iatrioht aN on SOs!
SSE oe SSS SSR SNS ANS SS SESS Seas : . SSNS = = SEER
See
we
vr if, ” tg hee
?. > tay (es are es pe ae a Le ew eT G A, Fates r' he LEAK ree
ee Ce
ifn
FRAGILE PAPER
Please handle this book with care, as the Paper is brittle.
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031020187
THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL OF 51° PETER
Crrrrg ye vRow OW treats tee Nevercert |
Chap NNER nei PTT atoa chp waa fat
Any Worchig nese carerey Craypey nie! Cope | HATO NTO ATU! CEVA fdr OA~
aT ests «ie ator emer ee
<0 EE “ 4 ares Sat dopiesamacite ocuaes ceo - Pog Hn entre crtat beet sore USY mee Nib
i aoe to intiregatunt Sinten ye lie DeLhore fio NIA Nea Lib AAG pesteters) fortaBIeg Sa ie Nerbetdbletnl AAD Space rapsamesfan
ATO Aabeeonbrts oredr. muha’ te avg | Nituinrd bel ip pus nscsorsmariadeotal a <e adams <2 apoere nt o We :
M4 i
Pn mMadhs ad vee ob 4] HOABIDD aAchvorndALeigy els dgaes ya ex 4
raf f 7 Ta
WH Harta AMA ddA ne eobel ay
if
_bevke lerninaerdrorters Te se
EYAITTEAION KATA TETPON
THE AKHMIM FRAGMENT
OF THE
APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL OF ST PETER
EDITED
WITH AN INTRODUCTION NOTES AND INDICES
BY
Ey Be Ss WETE, ~DD,
7 HON. LITT.D. DUBLIN FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE.
LONDON:
MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK.
1893
[All Rights reserved.|
Cambridge : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
T the end of November, 1892, shortly after the appearance of M. Bouriant’s editio princeps, | published for the use of students a tentatively corrected text of the newly discovered fragment of the Petrine Gospel. This reprint was issued again in February, 1893, with some corrections obtained from the MS. through the kindness of the late Professor Bensly, whose recent death has brought upon all studies of this kind a loss which it is impossible to estimate. The text which I now offer to the public has been revised throughout by the aid of the heliographic reproduction of the MS. just published by M. Ernest Leroux of Paris. Through the courtesy of M. Leroux I am able to enrich my book with a specimen of this facsimile. The Introduction and the notes which have been added to the text are based on lectures delivered in the Divinity School at Cambridge during the Lent Term of the present year. The results at which I have ventured to arrive were reached in- dependently, but in preparing my materials for the press I have freely availed myself of all the literature upon the subject which has fallen into my hands. It is difficult to discriminate in all cases between details which have suggested themselves directly and those which have been gathered from other sources; but I have endeavoured to acknowledge, in passing, the most im- portant of the debts of which I am conscious.
vi
The suggestive lecture of Professor J. Armitage Robinson, which appeared almost immediately after my reprint of M. Bouriant’s text, and Professor A. Harnack’s edition of the Petrine fragments, assisted me in the earlier part of my in- vestigation; if I am less indebted to Professor Th. Zahn’s Evangelium des Petrus, it is because nearly the whole of the following pages was in type before the publication of Dr Zahn’s work. To Mr J. Rendel Harris, Reader in Palaeography at Cambridge, I owe not only many valuable suggestions during the progress of my book, but much kind assistance in the final correction of the proofs.
CAMBRIDGE,
May, 1893-
CONTENTS,
INTRODUCTION I. Petrine writings j : ; II. Relation of the fragment to the Canonical Gospels III. Use of a harmony IV. Chronology of the Passion-history Vv. Allusions to the Old Testament VI. References to the fragment in Church-writers VII. Comparison with other apocrypha VIII. Doctrinal tendencies of the fragment IX. Literary character X. Place of origin and approximate date XI. Description of the MS.; its probable age XII. Literature of the Petrine Gospel
TEXT AND NOTES
TRANSLATION
INDICES
XXV
XXVI
. XXVill . XXXVI
. XXXVil
xliii xliv xlv
xlvii
O TON ATIANTWN TEXNITHC AdrOC O KABHMENOC ETT] TON yepoyBim KAl CYNEYWN TA TIANTA, PANEPOOBEIC TOIC ANOPaTTOIc, EAWKEN HMIN
TETPAMOPON TO EYATTEAION, EN] AE TINEYMATI CYNEXYOMENON.
ix
INTRODUCTION.
Eusebius’ enumerates six works attributed to St Peter—two Epistles, a Gospel, an Apocalypse, a book of Acts, and a Preaching. He regards the first Epistle as undoubtedly genuine, the second as not definitely canonical; the rest of the Petrine writings are distinctly outside the
Canon, and the Gospel is of heretical origin. on the general opinion of the Church.
His judgement is based While the first Epistle was
acknowledged on all hands and the second was widely used, no Church writer had appealed to the Petrine Gospel, Acts, Preaching, or
Apocalypse.
1 Hf. E. iii. 3 Wérpou pév ody émisront pia 7 Neyouevn avtoG mporépa dvwuodd- yuta.. ovK évdidOnKov mer Elva Tapehjpamer, Guws
Thy 6€ pepomévyny avrod deuvrépay
6é roddots XpHoos Paveloa pera Tv d- Awv eorrovddcOy ypapav. 76 ye wnv Tov émikex\nucve adrot Updtewy cal 7d Kar’ avrov wrouacuévoy Evayyédov, 76 TE NEyd- Bevoy abtod Kipuyya kat Thy Kadoumévgy *Arroxdduyry, od’ bus ev KaGoNeKols iowev mapadedouéva’ Ore mare apxaliwy pwyTe THY Kal’ uds Tus exkAnoracTiKds cuyypapeds tais €& al’rGv ocuvexpioato pmapTrupias. Comp. iii. 25 T&v dé dvtTiNeyouevwr yw- pluwy 6 ov éuws Tois woddols..7.- Ilérpov devrépa émiarody....€v Tots vdGos karareTadxOw .. dmoxdduyis Iérpov... Tov KaTddoyov memoujueda . . Wv’ elddvar éxoumev atrds re Tavras [the canonical writings, and the avdd/egomena], cal Tas évéuatt Ta drogTé\wy mpds TH aipeTiKav
5. P.
mpogpepouévas, nro ws Iérpov cai Owua kal Mardia, 7 xai twwv mapa TovTous ad- wv evayyédia Tepexotcas . wy ovdey ovdauws év ovyypdupari Tay KaTa Tas dLa- Soxas éexkAyoactikwy Tis dvnp eis py hunv Jerome adds a seventh book, the ‘ Judgement’; in his estimate of the Petrine literature he follows Eusebius but treads with a firmer step: de wirr. illustr. i. Simon Petrus. . scripsit duas epistolas quae catholicae nominantur,
yer
ayayely jélwoev.
quarum secunda a plerisque eius ne- gatur propter stili cum priore dissonan- tiam. sed et Euangelium iuxta Marcum, qui auditor eius et interpres fuit, huius dicitur. libri autem e quibus unus Ac- torum eius inscribitur, alius Euangelii, tertius Praedicationis, quartus ’Azoxadv- yews, quintus Tudicii, inter apocryphas scripturas repudiantur.
x INTRODUCTION.
Of the Gospel, before the recovery of the Akhmim fragment, not a single sentence was known to have survived. Origen indeed asserts that those who held the Brethren of the Lord to have been sons of Joseph by a first wife, based their theory upon either the Gospel of Peter or the “Book of James’.” Beyond this -precarious testimony the only reference to the Petrine Gospel by writers earlier than Eusebius is to be found in a fragment of Serapion preserved in another part of the Leclesiastical History®. Serapion was eighth Bishop of Antioch, succeeding Maximinus and himself succeeded by Asclepiades*. It has been shewn by Bishop Lightfoot that Serapion’s episcopate began between a.D. 189 and 192: the year of his death is less certain, but he seems to have been still living during the persecution of the Church by Septimius Severus (A.D. 202—3)*. On the whole his period of episcopal activity may safely be placed in the last decade of the second century. This Serapion had left a treatise relating to the Gospel of Peter from which Eusebius quotes a few sentences. It appears to have been a pastoral letter addressed to the clergy or people of Rhosus, consisting of a general criticism of the Gospel followed by extracts from it. The passage preserved by Eusebius explains the circum- stances under which the letter was written. In the course of a visit to Rhosus the Bishop of Antioch learnt that some bitterness had arisen between members of the Church upon the question of the public use of the Gospel of Peter. He glanced over its pages, and not suspecting the existence of any heretical tendency at Rhosus, authorised the reading of the book. After his departure information reached him
1 Comm. in Matt. t. x. 17. rods 6& RexOévrwv wor, orovddow madw yevéo bar
adeAgovs "Inood Paci ties elvar, ex Tapa- Sdcews Spuwmevoe Tob Emiyeypaypevou Kard Ilérpov evaryyeNlov, 7 THs BlBdou ‘laxwBov, viols "Iwonp éx mporépas yuvratkds ouvw- kykulas adr mpd THs Maplas.
2 HE. vi. 12 Huels yap, adeddol, kai Ilérpov kal rods a&ddous drogréAous dmode- xbucda ws Xpiordv’ ta be dvduare ad’ruy pevderlypapa ws eumerpor maparovpeda, ywookovres b7t Ta Tovafra od mapeddBo- bev. eyw yap yevouevos map’ vpiv vrevdou Tous mévras 6p0y whore. mpoopéeperOar’ Kal HH StehOwv 7o bw abtav mpopepsuevor dv6- pate Ilérpou evayyédov, elroy br Hl robrd éore povov 7d doxodv butvy mapéxew puxpo- puxlay, avaywwoxésOw. vov dé wadav dre alpéces rit 6 vo0s alta évepddevev ex THY
mpos buds’ wore, ddeApol, mpotdokaré me év raxer. Huels (fort. leg. duels) dé, ddedol, KaradaPdpevor drrolas nv aipécews 6 Mapki- avés, Kal éavT@ nvavTiotro UH vow a édadeL, & padjoecde ( fort. leg. ws kal €auT@ qvavr. pny. d édadre, pabnoece) c& ay vuly eypd- on” edurnOnuev yap rap aw rev doKy- cdvtwy avtd Todro ebayyédoy, TouréaTe mapa Tw diaddxwy TGy Karaptapévww av- Tob, ols Aoxnras kadobuev—ra, yap elova ppovjpara éxelvwy éorl ris didacKkadlas— Xpnoduevor rap avrwv dreOciv, xai evpeiy Ta wev mrelova ToO 6p800 Adyou Tod Lw- Thpos, Twa dé mpocdiecradpéva, d xal vmeratayey vpiv.
