{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37494/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37494","id":"gutenberg_37494","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37494","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Gospel of Peter -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Peter, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\n\n                      The Gospel According To Peter\n\n                                 A Study\n\n                           By Walter R. Cassels\n\n                    Author of \u201cSupernatural Religion\u201d\n\n                     London: Longmans, Green, And Co.\n\n                                   1894\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nI\nII\nIII\nIV\nV\nVI\nVII\nVIII\nIX\nX\nXI\nXII\nAppendix\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd .....\n\nForasmuch as many took in hand to draw up a narrative concerning the\nmatters which have been fully believed among us....\n\nLUKE i. 1\n\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nEgypt, in our days, ceasing to be any more the land of bondage, has, in\nmore senses than one, become a veritable Land of Promise. It is a rich\nmine of historical and literary wealth, alas! most inadequately worked,\nand in that fine climate, with its clear dry air, the footprints of Time,\nleaving scarcely a trace, the treasures of an ancient civilisation, even\nof the most delicate texture, have been preserved to us with wonderful\nperfection. The habits of the peoples that have occupied the land have\nhappily combined with the natural advantages of the climate, in\ntransmitting to the modern world an inheritance of which we are now\nbeginning to take possession. The dead have long been giving up their\nsecrets, but it is only in recent times that we have been able to realise\nthe fact that the tombs of Egypt may contain many a precious work, now\nknown to us but in name, and many a writing which may change the current\nof controversy, and strangely modify many a cherished opinion. Without\nreferring here to earlier discoveries in support of these remarks, we may\nat once pass to the more recent, with which we have particularly to do.\n\nIn the course of explorations carried on during the winter of 1886-87 by\nthe order of M. Gr\u00e9baut, then Director of the Museums of Egypt, two Greek\nmanuscripts were discovered in the necropolis of Akhm\u00eem, the ancient\nPanopolis, in Upper Egypt. The first of these was a papyrus, which was\nreally found by some Fellahs who quarrelled regarding the partition of\ntheir precious booty and thus allowed the secret to leak out. It came to\nthe knowledge of the Moudir, or Governor of the Province, who promptly\nsettled the dispute by confiscating the papyrus, which he forwarded to the\nMuseum of Gizeh at Boulaq. This MS. is a collection of problems in\narithmetic and geometry, carefully written out, probably by a student, and\nburied with him as his highest and most valued achievement.\n\nThe second manuscript was of much higher interest. It was discovered in\nthe tomb of a \u201cmonk.\u201d It consists of thirty-three pages in parchment,\nmeasuring 6 inches in height by 4-\u00bd inches in breadth, without numbering,\nbound together in pasteboard covered with leather, which has become black\nwith time. There is no date, nor any other indication of the approximate\nage of the MS. than that which is furnished by the characteristics of the\nwriting and the part of the cemetery in which it was discovered. These\nlead to the almost certain conclusion, according to M. Bouriant, who first\ntranscribed the text, that the MS. cannot be anterior to the eighth\ncentury or posterior to the twelfth. The ancient cemetery of Akhm\u00eem\nstretches along to the north and west of the hill on which have been\ndiscovered tombs of the eighteenth to the twentieth dynasties, and it has\nserved as a burial-place for the Christian inhabitants of the\nneighbourhood from the fifth to the fifteenth centuries, the more ancient\npart lying at the foot of the hill and extending gradually upward for\nabout 700 metres. The tomb in which the MS. was found is in a position\nwhich approximately tallies, as regards age, with the date indicated by\nthe MS. itself.(1) Of course, these indications refer solely to the date\nof the MS. itself, and not to the age of the actual works transcribed in\nits pages.\n\nThe thirty-three sheets of parchment, forming sixty-six pages, commence\nwith an otherwise blank page, bearing a rough drawing of a Coptic cross,\nupon the arms of which rise smaller crosses of the same description, and\nthe letters [symbol] and [symbol] stand the one on the left, the other on\nthe right of the lower stem of the large cross. Over the page commences a\nfragment of the \u201cGospel of Peter,\u201d which continues to the end of page 10,\nwhere it abruptly terminates in the middle of a sentence. Pages 11 and 12\nhave been left blank. Pages 13 to 19 contain a fragment of the \u201cApocalypse\nof Peter,\u201d beginning and ending abruptly, and these have, either by\naccident or design, been bound in the volume upside down and in reverse\norder, so that, as they actually stand, the text commences at page 19 and\nends at page 13. Page 20 is again blank, and the rest of the volume is\nmade up of two fragments of the \u2019Book of Enoch,\u2019 the first extending from\nthe 21st to the 50th page, and the second, written by a different hand,\nfrom the 51st to the 66th page. Finally, on the inside of the binding, and\nattached to it, is a sheet of parchment on which is written in uncials a\nfragment of the Greek \u201cActs of St. Julian,\u201d though which St. Julian\namongst those in the Calendar does not appear.\n\nThe French Archeological Mission published in 1892(2) the mathematical\npapyrus, edited by M. Baillet, but the much more interesting and important\nvolume of fragments did not appear until 1893,(3) when they were edited by\nM. Bouriant. These precious works remained, therefore, practically hidden\nfrom the world for five or six years after their discovery, in consequence\nof what is vaguely, but truly, described as \u201cvexatious delays,\u201d whilst the\ncomparatively uninteresting arithmetical work preceded them by more than a\nyear. The fragments of the \u201cGospel\u201d and \u201cApocalypse\u201d of Peter, long known\nby references or quotations by the Fathers, make us acquainted, for the\nfirst time, with the writings themselves, and the fragments of the \u201cBook\nof Enoch\u201d give us the Greek text of part of an early work quoted by the\nwriter of the Epistle of Jude, hitherto only extant in an Ethiopian\nversion.\n\nOf almost greater interest than the actual discovery of these and other\nprecious MSS. from time to time, in a similar way, is the possibility and\nprobability opened out to us that we may yet recover from the dead still\nmore precious works than these. The cemetery of Akhm\u00eem stands near the\nancient and very important city of Panopolis, and from a very early period\nit was the centre of a considerable Christian population. The custom of\nburying with the dead books which were a valued possession during life was\nprobably a survival of the same primitive custom in accordance with which\nalso a warrior\u2019s horse and dog and his weapons were interred with him to\nserve him again in the world of spirits. That books, at a time when their\nmultiplication was so slow, should have been interred with their dead\npossessor is not only curious but very fortunate for us, and we may yet\nthank the cemetery of Akhm\u00eem for preserving safely for us manuscripts\nwhich in no other way could have escaped the effects of time and the\nravages of barbarism.\n\nThe fragments with which we are dealing present some peculiarities which\ndeserve a moment\u2019s notice. The Gospel according to Peter commences in the\nmiddle of a sentence, but being at the top of a page it is probably only\npart of a manuscript of which the earlier portion was either lost or\nbelonged to some one else. The fragment, however, ends abruptly in the\nmiddle of a phrase and, being followed by blank pages, the reasonable\npresumption is that the scribe intended to complete the transcription, but\nfor some reason did not do so. It is curious that in a similar way the\n\u201cApocalypse of Peter\u201d is only a fragment, beginning and ending abruptly,\nwith a page left blank for continuation. Did the scribe hastily copy stray\nleaves of each work, which had fortuitously come in his way, leaving room\nfor more should he be able to secure the rest? or did he break off his\ncopy of the one to take up the other, and with equal restlessness leave it\nalso unfinished? We shall never know exactly, but considering the value of\nbooks at that epoch, the probability seems to be that he hastily copied\nsuch portions of writings as had come into his possession, time or\naccident preventing the completion of his task.\n\nThe fragment of the \u201cGospel\u201d of course does not bear any name or\nsuperscription\u2014nor, indeed, does the \u201cApocalypse\u201d\u2014but the title is clearly\ndeduced from the work itself, the writer saying directly \u201cbut I, Simon\nPeter,\u201d and thus proving that the narrative takes the form of a\ncomposition by that Apostle. It may be remarked, merely in passing, that\nit is a curious\u2014if not in any way a significant\u2014fact that the two\nChristian fragments in this little volume should both profess to have been\nwritten by the Apostle Peter. Are the peculiarities of the fragments which\nwe have described due to the passage of some one having in his possession\ntwo works selected as being believed to emanate from the chief of the\nApostles, from which there was only time to make these extracts? There is\nsome reason for thinking that the parchment may have previously been used\nfor some other writing, obliterated to make way for these fragments. The\nlittle volume has not altogether escaped injury in its long rest by the\nside of the dead, and parts of the text have had to be supplied by\nconjecture; but, on the whole, the writing is fairly legible and, by the\ninvaluable aid of photography, it has been copied and published with\ncomplete fidelity. Before this was done, that the first transcription by\nM. Bouriant should have contained errors and omissions which led scholars\ninto mistaken conclusions is very intelligible, but the text may now be\nconsidered fairly settled, and the following is a rather close and\nunpolished translation of the \u201cGospel according to Peter.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\n_THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER_(4)\n\n(1) ... but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any one\nof his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose. (2) And\nthen Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:\n\u201cWhatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.\u201d (3) But\nthere was there Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, and knowing\nthat they are about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body\nof the Lord for burial. (4) And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his\nbody. (5) And Herod said: \u201cBrother Pilate, even if no one had begged for\nhim, we should have buried him; because the Sabbath is at hand; for it is\nwritten in the Law: \u2018The sun must not go down upon one put to death.\u2019 \u201d\n\n(6) And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the\nUnleavened bread of their feast. And taking the Lord they pushed him\nhurrying along, and said: \u201cLet us drag along the Son of God as we have\npower over him.\u201d (7) And they clad him with purple and set him on a seat\nof judgment, saying: \u201cJudge justly, King of Israel.\u201d (8) And one of them\nbrought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. (9) And\nothers standing by spat upon his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks;\nothers pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying: \u201cWith this\nhonour honour we the Son of God.\u201d\n\n(10) And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord;\nbut he kept silence as feeling no pain. (11) And as they set up the cross\nthey wrote thereon: \u201cThis is the King of Israel.\u201d (12) And they laid the\nclothes before him and distributed them and cast lots for them. (13) But\none of these malefactors reproved them, saying: \u201cWe have suffered this for\nthe evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the Saviour of men,\nwhat wrong hath he done you?\u201d (14) And they were angry with him, and they\ncommanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die\nin torment.\n\n(15) Now it was mid-day, and a darkness covered all Judaea, and they were\ntroubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst he still lived,\nfor it is written for them: \u201cThe sun must not go down upon one put to\ndeath.\u201d (16) And one of them said: \u201cGive him to drink gall with vinegar;\u201d\nand having mixed, they gave him to drink. (17) And they fulfilled all\nthings and completed their sins upon their own head. (18) Now many went\nabout with lights, thinking that it was night, and some fell. (19) And the\nLord cried aloud, saying; \u201cPower, my Power, thou hast forsaken me!\u201d and\nhaving spoken, he was taken up. (20) And the same hour the veil of the\ntemple of Jerusalem was torn in twain.\n\n(21) And then they took out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid\nhim upon the earth; and the whole earth quaked, and great fear came [upon\nthem]. (22) Then did the sun shine out, and it was found to be the ninth\nhour. (23) Now the Jews were glad and gave his body to Joseph, that he\nmight bury it, for he had beheld the good works that he did. (24) And he\ntook the Lord and washed him, and wrapped him in linen, and brought him\ninto his own grave, called \u201cJoseph\u2019s Garden.\u201d\n\n(25) Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, seeing the evil they\nhad done to themselves, began to beat their breasts and to say: \u201cWoe for\nour sins: judgment draweth nigh and the end of Jerusalem.\u201d (26) And I,\nwith my companions, was mourning, and being pierced in spirit we hid\nourselves; for we were sought for by them as malefactors, and as desiring\nto burn the temple. (27) Over all these things, however, we were fasting,\nand sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.\n\n(28) But the scribes and Pharisees and elders assembled themselves\ntogether, hearing that all the people murmured and beat their breasts,\nsaying: \u201cIf at his death these great signs have happened, behold how just\na one he is.\u201d (29) The elders were afraid and came to Pilate beseeching\nhim and saying: (30) \u201cGive us soldiers that we may watch his grave for\nthree days, lest his disciples come and steal him, and the people believe\nthat he rose from the dead and do us evil.\u201d (31) Pilate, therefore, gave\nthem Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb, and with\nthem came the elders and scribes to the grave. (32) And they rolled a\ngreat stone against the centurion and the soldiers and set it, all who\nwere there together, at the door of the grave. (33) And they put seven\nseals; and setting up a tent there they kept guard. (34) And in the\nmorning, at the dawn of the Sabbath, came a multitude from Jerusalem and\nthe neighbourhood in order that they might see the sealed-up grave.\n\n(35) Now, in the night before the dawn of the Lord\u2019s day, whilst the\nsoldiers were keeping guard over the place, two and two in a watch, there\nwas a great voice in the heaven. (36) And they saw the heavens opened and\ntwo men come down from thence with great light and approach the tomb. (37)\nAnd the stone which had been laid at the door rolled of itself away by the\nside, and the tomb was opened and both the young men entered.\n\n(38) Then those soldiers, seeing this, awakened the centurion and the\nelders, for they also were keeping watch. (39) And whilst they were\nnarrating to them what they had seen, they beheld again three men coming\nout of the tomb and the two were supporting the one, and a cross following\nthem. (40) And the heads of the two indeed reached up to the heaven, but\nthat of him that was led by (41) their hands rose above the heavens. And\nthey heard a voice from the heavens, saying: \u201cHast thou preached to them\nthat are sleeping?\u201d (42) And an answer was heard from the cross: \u201cYea.\u201d\n(43) These, therefore, took counsel together whether they should go and\ndeclare these things to Pilate. (44) And whilst they were still\nconsidering, the heavens again appeared opened, and a certain man\ndescending and going into the grave.\n\n(45) Seeing these things, the centurion and his men hastened to Pilate by\nnight, leaving the tomb they were watching, and narrated all things they\nhad seen, fearing greatly and saying: (46) \u201cTruly he was a Son of God.\u201d\nPilate answered and said, \u201cI am pure of the blood of the Son of God, but\nthus it seemed good unto you.\u201d (47) Then they all came to him beseeching\nand entreating him that he should command the centurion and the soldiers\nto say nothing of what they had seen. (48) \u201cFor it is better,\u201d they said,\n\u201cto lay upon us the greatest sins before God, and not to fall into the\nhands of the people of the Jews and be stoned.\u201d (49) Pilate, therefore,\ncommanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.\n\n(50) In the morning of the Lord\u2019s day, Mary Magdalene, a disciple of the\nLord (through fear of the Jews, for they burnt with anger, she had not\ndone at the grave of the Lord that which women are accustomed to do for\nthose that die and are loved by them), (51) took her women friends with\nher and came to the grave where he was laid. (52) And they feared lest the\nJews should see them, and said: \u201cIf we could not on that day in which he\nwas crucified weep and lament, let us do these things even now at his\ngrave. (53) But who will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door\nof the grave, in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him and do\nthe things that are due? (54) For great was the stone, and we fear lest\nsome one should see us. And if we should not be able to do it, let us at\nleast lay down before the door that which we bring in his memory, and let\nus weep and lament till we come to our house.\u201d (55) And they went and\nfound the tomb opened and, coming near, they stooped down and see there a\ncertain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in\na shining garment, who said to them: (56) \u201cWhy are ye come? Whom seek ye?\nHim who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if ye do not\nbelieve, stoop down and see the place where he lay, that he is not there;\nfor he is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent.\u201d (57) Then the\nwomen, frightened, fled.\n\n(58) And it was the last day of the Unleavened bread, and many went forth,\nreturning to their homes, the feast being ended. (59) But we, the twelve\ndisciples of the Lord, wept and mourned, and each went to his home\nsorrowing for that which had happened. (60) But I, Simon Peter, and\nAndrew, my brother, took our nets and went to the sea, and there was with\nus Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord....\n\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nNo one can have studied this fragment of the Gospel according to Peter,\nwith its analogy to, and still more striking divergence from, the\ncanonical Gospels, without perceiving that we have here a most interesting\nwork, well worth serious examination. The first question which naturally\narises is connected with the date to be assigned to the fragment: Is this\na part of the work used by many of the Fathers and well known amongst them\nas the Gospel according to Peter? We must first endeavour to form a\ncorrect judgment on this point.\n\nEusebius has preserved to us the earliest detailed notice of the Gospel\naccording to Peter extant, in a quotation from Serapion, who became Bishop\nof Antioch about A.D. 190. Eusebius says:\n\n\n    There is likewise another work written by him upon the so-called\n    Gospel according to Peter, which he composed to refute the\n    untruths contained in it, on account of certain in the community\n    of Rhossus who were led away by this writing to heretical\n    doctrines. It may be well to set forth some passages of this in\n    which he expresses his opinion of the book:\n\n    \u201cFor we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other Apostles even\n    as Christ. But the false writings passing under their names we\n    from experience reject, knowing that such things we have not\n    received. When I was with you, I was under the impression that all\n    held to the right faith and, without going through the Gospel put\n    forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: \u2018If this is the only\n    cause of difference amongst you, let it be read.\u2019 But now, having\n    ascertained from information given to me that their minds were in\n    some mist of heresy, I will hasten to come to you again; so,\n    brethren, expect me shortly. We, therefore, brethren, knowing of\n    what heresy was Marcianus, recognise how much he was in\n    contradiction with himself,(5) not comprehending that which he was\n    saying, as you may perceive from what has been written unto you.\n    For we borrowed this gospel from others who used it: that is to\n    say, from the followers of those who introduced it before him,\n    whom we call Docetae\u2014for most of its thoughts are of this\n    sect\u2014having procured it from them, I was able to go through it,\n    and to find, indeed, that most was according to the right teaching\n    of the Saviour, but certain things were superadded, which we\n    subjoin for you.\u201d(6)\n\n\nThere is little or no doubt that the writing before us is a fragment of\nthis \u201cGospel according to Peter\u201d of which Serapion writes.(7) It must\nalways be remembered, as we examine the evidence for the work, that we\nhave here only a short fragment, and that it would not be reasonable to\nexpect to find in it materials for a perfect identification of the work\nwith references to it in writings of the Fathers. Within the few pages\nwhich we possess, however, there is sufficient justification for\nconcluding that they formed part of the Gospel current in Rhossus. Only\none \u201cGospel according to Peter\u201d is mentioned by early writers. This\nfragment distinctly pretends to be a narrative of Simon Peter; and its\nmatter is generally such as must have satisfied Serapion\u2019s ideas of\northodox doctrine, if suspicion of Docetic tendencies had not made him\nbelieve that it contained a superadded leaven of heresy. This may not\nappear very clearly in the fragment, but we know from other sources, as we\nshall presently see, that they existed in the Gospel, and even here the\nrepresentation that Jesus suffered no pain; that he is always called \u201cthe\nLord,\u201d or the \u201cSon of God;\u201d that his one cry on the cross was susceptible\nof peculiar explanation, and that he was immediately \u201ctaken up,\u201d whilst\nhis body subsequently presents aspects not common to the canonical\nGospels, may have seemed to the careful bishop sufficiently Docetic to\nwarrant at least his not very severe condemnation.\n\nIt is unnecessary to discuss minutely the details of Serapion\u2019s letter,\nwhich, if vague in parts and open to considerable doubt in some important\nrespects, is at least sufficiently clear for our purpose in its general\nmeaning. Nothing is known of the Marcianus to whom it refers. The bishop\nhad evidently previously written of him, but the context has not been\npreserved. The Armenian version, made from a Syriac text, reads \u201cMarcion\u201d\nfor \u201cMarcianus,\u201d but it would be premature on this authority to associate\nthe episode with that arch-heretic of the second century. It is clear from\nthe bishop\u2019s words that on his previous visit to Rhossus, at the desire of\npart of the community, he sanctioned the public reading of the Gospel of\nPeter but, after personal acquaintance with its contents, he withdrew that\npermission. Zahn(8) maintains that the private reading by members of the\nChristian community, and not public reading at the services of the Church,\nis dealt with in this letter, but in this he stands alone. The _Index\nexpurgatorius_ had not been commenced in the second century, and it is\nimpossible to think that the sanction of a bishop was either sought or\nrequired for the private reading of individuals. We have here only an\ninstance of the diversity of custom, as regards the public reading of\nearly writings, to which reference is made in the writings of the Fathers\nand in the Muratorian and other Canons. In this way the Epistle of the\nRoman Clement, as Eusebius(9) mentions, was publicly read in the churches;\nas were the Epistle of Soter to the Corinthians, the \u201cPastor\u201d of\nHermas,(10) the \u201cApocalypse of Peter,\u201d(11) and various Gospels which did\nnot permanently secure a place in the Canon. Eusebius, for instance,\nstates that the Ebionites made use only of the \u201cGospel according to the\nHebrews.\u201d(12)\n\nEusebius(13) mentions a certain number of works attributed to the Apostle\nPeter: the first Epistle, generally acknowledged as genuine, \u201cbut that\nwhich is called the second,\u201d he says, \u201cwe have not understood to be\nincorporated with the testament\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd). The other works are, the\n\u201cActs of Peter,\u201d the \u201cGospel according to Peter,\u201d the \u201cPreaching of\nPeter,\u201d and the \u201cApocalypse of Peter,\u201d the last being doubtless the work\nof which a fragment has now been discovered in the little volume which\ncontains the fragment of the Gospel which we are considering. Of these\nEusebius says that he does not know of their being handed down as\nCatholic, or universally received by the Church.\n\nThe \u201cGospel according to Peter\u201d is directly referred to by Origen in his\nCommentary on Matthew. He says: \u201cSome say, with regard to the brethren of\nJesus, from a tradition in the Gospel entitled according to Peter, or of\nthe Book of James, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife.\u201d(14)\nAlthough this statement does not in itself necessarily favour Docetic\nviews, it is quite intelligible that it might be used in support of them\nand, therefore, might have been one of the passages which excited the\nsuspicion of Serapion, more especially as a clear statement of this family\nrelationship is not to be found in the canonical Gospels. The part of the\nGospel referred to by Origen is not, unfortunately, contained in the\nfragment, and consequently cannot be verified, but it is quite in\naccordance with its general spirit, and at least we have here a distinct\nmention of the Gospel without any expression of unfavourable opinion. What\nis more important still is the fact that Origen certainly made use of the\nGospel, amongst others, himself.(15)\n\nJerome(16) likewise refers to it, after repeating the tradition that the\nGospel was said to be Peter\u2019s, which Mark composed, who was his hearer and\ninterpreter; and to the works ascribed to Peter, which Eusebius\nenumerates, he adds another\u2014the \u201cJudgment of Peter,\u201d of which little or\nnothing is known.\n\nTheodoret says that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel according to\nPeter.(17) Zahn and some others(18) argue against the correctness of this\nstatement; but reasoning of this kind, based upon supposed differences of\nviews, is not very convincing, when we consider that inferences to be\ndrawn from peculiarities in the narrative in this Gospel are neither so\ndistinct, nor so inevitable, as to be forced upon a simple and uncritical\ncommunity, and probably that the anti-Judaistic tendency of the whole, the\nstrongest characteristic of the composition, secured its acceptance, and\ndiverted attention from any less marked tendencies.\n\nA number of passages have been pointed out in the Didascalia and\nApostolical Constitutions, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius of\nAlexandria, and other ancient writers, showing the use of this Gospel\naccording to Peter;(19) but into these later testimonies it is not\nnecessary for us at present to go. That the work long continued to\nexercise considerable influence can scarcely be doubted. It is to the\nearlier history of the Gospel and its use in the second century that we\nmust rather turn our attention.\n\nA probable reference to the Gospel of Peter in Polycarp\u2019s \u201cEpistle to the\nCorinthians\u201d has been pointed out by Mr. F. C. Conybeare.(20) The writer\nspeaks of \u201cthe testimony of the cross\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6), an\nexpression which has puzzled critics a good deal. No passage in our\nGospels has hitherto explained it, but if it be referred to the answer\nmade by the cross, in our fragment, to the question from Heaven: \u201cHast\nthou preached to them that are sleeping? And an answer came from the\ncross, \u2018Yea,\u2019 \u201d it becomes at once intelligible. Mr. Taylor(21) suggests\nthe question whether \u201cthe word of the cross\u201d (\u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6) in 1\nCor. i. 18 is not also connected with the same tradition of the speaking\ncross and, as Mr. Conybeare points out, the context favours the idea,\nalthough he himself is not inclined to admit the interpretation. The words\nof Paul are worth quoting:\n\n\n    For the word of the cross is to them that are perishing\n    foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of\n    God. 19. For it is written: \u201cI will destroy the wisdom of the\n    wise, and the prudence of the prudent will I reject;\u201d\n\n\nand so on. But although he cannot agree in the suggestion that Paul refers\nto this tradition, because, he says, \u201cSuch a view seems to me to be too\nbold and innovating in its character,\u201d Mr. Conybeare goes on to suggest\nthat the incident in Peter, with this reply to the voice from heaven, may\nbe\n\n\n    one of the \u201cthree mysteries of crying\u201d referred to by Ignatius,\n    _ad Eph._ xix. \u201cRitschl and Lipsius,\u201d says Lightfoot, _ad locum_\n    \u201cagree that two of the three were, (1) the voice at the baptism,\n    (2) the voice at the transfiguration. For the third ... Ritschl\n    supposes that Ignatius used some other Gospel containing a third\n    proclamation similar to the two others.\u201d The Peter Gospel seems\n    here to supply just what is wanted.(22)\n\n\nThese suggestions are quoted here, in dealing with Polycarp, to show that\nthe supposition that he refers to the answer of the cross in the Gospel of\nPeter is not without support in other early writings. When it is\nremembered that the doctrine of a descent into Hell has a place in the\nCreed of Christendom, it is not surprising that it should be dwelt on in\nearly writings, and that a Gospel which proclaims it by a voice from\nHeaven, coupled with a miraculous testimony from the cross, should be\nreferred to. Of course it is impossible, in the absence of any explicit\ndeclaration, to establish by the passage we are discussing that the Gospel\naccording to Peter was used by Polycarp, but there is some probability of\nit at least, since no other Gospel contains the episode to which the\nwriter seems to refer.\n\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nWe may now consider whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with it, and here\nagain it may be well to remind the reader that we have only a small\nfragment of the Gospel according to Peter to compare with the allusions to\nbe found in writings of the Fathers. In these early works, few quotations\nare made with any direct mention of the source from which they were taken,\nand as only those parts of Patristic writings which deal with the trial,\ncrucifixion and resurrection of Jesus can be expected to present analogies\nwith our fragment, it will readily be seen how limited the range of\ntestimony must naturally be. Justin Martyr is usually supposed to have\ndied about A.D. 163-165,(23) and his first \u201cApology\u201d may be dated A.D.\n147, and the \u201cDialogue with Trypho\u201d somewhat later. In these writings,\nJustin very frequently refers to facts, and to sayings of Jesus, making,\nindeed, some hundred and fifty quotations of this kind from certain\n\u201cMemoirs of the Apostles\u201d (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd), all of which\ndiffer more or less from our present canonical Gospels. He never mentions\nthe name of any author of these Memoirs, if indeed he was acquainted with\none, unless it be upon one occasion, which is of peculiar interest in\nconnection with our fragment. The instance to which we refer is the\nfollowing. Justin says: \u201cThe statement also that he [Jesus] changed the\nname of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is written in his\n[Peter\u2019s] Memoirs as having been done, together with the fact that he also\nchanged the name of other two brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to\nBoanerges\u2014that is, sons of thunder,\u201d &c.(24) It was, of course, argued\nthat the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 here does not refer to Peter but to Jesus; or that the word\nshould be amended to \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd and applied to the Apostles; but the majority\nof critics naturally decided against such royal ways of removing\ndifficulties, and were forced to admit a reference to \u201cMemoirs of Peter.\u201d\nHitherto, the apologetic explanation has been that the allusion of Justin\nmust have been to the second Synoptic, generally referred to Mark, who was\nheld by many of the Fathers to be the mere mouthpiece and \u201cinterpreter of\nPeter,\u201d and that this reference is supported by the fact that the Gospel\naccording to Mark is the only one of the four canonical works which\nnarrates these changes of name. This argument, however, is disposed of by\nthe fact that our second Synoptic cannot possibly be considered the work\nreferred to in the tradition of Papias.(25) Returning to Justin, we find\nthat he designates the source of his quotations ten times as \u201cMemoirs of\nthe Apostles;\u201d five times he calls it simply \u201cMemoirs,\u201d and upon one\noccasion only explains that they were written \u201cby his Apostles and their\nfollowers.\u201d He never speaks indefinitely of \u201cMemoirs of Apostles,\u201d but\nalways of the collective Apostles, except in the one instance which has\nbeen quoted above. In a single passage there occurs an expression which\nmust be quoted. Justin says: \u201cFor the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by\nthem, which are called Gospels,\u201d &c.