ,christ1 according to    
,barnabas1 8who twists these written    
regulations into prophecies of the first
 and second ,advents1 and of the        
details of the ,passion40          ,the 
mention of vinegar to be eaten with the 
bitter portion of the      goat1        
suggested the words of the ,psalm3      
8,gall for my meat and      vinegar for 
my drink20 the command to spit on the   
goat and prick      7or pierce7 him     
which ill-usage1 by the way1 the ,talmud
 admits to      have been the practice  
of the ,alexandrian ,jews1 is           
interpreted by      ,barnabas to be a   
type or a prophecy of ,christ 8set at   
naught and      pierced and spat on40   
,is there any trace of the gnosis of the
 two      goats in ,peter8 ,if we may   
judge from the conjunction of the words 
in the account of the ,mockery1 there is

 a decided trace3 8,others      stood   
and spat on his eyes 444 others pricked 
him with a reed20 it      is ,christ as 
the goat ,azazel4      ,mr4 ,harris     
quotes 8an almost contemporary          
,sibyllist10 8,they shall prick  his    
side with a reed1 according to their    
law20 and he continues3 8,if the        
,sybillist is quoting ,peter1 he is also
 interpreting him1 and his              
interpretation is1 they shall prick him1
 as is done to the goat ,azazel40    ,to
 make ,peter responsible for the ideas  
or interpretations of the  ,sybillist is
 a little hard4 ,however1 let us examine
 this matter4 ,it is to  be observed    
that the only innovation in ,peter1     
regarding the spitting1 is  the         
expression that they 8spat upon his     
eyes0 instead of simply 8upon  him10 or 
8in his face10 as in the ,gospels2 but  
upon this nothing turns4  ,the point is 
not even mentioned2 so it may be        
dismissed4 ,regarding the  reed1 ,peter 
says they 8pierced0 him with it1 instead

 of 8smote him0 with  it4 ,let us leave 
the 8piercing0 aside for the moment4 ,in
 all other  respects1 the contumely is  
the same in the ,gospels4 ,before the   
high  priest1 in ,matthew and ,mark     
7,matt4 xxvi4 #fg1 ,mark xiv4 #fe71 they
 spit in  his face and buffet him1 and  
smite him with the palms of their hands2
 and  in ,luke 7xxii4 #fc f47 they mock 
and beat him and revile him4 ,it is     
curious  that1 according to the second  
,synoptist1 all this was foretold1 for  
he  makes ,jesus say 7x4 #cc f473       
8,behold1 we go up to ,jerusalem2 and   
the ,son of  man shall be delivered unto
 the chief priests and the scribes3 and 
they  shall condemn him to death1 and   
shall deliver him unto the ,gentiles3   
and  they shall mock him1 and shall spit
 upon him1 and shall scourge him1 and   
shall kill him1 and after three days he 
shall rise again40 ,after the trial     
before ,pilate1 in ,mark 7xv4 #ag ff471 
they put on him a purple robe1 and  the 
crown of thorns on his head1 and a reed 

in his hand1 and spit upon  him1 and    
take the reed and smite him on the head4
 ,in ,peter1 likewise1 they  clothe him 
in purple1 put on his head the crown of 
thorns1 spit upon his  eyes1 smite him  
on the cheeks1 and pierce him with a    
reed4    ,what difference is there here 
except the mere piercing8 ,yes6 there is
 a  difference1 for ,mr4 ,harris has    
forgotten to refer to the scarlet wool  
put  on the goat ,azazel4 ,there is     
nothing in ,peter which corresponds with
 the  scarlet wool4 ,the robe that is   
put upon ,jesus is purple4 ,now         
,barnabas1 in  the chapter from which   
,mr4 ,harris quotes all these passages1 
finds this  point of the 8scarlet wool0 
fulfilled in ,jesus3 8,for they shall   
see him in  that day wearing the long   
scarlet robe about his flesh407#acf7    
,but if we  look in the first ,synoptic 
we also find this1 for we read 7xxvii4  
#bh73  8,and they stripped him1 and put 
on him a scarlet robe0 7 74  ,the mere  
detail of piercing with the reed instead

 of smiting with it is  trifling        
compared with this1 and in all essential
 points ,mr4 ,harris's test  more fitly 
applies to the first ,synoptic than to  
,peter1 and equally so to  the other    
two4    ,as for the piercing with the   
reed1 however1 we have only to turn to  
the  fourth ,gospel1 and we find its    
counterpart 7xix4 #cd7 where one of the 
soldiers with a spear pierced the side  
of ,jesus4 ,why8 7#cf7 8,that the       
,scripture might be fulfilled4444       
#8,they shall look on him whom they     
pierced4' 0 ,here is the 8highly evolved
 prophetic gnosis0 without any          
disguise4 ,if one writer prefer to      
fulfil one part of ,scripture1 the other
  may select another without much       
difference in standing4 ,even ,mr4      
,harris  admits that 8the gnosis on     
which ,barnabas works is ultimately     
based on the  same passage0 as that     
quoted as fulfilled in the fourth       
,gospel7#acg72 then  what distinction of
 date is possible when both apply the   

same gnosis based  on the same texts8   
,,xi      ,we have now discussed        
practically all the test instances      
advanced by ,mr4  ,rendel ,harris1 and  
the result at which we arrive is1 that  
he has not  succeeded in proving that   
the ,gospel of ,peter betrays such      
traces of a  8highly evolved prophetic  
gnosis0 as require us to assign to it a 
later  date than the canonical ,gospels4
 ,if this system of elaborate and       
perverted  ingenuity were applied to    
these ,gospels1 as it has been to the   
fragment1  and every kind of false      
exegesis1 childish reasoning1 and wild  
interpretation1 such as was current     
amongst the ,fathers1 brought forward   
to explain the construction of the four 
canonical works1 the consequence  would 
be terribly surprising to pious readers4
 ,that this exegesis began  early is    
quite undeniable1 and it is not too much
 to say that it is  palpably visible on 
the very surface of most of the books of
 the ,new  ,testament4 ,it had1 as ,mr4 