3 H. E. v. 19, 22, vi. 18.
4 Jgnatius, ii. p. 459 ff.
INTRODUCTION. x1
which threw a new light upon the matter and determined him to visit Rhosus again without delay. He had learnt that the Gospel had originated among a party known to Catholic Christians as the Docetae, and was still in use among that party, who appear to have been led at Rhosus by one Marcianus'; and on procuring a copy of the Gospel froin other members of the party and examining it in detail, he had found that the book, although generally sound, contained certain accretions of another character, specimens of which he proceeded to give.
Rhosus was at a later date one of the sees of Cilicia Secunda’; a Bishop of Rhosus signed the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch in A.D. 363% At the end of the second century the town probably had no Bishop of its own; in any case it was under the authority of the great neighbouring see of Antioch, whose later patriarchal jurisdiction included both Cilicias*, Rhosus stood just inside the bay of Issus (the modern Gulf of Iskenderun); to the south-west, fifty miles off, lay the extremity of the long arm of Cyprus; Antioch was not above thirty miles to the south east, but lofty hills, a continuation of the range of Amanus, prevented direct communication with the capital. It was in this obscure dependency of the great Syrian see that the Petrine Gospel first attracted notice. To Serapion it was clearly unknown till he saw it at Rhosus. Yet Serapion was not only Bishop of the most important see in the East, but a man of considerable activity in letters, and a controversialist®. It is natural to infer that the circulation of the Gospel before a.D. 190 was very limited, and probably confined to the party from which it emanated. Even at Rhosus an attempt to use it as a Church book had provoked opposition. When Serapion wished to procure a copy, he succeeded in doing so only through the favour or indiscretion of some who belonged to the party. All this points to a narrow sphere of influence, and Serapion’s censure would assuredly have checked the use of the book in the diocese of Antioch. This inference is confirmed by the extreme scantiness of subsequent references to the Petrine Gospel. It is mentioned by only four writers in the next three centuries, and no personal knowledge of the book is implied in their notices. The testimony of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome has been quoted already. Theodoret must be added to them, but his statement that the Gospel according to Peter was used by the Nazarenes is hard to reconcile with Serapion’s first-hand account of its tendencies®. There
1 The Armenian version gives A/arcion 3 Socr. iii. 25. Mansi, iii. 372. (Robinson, p. 14), but the change has 4 Neale, Holy Eastern Church, i. 1. 6. little inherent probability. 5 H. E. v. 19, vi. 12.
2 Ramsay, Asca Minor, p. 386. 6 Theodoret. haer. fabd. ii. 2 of d¢ Na-
b2
xii INTRODUCTION.
is a yet greater dearth of evidence in the ancient catalogues of Biblical writings. Even those among them which include certain apocryphal books are with one exception silent as to the Petrine Gospel. The Petrine Apocalypse finds honourable mention in the Muratorian frag- ment and in three other lists; the Gospel is mentioned only in the notitia librorum apocryphorum attached to the Gelasian Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis'. This document was first attributed to Gelasius by Hincmar of Rheims, and though it probably contains older elements, in its present form it cannot be placed earlier than the eighth or ninth century; whether its reference to the Gospel of Peter is to be traced to the words of Jerome, or points to the circulation of a Latin version in Western Europe at the beginning of the middle ages, must for the present remain uncertain. The latter alternative is not impossible. The Manicheans of Africa and the West prided them- selves on the possession of numerous apocrypha, some of which appear to have belonged to the Petrine group’.
There is no reason to doubt that the Akhmim fragment was rightly assigned by M. Bouriant to the lost Gospel of Peter. It claims to belong to a personal narrative by that Apostle, and it formed, so far as we can judge, a part of a complete Gospel and not merely of a history of the Passion, for it assumes an acquaintance on the part of its readers with such circumstances as the choice of the Twelve, the names and occupation of two of them, and their connexion with Galilee. Its tendency is, moreover, in harmony with Serapion’s account of the Petrine Gospel. Our Lord is invariably called 6 kupios or 6 vids rot He undergoes Crucifixion without suffering pain; His risen Body assumes supernatural proportions. These and other particulars are at least consistent with a Docetic origin; yet our fragment is orthodox in its general tone, as Serapion admits the Docetic Gospel
Geod.
"Tovdalors
Swpatoe "Tovdaiol elor tov Xprordv triywwytes Fé obroe €xOpol rots bwdp- Qs dvOpwroy dikatoy kal TH Kadouméyw Kard xovow.
Tlérpov evayyerly Kexonuévor. According 1 Migne, P. Z. lix.
to Epiphanius (xxix. 9) the Nazarenes ° Comp. Philastr. ae. 88 habent
used the Hebrew ‘ Matthew’ (éxover dé 70 Kata Mar@atov evayyédov mypécrarov ‘EBpaisri). Eusebius says of the Ebion- ites (HZ. &. iii. 27) edayyehlw 6€ wbvy 7G kal’ ‘“EBpatous eyouerp xpwmevoe Tov If the Nazarenes really circulated the Petrine Gospel, the fact was possibly due to its anti-Judaic tone; cf. Epiph. l. c. mdvu
orev cpuikpdv érrowodvTo Nébyov.
Manichaei apocrypha beati Andreae apo- stoli . . et alii tales Andreae beati et Ioannis Actus euangelistae, beati et Petri similiter apostoli: Aug. c. Faust. xxx. 4, where Faustus says, Mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos Petrum et Andream, Thomam et. . Io- annem...sed hos quidem ut dixi prae- tereo quia eos uos exclusistis ex canone.
INTRODUCTION. xili
to have been. Lastly, it bears internal evidence of belonging to a work of the second century. Its style and character resemble those of other second century apocrypha, and it has a note of comparative simplicity and sobriety which is wanting in apocryphal writings of a later date.
II.
We may now proceed to examine the contents of the fragment. It covers a portion of the Gospel history roughly corresponding to Matt. XXVIL 24—xXXVIII. 15 = Mark xv. 15—xvi. 8= Luke xx. 24—xXxXIV. 10 =John xix. 13— xx. 12. A superficial comparison shews that the Petrine account is considerably the longest of the five, and exceeds by about one fourth the average length of the four canonical narratives.
In what relation does this new and longest history of the Passion stand to the Four Gospels? For minute details the reader is referred to the notes attached to the text; for the present it will be necessary only to point out the general results.
1. The Petrine Passion-history relates a large number of circum- stances which are not to be found in any canonical Gospel. The following are the most important of the new incidents.
(a2) Herod and the Jewish judges of the Lord abstain from washing their hands after Pilate’s example.
(6) The order for the Crucifixion is given by Herod.
(¢) At this juncture Joseph, who is a friend of Pilate, seeks permission to bury the Body and is referred by Pilate to Herod. Herod replies that the Body would in any case be buried before sunset, in accordance with the Jewish law.
(¢@) Herod then delivers the Lord to the people, who push Him before them exclaiming, Let ws hale the Son of God. They set Him on a seat of Judgement saying, Judge righteously, thou King of Zsrael. Some prick Him with a reed; others scourge Him saying, Thus let us honour the Son of God.
(ec) At the moment of crucifixion He is silent, as free from pain.
(f) The Cross is erected, the garments are spread on the ground beneath it.
(g) The censure of the penitent malefactor is turned upon the crucifiers, who revenge themselves by directing that his legs shall not be broken, with the view of prolonging his sufferings.
xiv
INTRODUCTION. y
(4) The Jews regard the darkness which envelopes Judaea at noonday as indicating that the sun has already set, and carry lamps as in the night; some of them fall.
(7) At this point they offer the Lord gall mingled with vinegar, apparently for the purpose of hastening His Death.
(7) The Lord is taken up after uttering the loud cry dZyp Power, My Power, thou hast forsaken Me.
(2) The nails are drawn forth from the Hands, and the Body is laid on the earth. The earthquake ensues; the sun then shines out again, and it is found to be the ninth hour.
(72) The Jews in their joy give the Body to Joseph, who washes it. The tomb in which it is laid is known as ‘Joseph’s Garden.’
(m) Presently the joy is turned into general mourning. The people beat their breasts exclaiming He was righteous ; their leaders cry Woe fo our sins! the disciples, suspected of designs upon the Temple, seek a place of concealment. Meanwhile they keep up their fast until the Sabbath.
(z) With the assistance of a military guard under the com- mand of the centurion Petronius, the Jewish leaders roll a stone to the door of the tomb. Seven seals are placed on the stone, and a tent is set up close at hand for the use of the watch. On the Sabbath morning the sealed stone is inspected by a crowd of visitors from Jerusalem and the suburbs.
(0) The next night, while two of the watch are on guard, a great voice is heard in heaven; the heavens are opened and two young men descend, clothed in light, and approach the tomb. The stone moves aside, and the two enter. Presently the centurion and the Jewish elders, who have been awakened by the watch, see three men of supernatural height issue from the tomb; one of the three, whose head reaches above the heavens, being supported or led by the other two. The three are followed by a Cross, and from it comes an answer of assent to a second voice from heaven which says, Zhou didst preach to them that sleep. The second voice is succeeded by a second opening of the heavens, and another human form descends and enters the tomb.
(~) The Jews upon this hasten to Pilate and confess, rudy this was the Son of God. Pilate retorts, 2 am clean...the sen- tence was yours. At the earnest desire of the Jews he binds the watch to secrecy.
INTRODUCTION. xv
(g) The women, hitherto prevented by fear of the Jews, hasten at daybreak on Sunday to offer their last tribute at the tomb. Their conversation on the way is reported at some length. On arriving and finding the door open, they see a young man sitting in the middle of the tomb who says, He 7s gone to the place from whence He was sent.
