Before proceeding to compare this pa.s.sage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn(83) and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are, "he delivered him to the people"

(pa??d??e? a?t?? t? ?a?), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this: "but Jesus he delivered up to their will" (t?? d?

??s??? pa??d??e? t? ?e??at? a?t??). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.): "Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him." It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains: "The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus," &c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 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.' " Who are indicated by the p.r.o.noun "them"?(84) Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph, "knowing that they are about to crucify him," came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod "with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him," and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.

It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion "before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast," that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish inst.i.tutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he a.s.sociate with that the circ.u.mstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.(85)

The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, 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 Jews; but this is not the case.

The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified.

He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.): "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?" After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.): "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him." In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.): "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands." The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.): "And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him." Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other.

The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.): "And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him." This pa.s.ses, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11): "And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate." In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2): "And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands." In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said: "And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!" Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares, "I find no crime in him," is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.

We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the pa.s.sage of Peter in which it is said that "they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel." Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just quoted: ?????sa? a?t?? ?p? ?a??d?a?

???se??, which are compared with the ?????se? ?p? ?at?? of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words "and set him on the judgment seat," understanding the verb ?a???e?? to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the pa.s.sage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add a?t?? to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin: "For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!" The Septuagint has: a?te?t? e ??? ???s?? d??a?a? ...

?????te?. It is a.s.serted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the pa.s.sage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for "seat of judgment" in the fragment, ?p? ?a??d?a? ???se??, differ entirely from the ?p? ?at?? of the fourth Gospel. The a.n.a.logous "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?" and the "Hail, King of the Jews," are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the "Judge justly!" is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the "King of Israel" a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that "others pierced him with a reed" is also a variation from the canonical Gospels, which only say, "they took the reed and smote him on the head." The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear "that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced," but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.

There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17): "They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called 'The place of a skull.' "

Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.

"And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain." The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38): "Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left." Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.): "And there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called 'The skull,'

there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left." The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.): "They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called 'The place of a skull,' which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.

It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation. "But he kept silence, as feeling no pain." We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic pa.s.sages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr.

Murray has pointed out a pa.s.sage in Origen in which that writer "gives them an innocent" (that is, not a Docetic) "interpretation."

Et in his omnibus _unigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec pa.s.sa est aliquid_, facta pro n.o.bis maledictum, c.u.m naturaliter benedictio esset; sed c.u.m benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig. _in Mat._ 125.(86)

Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said: "And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9): "And he [Herod]

questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing." In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely-and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel-the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?

In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11. "And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon: 'This is the King of Israel.' " We have here a continuation of the indefinite "they," which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circ.u.mstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37): "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;" Mark (xv. 26): "The King of the Jews;" Luke (xxiii. 38): "This is the King of the Jews," and John (xix. 19): "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this t.i.tle "was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek," and further gives a conversation between the "chief priests of the Jews" and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put "that he said, I am King of the Jews," to which Pilate answered briefly, "What I have written, I have written." With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?(87)

The author of the fragment continues: 12. "And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (?a??? ?a???) for them."

In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said: "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots" (?????te? ??????); in Mark (xv. 24): "And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (?????te? ??????) upon them, what each should take." In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34): "And parting his garments among them, they cast lots" (?a??? ??????). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.): "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (????e?) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots" (?a??? ??????). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this pa.s.sage, and now confront it with all the four Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word ?a???, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb ?a?????, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ?a??? ??????. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the ?a??? is decisive proof of his independence.

The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13. "But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment."

It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.): "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear G.o.d, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circ.u.mstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic.

That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.

This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of the _crurifragium_ which is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares: "And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment." Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, 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 pa.s.sed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to the malefactor and not to Jesus.(88) In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of a?t? to Jesus "appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context."(89) Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of the _crurifragium_ as drawn by the caricaturist from the "Motive" of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence: "Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself"!(90) Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole pa.s.sage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the a?t? to the malefactor;(91) but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,(92) and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the pa.s.sage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.

Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the pa.s.sage seems to be "And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment." However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment.

It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not having _his_ legs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to break _his_ legs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now the _crurifragium_ is here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken.

Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as the _crurifragium_ had been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.

Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that the _crurifragium_ was applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts the _crurifragium_. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.): "The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken." The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs "of the first,"-and by this description they imply that they begin at one end-and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs "of the first, and of the other,"

they come to Jesus, whom they must have pa.s.sed over. Is this pa.s.sing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the pa.s.sage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.

The fragment proceeds:

15. Now it was mid-day, and a darkness covered all Judaea, and they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst he still lived, for it is written for them: "The sun must not go down upon one put to death." 16. And one of them said: "Give him to drink gall with vinegar;" and having mixed, they gave him to drink. 17. And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own head. 18. Now many went about with lights, thinking that it was night, and some fell.(93)

The three Synoptics have an account of this darkness in words which nearly repeat each other. Matthew xxvii. 45: "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth (?p? p?sa? t?? ???) until the ninth hour."

Mark (xv. 33): "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth (?f? ???? t?? ???) until the ninth hour." In Luke (xxiii.

44 f.) other details are, as usual, added: "And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole earth (?f? ???? t?? ???) until the ninth hour, the sun failing [or rather 'being eclipsed,' t?? ?????

???e?p??t??]."(94) It is a very extraordinary circ.u.mstance that, whether a miraculous eclipse or not, whether this darkness came over the whole land or the whole earth, the fourth Gospel has either not believed in it, or thought it unworthy of mention, for no reference to the astonishing phenomenon is found in it. Peter, in a manner quite different from the Synoptics, and in fuller detail, describes this darkness and its effect upon the people. For the second time, he refers to a portion of the Jewish law, interpreted from Deut. xxi. 23, to ill.u.s.trate the anxiety which the supposed going down of the sun had excited. This expression does not favour any theory of his being acquainted with the third Synoptic.

The most important part of the pa.s.sage is that in _v._ 16: "And one of them said: 'Give him to drink gall with vinegar;' and having mixed they gave him to drink." This proceeding is represented as the result of their anxiety at the sun going down whilst Jesus still lived, and the gall and vinegar are regarded as a potion to hasten death. This view is foreign to all of our Gospels. In Matthew xxvii. 48, when Jesus gives the loud cry, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d," &c., we read: "And straightway one of them ran and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him." In Mark (xv. 36) the representation is almost the same. In both of these cases death follows almost immediately. In Luke (xxiii. 36) a very different representation is made. There is no such cry connected with it, but it is simply said: "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself." In John the episode has quite another, and purely dogmatic, tendency (xix. 28 ff.). It commences immediately after the episode of the mother and the beloved disciple, and without any previous cry: "After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of vinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Of course the Scripture which is represented as being thus fulfilled is Psalm lxix. 21: "... and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." In all of these Gospels, the potion is simply vinegar, and being evidently a.s.sociated with this Psalm, it is in no way connected with any baleful intention. The Psalm, however, commences: "They gave me also gall for my meat," and in connection with the combination of gall with vinegar in Peter, as a potion to hasten death, it may be mentioned that the word which is in the Psalm translated "gall" may equally well be rendered "poison"-as, indeed, is also the case with the Latin "_fel_." Peter, by what is said in _v._ 17-"And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own head"-is more anxious to show that the Jews had put the final touch to their cruel work, in thus completing the death of Jesus, than to refer to the mere fulfilment of the Psalm. The only Gospel which mentions gall is the first Synoptic, in which it is said (xxvii. 34) that when they had brought Jesus to Golgotha before the crucifixion, "They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall; and when he had tasted it, he would not drink."

This is a very different representation from that of Peter, and the potion was obviously that often offered to persons about to suffer, in order to dull sensation. The pa.s.sage might almost be represented as Docetic, from the writer's intention to show that Jesus refused to adopt a usual method of diminishing pain. There does not seem to be any warrant for supposing that the author of the fragment derived the pa.s.sage we are examining from our Gospels, from which it is in all essential points distinct.

The narrative of the fragment continues, _v._ 19: "And the Lord cried aloud, saying, 'Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me!' (? d??a?? ??, ?

d??a??, ?at??e???? e), and having spoken, he was taken up (??e??f??)."

In this pa.s.sage there is a very marked departure from the tradition followed by our four Gospels. Before considering the actual words of the cry recorded here, 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 cross.