,harris must admit and does admit1      
practical  effect on the composition of 
the ,gospels as they have come down to  
us1 but  it is fully displayed in some  
of the ,epistles of ,paul1 still more in
 those  passing under his name1 is      
supreme in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1
 and as  for the ,acts1 the ,apostles   
are1 from the very opening1 made to     
express the  highly evolved prophetic   
gnosis of the author4 ,we do not1 of    
course1 argue  that the writer of the   
fragment is free from it1 but merely    
that he shares  it equally with the     
other ,evangelists1 however much their  
canonicity1  derived from the very      
,fathers who are steeped in this gnosis1
 may protect  them from ,mr4 ,harris's  
dangerous attack4 ,without going into an
 explanation  of the genesis of various 
important points in the story1 which    
would  require a volume1 we may just    
glance at some of the points at which   
the  ,evangelists frankly declare the   
source of the gnosis1 and allow the     

process to be seen4    ,let us take for 
instance the first ,synoptic4 ,the      
events previous to the  birth of ,jesus 
7i4 #ah if47 take place 8that it might  
be fulfilled which  was spoken by the   
,lord through the prophet1 saying1      
,behold1 the virgin  shall be with      
child1 and shall bring forth a son1 ,and
 they shall call his  name ,immanuel10  
and it is only an illustration of the   
navet of the  period that two verses    
further on they call the son1 not       
,immanuel1 but  ,jesus4 ,the chief      
priests and scribes inform ,herod 7ii4  
#e f47 that the  ,christ should be born 
in ,bethlehem of ,judaea1 because it was
 written by  the prophet3 8,and thou    
,bethlehem1 land of ,judah1 ,art in no  
wise least  among the princes of ,judah3
 ,for out of thee shall come forth a    
governor1  ,which shall be shepherd of  
my people ,israel40 ,joseph takes the   
young child  and his mother into ,egypt 
7ii4 #ae f471 8that it might be         
fulfilled which  was spoken by the ,lord

 through the prophet1 saying1 ,out of   
,egypt did ,i  call my son40 ,herod     
slays all the male children in          
,bethlehem and in all  the borders      
thereof 7ii4 #af f47 and 8then was      
fulfilled that which was  spoken through
 ,jeremiah the prophet1 saying1 ,a voice
 was heard in ,ramah1  ,weeping and     
great mourning1 ,rachel weeping for her 
children10 c4 ,on  returning from ,egypt
 they settle in ,galilee1 in a city     
called ,nazareth  7ii4 #bc71 8that it   
might be fulfilled which was spoken by  
the prophets1  that he should be called 
a ,nazarene40 ,john the ,baptist comes  
preaching 8in  the wilderness0 7iii4 #a 
f471 8for this is he that was spoken of 
by ,isaiah  the prophet1 saying1 ,the   
voice of one crying in the wilderness10 
c4 ,the  temptation of ,jesus in the    
wilderness is based upon three texts3   
7iv4 #a  ff47 8,man shall not live by   
bread alone10 c42 8,he shall give his   
angels  charge concerning thee10 c41 and
 8,thou shalt worship the ,lord thy     

,god10  c4 ,when ,john is delivered up  
7iv4 #ab ff47 ,jesus leaves ,nazareth   
and  dwells 8in ,capernaum1 which is by 
the sea1 in the borders of ,zebulun and 
,naphtali3 that it might be fulfilled   
which was spoken by ,isaiah the         
prophet1 saying1 ,the land of ,zebulun  
and the land of ,naphtali1 toward the   
sea1 beyond ,jordan1 ,galilee of the    
,gentiles1 the people which sat in      
darkness saw a great light1 and to them 
which sat in the region and shadow  of  
death1 to them did light spring up40 ,in
 the episode of ,john in prison  sending
 his disciples to ,jesus 7xi4 #b ff471  
the whole reply is based  indirectly on 
prophetic gnosis1 and the v4 #aj        
directly3 8,this is he1 of  whom it is  
written1 ,behold1 ,i send my messenger  
before thy face1 ,who shall  prepare thy
 way before thee10 and v4 #ad1 8,and if 
ye are willing to  receive it1 this is  
,elijah1 which is to come40 ,when the   
,pharisees take  counsel to destroy him 
7xii4 #ad f471 and ,jesus withdraws1    

healing the sick  and enjoining them    
that they should not make him known1 it 
is 8that it  might be fulfilled which   
was spoken by ,isaiah the prophet1      
saying1 ,behold  my servant10 c4 ,there 
is an exhibition of 8highly evolved     
prophetic  gnosis0 7xii4 #ci ff47 when a
 sign is asked for1 and the sign of     
,jonah the  prophet is given1 8for as   
,jonah was three days and three nights  
in the  belly of the whale1 so shall the
 ,son of man be three days and three    
nights  in the heart of the earth10 a   
gnosis which helped to shape the        
representation of the entombment4 ,the  
speaking in parables is justified1  not 
originated 7xiii4 #ad f471 as a         
fulfilment of the prophecy of ,isaiah1  
8,by hearing ye shall hear1 and shall in
 no wise understand10 c1 and 7v4  #ce7  
8,i will open my mouth in parables10 c4 
,of course1 as ,mr4 ,harris says1  8no  
sane person would take ,st4 ,matthew's  
quotation as the cause of the  ,sermon  
on the ,mount1 or the parabolic         