(ry) The last day of the Feast having arrived, many are returning home, and among them the Twelve, who are still mourning for the Lord. Simon Peter and Andrew take their nets and go to the Sea, accompanied by Levi.
It is evident that the new incidents recited above rest upon the basis of a story which is in the main identical with that of the canonical Gospels. They presuppose (e.g.) the intervention of the Jewish leaders, of Herod, and of Pilate in the trial of the Lord, the Mockery, the Crucifixion, the Three Hours’ Darkness, the Burial in the garden-tomb, the descent of Angels, the Resurrection (in whatever sense), the visit of the women to the tomb, the departure of certain of the disciples to Galilee. A careful study will shew that even details which seem to be entirely new, or which directly contradict the canonical narrative, may have been suggested by it; see e.g. (c), (e), (g), (7), (g). At other points we can detect the influence of the Old Testament ((Z), (2), (7)), of New Testament books other than the Gospels ((4), (2), (0)), and of hymns or other liturgical forms ((7), (0)). It is worthy of especial remark that the fragment does not yield a single agraphon, for the saying in (/) is clearly based on the Fourth Word from the Cross. Nor are there any certain indications of an independent tradition in the circumstantial treatment of the history. Thus notwithstanding the large amount of new matter which it contains, there is nothing in this portion of the Petrine Gospel which compels us to assume the use of historical sources other than the canonical Gospels.
2. The Petrine Passion-history on the other hand omits many important details which are related by one or more of the Four Gospels. The following are the principal of these omissions ; after each will be found a reference to the Evangelist or Evangelists to whom we owe our knowledge.
(z) The mockers do homage to the Lord, saying Hadi, King of the Jews (Mt., Mk.).
(6) The Lord goes forth bearing His Cross (J.).
(c) It is subsequently laid on Simon of Cyrene (Mt., Mk.,
L.).
XV1 INTRODUCTION.
(7) The women follow with lamentations (L.).
(e) The Crucifixion takes place at the third hour (Mk.).
(f) The Lord refuses the first potion offered Him (Mt., Mk.). (g) The First Word from the Cross (L.).
(2) Pilate refuses to change the superscription (J.). (7) Lots are cast for the xurwy only (J.).
(7) The Crucified is mocked by the passers by and the Priests (Mt., Mk., L.). He is reviled at first by both the malefactors (Mt., Mk.).
(4) The Second Word (L.).
(2) The Third Word (J.).
(m) The cry ZZ is mistaken for a call for Elias (Mt., Mk.).
(x) A sponge full of vinegar is put to the Lord’s lips (Mt., Mk.). (0) The Fifth Word (J.).
(~) The Sixth Word (J.).
(7) The Seventh Word (L.).
(r) Many of the dead come forth from their graves (Mt.).
(s) The centurion at the Cross confesses the divinity (Mt., Mk.) or the innocence (L.) of the Sufferer. ;
(2) The Lord’s Side is pierced (J.).
(w) Nicodemus takes part in the Burial (J.).
(x) The women witness the Burial, and return to keep the Sabbath (L., J.).
(vy) An earthquake attends the descent of the Angel (Mt.).
(s) The Angel announces, “He goeth before you into Galilee (Mt., Mk.).
(a,) The women carry tidings to the Apostles (Mt., L.).
(s,) The tomb is visited by St Peter (L.), and St John (J.).
To this list of omissions should probably be added the ap- pearances of the Risen Christ on Easter Day and on the first Sunday after Easter. But to deal with those which are beyond dis- pute, it may be observed that of twenty-seven only three belong to the common tradition of the Synoptists, whilst not a single circum- stance which is related by both the Synoptists and St John has been altogether ignored in the Petrine narrative. On the other hand six- teen of the omissions occur in the case of details recorded by one Evangelist only (J..9; L., 4; Mt. 2; Mk., 1).
INTRODUCTION. xvil
3. Let us next compare the five accounts with the view of dis- covering how much our fragment has in common with the canonical Gospels. The following are the common facts.
(a) Pilate washes his hands (Mt.).
(6) Herod participates in the trial of the Lord (L.).
(c) The Lord is delivered over to the people (J.).
(zd) He is attired in purple, crowned with thorns, spat upon, buffeted (Mt., Mk., J.).
(e) He is crucified between two malefactors (Mt, Mk., L., J.).
(f) He is silent (Mt., Mk., L., but under other circum- stances).
(g) A superscription is placed on the Cross (Mt., Mk., T.., J.).
(4) The Lord’s garments are divided (Mt., Mk., L., J.).
(¢) One of the malefactors acknowledges His innocence (L.).
(7) ‘There is darkness from noon to 3 p.m. (Mt., Mk., L.).
(2) A potion is administered to the Lord shortly before His death (Mt., Mk., J.).
(2) The Fourth Word from the Cross (Mt., Mk.).
(m) The veil of the Temple is rent (Mt., Mk., L.).
(z) An earthquake follows the Lord’s Death (Mt.).
(0) He is buried by Joseph (Mt., Mk., L., J.) in a garden (J).
(p) ‘The spectators are seized with remorse (L.).
(g) The Jewish leaders request Pilate to set a watch at the tomb (Mt.).
(r) A great stone is rolled to the mouth of the tomb (Mt., Mk.).
(s) Two Angels descend (L., J.).
(¢) One Angel descends (Mt., Mk.).
(w) Mary Magdalene and other women visit the tomb early on Easter Day, and learn from an Angel that He is risen (Mt, Mk., L.).
(x) Some of the Disciples depart to Galilee and return to their fishing ((Mt., Mk.], J.).
An analysis of this common matter will shew that of twenty-two points which the Petrine fragment shares with one or more of the canonical Gospels, four are to be found in all the Gospels, seven in three out of the four, three more are in both St Matthew and St Mark, three are in St Matthew only and three in St Luke only. Comparing
XVill INTRODUCTION.
these results with those obtained under the head of omissions (p. xvi.), we gather that the Petrine narrative largely embodies the common matter of the canonical Gospels, agreeing with the Synoptists in eight particu- lars, and omitting only three which they all relate; and further, that it has distinct points of coincidence with the combined witness of the First and Second Gospels, and with the separate witness of the First Gospel and of the Third. There are only two or three incidents in the fragment which directly suggest acquaintance with the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, although, as we shall presently see, there are isolated expressions which render such an acquaintance probable.
4. We may now proceed to a verbal comparison.
Does the new fragment betray such a dependence upon the words of the canonical Gospels as to justify the belief that they were before the Petrine writer? The writer, it is clear, is not a mere compiler or harmonist ; usually he appears to avoid the precise words of the canonical narrative, and when he comes nearest to them, it is his habit to change the order of the events, or to break the sequence by the intrusion of phraseology foreign to the writers of the New Testament. His narrative is ex Aypothes? original, for it is attributed to St Peter; and he could not consistently with this assumption have borrowed the exact words of any existing Gospel. But this consideration adds weight to any verbal coincidences which may reveal themselves. Such coin- cidences exist, and the following deserve especial attention :
(a) amevivato tas x<ipas (Mt.).
(6) mpoced\Oav tH TleAatw yrycato ro copa (Mt., L.; cf. Mk.).
(c) 70 xataréracpa, Tod vaod éoyic On eis dvo (Mt., Mk.; cf. L.).
(d) eveiAnoev TH owddve (Mk).
(e) mevGoter Kat Kalovow (‘Mk.’).
(J) cvvnyxOnoar ot Papicato. mpds IeAGrov
(Mt.).
ot adpxtepets kal
(g) pa mote ABdvtes of pabyrai avrot Khépwou airov (Mt.).
(A) tis aroxudioes Hyuty Tov AiBov ex THs Ovpas ToD pvypeiov;...7V yap péyas opddpa (Mk.).
éviwato tas xeipas (P.).
qAOev mpos tov [leAGrov Kal yTyTe To odpa (P.).
duepayn TO Katawétacpa Tod vaod..eis dvo (P.).
eiAnoe orvddve (P.).
mevOodvtes kat kdalovtes (P.).
ovvaxdévres O€ of ypappareis Kal Papicaior kai mperBvrepor mpos adAydous...7AGov mpos Wetda- tov (P.).
by mote €AOdvTes of pabyrat avtobd KrAépwouv avtéyv (P.).
tis b€ amoxuArAloet Wuiv Kat TOV ALOov Tov TeBévta ert THS Ovpas Tod pyynpeiov;...méyas yap Hv 6 AiBos (P.).
INTRODUCTION. xix
It can scarcely be doubtful that these coincidences imply the use of the First and Second Gospels, and the conclusion is confirmed by a host of minuter correspondences which will be found in the footnotes ; that many of these are scattered through contexts otherwise widely at issue with the canonical texts, serves only to add strength to the con- viction. In the case of the Third Gospel the parallels are not so complete, yet they are sufficiently close to create a strong presumption
in favour of its use ; compare e.g.:
(2) caBBarov érépwoxer (L.).
(4) Fyovro 8& Kal érepor Kaxotpyor duo (L.).
(c) els 8 TOV Kpepacbévtwy Kaxovp- yov (L.).
(2) Woe to us..because of our sins (L., Syr‘""*).
(@) wavres ot...dxAou...TUTTOVTES TH at7On vréatpepov (L.).
(J) dvtws 6 avOpwiros ovTos Sixatos gv (L.).
(g) TH Se pid Tod caBBadrov dpOpov BaOéws eri to priya 7AGav (L.).
ca BBatov émipocker (P.).
kal jveykov d¥0 KaKkovpyous (P.).
e , a ’ ees ELS be TLS TWV KAKOUPYWV EKELYWY
(P.).
ioe oe nk, , edt oval Tats apmaptiars nuar (P.).
€ ‘ a t ‘ , 6 dads aTas..KoTTeTa TA oTHOY
(P.).
idere Ore rocov Bixards éoriy (P.).
bpOpov b€ THs Kuptakys...7rAOe ert 70 pvypetoy (P.).
Let us next compare the Petrine fragment with the Fourth Gospel. Here the traces of verbal indebtedness are fainter, yet the following
occur :
(2) rapédwxev avtov airois (J.).