(26) The \u1f02 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 has very\nmuch the appearance of a gloss in the margin of some MS., which has\nafterwards been transferred to the text by a scribe, as scholars have\nbefore now suggested; but in any case it makes little difference in the\nargument.\n\nIt is obvious that the name \u201cMemoirs\u201d cannot with any degree of propriety\nbe applied to our canonical Gospels; but the discovery of this fragment,\nwhich is distinctly written as a personal narrative, throws fresh light\nupon the subject, and the title \u201cMemoirs of Peter,\u201d would exactly describe\nthe form in which the Gospel is written. It may further be suggested\nwhether it does not give us reason for conjecturing that the earlier\ndocuments, from which our Gospels were composed, were similarly personal\nnarratives or memoirs of those who took part in early Christian\ndevelopment. The tradition preserved to us by Papias distinctly points in\nthis direction:\n\n\n    This also the Presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter\n    of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did\n    not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by\n    Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but\n    afterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching\n    to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the\n    Lord\u2019s oracles.(27)\n\n\nThere can be very little doubt that the first teaching of Apostles and\nearly catechists must have taken the form of personal recollections of\nvarious episodes of Christian history and reports of discourses and\nparables, with an account of the circumstances under which they were\ndelivered. This familiar and less impressive mode of tracing Christian\nhistory must gradually have been eliminated from successive forms of the\nstory drawn up for the use of the growing Church, until, in the Gospels\nadopted into the Canon, it had entirely disappeared. In the fourth Gospel,\na slight trace of it remains in the reference in the third person to the\nwriter, and it is present in parts of the Apocalypse; but a more marked\ninstance is to be found in the \u201cActs of the Apostles;\u201d not so much in the\nprologue\u2014which, of course, is not really part of the book\u2014where the author\ndistinctly speaks in the first person, as in the narrative after the call\nto Macedonia (xvi. 10-17), where the writer falls into the use of the\nfirst person plural (\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2), resumes it after a break (xx. 5-15), and\nabandons it again, till it is recommenced in xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1, xxviii.\n16. As the author doubtless made use of written sources of information,\nlike the writers of our Gospels, it is most probable that, in these\nportions of the Acts, he simply inserted portions of personal written\nnarratives which had come into his possession. The Gospel according to\nPeter, which escaped the successive revisals of the canonical Gospels,\nprobably presents the more original form of such histories. We are, of\ncourse, unable to say whether the change of names referred to by Justin\nwas recorded in earlier portions of this Gospel which have not been\nrecovered, but the use of the double name, \u201cI, Simon Peter,\u201d favours the\nsupposition that it was.\n\nWithout attaching undue importance to it, it may be well to point out\u2014in\nconnection with Origen\u2019s statement that, in the Gospel according to Peter,\nthe brethren of Jesus are represented as being of a previous marriage\u2014that\nthe only genealogy of Jesus which is recognised by Justin is traced\nthrough the Virgin Mary, and excludes Joseph.(28) She it is who is\ndescended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and from the house of David. The\ngenealogy of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced\nsolely through Joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David.\nThe genealogies of the first and third Synoptics, though differing in\nseveral important particulars, at least agree in excluding Mary. In the\nthird Gospel Joseph goes to Jud\u00e6a \u201cunto the city of David, which is called\nBethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.\u201d(29) Justin\nsimply states that Joseph went \u201cto Bethlehem ... for his descent was from\nthe tribe of Judah, which inhabited that region.\u201d(30) Justin could not,\ntherefore, derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels; and his\nMemoirs, from which he learns the Davidic descent through Mary only, to\nwhich he refers no less than eleven times, differed from them distinctly\non this point. The Gospel according to Peter, which, according to Origen,\ncontained a statement which separated Jesus from his brethren in the\nflesh, in all probability must have traced the Davidic descent through\nMary. The Gospel of James, commonly called the \u201cProtevangelium,\u201d to a form\nof which, at least, Origen refers at the same time as the Gospel according\nto Peter, states that Mary was of the lineage of David.(31) There are\nother peculiarities in Justin\u2019s account of the angelic announcement to\nMary differing distinctly from our canonical Gospels,(32) regarding some\nof which Tischendorf was of opinion that they were derived from the\n\u201cProtevangelium;\u201d but there are reasons for supposing that they may have\ncome from a still older work, and if it should seem that Justin made use\nof the Gospel according to Peter, these may also have been taken from it.\nIn the absence of the rest of the Gospel, however, all this must be left\nfor the present as mere conjecture.\n\nThe fragment begins with a broken sentence presenting an obviously\ndifferent story of the trial of Jesus from that of the canonical Gospels.\n\u201c... but of the Jews no man (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2) washed his hands,\nneither Herod (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2) nor any of his judges.... Pilate rose up\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). And then Herod the King (\u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2) commandeth\nthe Lord to be taken,\u201d &c. Justin in one place(33) refers to this trial as\nforetold by the prophetic spirit, and speaks of what was done against the\nChrist \u201cby Herod the King of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate\nwho was your governor among them, and his soldiers\u201d (\u1f29\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2). This combination agrees with the\nrepresentation of the fragment, and of course differs from that of the\nGospels. In Dial. ciii. Justin repeats this to some extent, adding that he\nsent Jesus \u201cbound\u201d (\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). This representation does not exist in\nLuke, but neither is it found in what we have of the Gospel according to\nPeter, though it may have occurred in the commencement of the scene to\nwhich we are so abruptly introduced.\n\nJustin says in another place: \u201cFor as the prophet said, worrying him(34)\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd), they set him (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) upon a judgment seat (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), and said, \u2018Judge for us\u2019 (\u039a\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd).\u201d(35) In the Gospel\naccording to Peter we have: \u201cThey said, \u2018Let us drag along (\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) the\nSon of God\u2019 ... and they set Him (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd) upon a seat of judgment\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2), saying, \u2018Judge justly (\u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5), King of\nIsrael.\u2019 \u201d(36) This representation is different from any in our Gospels,\nand it has some singular points of agreement with our fragment. It has\nfrequently been suggested that Justin, in this passage, makes use of our\ncanonical Gospels with a combination of the Septuagint version of Isaiah\nlviii. 2, 3, and that this is supported by the expression \u201cas said the\nprophet.\u201d This does not sufficiently explain the passage, however. The\nSeptuagint version of the part of Isaiah lviii. 2 referred to reads:\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u2014\u201cThey ask me now for just judgment.\u201d\n\nJustin drops the \u201cjust,\u201d which stands both in Isaiah and in the fragment,\nand therefore the omission may be considered equally unfavourable to both\nwritings as the source. In other respects Justin is nearer the Gospel than\nthe prophet. On the other hand, the proposed use of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd as a\ntransitive verb would make the fourth Gospel, xix. 13, read: \u201cPilate ...\nbrought Jesus out, and set him (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) upon a judgment seat (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2),\u201d &c.; and it is pretended that Justin may have taken it in this\nsense, and that by the use of the word \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 he betrays his indebtedness to\nthe fourth Gospel. This use of the verb, however, can scarcely be\nmaintained. It is impossible to suppose that Pilate himself set Jesus on a\njudgment seat, as this transitive use of \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 would require us to\nreceive; and we must, more especially in the absence of a distinct object,\nreceive it as the Revisers of the New Testament have rightly\ndone\u2014intransitively: \u201cHe brought Jesus out and sat down.\u201d(37) In Justin it\nis not Pilate but the Jews who drag Jesus along, and put him on a judgment\nseat, and the use of the ordinary \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 for the expression of the fragment,\n\u201ca seat of judgment\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2), is not surprising in a writer like\nJustin, who is not directly quoting, but merely giving the sense of a\npassage. However this may be, the whole representation is peculiar, and\nthe conclusion of many critics is that it proves Justin\u2019s dependence on\nthe Gospel according to Peter.(38)\n\nJustin, speaking of an incident of the crucifixion, says: \u201cAnd those who\nwere crucifying him parted his garments (\u1f10\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) amongst\nthemselves, casting lots (\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), each taking what pleased him,\naccording to the cast of the lot (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5).\u201d(39) In the Gospel\naccording to Peter it is said: \u201cAnd they laid the clothes (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1)\nbefore him, and distributed them (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf), and cast lots (\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) for them.\u201d The use of the peculiar expression \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd both\nby the Gospel and Justin is undoubtedly striking, especially, as Dr. Swete\nproperly points out, as its use in this connection is limited, so far as\nwe know, to the Gospel of Peter, Justin, and Cyril.(40) It is rendered\nmore important by the fact that, both in the Gospel and Justin, the\ncasting of lots is applied to all the clothes, in contradistinction to the\nfourth Gospel, in which it is connected with the coat alone, and that\nneither has any mention of the Johannine peculiarity that the coat was\nwithout seam.\n\nJustin says that after he was crucified all the \u201cacquaintances of Jesus\nforsook him\u201d (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd);(41) and in another\nplace that after his crucifixion \u201cthe disciples who were with him\ndispersed (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) until he rose from the dead.\u201d(42) This\nrepresentation is found in the first Synoptic only, but agrees still\nbetter with _vv._ 26, 27, and 59 of our fragment. Elsewhere, Justin, in\nagreement with the fragment, speaks of Herod, \u201cKing of the Jews.\u201d(43)\nFurther, he says, more than once, that the Jews sent persons throughout\nthe world to spread calumnies against Christians, amongst which was the\nstory that \u201chis disciples stole him by night from the grave (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) where he had been laid when he was unloosed\nfrom the cross (\u1f00\u03c6\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6).\u201d(44) The first Synoptic alone\nhas the expression regarding the disciples stealing the body, using the\nsame verb, but our fragment alone uses \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 for the tomb and offers a\nparallel for the unloosing from the cross in _v._ 21. We must, however,\npoint out that the statement regarding these emissaries from the Jews is\nnot found at all in our canonical Gospels.(45)\n\nIt will be remembered that, in the fragment, the only cry from the cross\nis: \u201c \u2018Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,\u2019 and having spoken, he was\ntaken up.\u201d This is one of the most striking variations from the canonical\nGospels. It is also claimed as, perhaps, the most Docetic representation\nof the fragment, for the idea was that one Christ suffered and rose, and\nanother flew up and was free from suffering.(46) It was believed by the\nDocetae that the Holy Spirit only descended upon the human Jesus, at his\nbaptism, in the shape of a dove. Now one of the statements of Justin from\nhis Memoirs, which has no existence in our Gospels, was that, when Jesus\nwent to be baptized by John,\n\n\n    As Jesus went down to the water, a fire was also kindled in the\n    Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit like a\n    dove fell upon him, as the Apostles of this very Christ of ours\n    wrote ... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens ...\n    \u201cThou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.\u201d\n\n\nJustin repeats his version of the words a second time in the same\nchapter.(47) The Synoptics make the voice say: \u201cThou art my beloved son;\nin thee I am well pleased,\u201d instead of the words from Psalm ii. 7. Now,\nalthough we have not the part of the Gospel according to Peter in which\nthe earlier history of Jesus is related, it is not improbable that\nJustin\u2019s version, agreeing as it does with the later episode in the\nfragment and with the criticism of Serapion, was taken from this Gospel.\n\nWe refer to this point, however, for the purpose of introducing another\nstatement of Justin, which may be worth a little consideration in\nconnection with our fragment. One of the passages which are supposed most\nclearly to betray Docetic tendencies is the expression, _v._ 10, that when\nthe Lord was crucified \u201che kept silence, as feeling no pain\u201d (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd). It is evident that these words may either be taken as simply\nrepresenting the fortitude with which suffering was endured, or understood\nto support the view that no pain was really suffered, though this is by no\nmeans actually said. Now, Justin, in another chapter of his \u201cDialogue with\nTrypho,\u201d in which he again refers to the baptism and quotes the words of\nthe voice as above, cites the agony in the garden to prove that \u201cthe\nFather wished his Son really to suffer (\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2) for our sakes, and\nthat we may not say that he, being the Son of God, did not feel what was\nhappening and being inflicted upon him.\u201d(48) He goes on to say that the\nsilence of Jesus, who returned no answer to any one in the presence of\nPilate, was foretold in a passage which he quotes. All this, in connection\nwith representations not found in our canonical Gospels, may form another\nlink with the Gospel according to Peter, as one of his Memoirs. Justin\nevidently made use of passages like the words at the baptism, to which he\ndid not attach any Docetic interpretation, and it is quite natural that he\nshould argue against the view that Jesus did not really suffer pain, and\nyet read quite naturally the words we are discussing, without directly\nreferring to them. It was the practice of these early sects to twist\npassages, not originally intended to favour them, into evidence for their\nviews, and an ordinary Christian might possess a Gospel containing them,\nin complete unconsciousness that it tended in the slightest degree to\nencourage heresy.(49) It is evident from several quotations which we have\nmade, and from others which might be adduced, that Justin was an example\nof this very thing.\n\nA number of small points might be added to these, but we do not go into\nthem here. A majority of the critics who have discussed the question are\nof opinion that Justin made use of the Gospel according to Peter,(50) and\neven apologists, (who as a body seem agreed to depreciate the fragment),\nwhilst refusing to admit its use by Justin, are not generally very decided\nin their denial nor, as we shall presently see, inclined to assign it a\ndate which excludes the possibility. The case may be summed up in a few\nwords. Justin undeniably quotes from his \u201cMemoirs of the Apostles\u201d facts\nand passages which are not found in our Gospels; he distinctly refers to\nstatements as contained in certain \u201cMemoirs of Peter;\u201d(51) some of these\nvariations from the canonical Gospels have linguistic and other parallels\nin our fragment, short as it is, and there is reason to suppose that\nothers would have been found in it had the entire Gospel been extant for\ncomparison; the style of the fragment precisely tallies with the peculiar\nname of \u201cMemoirs,\u201d being a personal narrative in the first person\nsingular; and finally, there is nothing in its composition or character\nwhich necessitates the assignment of such a date to the fragment as would\nexclude the possibility, or probability, of its use by Justin.\n\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nWe may now consider whether there is any indication of the use of this\nGospel according to Peter by the author of the \u201cEpistle of Barnabas.\u201d The\nEpistle is variously dated between A.D. 70-132, apologists leaning towards\nthe earlier date. The shortness of the fragment recovered, of course,\ndiminishes greatly the probability of finding any trace of its use in so\ncomparatively brief a work as this Epistle, but some indications may be\npointed out. The fragment states that, being anxious lest the sun should\nset whilst he was still living and the law regarding one put to death be\ntransgressed, \u201cone of them said: \u2018Give him to drink gall with vinegar,\u2019\nand having mixed they gave him to drink (\u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2;\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd).(52) ... Over all these things, however, we were\nfasting (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd)(53) ... the whole people ...\nbeat their breasts (\u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7).\u201d(54) This\nrepresentation not only differs from the canonical Gospels in \u201cgall with\nvinegar\u201d being given to drink, but in the view that it was not given to\nrelieve thirst, but as a potion to hasten death,(55) and there follow\nvarious statements regarding fasting and mourning. Now in Barnabas\nprecisely the same representation is made. The Epistle says:\n\n\n    But also when crucified, he had vinegar and gall given him to\n    drink (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f44\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7). Hear how, on\n    this matter, the priests of the temple have revealed. Seeing that\n    there is a commandment in Scripture: \u201cWhosoever shall not observe\n    the fast shall surely die,\u201d the Lord commanded, because he was in\n    his own person about to offer the vessel of his spirit for our\n    sins ... \u201cSince ye are to give me, who am to offer my flesh for\n    the sins of my new people, gall with vinegar to drink, eat ye\n    alone, while the people fasts and wails.... (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5).\u201d(56)\n\n\nThere are three suppositions as the possible explanation of this\nsimilarity: (1) that the author of the Epistle derived his statement from\nthe Gospel; (2) that the author of the Gospel derived it from the Epistle,\nor (3) that both drew it from a third and earlier source. Assigning as we\ndo the later date to the Epistle of Barnabas, the first of these\nhypotheses seems to us the most natural and the correct one, although, of\ncourse, it is impossible to prove that both did not derive it from another\nsource. The second explanation we must definitely reject, both because we\nconsider that priority of date lies with the fragment, and because it does\nnot seem probable that the representation originated in the Epistle. To\nadmit this would be to suppose that the author first fabricated the\nstatement that Jesus was given gall and vinegar to hasten death, and then\nproceeded immediately to explain the circumstance by means of the\nelaborate gnosis with which the Epistle is filled. It is quite undeniable\nthat the whole narrative of the Gospels grew out of the suggestions of\nsupposed prophetic passages in the Old Testament, but the author of the\nEpistle introduces the statement upon which his explanation is based, with\na simplicity which seems to exclude the idea of its being his own\nfabrication: \u201cBut also, when crucified, he had vinegar and gall given him\nto drink.\u201d There is not the ring here of a statement advanced for the\nfirst time, but if we suppose that the author had read it in such a work\nas the Gospel according to Peter, it would be quite natural. It is not to\nbe understood that we doubt that the account in the fragment, or in our\nGospels, was suggested by passages in the Old Testament, but simply that\nwe do not believe that the representation originated in this Epistle, in\nimmediate connection with the elaborate explanation given. A tradition,\ngradually influenced by such prophetic and other considerations, may have\nbeen embodied by the author of the Gospel in his narrative, and then the\nwriter of the Epistle may have seized upon it and enlarged upon its\ntypical signification, but it is not probable that he originated it\nhimself.\n\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nWe do not propose to enter here upon an inquiry whether there is any\nevidence within our short fragment that the Gospel according to Peter was\nused by other early writers. The slight traces which alone we could hope\nto find, and which several able critics do find,(57) cannot be decisive of\nanything, and whilst there may be a faint literary interest in pursuing\nsuch researches, they need not detain us here. A short consideration may,\nhowever, be given to Tatian. Some critics, impressed apparently with the\nidea that no early Gospels can possibly be otherwise than dependent on our\ncanonical works, yet having to explain the continuous divergence from the\ncanonical narratives, advance the suggestion, that the writer of the\nGospel according to Peter may have derived all the points which the\nfragment contains, in common with one or more of the canonical Gospels,\nfrom a Harmony of our Gospels. Now, the only Harmony of the second century\nwhich, they think, has survived is the so-called \u201cDiatessaron\u201d of Tatian.\nOf course, they find that the \u201cDiatessaron\u201d \u201cmight have furnished the\nwriter of the fragment with all the incidents which he shares with any of\nthe Four Gospels.\u201d Dr. Swete continues: \u201cThe order in Peter is not always\nthe same as it seems to have been in Tatian, but differences of order may\nbe disregarded in our inquiry, since they are equally embarrassing if we\nassume that the writer had recourse to the Gospels as separate books.\u201d(58)\n\nNot content with the conclusion that the Gospels, narrating the very same\nhistory, might have furnished the incidents which they have in common, Dr.\nSwete proceeds \u201cto compare the \u2018Diatessaron\u2019 with our fragment, with the\nview of ascertaining whether Tatian would have provided the Petrine writer\nwith the words which he seems to have adopted from the Four Gospels.\u201d(59)\n\nThis is not the place to discuss again the identity of the supposed\n\u201cDiatessaron,\u201d but it will be sufficient to point out that we have it only\nin an Arabic version, published and translated by Ciasca, and a\ntranslation of the supposed Armenian version of the Commentary upon it,\nascribed to Ephraem, which again Moesinger, who edited the Latin version\npublished in 1876, declares to be itself translated from the Syriac. In\nthese varied transformations of the text, anything like verbal accuracy\nmust be regarded as totally lost. The object in making the versions was\nnot, of course, critical fidelity, and variations from canonical texts\nwould, no doubt, often or always be regarded as accidental and to be\ncorrected. Such translations can never, in textual criticism, be accepted\nas sufficient representations of the original. The process, however, by\nwhich Dr. Swete proceeds to ascertain whether the author of the fragment\nderives from Tatian the _words_ which he seems to have adopted from the\nFour Gospels, is to place side by side with the Petrine narrative, in\ncertain crucial passages, the corresponding portions of the \u201cDiatessaron,\u201d\napproximately represented in Greek, and he selects the accounts of the\nmockery, the three hours, the burial, and the visit of the women to the\ntomb. He thus explains his system: \u201cThe plan adopted has been to\nsubstitute for Ciasca\u2019s translation of the Arabic Tatian the corresponding\nportions of the canonical Gospels. The text has been determined by a\ncomparison of Ciasca\u2019s Latin with Moesinger\u2019s _Evangelii Concordantis\nExpositio_, and the Curetonian Syriac of Luke xxiii., xxiv. It claims, of\ncourse, only to be an approximate and provisional representation of the\ntext of the original work.\u201d(60) However impartial Dr. Swete may have tried\nto be\u2014and without doubt he did endeavour to be so\u2014such a test is vitiated\nand rendered useless by the antecedent manipulation of the texts. The\nresult at which he arrives is: \u201cThis comparison does not justify the\nconclusion that the writer of our fragment was limited to the use of the\n\u2018Diatessaron\u2019 \u201d\u2014the exact contents of which, in its original shape, be it\nnoted, Dr. Swete, a few lines further on, admits that we do not know, \u201cso\nthat it would be unsafe to draw any negative inference\u201d from certain\nexceptions.\n\n\n    On the whole we may perhaps claim to have established a strong\n    presumption that the Petrine writer employed a Harmony which, in\n    its general selection of extracts, and in some of its minuter\n    arrangements, very nearly resembled the Harmony of Tatian. This is\n    not equivalent to saying that he used Tatian, because there is\n    some reason to think that there may have been a Harmony or\n    Harmonies earlier than Tatian.... Thus the relation of the Petrine\n    writer to Tatian remains for the present an open question; but\n    enough has been said to render such a relation probable, if\n    further inquiries should lead us to place the Gospel of Peter\n    after the publication of the \u201cDiatessaron.\u201d(61)\n\n\nIt must frankly be asserted that the whole of this comparison with Tatian,\nand the views so curiously expressed regarding the result, are the outcome\nof a preconceived idea that the Petrine author compiled his Gospel mainly\nfrom the canonical. The divergencies being so great, however, and the\nactual contradictions so strong, it becomes necessary to account for them\nin some way, and the theory of the use of a Harmony is advanced to see\nwhether it may not overcome some of the difficulties. It would have been\nmore to the purpose to have inquired whether the so-called \u201cDiatessaron\u201d\ndid not make use of the Gospel according to Peter, amongst others.\n\nIn connection with this it may be well to refer to some remarkable\nobservations of Professor J. Rendel Harris regarding the relation of the\nGospel according to Peter and Tatian\u2019s Harmony. When the fragment was\nfirst discovered, he was naturally struck by its great importance. \u201cThe\nGospel of Peter, even in the imperfect form in which it has come down to\nus, is the breaking of a new seal, the opening of a fresh door,\u201d he said,\n\u201cto those who are engaged in the problems presented by Biblical and\nPatristic criticism,\u201d(62) and he very rightly proceeded to try to find out\n\u201cwhether Peter has used Tatian, or Tatian Peter, or whether both of them\nare working upon common sources.\u201d(63) He first refers to \u201ca curious\naddition to the story of the Crucifixion, which can be shown, with a very\nhigh probability, to have once stood in the Harmony of Tatian.\u201d The most\ninteresting and instructive part of the reference is that Mr. Harris had\nmade and published, some years before the discovery of the fragment before\nus, certain notes on the Harmony of Tatian, in which he had employed \u201cthe\nmethod of combination of passages in different writers who were known to\nhave used the Harmony, or different texts which were suspected of having\nborrowed from it, to show that in the account of the Crucifixion there\nstood a passage something like the following:\n\n\n    \u201cThey beat their breasts and said, Woe unto us, for the things\n    which are done to-day for our sins; for the desolation of\n    Jerusalem hath drawn nigh.\u201d(64)\n\n\nIt is unnecessary here to quote the way Mr. Harris arrived at this\npassage, which he frankly states, but at once go on to compare it with our\nfragment. He sums up:\n\n\n    Now the reader will be interested to see that the missing sentence\n    which I restored to Tatian\u2019s text has turned up in the Gospel of\n    Peter, for we read that: \u201cThe Jews and the elders and the priests,\n    when they saw what an evil deed they had done to themselves, began\n    to beat their breasts and to say, Woe to our sins, for the\n    judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at hand.\u201d Did the false Peter\n    take this from Tatian, or was it the other way? or did both of\n    them use some uncanonical writing or tradition?(65)\n\n\n\u201cThere is nothing in what follows in the Arabic Harmony,\u201d Mr. Harris\npoints out, \u201cwhich suggests an allusion to the desolation of the city, or\nan imprecation upon, or lamentation over, themselves.\u201d(66)\n\nVery few will feel any doubt that this is taken from our Gospel according\nto Peter, or possibly\u2014for of course there is no absolute proof\u2014from the\ntradition which the writer of that Gospel also used, and not by the writer\nfrom the Harmony; and it may be suggested that the omission of this and\nsimilar passages from versions of the Harmony may have been influenced by\nthe fact that, not forming part of our Gospels, and not agreeing with the\npreconceived theory of a Harmony of our four Gospels, such passages were\nexcluded as interpolations.\n\nAnother instance given by Mr. Harris is the statement in the fragment:\n\u201cThen the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour,\u201d which he\ncompares with the language of \u201cTatian\u2019s\u201d commentator: \u201cThree hours the sun\nwas darkened, and afterwards it shone out again.\u201d(67) And further:\n\n\n    Another case of parallelism is in the speech of the angel to Mary:\n    \u201c_He is not here, for he is risen, and has gone away to the place\n    from whence he was sent._\u201d At first sight this looks like a wilful\n    expansion on the part of the writer of the Gospel; but on a\n    reference to the Persian father Aphrahat, who is more than\n    suspected of having used the text of Tatian, we find the words,\n    \u201cAnd the angels said to Mary, He is risen, and gone away to him\n    that sent him,\u201d which is very nearly in coincidence with the text\n    of the false Peter.(68)\n\n\nNeither of these passages is found in the actual text of \u201cTatian.\u201d\nFinally, we may quote the other instance pointed out by Mr. Harris:\n\n\n    The Docetic quotation from the Psalm \u201cMy Power, my Power, hast\n    thou forsaken me?\u201d is peculiar in this respect, that the second\n    possessive pronoun is wanting, so that we ought to translate it\n    \u201cPower, my Power ...\u201d Now, it is curious that Tatian\u2019s text had a\n    similar peculiarity, for Ephrem gives it as \u201cGod, my God,\u201d and the\n    Arabic Harmony as _Yaiil, Yaiili_, where the added suffix belongs\n    to the possessive pronoun. This is a remarkable coincidence, and\n    makes one suspect that Tatian had \u201cPower, my Power\u201d in his text,\n    and that it has been corrected away. And it is significant that\n    Ephrem in commenting on the passage, says: \u201cThe divinity did not\n    so far depart from the humanity as to be cut off from it, but only\n    as regards the _power_ of the divinity, which was hidden both from\n    the Slain and the slayers.\u201d This looks very suspicious that Ephrem\n    found something in his text of Tatian differing from the words\n    \u201cGod, my God.\u201d(69)\n\n\nMr. Harris reserves his final judgment on this relation between Tatian and\nthe Gospel according to Peter; but as in a later article(70) he is not\nunwilling to allow the date of A.D. 130 to be assigned to the fragment, it\nis scarcely to be decided as Peter quoting Tatian. Mr. Harris throughout\nthese passages, however, states the case in a most impartial manner, and\nthe reader must form his own opinion.\n\nWe may, before leaving \u201cTatian,\u201d point out another instance of agreement\nto which Mr. Harris does not allude. In the Commentary there is the\nfollowing passage: \u201c_Et dederunt ei bibere acetum et fel._ Acetum ei\nporrexerunt, pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium\ndulcem fecit.\u201d(71) It will be remembered that this agrees with the\nrepresentation of the fragment that they gave Jesus \u201cvinegar and gall\u201d to\ndrink.\n\nAll these instances may, indeed, throw a new light upon the _Diapente_ in\nthe text of Victor, which has so exercised apologists, and lead to the\nopinion that Tatian\u2019s Harmony was not composed out of four Gospels, but\nout of five. If it be agreed, as it is by a majority of critics, that\nJustin made use of the Gospel of Peter, the probability that his pupil\nTatian likewise possessed the same work, and used it for his Harmony, is\nimmensely increased.