On the whole we may perhaps claim to have established a strong presumption that the Petrine writer employed a Harmony which, in its general selection of extracts, and in some of its minuter arrangements, very nearly resembled the Harmony of Tatian. This is not equivalent to saying that he used Tatian, because there is some reason to think that there may have been a Harmony or Harmonies earlier than Tatian.... Thus the relation of the Petrine writer to Tatian remains for the present an open question; but enough has been said to render such a relation probable, if further inquiries should lead us to place the Gospel of Peter after the publication of the "Diatessaron."(61)

It must frankly be a.s.serted that the whole of this comparison with Tatian, and the views so curiously expressed regarding the result, are the outcome of a preconceived idea that the Petrine author compiled his Gospel mainly from the canonical. The divergencies being so great, however, and the actual contradictions so strong, it becomes necessary to account for them in some way, and the theory of the use of a Harmony is advanced to see whether it may not overcome some of the difficulties. It would have been more to the purpose to have inquired whether the so-called "Diatessaron"

did not make use of the Gospel according to Peter, amongst others.

In connection with this it may be well to refer to some remarkable observations of Professor J. Rendel Harris regarding the relation of the Gospel according to Peter and Tatian's Harmony. When the fragment was first discovered, he was naturally struck by its great importance. "The Gospel of Peter, even in the imperfect form in which it has come down to us, is the breaking of a new seal, the opening of a fresh door," he said, "to those who are engaged in the problems presented by Biblical and Patristic criticism,"(62) and he very rightly proceeded to try to find out "whether Peter has used Tatian, or Tatian Peter, or whether both of them are working upon common sources."(63) He first refers to "a curious addition to the story of the Crucifixion, which can be shown, with a very high probability, to have once stood in the Harmony of Tatian." The most interesting and instructive part of the reference is that Mr. Harris had made and published, some years before the discovery of the fragment before us, certain notes on the Harmony of Tatian, in which he had employed "the method of combination of pa.s.sages in different writers who were known to have used the Harmony, or different texts which were suspected of having borrowed from it, to show that in the account of the Crucifixion there stood a pa.s.sage something like the following:

"They beat their b.r.e.a.s.t.s and said, Woe unto us, for the things which are done to-day for our sins; for the desolation of Jerusalem hath drawn nigh."(64)

It is unnecessary here to quote the way Mr. Harris arrived at this pa.s.sage, which he frankly states, but at once go on to compare it with our fragment. He sums up:

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 Peter, for we read that: "The Jews and the elders and the priests, when they saw what an evil deed they had done to themselves, began to beat their b.r.e.a.s.t.s and to say, Woe to our sins, for the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at hand." Did the false Peter take this from Tatian, or was it the other way? or did both of them use some uncanonical writing or tradition?(65)

"There is nothing in what follows in the Arabic Harmony," Mr. Harris points out, "which suggests an allusion to the desolation of the city, or an imprecation upon, or lamentation over, themselves."(66)

Very few will feel any doubt that this is taken from our Gospel according to Peter, or possibly-for of course there is no absolute proof-from the tradition which the writer of that Gospel also used, and not by the writer from the Harmony; and it may be suggested that the omission of this and similar pa.s.sages from versions of the Harmony may have been influenced by the fact that, not forming part of our Gospels, and not agreeing with the preconceived theory of a Harmony of our four Gospels, such pa.s.sages were excluded as interpolations.

Another instance given by Mr. Harris is the statement in the fragment: "Then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour," which he compares with the language of "Tatian's" commentator: "Three hours the sun was darkened, and afterwards it shone out again."(67) And further:

Another case of parallelism is in the speech of the angel to Mary: "_He is not here, for he is risen, and has gone away to the place from whence he was sent._" At first sight this looks like a wilful expansion on the part of the writer of the Gospel; but on a reference to the Persian father Aphrahat, who is more than suspected of having used the text of Tatian, we find the words, "And the angels said to Mary, He is risen, and gone away to him that sent him," which is very nearly in coincidence with the text of the false Peter.(68)

Neither of these pa.s.sages is found in the actual text of "Tatian."

Finally, we may quote the other instance pointed out by Mr. Harris:

The Docetic quotation from the Psalm "My Power, my Power, hast thou forsaken me?" is peculiar in this respect, that the second possessive p.r.o.noun is wanting, so that we ought to translate it "Power, my Power ..." Now, it is curious that Tatian's text had a similar peculiarity, for Ephrem gives it as "G.o.d, my G.o.d," and the Arabic Harmony as _Yaiil, Yaiili_, where the added suffix belongs to the possessive p.r.o.noun. This is a remarkable coincidence, and makes one suspect that Tatian had "Power, my Power" in his text, and that it has been corrected away. And it is significant that Ephrem in commenting on the pa.s.sage, says: "The divinity did not so far depart from the humanity as to be cut off from it, but only as regards the _power_ of the divinity, which was hidden both from the Slain and the slayers." This looks very suspicious that Ephrem found something in his text of Tatian differing from the words "G.o.d, my G.o.d."(69)

Mr. Harris reserves his final judgment on this relation between Tatian and the Gospel according to Peter; but as in a later article(70) he is not unwilling to allow the date of A.D. 130 to be a.s.signed to the fragment, it is scarcely to be decided as Peter quoting Tatian. Mr. Harris throughout these pa.s.sages, however, states the case in a most impartial manner, and the reader must form his own opinion.