(4) 4 éopty tav “Tovdaiwy (J.).
(c) ov« elyes eovoiay Kar’ eno (J.). (2) éxaficey éri Byparos (J.).
(e) euacriywoer (J.).
(f) Adxwpey epi airod (J.).
(g) Katéagav ta oKédy (J.).
(2) Wa rerewh 7 ypady...teré- Aeorat...tva 4 ypady mAn- po69 (J.).
(2) ev tals yepoiv avrov tov tumov Tav yAwv (J.).
(J) fv 8 ev 7G térw drrov eotrarpuby
* Sh oath a KNTOS Kal év TOK TW mYNWLELOV(J.).
TapédwKkev avtov TH Aad (P.). a € a ? x
THS EopTHs avtav (P.).
éfovciay avrod éoynKores (P.).
od me ae 1 ,
éxadtoev avrov emi xabédpay xpi- cews (P.).
éwaarcfov (P.).
Aaxporv éBadov éx’ avrois (P.).
iva pn oKedoxornOy (P.).
7 , , ry ,
émAnpwoav mavrTa, Kai éredrXclw-
cay... (P.).
had 4 bf ud > * tal ameoTagay tovs yAovs amo Tav xXetpar (P.). , , 7 > , tdpov Kahovpevoyv Kirov “lwaond
(P.).
XX INTRODUCTION.
(2) 6 xéopos yxapyoeras (J.). éxdpyoar ot Iovdator (P.).
(¢) éréxpurev pov Tod's 6fOadrpovs(J.). éréxproay érra oppayidas (P.). (7) did tov dBov Tév"Iovdatwv (J.). po Boupéry 81a. Tovs Lovdatous(P.),
(72) tiva Lyreis ; (J.). tiva Cnreite; (P.).
(0) mapaxtpas Bréret (J.). mapéxvpav...rapakvwpare (P.).
(P) ets trav dwdexa (J.). ot dadexa (P.).
(7) éropevOnoay exaotos cis Tov otkov = Exagros...amnhAadyy cis TOV OlKOY avrot (‘J.’). avtod (P.).
(7) ext rs Gadacens (J.). eis THY OaAaccay (P.).
If none of these parallels is by itself convincing, yet their cumulative force is considerable. It may be admitted that the Petrine writer does not shew as much familiarity with the Fourth Gospel as with the Second, or even with the Third; or perhaps it would be more exact to say that he has for whatever reason availed himself more freely of the Synoptic Gospels than of St John. But that he had access to St John is at least probable, not merely on the ground of the verbal resemblances, but because at several points the Petrine story presupposes the Johannine order or characteristic features of the Johannine narrative. ‘Thus in Peter as in St John the events at the Cross begin in this order: (1) the crucifixion between the two malefactors, (2) the setting up of the title, (3) the parting of the clothes, the relative order in Mt., Mk., being (3) (2) (4), and in L., (1) (3) (2) (Lods, p. 20). Still more remarkable is Peter’s adoption of St John’s view as to the relation of the Passion to the first day of Unleavened Bread. Lastly, the references in Peter to the burial of the Crucified before the Sabbath, the Crurdfragium, the garden-tomb, the fear of the Jews which seized the disciples after the Passion, and the departure of some of the disciples to the Sea of Galilee for the purpose of fishing, may most naturally be regarded as depending upon statements by St John, which they distort or contradict.
Our investigation: has thus far established a strong probability that in one form or another the canonical Gospels were known to the Petrine writer ; a probability which approaches to a certainty in the case of the Second Gospel, possibly also of the First and of the Third, and which even in the case of the Fourth Gospel is sufficient to justify assent.
III.
But assuming this use of the Gospels, it is still open to consideration whether they were employed as separate documents or in a harmonised form. In order to get an answer to the question, let us in the first
INTRODUCTION. XXl
place see whether all the points which the Petrine fragment has in common with one or more of the canonical Gospels are to be found in the only second century Harmony that has survived. If we take the points as they have been already enumerated (p. xvii.), and compare them with the Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron, the results may be tabulated as follows :
(2) In T. (after 2).
(2) InT. (c) In T. (after a). (2) InT.
(e) In T. from L.
(f) In T. from Mt.
(g) In T. from J.
(2) In T. from J. (after ¢).
(¢) InT.
(7) In T. from Mt., L.
(2) In T. from Mt., Mk., J. (after 7). (2) In T. from Mk.
(m7) In T. from Mt.
(z) In T.
(0) In T. from L., J., L., Mk., Mt. Mk., J. (2) In T. (before 0).
(g) InT.
(vy) In T. from Mt.
(s) In T. from L., J. (after ¢ and «). (¢) In T. from Mt., L., Mk., Mt.
(w) In T. from Mt.
(x) In T. from [Mt., Mk.,] J.
Thus it appears that the Diatessaron, as represented in the Arabic, although it does not exhaust the canonical materials, might have furnished the writer of our fragment with all the incidents which he shares with any of the Four Gospels. The order in Peter is not always the same as it seems to have been in Tatian, but differences of order may be disregarded in our enquiry, since they are equally embarrassing if we assume that the writer had recourse to the Gospels as separate books.
xxii INTRODUCTION.
We may next proceed to.compare the Diatessaron with our fragment more minutely, with the view of ascertaining whether Tatian would have provided the Petrine writer with the words which he seems to have adopted from the Four Gospels. We will place side by side with the Petrine narrative in certain crucial passages the corresponding portions of the Diatessaron, approximately represented in Greek’. I select the accounts of the Mockery, the Three Hours, the Burial, and the Visit of the women to the Tomb.
A. THE Mockery.
TATIAN.
Kal iuarvov toppupouv meptéBadov atvrov, kat mAéEavtes orépavov é€ axavOdy (infra, tov axavOwov oré- gavov) éréOyxav avtod 7H Kepady (J.)?, Kai kéAapov év TH deEid adTod Kal éurticavres eis TO TpdTwroy aitod (xxvi. 67)° éAaBov tov Kada- joov... abrov (Mt.), kat édiSocav aire pa-
% m > a ‘ Kat €Tumtov eis tHv Kepadny
miopara (J.).
PETER.
& , > ‘ , kal woppvpay avtov mepte- a > ips - \ BadXov...xal tis abtay éveykwv i awe si oe otédhavov axavOivov €Onkev em a lod lal , & a ™ms Kepadys TOU KUplov' KaL ETEpoL bs Spo pcan eae éoTOTes EVETTVOYV AVTOU Tats OWE, ‘ 4 ‘ - » cal > o kat ado Tas ciayovas aiTod épa- j Tigav’ €repo. KaAdapw evvocov
at , > \ 5 7 QUTOV, KQL TLVES QUTOV éuaatilov.
B. THe THREE Hours.
TATIAN.
aro dé exTys wpas aKOTos éyévero emi [¢enebrae occupaverunt| tacav THY yiV ews apas evatyns (Mt.), Tod (L.). kai ty evatn apa éBonoev 6 “Inoots dwovy peyadyn "Hret pret [ Jaiil, Jaiil’)’, Rapa caBaxPavel: d éorw pebeppn-
© - qrtov éxdecrovtos
vevopevov “O Geds pov 6 Geos pov, eis Ti eyxaréAumés re; (Mk.)...pera
PUMA Se ee ee ee, , TouTo €idus 0 “Incods o7t 4dy Tava
1 The plan adopted has been to substi- tute for Ciasca’s translation of the Arabic Tatian the corresponding portions of the canonical Gospels. The text has been determined by a comparison of Ciasca’s Latin with Moesinger’s Evangelti Con- cordantis exposttio and the Curetonian Syriac of Luke xxiii., xxiv. It claims of course only to be an approximate
PETER. qv 6€ peonpBpia, Kal oxdtos katéaxe Tacav THY “Tovdatav’ Kai , in gate , €opvBodtvto Kal yywviwy py Tore € ¢ wy Fd 2 _ i 0 Atos v...Kal Tis avtav elrev Tloricate avrov xoAny petra o€ovus [cf. T., supra]...xal érAypwoay A . 3 , 8 Tavta, «al éTeXelwoav...Kal oO KUpios aveBonoe A€ywv ‘H Svva- , = Su : ‘ pis pov, y Svvapus, karéAeupas fe...Kal abras THs dpas Suepayn TO
and provisional representation of the text of the original work.
° The order is that of Mt.; so in Ephraim (Moesinger, p. 239).
3 So Ephraim in this context: “et spuerunt in faciem eius” (p. 239).
4+ Ephraim: ‘‘ Eli Eli, quare me dere- liquisti?”’
INTRODUCTION.
terédeotat, iva TerAcwIn 4 ypadhy Aéyer AwWd...0re odv éAaBev TO of0s 6 “Inoots etmev Terédeotar [con- summata sunt omnia| (J.)...Kat i8od 70 KaTaméTacpa Tod vaod éeoxicOn - > a a ¥ , ‘ id aT avwbev €WS KATW ELS dv0, KQL n led 2 ¥ Oo Lg be ¢< , XN yi éocioOy...0 8& Exardvtapxos Kai ot per adtod...epoBnOncav opddpa (Mt.).
C. THE TaTIAN.
"HNO avyp dvopate “lwojd, mAovews Kal Bovdevtys (Mt., L.)... ov pabytns Tod Iycod (J.)...cioprAGev mpos tov LewAdrov Kal ytHoaTo TO capa tod “Inoot (Mk.)...éxéAevoev amobobavat (Mt.). cwddva KaleAdv adrov éveiAnoev TH owdove (Mk.)...eAaBov ovv to
a a? a a > ae’ a , oGpa Tod Inood...nv d& év TO ToTw
kat ayopacas
Orov éotavpuly Kiros Kal é& TO KATH puvyuetov (J.)...Katl mpooKvri- cartes AGov péyay TH Ovpa Tod pvy- pecov arndOov (Mt.).