It might naturally have been supposed that, in describing the course of so solemn an event as the crucifixion, unusual care, securing unusual agreement, would have been exercised by Christian writers, and that the main facts-and still more the last words-of the great Master would have been collected. As we have already seen, however, in no portion of the history is there greater discrepancy in the accounts in the four Gospels, nor greater contradictions upon every point.

The same is the case with regard to what has still to be examined, and notably in the words and cries from the cross. In the first two Synoptics, with the exception of the inarticulate cry "with a loud voice" (Matt.

xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37) when yielding up his spirit, the only utterance recorded is one resembling that in Peter (Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34): "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? that is, My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?"(95) (???? ???? ?a? saa??a?e?? t??t? ?st??; ?e? ??, ?e?

??, ??a t? e ???at???pe??). It will be observed that here there is a demonstration of great accuracy, in actually giving the original words used and translating them, which is uncommon in the Gospels. It is all the more extraordinary that neither of the other Gospels gives this cry at all, but that they represent Jesus as uttering quite different words. The third Synoptist represents Jesus immediately after the crucifixion as saying (Luke xxiii. 34): "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." The other evangelists do not evince any knowledge of this, and as little of the episode of the penitent thief (xxiii. 39 ff.)-which we have already considered-in which Jesus uses the remarkable words (v. 43): "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." In Luke, further, the inarticulate cry is interpreted (xxiii. 46): "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said this, he gave up the ghost." Of this the other Synoptists do not say anything. The author of the fourth Gospel has quite a different account to give from any of the Synoptists. He seems to be ignorant of the words which they report, and subst.i.tutes others of which they seem to know nothing. The episode of the penitent thief is replaced by the scene between Jesus and his mother and the disciple "whom he loved" (xix. 25 ff.). Not only is this touching episode apparently unknown to the Synoptists, but the proximity of the women to the cross is in direct contradiction to what we find in Matthew and Mark, for in the former (xxvii. 55 f.) it is said that many women, "among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" were "beholding afar off;" and the latter (xv. 40 f.) reports: "And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." In the fourth Gospel (xix. 28), Jesus is moreover reported to have said "I thirst," in order "that the Scripture might be accomplished"-a fact which is not recorded in any of the Synoptics-and having received vinegar upon hyssop, "he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." The last words of Jesus, therefore, according to the fourth Gospel, are different from any found in the three Synoptics. The Gospel of Peter differs as completely from the four canonical Gospels as they do from each other, and the whole account of the agony on the cross given in it is quite independent of them.

The only words recorded by Peter as uttered on the cross are those quoted higher up: "Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me," the second "my" being omitted, and the question of the two Synoptics, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" being changed into a declaration by the omission of ??a t? (or e??

t?, Mark). We have already discussed the Docetic nature of this cry, and are now only considering it in relation to our Gospels. It is obvious that the subst.i.tution of "Power, my Power" for "My G.o.d, my G.o.d" introduces quite a different order of ideas, especially followed as it is by the remarkable statement: "He was taken up." Eusebius tells us that Aquila rendered the words of Psalm xxii. 1-whence the first two Synoptists take their cry-as ?s???? ??, ?s???? ?? ("My strong one, my strong one"), but that the more exact sense was ?s??s ??, ?s??? ?? ("My strength, my strength");(96) but though this is interesting as in some degree connecting the cry with the Psalm, it does not lessen the discrepancy between Peter and the Gospels, or in the least degree favour the theory of acquaintance with them.

The expression used to describe what follows this cry completes the wide separation between them: "And having spoken, he was taken up" (??e??f??).

In the first Synoptic, after his cry (xxvii. 50), "he yielded up the spirit" (?f??e? t? p?e?a), whilst the second and third say (Mark xv. 37, Luke xxiii. 46), "he gave up the ghost" ???p?e?se?, and the fourth Gospel reads (xix. 30), "he delivered up the spirit" (pa??d??e? t? p?e?a). The representation in Peter is understood to be that the divine descended upon the human Christ in the form of the dove at baptism, and immediately ascended to Heaven again at his death. There is not here, however, any declaration of a double Christ, or any denial of the reality of the Christ's body, such as characterised the later Docetae; indeed, the fact that the dead body is still always spoken of as that of "the Lord" seems distinctly to exclude this, as does the whole subsequent narrative.