\n\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nWe shall not attempt to fix any even approximate date to the Gospel\naccording to Peter, although we shall presently have to consider its\nrelation to our canonical Gospels in a way which will at least assign it a\nposition in time relative to them. Harnack, in the preface to the second\nedition of his article on the fragment, suspends his judgment on its\nrelation to our Gospels, and will not even undertake a sufficient\nexamination of this important question, so long as there remains a hope of\nstill recovering more of the Gospel. It is devoutly to be hoped that the\nCemetery of Akhm\u00eem may still give us more of this and other important\nearly works; but there is no reason why we should not, even now, endeavour\nto derive what information we can from this instalment, and the worst\u2014or\nthe best\u2014which can happen is that future acquisitions may enable us to\ncorrect the errors\u2014or confirm the conclusions\u2014of the present. So long as\nwe confine ourselves to the legitimate inferences to be drawn from the\nactual fragment before us, we cannot go far wrong.\n\nIt is frequently possible to assign well-defined limits within which early\nworks, whose authors are unknown, must have been composed, when a more\nprecise date cannot with certainty be fixed. Direct references to the\nwriting, or its use, by writers the period of whose literary work is\nknown, may enable us to affirm that it was written at least before their\ntime; and sometimes certain allusions or quotations in the work itself\nmay, on the other hand, show that it must have been composed after a\ncertain date; and thus limits, more or less narrow, become certain, within\nwhich its production must lie. The Gospel according to Peter, as we might\nexpect, contains none of the allusions or quotations to which we refer,\nand we are therefore reduced to the one indication of age\u2014reference to, or\nthe use of it by, early writers, leaving the approximate date to which it\nmay be set back wholly to conjecture. As we have already remarked above,\nthe question whether it is dependent on, or independent of, our canonical\nGospels has yet to be considered; but there is too much difference of\nopinion regarding the date of these Gospels themselves to render this more\nthan a relative indication. So far, the opinions of critics assign the\nGospel according to Peter to dates ranging from a period antecedent to our\nGospels, in their present form, to about the middle of the second\ncentury.(72)\n\nThe indications of style and phraseology given by the fragment have of\ncourse to be taken into account, and it may be well, before proceeding\nfurther, to examine certain peculiarities which have been pointed out by\nwriters who assert that the composition is decidedly later than our\ncanonical Gospels.(73) The writer never speaks of \u201cJesus\u201d simply, but\nalways as \u201cthe Lord\u201d (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). He likewise refers to him as the\n\u201cSaviour\u201d (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) in one place, and several times as \u201ca Son of God\u201d (\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6). Now, with regard to these expressions, they are in constant use\nthroughout the New Testament writings, in the Gospels themselves, as well\nas in the Epistles of Paul and the Epistles popularly ascribed to him. For\ninstance, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: Matt. xxi. 3, xxviii. 6;(74) Mark xvi. 19;(75) Luke\nvii. 13, x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8,\n31, 34, xxii. 61, xxiv. 3, 34; John vi. 23, xi. 2, xiii. 13, 14, xx. 2,\n13, 18, 20, 28, xxi. 7, 12. It is unnecessary to point out passages in the\nActs and Epistles, for \u201cthe Lord,\u201d \u201cthe Lord Jesus,\u201d or \u201cthe Lord Jesus\nChrist,\u201d is everywhere used, and indeed no other form, it may be said, is\nadopted. \u201cA Son of God\u201d (\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) is constantly used in the Gospels\nand Acts. A few instances may be given: Matt. viii. 29, xiv. 33, xvi. 16,\nxxvi. 63, xxvii. 40, 43, 54; Mark i. 1, iii. 11, v. 7, xv. 39; Luke i. 35,\nix. 41, viii. 28, xxii. 70; John i. 34, 49, v. 25, x. 36, xi. 4, 27, xix.\n7, xx. 31; Acts ix. 20. Of course, in the Epistles the expression is of\nfrequent occurrence, as for instance, Rom. i. 4, 9, v. 10; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2\nCor. i. 19; Gal. ii. 20, and elsewhere. It is not necessary to show that\n\u201cSaviour\u201d is used, but the following may be pointed out: Luke ii. 11; John\niv. 42; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23; and it more frequently occurs in the\nEpistles. All of these expressions are commonly employed in early\nChristian literature, such as the \u201cDidache,\u201d Ignatian Epistles, Clement of\nRome, Polycarp, \u201cPastor\u201d of Hermas, and the \u201cApology\u201d of Aristides.\n\nThe principal phrase upon which weight is laid by those who assign to the\nGospel according to Peter, from this fragment, a later date than our\ncanonical works, is the use of \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae without \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 to designate \u201cthe\nLord\u2019s day\u201d\u2014Sunday; Dr. Swete calls it \u201cthe most decisive indication of\nthe relatively late composition of our fragment.\u201d(76) After giving some\ninstances of a similar expression, he states the case as follows:\n\n\n    The name was therefore familiar amongst Eastern Greek-speaking\n    Christians from the end of the first century. But Peter not only\n    uses it freely, but seems to be unconscious that he is guilty of\n    an anachronism when he imports this exclusively Christian term\n    into the Gospel history. \u1f29 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae has so completely supplanted \u1f29\n    \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, that it is twice used to describe the first\n    Easter Day, in a document which usually manifests precision in\n    such matters.(77)\n\n\nIt is not quite clear what Dr. Swete means when he says that Peter \u201cuses\nit freely,\u201d but it would indeed be singular if he seemed to be conscious\nthat he was guilty of an anachronism in making use of this or any word.\nThe question, in fact, is whether it is an anachronism or not, and that it\nis so is very far from proved by any arguments yet brought forward. In the\nApocalypse, i. 10, we have the use of the term \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d (\u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1), A.D. 68-69. In the \u201cDidache,\u201d which Dr. Lightfoot assigns to the\nfirst or the beginning of the second century, we meet with \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5;\nand in the Ignatian Epistles, which those who believe in them date \u201cin the\nearly years of the second century,\u201d there is in one place(78) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd. So far from its being surprising that there should not be more\nauthority for such an expression, however, it seems almost more remarkable\nthat we should have any parallels at all, when we remember how few early\nwritings are extant, and how few of these actually refer to the day thus\ndesignated. The Epistles, for this reason, may be set aside in a body, for\nthey give no testimony either way, with the exception of 1 Cor. xvi. 2,\nwhere \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d is referred to. The three Synoptics,\nfollowing each other, and a common tradition, use \u1f21 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd each\nonce, and the fourth Gospel has the same phrase twice, and the Acts once;\nbut this use of another expression does not\u2014in the face of the use of \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae in this fragment, and of \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, in the Apocalypse\u2014at all\nshow that, at the same period, the latter phrase was not also current,\nthough it may not have supplanted \u201cthe first day of the week.\u201d The fact\nthat Melito of Sardis, \u201cabout the middle of the second century,\u201d wrote a\ntreatise \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 shows how general that expression had become; and\neven Dr. Swete, as we have seen above, recognises that it was \u201cfamiliar\namongst Eastern Greek-speaking Christians from the end of the first\ncentury.\u201d There is nothing whatever to warrant the conclusion that its use\nat the time when our Gospels were written would have been an anachronism,\nbut the fact that a different expression happened to be used in a few\nwritings. The author of the fragment employs the phrase twice only, and it\nis thoroughly consistent with his impressive style throughout the episode,\nthat he should apply to the time when these astounding events are said to\nhave taken place the appropriate term, already suggested by the author of\nthe Apocalypse, of \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d instead of \u201cthe first day of the\nweek.\u201d There is nothing more difficult, as is proved every day in our\ntime, than to fix the precise date at which words or expressions first\ncame into use, and especially\u2014in the absence of voluminous literature\nopposing the presumption\u2014the denial of antiquity to a work, on the ground\nof its employing an expression supposed only to have come into general use\na few years later than its otherwise probable date, is both rash and\nunjustifiable.\n\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nWe now come to the most important part of our examination of this\nfragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic\nvalue as an early Christian document\u2014its relation to our canonical\nGospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking\nit as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four\ncanonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen\nthat it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less\nan abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character\nof an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.\n\nThe fragment commences, \u201cbut of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither\nHerod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate\nrose.(79) (2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken,\nsaying unto them: \u2018Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto\nhim.\u2019 \u201d It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is\nrepresented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that\ndescribed in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must,\naccording to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given\nby \u201cHerod the King\u201d \u201cto take the Lord\u201d evidently shows that he is\nrepresented as playing the leading part. Although the episode of the\nwashing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the\nfirst Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must\nhave been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts\nmay have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition\nso incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into\ncondemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony\nfor the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross\ninjustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical\nEvangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging\nJesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of\nPeter\u2019s account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that\nJesus was a Galilean, recognising \u201cthat he was of Herod\u2019s jurisdiction,\u201d\nand sending him to Herod, \u201cwho himself also was at Jerusalem in these\ndays.\u201d The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before\nbeen at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising\nHerod\u2019s jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with\nthe trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels\nare not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the\nmatter. When, according to our fragment, \u201cPilate rose,\u201d he seems to have\npassed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.\n\nAt this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as\nhaving been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we\nmust note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits.\nThe first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas,\nwhich all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his\nmain object in writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was\nanimosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and\nresponsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should\naltogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable\nan opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying \u201cNot this man,\nbut Barabbas.\u201d There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire\nindependence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose\nthat, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over\nsuch striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be\nfound in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by\nPilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It\nis distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the\nfour Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman\nGovernor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour\nof an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly\ndeclares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced\nagainst his will into scourging and crucifying him.\n\nAccording to the four canonical Gospels,(80) the request of Joseph for the\nbody of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew\n(xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also\nhimself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the\nbody, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of\nArimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was\nlooking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for\nthe body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is \u201cWhen even was come\u201d that he\ngoes to Pilate; in Mark it is \u201cWhen even was now come, because it was the\nPreparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.\u201d In Matthew, Pilate\nsimply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further\nrelated (xv. 44): \u201cAnd Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and\ncalling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while\ndead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to\nJoseph.\u201d In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.): \u201cA man named Joseph, who was a\ncouncillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their\ncounsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for\nthe kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of\nJesus.\u201d It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is\nmentioned further on (_v._ 54): \u201cAnd it was the day of the Preparation,\nand the Sabbath drew on,\u201d\u2014which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38): \u201cAfter\nthese things [the _crurifragium_ and piercing of the side], Joseph of\nArimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews,\nasked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave\nhim leave.\u201d In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to\nbe crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the\nnarrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any\nobject for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four\ncanonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be\nseen that the time in Peter\u2019s narrative is in perfect accord with the\nversion which he gives of the trial. \u201cPilate rose,\u201d and it is to be\ninferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph\nseizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3. \u201cBut there was there\nJoseph the friend of Pilate(81) and of the Lord, and knowing that they are\nabout to crucify (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body\nof the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his\nbody; 5. and Herod said: \u2018Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for\nhim, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is\nwritten in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.\u2019 \u201d It\nis to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for\nthe body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the\nrequest is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request\npresented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in\nits proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii.\n50-51), that Joseph was \u201ca councillor\u201d who had \u201cnot consented to their\ncounsel and deed,\u201d which is here alone referred to, may indicate another\ntradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it\nincluded his presence at the trial and consequently presented the\nopportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the\nrequest to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had\nwithdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the\nmatter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put\ninto the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the\nwriter, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is\nno sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the\ncontrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in\norder and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a\nseparate, though analogous, tradition.\n\nIf we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase\nwhich is common to the three Synoptics: \u201cHe went in unto Pilate [and]\nasked for the body of Jesus\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6,(82) Matthew and Luke; \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, Mark). In Peter we have: \u201cHe came to Pilate and asked for\nthe body of the Lord\u201d (\u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f94\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is\nalmost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout\nrequires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is\nquite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from\nsimilarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple\naction, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to\nimagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of\nthe episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial\ndetail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by\nanyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New\nTestament at all, and that \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae only occurs once in the New Testament, in\nMatt. xxvii. 7.\n\nThe fragment continues:\n\n\n    And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the\n    Unleavened bread of their feast (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and\n    said: \u201cLet us drag along (\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) the Son of God as we have power\n    over him.\u201d 7. And they clad him with purple (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n    \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) and set him on a seat of judgment (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2),\n    saying: \u201cJudge justly (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5), King of Israel.\u201d 8. And one\n    of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the\n    Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote\n    him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some\n    scourged him, saying: \u201cWith this honour honour we the Son of God.\u201d\n\n\nBefore proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well\nto determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by\nZahn(83) and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands\nJesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in\nthe Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be\ndenied that the words used are, \u201che delivered him to the people\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7), but the question is, whether the meaning is that\nhe actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the\nsubsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments\nwere performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people,\nthe meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he\nshould be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and\npeople, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter\ninterpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used\nexactly expresses this: \u201cbut Jesus he delivered up to their will\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd). But a still more close representation\nof the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.):\n\u201cThen, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief\npriests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place\ncalled, &c. ... where they crucified him.\u201d It is only in verse 23 that the\nnarrative goes back and explains: \u201cThe soldiers, therefore, when they had\ncrucified Jesus,\u201d &c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important\nindication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2. \u201cAnd then\nHerod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:\n\u2018Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.\u2019 \u201d Who are\nindicated by the pronoun \u201cthem\u201d?(84) Doubtless the context would have\nexplained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders\ngiven must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following\nverse (3) it is said that Joseph, \u201cknowing that they are about to crucify\nhim,\u201d came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment,\nof crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to\nrepresent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that\nthe orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is\nrepresented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the\nstatement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod \u201cwith his soldiers\nset him at nought and mocked him,\u201d and so on. The doubt only proceeds from\nindefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on\nthe part of critics.\n\nIt is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion\n\u201cbefore the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,\u201d that the\nGospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in\ncontradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put\nto death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however,\nis limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author\ntakes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the\nfeasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none\nof the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing\nthe Paschal offering, nor does he associate with that the circumstances\nregarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his\nside, which he altogether omits.(85)\n\nThe author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his\nnarrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the\nclothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring\nwhilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case.\nThe hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7\nbegins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the\njudgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is\nnecessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the\naccount in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery\nis represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified.\nHe is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment;\nthe crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite\nhim on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the\nSynoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and\nintensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of\nCaiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.): \u201cThen did they spit in his face and buffet him;\nand some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto\nus, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?\u201d After Pilate causes Jesus to\nbe scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.):\n\u201cThen the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered\nunto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet\nrobe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a\nreed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and mocked him,\nsaying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed\nand smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from\nhim the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify\nhim.\u201d In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest\n(xiv. 65 ff.): \u201cAnd some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and\nto buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received\nhim with blows of their hands.\u201d The mockery recommences after Jesus is\nscourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.): \u201cAnd the\nsoldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they\ncall together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and\nplaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute\nhim, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did\nspit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had\nmocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his\ngarments, and they led him out to crucify him.\u201d Of course it is\nunnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other.\nThe same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.): \u201cAnd\nthe men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him,\nand asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many\nother things spake they against him, reviling him.\u201d This passes, as in the\nother Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent\nmocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified,\nbut after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11): \u201cAnd Herod with his\nsoldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous\napparel sent him back to Pilate.\u201d In the fourth Gospel there is only the\none scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus is scourged by the\norder of Pilate (xix. 2): \u201cAnd the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and\nput it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came\nunto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their\nhands.\u201d In many respects this is the most incredible of the four\nnarratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of\nPilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next\nverse (4) it is said: \u201cAnd Pilate went out again, and saith unto them,\nBehold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in\nhim. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple\ngarment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!\u201d Although this scene,\nwhich has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is\nquite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as\nwell as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing\nhis soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the\nscourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares,\n\u201cI find no crime in him,\u201d is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is\nat variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar\ntradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each\nother. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a\nnarrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of\none independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.\n\nWe have already discussed, in connection with Justin\u2019s reference, the\npassage of Peter in which it is said that \u201cthey clad him with purple and\nset him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.\u201d Of\ncourse it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel,\non the strength of the words just quoted: \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, which are compared with the \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of the fourth\nGospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words \u201cand\nset him on the judgment seat,\u201d understanding the verb \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to be used\ntransitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery\nupon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen,\nand Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement\nupon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered\nin this way, yet it would be necessary to add \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd to justify such use of\nthe verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah\nlviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin: \u201cFor as the\nprophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and\nsaid: Judge for us!\u201d The Septuagint has: \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd ...\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment\nseat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above,\nunderstood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus\non the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most\ncritics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers\nof the New Testament. The words used for \u201cseat of judgment\u201d in the\nfragment, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, differ entirely from the \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of\nthe fourth Gospel. The analogous \u201cProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he\nthat struck thee?\u201d and the \u201cHail, King of the Jews,\u201d are, of course,\nwidely different from the representation in Peter, in which the \u201cJudge\njustly!\u201d is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the\n\u201cKing of Israel\u201d a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to\nrefer again further on. The statement that \u201cothers pierced him with a\nreed\u201d is also a variation from the canonical Gospels, which only say,\n\u201cthey took the reed and smote him on the head.\u201d The fourth Gospel has\nalone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a\nspear \u201cthat the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him\nwhom they pierced,\u201d but in our fragment the representation is made\ncasually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of\nthorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and\nwithout the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.\n\nThere is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this\nthere is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the\nfourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding\nits being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f.,\nMark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to\nCalvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it\nin good set terms (xix. 17): \u201cThey took Jesus, therefore; and he went out,\nbearing the cross for himself, unto the place called \u2018The place of a\nskull.\u2019 \u201d\n\nPeter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.\n\u201cAnd they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but\nhe kept silence, as feeling no pain.\u201d The canonical Gospels all narrate\nthe crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which\nthis is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38): \u201cThen\nare there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one\non the left.\u201d Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some\nexercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32\nf.): \u201cAnd there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put\nto death. And when they came unto the place which is called \u2018The skull,\u2019\nthere they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and\nthe other on the left.\u201d The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.): \u201cThey took\nJesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the\nplace called \u2018The place of a skull,\u2019 which is called in Hebrew Golgotha:\nwhere they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and\nJesus in the midst.\u201d The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the\ncommon tradition is given with independence and simplicity.\n\nIt is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important\nvariation. \u201cBut he kept silence, as feeling no pain.\u201d We have already\nreferred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the\nfragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr.\nMurray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer \u201cgives\nthem an innocent\u201d (that is, not a Docetic) \u201cinterpretation.\u201d\n\n\n    Et in his omnibus _unigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec\n    passa est aliquid_, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter\n    benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit\n    et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig. _in Mat._\n    125.(86)\n\n\nAlthough there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a\nmoment\u2019s notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as\nremarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment,\nunfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see\nwhether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In\nMatt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said: \u201cAnd when he was accused by the chief\npriests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto him,\nHearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave\nhim no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled\ngreatly.\u201d An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to\nthe questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9): \u201cAnd he [Herod]\nquestioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.\u201d In the fourth\nGospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is\nrepresented as answering freely\u2014and in the tone of the discourses which\ncharacterise that Gospel\u2014the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics,\nwe have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly,\nthat is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is\nexcluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the\noriginal tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the\ncross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we\nhave, in its earlier form, in Peter?