D. THE VISIT OF THE
TATIAN. ope d& caBBdtwov TH éripw- ckovon «is piav caBBatuv (Mt.), épOpov Babéws (L.), 7AOev Mapia Maydadyvy cal 7 GA Mapia Kai (L.)’,
rdpov (Mt.), pépovoea & yTolpacav
: , Gewph . at Aourat ewpnoa. Tov
dpwpara (1). Kat eXeyov mpos
roe, éautas Tis droxvdice nuiv tov AiGov
1 Ephraim (p. 257): ‘‘postea denuo luxit.” ” The Curetonian Syriac adds to Luke
XXIl1
KaTATETATHA TOV VaOv THS lepov- cahyp eis SV0...Kat 4 yh maoa égetcOn Kai PoBos péyas éyé- veto...70T€ Atos éAapipe Kal evpeOn
# ; opa évarn.
BuRIAL. PETER.
"Iwond 6 pidos THeAatov kat tod kuptov...yAGev mpos tov TleAdrov
aed \ a a , \ KAL YTNTE TO TWA TOV KUpLOU 7TpOS
deduKact TG “lwoond TO copa dbx B "lwon b a ; \ airod iva atte Gayy...\aBov 8é tev , 4 \ w / Kuptov éAovoe Kal eiAnoe TLVOOVE ‘ > rf * ” z , kal elonyayev eis idtov tamov Kadov- pevov Kanrov ‘lwond... Kat kvAioavtes ALOoy péyar € lol , c i 2 am oe, ...0u00 Tavtes ob Ovtes xed EOnKay
ért TH OUpa TOU pvy patos.
WoMEN TO THE Toms.
PETER.
7H O& vuKTl W éméhucKker x KUPLAKY ...0 p Op Ov... TS KUpLAKYS Maptap 7 Maydadnvy...raBotoa pel éautns tas pitas WAGE emt tO pynpeiov Orov Fv TeBeis...kai eXeyov ..tis 6€ amokudAloet Wyiv Kal tov Aidov tov teOévta emt THs PVN meElov; ... weyas
TOU
Oupas
xxiv. 1 ‘and there were with them other women.” Comp. Tisch. ad loc.
XX1V
ex THs Gipas Tod pyneiov; Av yap 4 lol péyas oddpa...xal edPotoa [ef uententes| edpov tov diOov adzoxe- KvAopevov...dmo Too pvnpietov... civehPotoar dé (L.)...€id0v éxet (?) veavicxov KaOjuevov év tots defvois mepiBeBrAynevovarorAnv Aevxyv (Mk. ), ray , > a , kat dau ByOnoar.. etrev tats yuvareiy My oBeicbe ipets, ofa yap dre *Inootv tov éotavpwpévoy Cytetre > 4 a ae , n ovk éorw de, yyepOy yadp...dedre Sere TOV TOTO Omov éxeito (Mt.)...
ba > ‘ a % ¢ qAGev...cis TO pvnuetov Kal TapaKv-
INTRODUCTION.
, a 2 yap fv 6 AWos...Badrwpev a Pépo- , fora Juev eis povnpoovyyy auto. LY > na * ® kal ameAPovcat evpov Tov , * a x A Tapov Fvewypevov: Kal mpooedOod- sa ehh ga. Tapéxvpav éxet Kal opdow n 4 éxet twa veaviokov Kadeld mevoy A ue 5 péow Tot Tapov, wpatov Kal Tept- ‘ Va BeBrAnpévov ot odAnvrAapmpotaryy, a ro doris éby avrats Té nAGare; Tiva (yreite; pn tov otavpwbérvta 2 OA oor , 2? ar0 . 2 gS éxeivov ; aveoty Kat amndOev’ ef Oe , py omortedete, Tapaktpare Kal
4 ‘ , > ” ¢ idate TOV TOTOV évOa €KELTO, OTL
, was Bdére...Mapia 8é...rapéxvpev otdK ~otiv' avéorn ydp...téTe ai
, _ Bs A a eis TO pavneetov Kal Oewpet dv0 ayyé- yuvaixes PoByOeioas epvyov. dovs év Aeveois KabeLopevovs...dmov éxeitTo TO Gdpa Tov “Incod...Aeyer
airy “LIyoots...riva Lyreis; (J.).
This comparison does not justify the conclusion that the writer of our fragment was limited to the use of the Diatessaron. In B and C he might have derived his knowledge of the canonical Gospels from this source exclusively ; in A and D, on the other hand, there are traces of the influence of passages of St Mark which are not incorporated in the Arabic Harmony. Thus in A, St Mark alone has rop¢vpav, évéerrvov, and (in this immediate context) axavOwov orépavov ; yet only the initial words of St Mark’s account appear in the existing Harmony. In D, again, the Arabic Tatian omits the clause kat é&eAOovoar épuyov (Mark xvi. 8), which is distinctly reflected by the closing words in the Petrine account. It is of course possible that in both cases the original Dia- tessaron contained the omitted passages, so that it would be unsafe to draw any negative inference from these exceptions. Still they must be allowed due weight as detracting from the completeness of the case in favour of Peter’s indebtedness to Tatian. On the whole we may per- haps claim to have established a strong presumption that the Petrine writer employed a harmony which in its general selection of extracts, and in some of its minuter arrangements, very nearly resembled the Harmony of Tatian. ‘This is not equivalent to saying that he used Tatian, because there is some reason to think that there may have been a harmony or harmonies earlier than ‘latian ; nor does it preclude the use by Peter of one or more of the Gospels separately, in addition to
INTRODUCTION. XXV
his use of a harmonised narrative. Nor again are we justified in extending this presumption beyond the limits of the narrative of the Passion, for the evidence derived from the fragment carries us no further. It is conceivable that the harmony to which our writer had access was a harmony of the Passion-history and not of the whole cycle of evangelical teaching. The rest of his narrative might, if recovered, be found to present quite another set of phaenomena. Thus the relation of the Petrine writer to Tatian remains for the present an open question ; but enough has been said to render such a relation probable if further enquiries should lead us to place the Gospel of Peter after the publication of the Diatessaron. The harmonising tendency of Peter seems to be sufficiently established.
IV.
In his chronology of the Passion-history the Petrine writer follows close in the steps of St John. The Condemnation takes place on the day before the Sabhath (i.e. the weekly Sabbath, since it is followed immediately by the Lord’s Day); and the Sabbath next after the Crucifixion coincides with the first day of Unleavened Bread. The Crucifixion, therefore, occurred on Friday, Nisan 14, before the Pass- over began.
So far all is plain. But there are two minor points which present considerable difficulty.
1. After the Crucifixion the disciples are represented as keeping fast vuxtds kal ypépas ews tod cafPBarov (c. vii.) Since the Paschal Sabbath began three hours after the Death of the Lord, it has been thought that Peter refers to the Sabbath of the following week, and this view is strengthened by the statement at the end of the fragment, that on the last day of the feast the disciples were still mourning. But it is more natural to interpret €ws rod caBBarov in reference to the Paschal Sabbath, which is certainly intended in the context (c. vili.). Yet if the Paschal Sabbath was the further limit of the fast, when did it begin? Doubtless with the end of the Last Supper, i.e. according to the usual reckoning, on Thursday night. But the Didascalia, which possibly represents the Petrine chronology in this matter, allows a longer interval, for it supposes the Passover to have been actually kept on Tuesday, Nisan 11°. and the arrest to have followed
1 vy. 14, 17 Tpels Muépas mpd Tod Kaipod érolnoay 7d mdoxa, évdexdry Tod pnvds tpiry caBBarwv.
5: Pp c
XXV1 INTRODUCTION.
the same evening. The explanation would be satisfactory if it agreed with the data in c. ii, but it can hardly be maintained in face of Peter’s identification of the first day of unleavened bread with the Sabbath. M. Lods thinks that Peter has transferred to the Gospel history the conditions of the Christian Paschal fast, but to make good his position he finds it necessary to translate éws to# caBBarov “ until the end of the Sabbath.” It is possible that we ought to understand vuKTOs Kal pépas as referring to the conventional treatment of the Darkness as an actual night, which allows for an interval of two nights and two days between the Last Supper and the beginning of the Sabbath. But the true solution may be yet to seek.
2. What is 7 tedevtaia ypépa tav aldpuv?, M. Lods, believing that Peter is still moving amongst Christian ideas, understands him to refer to Sunday, Nisan 16 (Easter Day). But is it conceivable that a writer who had correctly spoken of Nisan 15 as the first day of the feast, would have permitted himself to speak of Nisan 16 as the last? It is clearly his intention to follow the Jewish reckoning ; and if so, ‘‘the last day of unleavened bread” can scarcely be any other than Friday, Nisan 21. Consequently he must be understood to pass over without notice the intervening period between the early morning of Easter Day, and the Friday after Easter, and to connect the return of the Disciples to Galilee with the latter day. The effect is to eliminate all the appearances to the Women and to the Disciples on Easter Day, and the appearance to the Eleven on the Sunday after Easter. When the fragment breaks off we seem to be on the point of reaching the first revelation (accord- ing to Peter) of the Risen Lord to the mourning Apostles. The last words appear to be moulded upon John xxi. 1, and it may be presumed that they introduced a scene more or less nearly corresponding to that which St John proceeds to describe.
Vv.
The Petrine Gospel contains no verbal quotation from the Old Testament. One passage which appears to make a formal reference to Deuteronomy, gives merely the general sense of the passage; the Petrine version of the Fourth Word from the Cross is as far from the exact words of the Psalm as it is from those of the canonical Gospels. Perhaps the writer has been led by his anti-Judaic spirit to affect in- difference to the Jewish Scriptures; there is significance in the phrase yéypantat avrots with which his only direct appeal to them is intro-
1 The fast had been broken by the Sabbath; the mourning at least was resumed.
INTRODUCTION.
XXVil
duced. Nevertheless he has not been able to escape from the influence of the Psalms and the Prophets; his very opposition to Judaism has familiarised him with the testimonies which Christians of the second century were in the habit of citing in their controversies with the Jews. Several of his allusions are obscure and do not carry conviction at first sight, but can be recognised with little hesitation when they are com- pared with the direct quotations which are to be found in other writers. The following table may assist the student in making the comparison ; he will doubtless be able to add to the list of patristic references, which makes no claim to completeness.
Deut. xxi. 23 (Josh. x. 37). Ps. il. 1, 2. Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 1.
