The Gospel According To Peter Part 4

Joseph is represented, here, as only was.h.i.+ng the body and wrapping it in linen (?a?? d? t?? ?????? ????se ?a? e???se s??d???). The first Synoptist (xxvii. 59) says that Joseph took the body and "wrapped it in a clean linen cloth" (??et????e? a?t? [??] s??d??? ?a?a??). Mark similarly describes that (xv. 46), bringing "a linen cloth and taking him down, he wound him in the linen cloth" (?a?e??? a?t?? ??e???se? t? s??d???). 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 (?a? ?d?sa? a?t?

????????) 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' " (e?s??a?e? e?? ?d??? t?f?? ?a???e??? ??p?? ??s?f).

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 (??e??), which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb (??e???) and departed." In Mark (xv. 46), he lays him "in a tomb (??at?) which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb" (??e???). Luke has a new detail to chronicle (xxiii. 53): Joseph lays him "in a tomb (??at?) 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 (??p??), and in the garden a new tomb (??e???) wherein was never man yet laid. There then, because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb [??e???] 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 (t?f??) is simply said to be called "Joseph's Garden"

(??p?? ??s?f),(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"

(??e???), 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 b.r.e.a.s.t.s (???a?t?

??ptes?a?) and to say: "Woe for our sins; judgment draweth nigh and the end of Jerusalem."

We have already discussed this pa.s.sage 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 mult.i.tude that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their b.r.e.a.s.t.s (t?pt??te? t? st???

?p?st?ef??)." 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 mult.i.tude" smite their b.r.e.a.s.t.s, 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 n.o.bis, 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 a.n.a.logy, 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage seems to exclude the incident of the sword and Malchus which, as Hilgenfeld points out,(100) is also excluded by a pa.s.sage in Justin; the denial of Peter, which Justin equally pa.s.ses over unmentioned; and the episode of the "beloved disciple" by the cross. The reason given for hiding themselves, that they were accused of wis.h.i.+ng 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 pa.s.sage 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" (???t?? ?a? ???a? ??? t?? sa?t??) opens out an interesting problem. As a rule, the Greek expression would be ???a? ?a? ???t??, 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 a.s.sembled themselves together (s??a????te? p??? ????????), hearing that all the people murmured and beat their b.r.e.a.s.t.s, saying, "If at his death these great signs have happened, behold how just a one he is." 29. The elders were afraid (?f????sa?) and came to Pilate (????? p???

?e???t??) beseeching him and saying, 30. "Give us soldiers that we may watch his grave for three days (??a f?????e? t? ??a a?t??

?p? t?e?? ???a?), lest his disciples come and steal him, and the people believe that he rose from the dead and do us evil" (?p?te ?????te? ?? a??ta? a?t?? ?????s?? a?t?? ?a? ?p???? ? ?a?? ?t? ??

?e???? ???st?, ?a? p???s?s?? ??? ?a??). 31. Pilate, therefore, gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb (et? st?at??t?? f???sse?? t?? t?f??), and with them came the elders and scribes to the grave (t? ??a). 32. And they rolled a great stone (????sa?te? ????? ??a?) against the centurion and the soldiers, and set it, all who were there together, at the door of the grave (??at??). 33. And they put seven seals (?a? ?p????sa?

?pt? sf?a??da?), and setting up a tent there they kept guard (?f??a?a?). 34. And in the morning, at the dawn of the Sabbath, came a mult.i.tude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood in order that they might see the sealed-up grave (t? ??e???

?sf?a??s????).

There is no parallel to this narrative in any of our canonical Gospels except the first Synoptic, which alone mentions the circ.u.mstance 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 (s??????sa?) 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 (?sfa??s???a? t?? t?f?? ??? t??

t??t?? ???a?; ?p?te ?????te? ?? a??ta? ?????s?? a?t??, ?a?

e?p?s?? t? ?a?, ?????? ?p? t?? ?e????; ?a? ?sta? ? ?s??t? p????

?e???? t?? p??t??). 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 (?sfa??sa?t? t?? t?f??), sealing the stone (sf?a??sa?te? t?? ?????), the guard being with them (et? t??

???st?d?a?).

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 a.n.a.logies 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" (??

??aate?? ?a? Fa??sa??? ?a? p?es?te???) who meet together, but only the "elders" go to Pilate; in the Synoptic, "the chief Priests and the Pharisees" (?? ????e?e?? ?a? ?? Fa??sa???) 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 (?p????sa?) "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 mult.i.tude 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 (?

????a??), 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 (?ea??s???) 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' "

(??????a? t??? ?????????? ?a? ?pa??? ????et? ?p? t?? sta???? ?t? ?a?).

This is generally understood as a reference to the "descent into h.e.l.l,"

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 (??????e?) 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 ??????????

instead of ?????????, and disputes the rendering of ?pa??? as "answer,"

although he admits that there is some support to this as a liturgical response.(108) He would render this pa.s.sage: "Du verkundigtest 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 h.e.l.l 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 pa.s.sage 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 astonis.h.i.+ng 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 (?e????????) 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 a.s.sociated by Eusebius with the descent into h.e.l.l,(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 h.e.l.l,(113) but an interesting pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d, the Holy one of Israel, remembered his dead who lay sleeping (?e????????) in the earth, and descended to them to bring to them the good news of his salvation."(114) It is not known that the pa.s.sage 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' (?e??a?????????)" (p. 18). It is true that ?e??a???e??

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.