Chapter VIII (2)

The fragment continues (_v._ 20): “And the same hour the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem was torn in twain” (διεράγη τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς δύο). 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” (τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο). In Luke (xxiii. 45) the rent is “in the midst” (μέσον), but otherwise the words are the same. The use of διεράγη instead of the ἐσχίσθη 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 associated with an earthquake, and the rending of the rocks and opening of tombs, and the astounding circumstance 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 passage is full of independent peculiarities. Although none of the canonical Gospels, except Matthew, says anything of an earthquake, and the first Synoptist associates 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 associated 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 assuring 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]” (φόβος μέγας ἐγένετο) 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.

Joseph is represented, here, as only washing the body and wrapping it in linen (λαβὼν δὲ τὸν κύριον ἔλουσε καὶ εἴλησε σινδόνι). The first Synoptist (xxvii. 59) says that Joseph took the body and “wrapped it in a clean linen cloth” (ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι καθαρᾷ). Mark similarly describes that (xv. 46), bringing “a linen cloth and taking him down, he wound him in the linen cloth” (καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι). The third Synoptist has nearly the same statement and words. The fourth Gospel has a much more elaborate account to give (xix. 38 ff.). Joseph goes to Pilate asking that he may take away the body, and Pilate gives him leave. He comes and takes away the body. “And there came also Nicodemus ... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound _weight_. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes (καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις) with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.” This account is quite different from that in the Synoptics, and equally so from Peter’s, which approximates much more nearly to that in the latter.

Peter says that Joseph then “brought him into his own grave, called ‘Joseph’s Garden’ ” (εἰσήγαγεν εἰς ἴδιον τάφον καλούμενον Κῆπον Ἰωσήφ). The account of the tomb is much more minute in the canonical Gospels. In Matthew (xxvii. 60), Joseph is said to lay the body “in his own new tomb (μνημείῳ), which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb (μνημείου) and departed.” In Mark (xv. 46), he lays him “in a tomb (μνήματι) which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (μνημείου). Luke has a new detail to chronicle (xxiii. 53): Joseph lays him “in a tomb (μνηματί) that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain.” The first two Synopists, it will be observed, say that Joseph rolls a stone against the entrance to the tomb: but neither Luke nor Peter has this detail, though the former leaves it to be inferred that it had been done, for (xxiv. 2) the women who came on the first day of the week find the stone rolled away from the tomb. In Peter, on the contrary, the stone is rolled against the tomb by the guard and others later, as we shall presently see.

In the fourth Gospel, the account has further and different details, agreeing, however, with the peculiar statement of Luke (xix. 41 f.): “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden (κῆπος), and in the garden a new tomb (μνημεῖον) wherein was never man yet laid. There then, because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb [μνημεῖον] was nigh at hand), they laid Jesus.” Some stress has been laid upon the point that both Peter and the fourth Gospel use the word “garden,” and that none of the Synoptics have it, and as these critics seem to go upon the principle that any statement in Peter which happens to be in any canonical Gospel, even although widely different in treatment, must have been derived from that Gospel, and not from any similar written or traditional source, from which that Gospel derived it, they argue that this shows dependence on the fourth Gospel. There is certainly no evidence of dependence here. In Peter, the grave (τάφος) is simply said to be called “Joseph’s Garden” (Κήπον Ἰωσηφ),(98) and described as “his own grave.” The fourth Gospel does not identify the garden as Joseph’s at all, but says that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden,” and in it “a tomb” (μνημεῖον), and the reason given for taking the body thither is not that it belonged to Joseph, but that the tomb “was nigh at hand,” and that on account of the Jews’ Preparation they laid it there. The whole explanation seems to exclude the idea that the writer knew that it belonged to Joseph. Peter simply contributes a new detail to the common tradition. There is no appearance of his deriving this from our canonical Gospels, from which he differs in substance and in language. Neither Peter nor the Synoptics know anything of the co-operation of Nicodemus.

The narrative in the fragment continues:

25. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, seeing the evil
they had done to themselves, began to beat their breasts (ἤρξαντο
κόπτεσθαι) and to say: “Woe for our sins; judgment draweth nigh
and the end of Jerusalem.”

We have already discussed this passage in connection with the “Diatessaron,” and have now only to consider it as compared with our Gospels. There is no equivalent in any of them, except that the third Synoptist (xxiii. 48) says that when Jesus gave up the ghost: “All the multitude that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts (τύπτοντες τὰ στήθη ὑπέστρεφον).” The reason for this change of mood is, of course, the eclipse and consequent darkness in the third Synoptic, and the earthquake and darkness in Peter; but in the former “all the multitude” smite their breasts, and in the latter “the Jews and the elders and the priests.” It may be suggested whether the words inserted in the ancient Latin Codex of St. Germain, “Vae nobis, quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, appropinquavit enim desolatio Hierusalem,”(99) may not have been taken from our Gospel of Peter, for an expansion of the original text of the third Synoptic, by the author of this version.

