Part 10

Is it not also pressing the writer’s thoughts a little too far to suggest such trains of childish interpretation as the origin of all his characteristic representations? Mr. Harris, by way of bringing the charge nearer to Peter, says that the passage of Habakkuk “is quoted by Barnabas, though no doubt from a corrupted text, with a positive assertion that the Cross is here intimated by the prophet.”(133) This is not so. The passage in Barnabas (xii.) reads: “He defineth concerning the Cross in another prophet, who saith: ‘And when shall these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. Whensoever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree.’ Again thou art taught concerning the cross and him that was to be crucified.” This is not a quotation from Habakkuk, but from 4 Esdras v. 5. This is, however, not of much importance. It is of greater moment to observe that Mr. Harris, in applying this test, is only able to “suspect” that, in this episode in Peter, the speaker who asks the question is Christ the “stone,” and the answer from the cross, the “wood;” but as the first “speaker” is a voice “out of the heavens,” it is difficult to connect it with “Christ the Stone,” to whom the question is actually addressed. According to this, he puts the question to himself. Such exegesis, applied to almost any conceivable statement, might prove almost any conceivable hypothesis.

The next instance requires us to turn to a passage in Amos (viii. 9-10, LXX): “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the sun shall set at midday, ... and I will turn your feasts into wailing and all your songs to lamentation, and I will lay sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head; and I will set him as the wailing for the beloved, and those that are with him as a day of grief.” With it, we are told, must be taken the parallel verse in which Zechariah (xiv. 6, 7) predicts a day in which “there shall be no light, but cold and frost ... but towards evening there shall be light.” This was one of the proofs with early Christians of the events which happened at the crucifixion, and St. Cyprian, for instance, quotes it. It is also quoted in the sixth Homily of the Persian Father Aphrahat against the Jews. “The Gospel of Peter did not apparently possess the gnosis in such a highly evolved form as this,” but works on the same lines. Mr. Harris then quotes passages from the fragment, which we shall give after him, with his inserted comments, but as he does not mark the intervals which occur between them, we shall take the liberty of inserting the verses from which they are taken between brackets.

15. It was mid-day and darkness over all the land of Judaea.... 22. then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour [_at evening time it shall be light_]; 23. and the Jews rejoiced.... 25. and the Jews began to wail [_I will turn your feasts into mourning_].... 26. We also were fasting and sitting down (_i.e._ sitting on the ground in sackcloth(134)); [_I will lay sackcloth on all loins_]. 50. Mary Magdalene had not done at the tomb as women are wont to do over their dead beloveds, so she took her friends with her to wail [_I will set him as the Wailing for the Beloved_].

The writer is, therefore, drawing on the details of prophecy, as suggested by the current testimonies against the Jews, and most likely on a written gnosis involving these testimonies. That he veils his sources simply shows that he is not one of the first brood of anti-Jewish preachers. If he had been early, he would not have been artificial or occult.(135)

Now, as before, Mr. Harris uses the eccentricities of a gnosis which he does not prove to have existed at the time the fragment may have been written and, for instance, he quotes St. Cyprian, who wrote in the second half of the third century, and the Persian Father Aphrahat, also a writer long after the Gospel of Peter was composed, and his remark that the writer “did not apparently possess the gnosis in so highly evolved a form” as Aphrahat, is not so much an admission in his favour as to prepare the reader to be content with inferior evidence. The test, however, quite as much applies to our Gospels as to the Gospel of Peter. In the previous working, of which the fragment says nothing, those who pass “wag their heads” and rail, in each of the Synoptics, in a jubilant way. The first Synoptic says (xxvii. 45 f.) “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.” The centurion and those who were watching “feared exceedingly.” In Mark (xv. 33) there also “was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour,” but in Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) the resemblance is still more marked. The darkness comes over the whole earth from the sixth until the ninth hour, “the sun’s light failing.” (48) “And all the multitudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, _returned smiting their breasts_.” In the fourth Gospel (xx. 11), Mary goes to the tomb weeping. We shall have more to say regarding the Gospels presently, but here we need only remark that, whether in exactly the same way or not, the “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” has certainly done its work in all of them. In this respect, the Gospel of Peter merely takes its place with the rest.