Whatever Docetism there may be in this fragment is of the earliest type, if indeed its doctrines can be clearly traced at all; but undoubtedly when the sect had become p.r.o.nounced heretics, orthodox Christians detected their subtle influence in much that was in itself very simple and harmless.

The fragment continues (_v._ 20): "And the same hour the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem was torn in twain" (d?e???? t? ?atap?tasa t?? ?a??

t?? ?e???sa?? e?? d??). This expression the "temple of Jerusalem" is one of those which seem to indicate that the Gospel was written away from Palestine, but in this it probably differs little from most of the canonical Gospels. The statement regarding the veil of the temple is almost the same in the first two Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38).

"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (t? ?atap?tasa t?? ?a?? ?s??s?? ?p? ????e? ??? ??t? e?? d??). In Luke (xxiii. 45) the rent is "in the midst" (?s??), but otherwise the words are the same. The use of d?e???? instead of the ?s??s?? of the three Synoptics is characteristic. The fourth Gospel, strange to say, does not record at all this extraordinary phenomenon of the rending in twain of the veil of the temple. There are some further peculiarities which must be pointed out. The third Synoptist sets the rending of the veil before Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost; whilst in Matthew and Mark it is after the cry and giving up the spirit. Moreover, in Matthew, it is a.s.sociated with an earthquake, and the rending of the rocks and opening of tombs, and the astounding circ.u.mstance that many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many: of all of which the other three Gospels make no mention, nor does Peter in this connection.

The narrative in the fragment continues:

21. And then they took out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth; and the whole earth quaked, and great fear came [upon them]. 22. Then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. 23. Now the Jews were glad and gave his body to Joseph, that he might bury it, for he had beheld the good works that he did.(97) 24. And he took the Lord and washed him, and wrapped him in linen, and brought him into his own grave, called "Joseph's Garden."

This pa.s.sage is full of independent peculiarities. Although none of the canonical Gospels, except Matthew, says anything of an earthquake, and the first Synoptist a.s.sociates it with the moment when Jesus "gave up the ghost," Peter narrates that when the body of the Lord was unloosed from the cross, the moment it was laid on the ground the whole earth quaked beneath the awful burden: a representation almost grander than anything in the four Gospels.

The canonical Gospels do not speak of the nails being taken out, and although Peter states that they were removed from the hands, he does not refer to the feet. The fourth is the only canonical Gospel that speaks of the nails at all, and there it is not in connection with the crucifixion, but the subsequent appearance to the disciples and the incredulity of Thomas (xx. 20, 25, 27). Here also, only the marks in the hands are referred to. The difference of the two representations is so great that there can really be no question of dependence, and those who are so eager to claim the use of the fourth Gospel simply because it is the only one that speaks of "nails" ("the print of the nails") might perhaps consider that the idea of crucifixion and the cross might well be independently a.s.sociated with a reference to the nails by which the victim was generally attached. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 39), the inference is inevitable that both hands and feet were supposed to be nailed. When the report, "The Lord is risen," is brought to the eleven, Jesus is represented as standing in their midst and a.s.suring them that he was not a spirit, by saying: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"-meaning of course the prints of the nails in both. The statement in Peter that on the occurrence of the earthquake "great fear came [upon them]" (f??? ??a? ????et?) is not even mentioned in Matthew when he narrates the earthquake, which he represents as occurring when Jesus expired. The expression is characteristic of the author, who uses it elsewhere.

The representation that the sun shone out and that the Jews were glad when they found it was the ninth hour, and that consequently their law, twice quoted by the author, would not be broken, is limited to the fragment; as is also the statement that they gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, "for he had beheld the good works that he did." As we have already seen, the canonical Gospels represent Joseph as going to Pilate at this time and begging for the body of Jesus, and it will be remembered that, in Mark (xv. 44), it is said that "Pilate marvelled if he were already dead,"

and called the centurion to ascertain the fact before he granted the body.

In Peter, the body was of course given in consequence of the previous order, when Pilate asked Herod for it.