The common reference of the fragment is to “the Jews,” “the Jews and the elders and the priests,” “the scribes and Pharisees and elders,” and “the elders and scribes.” Throughout the same part of the narrative in Matthew, we have “the scribes and elders,” “chief priests and elders of the people” (this, most frequently), “chief priests with the scribes and elders,” and in speaking of the guard at the sepulchre, “the chief priests and the Pharisees.” In Mark, the same leaders are named, whilst in Luke we have “the chief priests and captains of the Temple and elders,” “the elders of the people and both the chief priests and scribes,” and, repeatedly, the “chief priests and rulers.” The fourth Gospel usually cites “the chief priests and Pharisees,” “chief captains and officers of the Jews,” “the Jews,” and “the chief priests of the Jews.” There is more analogy, in this respect, between the fragment and the fourth Gospel than between it and the Synoptics.

We come now to an important and characteristic part of the fragment:

26. And I, with my companions, was mourning, and being pierced in
spirit we hid ourselves; for we were sought for by them as
malefactors, and as desiring to burn the temple. 27. Over all
these things, however, we were fasting, and sat mourning and
weeping night and day until the Sabbath.

There is no parallel to this passage in our Gospels, but in the statement that the Apostles had hidden themselves (and—taken in connection with v. 59, where the same fact is again mentioned—this means all the twelve) we have here agreement with the narrative of the first and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 56; Mark xix. 50), that on the arrest of Jesus “all the disciples left him and fled.” This passage seems to exclude the incident of the sword and Malchus which, as Hilgenfeld points out,(100) is also excluded by a passage in Justin; the denial of Peter, which Justin equally passes over unmentioned; and the episode of the “beloved disciple” by the cross. The reason given for hiding themselves, that they were accused of wishing to burn the temple, has some connection with the tradition, that testimony had been given against Jesus that he had said he could destroy this temple and build it in three days (Matt. xxvi. 60; Mark xiv. 58).(101) The passage is one of those in which the writer speaks in the first person and represents himself as an Apostle, which he still more clearly does, _v._ 60, where he distinctly calls himself Simon Peter.

The account that the Apostles were fasting and sat mourning and weeping “night and day until the Sabbath” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἕως τοῦ σαββάτου) opens out an interesting problem. As a rule, the Greek expression would be ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, so if we are to take the words actually used as deliberately intended to represent the time, we should have to count at least one night and one day between the death of Jesus and the Sabbath, or in other words, that the crucifixion took place, not on Friday, but upon Thursday, which, according to the statement in _v._ 5, would really be the 13th Nisan. A great deal might be said in support of this view,(102) but it need not be entered into here. It is probable that, as Harnack suggests,(103) the author really thinks of the whole time from the Thursday night, when the arrest was made.

With the next portion of the fragment the narrative of the resurrection may be said to begin:

28. But the scribes and Pharisees and elders assembled themselves
together (συναχθέντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους), hearing that all the people
murmured and beat their breasts, saying, “If at his death these
great signs have happened, behold how just a one he is.” 29. The
elders were afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν) and came to Pilate (ἦλθον πρὸς
Πειλᾶτον) beseeching him and saying, 30. “Give us soldiers that we
may watch his grave for three days (ἵνα φυλάξωμεν τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ
ἐπὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας), lest his disciples come and steal him, and the
people believe that he rose from the dead and do us evil” (μήποτε
ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κλέψωσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπολάβῃ ὁ λαὸς ὅτι ἐκ
νεκρῶν ἀνέστη, καὶ ποιήσωσιν ἡμῖν κακά). 31. Pilate, therefore,
gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb
(μετὰ στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν τὸν τάφον), and with them came the
elders and scribes to the grave (τὸ μνῆμα). 32. And they rolled a
great stone (κυλίσαντες λίθον μέγαν) against the centurion and the
soldiers, and set it, all who were there together, at the door of
the grave (μνήματος). 33. And they put seven seals (καὶ ἐπέχρισαν
ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας), and setting up a tent there they kept guard
(ἐφύλαξαν). 34. And in the morning, at the dawn of the Sabbath,
came a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood in order
that they might see the sealed-up grave (τὸ μνημεῖον
ἐσφραγισμένον).