There is only one other instance to be noticed here. It refers to some of the details which the writer of the fragment introduces into the mockery which precedes the crucifixion. Some of the mockers “prick” Jesus with a reed; others spat on his eyes. This, Mr. Harris says, is connected with a view early taken regarding a change of Jewish feasts. In the Epistle of Barnabas, there is the best exposition of the doctrine that the Feast should be turned into mourning and the Passover at which Jesus suffered should be treated as if it had been the Day of Atonement. In Barnabas, the ritual of the great day is discussed in detail, and the rules of procedure for the Priests and the People, apparently taken, Mr. Harris thinks, from a Greek handbook, prove a variety of local usage such as would not have been suspected from the Scripture, read apart from the rest of the literature of the time. The “unwashed inwards” of one goat, offered at the fast for all sins, are to be eaten by the priests alone, with vinegar, while the people fast and wail in sackcloth and ashes. This goat is one of two over which lot is cast on the Day of Atonement; the other is the scape-goat, Azazel, which, according to Barnabas, was to be treated with contumely, and sent away into the wilderness: “All of you spit on him, and prick him, and put the scarlet wool on his head,” &c. Now the two goats both represent Christ, according to Barnabas, “who twists these written regulations into prophecies of the first and second Advents, and of the details of the Passion.”

The mention of vinegar to be eaten with the bitter portion of the goat, suggested the words of the Psalm: “Gall for my meat and vinegar for my drink;” the command to spit on the goat and prick (or pierce) him [which ill-usage, by the way, the Talmud admits to have been the practice of the Alexandrian Jews], is interpreted by Barnabas to be a type or a prophecy of Christ “set at naught and pierced and spat on.” Is there any trace of the gnosis of the two goats in Peter? If we may judge from the conjunction of the words in the account of the Mockery, there is a decided trace: “Others stood and spat on his eyes ... others pricked him with a reed;” it is Christ as the goat Azazel.

Mr. Harris quotes “an almost contemporary Sibyllist,” “They shall prick his side with a reed, _according to their law_;” and he continues: “If the Sybillist is quoting Peter, he is also interpreting him, and his interpretation is, they shall prick him, as is done to the goat Azazel.”

To make Peter responsible for the ideas or interpretations of the Sybillist is a little hard. However, let us examine this matter. It is to be observed that the only innovation in Peter, regarding the spitting, is the expression that they “spat upon _his eyes_” instead of simply “upon him,” or “in his face,” as in the Gospels; but upon this nothing turns. The point is not even mentioned; so it may be dismissed. Regarding the reed, Peter says they “pierced” him with it, instead of “smote him” with it. Let us leave the “piercing” aside for the moment. In all other respects, the contumely is the same in the Gospels. Before the high priest, in Matthew and Mark (Matt. xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65), they spit in his face and buffet him, and smite him with the palms of their hands; and in Luke (xxii. 63 f.) they mock and beat him and revile him. It is curious that, according to the second Synoptist, all this was foretold, for he makes Jesus say (x. 33 f.): “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes: and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again.” After the trial before Pilate, in Mark (xv. 17 ff.), they put on him a purple robe, and the crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his hand, and spit upon him, and take the reed and smite him on the head. In Peter, likewise, they clothe him in purple, put on his head the crown of thorns, spit upon his eyes, smite him on the cheeks, and pierce him with a reed.

What difference is there here except the mere piercing? Yes! there is a difference, for Mr. Harris has forgotten to refer to the scarlet wool put on the goat Azazel. There is nothing in Peter which corresponds with the scarlet wool. The robe that is put upon Jesus is purple. Now Barnabas, in the chapter from which Mr. Harris quotes all these passages, finds this point of the “scarlet wool” fulfilled in Jesus: “For they shall see him in that day wearing the long scarlet robe about his flesh.”(136) But if we look in the first Synoptic we also find this, for we read (xxvii. 28): “And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe” (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην). The mere detail of piercing with the reed instead of smiting with it is trifling compared with this, and in all essential points Mr. Harris’s test more fitly applies to the first Synoptic than to Peter, and equally so to the other two.

As for the piercing with the reed, however, we have only to turn to the fourth Gospel, and we find its counterpart (xix. 34) where one of the soldiers with a spear pierced the side of Jesus. Why? (36) “That the Scripture might be fulfilled.... ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced.’ ” Here is the “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” without any disguise. If one writer prefer to fulfil one part of Scripture, the other may select another without much difference in standing. Even Mr. Harris admits that “the gnosis on which Barnabas works is ultimately based on the same passage” as that quoted as fulfilled in the fourth Gospel(137); then what distinction of date is possible when both apply the same gnosis based on the same texts?