discourse207#ach7 but1 as he admits1    
the prophetic passages were in the      
author's mind1 and are amongst 8the     
first faint shadows cast by the prophecy
 8 upon the history10 and they          
certainly led to the representation that
 those who heard the parabolic          
teaching1 and notably the disciples1 did
 not understand the most luminous       
discourses1 and required a private      
explanation of the clearest allegories4 
,the entry into ,jerusalem 7xxi4 #b f47 
is arranged 8that it might be  fulfilled
 which was spoken by the prophet1       
saying1 ,tell ye the daughter of  ,zion1
 ,behold1 thy ,king cometh unto thee1   
meek1 and riding upon an ass1 and  upon 
a colt the foal of an ass20 and the     
writer1 not appreciating the            
duplication of ,hebrew poetry1 is       
literal enough to relate 7v4 #b7 that   
,jesus tells the disciples they shall   
find 8an ass tied1 and a colt with      
her10 which they are to bring1 and 7v4  
#g7 8they brought the ass and the  colt1

 and put on them their garments2 and he 
sat upon them0 7  73 a representation   
which has ever since given much trouble 
to pious  commentators4 ,it is not      
difficult to see that the 8cleansing of 
the  temple0 7xxi4 #ab f47 takes place  
because 8it is written1 ,my house shall 
be  called a house of prayer1 but ye    
make it a den of robbers40 ,the trials  
when 8the abomination of desolation     
7xxiv4 #af f471 which was spoken of by  
,daniel the prophet10 is seen 8standing 
in the holy place 7let him that  readeth
 understand710 is an example of the     
prophetic gnosis4 ,the  preparation for 
the passion commences 7xxvi4 #b71 8,ye  
know that after two  days the passover  
cometh1 and the ,son of man is delivered
 up to be  crucified40 ,jesus is        
represented 7v4 #ca7 as saying to the   
disciples3  8,all ye shall be offended  
in me this night3 for it is written1 ,i 
will  smite the shepherd1 and the sheep 
of the flock shall be scattered abroad20
  and the curious phrase which follows  

is worth consideration3 8,but after ,i  
am raised up1 ,i will go before you into
 ,galilee10 which seems to have  slipped
 in here out of its place4 ,the events  
which take place at the  arrest1 and    
their coming out with swords and staves 
as against a robber to  take him 7xxvi4 
#ff71 8,all this is come to pass that   
the ,scriptures of the  prophets might  
be fulfilled20 and ,jesus could not pray
 for legions of  angels to help him1 for
 7v4 #ff71 8,how then could the         
,scriptures be  fulfilled80 ,the conduct
 of ,judas after he had betrayed his    
master1 when he  took back the pieces of
 silver1 the price of his betrayal1 to  
the priests  7xxvii4 #c f471 fulfils    
8that which was spoken by ,jeremiah the 
prophet1  saying1 ,and they took the    
thirty pieces of silver1 the price of   
him that  was priced1 whom certain of   
the children of ,israel did price2 and  
they  gave them for the potter's field1 
as the ,lord appointed me40             
,,xii      ,this need not be further    

pursued1 however1 though the principle  
applies  quite as much to the other     
,gospels4 ,only one passage may be      
quoted from  the last chapter of the    
third ,synoptic4 ,jesus1 when he appears
 to the  disciples1 after the episode of
 the fish to prove that he is not a     
spirit1  but himself with flesh and     
bones 7xxiv4 #cf f471 is represented as 
saying3          ,these are my words    
which ,i spake unto you1 while ,i was   
yet with      you1 how that all things  
must needs be fulfilled1 which are      
written in the law of ,moses1 and the   
prophets1 and the psalms1               
concerning me4 ,then opened he their    
mind1 that they might      understand   
the ,scriptures2 and he said unto them1 
,thus it is      written that the       
,christ should suffer1 and rise again   
from the      dead the third day3 and   
that repentance and remission of sins   
should be preached in his name unto all 
the nations4      ,this is a direct     
justification of the gnosis1 and it is  

no wonder that we  find ,st4 ,sylvia1   
some centuries later1 recording the     
concrete principle  upon which ,gospel  
history is written3 8,nothing took place
 which had not  been previously         
foretold1 and nothing had been foretold 
which had not  obtained its fulfilment40
    ,in so far as the ,gospel according 
to ,peter is concerned1 the impartial   
verdict must be3 ,it is neither better  
nor worse than the more fortunate  works
 which have found a safe resting-place  
within the ,canon of the  ,church4 ,it  
is almost impossible now to judge of    
these works as we judge  the fragment4  
,centuries of reverence1 and individual 
habit of hearing  their contents with   
docility and with bated criticism1 have 
rendered most  of us incapable of       
judging the effect which a good part of 
their contents  would make upon us if1  
like the fragment of ,akhmm1 they had   
been freshly  discovered yesterday4     
,there is no canonical glamour to veil  
its  shortcomings1 and it must not be   

forgotten that1 in this short fragment1 
we have none of those parts of the      
,gospel1 such as the ,sermon on the     
,mount  and some of the parables1 which 
contain so much noble teaching and      
render  the literature so precious4     
,then1 as we have before pointed out1   
the  canonical ,gospels1 in their       
greater circulation and in the process  
of  reception by the ,church1 secured a 
gradual revision which might have       
smoothed away any roughness from the    
,gospel of ,peter had it been equally   
fortunate4 ,the three ,synoptic ,gospels
 are so closely dependent on each       
other1 or on the same sources1 as to be 
practically one work2 and although  this
 renders all the more remarkable certain
 indications of selection1  some of     
which we have pointed out1 it           
nevertheless limits our acquaintance    
with early belief4 ,it is the merit of  
the fragment that it presents           
considerable variation in the original  
sources1 and shows us the fluidity  of  