We may, before leaving "Tatian," point out another instance of agreement to which Mr. Harris does not allude. In the Commentary there is the following pa.s.sage: "_Et dederunt ei bibere acetum et fel._ Acetum ei porrexerunt, pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit."(71) It will be remembered that this agrees with the representation of the fragment that they gave Jesus "vinegar and gall" to drink.

All these instances may, indeed, throw a new light upon the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor, which has so exercised apologists, and lead to the opinion that Tatian's Harmony was not composed out of four Gospels, but out of five. If it be agreed, as it is by a majority of critics, that Justin made use of the Gospel of Peter, the probability that his pupil Tatian likewise possessed the same work, and used it for his Harmony, is immensely increased.

VII

We shall not attempt to fix any even approximate date to the Gospel according to Peter, although we shall presently have to consider its relation to our canonical Gospels in a way which will at least a.s.sign it a position in time relative to them. Harnack, in the preface to the second edition of his article on the fragment, suspends his judgment on its relation to our Gospels, and will not even undertake a sufficient examination of this important question, so long as there remains a hope of still recovering more of the Gospel. It is devoutly to be hoped that the Cemetery of Akhmim may still give us more of this and other important early works; but there is no reason why we should not, even now, endeavour to derive what information we can from this instalment, 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 present. So long as we confine ourselves to the legitimate inferences to be drawn from the actual fragment before us, we cannot go far wrong.

It is frequently possible to a.s.sign well-defined limits within which early works, whose authors are unknown, must have been composed, when a more precise date cannot with certainty be fixed. Direct references to the writing, or its use, by writers the period of whose literary work is known, may enable us to affirm that it was written at least before their time; and sometimes certain allusions or quotations in the work itself may, on the other hand, show that it must have been composed after a certain date; and thus limits, more or less narrow, become certain, within which its production must lie. The Gospel according to Peter, as we might expect, contains none of the allusions or quotations to which we refer, and we are therefore reduced to the one indication of age-reference to, or the use of it by, early writers, leaving the approximate date to which it may be set back wholly to conjecture. As we have already remarked above, the question whether it is dependent on, or independent of, our canonical Gospels has yet to be considered; but there is too much difference of opinion regarding the date of these Gospels themselves to render this more than a relative indication. So far, the opinions of critics a.s.sign the Gospel according to Peter to dates ranging from a period antecedent to our Gospels, in their present form, to about the middle of the second century.(72)

The indications of style and phraseology given by the fragment have of course to be taken into account, and it may be well, before proceeding further, to examine certain peculiarities which have been pointed out by writers who a.s.sert that the composition is decidedly later than our canonical Gospels.(73) The writer never speaks of "Jesus" simply, but always as "the Lord" (? ??????). He likewise refers to him as the "Saviour" (s?t??) in one place, and several times as "a Son of G.o.d" (????

t?? ?e??). Now, with regard to these expressions, they are in constant use throughout the New Testament writings, in the Gospels themselves, as well as in the Epistles of Paul and the Epistles popularly ascribed to him. For instance, ? ??????: Matt. xxi. 3, xxviii. 6;(74) Mark xvi. 19;(75) Luke vii. 13, x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, 31, 34, xxii. 61, xxiv. 3, 34; John vi. 23, xi. 2, xiii. 13, 14, xx. 2, 13, 18, 20, 28, xxi. 7, 12. It is unnecessary to point out pa.s.sages in the Acts and Epistles, for "the Lord," "the Lord Jesus," or "the Lord Jesus Christ," is everywhere used, and indeed no other form, it may be said, is adopted. "A Son of G.o.d" (???? t?? ?e??) is constantly used in the Gospels and Acts. A few instances may be given: Matt. viii. 29, xiv. 33, xvi. 16, xxvi. 63, xxvii. 40, 43, 54; Mark i. 1, iii. 11, v. 7, xv. 39; Luke i. 35, ix. 41, viii. 28, xxii. 70; John i. 34, 49, v. 25, x. 36, xi. 4, 27, xix.

7, xx. 31; Acts ix. 20. Of course, in the Epistles the expression is of frequent occurrence, as for instance, Rom. i. 4, 9, v. 10; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 19; Gal. ii. 20, and elsewhere. It is not necessary to show that "Saviour" is used, but the following may be pointed out: Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23; and it more frequently occurs in the Epistles. All of these expressions are commonly employed in early Christian literature, such as the "Didache," Ignatian Epistles, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, "Pastor" of Hermas, and the "Apology" of Aristides.