There is no parallel to this narrative in any of our canonical Gospels except the first Synoptic, which alone mentions the circumstance that a watch was set over the sepulchre, a fact of which the other Gospels seem quite ignorant, and states that application was made to Pilate for a guard for that purpose. The account in Matthew is as follows (xxvii. 62 f.):

Now on the morrow, which is _the day_ after the Preparation, the
chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together
(συνήχθησαν) unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that
deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise
again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the
third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and
say unto the people, He rose from the dead: and the last error
will be worse than the first (ἀσφαλισθῆναι τὸν τάφον ἕως τῆς
τρίτης ἡμέρας; μήποτε ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ κλέψωσιν αὐτὸν, καὶ
εἴπωσιν τῷ λαῷ, Ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν; καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη
χείρων τῆς πρώτης). Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go
your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the
sepulchre sure (ἠσφαλίσαντο τὸν τάφον), sealing the stone
(σφραγίσαντες τὸν λίθον), the guard being with them (μετὰ τῆς
κουστωδίας).

The fact that only one of the four canonical Gospels has any reference to this episode, or betrays the slightest knowledge of any precautions taken to guard the tomb, is remarkable. The analogies in the narrative in Peter with the general account, and the similarity of the language in certain parts, together with the wide variation in details and language generally, point to the conclusion that both writers derive the episode from a similar source, but independently of each other. The casual agreement with continuous dissimilarity of statement and style, are evidence of the separate treatment of a common tradition, and put the fragment upon a very different footing from the Synoptics in relation to each other. The absence of verisimilitude is pretty nearly equal in both Gospels, but these traditions grew up, and were unconsciously rounded by the contributions of pious imagination.

In the fragment it is “the scribes and Pharisees and elders” (οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι) who meet together, but only the “elders” go to Pilate; in the Synoptic, “the chief Priests and the Pharisees” (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) meet and go to Pilate. Pilate gives them “Petronius the centurion with soldiers” to watch the tomb; in Matthew, he gives them “a guard,” bidding them make it sure; so they go and seal the stone, the guard being with them. In Peter, the “elders and scribes” go to the grave, and themselves with the soldiers, “all who were there together,” roll a great stone and set it at the door of the grave. Doubtless this trait is intended to convey an impression of the great size of the stone. A curious peculiarity occurs in the statement, “they roll the stone against the centurion and the soldiers,” the intention of the words probably being that, in their suspicious mood, they thus protected themselves from possible fraud on the part even of the soldiers.(104) The motive for the application to Pilate, in the fragment, is fear on the part of the elders, in consequence of the murmuring and lamentation of the people, who are represented as being convinced by the great signs occurring at the death of Jesus “how just a one” he was. This is quite a variation from the Synoptic version, but both agree in the explanation given to Pilate of anxiety lest the disciples should steal the body, and say that Jesus had risen from the dead. In Matthew, they simply “seal the stone,” but in the fragment they put or smear (ἐπέχρισαν) “seven seals” upon it. Some important peculiarities then occur in the narrative of Peter. They set up a tent beside the tomb and keep guard, and in the morning a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood come out to see the sealed-up grave. There is nothing corresponding to this in the Synoptic Gospel.

The narrative proceeds:

35. Now, in the night before the dawn of the Lord’s day (ἡ
κυριακή), whilst the soldiers were keeping guard over the place,
two and two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven. 36.
And they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from thence
with great light and approach the tomb. 37. But the stone which
had been laid at the door rolled of itself away by the side, and
the tomb was opened and both the young men entered.

Here commences an account of the resurrection very different in every respect from that in our canonical Gospels, and the treatment of a tradition in some points necessarily common to all is evidently independent. In Matthew, the scene commences with an earthquake—earthquakes are, indeed, peculiar to the first Synoptist—(xxviii. 2 f.): “And behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the watchers did quake and become as dead men.” Here only one angel comes down, whilst in Peter there are two men, whom some critics—amongst whom may be mentioned Nestle, with whom Harnack is inclined to agree, more especially as they are never called angels, but merely “two men”—identify as Moses and Elias. The angel rolls away the stone, which in Peter rolls away of itself, and sits upon it, whilst in Peter the two men enter into the tomb. No account is given in Mark of the opening of the tomb, the women simply finding the stone rolled away, and a young man (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side arrayed in a white robe (xvi. 4 f.); the author does not mention any earthquake. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 2 f.), the women also find the stone already rolled away from the tomb; there is no earthquake. When the women enter the tomb they do not find “the body of the Lord Jesus,” but while they are perplexed two men stand by them in dazzling apparel. In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12 f.), Mary, coming to the sepulchre, sees two angels in white sitting—the one at the head, the other at the foot—where the body of Jesus had lain. Thus, to sum up, in Matthew there is one angel, in Mark one young man, in Luke two men, in the fourth Gospel two angels, and in Peter two men descend from heaven to the tomb.