the early reports of that which was     
supposed to take place during the       
period which it embraces4 ,we have in it
 a primitive and less crystallised  form
 of the ,christian tradition4           
,,appendix            7#a7 444       1  
2      4 7#b7          1         1 4    
7#c7           1      1             4   
7#d7           4 7#e7       1      1   1
     2           4    7#f7         1   4
         1        1   4 7#g7    1       
1   1    4 7#h7             4 7#i7      
1       2    1              4    7#aj7  
1        2   1    4 7#aa7      1        
4 7#ab7        1      4 7#ac7           
1          8 7#ad7     1    1   4       
7#ae7   1      2   1       1   2        
4 7#af7          2 7#ag7   4    1       
4 7#ah7      1    2    4    7#ai7       
1    2    4 7#bj7             4    7#ba7
          1       2     1    4 7#bb7    
4 7#bc7               1    7#bd7      4 
4    7#be7         1      1        2    
4 7#bf7        1     2             4    
7#bg7      1            4    7#bh7      

1                      1      2 7#bi7   
1            1 7#cj7         1          
1     4 7#ca7              4           4
 7#cb7                       4    7#cc7 
1     4 7#cd7   1   1             4     
7#ce7       1         1      4 7#cf7    
1        4 7#cg7                1       
4 7#ch7            1      2 7#ci7     1 
1      1     2 7#dj7           1        
4  7#da7          8  7#db7        4     
7#dc7           4    7#dd7              
4    7#de7          1      1     1      
4 7#df7             1     4 7#dg7       
2 7#dh7   1 1       1            4 7#di7
            4    7#ej7       1     7   1
     1                     27 7#ea7     
4 7#eb7        1                1       
4 7#ec7               1         8 7#ed7 
1      4     1          1          4    
7#ee7      2     1         1      1     
8   8 7#ef7    8   2     1       1   2  
4 7#eg7      4    7#eh7      1    1     
1   4 7#ei7           1            4    
7#fj7                   2        1   444
              ,,footnotes          #a   

,fragments grecs du ,livre d',enoch1 c41
 publis par les membres de        la    
,mission archol4 franaise  ,caire1      
,fasc4 #c1 #ahic4        #b #a ,fasc4   
#c #c ,fasc4        #d ,the ,greek ,text
 will be found in the ,appendix4        
#e ,the text of this sentence is faulty4
        #f  1 1                2        
1      4                  2             
1                  1        4           
1     2 1        1    4  1 1            
1               1      4                
1              1    7               71  
1          1    4--,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 vi4  
#ab4        #g ,lods1 ,de ,evang4       
secundum ,petrum1 #ahib1 pp4 #h ff42    
,harnack1        ,bruchstcke d4 ,evang4 
u4s4w4 des ,petrus1 zweite ,aufl4 #ahic1
 p4 #da2        ,zahn1 ,das ,ev4 des    
,petrus1 #ahic1 pp4 #e f41 #gj ff42     
,kunze1 ,das neu        aufgef4         
,bruchstck des sogen4 ,petrusev4 #ahic1 
pp4 #aj f42 ,swete1        ,the ,akhmm  
,fragment of the ,apocr4 ,gospel of ,st4
 ,peter1 #ahic1 pp4        xii f41 xliv 

f42 ,hilgenfeld1 ,zeitschr4 wiss4       
,theol4 #ahic1 ii4 ,heft4        pp4    
#bba f41 #bci ff42 ,j4 ,armitage        
,robinson1 ,b4,d41 ,the ,gospel         
according to ,peter1 c41 #ahib1 pp4 #ae 
ff42 ,martineau1 ,the        ,nineteenth
 ,century1 #ahic1 pp4 #ijf ff42 ,j4 ,r4 
,harris1 ,contemp4        ,rev4 ,august 
#ahic1 p4 #bcf2 van ,manen1 ,theol4     
,tijdschr4 ,juli #ahic1        p4 #che4 
#h ,l4c4 p4 #d f4        #i ,h4 ,e4 iii4
 #af4       #aj ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #c4        
#aa ,sozom4 ,h4 ,e4 vii4 #ai2 ,canon    
,murat4 ,tregelles1 p4 #fe4       #ab   
,h4 ,e4 iii4 #bg4       #ac ,h4 ,e4 iii4
 #c4       #ad ,comm4 in ,matt4 ,t4 x4  
#ag3       1               1        7   
1                 4       #ae ,cf4      
,murray1 ,expositor1 ,january1 #ahic1   
pp4 #ee ff4       #af ,de ,vir4 illustr4
 i4       #ag                         4 
,haer4        ,fab4 ii4 #b4       #ah   
,zahn1 ,gesch4 des ,n4 ,t4 ,kanons1 ii4 
#gdb f42 ,lods1 l4c4 pp4 #ad ff4        
,zahn1 however1 admits that ,theodoret's

