Part 8

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.

The peculiar ending of the words of the “young man” in Peter is nowhere found in our Gospels: “He is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent.” Mr. Robinson compares with this a passage from the 20th Homily of Aphrahat (ed. Wright, p. 385): “And the angel said to Mary, he is risen and gone away to him that sent him.” Mr. Robinson adds: “There is reason to believe that Aphrahat, a Syrian writer, used Tatian’s Harmony: and thus we seem to have a second link between our Gospel and that important work.”(118) But is it not rather a curious position in which to place the supposed “Diatessaron,” to argue that a passage which it does not now contain was nevertheless in it because a Syrian writer who is supposed to have used the “Diatessaron” has quoted the passage? It shows how untrustworthy are all arguments regarding early works like the “Diatessaron.” Looking at the other instances which could be pointed out, and to some of which we have referred, we see that everything not agreeing with the Gospels of the Church has been gradually eliminated or corrected into agreement, and that thus the very probable use of the Gospel according to Peter by Tatian may be concealed. As Mr. Robinson further points out, however, the words of the angel in Peter are in direct contradiction to those put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth Gospel (xx. 17): “I am not yet ascended to the Father.”

The conclusion of the whole episode in Peter is the short and comprehensive phrase: “Then the women, frightened, fled” (τότε αἱ γυναῖκες φοβηθεῖσαι ἔφυγον). In Matthew, in obedience to the order of the angel to go and tell his disciples, none of which is given in Peter, it is said (xxviii. 8): “And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy” (καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς μεγάλης), “and ran to bring his disciples word.” In Mark (xvi. 8) it is said: “And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them (καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου; εἶκεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καί ἔκστασις). And they said nothing to anyone: for they were afraid” (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ). The running to bring the disciples word, in the first, and the saying nothing to any one, of the second, Synoptic, is a case of curious contradiction in details. The third Gospel twice over repeats the statement that the women told what they had heard “to the eleven and to all the rest” (xxiv. 9, 10), but says nothing of the emotions excited by the interview, except the double statement (xxiv. 8), “And they remembered his words,” and, 11, “And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them.”

In the first Synoptic, however (xxviii. 9 f.), as the women go, the risen Jesus himself meets them and delivers the same order to tell the disciples to depart into Galilee, where they shall see him. The genuine portion of the second Synoptic ends with the words quoted above, and it is only in the added conclusion (xvi. 9. 20) that we meet with an account of an appearance to Mary Magdalene in the morning. The third Synoptic relates no appearance to the women or any one that morning; but the fourth Gospel has the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, and a long interview between them. Now all this is quite distinctly excluded from the Gospel according to Peter, and those who argue for the dependence of the work on our Gospels have to explain this deliberate omission.

The fragment proceeds:

58. And it was the last day of the Unleavened bread, and many went forth, returning to their homes, the feast being ended. 59. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and mourned, and each went to his home sorrowing for that which had happened. 60. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew, my brother, took our nets and went to the sea, and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord....

And so, at a most interesting point, the fragment breaks off, in the middle of a phrase. This, it will be observed, distinctly excludes the vision to the two disciples in the country, mentioned Mark xvi. 12 f., supposing it to be that described in the third Synoptic (xxiv. 13 ff.), of which long narrative no hint is given in Peter. It also, of course, excludes the appearance to the disciples in the room, described in the fourth Gospel (xix. 20 ff.), and the breathing of the Holy Ghost upon them, of which very important episode the three Synoptics are equally ignorant, as well as the second appearance to them and the conviction of the unbelieving Thomas, which only this Gospel records. We may add that the appearance to the eleven as they sat at meat, related in the addition to the second Synoptic (xvi. 14 f.), with the mission of the apostles “into all the world,” with miraculous powers endowed, which the other Gospels do not mention, is likewise excluded by Peter.

This is not all that is excluded, however, for in the fragment reference is distinctly made to the “twelve disciples,” which is an explicit confirmation of the statement made in _v._ 26 f., “I and my companions ... were fasting and mourning,” which makes no exception any more than the similar “We, the twelve disciples of the Lord” now quoted. Supposing this statement to be deliberately made, and we have no reason whatever from anything in the rest of the fragment to doubt it, this completely excludes the whole of the story of a betrayal of his master by Judas Iscariot. Various facts must be remembered in confirmation of the view that the “betrayal” of Jesus by Judas Iscariot was unknown to the older tradition. In the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) it is said that upon the twelve foundations of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, are written “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” If, as is generally believed, this Apocalypse was written by John the Apostle, is it possible that, if Judas had betrayed his master in the manner described by the canonical Gospels, he could deliberately have written this, using twice over the “twelve,” which includes that Apostle? Again, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (i. xv. 5), in relating the supposed “appearances” of Jesus, it is said that he first appeared to Cephas: “Then unto the twelve.”(119) If the point be considered on the mere ground of historical probability, there is every reason to consider that the betrayal by Judas is a later product of the “evolved gnosis.” Jesus is described as going about everywhere with his disciples, and nothing could have been easier, under the circumstances, than to follow and quietly arrest him, without any betrayal at all. In fact, there is no real need shown for such a betrayal, and the older Christian tradition probably did not contain it. It was just the trait which the “evolved gnosis” would add to the picture from such a passage as Psalm xli. 9: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me,” and which was given its literal fulfilment in the detail mentioned in the first and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark. xiv. 20), “He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” It may be mentioned that Justin does not appear to have known anything of a betrayal of Jesus, and that, in places where, if he had been aware of the episode, he would certainly have referred to it, he passes over it in total silence.

According to the fragment, Simon Peter, and at least some of the disciples, must have gone into Galilee without any vision of the risen Jesus; and probably the last verse, which is broken off so abruptly, prepares the account of such an appearance as is described in the much-questioned last chapter of the fourth Gospel. It is worth pointing out, as perhaps an indication of the tradition which Peter follows, that both in the first and second Synoptic the order is given to the disciples to go into Galilee, where they are told that they are to see Jesus. In spite of this distinct order and statement, the author of the first Synoptic describes Jesus as immediately after appearing to the women, and giving the same direction to go into Galilee (xxviii. 7, 10), whilst in the spurious verses of Mark he nevertheless appears in Jerusalem to Mary Magdalene and to the Apostles. The third Synoptist gives a different turn to the mention of Galilee; but after the direction to go into Galilee, there to see Jesus, the visions described are a mere afterthought. In Peter, without any order, the disciples apparently go to Galilee, and there probably would be placed the first vision of the risen Jesus.

IX

We have now completed our comparison of the fragment with the canonical Gospels, and are able to form some opinion of its relative antiquity and relationship to our Gospels. Is it, as apologetic critics assert, a mere compilation from them, or can it take an independent position beside them, as a work derived from similar sources, and giving its own version of early Christian tradition? We have shown that it is not a compilation from our Gospels, but presents unmistakable signs of being an independent composition, and consequently a most interesting representation of Christian thought during the period when our Synoptic Gospels were likewise giving definite shape to the same traditions. Every part of this fragment has been set side by side with the corresponding narrative in the canonical Gospels, and it is simply surprising that a writing, dealing with a similar epoch of the same story, should have shown such freedom of handling. That there should be some correspondence between them was inevitable, but the wonder is not that there should be so much agreement, but so much divergence; and this wonder increases in proportion as a later date is assigned to the fragment, and the authority of the canonical Gospels had become more established.