Peter goes on:

38. Then these soldiers, seeing this, awakened the centurion and
the elders, for they also were keeping watch. 39. And whilst they
were narrating to them what they had seen, they beheld again three
men coming out of the tomb and the two were supporting the one,
and a cross following them. 40. And the heads of the two indeed
reached up to the heaven, but that of him that was led by their
hands rose above the heavens. 41. And they heard a voice from the
heavens saying, “Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?”
42. And an answer was heard from the cross: “Yea.”

Of course there is nothing corresponding to this in the canonical Gospels. In Matthew, the watchers quake and become as dead men, but no such alarm is here described. The elders and soldiers see the two men who had entered the tomb come out leading a third, and the stately appearance of the three is described with Oriental extravagance.(105) Following the three is a cross, a very singular representation, more especially as the cross presently speaks. Harnack says that Duhms, who supposes a Hebraic original, conjectures that the Hebrew word, which could as well stand for “crucified” as “cross,” was misunderstood by the translator, and he adds that, if the original was Aramaic, the matter becomes still simpler. However, Harnack does not seem disposed to adopt the suggestion.(106) It is well known that in very early works the cross was identified with the crucified, and treated both as a type and as having a certain personality—the living and eloquent symbol of victory over death.(107)

The words of the voice from the heavens are: “ ‘Hast thou preached to them that are sleeping?’ and an answer was heard from the cross: ‘Yea’ ” (Ἐκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις? καὶ ὑπακοὴ ἠκούετο ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ὅτι Ναί). This is generally understood as a reference to the “descent into hell,” which was early accepted as a dogma by the Church and has a place in the Creed, although its only clear mention in the New Testament occurs in 1 Peter iii. 18 f.: “Because Christ ... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also he went and preached (ἐκήρυξεν) unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient;” and (iv. 6): “For unto this end was the Gospel spoken unto the dead.” It is a curious fact that the “Gospel according to Peter,” the fragment of which is first discovered in a little volume along with a fragment of the “Apocalypse of Peter,” should thus contain a reference to a doctrine, the only allusion to which in any of the canonical writings is contained in a so-called “Epistle of Peter.” Hilgenfeld wishes to read κοινωμένοις instead of κοιμωμένοις, and disputes the rendering of ὑπακοή as “answer,” although he admits that there is some support to this as a liturgical response.(108) He would render this passage: “Du verkündigtest den Profanirten und einem Gehorsam.(109) Von dem Kreuze her erschallt: Ja.” 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 upright, but must be led; that, however much the inanimate body of Jesus may still be called “the Lord,” his “Self” is already in death ascended to heaven; the selfless (_selbstlose_) body cannot possibly in the meantime have gone into Hades.(110) In this conclusion, however, he is at variance with almost all critics, who generally take the view rendered above.(111)

The passage which we have quoted from Matthew (xxvii. 52 f.) must be recalled, 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 Jesus: an earthquake which rent the rocks and opened the tombs, “and many bodies of the saints that were sleeping (κεκοιμημένων) were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.” This resurrection of the saints “that were sleeping” is associated by Eusebius with the descent into hell,(112) and it is not improbable that the first Synoptist had it in his mind. It is not necessary to point out many early references to the descent into hell,(113) but an interesting passage may be quoted from Justin. He accuses the Jews of omitting from the prophecy of Jeremiah in their copies of the Septuagint the following verse: “The Lord God, the Holy one of Israel, remembered his dead who lay sleeping (κεκοιμημένων) in the earth, and descended to them to bring to them the good news of his salvation.”(114) It is not known that the passage ever really existed in Jeremiah but, notwithstanding, Irenaeus quotes it no less than five times.(115)

The writer does not explain the representation of the three who came out of the tomb, two of whom were “supporting,” or, as is subsequently said, leading him, or conducting him, but this figure, more stately than the others, of course, is intended to be recognised as Jesus. Too much has been said as to the weakness supposed to be here described, and Zahn, who as much as possible ridicules the whole contents of the fragment, says that “the raised Lazarus, in comparison with him, is a hero in strength and life.” But is the intention here to depict weakness? No word is used which really demands that interpretation. As Dr. Swete rightly points out, “the support appears to be regarded as nominal only, since He is also said to be ‘conducted’ (χειραγωγουμένον)” (p. 18). It is true that χειραγωγεῖν is twice used in Acts (ix. 8, xxii. 11) to express Paul’s helplessness when led by the hand after his vision on the way to Damascus, but it does not in itself imply weakness, and no other hint of feebleness is given in the fragment. The “touch me not” of the fourth Gospel, when Mary Magdalene stretches out her hand to Jesus, is quite as much a mark of weakness as this. It may not unfairly, on the other hand, be interpreted as a mark of honour, and nothing in Peter forbids this reading. If weakness were indicated, it might be taken as a Docetic representation of the condition of the human body, deprived of the divine Christ, who had ascended from the cross.