 statement may at least be        taken 
as testimony that the ,gospel was in use
 amongst a sectarian        community in
 ,syria4 ,das ,ev4 d4 ,petrus1 pp4 #gj  
f4       #ai ,harnack1 l4c4 pp4 #dj ff42
 ,zahn1 l4c4 pp4 #eg ff42 ,j4 ,o4 ,f4   
,murray1 ,the ,expositor1 ,january      
#ahic1 pp4 #ee ff42 ,kunze1 l4c4 pp4    
#ce ff42 ,hilgenfeld1 l4c4 pp4 #bdb ff42
 ,bernard1 ,academy1 ,december          
#ahib1 ,september #cj1 #ahic2 ,swete1   
l4c4 p4 xxxi4       #bj ,academy1       
,october #ba1 ,december #bc1 #ahic4     
#ba ,guardian1 ,november #bi1 #ahic4    
#bb ,academy1 ,december #bc1 #ahic1 p4  
#efh4       #bc ,the detailed statement 
of the case may be found in             
,supernatural        ,religion1 complete
 ed4 #ahgi1 i4 #bhc ff4 ,hort 7,journal 
of        ,philology1 iii4 #aee ff47    
places it as early as ,a4,d4 #adh4      
#bd         1                1          
1   1           1    1 444 ,dial4 cvi4  
,the        whole argument may be found 
in detail in ,supernatural ,religion1   

#ahgi1 i4 #daf ff4       #be ,see the   
argument1 ,supernatural ,religion1 i4   
#ddh ff4       #bf         1          1 
444 ,apol4 i4 #ff4       #bg ,eusebius1 
,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci4       #bh ,dial4      
xxiii41 xliii4 twice1 xlv4 thrice1 c4   
twice1 ci41 cxx42        ,apol4 i4 #cb  
cf4 ,supernatural ,religion1 i4 #cjj f4 
#bi ,luke ii4 #d4       #cj ,dial4      
lxxviii4       #ca ,protevang4 ,jacobi1 
x42 ,tischendorf1 ,evang4 ,apocr4 p4 #ai
 f4       #cb ,cf4 ,supernatural        
,religion1 i4 #cjd f4       #cc ,apol4  
i4 #dj4       #cd ,the word used in the 
,gospel is 1 to drag along1 but         
,justin's        word is merely the same
 verb with the addition of 1 1 to       
worry1 or harass with abuse4 ,although  
the ,english equivalent is thus         
changed1 and conceals the analogy of the
 two passages1 the addition        of 1 
strictly considered1 cannot so change   
the meaning of 1        but rather      
should imply a continuance of the same  
action4 ,this is        also ,dr4       

,martineau's view4       #ce  1    1    
2  4 ,apol4 i4 #ce4       #cf 1     1   
444             1   1   4        ,evang4
 ,petri1 #f4 ,hilgenfeld says regarding 
this1 8,was fehlt noch        zu dem    
,beweise1 dass ,justinus1 wie ich schon 
#ahej ausgefhrt habe1        das        
,petrus-,evg4 benutzt hat80 ,zeitschr4  
#ahic1 ii4 #bea4       #cg ,this passage
 has been discussed at some length by   
,dr4 ,martineau        7,nineteenth     
,century1 ,october #ahic1 pp4 #fdg ff471
 in controversy        with ,mr4 ,t4    
,rendel ,harris 7,contemp4 ,rev4 ,august
 #ahic1 pp4 #bcd        ff471 as it has 
frequently before been4 ,dr4 ,martineau 
seems to be in        the right upon all
 points in connection with it4       #ch
 ,hilgenfeld1 ,zeitschr4 wiss4 ,theol4  
#ahic1 pp4 #bdi ff42 cf4 ,lods1         
,de ,evang4 sec4 ,petrum1 pp4 #ab f42   
,harnack1 l4c4 pp4 #ch f41 #fc          
f42 ,martineau1 ,nineteenth ,century1   
,october #ahic1 pp4 #fej f42 cf4        
,swete1 l4c4 p4 xxxiv4       #ci ,dial4 

xcvii4       #dj ,swete1 l4c4 p4 xxxiv4 
,mr4 ,rendel ,harris says3 8,i regard it
 as        certain that the reading     
implies connection between ,justin      
and ,peter1 either directly or through a
 third source accessible to             
both40 ,contemp4 ,rev4 ,august #ahic1 p4
 #bca4       #da ,apol4 i4 #ej4         
#db                   1     4 ,dial4    
liii42 cf4        ,supernatural         
,religion1 i4 #ccj ff4       #dc ,dial4 
ciii4       #dd ,dial4 cviii4       #de 
,cf4 ,supernatural ,religion1 i4 #cci4  
#df ,cf4 ,irenaeus1 ,adv4 ,haer4 iii4   
#ab4       #dg ,dial4 lxxxviii42 cf4    
,supernatural ,religion1 i4 #caf ff4    
#dh ,dial4 ciii4 ,there is another      
passage in ,dial4 cxxv41 which may      
be compared3     1               1   1  
1        444       #di ,mr4 ,murray1 for
 instance1 quotes a passage from        
,origen1 using a        similar         
expression to that in our fragment1 that
 ,jesus was silent as        suffering  
no pain1 with a comment which shows that

 he did not        suspect a ,docetic   
interpretation4 ,expositor1 ,january    
#ahic1 pp4 #ee        f4       #ej      
,harnack1 l4c4 pp4 #ch ff42 ,lods1 l4c4 
pp4 #ab f42 ,hilgenfeld1                
,zeitschr4 wiss4 ,theol4 #ahic1 pp4     
#bba1 #bda1 #bfg2 van ,manen1 ,theol4   
,tijdschrift1 #ahic1 pp4 #che f41 #eea  
ff42 ,martineau1 ,nineteenth            
,century1 ,june #ahic1 p4 #iaj1         
,october1 pp4 #fdc f42 cf4 ,j4 ,rendel  
,harris1 ,contemp4 ,rev4 ,august #ahic1 
pp4 #bbg ff41 #bca4       #ea ,cf4      
,swete1 l4c4 pp4 xxxiii4 ff4       #eb  
,verse #af4       #ec ,verse #bg4       
#ed ,verse #bh4       #ee ,mr4 ,murray  
points out that ,origen likewise regards
 the 8gall0 as        baleful1 as he    
likewise represents with our fragment   
the breaking of        the limbs as an  
act of mercy 7,expositor1 ,january      
#ahib1 pp4 #ef f474        ,hilgenfeld  
is quite convinced that the ,epistle    
derives the passage        from ,peter  
7,zeitschr4 #ahic1 ii4 #bee f474        