Ps. xxi. (xxil.) 19.
Ps, Ixviii. (1xix.) 22.
Ps. Ixxiil. (Ixxiv.) 4, 5.
Isa. 1, 6.
Isa. lvili. 2 (cf. Ps. 1xxi. 1, 2, &c.).
Hosea x. 6.
Amos viii. g, Io. Zech. xi. 13, Aq. (cf. Matt.
XXV1. 9). Zech. xiv. 6, 7.
Ev.
Ev.
Lv.
Ev.
Ev.
Ev
Lv
. Pet. . Pet. . Pet.
Pet. i. iv.
Pet, As Ni
Pet. i
Pet. i
Pet.
iil. ili. ili.
. Pet. i.
. Pet. v. vil.
. Let. iil.
. Pet. v.
Just. dal. 89. Tert. Lud. 1o. Epiph. Aaer. 66, 80.
Tert. ves. carn. 20, Prax. 28. Const. Ap. v. 19.
Just. dial. 99. Eus. dem, ev. x. 8.
Barn. 6. 7. Just. dal. 97, apol. i. 38. Tert. Lud. 10. Mare. iv. 42. Const. Ap. v. 14. Cyril. H. catech. xili. 26.
Barn. 7. 3—5. Sibyll. viii. 303. Const. Ap. v. 14. Tert. Jud. 10. Mare. iv. 42. Cyril. H. catech. xiii. 29.
Const. Ap.v. 15.
Barn. 5. 14.
Just. apol. i. 35.
Just. dal. 103. Cyril. H. catech, Xi. 14.
Tren. iv. 33. 12. Tert. Zud. to. Mare. iv. 42. Eus. dem. €V. X. 6.
Tert. AZarc. iv. 40. Cyril.
H. catech. xiii. 10.
Const. Ap. v.14. Eus. dem. ev. xX.7. Cyril. H. catech. xill. 24.
¢2
Xxvili
INTRODUCTION.
In the absence of formal quotations it is precarious to speculate
upon the writer’s use of a version.
His references to Pss. xxii. 19, Ixix.
22, Ixxiv. 4, 5, Amos viii. 9, 10, seem to involve the use of a version
and, in Ps. lxxiv. at least, of the Lxx. words may suggest acquaintance with Symmachus.
Two or three very unusual On the other hand,
his rendering of the Fourth Word implies a knowledge of the original, unless he has borrowed it from a secondary source.
VI.
We proceed to enquire whether there are any signs of a tacit use by early Church-writers of the Petrine narrative of the Passion. Traces of such use have already been sought with some success in
various directions.
The reader will find below a comparative view of
the supposed allusions to Peter which have come to light in writings of the second third and fourth centuries.
GOSPEL OF ST PETER.
m3 > ~ td A > kat Tis avtwv elev Iloticate atv-
x LS + # ‘ ¥ re Tov YoAnY peta O£OUS, Kal KEpacaVTES
éréticay (Cc. v.).
émt 8€ Tovtows Taow éevnortevouer... < \... ¢ , . , 6 Aads amas...kémrrerar Ta oT7yOy (c. vil. viii. ).
1 I owe to Mr J. Rendel Harris this reference to Barnabas, and several sug-
EPISTLE OF BARNABAS’.
GAG Kat oravpwHeis erorileto » , ee ~ \ Ofer Kat xoAH. axovoate Tas epi TovTov mehavepwxav ol tepels Tov
a a af Xr t > ~ td “ vaod...ti otv €yer ev TH ToodyTy 5 Kai gayérwoay ék tod tpdyou Tod mporpepopevov TH vnoteia trep Tagav Tav GuapTi@v. mpoaéyxere dxpiBads Kat dayérwoay ot tepets
# , »
povot mdvtes TO évtepov amdvrov
& ” ‘ - 2 a 2 Oe. peta O€ous. mpds ti; emedy epe SiRen eee ‘ 7 vrep apaptuov weANovta Tov aod Hov TOU KaLvov mpoopepey THY TdpKa prov, pédAete motilery xoAny pera x 1 © a“ td a a o€ovs, payere tpels povor, Tod Aaod VNoTEVOVTOS
(7. 3—5)-
S Kal KomTopéevov
gestions with regard to it. The whole chapter in B. will repay examination.
INTRODUCTION.
GosPEL oF ST PETER.
a oF +. - > f y everrtvov.. épamicayv ... éuaartilov (c. iil.)
airds b€ éowwa. (c. iv.).
orépavov axavétvoy (Cc. ill.). Kaddpw &vvocov airdv (C. iii.). vopiCovres Ott ve earw (C. V.).
5h s ; : exnpueas ToLs Koyrwpevots (C. 1X. ).
GOSPEL OF ST PETER.
tov b& “lovdatwy ovbdels. . ovde
“Hpwdns .. dvéorn eAaros (c. 1.).
Zdeyor Sipwpev tov vidv tod Geod ey ee , kal éxd@icav airov émi Kabédpav kpicews, Aéyovres Arxaiws xptve, Ba-
otAred 70d “Iopayd (Cc. iil.). , 1 Loge y Kat teOekdres Ta évovpata eu- pees : . mpoobev avrod diepepioarto, Kat Aay- , a ; pov €Badov em’ avrots (c. iv.).
1 The parallels between Justin and Peter have been more fully worked out
XXIX
SIBYLLINE ORACLES. ducovow 8 O66 faricpata xepoly dvayvois | Kai ordpaciw pa- pots éumticpata appakcevta. | ddoe 8 és paotiyas atdus ayvov / a , , rote vwTov, | Kal KoAadilopevos ot-
, Z a YATE, py tus ervyv@ | tis Tivos 7
modev WrGev, va POipevorsr ary- , Fe , , ce. | kal orépavov dopéce tov wt niecn axavOuvov... | rhevpas vigovory i ene ee Kadapw dua Tov vomov airav | ... 2 XN ‘ a ‘ * , és b€ 70 Bpwdpa xoAnY Kal miépev ” y Ley , ofos edwxay | ...vdé estar cKord- ecoa teduptos ev Tpioiv wapas | ... née 8 ida maow | trois ayiow (vill. 288
sqq.).
eis Aldnv dyyéXAwy éd-
Justin Martyr’.
¢ \ ay a
pnvier [1d mpopytixdy mvedpa] . ; ea in
TV yeyernuevny “Hpwdov tot Ba-
ae , Seer ctrtéws Llovdatwv cat adtav lov- , ‘ , Arey ‘ dalwv Kat [[Aarov rot tueréepov map atrois -yevop.évov émitporov... Kata tov Xpwrtod cuvérevow (apol. i. 40).
s * € > c e Kat yap (ws elev 6 mpopytys) dtact’povtes atrov éexabicav ert , x Le fal CoA Bypatos kat etrov Kptvov ypiv
(apol. 1. 35).
AaBis...etrev év eixoot@ mpwtw
a ‘ Sif Hd Wadrpd...Aveuepicavro Ta iuatid pov éavrots kai émt Tov ivatispov pov éBadov kAypov...ol cravpwcavtes ad- TOV éuepioay Ta ipatia adrov Eavrots, Aaxpov Bardovres Exaoros Kara
ae
THV TOD KAnpov emBoAnv, 0 éxdrééa-
afar éBeBovrnro (dial. 97).
by Harnack, pp. 37—40; compare Zahn, pp. 66—7o.
XXX
GOSPEL OF St PETER.
tov d€ ‘lovdatwy ovdels evivato Tas xelpas K.T.r. (C. i).
kai TOTE KeAcver Hpwdys 6 Bact Neds TapadrnudOjvar Tov KUpLov (C.
is:
© a a. > , ¥ qpets adtov eOarromer...yéypar- fs ov ‘ ~ 4% Tat yap...qAwv pn dtvar emt wepov- evpevy (c. 1). ’ BLA s Bo Snes mapéuxey aitov tO Aad mpd puds tov alipwv, THS éopTAs adrav (c. ii.). 1 ¢ re , vopigovtes OTe vs éotu...TOTE nrvos eAapipe, Kal evpeOn wpa évary (c. v.). : , ee ‘ évnotevopev, Kal exabelopeba. . , Aer ee i ; VUKTOS Kal NUEpas ews TOV TaBBatov (c. vii.).
GosPEL OF ST PETER.
... Tov d€ ‘Tovdatwy oddeis éevivaro § a Re gk i Tas yxeipas...cal py PBovdndevtwv vipacOat (Cc. 1.). aN a oe ‘3 € ‘ rs aitos b€ éowwra ws pnoey Tovey éxwv (Cc. iv.).
okétos Katésxe Tacav THY “lov- datav (c. v.).
n > + Kat TLS avuTov €LTTEV Tloricare
2h WS . oo” 7 \ Me abrov xoknv peta o€ous" Kal Kepd-
1 The Didascalia has been quoted from Lagarde’s retranslation printed in Bunsen’s Anal. Ante-Nicaen, ii.
INTRODUCTION.
DrpascaLIA' AND APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. 5 pav GAApuAOS KpLTYs vapapevos ‘x ~ LJ 2 as iJ € XN ras xeipas elev “AOGds eipu...6 be "Iopanr éreBonoe Td aipa airod ed’ pas (Vv. 19). kai ‘Hpwdns 6 Bactreds éxéAevoev airov ctavpwOqvar (26. cf. A. C.).
ThiAGros 6 yyepov kat 6 Bacireds “‘Hpwdns éxeAevoay adrov oravpwhij- vat (Vv. 19).
Odrretat mpd yrlov dviaews (A.C. v. 14).
a8 , x év aitH yap év péow aitov THs
€optns eoratpwoay pe (Vv. 15)-
ae éreta éyévero TpEis wWpas TKOTOS kai éAoyic6y vs, Kal mddw amo ee ees evans wpas...nwépa (Vv. 14). M4 %. € a oUTw yap évyoTevoapey Kal nels
> si 3 maOdvtos Tod Kuptov (Vv. 19).
ORIGEN, hom. in Matt?