The continuation of the narrative in Peter is as different from that of our canonical Gospels as its commencement:

43. These, therefore, took counsel together whether they should go
and declare these things to Pilate. 44. And whilst they were still
considering, the heavens again appeared opened, and a certain man
descending and going into the grave. 45. Seeing these things, the
centurion and his men hastened to Pilate by night, leaving the
tomb they were watching, and narrated all things they had seen,
fearing greatly, and saying: “Truly he was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς
υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ). 46. Pilate answered and said, “I am pure of the
blood of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you” (ἐγὼ
καθαρεύω τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμῖν δὲ τοῦτο ἔδοξεν). 47.
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 seen, 48. “For it is better,” they said, “to lay
upon us the greatest sins before God, and not to fall into the
hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned.” 49. Pilate,
therefore, commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say
nothing.

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 sepulchre, so of course it is the only one which gives the sequel to that episode; but this differs in every respect from the account in Peter. It is as follows (xxviii. 11 f.):

Some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief
priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were
assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large
money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by
night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the
governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So
they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying
was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.

When the centurion and soldiers in Peter go to Pilate after witnessing the events described as occurring at the resurrection, “fearing greatly” (ἀγωνιῶντες μεγάλως), they say, “Truly he was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ). It will be remembered that, in the first Synoptic, when the centurion and they that were watching Jesus saw the earthquake and the things that were done when he expired, they “feared exceedingly” (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα), and said, “Truly this was a Son of God” (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος). The tradition of the astonished centurion bearing such testimony to Jesus is known to both writers, but under different circumstances, and independently treated. In similar fashion, the reply put into the mouth of Pilate in Peter, “I am pure of the blood (ἐγὼ καθαρεύω τοῦ αἵματος) of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you,” is, to a certain extent, the same as Pilate’s declaration to the multitude after washing his hands (xxvii. 24 f.): “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man (ἀθῶός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ δικαίου τούτου): see ye to it;” but in this case, as well as the other, the details and the language show an independent use of a similar source. In the Synoptic, the centurion and soldiers do not go to Pilate at all, but are bribed by the chief priests and elders to say that his disciples stole him by night when they slept. They are warned by Pilate to be altogether silent, in Peter. As the desire of the author is represented to be to remove responsibility from Pilate and throw it all upon the Jews, it is difficult to conceive that, if he had this account before him, he could deliberately have left it unused, and preferred his own account.

We now come to the visit of the women to the sepulchre:

50. In the morning of the Lord’s day, Mary Magdalene, a disciple
of the Lord (through fear of the Jews, for they burnt with anger,
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 them), 51.
took her women friends with her and came to the grave where he was
laid. 52. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and said:
“If we could not on that day on which he was crucified weep and
lament, let us do these things even now at his grave. 53. But who
will roll away the stone that is laid at the door of his grave
(τίς δὲ ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν λίθον τὸν τεθέντα ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας
τοῦ μνημείου) in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him
and do the things that are due? 54. For great was the stone (μέγας
γὰρ ἦν ὁ λίθος), and we fear lest some one should see us. And if
we should not be able to do it, let us at least lay down before
the door that which we bring in his memory, and let us weep and
lament till we come to our home.” 55. And they went and found the
tomb opened and, coming near, they stooped down and see there a
certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and
clad in a shining garment (καὶ προσελθοῦσαι παρέκυψαν ἐκεῖ, καὶ
ὁρῶσιν ἐκεῖ τινα νεανίσκον καθεζόμενον μέσῳ τοῦ τάφου, ὡραῖον καὶ
περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λαμπροτάτην), who said to them: 56. “Why are
ye come? Whom seek ye? Him who was crucified? He is risen and gone
away. But if ye do not believe, stoop down and see the place where
he lay, that he is not there; for he is risen and gone away whence
he was sent” (τί ἤλθατε? τίνα ζητεῖτε? μὴ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐκεῖνον?
ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν; εἰ δὲ μὴ πιστεύετε, παρακύψατε καὶ ἴδατε τὸν
τόπον ἔνθα ἔκειτο, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν; ἀνέστη γὰρ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖ
ὅθεναρυ ἀπεστάλη). Then the women, frightened, fled.