#ef ,the whole passage may be given     
here1 as arguments are founded upon     
it3       2                4  2         
1  1  1                            1    
4             8                    4    
4  8  1                          1     1
   1                1 444 7vii4 #c-e74  
#eg ,harnack finds it almost certain    
that the ,didache made use of this      
,gospel 7l4c4 pp4 #eh f41 #hj72 so also 
van ,manen 7,theol4 ,tijdschr4          
,september #ahic1 pp4 #cec f47 and      
others4       #eh ,l4c4 pp4 xxi f4      
#ei ,l4c4 pp4 xxii f4       #fj ,l4c4 p4
 xxii1 n4 #a4       #fa ,l4c4 p4 xxiv4  
#fb ,a ,popular ,account of the newly   
recovered ,gospel of ,peter1 #ahic1     
pp4 v1 f4       #fc ,ib4 p4 #ge4        
#fd ,ib4 p4 #gf4 ,it should be stated   
that the ,syriac version of ,cureton    
to ,luke xxiii4 #dh gives nearly this   
sentence1 and that the old ,latin       
,codex of ,st4 ,germain reads3          
8dicentes3 ,vae nobis1 quae facta sunt  
hodie propter peccata nostra2           

appropinquavit enim desolatio           
,hierusalem40 ,mr4 ,harris of course    
refers to these passages4 ,harnack      
considers that this passage is derived  
from our ,gospel according to           
,peter 7l4c4 p4 #eg74       #fe ,l4c4 p4
 #ha4 ,it may be well to give the       
passage now in ,moesinger's        work3
 8 #8,vae fuit1 vae fuit nobis1 ,filius 
,dei erat hic4' ,quum        autem eis  
sol naturalis defecisset1 tunc per istas
 tenebras eis        lucidum fiebat1    
excidium urbis suae advenisse3          
#8venerunt1 ait1        judicia         
dirutionis ,jerosolymorum4' ,quia itaque
 haec urbs non recepit        eum qui   
eam aedificaverat1 restabat ei ut ruinam
 suam videret40        ,evang4 ,concord4
 ,expositio1 #ahgf1 pp4 #bde f4         
#ff ,l4c4 p4 #gh4       #fg ,l4c4 pp4   
#ha f4       #fh ,l4c4 pp4 #hc f4 ,cf4  
,zahn1 l4c4 p4 #fe4 ,zahn considers it  
in the        highest degree improbable 
that this was taken by ,tatian from     
,peter1        but the improbability is 

by no means made out4       #fi ,l4c4   
pp4 #hb f4       #gj ,contemp4 ,rev4    
,august #ahic1 p4 #bcf4       #ga ,ev4  
,concor4 ,expos4 p4 #bde4       #gb     
,lods 7before ,a4,d4 #aej71 ,ev4 sec4   
,petrum1 #ahic1 pp4 #bf f42 ,robinson   
7before ,a4,d4 #afj71 ,the ,gospel      
according to ,peter1 c41 #ahib1 p4      
#cb2 ,harnack 7beginning of second      
century71 l4c4 p4 #hj2 ,zahn 7,a4,d4    
#adj-ade71 ,das ,ev4 des ,petrus1 #ahic1
 p4 #ge2 ,kunze 7about ,a4,d4 #agj71    
,das neu aufgefund4 ,bruchstck des      
sogen4 ,petrusev4 #ahic1 p4 #dg2        
,hilgenfeld 7end of first century71     
,zeitschr4 #ahic1 pp4 #bff f42          
,swete 7,a4,d4 #aej-afe71 ,the ,akhmm   
,fragment1 #ahic1 p4 xlv2 von           
,schubert 7soon after middle of second  
century71 ,die ,comp4 des               
,pseudopetr4 ,ev4 ,fragments1 #ahic1 p4 
#aie2 ,w4 ,c4 van ,manen 7older1        
rather than later1 than our ,gospels71  
,theol4 ,tijdschr4 #e;de ,stuk1         
#ahic1 pp4 #efe ff42 ,martineau 7,a4,d4 

#acj71 ,nineteenth ,century1 ,june      
#ahic1 p4 #ibe1 ,september1 p4 #fcc2 ,j4
 ,rendel ,harris 7no objection to       
,a4,d4 #acj71 ,contemp4 ,rev4 ,august   
#ahic1 p4 #bcf4       #gc ,zahn1 l4c4   
pp4 #ah ff42 ,swete1 l4c4 pp4 xliii1 f4 
#gd ,zahn considers   inauthentic in    
this place1 but it stands in        ,a  
,c ,d1 and many other codices1 and it is
 adopted by the ,revisers of        the 
,n4 ,t4       #ge ,although this is not 
part of the ,gospel1 it is very ancient4
       #gf ,l4c4 p4 xliii4       #gg    
,l4c4 pp4 xliii1 f4       #gh ,magn4 ix4
       #gi ,cf4       4 ,evang4 ,nicod4 
,pars        #a4 ,a4 ix4 #c2            
,tischendorf1 ,evang4 ,apocr4 #ahec1 p4 
#bbi4       #hj ,for the sake of brevity
 these ,gospels will be called simply   
,matthew1        ,mark1 ,luke1 and      
,john4       #ha ,hilgenfeld conjectures
 that this abrupt mention of ,joseph    
indicates        that he must already   
have been mentioned in the ,gospel of   
,peter4        ,zeitschr4 #ahic1 #aa4   