\n\nIn our fragment, the narrative continues: 11. \u201cAnd as they set up the\ncross they wrote thereon: \u2018This is the King of Israel.\u2019 \u201d We have here a\ncontinuation of the indefinite \u201cthey,\u201d which it becomes at every step more\nimpossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most\ncurious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels\nagree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross,\nand that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it\n(xxvii. 37): \u201cThis is Jesus, the King of the Jews;\u201d Mark (xv. 26): \u201cThe\nKing of the Jews;\u201d Luke (xxiii. 38): \u201cThis is the King of the Jews,\u201d and\nJohn (xix. 19): \u201cJesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.\u201d The author of\nthe fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title \u201cwas written in\nHebrew, in Latin, and in Greek,\u201d and further gives a conversation between\nthe \u201cchief priests of the Jews\u201d and Pilate, in which they complain of this\nsuperscription, and wish it to be put \u201cthat he said, I am King of the\nJews,\u201d to which Pilate answered briefly, \u201cWhat I have written, I have\nwritten.\u201d With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose\nthat Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four\nGospels had actually been before him?(87)\n\nThe author of the fragment continues: 12. \u201cAnd they laid the clothes\nbefore him and distributed them and cast lots (\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) for them.\u201d\nIn Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said: \u201cAnd when they had crucified him, they\nparted his garments among them, casting lots\u201d (\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd); in Mark\n(xv. 24): \u201cAnd they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting\nlots (\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) upon them, what each should take.\u201d In Luke there\nis a similar statement (xxiii. 34): \u201cAnd parting his garments among them,\nthey cast lots\u201d (\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have\nfurther details (xix. 23 f.): \u201cThe soldiers therefore, when they had\ncrucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a\npart; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top\nthroughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but\ncast lots (\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be\nfulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my\nvesture did they cast lots\u201d (\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd). In discussing the connection\nof Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this\npassage, and now confront it with all the four Gospels. It is obvious that\nthe language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who\nuses the unusual word \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth\nGospel has the common verb \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9, whilst the quotation from the Psalm\n(xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression\ncommon to the three Synoptics, \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. There is no reason for\nsupposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of\nother evidence, the \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 is decisive proof of his independence.\n\nThe author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking\nspeeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent\nthief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how\none of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13. \u201cBut one of these\nmalefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil\nwhich we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what\nwrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they\ncommanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die\nin torment.\u201d\n\nIt will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in\nLuke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the\ntwo malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke\u2019s narrative\nreads (xxiii. 39 f.): \u201cAnd one of the malefactors which were hanged railed\non him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the\nother answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing\nthou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive\nthe due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he\nsaid, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto\nhim, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.\u201d\nThat all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this,\nsupposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only\nconclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that\nthey were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the\nstory, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has\nembellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if\nhe display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he\nis not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic.\nThat the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite\nuninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.\n\nThis is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in\nwhich, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there\nis connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of the\n_crurifragium_ which is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the\nmalefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment\ndeclares: \u201cAnd they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs\nshould not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.\u201d Now, here,\nthere is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence\nrefer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from\nconsideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but\non closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer\nintended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so\nremarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be\nconsidered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it\nover without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to\nbreak the legs as applying to the malefactor and not to Jesus.(88) In the\nfirst edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that\nmore probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition\nhe withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 to\nJesus \u201cappears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and\nalso on account of the context.\u201d(89) Zahn considers the whole episode in\nPeter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author\u2019s hatred\nof the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of the\n_crurifragium_ as drawn by the caricaturist from the \u201cMotive\u201d of the\nfourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say,\nwith mysterious reticence: \u201cWhoever is of another opinion should keep it\nto himself\u201d!(90) Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite\nindependent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack\u2019s change of view, and applies\nthe \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 to the malefactor;(91) but many able critics, with equal\ndecision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,(92) and Harnack himself,\nof course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear\ncontradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth\nGospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference,\nand we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that\nthe passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the\nconsequence if it be referred to the malefactor.\n\nThroughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author\nis to present Jesus in the strongest light, and subordinate everything to\nthe representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are\nconsidering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character:\nthe crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no\npain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments,\nare all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor,\napparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more\nintended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the\nspeaker, and it is certainly not the writer\u2019s purpose to divert our\nattention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous\nmalefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and\nmission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and\nhatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they\nreply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the\npassage seems to be \u201cAnd they, being angered at what was said, commanded\nthat the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in\ntorment.\u201d However, let us take the view that the command was given that\nthe malefactor\u2019s legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment.\nIt clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not having\n_his_ legs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have\nbeen broken. The command not to break _his_ legs necessarily implies that\notherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no\nescape from this inference. Now the _crurifragium_ is here represented as\nan act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are\ntold that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set\nwhilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the\nmalefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to\nbreaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been\nJesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the\ncontrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared\nhis being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken.\nJesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion\nof vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the\nmalefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as the\n_crurifragium_ had been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the\npotion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs\nof Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most\ncomplete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and\nof the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.\n\nLet us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth\nGospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in\norder to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It\nwould follow that the _crurifragium_ was applied to the two malefactors,\nand that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his\nexecutioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is\nthe only one which recounts the _crurifragium_. In this narrative it is\nnot represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the\ncrucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.): \u201cThe Jews therefore, because it was\nthe Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the\nSabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that\ntheir legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The\nsoldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other\nwhich was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he\nwas dead already, they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be\nfulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.\u201d The object of the author in\nrelating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of\nScripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to\nsay the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The\nsoldiers brake the legs \u201cof the first,\u201d\u2014and by this description they imply\nthat they begin at one end\u2014and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus;\nbut not so, for having broken the legs \u201cof the first, and of the other,\u201d\nthey come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over\nof Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar\nto that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is\nquite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely\nfrom a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who\neven leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of\nJesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the\nJohannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the\npassage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from\nthe influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.\n\nThe fragment proceeds:\n\n\n    15. Now it was mid-day, and a darkness covered all Judaea, and\n    they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst\n    he still lived, for it is written for them: \u201cThe sun must not go\n    down upon one put to death.\u201d 16. And one of them said: \u201cGive him\n    to drink gall with vinegar;\u201d and having mixed, they gave him to\n    drink. 17. And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins\n    upon their own head. 18. Now many went about with lights, thinking\n    that it was night, and some fell.(93)\n\n\nThe three Synoptics have an account of this darkness in words which nearly\nrepeat each other. Matthew xxvii. 45: \u201cNow from the sixth hour there was\ndarkness over all the earth (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd) until the ninth hour.\u201d\nMark (xv. 33): \u201cAnd when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over\nthe whole earth (\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd) until the ninth hour.\u201d In Luke (xxiii.\n44 f.) other details are, as usual, added: \u201cAnd it was now about the sixth\nhour, and a darkness came over the whole earth (\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd) until\nthe ninth hour, the sun failing [or rather \u2018being eclipsed,\u2019 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2].\u201d(94) It is a very extraordinary circumstance that, whether a\nmiraculous eclipse or not, whether this darkness came over the whole land\nor the whole earth, the fourth Gospel has either not believed in it, or\nthought it unworthy of mention, for no reference to the astonishing\nphenomenon is found in it. Peter, in a manner quite different from the\nSynoptics, and in fuller detail, describes this darkness and its effect\nupon the people. For the second time, he refers to a portion of the Jewish\nlaw, interpreted from Deut. xxi. 23, to illustrate the anxiety which the\nsupposed going down of the sun had excited. This expression does not\nfavour any theory of his being acquainted with the third Synoptic.\n\nThe most important part of the passage is that in _v._ 16: \u201cAnd one of\nthem said: \u2018Give him to drink gall with vinegar;\u2019 and having mixed they\ngave him to drink.\u201d This proceeding is represented as the result of their\nanxiety at the sun going down whilst Jesus still lived, and the gall and\nvinegar are regarded as a potion to hasten death. This view is foreign to\nall of our Gospels. In Matthew xxvii. 48, when Jesus gives the loud cry,\n\u201cMy God, my God,\u201d &c., we read: \u201cAnd straightway one of them ran and took\na sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to\ndrink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save\nhim.\u201d In Mark (xv. 36) the representation is almost the same. In both of\nthese cases death follows almost immediately. In Luke (xxiii. 36) a very\ndifferent representation is made. There is no such cry connected with it,\nbut it is simply said: \u201cAnd the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him,\noffering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save\nthyself.\u201d In John the episode has quite another, and purely dogmatic,\ntendency (xix. 28 ff.). It commences immediately after the episode of the\nmother and the beloved disciple, and without any previous cry: \u201cAfter this\nJesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scripture might\nbe accomplished, saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of\nvinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it\nto his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It\nis finished; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.\u201d Of course the\nScripture which is represented as being thus fulfilled is Psalm lxix. 21:\n\u201c... and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.\u201d In all of these\nGospels, the potion is simply vinegar, and being evidently associated with\nthis Psalm, it is in no way connected with any baleful intention. The\nPsalm, however, commences: \u201cThey gave me also gall for my meat,\u201d and in\nconnection with the combination of gall with vinegar in Peter, as a potion\nto hasten death, it may be mentioned that the word which is in the Psalm\ntranslated \u201cgall\u201d may equally well be rendered \u201cpoison\u201d\u2014as, indeed, is\nalso the case with the Latin \u201c_fel_.\u201d Peter, by what is said in _v._\n17\u2014\u201cAnd they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own\nhead\u201d\u2014is more anxious to show that the Jews had put the final touch to\ntheir cruel work, in thus completing the death of Jesus, than to refer to\nthe mere fulfilment of the Psalm. The only Gospel which mentions gall is\nthe first Synoptic, in which it is said (xxvii. 34) that when they had\nbrought Jesus to Golgotha before the crucifixion, \u201cThey gave him wine to\ndrink mingled with gall; and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.\u201d\nThis is a very different representation from that of Peter, and the potion\nwas obviously that often offered to persons about to suffer, in order to\ndull sensation. The passage might almost be represented as Docetic, from\nthe writer\u2019s intention to show that Jesus refused to adopt a usual method\nof diminishing pain. There does not seem to be any warrant for supposing\nthat the author of the fragment derived the passage we are examining from\nour Gospels, from which it is in all essential points distinct.\n\nThe narrative of the fragment continues, _v._ 19: \u201cAnd the Lord cried\naloud, saying, \u2018Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me!\u2019 (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f21\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5), and having spoken, he was taken up (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7).\u201d\nIn this passage there is a very marked departure from the tradition\nfollowed by our four Gospels. Before considering the actual words of the\ncry recorded here, it may be desirable to form a general idea of the\nrepresentations of the Synoptists and of the author of the fourth Gospel\nregarding the words spoken from the cross.\n\nIt might naturally have been supposed that, in describing the course of so\nsolemn an event as the crucifixion, unusual care, securing unusual\nagreement, would have been exercised by Christian writers, and that the\nmain facts\u2014and still more the last words\u2014of the great Master would have\nbeen collected. As we have already seen, however, in no portion of the\nhistory is there greater discrepancy in the accounts in the four Gospels,\nnor greater contradictions upon every point.\n\nThe same is the case with regard to what has still to be examined, and\nnotably in the words and cries from the cross. In the first two Synoptics,\nwith the exception of the inarticulate cry \u201cwith a loud voice\u201d (Matt.\nxxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37) when yielding up his spirit, the only utterance\nrecorded is one resembling that in Peter (Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34):\n\u201cEloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me?\u201d(95) (\u1f20\u03bb\u03c9\u03af \u1f20\u03bb\u03c9\u03af \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af? \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; \u03b8\u03b5\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b8\u03b5\u03ad\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2?). It will be observed that here there is a\ndemonstration of great accuracy, in actually giving the original words\nused and translating them, which is uncommon in the Gospels. It is all the\nmore extraordinary that neither of the other Gospels gives this cry at\nall, but that they represent Jesus as uttering quite different words. The\nthird Synoptist represents Jesus immediately after the crucifixion as\nsaying (Luke xxiii. 34): \u201cFather, forgive them; for they know not what\nthey do.\u201d The other evangelists do not evince any knowledge of this, and\nas little of the episode of the penitent thief (xxiii. 39 ff.)\u2014which we\nhave already considered\u2014in which Jesus uses the remarkable words (v. 43):\n\u201cVerily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.\u201d In\nLuke, further, the inarticulate cry is interpreted (xxiii. 46): \u201cAnd when\nJesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I\ncommend my spirit; and having said this, he gave up the ghost.\u201d Of this\nthe other Synoptists do not say anything. The author of the fourth Gospel\nhas quite a different account to give from any of the Synoptists. He seems\nto be ignorant of the words which they report, and substitutes others of\nwhich they seem to know nothing. The episode of the penitent thief is\nreplaced by the scene between Jesus and his mother and the disciple \u201cwhom\nhe loved\u201d (xix. 25 ff.). Not only is this touching episode apparently\nunknown to the Synoptists, but the proximity of the women to the cross is\nin direct contradiction to what we find in Matthew and Mark, for in the\nformer (xxvii. 55 f.) it is said that many women, \u201camong whom was Mary\nMagdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the\nsons of Zebedee\u201d were \u201cbeholding afar off;\u201d and the latter (xv. 40 f.)\nreports: \u201cAnd there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were\nboth Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses,\nand Salome.\u201d In the fourth Gospel (xix. 28), Jesus is moreover reported to\nhave said \u201cI thirst,\u201d in order \u201cthat the Scripture might be\naccomplished\u201d\u2014a fact which is not recorded in any of the Synoptics\u2014and\nhaving received vinegar upon hyssop, \u201che said, It is finished, and he\nbowed his head and gave up his spirit.\u201d The last words of Jesus,\ntherefore, according to the fourth Gospel, are different from any found in\nthe three Synoptics. The Gospel of Peter differs as completely from the\nfour canonical Gospels as they do from each other, and the whole account\nof the agony on the cross given in it is quite independent of them.\n\nThe only words recorded by Peter as uttered on the cross are those quoted\nhigher up: \u201cPower, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,\u201d the second \u201cmy\u201d being\nomitted, and the question of the two Synoptics, \u201cWhy hast thou forsaken\nme?\u201d being changed into a declaration by the omission of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af (or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03af, Mark). We have already discussed the Docetic nature of this cry, and\nare now only considering it in relation to our Gospels. It is obvious that\nthe substitution of \u201cPower, my Power\u201d for \u201cMy God, my God\u201d introduces\nquite a different order of ideas, especially followed as it is by the\nremarkable statement: \u201cHe was taken up.\u201d Eusebius tells us that Aquila\nrendered the words of Psalm xxii. 1\u2014whence the first two Synoptists take\ntheir cry\u2014as \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (\u201cMy strong one, my strong one\u201d), but\nthat the more exact sense was \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (\u201cMy strength, my\nstrength\u201d);(96) but though this is interesting as in some degree\nconnecting the cry with the Psalm, it does not lessen the discrepancy\nbetween Peter and the Gospels, or in the least degree favour the theory of\nacquaintance with them.\n\nThe expression used to describe what follows this cry completes the wide\nseparation between them: \u201cAnd having spoken, he was taken up\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7).\nIn the first Synoptic, after his cry (xxvii. 50), \u201che yielded up the\nspirit\u201d (\u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1), whilst the second and third say (Mark xv. 37,\nLuke xxiii. 46), \u201che gave up the ghost\u201d \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and the fourth Gospel\nreads (xix. 30), \u201che delivered up the spirit\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1). The\nrepresentation in Peter is understood to be that the divine descended upon\nthe human Christ in the form of the dove at baptism, and immediately\nascended to Heaven again at his death. There is not here, however, any\ndeclaration of a double Christ, or any denial of the reality of the\nChrist\u2019s body, such as characterised the later Docetae; indeed, the fact\nthat the dead body is still always spoken of as that of \u201cthe Lord\u201d seems\ndistinctly to exclude this, as does the whole subsequent narrative.\nWhatever Docetism there may be in this fragment is of the earliest type,\nif indeed its doctrines can be clearly traced at all; but undoubtedly when\nthe sect had become pronounced heretics, orthodox Christians detected\ntheir subtle influence in much that was in itself very simple and\nharmless.\n\nThe fragment continues (_v._ 20): \u201cAnd the same hour the veil of the\nTemple of Jerusalem was torn in twain\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf). This expression the \u201ctemple of Jerusalem\u201d is one\nof those which seem to indicate that the Gospel was written away from\nPalestine, but in this it probably differs little from most of the\ncanonical Gospels. The statement regarding the veil of the temple is\nalmost the same in the first two Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38).\n\u201cAnd behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the\nbottom\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf). In\nLuke (xxiii. 45) the rent is \u201cin the midst\u201d (\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd), but otherwise the\nwords are the same. The use of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 instead of the \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 of the three\nSynoptics is characteristic. The fourth Gospel, strange to say, does not\nrecord at all this extraordinary phenomenon of the rending in twain of the\nveil of the temple. There are some further peculiarities which must be\npointed out. The third Synoptist sets the rending of the veil before Jesus\ncried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost; whilst in Matthew and Mark\nit is after the cry and giving up the spirit. Moreover, in Matthew, it is\nassociated with an earthquake, and the rending of the rocks and opening of\ntombs, and the astounding circumstance that many bodies of the saints that\nhad fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his\nresurrection they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many: of\nall of which the other three Gospels make no mention, nor does Peter in\nthis connection.\n\nThe narrative in the fragment continues:\n\n\n    21. And then they took out the nails from the hands of the Lord,\n    and laid him upon the earth; and the whole earth quaked, and great\n    fear came [upon them]. 22. Then the sun shone out, and it was\n    found to be the ninth hour. 23. Now the Jews were glad and gave\n    his body to Joseph, that he might bury it, for he had beheld the\n    good works that he did.(97) 24. And he took the Lord and washed\n    him, and wrapped him in linen, and brought him into his own grave,\n    called \u201cJoseph\u2019s Garden.\u201d\n\n\nThis passage is full of independent peculiarities. Although none of the\ncanonical Gospels, except Matthew, says anything of an earthquake, and the\nfirst Synoptist associates it with the moment when Jesus \u201cgave up the\nghost,\u201d Peter narrates that when the body of the Lord was unloosed from\nthe cross, the moment it was laid on the ground the whole earth quaked\nbeneath the awful burden: a representation almost grander than anything in\nthe four Gospels.\n\nThe canonical Gospels do not speak of the nails being taken out, and\nalthough Peter states that they were removed from the hands, he does not\nrefer to the feet. The fourth is the only canonical Gospel that speaks of\nthe nails at all, and there it is not in connection with the crucifixion,\nbut the subsequent appearance to the disciples and the incredulity of\nThomas (xx. 20, 25, 27). Here also, only the marks in the hands are\nreferred to. The difference of the two representations is so great that\nthere can really be no question of dependence, and those who are so eager\nto claim the use of the fourth Gospel simply because it is the only one\nthat speaks of \u201cnails\u201d (\u201cthe print of the nails\u201d) might perhaps consider\nthat the idea of crucifixion and the cross might well be independently\nassociated with a reference to the nails by which the victim was generally\nattached. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 39), the inference is inevitable\nthat both hands and feet were supposed to be nailed. When the report, \u201cThe\nLord is risen,\u201d is brought to the eleven, Jesus is represented as standing\nin their midst and assuring them that he was not a spirit, by saying: \u201cSee\nmy hands and my feet, that it is I myself\u201d\u2014meaning of course the prints of\nthe nails in both. The statement in Peter that on the occurrence of the\nearthquake \u201cgreat fear came [upon them]\u201d (\u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf) is not even\nmentioned in Matthew when he narrates the earthquake, which he represents\nas occurring when Jesus expired. The expression is characteristic of the\nauthor, who uses it elsewhere.\n\nThe representation that the sun shone out and that the Jews were glad when\nthey found it was the ninth hour, and that consequently their law, twice\nquoted by the author, would not be broken, is limited to the fragment; as\nis also the statement that they gave his body to Joseph that he might bury\nit, \u201cfor he had beheld the good works that he did.\u201d As we have already\nseen, the canonical Gospels represent Joseph as going to Pilate at this\ntime and begging for the body of Jesus, and it will be remembered that, in\nMark (xv. 44), it is said that \u201cPilate marvelled if he were already dead,\u201d\nand called the centurion to ascertain the fact before he granted the body.\nIn Peter, the body was of course given in consequence of the previous\norder, when Pilate asked Herod for it.\n\nJoseph is represented, here, as only washing the body and wrapping it in\nlinen (\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9). The first Synoptist\n(xxvii. 59) says that Joseph took the body and \u201cwrapped it in a clean\nlinen cloth\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 [\u1f10\u03bd] \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7). Mark similarly\ndescribes that (xv. 46), bringing \u201ca linen cloth and taking him down, he\nwound him in the linen cloth\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9). The\nthird Synoptist has nearly the same statement and words. The fourth Gospel\nhas a much more elaborate account to give (xix. 38 ff.). Joseph goes to\nPilate asking that he may take away the body, and Pilate gives him leave.\nHe comes and takes away the body. \u201cAnd there came also Nicodemus ...\nbringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound _weight_. So\nthey took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f40\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.\u201d This\naccount is quite different from that in the Synoptics, and equally so from\nPeter\u2019s, which approximates much more nearly to that in the latter.\n\nPeter says that Joseph then \u201cbrought him into his own grave, called\n\u2018Joseph\u2019s Garden\u2019 \u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6).\nThe account of the tomb is much more minute in the canonical Gospels. In\nMatthew (xxvii. 60), Joseph is said to lay the body \u201cin his own new tomb\n(\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3), which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone\nto the door of the tomb (\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) and departed.\u201d In Mark (xv. 46), he\nlays him \u201cin a tomb (\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9) which had been hewn out of a rock; and he\nrolled a stone against the door of the tomb\u201d (\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5). Luke has a new\ndetail to chronicle (xxiii. 53): Joseph lays him \u201cin a tomb (\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af) that\nwas hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain.\u201d The first two Synopists,\nit will be observed, say that Joseph rolls a stone against the entrance to\nthe tomb: but neither Luke nor Peter has this detail, though the former\nleaves it to be inferred that it had been done, for (xxiv. 2) the women\nwho came on the first day of the week find the stone rolled away from the\ntomb. In Peter, on the contrary, the stone is rolled against the tomb by\nthe guard and others later, as we shall presently see.\n\nIn the fourth Gospel, the account has further and different details,\nagreeing, however, with the peculiar statement of Luke (xix. 41 f.): \u201cNow\nin the place where he was crucified there was a garden (\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), and in the\ngarden a new tomb (\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd) wherein was never man yet laid. There then,\nbecause of the Jews\u2019 Preparation (for the tomb [\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd] was nigh at\nhand), they laid Jesus.\u201d Some stress has been laid upon the point that\nboth Peter and the fourth Gospel use the word \u201cgarden,\u201d and that none of\nthe Synoptics have it, and as these critics seem to go upon the principle\nthat any statement in Peter which happens to be in any canonical Gospel,\neven although widely different in treatment, must have been derived from\nthat Gospel, and not from any similar written or traditional source, from\nwhich that Gospel derived it, they argue that this shows dependence on the\nfourth Gospel. There is certainly no evidence of dependence here. In\nPeter, the grave (\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2) is simply said to be called \u201cJoseph\u2019s Garden\u201d\n(\u039a\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6),(98) and described as \u201chis own grave.