We need not remark that in all essential points the account given here is different from that in our Gospels.

In each of the three Synoptics, it is said that the women saw where Jesus was laid, and the first two name Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus (Mark “the other Mary”), Matt. xxvii. 61, Mark xv. 47, Luke xxiii. 55. All four canonical Gospels relate their coming to the sepulchre: Matthew (xxviii. 1), “late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;” Mark (xvi. 1), “when the Sabbath was past;” Luke (xxiv. 1), “on the first day of the week at early dawn;” but only the second and third state that they bring spices to anoint Jesus; in Matthew the purpose stated being merely “to see the sepulchre.” In the fourth Gospel, only Mary Magdalene comes, and no reason is assigned. In Peter, Mary Magdalene only is named, but she takes her women friends, and though spices are not directly named, they are distinctly implied, and the object of the visit to the tomb, admirably described as “that which women are accustomed to do for those who die and are loved by them,” which they had not been able to do on the day of the crucifixion, through fear of the Jews. Even now the same fear is upon them; but nothing is said of it in the four Gospels.

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 sepulchre. “But who will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave?” (τίς δὲ ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν λίθον τὸν τεθέντα, ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου?). In Matthew, an angel had rolled away the stone, but in Mark the women are represented as asking the same question among themselves (xvi. 3), “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the grave?” (τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου?) practically in the same words. 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 Synoptics: Matt. xxviii. 2, the angel “rolled away the stone” (ἀπεκύλισε τὸν λίθον); and Luke xxiv. 2, they found “the stone rolled away from the grave” (τὸν λίθον ἀποκεκυλισμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου). The privilege of using a similar source of tradition must also be accorded to the author of the fragment.

The women in Peter, after a few more words explanatory of their purpose in going to the sepulchre, use an expression to which so much importance has been attached by Zahn that, to render it intelligible, it must be connected with the context just discussed. “But who will roll away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave, in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him, and do the things that are due? For great was the stone (μέγας γὰρ ἦν ὁ λίθος), and we fear lest some one should see us.” Now in the second Synoptic (xvi. 4) we read that the women, looking up, “see that the stone (λίθος) is rolled back; for it was exceeding great” (ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα). Zahn says: “Just as certainly can the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Mark be proved. A proof scarcely to be refuted lies even in the one little word ἦν, which is mechanically taken from Mark xvi. 3.”(116) To one so willing to be convinced, what might not be proved by many little words in the canonical Gospels? It must be remembered that none of our Synoptics sprang full-fledged from the original tradition, but, as is recognised by every critic competent to form an opinion, is based on previous works and records of tradition, which gradually grew into this more complete form. Any one who wishes to realise this should examine Rushbrooke’s “Synopticon,” which, at a glance, will show the matter and the language common to our first three Gospels, and leave little doubt as to the common origin of these works. 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 arrived. We shall arrange it in parallel columns for facility of comparison.

MATTHEW xxvii. MARK xv. LUKE xxiii. 55. And many women 40. And there were 49. And all his were there beholding also women beholding acquaintance, and from afar, which had from afar: among the women that followed Jesus from whom were both Mary followed him from Galilee, ministering Magdalene and Mary Galilee, stood afar unto him: 56. among the mother of James off, seeing these whom was Mary the less and of things, xxiv. 10. Magdalene, and Mary Joses, and Salome; Now they were Mary the mother of James 41. who, when he was Magdalene and and Joses, and the in Galilee, followed Joanna, and Mary mother of the sons him, and ministered [the mother] of of Zebedee. unto him.... James, and other women with them, xxiii. 50. 57. And when even 42. And when even 50. And behold a man was come, there came was now come, ... named Joseph, who a rich man from 43. there came was a councillor, a Arimathaea, who also Joseph of good man and a himself was Jesus’ Arimathaea, a righteous, 51. ... disciple: 58. this councillor of of Arimathaea, a man went to Pilate, honourable estate, city of the Jews, and asked for the who also himself was who was looking for body of Jesus. looking for the the kingdom of God: kingdom of God: and 52. this man went to he boldly went in Pilate, and asked unto Pilate and for the body of asked for the body Jesus. of Jesus. 55. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ 40. Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ 49. Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ γυναῖκες πολλαὶ ἀπὸ γυναῖκες ἀπὸ πάντες οἱ γνωστοὶ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, αἵτινες ἠκολούθησαν ἐν αἷς καὶ Μαρία ἡ καὶ γυναῖκες αἱ τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία συνακολουθοῦσαι αὐτῷ Γαλιλαίας ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, διακονοῦσαι αὐτῷ, καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ ὁρῶσαι ταῦτα. (xxiv. (56) ἐν αἷς ἦν Μαρία καὶ Σαλώμη, (41) αἳ 10) ἦσαν δὲ ἡ ἡ Μαγδαληνή, καὶ ὅτε ἦν ἐν τῇ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου Γαλιλαίᾳ ἠκολούθουν Ἰωάννα καὶ Μαρία ἡ καὶ Ἰωσὴ μήτηρ, καὶ ἀυτῷ καὶ διηκόνουν Ἰακώβου καὶ αἱ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῷ, ... λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς Ζεβεδαίου. ... 57. Ὀψίας δὲ 42. καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας 50. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ γενομένης ἦλθεν γενομένης, ... (43) ὀνόματι Ἰωσὴφ ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων, ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, Ἀριμαθαίας, εὐσχήμων ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τούνομα Ἰωσήφ, ὅς βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ δίκαιος, 51. ... ἀπὸ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη αὐτὸς ἦν Ἀριμαθαίας πόλεως τῷ Ἰησοῦ; 58. οὗτος προσδεχόμενος τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ὃς προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, προσεδέχετο τὴν ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Ἰησοῦ. πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον 52. οὗτος προσελθὼν καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Ἰησοῦ.