[Pilatus] ipse quidem se lauit, illi autem...se mundare noluerunt a sanguine Christi (§ 124). in his omnibus [sc. spinis, calamo, delusione] unigenita illa uirtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid (§ 125). tenebrae tantum modo super omnem terram Iudaeam sunt factae ad horam nonam (§ 134). sic [7.e. spongia impleta aceto] impleuit prophetiam in se dicentem 2 See Mr J. O. F. Murray’s article
Evangelium secundum Petrum in the Expositor for Jan. 1893.
INTRODUCTION.
2 \ > ,
OGavTes E7OTLOGY. KaL evAnpwoay , A 3 2, BY a
TAVTQ KOL éreXciwoav KaTG THS Kkepa-
As atrav Ta dpaprypara (Cc. v.).
kai elroy dvednpOy (c. v.).
GOSPEL OF Sr PETER.
tov b€ Tovdaiwy x.7.d. (Cc. 1).
“Hpwidys 6 Bactdevs (c. 1.).
‘ ie \ 2 ¢ * kal teBekdres Ta évovpata ey- a , . mpoaGev airod duenepicavro, Kal dax- : ss . pov éBadov ém’ adrois (c. iv.).
> , , co » Hywviov py mote 6 Atos ev... Fa 7 tg ot / oe
vopilovtes OTe VUE e€oTw...TdTE HALOS
ape xat ebpéby wpa évary (c. v.).
, > her EA Ee Kat Tis aitav eimev Tloticare oy . en , avtov xodyv peta O€ovs' Kal Kepa~
cavtes éeréticay (C. V.).
1 Mr Murray points out that Origen, like the writer of Peter, regards the yody as noxious (A/adf. 137), and the cruri- Jragium as an act of mercy (2b. 140).
2 The allusions in Cyril were first noticed (Academy, Dec. 24, 1892) by Dr J. H. Bernard, of Trinity College, Dublin; some further parallels have been pointed out to me by Mr A. E. Brooke.
XXX1
de se Et dederunt in escam meam fel, et in siti mea potauerunt me aceto: ideo et secundum Joannem cum accepisset Iesus acetum cum felle dixit Consummatum est (§137)'.
statim ut clamauit ad Patrem receptus est...post tres horas re- ceptus est (§ 140).
fonts CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, caéech, xii.” 6 pev yap IiAGros...vdate dare- , Cae ge is virreto Tas xeipas: of de éemBouwvres i a2 es Acyov Td aipa airot ep nas (§ 21). ‘Hpwdyns Se jv tote Bacwred’s (§ 14). of otpatidtar Stewepicavto TO , Nig ive mepiBoraov eis Téecoapa cxicbev, 6 8& yuTov ovdk ecyicby...Kai Aaypos mepi TovrTou yiverat Tois oTpaTidTais, kai TO prev prepiLovtat, mept tovrov d& Aayxavovow. dpa Kal toro yé- ypartat;...Atemepicavto Ta ipdaria pov éavrois Kal éri Tov ipatiopov pov €Badov KAnpov' KAnpos bé Hv 6 Aaxpds (§ 26). , na * ® , peréuBoov Av apa TO oKéros, ss re ee ee , ovopace 6€ 6 Geds TO okdTOS ViKTA. ‘ ~ A c a bid ” rf dea TodTo ovre Hepa HV ovTE VUE... G\Xa pera tHV evarnv ZAopwev 6 kA yrvos (§ 24). i ee, , dupGvre TO Kupiy ondyyw ryo- be ‘ i4 ca Oévre Kat wepirebevte Kaddpw mpou-
. oy Kopile. 7d 00s" Kat eOwKay eis TO
One or two may be due to the Didascalia, but on the whole it is hardly possible to doubt that Cyril freely used the Gospel of Peter to illustrate his lectures, although he warns his catechumens against the private reading of apocrypha (catech. iv. 33, 36 Kal moe undey ray droxpiduy dva- ywuoe K.7.d.).
XXxxli
dréoragav Tovs HAovs dro TOY XElpav TOD Kuptov (C. vi.).
tav altpwv, tis éoptis aitav (ec. il.). kNavoopev Kal kooueba (Cc. X1.). eyo
eyov [ai yvuvatkes]...
INTRODUCTION.
lol hg x Bpdpd pov xodAnv x.t.d....rotav Be ~ ¥.
xoAnv Buxav ;...€dwkav ard, pyoiv, ; , Zaye woladine 8 eal éopupviopévov oivov’ xoAwdys be Kat
katamiupos 7 opupva (§ 29). 2¢/ 3 be - ‘ e€érewev GvOpwrivas yeipas...Kat
La
mpoceraynaav yous (§ 28). 2 2 , ‘ € , ‘\ c ~ év alipov yap npépa Kai opr ai mev yuvatkes abrav éxomtovTo Kal
éxhaov, wduvdvto b€ amroKxpuBevtes
de peta Tov éraipwy pov éAvTovpnv ol dmdaroAot (§ 25)!.
...Kal éxpuBdoueba (c. vii.).
Of the writers who thus appear to exhibit indications of acquaintance with our fragment Origen, the writer of the Didascalia, Eusebius, and Cyril are later than the period at which the Petrine Gospel is known to have been in circulation. On the other hand Barnabas, Justin, pro- bably also the Sibylline writer, are earlier, and it is obviously of importance to determine their relation to Peter.
1. In Barnabas we find prominence given to two particulars which are also prominent in Peter, the potion of mingled gall and vinegar, and the fasting and mourning that followed the Crucifixion. The former rests on Ps. lxix. 21, but whereas in the Psalm the xodAy is regarded as food, in Barnabas, as in Peter, it is administered as a potion (Barn., péddere worilev xoAnv pera d€ovs: Pet., roricare atrov xodnv pera d€ovs). St Matthew doubtless goes half way towards this new reading of the Psalm (édwxav aitd mety olvov [v.]. d€os] pera xodjs peptypévov), and both Barnabas and Peter may have arrived at it in this way: but it is more natural to suppose that one of the two later writers depends upon the other. Now in Barnabas we can discover the reason of the special significance attached to the xoAy; it connects itself in the author's mind with certain features in the ritual of the Two Goats. In Barnabas* again we catch a glimpse of the notion which underlies the statement as to the Disciples’ fast; the Death of the Lord has trans- formed the Feast of the Passover into the Fast of the Day of Atone- ment. Both ideas rest on the symbolism of the Jewish Law. Peter
1 The last four sections of the same Catechesis seem to bristle with allusions
§ 40 eyes OW5eKxa dmoord- § 41 Totro
Oveppayév. Aovs Tob aravpot pdprupas. [sc. 6 oraupés] mera Tod “Inaod dal- vetOat péddec ade €& ovpavod: mpocku-
to our fragment (§ 38 mepl rod yeravos Aaxdvres. § 39 of...AaxXdvres rept tv ipatlwy (where Cyril forgets the distinction he has so carefully drawn in § 26), Td karaméracpa tod vaod TO TéreE
voovres Tov amoorahévta xkuptov...Kal Tov amoorelNavTa marépa.
” Barn. 7. 4.
INTRODUCTION. XXXII
adopts them without explanation; in Barnabas we can see them taking shape and can trace them to their source. It seems to follow that Peter is later than Barnabas and possibly borrows from him. If the Epistle of Barnabas was a work of the first century or of the early years of the second, it may not improbably have come into the hands of the party from which the Petrine Gospel emanated. Their strongly anti-Judaic temper would have made it a welcome document.
2. ‘The resemblances between our fragment and the Eighth Book of the Sibylline Oracles are for the most part superficial. The phrases ddcovow paticpara, duce 8 és paotryas...vétov, point to Isaiah 1. 6; Kolagilopevos ovyyoe is probably a reference to 1 Pet. ii. 19, 23; otépavoy tov axdvOivoyv may be a reminiscence of St Mark or St John. But wAevpas vigovow xadduw throws important light on the Petrine kaddpw évuccov aitov. It connects the latter with John xix. 34 Adyyy avrod Thy mAevpav évugev, while the next words in the Sibyllist, da tov vouov adrav, seem to shew that he has also in view the treatment of the Azazel described in Barn. 7. 8’ (Tert. adv. Zud. 14). Here the Petrine form is clearly the later, for it is further from St John. There is also some connexion between the Sibylline vié éora...€v tpicly wpars and the Petrine vopigovres ote vvE éotw, but it is impossible to deter- mine in this instance on which side the debt lies,
3. The problem of Peter’s relations to Justin is one of great interest, and of some difficulty. In Dza/. 106 we read: xat 76 eimety petwvopa- xévar atrov ILérpoy éva tov drooréhwy Kat yeypapOa év Tots amopyy- povetpaciv avtod yeyevnpevoy Kai TodTo...cnpavTiKoy qv TOD avrov éxetvov elvat dt ov Kal Td éravupov “laxwB to “lopandr erucAnOevre don. In this passage Justin recognises the existence of certain dropvnpoved- para. Ilérpov, i.e. of a Petrine Gospel. But the ‘Memoirs of Peter’ may represent the second of the canonical Gospels ; and in Mark iii. 16 the fact to which Justin refers is duly recorded. It is therefore unnecessary to conclude that Justin refers to an apocryphal Gospel; nor is it easy to believe that if the Docetic Gospel of St Peter had fallen into his hands he could have been deceived with regard to its true character. Dismissing this consideration, we proceed to the alleged use of our frag- ment in the first 4fology and the Dialogue. The first instance (p. xxix.) need not detain us; it has nothing in common with Peter which cannot be explained by the influence of Ps. ii. and Acts iv. But the second and third quotations require careful discussion. In the second Justin relates a
1 kai éumricare mdvres kal KaraxevTy- Ty Kepadriv abrob, Kal ottrws els epnpov care Kal weplOere Td Eptov Td KbKKwov Tepi — BANOATw.