\u201d The fourth Gospel\ndoes not identify the garden as Joseph\u2019s at all, but says that \u201cin the\nplace where he was crucified there was a garden,\u201d and in it \u201ca tomb\u201d\n(\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), and the reason given for taking the body thither is not that\nit belonged to Joseph, but that the tomb \u201cwas nigh at hand,\u201d and that on\naccount of the Jews\u2019 Preparation they laid it there. The whole explanation\nseems to exclude the idea that the writer knew that it belonged to Joseph.\nPeter simply contributes a new detail to the common tradition. There is no\nappearance of his deriving this from our canonical Gospels, from which he\ndiffers in substance and in language. Neither Peter nor the Synoptics know\nanything of the co-operation of Nicodemus.\n\nThe narrative in the fragment continues:\n\n\n    25. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, seeing the evil\n    they had done to themselves, began to beat their breasts (\u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n    \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) and to say: \u201cWoe for our sins; judgment draweth nigh\n    and the end of Jerusalem.\u201d\n\n\nWe have already discussed this passage in connection with the\n\u201cDiatessaron,\u201d and have now only to consider it as compared with our\nGospels. There is no equivalent in any of them, except that the third\nSynoptist (xxiii. 48) says that when Jesus gave up the ghost: \u201cAll the\nmultitude that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things\nthat were done, returned smiting their breasts (\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd).\u201d The reason for this change of mood is, of course, the\neclipse and consequent darkness in the third Synoptic, and the earthquake\nand darkness in Peter; but in the former \u201call the multitude\u201d smite their\nbreasts, and in the latter \u201cthe Jews and the elders and the priests.\u201d It\nmay be suggested whether the words inserted in the ancient Latin Codex of\nSt. Germain, \u201cVae nobis, quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra,\nappropinquavit enim desolatio Hierusalem,\u201d(99) may not have been taken\nfrom our Gospel of Peter, for an expansion of the original text of the\nthird Synoptic, by the author of this version.\n\nThe common reference of the fragment is to \u201cthe Jews,\u201d \u201cthe Jews and the\nelders and the priests,\u201d \u201cthe scribes and Pharisees and elders,\u201d and \u201cthe\nelders and scribes.\u201d Throughout the same part of the narrative in Matthew,\nwe have \u201cthe scribes and elders,\u201d \u201cchief priests and elders of the people\u201d\n(this, most frequently), \u201cchief priests with the scribes and elders,\u201d and\nin speaking of the guard at the sepulchre, \u201cthe chief priests and the\nPharisees.\u201d In Mark, the same leaders are named, whilst in Luke we have\n\u201cthe chief priests and captains of the Temple and elders,\u201d \u201cthe elders of\nthe people and both the chief priests and scribes,\u201d and, repeatedly, the\n\u201cchief priests and rulers.\u201d The fourth Gospel usually cites \u201cthe chief\npriests and Pharisees,\u201d \u201cchief captains and officers of the Jews,\u201d \u201cthe\nJews,\u201d and \u201cthe chief priests of the Jews.\u201d There is more analogy, in this\nrespect, between the fragment and the fourth Gospel than between it and\nthe Synoptics.\n\nWe come now to an important and characteristic part of the fragment:\n\n\n    26. And I, with my companions, was mourning, and being pierced in\n    spirit we hid ourselves; for we were sought for by them as\n    malefactors, and as desiring to burn the temple. 27. Over all\n    these things, however, we were fasting, and sat mourning and\n    weeping night and day until the Sabbath.\n\n\nThere is no parallel to this passage in our Gospels, but in the statement\nthat the Apostles had hidden themselves (and\u2014taken in connection with v.\n59, where the same fact is again mentioned\u2014this means all the twelve) we\nhave here agreement with the narrative of the first and second Synoptics\n(Matt. xxvi. 56; Mark xix. 50), that on the arrest of Jesus \u201call the\ndisciples left him and fled.\u201d This passage seems to exclude the incident\nof the sword and Malchus which, as Hilgenfeld points out,(100) is also\nexcluded by a passage in Justin; the denial of Peter, which Justin equally\npasses over unmentioned; and the episode of the \u201cbeloved disciple\u201d by the\ncross. The reason given for hiding themselves, that they were accused of\nwishing to burn the temple, has some connection with the tradition, that\ntestimony had been given against Jesus that he had said he could destroy\nthis temple and build it in three days (Matt. xxvi. 60; Mark xiv.\n58).(101) The passage is one of those in which the writer speaks in the\nfirst person and represents himself as an Apostle, which he still more\nclearly does, _v._ 60, where he distinctly calls himself Simon Peter.\n\nThe account that the Apostles were fasting and sat mourning and weeping\n\u201cnight and day until the Sabbath\u201d (\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5)\nopens out an interesting problem. As a rule, the Greek expression would be\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, so if we are to take the words actually used as\ndeliberately intended to represent the time, we should have to count at\nleast one night and one day between the death of Jesus and the Sabbath, or\nin other words, that the crucifixion took place, not on Friday, but upon\nThursday, which, according to the statement in _v._ 5, would really be the\n13th Nisan. A great deal might be said in support of this view,(102) but\nit need not be entered into here. It is probable that, as Harnack\nsuggests,(103) the author really thinks of the whole time from the\nThursday night, when the arrest was made.\n\nWith the next portion of the fragment the narrative of the resurrection\nmay be said to begin:\n\n\n    28. But the scribes and Pharisees and elders assembled themselves\n    together (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2), hearing that all the people\n    murmured and beat their breasts, saying, \u201cIf at his death these\n    great signs have happened, behold how just a one he is.\u201d 29. The\n    elders were afraid (\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) and came to Pilate (\u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n    \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) beseeching him and saying, 30. \u201cGive us soldiers that we\n    may watch his grave for three days (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2), lest his disciples come and steal him, and the\n    people believe that he rose from the dead and do us evil\u201d (\u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\n    \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u1fc3 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\n    \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac). 31. Pilate, therefore,\n    gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb\n    (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd), and with them came the\n    elders and scribes to the grave (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1). 32. And they rolled a\n    great stone (\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd) against the centurion and the\n    soldiers, and set it, all who were there together, at the door of\n    the grave (\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). 33. And they put seven seals (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n    \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2), and setting up a tent there they kept guard\n    (\u1f10\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd). 34. And in the morning, at the dawn of the Sabbath,\n    came a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood in order\n    that they might see the sealed-up grave (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u1f10\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd).\n\n\nThere is no parallel to this narrative in any of our canonical Gospels\nexcept the first Synoptic, which alone mentions the circumstance that a\nwatch was set over the sepulchre, a fact of which the other Gospels seem\nquite ignorant, and states that application was made to Pilate for a guard\nfor that purpose. The account in Matthew is as follows (xxvii. 62 f.):\n\n\n    Now on the morrow, which is _the day_ after the Preparation, the\n    chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together\n    (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that\n    deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise\n    again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the\n    third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and\n    say unto the people, He rose from the dead: and the last error\n    will be worse than the first (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n    \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2; \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7, \u1f28\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\n    \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2). Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go\n    your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the\n    sepulchre sure (\u1f20\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd), sealing the stone\n    (\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd), the guard being with them (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n    \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2).\n\n\nThe fact that only one of the four canonical Gospels has any reference to\nthis episode, or betrays the slightest knowledge of any precautions taken\nto guard the tomb, is remarkable. The analogies in the narrative in Peter\nwith the general account, and the similarity of the language in certain\nparts, together with the wide variation in details and language generally,\npoint to the conclusion that both writers derive the episode from a\nsimilar source, but independently of each other. The casual agreement with\ncontinuous dissimilarity of statement and style, are evidence of the\nseparate treatment of a common tradition, and put the fragment upon a very\ndifferent footing from the Synoptics in relation to each other. The\nabsence of verisimilitude is pretty nearly equal in both Gospels, but\nthese traditions grew up, and were unconsciously rounded by the\ncontributions of pious imagination.\n\nIn the fragment it is \u201cthe scribes and Pharisees and elders\u201d (\u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) who meet together, but only the\n\u201celders\u201d go to Pilate; in the Synoptic, \u201cthe chief Priests and the\nPharisees\u201d (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9) meet and go to Pilate. Pilate\ngives them \u201cPetronius the centurion with soldiers\u201d to watch the tomb; in\nMatthew, he gives them \u201ca guard,\u201d bidding them make it sure; so they go\nand seal the stone, the guard being with them. In Peter, the \u201celders and\nscribes\u201d go to the grave, and themselves with the soldiers, \u201call who were\nthere together,\u201d roll a great stone and set it at the door of the grave.\nDoubtless this trait is intended to convey an impression of the great size\nof the stone. A curious peculiarity occurs in the statement, \u201cthey roll\nthe stone against the centurion and the soldiers,\u201d the intention of the\nwords probably being that, in their suspicious mood, they thus protected\nthemselves from possible fraud on the part even of the soldiers.(104) The\nmotive for the application to Pilate, in the fragment, is fear on the part\nof the elders, in consequence of the murmuring and lamentation of the\npeople, who are represented as being convinced by the great signs\noccurring at the death of Jesus \u201chow just a one\u201d he was. This is quite a\nvariation from the Synoptic version, but both agree in the explanation\ngiven to Pilate of anxiety lest the disciples should steal the body, and\nsay that Jesus had risen from the dead. In Matthew, they simply \u201cseal the\nstone,\u201d but in the fragment they put or smear (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) \u201cseven seals\u201d\nupon it. Some important peculiarities then occur in the narrative of\nPeter. They set up a tent beside the tomb and keep guard, and in the\nmorning a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood come out to see\nthe sealed-up grave. There is nothing corresponding to this in the\nSynoptic Gospel.\n\nThe narrative proceeds:\n\n\n    35. Now, in the night before the dawn of the Lord\u2019s day (\u1f21\n    \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae), whilst the soldiers were keeping guard over the place,\n    two and two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven. 36.\n    And they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from thence\n    with great light and approach the tomb. 37. But the stone which\n    had been laid at the door rolled of itself away by the side, and\n    the tomb was opened and both the young men entered.\n\n\nHere commences an account of the resurrection very different in every\nrespect from that in our canonical Gospels, and the treatment of a\ntradition in some points necessarily common to all is evidently\nindependent. In Matthew, the scene commences with an\nearthquake\u2014earthquakes are, indeed, peculiar to the first\nSynoptist\u2014(xxviii. 2 f.): \u201cAnd behold there was a great earthquake; for an\nangel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the\nstone and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment\nwhite as snow; and for fear of him the watchers did quake and become as\ndead men.\u201d Here only one angel comes down, whilst in Peter there are two\nmen, whom some critics\u2014amongst whom may be mentioned Nestle, with whom\nHarnack is inclined to agree, more especially as they are never called\nangels, but merely \u201ctwo men\u201d\u2014identify as Moses and Elias. The angel rolls\naway the stone, which in Peter rolls away of itself, and sits upon it,\nwhilst in Peter the two men enter into the tomb. No account is given in\nMark of the opening of the tomb, the women simply finding the stone rolled\naway, and a young man (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd) sitting on the right side arrayed in a\nwhite robe (xvi. 4 f.); the author does not mention any earthquake. In the\nthird Synoptic (xxiv. 2 f.), the women also find the stone already rolled\naway from the tomb; there is no earthquake. When the women enter the tomb\nthey do not find \u201cthe body of the Lord Jesus,\u201d but while they are\nperplexed two men stand by them in dazzling apparel. In the fourth Gospel\n(xx. 12 f.), Mary, coming to the sepulchre, sees two angels in white\nsitting\u2014the one at the head, the other at the foot\u2014where the body of Jesus\nhad lain. Thus, to sum up, in Matthew there is one angel, in Mark one\nyoung man, in Luke two men, in the fourth Gospel two angels, and in Peter\ntwo men descend from heaven to the tomb.\n\nPeter goes on:\n\n\n    38. Then these soldiers, seeing this, awakened the centurion and\n    the elders, for they also were keeping watch. 39. And whilst they\n    were narrating to them what they had seen, they beheld again three\n    men coming out of the tomb and the two were supporting the one,\n    and a cross following them. 40. And the heads of the two indeed\n    reached up to the heaven, but that of him that was led by their\n    hands rose above the heavens. 41. And they heard a voice from the\n    heavens saying, \u201cHast thou preached to them that are sleeping?\u201d\n    42. And an answer was heard from the cross: \u201cYea.\u201d\n\n\nOf course there is nothing corresponding to this in the canonical Gospels.\nIn Matthew, the watchers quake and become as dead men, but no such alarm\nis here described. The elders and soldiers see the two men who had entered\nthe tomb come out leading a third, and the stately appearance of the three\nis described with Oriental extravagance.(105) Following the three is a\ncross, a very singular representation, more especially as the cross\npresently speaks. Harnack says that Duhms, who supposes a Hebraic\noriginal, conjectures that the Hebrew word, which could as well stand for\n\u201ccrucified\u201d as \u201ccross,\u201d was misunderstood by the translator, and he adds\nthat, if the original was Aramaic, the matter becomes still simpler.\nHowever, Harnack does not seem disposed to adopt the suggestion.(106) It\nis well known that in very early works the cross was identified with the\ncrucified, and treated both as a type and as having a certain\npersonality\u2014the living and eloquent symbol of victory over death.(107)\n\nThe words of the voice from the heavens are: \u201c \u2018Hast thou preached to them\nthat are sleeping?\u2019 and an answer was heard from the cross: \u2018Yea\u2019 \u201d\n(\u1f18\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2? \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f74 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039d\u03b1\u03af).\nThis is generally understood as a reference to the \u201cdescent into hell,\u201d\nwhich was early accepted as a dogma by the Church and has a place in the\nCreed, although its only clear mention in the New Testament occurs in 1\nPeter iii. 18 f.: \u201cBecause Christ ... being put to death in the flesh, but\nquickened in the spirit, in which also he went and preached (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd)\nunto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient;\u201d and (iv.\n6): \u201cFor unto this end was the Gospel spoken unto the dead.\u201d It is a\ncurious fact that the \u201cGospel according to Peter,\u201d the fragment of which\nis first discovered in a little volume along with a fragment of the\n\u201cApocalypse of Peter,\u201d should thus contain a reference to a doctrine, the\nonly allusion to which in any of the canonical writings is contained in a\nso-called \u201cEpistle of Peter.\u201d Hilgenfeld wishes to read \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\ninstead of \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and disputes the rendering of \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03ae as \u201canswer,\u201d\nalthough he admits that there is some support to this as a liturgical\nresponse.(108) He would render this passage: \u201cDu verk\u00fcndigtest den\nProfanirten und einem Gehorsam.(109) Von dem Kreuze her erschallt: Ja.\u201d He\nargues that there can be no question here of a descent into hell by one\ncoming out of the grave who cannot even hold himself upright, but must be\nled; that, however much the inanimate body of Jesus may still be called\n\u201cthe Lord,\u201d his \u201cSelf\u201d is already in death ascended to heaven; the\nselfless (_selbstlose_) body cannot possibly in the meantime have gone\ninto Hades.(110) In this conclusion, however, he is at variance with\nalmost all critics, who generally take the view rendered above.(111)\n\nThe passage which we have quoted from Matthew (xxvii. 52 f.) must be\nrecalled, in which the first Synoptic alone of the four canonical Gospels\nhas an account of astonishing events said to have occurred at the death of\nJesus: an earthquake which rent the rocks and opened the tombs, \u201cand many\nbodies of the saints that were sleeping (\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) were raised; and\ncoming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into\nthe holy city and appeared unto many.\u201d This resurrection of the saints\n\u201cthat were sleeping\u201d is associated by Eusebius with the descent into\nhell,(112) and it is not improbable that the first Synoptist had it in his\nmind. It is not necessary to point out many early references to the\ndescent into hell,(113) but an interesting passage may be quoted from\nJustin. He accuses the Jews of omitting from the prophecy of Jeremiah in\ntheir copies of the Septuagint the following verse: \u201cThe Lord God, the\nHoly one of Israel, remembered his dead who lay sleeping (\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) in\nthe earth, and descended to them to bring to them the good news of his\nsalvation.\u201d(114) It is not known that the passage ever really existed in\nJeremiah but, notwithstanding, Irenaeus quotes it no less than five\ntimes.(115)\n\nThe writer does not explain the representation of the three who came out\nof the tomb, two of whom were \u201csupporting,\u201d or, as is subsequently said,\nleading him, or conducting him, but this figure, more stately than the\nothers, of course, is intended to be recognised as Jesus. Too much has\nbeen said as to the weakness supposed to be here described, and Zahn, who\nas much as possible ridicules the whole contents of the fragment, says\nthat \u201cthe raised Lazarus, in comparison with him, is a hero in strength\nand life.\u201d But is the intention here to depict weakness? No word is used\nwhich really demands that interpretation. As Dr. Swete rightly points out,\n\u201cthe support appears to be regarded as nominal only, since He is also said\nto be \u2018conducted\u2019 (\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd)\u201d (p. 18). It is true that \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\nis twice used in Acts (ix. 8, xxii. 11) to express Paul\u2019s helplessness\nwhen led by the hand after his vision on the way to Damascus, but it does\nnot in itself imply weakness, and no other hint of feebleness is given in\nthe fragment. The \u201ctouch me not\u201d of the fourth Gospel, when Mary Magdalene\nstretches out her hand to Jesus, is quite as much a mark of weakness as\nthis. It may not unfairly, on the other hand, be interpreted as a mark of\nhonour, and nothing in Peter forbids this reading. If weakness were\nindicated, it might be taken as a Docetic representation of the condition\nof the human body, deprived of the divine Christ, who had ascended from\nthe cross.\n\nThe continuation of the narrative in Peter is as different from that of\nour canonical Gospels as its commencement:\n\n\n    43. These, therefore, took counsel together whether they should go\n    and declare these things to Pilate. 44. And whilst they were still\n    considering, the heavens again appeared opened, and a certain man\n    descending and going into the grave. 45. Seeing these things, the\n    centurion and his men hastened to Pilate by night, leaving the\n    tomb they were watching, and narrated all things they had seen,\n    fearing greatly, and saying: \u201cTruly he was a Son of God\u201d (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2\n    \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6). 46. Pilate answered and said, \u201cI am pure of the\n    blood of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you\u201d (\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd). 47.\n    Then they all came to him beseeching and entreating him that he\n    should command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of\n    what they had seen, 48. \u201cFor it is better,\u201d they said, \u201cto lay\n    upon us the greatest sins before God, and not to fall into the\n    hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned.\u201d 49. Pilate,\n    therefore, commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say\n    nothing.\n\n\nAs the first Synoptic is the only Gospel which relates the story of the\napplication to Pilate for a guard and the watch at the sepulchre, so of\ncourse it is the only one which gives the sequel to that episode; but this\ndiffers in every respect from the account in Peter. It is as follows\n(xxviii. 11 f.):\n\n\n    Some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief\n    priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were\n    assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large\n    money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by\n    night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the\n    governor\u2019s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So\n    they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying\n    was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.\n\n\nWhen the centurion and soldiers in Peter go to Pilate after witnessing the\nevents described as occurring at the resurrection, \u201cfearing greatly\u201d\n(\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2), they say, \u201cTruly he was a Son of God\u201d (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f26\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6). It will be remembered that, in the first Synoptic, when the\ncenturion and they that were watching Jesus saw the earthquake and the\nthings that were done when he expired, they \u201cfeared exceedingly\u201d\n(\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1), and said, \u201cTruly this was a Son of God\u201d (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). The tradition of the astonished centurion bearing such\ntestimony to Jesus is known to both writers, but under different\ncircumstances, and independently treated. In similar fashion, the reply\nput into the mouth of Pilate in Peter, \u201cI am pure of the blood (\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) of the Son of God, but thus it seemed good unto\nyou,\u201d is, to a certain extent, the same as Pilate\u2019s declaration to the\nmultitude after washing his hands (xxvii. 24 f.): \u201cI am innocent of the\nblood of this righteous man (\u1f00\u03b8\u1ff6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5): see ye to it;\u201d but in this case, as well as the other, the\ndetails and the language show an independent use of a similar source. In\nthe Synoptic, the centurion and soldiers do not go to Pilate at all, but\nare bribed by the chief priests and elders to say that his disciples stole\nhim by night when they slept. They are warned by Pilate to be altogether\nsilent, in Peter. As the desire of the author is represented to be to\nremove responsibility from Pilate and throw it all upon the Jews, it is\ndifficult to conceive that, if he had this account before him, he could\ndeliberately have left it unused, and preferred his own account.\n\nWe now come to the visit of the women to the sepulchre:\n\n\n    50. In the morning of the Lord\u2019s day, Mary Magdalene, a disciple\n    of the Lord (through fear of the Jews, for they burnt with anger,\n    she had not done at the grave of the Lord that which women are\n    accustomed to do for those that die and are loved by them), 51.\n    took her women friends with her and came to the grave where he was\n    laid. 52. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and said:\n    \u201cIf we could not on that day on which he was crucified weep and\n    lament, let us do these things even now at his grave. 53. But who\n    will roll away the stone that is laid at the door of his grave\n    (\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) in order that we may enter and set ourselves by him\n    and do the things that are due? 54. For great was the stone (\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), and we fear lest some one should see us. And if\n    we should not be able to do it, let us at least lay down before\n    the door that which we bring in his memory, and let us weep and\n    lament till we come to our home.\u201d 55. And they went and found the\n    tomb opened and, coming near, they stooped down and see there a\n    certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and\n    clad in a shining garment (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd), who said to them: 56. \u201cWhy are\n    ye come? Whom seek ye? Him who was crucified? He is risen and gone\n    away. But if ye do not believe, stoop down and see the place where\n    he lay, that he is not there; for he is risen and gone away whence\n    he was sent\u201d (\u03c4\u03af \u1f24\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5? \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5? \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd?\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n    \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n    \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7). Then the women, frightened, fled.\n\n\nWe need not remark that in all essential points the account given here is\ndifferent from that in our Gospels.\n\nIn each of the three Synoptics, it is said that the women saw where Jesus\nwas laid, and the first two name Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of\nJesus (Mark \u201cthe other Mary\u201d), Matt. xxvii. 61, Mark xv. 47, Luke xxiii.\n55. All four canonical Gospels relate their coming to the sepulchre:\nMatthew (xxviii. 1), \u201clate on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward\nthe first day of the week;\u201d Mark (xvi. 1), \u201cwhen the Sabbath was past;\u201d\nLuke (xxiv. 1), \u201con the first day of the week at early dawn;\u201d but only the\nsecond and third state that they bring spices to anoint Jesus; in Matthew\nthe purpose stated being merely \u201cto see the sepulchre.\u201d In the fourth\nGospel, only Mary Magdalene comes, and no reason is assigned. In Peter,\nMary Magdalene only is named, but she takes her women friends, and though\nspices are not directly named, they are distinctly implied, and the object\nof the visit to the tomb, admirably described as \u201cthat which women are\naccustomed to do for those who die and are loved by them,\u201d which they had\nnot been able to do on the day of the crucifixion, through fear of the\nJews. Even now the same fear is upon them; but nothing is said of it in\nthe four Gospels.\n\nThe only part of the words put into their mouths by the author which at\nall corresponds with anything in the canonical narratives is that\nregarding the opening of the sepulchre. \u201cBut who will roll us away the\nstone that is laid at the door of the grave?\u201d (\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5?). In Matthew, an angel\nhad rolled away the stone, but in Mark the women are represented as asking\nthe same question among themselves (xvi. 3), \u201cWho shall roll us away the\nstone from the door of the grave?\u201d (\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5?) practically in the same words. To appreciate the\nrelative importance of the similarity in this detail it should be\nremembered that the same words are used with slight grammatical changes in\nthe other two Synoptics: Matt. xxviii. 2, the angel \u201crolled away the\nstone\u201d (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd); and Luke xxiv. 2, they found \u201cthe stone\nrolled away from the grave\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\nThe privilege of using a similar source of tradition must also be accorded\nto the author of the fragment.\n\nThe women in Peter, after a few more words explanatory of their purpose in\ngoing to the sepulchre, use an expression to which so much importance has\nbeen attached by Zahn that, to render it intelligible, it must be\nconnected with the context just discussed. \u201cBut who will roll away the\nstone that is laid at the door of the grave, in order that we may enter\nand set ourselves by him, and do the things that are due? For great was\nthe stone (\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), and we fear lest some one should see\nus.\u201d Now in the second Synoptic (xvi. 4) we read that the women, looking\nup, \u201csee that the stone (\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) is rolled back; for it was exceeding\ngreat\u201d (\u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1). Zahn says: \u201cJust as certainly can the\ndependence of the Gospel of Peter on Mark be proved. A proof scarcely to\nbe refuted lies even in the one little word \u1f26\u03bd, which is mechanically\ntaken from Mark xvi. 3.\u201d(116) To one so willing to be convinced, what\nmight not be proved by many little words in the canonical Gospels? It must\nbe remembered that none of our Synoptics sprang full-fledged from the\noriginal tradition, but, as is recognised by every critic competent to\nform an opinion, is based on previous works and records of tradition,\nwhich gradually grew into this more complete form. Any one who wishes to\nrealise this should examine Rushbrooke\u2019s \u201cSynopticon,\u201d which, at a glance,\nwill show the matter and the language common to our first three Gospels,\nand leave little doubt as to the common origin of these works. It may be\nuseful towards a proper understanding of the problem before us if we give\na single illustration of the construction of the Synoptics taken from the\nvery part of the narrative at which we have arrived. We shall arrange it\nin parallel columns for facility of comparison.\n\nMATTHEW xxvii.         MARK xv.               LUKE xxiii.\n55. And many women     40. And there were     49. And all his\nwere there beholding   also women beholding   acquaintance, and\nfrom afar, which had   from afar: among       the women that\nfollowed Jesus from    whom were both Mary    followed him from\nGalilee, ministering   Magdalene and Mary     Galilee, stood afar\nunto him: 56. among    the mother of James    off, seeing these\nwhom was Mary          the less and of        things, xxiv. 10.\nMagdalene, and Mary    Joses, and Salome;     Now they were Mary\nthe mother of James    41. who, when he was   Magdalene and\nand Joses, and the     in Galilee, followed   Joanna, and Mary\nmother of the sons     him, and ministered    [the mother] of\nof Zebedee.            unto him....           James, and other\n                                              women with them,\n                                              xxiii. 50.\n57. And when even      42. And when even      50. And behold a man\nwas come, there came   was now come, ...      named Joseph, who\na rich man from        43. there came         was a councillor, a\nArimathaea, who also   Joseph of              good man and a\nhimself was Jesus\u2019     Arimathaea, a          righteous, 51. ...\ndisciple: 58. this     councillor of          of Arimathaea, a\nman went to Pilate,    honourable estate,     city of the Jews,\nand asked for the      who also himself was   who was looking for\nbody of Jesus.         looking for the        the kingdom of God:\n                       kingdom of God: and    52. this man went to\n                       he boldly went in      Pilate, and asked\n                       unto Pilate and        for the body of\n                       asked for the body     Jesus.\n                       of Jesus.