Or take, for instance, a few verses giving the arrest of Jesus as narrated by the three Synoptists:

MATTHEW xxvi. MARK xiv. LUKE xxii. 47. And while he yet 43. And straightway, 47. While he yet spake, lo, Judas, while he yet spake, spake, lo, a one of the twelve, cometh Judas, one of multitude, and he came, and with him a the twelve, and with that was called great multitude with him a multitude with Judas, one of the swords and staves, swords and staves, twelve, went before from the chief from the chief them; priests and elders priests and the of the people. scribes and the elders. 48. Now he that 44. Now he that and he drew near betrayed him gave betrayed him had unto Jesus to kiss them a sign, saying, given them a token, him. Whomsoever I shall saying, Whomsoever I kiss, that is he: shall kiss, that is take him. he; take him, 49. And straightway 45. And when he was he came to Jesus, come, straightway he and said, Hail, came to him and Rabbi; and kissed saith, Rabbi; and him. kissed him. 50. And Jesus said 48. But Jesus said unto him, Friend, do unto him, Judas, that for which thou betrayest thou the art come. Son of man with a kiss? Then they came and 46. And they laid (54. And they seized laid hands on Jesus hands on him and him and led him and took him. took him. away.) 51. And lo, one of 47. But a certain 50. 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 hand, and drew sword, and smote the high priest, and his sword, and smote servant of the high struck off right the servant of the priest, and struck ear. high priest, and off his ear. struck off his ear. 47. Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ 43. Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι 47. ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν παραγίνεται Ἰούδας ὄχλος, καὶ ὁ δώδεκα ἦλθεν, καὶ εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, καὶ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος τῶν δώδεκα προήρχετο πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ αὐτούς, καὶ καὶ ξύλων ἀπό τῶν ξὺλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ γραμματέων καὶ λαοῦ. πρεσβυτέρων. 48. ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς 44. δεδώκει δὲ ὁ ἤγγισεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν φιλῆσαι αὐτόν. σημεῖον λέγων: ὃν ἂν σύσσημον αὐτοῖς φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν: λέγων: ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, κρατήσατε αὐτόν. αὐτός ἐστιν: κρατήσατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς. 49. Καὶ εὐθέως 45. Καἰ ἐλθὼν εὐθὺς προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ προσελθὼν αὐτῷ εἶπεν: χαῖρε ῥαββεί, λέγει: ῥαββεί, καὶ καὶ κατεφίλησεν κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. αὐτόν. 50. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς 46. οἱ δὲ ἐπέβαλαν 48. Ἰησοῦς δὲ εἶπεν εἶπεν αὐτῷ: ἑταῖρε, τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ καὶ αὐτῷ: Ἰούδα, ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, τότε ἐκράτησαν αὐτὸν. φιλήματι τὸν υἱὸν προσελθόντες τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπέβαλον τας χεῖρας παραδίδως? (54. ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ συλλαβόντες δὲ αὐτὸν ἐκράτησαν αὐτόν. ἤγαγον.) 51. Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν 47. εἷς δὲ τις τῶν 50. καὶ ἐπάταξεν εἷς μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας παρεστηκότων τις ἐξ αὐτῶν τοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν σπασάμενος τὴν ἀρχιερέως τὸν δοῦλον τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ, μάχαιραν ἔπαισεν τὸν καὶ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ οὖς καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως αὐτοῦ τὸ δεξιόν. δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον. ὠτίον.