XI

We have now discussed practically all the test instances advanced by Mr. Rendel Harris, and the result at which we arrive is, that he has not succeeded in proving that the Gospel of Peter betrays such traces of a “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” as require us to assign to it a later date than the canonical Gospels. If this system of elaborate and perverted ingenuity were applied to these Gospels, as it has been to the fragment, and every kind of false exegesis, childish reasoning, and wild interpretation, such as was current amongst the Fathers, brought forward to explain the construction of the four canonical works, the consequence would be terribly surprising to pious readers. That this exegesis began early is quite undeniable, and it is not too much to say that it is palpably visible on the very surface of most of the books of the New Testament. It had, as Mr. Harris must admit and does admit, practical effect on the composition of the Gospels as they have come down to us, but it is fully displayed in some of the Epistles of Paul, still more in those passing under his name, is supreme in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and as for the Acts, the Apostles are, from the very opening, made to express the highly evolved prophetic gnosis of the author. We do not, of course, argue that the writer of the fragment is free from it, but merely that he shares it equally with the other Evangelists, however much their canonicity, derived from the very Fathers who are steeped in this gnosis, may protect them from Mr. Harris’s dangerous attack. Without going into an explanation of the genesis of various important points in the story, which would require a volume, we may just glance at some of the points at which the Evangelists frankly declare the source of the gnosis, and allow the process to be seen.

Let us take for instance the first Synoptic. The events previous to the birth of Jesus (i. 18 if.) take place “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel,” and it is only an illustration of the _naïveté_ of the period that two verses further on they call the son, not Immanuel, but Jesus. The chief priests and scribes inform Herod (ii. 5 f.) that the Christ should be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, because it was written by the prophet: “And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Which shall be shepherd of my people Israel.” Joseph takes the young child and his mother into Egypt (ii. 15 f.), “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.” Herod slays all the male children in Bethlehem and in all the borders thereof (ii. 16 f.) and “then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children,” &c. On returning from Egypt they settle in Galilee, in a city called Nazareth (ii. 23), “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” John the Baptist comes preaching “in the wilderness” (iii. 1 f.), “for this is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” &c. The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is based upon three texts: (iv. 1 ff.) “Man shall not live by bread alone,” &c.; “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee,” &c., and “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,” &c. When John is delivered up (iv. 12 ff.) Jesus leaves Nazareth and dwells “in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did light spring up.” In the episode of John in prison sending his disciples to Jesus (xi. 2 ff.), the whole reply is based indirectly on prophetic gnosis, and the _v._ 10 directly: “This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee,” and _v._ 14, “And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, which is to come.” When the Pharisees take counsel to destroy him (xii. 14 f.), and Jesus withdraws, healing the sick and enjoining them that they should not make him known, it is “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold my servant,” &c. There is an exhibition of “highly evolved prophetic gnosis” (xii. 39 ff.) when a sign is asked for, and the sign of Jonah the prophet is given, “for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” a gnosis which helped to shape the representation of the entombment. The speaking in parables is justified, not originated (xiii. 14 f.), as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, “By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand,” &c, and (_v._ 35) “I will open my mouth in parables,” &c. Of course, as Mr. Harris says, “no sane person would take St. Matthew’s quotation as the cause of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parabolic discourse;”(138) but, as he admits, the prophetic passages were in the author’s mind, and are amongst “the first faint shadows cast by the prophecy [?] upon the history,” and they certainly led to the representation that those who heard the parabolic teaching, and notably the disciples, did not understand the most luminous discourses, and required a private explanation of the clearest allegories. The entry into Jerusalem (xxi. 2 f.) is arranged “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass;” and the writer, not appreciating the duplication of Hebrew poetry, is literal enough to relate (_v._ 2) that Jesus tells the disciples they shall find “an ass tied, and a colt with her,” which they are to bring, and (_v._ 7) “they brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments; _and he sat upon them_” (ἐπάνω αὐτῶν): a representation which has ever since given much trouble to pious commentators. It is not difficult to see that the “cleansing of the temple” (xxi. 12 f.) takes place because “it is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye make it a den of robbers.” The trials when “the abomination of desolation (xxiv. 16 f.), which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” is seen “standing in the holy place (_let him that readeth understand_),” is an example of the prophetic gnosis. The preparation for the passion commences (xxvi. 2), “Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified.” Jesus is represented (_v._ 31) as saying to the disciples: “All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad;” and the curious phrase which follows is worth consideration: “But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee,” which seems to have slipped in here out of its place. The events which take place at the arrest, and their coming out with swords and staves as against a robber to take him (xxvi. 66), “All this is come to pass that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled;” and Jesus could not pray for legions of angels to help him, for (_v._ 66), “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled?” The conduct of Judas after he had betrayed his master, when he took back the pieces of silver, the price of his betrayal, to the priests (xxvii. 3 f.), fulfils “that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”

XII

This need not be further pursued, however, though the principle applies quite as much to the other Gospels. Only one passage may be quoted from the last chapter of the third Synoptic. Jesus, when he appears to the disciples, after the episode of the fish to prove that he is not a spirit, but himself with flesh and bones (xxiv. 36 f.), is represented as saying:

These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations.