\n55. \u1f2e\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6       40. \u1f2e\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76        49. \u0395\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78    \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78           \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,    \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u03b1\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd    \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21     \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2       \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1    \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2              \u1f21 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6   \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7,      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1      \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1. (xxiv.\n(56) \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1   \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7, (41) \u03b1\u1f33    10) \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\n\u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76       \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7           \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5    \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd    \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76    \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd     \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31\n\u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff6\u03bd       \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, ...              \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u0396\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.                                    ...\n57. \u1f48\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72           42. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2      50. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd        \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, ... (43)    \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2      \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78        \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,        \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd   \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6, \u1f45\u03c2      \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76      \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 51. ... \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7   \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd               \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6; 58. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2    \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd      \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. \u1f43\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3   \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,    \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6    \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd      \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.                 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd      52. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n                       \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1    \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\n                       \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.             \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.\n                                              \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nOr take, for instance, a few verses giving the arrest of Jesus as narrated\nby the three Synoptists:\n\nMATTHEW xxvi.          MARK xiv.              LUKE xxii.\n47. And while he yet   43. And straightway,   47. While he yet\nspake, lo, Judas,      while he yet spake,    spake, lo, a\none of the twelve,     cometh Judas, one of   multitude, and he\ncame, and with him a   the twelve, and with   that was called\ngreat multitude with   him a multitude with   Judas, one of the\nswords and staves,     swords and staves,     twelve, went before\nfrom the chief         from the chief         them;\npriests and elders     priests and the\nof the people.         scribes and the\n                       elders.\n48. Now he that        44. Now he that        and he drew near\nbetrayed him gave      betrayed him had       unto Jesus to kiss\nthem a sign, saying,   given them a token,    him.\nWhomsoever I shall     saying, Whomsoever I\nkiss, that is he:      shall kiss, that is\ntake him.              he; take him,\n49. And straightway    45. And when he was\nhe came to Jesus,      come, straightway he\nand said, Hail,        came to him and\nRabbi; and kissed      saith, Rabbi; and\nhim.                   kissed him.\n50. And Jesus said                            48. But Jesus said\nunto him, Friend, do                          unto him, Judas,\nthat for which thou                           betrayest thou the\nart come.                                     Son of man with a\n                                              kiss?\nThen they came and     46. And they laid      (54. And they seized\nlaid hands on Jesus    hands on him and       him and led him\nand took him.          took him.              away.)\n51. And lo, one of     47. But a certain      50. And a certain\nthem that were with    one of them that       one of them smote\nJesus stretched out    stood by drew his      the servant of the\nhis hand, and drew     sword, and smote the   high priest, and\nhis sword, and smote   servant of the high    struck off right\nthe servant of the     priest, and struck     ear.\nhigh priest, and       off his ear.\nstruck off his ear.\n47. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6      43. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9      47. \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a        \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2        \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd         \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2     \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n\u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76      \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76    \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2       \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2       \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd    \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd      \u03be\u1f7a\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76          \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6        \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6.                  \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n48. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2    44. \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41       \u1f24\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2    \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd       \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd: \u1f43\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd   \u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd:   \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd: \u1f43\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9,\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.       \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd:\n                       \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n                       \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2.\n49. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2         45. \u039a\u03b1\u1f30 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6     \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd: \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b5\u03af,   \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9: \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b5\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd        \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n50. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2        46. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd     48. \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7: \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5,    \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7: \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1,\n\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f43 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5      \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd.       \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2                                  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2                           \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c2? (54.\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76                            \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.                              \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.)\n51. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd   47. \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd     50. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2    \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd           \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd    \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd         \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,    \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd   \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd        \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2   \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd.\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2   \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78       \u1f60\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\u1f60\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nSuch close similarity as this, with occasional astonishing omissions of\nmatter and flagrant contradictions where independent narrative is\nattempted, runs through the whole of the three Synoptics. This is not the\nplace to enter upon any discussion of these phenomena, or any explanation\nof the origin of our Gospels, but apologists may be invited to consider\nthe fact before passing judgment on the Gospel of Peter. Any coincidence\nof statement in the narrative of the fragment with any one of the four\nGospels is promptly declared to be decisive evidence of dependence on that\nGospel; and even the use of a word which has a parallel in them is\nsufficient reason for denouncing the author as a plagiarist. It would\nalmost seem as if such critics had never read the prologue to the third\nSynoptic, and forgotten the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af to which its author refers, when they\nlimit the Christian tradition to these Gospels, which again, upon\nexamination, must themselves be limited to two\u2014the Synoptic and the\nJohannine, which in so great a degree contradict each other.\n\nTo return now to the passage which we have to examine. It will be observed\nthat the second Synoptic treats the episode of the women in a manner\ndifferent from the other two, but in the same style, though with very\ndiffering details, as Peter. We shall show reason for believing that both\nhave drawn from the same source, but that the fragment has probably\nadhered more closely to the original source. In Mark (xvi. 3 f.) the women\nare, as in Peter, represented as speaking: \u201cAnd they were saying among\nthemselves, \u2018Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the\ntomb?\u2019 \u201d Here the _spoken_ words stop, and the writer continues to\nnarrate: \u201cAnd looking up, they see that the stone _is_ rolled back\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9): for it _was_ (\u1f26\u03bd) exceeding great.\u201d It is obvious that\nthe \u201cwas\u201d here is quite out of place, and it seems impossible to avoid the\nconclusion that, originally, it must have stood with a different context.\nThat different context we have in Peter. The women say amongst themselves:\n\u201cWho will roll us away the stone that is laid at the door of the grave, in\norder that we may enter\u201d\u2014and, of course, in saying this they are supposed\nto have in their minds the stone which they had seen the evening before\nand, naturally, express their recollection of it in the past tense\u2014\u201cfor it\nwas exceeding great.\u201d If the phrase has been mechanically introduced, it\nhas been so by the second Synoptist, in whose text it is more out of place\nthan in Peter. A prescriptive right to early traditions of this kind\ncannot reasonably be claimed for any writer, simply because his\ncompilation has happened to secure a place in the Canon.\n\nWhen the women come to the tomb, they stoop down (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd) and see there\n(\u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6) a certain young man (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd) sitting in the midst of\nthe tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment (\u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd). This is the \u201ccertain man\u201d who\ndescended when the heavens were again opened, as described in _v._ 44. The\nrealistic touch of the women stooping to look into the low entrance of the\ntomb is repeated when the \u201cyoung man\u201d bids them \u201cstoop down\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5)\nand convince themselves that Jesus had risen. This does not occur in any\nof the Synoptics; but in the fourth Gospel (xx. 5), Peter, it is said,\n\u201cstooping down\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2) sees (\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9) the clothes. In Matthew, the\nangel sits upon the stone which he has rolled away, and not in the\nsepulchre, and his description is (xxviii. 3): \u201cHis appearance was as\nlightning, and his raiment white as snow\u201d (\u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u1f74,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd). In Mark (xvi. 8), they see a \u201cyoung\nman\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd) sitting on the right side, and not in the middle, and he\nis \u201cclad in a white robe\u201d (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd). In Luke (xxiv.\n4), two men (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf) stand by the women \u201cin dazzling apparel\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3). In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12), Mary sees two angels\nsitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body had\nlain, but they are simply said to be \u201cin white\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2).\n\nThe \u201cyoung man\u201d says to the women in Peter: \u201cWhy are ye come? (\u03c4\u03af \u1f24\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5?)\nWhom seek ye? (\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5?) Him who was crucified? (\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd?) He is risen and gone away (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd). But if ye do not\nbelieve, stoop down, and see the place where he lay (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf), that he is not there, for he is risen and gone\naway thither whence he was sent (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7).\u201d In Matthew (xxviii. 5 f.) the angel \u201canswered and said unto\nthe women\u201d (who had not spoken to him, apparently) \u201cFear not ye: for I\nknow that ye seek Jesus which hath been crucified (\u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5). He is not here, for he rose (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5, \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1), even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay (\u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf). And go quickly, and tell his disciples he rose\nfrom the dead (\u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd); and lo, he goeth before you into\nGalilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.\u201d In Mark (xvi. 6\nf.), this \u201cyoung man\u201d in the tomb says: \u201cBe not amazed; ye seek Jesus the\nNazarene which hath been crucified (\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). He rose (\u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7); he is not here; behold, the place where\nthey laid him! (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5; \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd). But go tell\nhis disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye\nsee him, as he said unto you.\u201d The close resemblance of these two accounts\nin the first and second Gospels is striking, and scarcely less so is the\nresemblance, with important variations, of the third Synoptic (xxiv. 5\nff.). The \u201ctwo men in dazzling apparel\u201d say to the women, who stand with\ntheir faces bowed down towards the earth: \u201cWhy seek ye the living among\nthe dead? He is not here, but he rose (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7).(117)\nRemember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, that\nthe Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be\ncrucified, and the third day rise again.\u201d The complete change in the\nreference to Galilee here will be observed.\n\nThe peculiar ending of the words of the \u201cyoung man\u201d in Peter is nowhere\nfound in our Gospels: \u201cHe is risen and gone away thither whence he was\nsent.\u201d Mr. Robinson compares with this a passage from the 20th Homily of\nAphrahat (ed. Wright, p. 385): \u201cAnd the angel said to Mary, he is risen\nand gone away to him that sent him.\u201d Mr. Robinson adds: \u201cThere is reason\nto believe that Aphrahat, a Syrian writer, used Tatian\u2019s Harmony: and thus\nwe seem to have a second link between our Gospel and that important\nwork.\u201d(118) But is it not rather a curious position in which to place the\nsupposed \u201cDiatessaron,\u201d to argue that a passage which it does not now\ncontain was nevertheless in it because a Syrian writer who is supposed to\nhave used the \u201cDiatessaron\u201d has quoted the passage? It shows how\nuntrustworthy are all arguments regarding early works like the\n\u201cDiatessaron.\u201d Looking at the other instances which could be pointed out,\nand to some of which we have referred, we see that everything not agreeing\nwith the Gospels of the Church has been gradually eliminated or corrected\ninto agreement, and that thus the very probable use of the Gospel\naccording to Peter by Tatian may be concealed. As Mr. Robinson further\npoints out, however, the words of the angel in Peter are in direct\ncontradiction to those put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth Gospel\n(xx. 17): \u201cI am not yet ascended to the Father.\u201d\n\nThe conclusion of the whole episode in Peter is the short and\ncomprehensive phrase: \u201cThen the women, frightened, fled\u201d (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd). In Matthew, in obedience to the order of the angel to\ngo and tell his disciples, none of which is given in Peter, it is said\n(xxviii. 8): \u201cAnd they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great\njoy\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2),\n\u201cand ran to bring his disciples word.\u201d In Mark (xvi. 8) it is said: \u201cAnd\nthey went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had\ncome upon them (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; \u03b5\u1f36\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). And they said nothing to anyone: for they were\nafraid\u201d (\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1). The running to bring the disciples word, in the\nfirst, and the saying nothing to any one, of the second, Synoptic, is a\ncase of curious contradiction in details. The third Gospel twice over\nrepeats the statement that the women told what they had heard \u201cto the\neleven and to all the rest\u201d (xxiv. 9, 10), but says nothing of the\nemotions excited by the interview, except the double statement (xxiv. 8),\n\u201cAnd they remembered his words,\u201d and, 11, \u201cAnd these words appeared in\ntheir sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them.\u201d\n\nIn the first Synoptic, however (xxviii. 9 f.), as the women go, the risen\nJesus himself meets them and delivers the same order to tell the disciples\nto depart into Galilee, where they shall see him. The genuine portion of\nthe second Synoptic ends with the words quoted above, and it is only in\nthe added conclusion (xvi. 9. 20) that we meet with an account of an\nappearance to Mary Magdalene in the morning. The third Synoptic relates no\nappearance to the women or any one that morning; but the fourth Gospel has\nthe appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, and a long interview between\nthem. Now all this is quite distinctly excluded from the Gospel according\nto Peter, and those who argue for the dependence of the work on our\nGospels have to explain this deliberate omission.\n\nThe fragment proceeds:\n\n\n    58. And it was the last day of the Unleavened bread, and many went\n    forth, returning to their homes, the feast being ended. 59. But\n    we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and mourned, and each\n    went to his home sorrowing for that which had happened. 60. But I,\n    Simon Peter, and Andrew, my brother, took our nets and went to the\n    sea, and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the\n    Lord....\n\n\nAnd so, at a most interesting point, the fragment breaks off, in the\nmiddle of a phrase. This, it will be observed, distinctly excludes the\nvision to the two disciples in the country, mentioned Mark xvi. 12 f.,\nsupposing it to be that described in the third Synoptic (xxiv. 13 ff.), of\nwhich long narrative no hint is given in Peter. It also, of course,\nexcludes the appearance to the disciples in the room, described in the\nfourth Gospel (xix. 20 ff.), and the breathing of the Holy Ghost upon\nthem, of which very important episode the three Synoptics are equally\nignorant, as well as the second appearance to them and the conviction of\nthe unbelieving Thomas, which only this Gospel records. We may add that\nthe appearance to the eleven as they sat at meat, related in the addition\nto the second Synoptic (xvi. 14 f.), with the mission of the apostles\n\u201cinto all the world,\u201d with miraculous powers endowed, which the other\nGospels do not mention, is likewise excluded by Peter.\n\nThis is not all that is excluded, however, for in the fragment reference\nis distinctly made to the \u201ctwelve disciples,\u201d which is an explicit\nconfirmation of the statement made in _v._ 26 f., \u201cI and my companions ...\nwere fasting and mourning,\u201d which makes no exception any more than the\nsimilar \u201cWe, the twelve disciples of the Lord\u201d now quoted. Supposing this\nstatement to be deliberately made, and we have no reason whatever from\nanything in the rest of the fragment to doubt it, this completely excludes\nthe whole of the story of a betrayal of his master by Judas Iscariot.\nVarious facts must be remembered in confirmation of the view that the\n\u201cbetrayal\u201d of Jesus by Judas Iscariot was unknown to the older tradition.\nIn the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) it is said that upon the twelve foundations of\nthe Holy City, the New Jerusalem, are written \u201cthe twelve names of the\ntwelve apostles of the Lamb.\u201d If, as is generally believed, this\nApocalypse was written by John the Apostle, is it possible that, if Judas\nhad betrayed his master in the manner described by the canonical Gospels,\nhe could deliberately have written this, using twice over the \u201ctwelve,\u201d\nwhich includes that Apostle? Again, in the first epistle to the\nCorinthians (i. xv. 5), in relating the supposed \u201cappearances\u201d of Jesus,\nit is said that he first appeared to Cephas: \u201cThen unto the twelve.\u201d(119)\nIf the point be considered on the mere ground of historical probability,\nthere is every reason to consider that the betrayal by Judas is a later\nproduct of the \u201cevolved gnosis.\u201d Jesus is described as going about\neverywhere with his disciples, and nothing could have been easier, under\nthe circumstances, than to follow and quietly arrest him, without any\nbetrayal at all. In fact, there is no real need shown for such a betrayal,\nand the older Christian tradition probably did not contain it. It was just\nthe trait which the \u201cevolved gnosis\u201d would add to the picture from such a\npassage as Psalm xli. 9: \u201cYea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I\ntrusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me,\u201d\nand which was given its literal fulfilment in the detail mentioned in the\nfirst and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark. xiv. 20), \u201cHe that\ndipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.\u201d It may be\nmentioned that Justin does not appear to have known anything of a betrayal\nof Jesus, and that, in places where, if he had been aware of the episode,\nhe would certainly have referred to it, he passes over it in total\nsilence.\n\nAccording to the fragment, Simon Peter, and at least some of the\ndisciples, must have gone into Galilee without any vision of the risen\nJesus; and probably the last verse, which is broken off so abruptly,\nprepares the account of such an appearance as is described in the\nmuch-questioned last chapter of the fourth Gospel. It is worth pointing\nout, as perhaps an indication of the tradition which Peter follows, that\nboth in the first and second Synoptic the order is given to the disciples\nto go into Galilee, where they are told that they are to see Jesus. In\nspite of this distinct order and statement, the author of the first\nSynoptic describes Jesus as immediately after appearing to the women, and\ngiving the same direction to go into Galilee (xxviii. 7, 10), whilst in\nthe spurious verses of Mark he nevertheless appears in Jerusalem to Mary\nMagdalene and to the Apostles. The third Synoptist gives a different turn\nto the mention of Galilee; but after the direction to go into Galilee,\nthere to see Jesus, the visions described are a mere afterthought. In\nPeter, without any order, the disciples apparently go to Galilee, and\nthere probably would be placed the first vision of the risen Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nWe have now completed our comparison of the fragment with the canonical\nGospels, and are able to form some opinion of its relative antiquity and\nrelationship to our Gospels. Is it, as apologetic critics assert, a mere\ncompilation from them, or can it take an independent position beside them,\nas a work derived from similar sources, and giving its own version of\nearly Christian tradition? We have shown that it is not a compilation from\nour Gospels, but presents unmistakable signs of being an independent\ncomposition, and consequently a most interesting representation of\nChristian thought during the period when our Synoptic Gospels were\nlikewise giving definite shape to the same traditions. Every part of this\nfragment has been set side by side with the corresponding narrative in the\ncanonical Gospels, and it is simply surprising that a writing, dealing\nwith a similar epoch of the same story, should have shown such freedom of\nhandling. That there should be some correspondence between them was\ninevitable, but the wonder is not that there should be so much agreement,\nbut so much divergence; and this wonder increases in proportion as a later\ndate is assigned to the fragment, and the authority of the canonical\nGospels had become more established.\n\nThe theory of \u201ctendency\u201d was sure to be advanced as an explanation of\ndifferences of treatment of the same story, but this seems to us much\nexaggerated in what is said of the Gospel according to Peter. That early\nDocetic views might be supposed to be favoured by its representations is\nvery possible; but these are far from being so pronounced as to render it\nunacceptable to those not holding such opinions, and the manner in which\nJustin and Origen make use of its statements is proof of this. As to its\nanti-Judaistic tone, a certain distinction has to be drawn. The\nexpressions regarding \u201cthe Jews,\u201d \u201ctheir feast\u201d (used in reference to the\nPassover), and so on, may be put in the same category as the definition of\nthe veil of the Temple \u201cof Jerusalem,\u201d as indicating merely a work\nprobably written out of Judaea, and for Gentile Christians; but in\nthrowing upon the Jews, much more than on the Roman power, the odium of\nhaving crucified Jesus, the difference between Peter and the canonical\nGospels is really infinitesimal. He certainly represents Pilate as\nretiring early from the trial, and leaving it to Herod, in whose\n\u201cjurisdiction\u201d it was, after washing his hands of the whole business; but\nthis is a much more probable account, and perhaps an earlier tradition,\nthan that which makes a Roman governor present the incredible and\nhumiliating spectacle of a judge condemning and crucifying a man, in whom\nhe finds no fault, at the dictation of a Jewish mob. The canonical\nGospels, however, only accentuate the guilt of the Jews by representing\nthe chief priests and elders, as well as the multitude, obstinately\nclamouring for his crucifixion, and finally overcoming Pilate\u2019s scruples.\nIt is the chief priests and rulers who first seize Jesus and plot for his\nbetrayal, who spit in his face, buffet and mock him, who prefer to him\nBarabbas, and cry: \u201cHis blood be on us and on our children\u201d (Matt. xxvii.\n25). The expressions of distinct antagonism to the Jews in the fourth\nGospel far exceed any in the Gospel according to Peter. There is,\ntherefore, no preconceived purpose conceivable to account for the\ncharacteristics of the narrative in this fragment.\n\nThat a writer who had our canonical Gospels before him should so depart\nfrom their lines, alter every representation without dogmatic purpose,\ninsert contradictory statements, and omit episodes of absorbing interest\nand passages which would have enriched his narrative, is a theory which\ncannot be established. It is obvious that the feeling of the writer is one\nof intense devotion and reverence, and it is unreasonable to suppose that\nhe could have passed over, altered, and contradicted so many points in the\nnarrative of the Gospels, had he had those works before him.(120) In all\nprobability he composed his work from earlier records and traditions, of\nthe existence of which we have evidence in Luke i. 1, and the degree of\nresemblance on the one hand, and of discrepancy on the other, proceeds\nfrom independent use of these sources, from which the materials used in\nthe canonical Gospels may have been drawn. It had not the good fortune of\nthese Gospels, however, to be adopted by the Church and subjected, like\nthem, to repeated revisal; but, drifting apart on the stream of time, it\nat last comes to us with all its original sins and imperfections on its\nhead. Of course, any judgment now formed on the Gospel according to Peter\nis subject to the unfortunate limitation that we have only a fragment of\nthe work in our hands; but should the rest be discovered, as we hope, it\nwill not affect conclusions now based upon the part before us, whatever\nmay be the final verdict on the whole.\n\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nWe have still to consider objections raised by Mr. Rendel Harris, however,\nconcerning the relation between this fragment and the Gospels accepted by\nthe Church. In a long article in the \u201cContemporary Review\u201d he tries to\nestablish the thesis that \u201c_The Gospel of Peter shows everywhere the\ntraces of a highly evolved prophetic gnosis, and in particular most of the\napparently new matter which it contains is taken from the Old\nTestament_.\u201d(121) It would not be possible, without wearying the most\npatient of parishioners, to illustrate in any adequate manner the perverse\nand hair-splitting ingenuity with which the \u201chighly evolved prophetic\ngnosis\u201d went to work, and which, in very parlous fashion, Mr. Harris\napplies to Peter; but, fortunately, this will not be necessary here. This\ngnosis doubtless began its operation early, and reached a climax towards\nthe fourth century; but then it had ceased to be creative, and had become\nwildly analytical. Nothing then remained for it to do. Mr. Rendel Harris\nquotes, with admirable courage, a \u201csignificant sentence\u201d from the\n\u201cPeregrinatio ad Loca Sancta,\u201d a work of St. Sylvia of Aquitaine, or some\nother lady traveller of the fourth century, which has recently been\npublished. She has been relating how the people were instructed in the\nmysteries of the faith by readings from the Scriptures, _imprimis_; of the\nPsalms predictive of the Messianic sufferings; then of passages from the\nActs and Epistles which bear upon the interpretation of such predictions;\nfurther, the evidence of the prophets; and, to crown all, the story of the\nPassion itself from the Gospels. \u201cThe object of this service was, as\nSylvia points out, that the people might understand by the Gospel record\nthat whatever the psalmists and prophets had foretold concerning the\nPassion of the Lord had actually taken place.\u201d And now comes the\n\u201csignificant sentence\u201d to which we referred above, italicised by Mr.\nHarris himself: \u201cAnd so for the space of three hours the people is taught\nthat _nothing took place which had not been previously foretold, and\nnothing had been foretold which had not obtained its fulfilment_.\u201d Mr.\nHarris supports the accuracy of Sylvia\u2019s description.(122)\n\nBut, whilst frankly admitting the application of this fundamental\nprinciple of the prophetic gnosis, more or less throughout all early\nChristian literature, Mr. Harris wishes to limit its influence upon works\nreceived into the canon, into which the two-edged weapon, however, pierces\nin spite of him to the sundering apart of soul and body. He says:\n\n\n    Now no history is, in its ultimate analysis, so trustworthy as\n    Christian history, but if we take the whole body of early\n    literature, of which the canonical Gospels form the centre and\n    crown, including Apocalypses, party-gospels, and the like, we\n    shall find that there never was a body of history which was so\n    overgrown with legend, and the major part of these legends result\n    from the irregular study of the Old Testament, probably based on\n    the synagogue methods of the time of the early Christian teachers.