Such close similarity as this, with occasional astonishing omissions of matter and flagrant contradictions where independent narrative is attempted, runs through the whole of the three Synoptics. This is not the place to enter upon any discussion of these phenomena, or any explanation of the origin of our Gospels, but apologists may be invited to consider the fact before passing judgment on the Gospel of Peter. 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 Gospel; and even the use of a word which has a parallel in them is sufficient reason for denouncing the author as a plagiarist. It would almost seem as if such critics had never read the prologue to the third Synoptic, and forgotten the πολλοί to which its author refers, when they limit the Christian tradition to these Gospels, which again, upon examination, must themselves be limited to two—the Synoptic and the Johannine, which in so great a degree contradict each other.

To return now to the passage which we have to examine. It will be observed that the second Synoptic treats the episode of the women in a manner different from the other two, but in the same style, though with very differing details, as Peter. We shall show reason for believing that both have drawn from the same source, but that the fragment has probably adhered more closely to the original source. In Mark (xvi. 3 f.) the women are, as in Peter, represented as speaking: “And they were saying among themselves, ‘Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?’ ” Here the _spoken_ words stop, and the writer continues to narrate: “And looking up, they see that the stone _is_ rolled back (ἀνακεκύλισται): for it _was_ (ἦν) exceeding great.” It is obvious that the “was” here is quite out of place, and it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that, originally, it must have stood with a different context. That different context we have in Peter. The women say amongst themselves: “Who will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave, in order that we may enter”—and, of course, in saying this they are supposed to have in their minds the stone which they had seen the evening before and, naturally, express their recollection of it in the past tense—“for it was exceeding great.” If the phrase has been mechanically introduced, it has been so by the second Synoptist, in whose text it is more out of place than in Peter. A prescriptive right to early traditions of this kind cannot reasonably be claimed for any writer, simply because his compilation has happened to secure a place in the Canon.

When the women come to the tomb, they stoop down (παρέκυψαν) and see there (ὁρῶσιν ἐκεῖ) a certain young man (τινα νεανίσκον) sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment (ὡραῖον καὶ περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λαμπροτάτην). This is the “certain man” who descended when the heavens were again opened, as described in _v._ 44. The realistic touch of the women stooping to look into the low entrance of the tomb is repeated when the “young man” bids them “stoop down” (παρακύψατε) and convince themselves that Jesus had risen. This does not occur in any of the Synoptics; but in the fourth Gospel (xx. 5), Peter, it is said, “stooping down” (παρακύψας) sees (βλέπει) the clothes. In Matthew, the angel sits upon the stone which he has rolled away, and not in the sepulchre, and his description is (xxviii. 3): “His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (ἦν δὲ ἡ εἰδέα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀστραπὴ, καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡς χιών). In Mark (xvi. 8), they see a “young man” (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side, and not in the middle, and he is “clad in a white robe” (περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν). In Luke (xxiv. 4), two men (ἄνδρες δύο) stand by the women “in dazzling apparel” (ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ). In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12), Mary sees two angels sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body had lain, but they are simply said to be “in white” (ἐν λευκοῖς).

The “young man” says to the women in Peter: “Why are ye come? (τί ἤλθατε?) Whom seek ye? (τίνα ζητεῖτε?) Him who was crucified? (μὴ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐκεῖνον?) He is risen and gone away (ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν). But if ye do not believe, stoop down, and see the place where he lay (παρακύψατε καὶ ἴδατε τὸν τόπον ἔνθα ἔκείτο), that he is not there, for he is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent (ἀνέστη γὰρ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖ ὅθεν ἀπεστάλη).” In Matthew (xxviii. 5 f.) the angel “answered and said unto the women” (who had not spoken to him, apparently) “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus which hath been crucified (οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ζητεῖτε). He is not here, for he rose (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἠγέρθη γάρ), even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay (δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο). And go quickly, and tell his disciples he rose from the dead (ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν); and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” In Mark (xvi. 6 f.), this “young man” in the tomb says: “Be not amazed; ye seek Jesus the Nazarene which hath been crucified (Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον). He rose (ἠγέρθη); he is not here; behold, the place where they laid him! (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε; ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν). But go tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” The close resemblance of these two accounts in the first and second Gospels is striking, and scarcely less so is the resemblance, with important variations, of the third Synoptic (xxiv. 5 ff.). The “two men in dazzling apparel” say to the women, who stand with their faces bowed down towards the earth: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but he rose (οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη).(117) Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” The complete change in the reference to Galilee here will be observed.