This is a direct justification of the gnosis, and it is no wonder that we find St. Sylvia, some centuries later, recording the concrete principle upon which Gospel history is written: “Nothing took place which had not been previously foretold, and nothing had been foretold which had not obtained its fulfilment.”

In so far as the Gospel according to Peter is concerned, the impartial verdict must be: It is neither better nor worse than the more fortunate works which have found a safe resting-place within the Canon of the Church. It is almost impossible now to judge of these works as we judge the fragment. Centuries of reverence, and individual habit of hearing their contents with docility and with bated criticism, have rendered most of us incapable of judging the effect which a good part of their contents would make upon us if, like the fragment of Akhmîm, they had been freshly discovered yesterday. There is no canonical glamour to veil its shortcomings, and it must not be forgotten that, in this short fragment, we have none of those parts of the Gospel, such as the Sermon on the Mount and some of the parables, which contain so much noble teaching and render the literature so precious. Then, as we have before pointed out, the canonical Gospels, in their greater circulation and in the process of reception by the Church, secured a gradual revision which might have smoothed away any roughness from the Gospel of Peter had it been equally fortunate. The three Synoptic Gospels are so closely dependent on each other, or on the same sources, as to be practically one work; and although this renders all the more remarkable certain indications of selection, some of which we have pointed out, it nevertheless limits our acquaintance with early belief. It is the merit of the fragment that it presents considerable variation in the original sources, and shows us the fluidity of the early reports of that which was supposed to take place during the period which it embraces. We have in it a primitive and less crystallised form of the Christian tradition.

APPENDIX

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

(1) ... τῶν δὲ Ἰουδαίων οὐδεὶς ἐνίψατο τὰς χεῖρας, οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης οὐδ᾽ εἷς τῶν κριτῶν αὐτοῦ; καὶ μὴ βουληθέντων νίψασθαι ἀνέστη Πειλᾶτος. (2) καὶ τότε κελεύει Ἡρῴδης ὁ βασιλεὺς παραλημφθῆναι τὸν κύριον, εἰπὼν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Ὅσα ἐκέλευσα ὑμῖν ποιῆσαι αὐτῷ, ποιήσατε. (3) Ἱστήκει δὲ ἐκεῖ Ἰωσὴφ ὁ φίλος Πειλάτου καὶ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐιδὼς ὅτι σταυρίσκειν αὐτὸν μέλλουσιν, ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς ταφήν. (4) καὶ ὁ Πειλᾶτος πέμψας πρὸς Ἡρῴδην ᾔτησεν αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα. (5) καὶ ὁ Ἡρῴδης ἔφη Ἀδελφὲ Πειλᾶτε, εἰ καὶ μή τις αὐτὸν ᾐτήκει, ἡμεῖς αὐτὸν ἐθάπτομεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ σάββατον ἐπιφώσκει; γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ἧλιον μὴ δῦναι ἐπὶ πεφονευμένῳ.

(6) Καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν. οἱ δὲ λαβόντες τὸν κύριον ὤθουν αὐτὸν τρέχοντες, καὶ ἔλεγον Σύρωμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐξουσίαν αὐτοῦ ἐσχηκότες. (7) καὶ πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον, καὶ ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, λέγοντες Δικαίως κρῖνε, βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. (8) καὶ τις αὐτῶν ἐνενκὼν στέφανον ἀκάνθινον ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ κυρίου. (9) καὶ ἕτεροι ἑστῶτες ἐνέπτυον αὐτοῦ ταῖς ὄψεσι, καὶ ἄλλοι τὰς σιαγόνας αὐτοῦ ἐράπισαν; ἕτεροι καλάμῳ ἔνυσσον αὐτόν, καί τινες αὐτὸν ἐμάστιζον λέγοντες Ταύτῃ τῇ τιμῇ τιμήσωμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.