\n    This reaction of the prophecy upon history colours the style of\n    authors and affects their statements; and it is only by a close\n    and careful study of the writers and their methods, that we are\n    able to discriminate between what is a _bona fide_ allusion in the\n    Prophets, or what is a trick of style borrowed from the Prophets,\n    or what is a pure legend invented out of the Prophets.(123)\n\n\nThe immediate object here, of course, is to lay the basis of an indictment\nagainst the fragment; but in this clear and excellent statement, a\nprinciple is enunciated, the application of which cannot be directed as\nthe writer pleases, but is apt to be as deadly to friends as to foes. Mr.\nHarris may attempt to satisfy his doubts, in writing with the impartiality\nof a scholar, as he does, with the reservation that \u201cno history is, in its\nultimate analysis, so trustworthy as Christian history,\u201d but he has only\nto formulate the reasons for such a statement, to recognise their utter\ninadequacy. In so far as he gives us any glimpse of them here, they are of\nsad insufficiency. He speaks, a little further on, regarding \u201cthe real\nneed of a critical method that can distinguish between statements that are\ngenuine history, and statements that are prophetic reflexes. For this\ndiscrimination,\u201d he says, \u201cour main guide is the Canon, which expresses\nthe judgment of the primitive Christian Church upon its literary\nmaterials; but I think it will be generally felt that we shall need\nfiner-edged tools than Church customs or decrees in the more difficult\nparts of the problem; and certainly we must not assume _a priori_ in a\ncritical investigation, that there is no trace of legendary accretion in\nthe Gospel, and no element of genuine fact in what are called the\nApocrypha.\u201d(124) Alas! is not the \u201cmain guide\u201d a mere blind leader of the\nblind in regard to \u201cthe encroachment of prophetic interpretation upon the\nhistorical record\u201d? We have no intention of maintaining here a very\ndifferent view of the credibility of Christian history, the arguments\nagainst which we have elsewhere fully stated, but it is desirable, for\nreasons which will presently appear, that the fundamental principle of\nthis attack on the Gospel according to Peter should be clearly understood.\nMr. Harris goes on to affirm that the measure of this encroachment is, in\nthe first two centuries, one of the best indications of documentary date\nwe possess: \u201cAs a test, it will settle the period of many a document, and\nperhaps the measure of the appeal to prophecy will even determine the\nchronological order of the Gospels themselves: Mark, Luke, John, and\nMatthew.\u201d(125) This order will probably surprise a good many readers, and\nshake the faith they might perhaps be disposed to repose in the test which\nis supposed to have decided it. Mr. Harris applies the test in various\ninstances to Peter, and we shall briefly examine his results.\n\nIt will be remembered that in _v._ 35 f. whilst the soldiers were keeping\nwatch over the sepulchre, there was a great voice in the heavens, and they\nsaw the heavens opened, and \u201ctwo men\u201d (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) came down from thence\nwith great light, and approach the tomb, and the stone which had been laid\nat the door rolled away, and they entered it, but presently they beheld\nagain three men (\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) coming out, and the two were supporting or\nconducting the other by the hand, and the lofty stature of the three is\ndescribed. Now the \u201chighly evolved prophetic gnosis\u201d by which, according\nto Mr. Harris, this representation was composed is as follows, though only\nthe main lines of the painful process can be given. In the prayer of\nHabakkuk (iii. 2), according to the Septuagint, the words which stand in\nour Bible, \u201cIn the midst of the years make known\u201d reads: \u201cIn the midst of\n_two lives_\u201d (or of _two living creatures_) \u201cthou shalt be known.\u201d This is\nreferred in two ways: to \u201cChrist\u2019s incarnation\u201d and to his \u201cDeath and\nResurrection.\u201d In the former case the two animals are the ox and the ass\nat the Nativity. The interpretation in the second case: the \u201cliving\ncreatures\u201d are the seraphim, two in number, because in Isaiah (vi. 3) \u201cone\ncalled to the other and said:\u201d \u201cand we have only to find a situation in\nwhich Christ is seen between two angels, and the prophecy is fulfilled.\nThis situation is made in the Gospel of Peter by Christ rising between two\nsupporting angels.\u201d Mr. Harris endeavours to strengthen this by referring\nto Cyril of Alexandria\u2019s comment on the two living creatures (in the\nfourth century). Cyril is in doubt whether the two living creatures are\nthe Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Old and New Testament, but recurs\nto the earlier interpretation that they are the Cherubim. Mr. Harris also\ncites the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Zechariah iii. 7: \u201cIf thou wilt\nkeep the observation of my word, _I will raise thee up in the resurrection\nof the dead, and set thy feet walking between the two cherubim_.\u201d Then, as\nsoon as this identification of the two living creatures had been made, it\nwas easy, says Mr. Harris, to pass over to the ninety-ninth Psalm, which\nJustin(126) affirms to be a prediction of Christ.\n\n\n    A little study of the opening words will show some interesting\n    parallels with Peter. \u201cThe Lord hath reigned! Let the people be\n    enraged! Sitting on the Cherubim, let the earth be shaken. The\n    Lord in Zion is great and high above all the people.\u201d Here we have\n    a parallel to the \u201cJews burning with rage,\u201d and to the enormous\n    stature of the risen Christ, and, perhaps to the quaking of the\n    earth. Nor is it without interest that Justin, having spoken of\n    this great and high Christ, should turn immediately to another\n    Psalm (xix.) where the sun is said to come forth as a bridegroom\n    from his chamber, and to rejoice _as a giant_ to run a race.(127)\n\n\nIn order to be as just as possible, all this has been given in greater\ndetail than perhaps the case deserves. It seems rather a heavy avalanche\nof conjecture to bring down upon Peter, who simply narrates, without the\nmost distant reference to any prophetic texts; and it is perhaps a little\nhard that Justin, who in all probability had the Gospel already written\nand before him, should contribute in this casual way to the author\u2019s\ndiscomfiture. However, let us see what there is to be said upon the other\nside. The first general remark that may be made is, that it can scarcely\nbe considered evidence of the later date of Peter to ascribe to him, as\nthe source of this detail, an elaborate twisting of texts through the\noperation of gnosis, which has not been proved to have existed in this\nform before the epoch at which he wrote. This is said without any\nintention of casting doubt on the general operation of supposed prophetic\npassages on the evolution of Gospel history, but merely as questioning\nthis particular explanation of the mode in which this representation was\noriginally suggested, and more especially for the purpose of adding that,\nwhatever reproach of this kind is cast upon the Gospel according to Peter,\nmust equally be directed against the canonical gospels.\n\nIt will be remembered that, in the third Synoptic, \u201ctwo men in shining\napparel\u201d assist at the resurrection, and that in the fourth Gospel Mary\nsees in the tomb \u201ctwo angels in white sitting, the one at the head, the\nother at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.\u201d Here there is an\noccasion for applying with equal\u2014or, as we shall presently see,\ngreater\u2014propriety the argument of \u201chighly evolved prophetic gnosis\u201d to the\nwriters, and so explaining their representation. But there is more to be\nsuggested in connection with the matter. In the first and second\nSynoptics, only one angel assists at the scene, who in the second Synoptic\nis called \u201ca young man\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2). Now the \u201ctwo men\u201d of great stature in\nPeter only go into the tomb and come out again with Jesus; but\nsubsequently the heavens were again opened (_v._ 44), and a certain man\ndescends and goes into the tomb and remains there, for when the women come\n(_v._ 55) they see there \u201ca certain young man\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) \u201csitting in the\nmidst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment,\u201d who speaks to\nthem as in the two Synoptics, and tells them that \u201cJesus is gone thither\nwhence he was sent.\u201d This, then, is the angel who appears in Matthew and\nMark. We have already mentioned that the two men of _v._ 36 have been\nidentified by some critics as Moses and Elias. The account of the\ntransfiguration is given in all the Synoptics, though it does not seem to\nhave been known to the author of the fourth Gospel\u2014although \u201cJohn\u201d was an\nactor in the scene\u2014but that in the third Synoptic is fuller than the rest\n(ix. 28 ff). Jesus takes with him Peter and John and James, and goes up\ninto the mountain to pray; and as he prays his countenance was altered,\nand his raiment becomes white and dazzling; \u201cand behold there talked with\nhim two men (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf), which were Moses and Elijah; who appeared in\nglory, _and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at\nJerusalem_.\u201d When Peter and the others were fully awake, \u201cthey saw his\nglory and the two men (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) that stood with him. And it came to\npass, as they were parting from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is\ngood for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee,\nand one for Moses, and one for Elijah: _not knowing what he said_. And\nwhile he said these things there came a cloud, and overshadowed them ...\nand a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my son, my chosen: hear\nye him.\u201d To this episode Mr. Harris might reasonably apply the test of the\n\u201chighly evolved prophetic gnosis;\u201d but in any case, the view that the two\nmen of the fragment are intended to represent Moses and Elijah\u2014the law and\nthe prophets\u2014who had so short a time before \u201cspoken of his decease which\nhe was about to accomplish in Jerusalem,\u201d and who now came, in stature\nreaching to the heavens, but less than his which rose above the heavens,\nand conducted Jesus the Christ forth from the tomb, in which that decease\nhad been fulfilled, is in the highest degree probable. Much more might be\nsaid regarding this, but too much time has already been devoted to the\npoint.\n\nThe second application of Mr. Harris\u2019s test is to the sealing of the stone\nat the sepulchre with seven seals. The Gospel of Peter simply states that\nthe stone was sealed with seven seals, and Mr. Harris endeavours to find\nsome abstruse meaning in the statement, which is peculiar to the fragment\nin so far as the number of seals is concerned. Where did Peter get the\nidea? Mr. Harris says, first from Zechariah iii. 9: \u201cFor behold the stone\nthat I have set before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes; behold I\nwill engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts;\u201d and the name\nJoshua is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus. A reference is also made by the\nFathers of the second century to passages to prove that Christ was the\nstone (of stumbling to the Jews, but the corner stone to believers).\n\u201cJustin recognised Christ in the stone cut out without hands, of which\nDaniel speaks; in the stone which Jacob set for his pillow, and which he\nanointed with oil; in the stone on which Moses sat in the battle with\nAmalek,\u201d and the like. \u201cBearing in mind that there was an early tendency\nto connect the language of the \u2018Branch\u2019 passage with the resurrection, we\ncan see that the interpretation took a second form, viz. to regard the\nstone before the face of Jesus as a prophecy of the stone which closed the\ntomb in the evangelic story.\u201d There is evidence, Mr. Harris says, that the\nseven eyes were early interpreted by Biblical Targumists to mean seven\nseals.\n\n\n    We need not be surprised, then, that the Peter Gospel speaks of\n    the stone as sealed with seven seals; it is an attempt to throw\n    the story into closer parallelism with Zechariah, no doubt for\n    polemic purposes against the Jews. That he uses the curious word\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, which we are obliged, from the exigencies of language,\n    to translate \u201cthey smeared\u201d or \u201cplastered\u201d seven seals, but which\n    to the writer meant much the same as if he were to say, \u201cthey\n    on-christed seven seals,\u201d is due to the lurking desire to make a\n    parallel with Christ and the stone directly, and with the anointed\n    pillar of Jacob. The stone has a chrism.... But this is not all;\n    in Zechariah (iv. 10) there is a passage, \u201cthey shall see the\n    plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel,\u201d but in the Septuagint it runs,\n    \u201cthey shall see the tin-stone.\u201d How is this to be connected with\n    the \u201cstone before the face of Joshua or Jesus\u201d? The answer is\n    found in the pages of the Peter Gospel: \u201ca great crowd came from\n    Jerusalem and the neighbourhood _to see the tomb which had been\n    sealed_.\u201d It only remains to identify the stone which they saw\n    with the tin-stone. Symmachus retranslated the Hebrew word for\n    \u201ctin\u201d as if it came from the root which means \u201cto separate or\n    divide,\u201d and in the Gospel of Peter, \u201cthe stone which had been\n    laid on the door of the tomb withdrew (or separated) gradually\u201d\n    (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2).\n\n\n\u201cThe \u2018plummet\u2019 of Zerubbabel,\u201d Mr. Harris triumphantly concludes, \u201cis used\nby Peter to make history square with prophecy.\u201d(128)\n\nNow again the general remark has to be made that, in order to convict\nPeter of a late date, Mr. Harris takes all this \u201chighly evolved gnosis\u201d\nwherever he can find it, without consideration of epochs, and in some\nparts upon mere personal conjecture. He even confesses that he does not\nknow the date of the translation of Symmachus, which he nevertheless uses\nas an argument. He observes, himself, that it is \u201ca little awkward\u201d that\nthe stone, which at one time represents Jesus, has to be treated in the\nsame breath as before the face of Jesus. The terribly complicated and\ninvolved process, by which it is suggested that the author of the Gospel\naccording to Peter evolved a detail so apparently simple as the sealing of\nthe sepulchre with seven seals, is difficult enough to follow, and must\nhave been still more difficult to invent, but in his anxiety to assign a\nlate date to the fragment, Mr. Harris forgets that, if the number seven is\nevidence of it, a large part of the New Testament must be moved back with\nthe fragment. The Synoptics are full of it,(129) but it is quite\nsufficient to point to the Apocalypse, which has this typical number in\nalmost every chapter: the message to the seven churches; the seven spirits\nbefore the throne; the seven golden candlesticks; the seven stars; seven\nlamps of fire burning; seven angels; seven trumpets; seven thunders; the\ndragon with seven heads, and seven diadems; the seven angels with seven\nplagues; the woman with seven heads, and so on. The most striking and\napposite instance, which Mr. Harris indeed does not pass over, but\nmentions as having \u201ca curious and suggestive connection\u201d and \u201cevery\nappearance of being ultimately derived from the language of\nZechariah,\u201d(130) is the Book which is close sealed with seven seals, and\nthe Lamb standing as though it had been slain, having seven horns and\nseven eyes, which are seven spirits of God, which is found worthy to take\nthe book and open the seals.(131) Instead of giving the author of the\nfragment, who does not make the slightest claim to it, credit for so\nextraordinary a feat of synthetic exegesis, is it not more simple and\nprobable that he used the number seven as a mere ordinary symbol of\ncompleteness? but if more than this be deemed requisite, and the detail\nhas a deeper mystical sense, he can only be accused of \u201chighly evolved\nprophetic gnosis,\u201d in company with the author of the Apocalypse and other\ncanonical books, and this still gives him a position in the same epoch\nwith them, more than which, probably, no one demands.\n\nAnother instance may be rapidly disposed of. The writer of Peter, Mr.\nHarris affirms, was not ignorant of the gnosis of the Cross wrought out by\nthe Fathers from the Old Testament, on the \u201cWood\u201d and the \u201cTree.\u201d One\npassage at which they laboured heavily is in Habakkuk ii. 11: \u201cThe stone\ncries out of the wall, and the cross-beam answers back to it.\u201d Mr. Harris\nproceeds:\n\n\n    Now the author of the Peter Gospel has been at work on the\n    passage; he wishes to make the cross talk, and not only talk, but\n    answer back; accordingly, he introduces a question: \u201cHast thou\n    preached to them that are asleep?\u201d and the response is heard from\n    the cross, \u201cYea.\u201d As far as I can suspect, the first speaker is\n    Christ, the Stone; and the answer comes from the Cross, the Wood.\n    It is then the Cross that has descended into Hades. But perhaps\n    this is pressing the writer\u2019s words a little too far.(132)\n\n\nIs it not also pressing the writer\u2019s thoughts a little too far to suggest\nsuch trains of childish interpretation as the origin of all his\ncharacteristic representations? Mr. Harris, by way of bringing the charge\nnearer to Peter, says that the passage of Habakkuk \u201cis quoted by Barnabas,\nthough no doubt from a corrupted text, with a positive assertion that the\nCross is here intimated by the prophet.\u201d(133) This is not so. The passage\nin Barnabas (xii.) reads: \u201cHe defineth concerning the Cross in another\nprophet, who saith: \u2018And when shall these things be accomplished? saith\nthe Lord. Whensoever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and\nwhensoever blood shall drop from a tree.\u2019 Again thou art taught concerning\nthe cross and him that was to be crucified.\u201d This is not a quotation from\nHabakkuk, but from 4 Esdras v. 5. This is, however, not of much\nimportance. It is of greater moment to observe that Mr. Harris, in\napplying this test, is only able to \u201csuspect\u201d that, in this episode in\nPeter, the speaker who asks the question is Christ the \u201cstone,\u201d and the\nanswer from the cross, the \u201cwood;\u201d but as the first \u201cspeaker\u201d is a voice\n\u201cout of the heavens,\u201d it is difficult to connect it with \u201cChrist the\nStone,\u201d to whom the question is actually addressed. According to this, he\nputs the question to himself. Such exegesis, applied to almost any\nconceivable statement, might prove almost any conceivable hypothesis.\n\nThe next instance requires us to turn to a passage in Amos (viii. 9-10,\nLXX): \u201cAnd it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the\nsun shall set at midday, ... and I will turn your feasts into wailing and\nall your songs to lamentation, and I will lay sackcloth on all loins, and\nbaldness on every head; and I will set him as the wailing for the beloved,\nand those that are with him as a day of grief.\u201d With it, we are told, must\nbe taken the parallel verse in which Zechariah (xiv. 6, 7) predicts a day\nin which \u201cthere shall be no light, but cold and frost ... but towards\nevening there shall be light.\u201d This was one of the proofs with early\nChristians of the events which happened at the crucifixion, and St.\nCyprian, for instance, quotes it. It is also quoted in the sixth Homily of\nthe Persian Father Aphrahat against the Jews. \u201cThe Gospel of Peter did not\napparently possess the gnosis in such a highly evolved form as this,\u201d but\nworks on the same lines. Mr. Harris then quotes passages from the\nfragment, which we shall give after him, with his inserted comments, but\nas he does not mark the intervals which occur between them, we shall take\nthe liberty of inserting the verses from which they are taken between\nbrackets.\n\n\n    15. It was mid-day and darkness over all the land of Judaea....\n    22. then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour\n    [_at evening time it shall be light_]; 23. and the Jews\n    rejoiced.... 25. and the Jews began to wail [_I will turn your\n    feasts into mourning_].... 26. We also were fasting and sitting\n    down (_i.e._ sitting on the ground in sackcloth(134)); [_I will\n    lay sackcloth on all loins_]. 50. Mary Magdalene had not done at\n    the tomb as women are wont to do over their dead beloveds, so she\n    took her friends with her to wail [_I will set him as the Wailing\n    for the Beloved_].\n\n    The writer is, therefore, drawing on the details of prophecy, as\n    suggested by the current testimonies against the Jews, and most\n    likely on a written gnosis involving these testimonies. That he\n    veils his sources simply shows that he is not one of the first\n    brood of anti-Jewish preachers. If he had been early, he would not\n    have been artificial or occult.(135)\n\n\nNow, as before, Mr. Harris uses the eccentricities of a gnosis which he\ndoes not prove to have existed at the time the fragment may have been\nwritten and, for instance, he quotes St. Cyprian, who wrote in the second\nhalf of the third century, and the Persian Father Aphrahat, also a writer\nlong after the Gospel of Peter was composed, and his remark that the\nwriter \u201cdid not apparently possess the gnosis in so highly evolved a form\u201d\nas Aphrahat, is not so much an admission in his favour as to prepare the\nreader to be content with inferior evidence. The test, however, quite as\nmuch applies to our Gospels as to the Gospel of Peter. In the previous\nworking, of which the fragment says nothing, those who pass \u201cwag their\nheads\u201d and rail, in each of the Synoptics, in a jubilant way. The first\nSynoptic says (xxvii. 45 f.) \u201cNow from the sixth hour there was darkness\nover all the land until the ninth hour.\u201d The centurion and those who were\nwatching \u201cfeared exceedingly.\u201d In Mark (xv. 33) there also \u201cwas darkness\nover the whole earth until the ninth hour,\u201d but in Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) the\nresemblance is still more marked. The darkness comes over the whole earth\nfrom the sixth until the ninth hour, \u201cthe sun\u2019s light failing.\u201d (48) \u201cAnd\nall the multitudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the\nthings that were done, _returned smiting their breasts_.\u201d In the fourth\nGospel (xx. 11), Mary goes to the tomb weeping. We shall have more to say\nregarding the Gospels presently, but here we need only remark that,\nwhether in exactly the same way or not, the \u201chighly evolved prophetic\ngnosis\u201d has certainly done its work in all of them. In this respect, the\nGospel of Peter merely takes its place with the rest.\n\nThere is only one other instance to be noticed here. It refers to some of\nthe details which the writer of the fragment introduces into the mockery\nwhich precedes the crucifixion. Some of the mockers \u201cprick\u201d Jesus with a\nreed; others spat on his eyes. This, Mr. Harris says, is connected with a\nview early taken regarding a change of Jewish feasts. In the Epistle of\nBarnabas, there is the best exposition of the doctrine that the Feast\nshould be turned into mourning and the Passover at which Jesus suffered\nshould be treated as if it had been the Day of Atonement. In Barnabas, the\nritual of the great day is discussed in detail, and the rules of procedure\nfor the Priests and the People, apparently taken, Mr. Harris thinks, from\na Greek handbook, prove a variety of local usage such as would not have\nbeen suspected from the Scripture, read apart from the rest of the\nliterature of the time. The \u201cunwashed inwards\u201d of one goat, offered at the\nfast for all sins, are to be eaten by the priests alone, with vinegar,\nwhile the people fast and wail in sackcloth and ashes. This goat is one of\ntwo over which lot is cast on the Day of Atonement; the other is the\nscape-goat, Azazel, which, according to Barnabas, was to be treated with\ncontumely, and sent away into the wilderness: \u201cAll of you spit on him, and\nprick him, and put the scarlet wool on his head,\u201d &c. Now the two goats\nboth represent Christ, according to Barnabas, \u201cwho twists these written\nregulations into prophecies of the first and second Advents, and of the\ndetails of the Passion.\u201d\n\n\n    The mention of vinegar to be eaten with the bitter portion of the\n    goat, suggested the words of the Psalm: \u201cGall for my meat and\n    vinegar for my drink;\u201d the command to spit on the goat and prick\n    (or pierce) him [which ill-usage, by the way, the Talmud admits to\n    have been the practice of the Alexandrian Jews], is interpreted by\n    Barnabas to be a type or a prophecy of Christ \u201cset at naught and\n    pierced and spat on.\u201d Is there any trace of the gnosis of the two\n    goats in Peter? If we may judge from the conjunction of the words\n    in the account of the Mockery, there is a decided trace: \u201cOthers\n    stood and spat on his eyes ... others pricked him with a reed;\u201d it\n    is Christ as the goat Azazel.\n\n\nMr. Harris quotes \u201can almost contemporary Sibyllist,\u201d \u201cThey shall prick\nhis side with a reed, _according to their law_;\u201d and he continues: \u201cIf the\nSybillist is quoting Peter, he is also interpreting him, and his\ninterpretation is, they shall prick him, as is done to the goat Azazel.\u201d\n\nTo make Peter responsible for the ideas or interpretations of the\nSybillist is a little hard. However, let us examine this matter. It is to\nbe observed that the only innovation in Peter, regarding the spitting, is\nthe expression that they \u201cspat upon _his eyes_\u201d instead of simply \u201cupon\nhim,\u201d or \u201cin his face,\u201d as in the Gospels; but upon this nothing turns.\nThe point is not even mentioned; so it may be dismissed. Regarding the\nreed, Peter says they \u201cpierced\u201d him with it, instead of \u201csmote him\u201d with\nit. Let us leave the \u201cpiercing\u201d aside for the moment. In all other\nrespects, the contumely is the same in the Gospels. Before the high\npriest, in Matthew and Mark (Matt. xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65), they spit in\nhis face and buffet him, and smite him with the palms of their hands; and\nin Luke (xxii. 63 f.) they mock and beat him and revile him. It is curious\nthat, according to the second Synoptist, all this was foretold, for he\nmakes Jesus say (x. 33 f.): \u201cBehold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of\nman shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes: and they\nshall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and\nthey shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and\nshall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again.\u201d After the trial\nbefore Pilate, in Mark (xv. 17 ff.), they put on him a purple robe, and\nthe crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his hand, and spit upon\nhim, and take the reed and smite him on the head. In Peter, likewise, they\nclothe him in purple, put on his head the crown of thorns, spit upon his\neyes, smite him on the cheeks, and pierce him with a reed.\n\nWhat difference is there here except the mere piercing? Yes! there is a\ndifference, for Mr. Harris has forgotten to refer to the scarlet wool put\non the goat Azazel. There is nothing in Peter which corresponds with the\nscarlet wool. The robe that is put upon Jesus is purple. Now Barnabas, in\nthe chapter from which Mr. Harris quotes all these passages, finds this\npoint of the \u201cscarlet wool\u201d fulfilled in Jesus: \u201cFor they shall see him in\nthat day wearing the long scarlet robe about his flesh.\u201d(136) But if we\nlook in the first Synoptic we also find this, for we read (xxvii. 28):\n\u201cAnd they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe\u201d (\u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03ba\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd).\nThe mere detail of piercing with the reed instead of smiting with it is\ntrifling compared with this, and in all essential points Mr. Harris\u2019s test\nmore fitly applies to the first Synoptic than to Peter, and equally so to\nthe other two.\n\nAs for the piercing with the reed, however, we have only to turn to the\nfourth Gospel, and we find its counterpart (xix. 34) where one of the\nsoldiers with a spear pierced the side of Jesus. Why? (36) \u201cThat the\nScripture might be fulfilled.... \u2018They shall look on him whom they\npierced.\u2019 \u201d Here is the \u201chighly evolved prophetic gnosis\u201d without any\ndisguise. If one writer prefer to fulfil one part of Scripture, the other\nmay select another without much difference in standing. Even Mr. Harris\nadmits that \u201cthe gnosis on which Barnabas works is ultimately based on the\nsame passage\u201d as that quoted as fulfilled in the fourth Gospel(137); then\nwhat distinction of date is possible when both apply the same gnosis based\non the same texts?\n\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nWe have now discussed practically all the test instances advanced by Mr.\nRendel Harris, and the result at which we arrive is, that he has not\nsucceeded in proving that the Gospel of Peter betrays such traces of a\n\u201chighly evolved prophetic gnosis\u201d as require us to assign to it a later\ndate than the canonical Gospels. If this system of elaborate and perverted\ningenuity were applied to these Gospels, as it has been to the fragment,\nand every kind of false exegesis, childish reasoning, and wild\ninterpretation, such as was current amongst the Fathers, brought forward\nto explain the construction of the four canonical works, the consequence\nwould be terribly surprising to pious readers. That this exegesis began\nearly is quite undeniable, and it is not too much to say that it is\npalpably visible on the very surface of most of the books of the New\nTestament. It had, as Mr. Harris must admit and does admit, practical\neffect on the composition of the Gospels as they have come down to us, but\nit is fully displayed in some of the Epistles of Paul, still more in those\npassing under his name, is supreme in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and as\nfor the Acts, the Apostles are, from the very opening, made to express the\nhighly evolved prophetic gnosis of the author. We do not, of course, argue\nthat the writer of the fragment is free from it, but merely that he shares\nit equally with the other Evangelists, however much their canonicity,\nderived from the very Fathers who are steeped in this gnosis, may protect\nthem from Mr. Harris\u2019s dangerous attack. Without going into an explanation\nof the genesis of various important points in the story, which would\nrequire a volume, we may just glance at some of the points at which the\nEvangelists frankly declare the source of the gnosis, and allow the\nprocess to be seen.\n\nLet us take for instance the first Synoptic. The events previous to the\nbirth of Jesus (i. 18 if.) take place \u201cthat it might be fulfilled which\nwas spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin\nshall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his\nname Immanuel,\u201d and it is only an illustration of the _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ of the\nperiod that two verses further on they call the son, not Immanuel, but\nJesus. The chief priests and scribes inform Herod (ii. 5 f.) that the\nChrist should be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, because it was written by\nthe prophet: \u201cAnd thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least\namong the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor,\nWhich shall be shepherd of my people Israel.\u201d Joseph takes the young child\nand his mother into Egypt (ii. 15 f.), \u201cthat it might be fulfilled which\nwas spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I\ncall my son.\u201d Herod slays all the male children in Bethlehem and in all\nthe borders thereof (ii. 16 f.) and \u201cthen was fulfilled that which was\nspoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah,\nWeeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children,\u201d &c. On\nreturning from Egypt they settle in Galilee, in a city called Nazareth\n(ii. 23), \u201cthat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,\nthat he should be called a Nazarene.\u201d John the Baptist comes preaching \u201cin\nthe wilderness\u201d (iii. 1 f.), \u201cfor this is he that was spoken of by Isaiah\nthe prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,\u201d &c. The\ntemptation of Jesus in the wilderness is based upon three texts: (iv. 1\nff.) \u201cMan shall not live by bread alone,\u201d &c.; \u201cHe shall give his angels\ncharge concerning thee,\u201d &c., and \u201cThou shalt worship the Lord thy God,\u201d\n&c. When John is delivered up (iv. 12 ff.) Jesus leaves Nazareth and\ndwells \u201cin Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and\nNaphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the\nprophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the\nsea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in\ndarkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow\nof death, to them did light spring up.\u201d In the episode of John in prison\nsending his disciples to Jesus (xi. 2 ff.), the whole reply is based\nindirectly on prophetic gnosis, and the _v._ 10 directly: \u201cThis is he, of\nwhom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall\nprepare thy way before thee,\u201d and _v._ 14, \u201cAnd if ye are willing to\nreceive it, this is Elijah, which is to come.