,heft1 pp4 #bdd f4       #hb ,cf4       
4 ,evang4 ,nicod4        ,pars ,i4 ,a4  
xi4 #c2 ,tischendorf1 ,evang4 ,apocr4   
#ahec1 p4 #bcd4       #hc ,l4c4 pp4 #bf 
f4       #hd ,zahn1 of course1 argues   
that the commands of ,herod can only    
have        been given to the previously
 named ,jews1 the judges of ,jesus1 8and
        perhaps to their servants0 7und 
etwa deren ,diener71 and he finds       
fault with ,harnack for here bringing in
 8soldiers0 from the        canonical   
,gospels1 without warrant from the text4
 ,he declares them        to be directly
 excluded by the leading tendency of the
 ,gospel of        ,peter 7l4c4 p4 #bg74
 ,this supposed 8leading tendency10 of  
hatred of        the ,jews1 is a good   
deal exaggerated4       #he ,zeitschr4  
#ahic1 ii4 #bdh f4       #hf ,murray1   
,expositor1 ,january #ahic1 pp4 #ee f4  
#hg ,van ,manen conjectures that the    
author got this 8,king of ,israel0 from 
the independent use of some ,hebrew or  
,aramaic source4 ,tijdschr4        ,juli

 #ahic1 p4 #djh4       #hh ,so1 for     
instance1 ,swete1 ,j4 ,rendel ,harris1  
,robinson1 and others4        ,others   
distinctly identify the  with the       
malefactor3 as1 for        instance1    
,kunze1 l4c4 p4 #bb2 ,von ,schubert1    
l4c4 pp4 #bh f42 cf4        ,lods1 l4c4 
p4 #ba4       #hi ,l4c4 p4 #bf4         
#ij 8,wer anderer ,meinung ist1 sollte  
sie fr sich behalten0 7l4c4 p4          
#ee74       #ia ,zeitschr4 #ahic1 ii4   
#bed4       #ib ,van ,manen1 ,theol4    
,tijdschrift1 #d;de ,stuk1 #ahic1 pp4   
#djh f42        ,martineau1 ,nineteenth 
,century1 ,june #ahic1 p4 #iaa4         
#ic ,in the apocryphal work called      
,anaphora ,pilati1 an account of the    
crucifixion supposed to be sent by      
,pilate to the ,emperor ,tiberius1      
,pilate is represented as describing the
 darkness which comes over        the   
whole earth1 and saying that the        
,emperor could not be ignorant          
8that in all the world they lighted     
lamps from the sixth hour until         

evening0 7                  74 ,anaphora
 ,pilati1 ,b4 #g2 ,tischendorf1 ,evang4 
,apocr4 #ahec1        p4 #dbc4       #id
 ,with regard to this addition of ,luke1
 we may refer to a very                 
interesting letter of ,dr4 ,abbott's in 
the ,spectator of ,october #ba1         
#ahic1 from which we take the liberty of
 extracting the following               
passage3 8,in ,luke 7xxiii4 #de7 the    
correct reading is          1 of which  
the natural interpretation is1 the sun  
being        eclipsed4 ,now1 as it was  
well known that an eclipse could only   
happen at new moon1 and as ,passover was
 at full moon1 this would        involve
 a portentous miracle4 ,the probability 
is that ,luke1 who was        by no     
means afraid of miracles1 meant a       
miracle here4 ,not content        with  
saying 7with the ,synoptics7 #8darkness 
came over all the land1'        he adds1
 in order to show that the darkness was 
miraculous1 #8the sun        being      
eclipsed4' ,but is this eclipse #8an    

invention of a conscious        or      
unconscious romancer'8 ,an examination  
of the parallel passages in        ,mark
 and ,matthew will show that it is not4 
,there we find that ,jesus              
uttered a cry to ,god as abandoning     
,him4 ,these words caused               
difficulty from the first4 ,the words   
#8my ,god' were rendered by some        
7e4g4 the ,gospel of ,peter7 #8my       
,power2' by the fourth ,gospel the      
words were omitted2 our oldest          
manuscripts exhibit many variations3    
1 1 2 the very bystanders are said to   
have interpreted        the words as    
referring to ,elias failing to help4    
,now #8,elias failing        to help'   
might be1 in ,greek1  1 or quite as     
often         1 i4e4 the sun being      
eclipsed4 ,it seems        extremely    
probable1 then1 that ,luke is not here  
#8inventing' a        miracle1 but      
suggesting1 or adopting1 an edifying and
 miraculous        interpretation of    
what seemed to him a non-edifying       

tradition0 7pp4        #edf f474        
#ie ,or 8,why didst thou forsake me80   
#if ,dem4 ,ev4 x4 #h1 p4 #did4       #ig
 ,it is suggested that these words must 
be taken as sarcasm on the        part  
of those who give the body to ,joseph4  
#ih ,harnack suggests that perhaps in   
the author's time ,joseph's garden      
was a known locality 7l4c4 p4 #bh74     
#ii ,the ,syriac version of ,cureton has
 nearly the same reading4      #ajj     
,zeitschr4 #ahic1 ii4 #bdf4      #aja   
,it will be remembered that the same    
accusation is brought against           
,stephen in ,acts4 ,the mockery of the  
passers-by 7,matt4 xxvii4 #dj71         
8,thou that destroyest the temple1 and  
buildest it in three days1        save  
thyself10 is also in the same vein4     
#ajb ,there is an interesting discussion
 of the question by ,van ,manen1        
,theol4 ,tijdschr4 #ahic1 #d;de ,stuk1  
pp4 #dbc ff4      #ajc ,l4c4 p4 #bh4    
#ajd ,dr4 ,swete also takes this view of
 the passage1 l4c4 p4 #ae1 n4 #d4       