The princ.i.p.al phrase upon which weight is laid by those who a.s.sign to the Gospel according to Peter, from this fragment, a later date than our canonical works, is the use of ? ????a?? without ???a to designate "the Lord's day"-Sunday; Dr. Swete calls it "the most decisive indication of the relatively late composition of our fragment."(76) After giving some instances of a similar expression, he states the case as follows:

The name was therefore familiar amongst Eastern Greek-speaking Christians from the end of the first century. But Peter not only uses it freely, but seems to be unconscious that he is guilty of an anachronism when he imports this exclusively Christian term into the Gospel history. ? ????a?? has so completely supplanted ?

?a t?? sa?t??, that it is twice used to describe the first Easter Day, in a doc.u.ment which usually manifests precision in such matters.(77)

It is not quite clear what Dr. Swete means when he says that Peter "uses it freely," 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 word.

The question, in fact, is whether it is an anachronism or not, and that it is so is very far from proved by any arguments yet brought forward. In the Apocalypse, i. 10, we have the use of the term "the Lord's day" (? ????a??

???a), A.D. 68-69. In the "Didache," which Dr. Lightfoot a.s.signs to the first or the beginning of the second century, we meet with ????a?? ??????; and in the Ignatian Epistles, which those who believe in them date "in the early years of the second century," there is in one place(78) ?at?

????a???. So far from its being surprising that there should not be more authority for such an expression, however, it seems almost more remarkable that we should have any parallels at all, when we remember how few early writings are extant, and how few of these actually refer to the day thus designated. The Epistles, for this reason, may be set aside in a body, for they give no testimony either way, with the exception of 1 Cor. xvi. 2, where "the first day of the week" is referred to. The three Synoptics, following each other, and a common tradition, use ? ?a t?? sa?t?? each once, and the fourth Gospel has the same phrase twice, and the Acts once; but this use of another expression does not-in the face of the use of ?

????a?? in this fragment, and of ? ????a?? ???a, in the Apocalypse-at all show that, at the same period, the latter phrase was not also current, though it may not have supplanted "the first day of the week." The fact that Melito of Sardis, "about the middle of the second century," wrote a treatise pe?? ????a??? shows how general that expression had become; and even Dr. Swete, as we have seen above, recognises that it was "familiar amongst Eastern Greek-speaking Christians from the end of the first century." There is nothing whatever to warrant the conclusion that its use at the time when our Gospels were written would have been an anachronism, but the fact that a different expression happened to be used in a few writings. The author of the fragment employs the phrase twice only, and it is thoroughly consistent with his impressive style throughout the episode, that he should apply to the time when these astounding events are said to have taken place the appropriate term, already suggested by the author of the Apocalypse, of "the Lord's day," instead of "the first day of the week." There is nothing more difficult, as is proved every day in our time, than to fix the precise date at which words or expressions first came into use, and especially-in the absence of voluminous literature opposing the presumption-the denial of antiquity to a work, on the ground of its employing an expression supposed only to have come into general use a few years later than its otherwise probable date, is both rash and unjustifiable.

VIII

We now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian doc.u.ment-its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.

The fragment commences, "but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.(79) (2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them: 'Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.' " It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by "Herod the King" "to take the Lord" evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising "that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,"

and sending him to Herod, "who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days." The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his partic.i.p.ation in the matter. When, according to our fragment, "Pilate rose," he seems to have pa.s.sed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.

At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits.

The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying "Not this man, but Barabbas." There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have pa.s.sed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.

According to the four canonical Gospels,(80) the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of G.o.d, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is "When even was come" that he goes to Pilate; in Mark it is "When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath." In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44): "And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph." In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.): "A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of G.o.d: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (_v._ 54): "And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,"-which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38): "After these things [the _crurifragium_ and piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave." In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial. "Pilate rose," and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3. "But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate(81) and of the Lord, and knowing that they are about to crucify (sta???s?e??) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.' " It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in antic.i.p.ation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii.

50-51), that Joseph was "a councillor" who had "not consented to their counsel and deed," which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though a.n.a.logous, tradition.

If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics: "He went in unto Pilate [and]

asked for the body of Jesus" (p??se???? t? ?e???t? ?t?sat? t? s?a t??

??s??,(82) Matthew and Luke; e?s???e? p??? t?? ?e???t?? ?a? ?t?sat? t?

s?a t?? ??s??, Mark). In Peter we have: "He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord" (???e? p??? t?? ?e???t?? ?a? ?t?se t? s?a t??

??????). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that sta???s?e??, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that taf? only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.

The fragment continues:

And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (p?? ??? t?? ?????, t?? ???t??

a?t??). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said: "Let us drag along (s???e?) the Son of G.o.d as we have power over him." 7. And they clad him with purple (p??f??a? a?t??

pe???a????) and set him on a seat of judgment (?a??d?a? ???se??), saying: "Judge justly (d??a??? ????e), King of Israel." 8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying: "With this honour honour we the Son of G.o.d."