\u201d When the Pharisees take\ncounsel to destroy him (xii. 14 f.), and Jesus withdraws, healing the sick\nand enjoining them that they should not make him known, it is \u201cthat it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold\nmy servant,\u201d &c. There is an exhibition of \u201chighly evolved prophetic\ngnosis\u201d (xii. 39 ff.) when a sign is asked for, and the sign of Jonah the\nprophet is given, \u201cfor as Jonah was three days and three nights in the\nbelly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights\nin the heart of the earth,\u201d a gnosis which helped to shape the\nrepresentation of the entombment. The speaking in parables is justified,\nnot originated (xiii. 14 f.), as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah,\n\u201cBy hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand,\u201d &c, and (_v._\n35) \u201cI will open my mouth in parables,\u201d &c. Of course, as Mr. Harris says,\n\u201cno sane person would take St. Matthew\u2019s quotation as the cause of the\nSermon on the Mount, or the parabolic discourse;\u201d(138) but, as he admits,\nthe prophetic passages were in the author\u2019s mind, and are amongst \u201cthe\nfirst faint shadows cast by the prophecy [?] upon the history,\u201d and they\ncertainly led to the representation that those who heard the parabolic\nteaching, and notably the disciples, did not understand the most luminous\ndiscourses, and required a private explanation of the clearest allegories.\nThe entry into Jerusalem (xxi. 2 f.) is arranged \u201cthat it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of\nZion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and riding upon an ass, and\nupon a colt the foal of an ass;\u201d and the writer, not appreciating the\nduplication of Hebrew poetry, is literal enough to relate (_v._ 2) that\nJesus tells the disciples they shall find \u201can ass tied, and a colt with\nher,\u201d which they are to bring, and (_v._ 7) \u201cthey brought the ass and the\ncolt, and put on them their garments; _and he sat upon them_\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd): a representation which has ever since given much trouble to pious\ncommentators. It is not difficult to see that the \u201ccleansing of the\ntemple\u201d (xxi. 12 f.) takes place because \u201cit is written, My house shall be\ncalled a house of prayer, but ye make it a den of robbers.\u201d The trials\nwhen \u201cthe abomination of desolation (xxiv. 16 f.), which was spoken of by\nDaniel the prophet,\u201d is seen \u201cstanding in the holy place (_let him that\nreadeth understand_),\u201d is an example of the prophetic gnosis. The\npreparation for the passion commences (xxvi. 2), \u201cYe know that after two\ndays the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be\ncrucified.\u201d Jesus is represented (_v._ 31) as saying to the disciples:\n\u201cAll ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will\nsmite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad;\u201d\nand the curious phrase which follows is worth consideration: \u201cBut after I\nam raised up, I will go before you into Galilee,\u201d which seems to have\nslipped in here out of its place. The events which take place at the\narrest, and their coming out with swords and staves as against a robber to\ntake him (xxvi. 66), \u201cAll this is come to pass that the Scriptures of the\nprophets might be fulfilled;\u201d and Jesus could not pray for legions of\nangels to help him, for (_v._ 66), \u201cHow then could the Scriptures be\nfulfilled?\u201d The conduct of Judas after he had betrayed his master, when he\ntook back the pieces of silver, the price of his betrayal, to the priests\n(xxvii. 3 f.), fulfils \u201cthat which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,\nsaying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that\nwas priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they\ngave them for the potter\u2019s field, as the Lord appointed me.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nThis need not be further pursued, however, though the principle applies\nquite as much to the other Gospels. Only one passage may be quoted from\nthe last chapter of the third Synoptic. Jesus, when he appears to the\ndisciples, after the episode of the fish to prove that he is not a spirit,\nbut himself with flesh and bones (xxiv. 36 f.), is represented as saying:\n\n\n    These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with\n    you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are\n    written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms,\n    concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might\n    understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is\n    written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the\n    dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins\n    should be preached in his name unto all the nations.\n\n\nThis is a direct justification of the gnosis, and it is no wonder that we\nfind St. Sylvia, some centuries later, recording the concrete principle\nupon which Gospel history is written: \u201cNothing took place which had not\nbeen previously foretold, and nothing had been foretold which had not\nobtained its fulfilment.\u201d\n\nIn so far as the Gospel according to Peter is concerned, the impartial\nverdict must be: It is neither better nor worse than the more fortunate\nworks which have found a safe resting-place within the Canon of the\nChurch. It is almost impossible now to judge of these works as we judge\nthe fragment. Centuries of reverence, and individual habit of hearing\ntheir contents with docility and with bated criticism, have rendered most\nof us incapable of judging the effect which a good part of their contents\nwould make upon us if, like the fragment of Akhm\u00eem, they had been freshly\ndiscovered yesterday. There is no canonical glamour to veil its\nshortcomings, and it must not be forgotten that, in this short fragment,\nwe have none of those parts of the Gospel, such as the Sermon on the Mount\nand some of the parables, which contain so much noble teaching and render\nthe literature so precious. Then, as we have before pointed out, the\ncanonical Gospels, in their greater circulation and in the process of\nreception by the Church, secured a gradual revision which might have\nsmoothed away any roughness from the Gospel of Peter had it been equally\nfortunate. The three Synoptic Gospels are so closely dependent on each\nother, or on the same sources, as to be practically one work; and although\nthis renders all the more remarkable certain indications of selection,\nsome of which we have pointed out, it nevertheless limits our acquaintance\nwith early belief. It is the merit of the fragment that it presents\nconsiderable variation in the original sources, and shows us the fluidity\nof the early reports of that which was supposed to take place during the\nperiod which it embraces. We have in it a primitive and less crystallised\nform of the Christian tradition.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\n\u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0395\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u039d\n\n(1) ... \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. (2) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f4d\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. (3) \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1f41\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f94\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd. (4) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f94\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. (5) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\n\u1f08\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9; \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f27\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3.\n\n(6) \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f64\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. (7) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. (8) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. (9) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n(10) \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c0\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd. (11) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. (12) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. (13) \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f29\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f03 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03af \u1f20\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2? (14) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n(15) \u1f2e\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c5, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03b6\u03b7; \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3. (16) \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; (17) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. (18)\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cd\u03be \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd; [\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72]\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n(19) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f29 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5;\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7. (20) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf.\n\n(21) \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. (22)\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7. (23) \u1f10\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ac\u03c8\u1fc3,\n\n(24) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6.\n\n(25) \u03a4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f24\u03c1\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u039f\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd;\n\u1f24\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc. (26) \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1; \u1f10\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1. (27) \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n(28) \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0395\u1f30 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; (29) \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, (30) \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03c9[\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u1fc3 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac. (31) \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1. (32) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n(33) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd. (34)\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n(35) \u03a4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f97 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae, \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7. (36) \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd \u03c6\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u1ff3. (37) \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd. (38) \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03be\u03cd\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; (39) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f03 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; (40) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n(41) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2?\n(42) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f74 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039d\u03b1\u03af. (43) \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\n(44) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n(45) \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. (46) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f18\u03b3\u03ce \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd. (47) \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f03 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd; (48)\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. (49)\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n(50) \u1f4c\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n(\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f03 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2;) (51) \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. (52) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u0395\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f97 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1. (53) \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1? (54) \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b4\u1fc3. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f03 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n(55) \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff3\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03af \u1f24\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5? \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5? (56) \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd? \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd;\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7. (57) \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n(58) \u1f2e\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. (59) \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1f70\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. (60) \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 ...\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n_    1 Fragments grecs du Livre d\u2019Enoch_, &c., publi\u00e9s par les membres de\n      la Mission arch\u00e9ol. fran\u00e7aise \u00e0 Caire, Fasc. 3, 1893.\n\n    2 1 Fasc.\n\n    3 3 Fasc.\n\n    4 The Greek Text will be found in the Appendix.\n\n    5 The text of this sentence is faulty.\n\n    6 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9;\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0395\u1f30 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9. \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2; \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5,\n      \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n      \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f20\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bd\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f03\n      \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f03 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7. \u1f10\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\n      \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\n      \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\u2014Euseb. H. E. vi. 12.\n\n    7 Lods, _De Evang. secundum Petrum_, 1892, pp. 8 ff.; Harnack,\n      _Bruchst\u00fccke d. Evang. u.s.w. des Petrus_, zweite Aufl. 1893, p. 41;\n      Zahn, _Das Ev. des Petrus_, 1893, pp. 5 f., 70 ff.; Kunze, _Das neu\n      aufgef. Bruchst\u00fcck des sogen. Petrusev_. 1893, pp. 10 f.; Swete,\n      _The Akhm\u00eem Fragment of the Apocr. Gospel of St. Peter_, 1893, pp.\n      xii f., xliv f.; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1893, ii. Heft.\n      pp. 221 f., 239 ff.; J. Armitage Robinson, B.D., _The Gospel\n      according to Peter, &c._, 1892, pp. 15 ff.; Martineau, _The\n      Nineteenth Century_, 1893, pp. 906 ff.; J. R. Harris, _Contemp._\n      Rev. August 1893, p. 236; van Manen, _Theol. Tijdschr_. Juli 1893,\n      p. 385.\n\n_    8 L.c._ p. 4 f.\n\n_    9 H. E._ iii. 16.\n\n_   10 H. E._ iii. 3.\n\n   11 Sozom. _H. E._ vii. 19; _Canon Murat._ Tregelles, p. 65.\n\n_   12 H. E._ iii. 27.\n\n_   13 H. E._ iii. 3.\n\n_   14 Comm. in Matt._ T. x. 17: \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c3 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,\n      )\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f38\u1ff3\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff3\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03c5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n   15 Cf. Murray, _Expositor_, January, 1893, pp. 55 ff.\n\n_   16 De Vir. illustr._ i.\n\n   17 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. _Haer.\n      Fab._ ii. 2.\n\n   18 Zahn, _Gesch. des N. T. Kanons_, ii. 742 f.; Lods, _l.c._ pp. 14 ff.\n      Zahn, however, admits that Theodoret\u2019s statement may at least be\n      taken as testimony that the Gospel was in use amongst a sectarian\n      community in Syria. _Das Ev. d. Petrus_, pp. 70 f.\n\n   19 Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 40 ff.; Zahn, _l.c._ pp. 57 ff.; J. O. F.\n      Murray, _The Expositor_, January 1893, pp. 55 ff.; Kunze, _l.c._ pp.\n      35 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _l.c._ pp. 242 ff.; Bernard, _Academy_, December\n      1892, September 30, 1893; Swete, _l.c._ p. xxxi.\n\n_   20 Academy_, October 21, December 23, 1893.\n\n_   21 Guardian_, November 29, 1893.\n\n_   22 Academy_, December 23, 1893, p. 568.\n\n   23 The detailed statement of the case may be found in _Supernatural\n      Religion_, complete ed. 1879, i. 283 ff. Hort (_Journal of\n      Philology_, iii. 155 ff.) places it as early as A.D. 148.\n\n   24 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0396\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u03bf\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _Dial._ cvi. The\n      whole argument may be found in detail in _Supernatural Religion_,\n      1879, i. 416 ff.\n\n   25 See the argument, _Supernatural Religion_, i. 448 ff.\n\n   26 \u039f\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f02\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _Apol._ i. 66.\n\n   27 Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 39.\n\n_   28 Dial._ xxiii., xliii. twice, xlv. thrice, c. twice, ci., cxx.;\n      _Apol._ i. 32 cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 300 f.\n\n   29 Luke ii. 4.\n\n_   30 Dial._ lxxviii.\n\n_   31 Protevang. Jacobi_, x.; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ p. 19 f.\n\n   32 Cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 304 f.\n\n_   33 Apol._ i. 40.\n\n   34 The word used in the Gospel is \u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9, to drag along, but Justin\u2019s\n      word is merely the same verb with the addition of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9, to\n      worry, or harass with abuse. Although the English equivalent is thus\n      changed, and conceals the analogy of the two passages, the addition\n      of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, strictly considered, cannot so change the meaning of \u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9,\n      but rather should imply a continuance of the same action. This is\n      also Dr. Martineau\u2019s view.\n\n   35 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd; \u039a\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. _Apol._ i. 35.\n\n   36 \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb.\n      _Evang. Petri_, 6. Hilgenfeld says regarding this, \u201cWas fehlt noch\n      zu dem Beweise, dass Justinus, wie ich schon 1850 ausgef\u00fchrt habe,\n      das Petrus-Evg. benutzt hat?\u201d _Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 251.\n\n   37 This passage has been discussed at some length by Dr. Martineau\n      (_Nineteenth Century_, October 1893, pp. 647 ff.), in controversy\n      with Mr. T. Rendel Harris (_Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, pp. 234\n      ff.), as it has frequently before been. Dr. Martineau seems to be in\n      the right upon all points in connection with it.\n\n   38 Hilgenfeld, _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1893, pp. 249 ff.; cf. Lods,\n      _De Evang. sec. Petrum_, pp. 12 f.; Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 38 f., 63\n      f.; Martineau, _Nineteenth Century_, October 1893, pp. 650 f.; cf.\n      Swete, _l.c._ p. xxxiv.\n\n_   39 Dial._ xcvii.\n\n   40 Swete, _l.c._ p. xxxiv. Mr. Rendel Harris says: \u201cI regard it as\n      certain that the reading \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 implies connection between Justin\n      and Peter, either directly or through a third source accessible to\n      both.\u201d _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 231.\n\n_   41 Apol._ i. 50.\n\n   42 \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. _Dial._ liii.; cf.\n      _Supernatural Religion_, i. 330 ff.\n\n_   43 Dial._ ciii.\n\n_   44 Dial._ cviii.\n\n   45 Cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 339.\n\n   46 Cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii. 12.\n\n_   47 Dial._ lxxxviii.; cf. _Supernatural Religion_, i. 316 ff.\n\n_   48 Dial._ ciii. There is another passage in _Dial._ cxxv., which may\n      be compared: \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n   49 Mr. Murray, for instance, quotes a passage from Origen, using a\n      similar expression to that in our fragment, that Jesus was silent as\n      suffering no pain, with a comment which shows that he did not\n      suspect a Docetic interpretation. _Expositor_, January 1893, pp. 55\n      f.\n\n   50 Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 38 ff.; Lods, _l.c._ pp. 12 f.; Hilgenfeld,\n      _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1893, pp. 221, 241, 267; van Manen, _Theol.\n      Tijdschrift_, 1893, pp. 385 f., 551 ff.; Martineau, _Nineteenth\n      Century_, June 1893, p. 910, October, pp. 643 f.; cf. J. Rendel\n      Harris, _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, pp. 227 ff., 231.\n\n   51 Cf. Swete, _l.c._ pp. xxxiii. ff.\n\n   52 Verse 16.\n\n   53 Verse 27.\n\n   54 Verse 28.\n\n   55 Mr. Murray points out that Origen likewise regards the \u201cgall\u201d as\n      baleful, as he likewise represents with our fragment the breaking of\n      the limbs as an act of mercy (_Expositor_, January 1892, pp. 56 f.).\n      Hilgenfeld is quite convinced that the Epistle derives the passage\n      from Peter (_Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 255 f.).\n\n   56 The whole passage may be given here, as arguments are founded upon\n      it: \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f44\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7; \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2; \u1f4d\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74\n      \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u1f70\u03ba\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7. \u03c4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3? \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n      \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af? \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad,\n      \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\n      \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (vii. 3-5).\n\n   57 Harnack finds it almost certain that the _Didache_ made use of this\n      Gospel (_l.c._ pp. 58 f., 80); so also van Manen (_Theol. Tijdschr._\n      September 1893, pp. 353 f.) and others.\n\n_   58 L.c._ pp. xxi f.\n\n_   59 L.c._ pp. xxii f.\n\n_   60 L.c._ p. xxii, _n._ 1.\n\n_   61 L.c._ p. xxiv.\n\n_   62 A Popular Account of the newly recovered Gospel of Peter_, 1893,\n      pp. v, f.\n\n_   63 Ib._ p. 75.\n\n_   64 Ib._ p. 76. It should be stated that the Syriac version of Cureton\n      to Luke xxiii. 48 gives nearly this sentence, and that the old Latin\n      Codex of St. Germain reads: \u201cdicentes: Vae nobis, quae facta sunt\n      hodie propter peccata nostra; appropinquavit enim desolatio\n      Hierusalem.\u201d Mr. Harris of course refers to these passages. Harnack\n      considers that this passage is derived from our Gospel according to\n      Peter (_l.c._ p. 57).\n\n_   65 L.c._ p. 81. It may be well to give the passage now in Moesinger\u2019s\n      work: \u201c \u2018_Vae fuit, vae fuit nobis, Filius Dei erat hic._\u2019 Quum\n      autem eis sol naturalis defecisset, tunc per istas tenebras eis\n      lucidum fiebat, excidium urbis suae advenisse: \u2018venerunt, ait,\n      judicia dirutionis Jerosolymorum.\u2019 Quia itaque haec urbs non recepit\n      eum qui eam aedificaverat, restabat ei ut ruinam suam videret.\u201d\n      _Evang. Concord. Expositio_, 1876, pp. 245 f.\n\n_   66 L.c._ p. 78.\n\n_   67 L.c._ pp. 81 f.\n\n_   68 L.c._ pp. 83 f. Cf. Zahn, _l.c._ p. 65. Zahn considers it in the\n      highest degree improbable that this was taken by Tatian from Peter,\n      but the improbability is by no means made out.\n\n_   69 L.c._ pp. 82 f.\n\n_   70 Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 236.\n\n_   71 Ev. Concor. Expos._ p. 245.\n\n   72 Lods (before A.D. 150), _Ev. sec. Petrum_, 1893, pp. 26 f.; Robinson\n      (before A.D. 160), _The Gospel according to Peter_, &c., 1892, p.\n      32; Harnack (beginning of second century), _l.c._ p. 80; Zahn (A.D.\n      140-145), _Das Ev. des Petrus_, 1893, p. 75; Kunze (about A.D. 170),\n      _Das neu aufgefund. Bruchst\u00fcck des sogen. Petrusev._ 1893, p. 47;\n      Hilgenfeld (end of first century), _Zeitschr._ 1893, pp. 266 f.;\n      Swete (A.D. 150-165), _The Akhm\u00eem Fragment_, 1893, p. xlv; von\n      Schubert (soon after middle of second century), _Die Comp. des\n      Pseudopetr. Ev. Fragments_, 1893, p. 195; W. C. van Manen (older,\n      rather than later, than our Gospels), _Theol. Tijdschr. 5de Stuk_,\n      1893, pp. 565 ff.; Martineau (A.D. 130), _Nineteenth Century_, June\n      1893, p. 925, September, p. 633; J. Rendel Harris (no objection to\n      A.D. 130), _Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 236.\n\n   73 Zahn, _l.c._ pp. 18 ff.; Swete, _l.c._ pp. xliii, f.\n\n   74 Zahn considers \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 inauthentic in this place, but it stands in\n      A C D, and many other codices, and it is adopted by the Revisers of\n      the N. T.\n\n   75 Although this is not part of the Gospel, it is very ancient.\n\n_   76 L.c._ p. xliii.\n\n_   77 L.c._ pp. xliii, f.\n\n_   78 Magn._ ix.\n\n   79 Cf. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. _Evang. Nicod._ Pars\n      1. A. ix. 3; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 229.\n\n   80 For the sake of brevity these Gospels will be called simply Matthew,\n      Mark, Luke, and John.\n\n   81 Hilgenfeld conjectures that this abrupt mention of Joseph indicates\n      that he must already have been mentioned in the Gospel of Peter.\n      _Zeitschr._ 1893, 11. Heft, pp. 244 f.\n\n   82 Cf. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6._ Evang. Nicod._\n      Pars I. A. xi. 3; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 234.\n\n_   83 L.c._ pp. 26 f.\n\n   84 Zahn, of course, argues that the commands of Herod can only have\n      been given to the previously named Jews, the judges of Jesus, \u201cand\n      perhaps to their servants\u201d (_und etwa deren Diener_), and he finds\n      fault with Harnack for here bringing in \u201csoldiers\u201d from the\n      canonical Gospels, without warrant from the text. He declares them\n      to be directly excluded by the leading tendency of the Gospel of\n      Peter (_l.c._ p. 27). This supposed \u201cleading tendency,\u201d of hatred of\n      the Jews, is a good deal exaggerated.\n\n_   85 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 248 f.\n\n   86 Murray, _Expositor_, January 1893, pp. 55 f.\n\n   87 Van Manen conjectures that the author got this \u201cKing of Israel\u201d from\n      the independent use of some Hebrew or Aramaic source. _Tijdschr._\n      Juli 1893, p. 408.\n\n   88 So, for instance, Swete, J. Rendel Harris, Robinson, and others.\n      Others distinctly identify the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 with the malefactor: as, for\n      instance, Kunze, _l.c._ p. 22; Von Schubert, _l.c._ pp. 28 f.; cf.\n      Lods, _l.c._ p. 21.\n\n_   89 L.c._ p. 26.\n\n   90 \u201cWer anderer Meinung ist, sollte sie f\u00fcr sich behalten\u201d (_l.c._ p.\n      55).\n\n_   91 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 254.\n\n   92 Van Manen, _Theol. Tijdschrift_, 4de Stuk, 1893, pp. 408 f.;\n      Martineau, _Nineteenth Century_, June 1893, p. 911.\n\n   93 In the apocryphal work called _Anaphora Pilati_, an account of the\n      crucifixion supposed to be sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius,\n      Pilate is represented as describing the darkness which comes over\n      the whole earth, and saying that the Emperor could not be ignorant\n      \u201cthat in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until\n      evening\u201d (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f27\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2\n      \u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). _Anaphora Pilati_, B. 7; Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853,\n      p. 423.\n\n   94 With regard to this addition of Luke, we may refer to a very\n      interesting letter of Dr. Abbott\u2019s in the _Spectator_ of October 21,\n      1893, from which we take the liberty of extracting the following\n      passage: \u201cIn Luke (xxiii. 45) the correct reading is \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, of which the natural interpretation is, _the sun being\n      eclipsed_. Now, as it was well known that an eclipse could only\n      happen at _new_ moon, and as Passover was at _full_ moon, this would\n      involve a portentous miracle. The probability is that Luke, who was\n      by no means afraid of miracles, meant a miracle here. Not content\n      with saying (with the Synoptics) \u2018darkness came over all the land,\u2019\n      he adds, in order to show that the darkness was miraculous, \u2018the sun\n      _being eclipsed_.\u2019 But is this eclipse \u2018an invention of a conscious\n      or unconscious romancer\u2019? An examination of the parallel passages in\n      Mark and Matthew will show that it is not. There we find that Jesus\n      uttered a cry to God as abandoning Him. These words caused\n      difficulty from the first. The words \u2018my God\u2019 were rendered by some\n      (_e.g._ the Gospel of Peter) \u2018my Power;\u2019 by the fourth Gospel the\n      words were omitted; our oldest manuscripts exhibit many variations:\n      \u1f20\u03bb\u03b9, \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bb\u03c9\u03b9; the very bystanders are said to have interpreted\n      the words as referring to Elias failing to help. Now \u2018_Elias failing\n      to help_\u2019 might be, in Greek, \u1f21\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or quite as often\n      \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ _the sun being eclipsed_. It seems\n      extremely probable, then, that Luke is not here \u2018_inventing_\u2019 a\n      miracle, but suggesting, or adopting, an edifying and miraculous\n      interpretation of what seemed to him a non-edifying tradition\u201d (pp.\n      546 f.).\n\n   95 Or \u201cWhy didst thou forsake me?\u201d\n\n_   96 Dem. Ev._ x. 8, p. 494.\n\n   97 It is suggested that these words must be taken as sarcasm on the\n      part of those who give the body to Joseph.\n\n   98 Harnack suggests that perhaps in the author\u2019s time Joseph\u2019s garden\n      was a known locality (_l.c._ p. 28).\n\n   99 The Syriac version of Cureton has nearly the same reading.\n\n_  100 Zeitschr._ 1893, ii. 246.\n\n  101 It will be remembered that the same accusation is brought against\n      Stephen in Acts. The mockery of the passers-by (Matt. xxvii. 40),\n      \u201cThou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,\n      save thyself,\u201d is also in the same vein.\n\n  102 There is an interesting discussion of the question by Van Manen,\n      _Theol. Tijdschr._ 1893, 4de Stuk, pp. 423 ff.\n\n_  103 L.c._ p. 28.\n\n  104 Dr. Swete also takes this view of the passage, _l.c._ p. 15, _n._ 4.\n\n  105 There are, of course, many instances of such exaggeration: Apoc. x.\n      1 f.; Hermas, Sim. ix. 6; 4 Esdras, ii. 43; _Passio Perp._ c. 10.\n\n_  106 L.c._ p. 70.\n\n  107 Cf. Justin, _Apol._ i. 55: _Dial._ lxxxvi. xci.; Irenaeus, _C.\n      Haer._ ii. 24, 4; v. 17, 3 f. In the _Ev. Nicod._ ii. (Lat. B), in\n      which the descent is fully treated, Jesus Christ is begged to make\n      the sign of the cross: \u201cEt factum est ita, posuitque dominus crucem\n      suam in medio inferni, quae est signum victoriae et usque in\n      aeternum permanebit\u201d (_Evang. Nicodemi_, Pars ii. Latine B. cap. x.\n      (xxvi.); Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1853, p. 409; _Ep. Barn._ c.\n      12; Greg. Nyss. _Adv. Jud._ c. 7).\n\n_  108 Constitt. App._ viii. 12, pp. 259, 13 f.\n\n  109 The expression is so peculiar that we give it in the original.\n\n_  110 L.c._ pp. 263 f. Dr. Martineau translates the passage: \u201cHast thou\n      preached obedience to them that sleep?\u201d _Nineteenth Century_, June\n      1893, pp. 917 f.\n\n  111 Harnack, _l.c._ pp. 68 f.; Lods, _l.c._ p. 48, although with a ?;\n      Zahn, _l.c._ pp. 22 f.; Robinson, _l.c._ pp. 24 f.; Swete, _l.c._\n      pp. xiv. 19. (Dr. Swete considers any reference to 1 Pet. iii. 19\n      improbable.) J. Rendel Harris, _l.c._ pp. 51 f., 89; von Schubert,\n      _l.c._ pp. 101 f.; cf. van Manen, _l.c._ pp. 522 f.; Martineau,\n      _l.c._ pp. 917 f.\n\n_  112 Dem. Ev._ 500. This is referred to by Dr. Swete, _l.c._ p. 19, _n._\n      2.\n\n  113 For instance, Ignat. _Ep. Magn._ 9; Hermas, Sim. ix. 16.\n\n_  114 Dial._ lxxii.\n\n_  115 Haer._ iii. 20, 4; iv. 22, 1; 33, 1, 12; v. 31, 1.\n\n_  116 L.c._ p. 52.\n\n  117 Westcott and Hort put these words between double brackets, as almost\n      certain interpolations, through the action of \u201cWestern influences.\u201d\n\n_  118 The Gospel according to Peter_, p. 29, n. 1.\n\n  119 In the passage 1 Cor. xi. 23 mention is made of a betrayal: \u201cin the\n      night in which he was betrayed,\u201d but without further detail, and it\n      is quite consistent to suppose that the \u201cbetrayal\u201d is not attributed\n      to one of the Twelve. However, there is considerable reason for\n      believing that this passage is an interpolation. It is a fact that a\n      betrayal is not alluded to in any other place where we might expect\n      to find it in these Epistles; _e.g._ Rom. iv. 25; viii. 32; Gal. ii.\n      20.\n\n  120 Harnack argues at considerable length that the Gospel according to\n      Peter must have contained the episode of the woman taken in\n      adultery, inserted into the fourth Gospel.\n\n_  121 Contemp. Rev._ August 1893, p. 217.\n\n_  122 L.c._ pp. 213 f.\n\n_  123 L.c._ p. 215.\n\n_  124 L.c._ p. 216.\n\n_  125 L.c._ p. 216.\n\n_  126 Dial._ lxiv.\n\n_  127 L.c._ pp. 219 ff.\n\n_  128 L.c._ pp. 221 ff.\n\n_  129 E.g._ Matt. xii. 45; xv. 34, 37; xxii. 25 f.; Mark viii. 5, 8; xii.\n      20 ff.; xvi. 9; Luke ii. 36; viii. 2; xi. 26; xx. 29 f.\n\n_  130 L.c._ p. 222.\n\n_  131 Apoc._ v. 1 ff.\n\n_  132 L.c._ p. 224.\n\n_  133 Ibid._\n\n  134 This is not expressed in the text, which Mr. Harris rather strains\n      for his purpose. The correct reading is: \u201cWe were fasting, and we\n      sat mourning and weeping,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n_  135 L.c._ pp. 224 f.\n\n  136 Barnabas, 7.\n\n_  137 L.c._ p. 226.\n\n_  138 L.c._ pp. 315 f.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Gospel According to Peter: A Study","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":44802}