#aje ,there are1 of course1 many        
instances of such exaggeration3 ,apoc4  
x4        #a f42 ,hermas1 ,sim4 ix4 #f2 
#d ,esdras1 ii4 #dc2 ,passio ,perp4 c4  
#aj4      #ajf ,l4c4 p4 #gj4      #ajg  
,cf4 ,justin1 ,apol4 i4 #ee3 ,dial4     
lxxxvi4 xci42 ,irenaeus1 ,c4            
,haer4 ii4 #bd1 #d2 v4 #ag1 #c f4 ,in   
the ,ev4 ,nicod4 ii4 7,lat4 ,b71 in     
which the descent is fully treated1     
,jesus ,christ is begged to make        
the sign of the cross3 8,et factum est  
ita1 posuitque dominus crucem           
suam in medio inferni1 quae est signum  
victoriae et usque in        aeternum   
permanebit0 7,evang4 ,nicodemi1 ,pars   
ii4 ,latine ,b4 cap4 x4        7xxvi472 
,tischendorf1 ,evang4 ,apocr4 #ahec1 p4 
#dji2 ,ep4 ,barn4 c4        #ab2 ,greg4 
,nyss4 ,adv4 ,jud4 c4 #g74      #ajh    
,constitt4 ,app4 viii4 #ab1 pp4 #bei1   
#ac f4      #aji ,the expression is so  
peculiar that we give it in the         
original4      #aaj ,l4c4 pp4 #bfc f4   
,dr4 ,martineau translates the passage3 

8,hast thou        preached obedience to
 them that sleep80 ,nineteenth ,century1
 ,june        #ahic1 pp4 #iag f4        
#aaa ,harnack1 l4c4 pp4 #fh f42 ,lods1  
l4c4 p4 #dh1 although with a 82         
,zahn1 l4c4 pp4 #bb f42 ,robinson1 l4c4 
pp4 #bd f42 ,swete1 l4c4        pp4 xiv4
 #ai4 7,dr4 ,swete considers any        
reference to #a ,pet4 iii4 #ai          
improbable47 ,j4 ,rendel ,harris1 l4c4  
pp4 #ea f41 #hi2 von ,schubert1         
l4c4 pp4 #aja f42 cf4 van ,manen1 l4c4  
pp4 #ebb f42 ,martineau1        l4c4 pp4
 #iag f4      #aab ,dem4 ,ev4 #ejj4     
,this is referred to by ,dr4 ,swete1    
l4c4 p4 #ai1 n4        #b4      #aac    
,for instance1 ,ignat4 ,ep4 ,magn4 #i2  
,hermas1 ,sim4 ix4 #af4      #aad ,dial4
 lxxii4      #aae ,haer4 iii4 #bj1 #d2  
iv4 #bb1 #a2 #cc1 #a1 #ab2 v4 #ca1 #a4  
#aaf ,l4c4 p4 #eb4      #aag ,westcott  
and ,hort put these words between double
 brackets1 as almost        certain     
interpolations1 through the action of   
8,western influences40      #aah ,the   

,gospel according to ,peter1 p4 #bi1 n4 
#a4      #aai ,in the passage #a ,cor4  
xi4 #bc mention is made of a betrayal3  
8in the        night in which he was    
betrayed10 but without further detail1  
and it        is quite consistent to    
suppose that the 8betrayal0 is not      
attributed        to one of the ,twelve4
 ,however1 there is considerable reason 
for        believing that this passage  
is an interpolation4 ,it is a fact that 
a        betrayal is not alluded to in  
any other place where we might expect   
to find it in these ,epistles2 e4g4     
,rom4 iv4 #be2 viii4 #cb2 ,gal4 ii4     
#bj4      #abj ,harnack argues at       
considerable length that the ,gospel    
according to        ,peter must have    
contained the episode of the woman taken
 in        adultery1 inserted into the  
fourth ,gospel4      #aba ,contemp4     
,rev4 ,august #ahic1 p4 #bag4      #abb 
,l4c4 pp4 #bac f4      #abc ,l4c4 p4    
#bae4      #abd ,l4c4 p4 #baf4      #abe
 ,l4c4 p4 #baf4      #abf ,dial4 lxiv4  

#abg ,l4c4 pp4 #bai ff4      #abh ,l4c4 
pp4 #bba ff4      #abi ,e4g4 ,matt4 xii4
 #de2 xv4 #cd1 #cg2 xxii4 #be f42 ,mark 
viii4 #e1 #h2 xii4        #bj ff42 xvi4 
#i2 ,luke ii4 #cf2 viii4 #b2 xi4 #bf2   
xx4 #bi f4      #acj ,l4c4 p4 #bbb4     
#aca ,apoc4 v4 #a ff4      #acb ,l4c4 p4
 #bbd4      #acc ,ibid4      #acd ,this 
is not expressed in the text1 which ,mr4
 ,harris rather strains        for his  
purpose4 ,the correct reading is3 8,we  
were fasting1 and we        sat mourning
 and weeping10     4      #ace ,l4c4 pp4
 #bbd f4      #acf ,barnabas1 #g4       
#acg ,l4c4 p4 #bbf4      #ach ,l4c4 pp4 
#cae f4