XXXIV INTRODUCTION.
remarkable incident which he shares with Peter, and there are moreover points of verbal agreement. But (1) the incident seems to rest on a misinterpretation of John xix. 13 which might have occurred to both writers independently; their way of stating it is certainly independent. (2) The words put into the mouth of the mockers differ, and seem to be based on different passages of the Old ‘Testament ; Justin expressly refers to Isaiah lviii. 2, Peter seems to have in view similar words in the Psalms and Proverbs. (3) Peter’s ovpwyev may certainly have suggested Justin’s dtacvpovres, yet the resemblance is in sound rather than in meaning, and it is more likely that duacvpovres was supplied by the Old Testament ; d:écupov was substituted by Aquila for éwuxrypiCov in Prov. 1. 30, LXX., a passage where Wisdom is represented as mocked by fools. If on the whole it is thought that one of the two writers had the other in view, the evidence seems to point to a use of Justin by Peter; in Justin the words of St John are given exactly, in Peter they are varied; Justin’s account of the incident is brief, Peter’s is more diffuse, after the manner of a writer who is working upon the lines of an earlier authority.
We turn to the third parallel. The points are two: both Justin and Peter use the remarkable phrase Aaxuov Baddev, and both use it, not exclusively in reference to the xi:twv, as St John does, but of the iparia in general. Since the phrase is not known to occur in any other con- nexion, and its use in this connexion is limited, as far as we know, to Justin, Peter and Cyril, it seems certain that its origin is to be sought for either in the earliest of those writers, or in some source which lies behind them all. That it was borrowed by Justin from Peter is impro- bable, for the context in Justin shews no sign of Petrine influence; on the contrary Justin speaks in it of the piercing of the Lord’s Hands and Feet, whereas in Peter, notwithstanding Ps. xxi. 16, the nails are drawn forth only from the Hands. On the other hand it is not necessary to suppose that Peter was indebted for the phrase directly to Justin. It is difficult to understand why either writer should have gone out of his way to adopt so singular an expression if it had not been previously known to him through an earlier rendering of Ps. xxi. 18. Now St John with that verse in view uses Adywpuev', and Symmachus in the Psalm itself rendered om 1B) by éAdyxavov. Is it overbold to conjecture that in another version which followed the Hebrew more closely, the reading was ¢BadAov or éBadov Aaypov? Even in the case
1 In his paraphrase of John xix. 24 understand the game known as mdeoro-
Nonnus twice uses Aaxués, but not in Podrwda; cf. D. Heinsii exere ad loc. the phrase Aaxpov Bdd\Nev. Tle seems to
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
of Cyril it may be doubted whether a traditional rendering or paraphrase of the Psalm is not present to his mind rather than Peter’s use of the passage. For he is completely at issue with Peter's identification of the diapepiopds and the Aaypuds; the first, he points out, refers to the iuaria, the second only to the yrav (ra pev pepiCovrar wept Tovrov dé Aayxdvovew). Yet he clings to the phrase, even though he finds it necessary to explain what it means (kAypos b€ Fv 6 Aaypéds). Is it probable that while rejecting the statement of the Petrine Gospel, he would have retained and explained a difficult phrase connected with it, unless the phrase had possessed some higher claim upon his consider- ation than its place in an apocryphon would supply? On the whole there is reason to suppose that although in this instance the con- nexion between Justin and Peter (and perhaps Cyril also) is a real one, it implies no more than a relation to a common source. In the present state of our knowledge, this explanation can only be conjec- tural: on the other hand it is sufficiently probable to make us pause before we assert that Justin has used the Petrine fragment.
Thus there is at present no satisfactory proof that our fragment was used by any writer before the end of the second century. The sparing and unacknowledged use of it by writers of the third and fourth centuries is in harmony with all that we know as to the origin and early circulation of the Petrine Gospel. Such allusions do not compel us to modify our belief as to the relatively narrow area of its influence. The facts are consistent with a very moderate circulation within the limits of Syria and Palestine. Some striking coincidences appear in the Didascalia and in the Apostolical Constitutions, both probably of Syrian and Palestinian origin. The references in Origen occur only in the homilies on St Matthew, which belong to the last stage of his literary career when Caesarea and not Alexandria was the centre of his work. If, as seems nearly certain, the Gospel was known to Cyril, he knew it merely as one of the apocryphal books current in Palestine, against which he warns his catechumens while he is not unwilling to borrow from them any details which seemed impressive or edifying. It is not improbable that patristic students may stumble upon other traces of the Petrine story of the Passion in Church writers connected by birth or other circumstances with Antioch, Caesarea or Jerusalem, Of a direct influence exerted by it upon Egyptian and Western writers there is at present no sufficient evidence’.
1 Nonnus presents some interesting (Atheneum, May 13) points out others in parallels (J. M. C., Scottish Guardian, Lactantius; but as proofs of a direct use March 10, 1893), and Mr F. P. Badham of Peter they are not convincing.
XXXVI INTRODUCTION.
VIL.
It is natural to attempt a comparison of the Petrine fragment with other survivals of apocryphal Gospel-literature. Our materials are as yet far too imperfect to‘yield large results: yet there area few points which can be clearly seen.
(1) The Gospel of Peter belongs to a class of writings which claimed to preserve the personal narrative of one of the Apostles. Such compositions seem to have been characteristic of the Gnostic sects of the second century; the Gospel or Tradition of Matthias e.g. was current among the Basilidians, the Gospel of Philip is attributed by Epiphanius to a sect of Ophite Gnostics. The Docetae of Western Syria followed the fashion of the age in putting forth a Gospel of this type, which received the name of the Apostolic founder of the Church of Antioch.
(2) The Petrine Gospel, to judge by the Akhmim fragment, was a free harmony of the canonical Gospels, rather than an attempt to rewrite the history. Not a single agraphon is found in the fragment. This circumstance may indeed be due to the writer’s purpose of repre- senting the Lord as silent during the Passion. But the manner in which he has handled his facts suggests another explanation. He is unwilling to go far beyond the lines of the canonical narrative. He is prepared to shift, transpose, reset his materials, but not to invent important sayings for which there is no authority in the canonical tradition. ‘This cautious conservatism differentiates the Gospel of Peter from the Gospel according to the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews, which, so far as we know them, were largely independent of the Canon.
(3) It is scarcely to be doubted that our Gospel was written with the purpose of promoting Docetic, perhaps also Encratite views. There were many methods open to the writer. He might have con- tented himself, as Basilides and Valentinus appear to have done, with supplementing the canonical Gospels by expositions which grafted upon them the interpretations of his sect. Or he might have interpolated the canonical history, or, like Marcion, have selected one of the Gospels and submitted it to revision. He has not followed either of these precedents. His method is to exhibit a manipulated harmony. In form, however, his work is not a harmony, but a personal statement, and this literary fiction leaves him free to take certain liberties with the documents before him. He allows himself another in-
INTRODUCTION. XXXVIl
dulgence which no mere harmonist could have ventured to take. He omits large portions of the narrative which were unfavour- able to his views. He adds here and there a suggestive remark ; he gives to familiar words a new turn which favours a non-catholic interpretation. He introduces apocalyptic passages which extend the simpler narrative of the Gospels in the direction of Gnostic speculation. Yet the whole is done with so much skill that the heretical tendency of the fragment has been stoutly denied. If we understand his position aright, the writer of Peter belonged to a minority whose policy was conciliation, and his purpose was not so much to supply a Gospel for the use of a sect, as to propagate a Docetic Christology within the Church from which he had not yet parted company.
Thus the Gospel of Peter seems to have held an unique position among the Gospels of the second century. ‘To this circumstance we may venture to attribute its limited circulation. Serapion checked its acceptance within the Church. Among Separatists it was not sufficiently aggressive to secure general support. If a harmony of the canonical Gospels were desired, it could be found in the work of Tatian : if a new Gospel, strongly flavoured with distinctive tenets, many such were at hand. The Petrine Gospel shared the fate which commonly attends a compromise ; it failed to satisfy either party, and fell into neglect.
Thus our Gospel stands to some extent alone among the apocryphal Gospels of the second century. But it has marked affinities with other groups of apocryphal writings. Its Gnostic and apocalyptic tone is in full sympathy with the literature which bears the name of Leucius Charinus, and it is difficult to avoid the inference that we have before us a product of the school of writers from which the Circuits of the Apostles proceeded during the second half of the second century. It was obviously in the hands of the author of the Dédascalia, and has influenced the Afostolical Constitutions. Lastly, there are traces of its use in the various forms of the Acts of Pilate, but especially in the form which seems to be the latest of all, the Anaphora Pilati. A connexion has been supposed to exist between the Petrine Gospel and the Ascension of Isaiah, but the coincidence is one of ideas only and does not extend to the literary form.
VOll.
The Gospel of Peter, Serapion tells us, not only emanated from the Docetic party (rév katapgapévwy aitod ots Aoxytas kadodpev), but its general tendency was Docetic (ra yop mielova ppovipata éxelvu éori
XXXVIli INTRODUCTION.
Tis didacKadfas). This tendency did not, however, largely interfere with its representation of the facts, but was chiefly shewn in unorthodox additions (ra pev mrelova 00 dpGod Adyov...twa. S& Tpoodrerrahpeva).
In the fragment which survives.accretions of this character are few, but their purpose is sufficiently clear. We may schedule them in the fragment, as Serapion did throughout the Gospel :
(1) The Lord’s freedom from pain at the moment of Cruci- fixion.
(2) His desertion by His ‘ Power’ at the moment of Death.
(3) ‘The representation of His Death as an avaAnyus.
(4) The supernatural height of the Angels and especially of the Risen Christ.
(5) The personification of the Cross.
To this list we ought perhaps to add the sealing of the stone with seven seals. If our view of the order of the events is correct, the omission of all the Easter-week appearances must be attributed to the same tendency.
Two or three general remarks may be added. (a) Our fragment is intensely anti-Judaic in tone; a chief purpose is clearly to throw the full responsibility of the Crucifixion upon the Jews and to intensify their guilt. (6) It betrays no sign of an Ebionitic view of the Person of Christ ; on the other hand, it gives prominence to His supernatural and Divine character. By those who speak of Him He is invariably called o vids rod Oeod: by the writer himself He is designated 6 xv- ptos, even when the reference is to the Dead Christ. Of the Three who issue from the tomb, the Christ alone towers above the heaven. (c) The teaching of the fragment with regard to the Lord’s Death and Resurrection, while open to suspicion, is not absolutely inconsistent with Catholic language. Origen, as the notes will shew, has apparently used or adopted dveAjppOy in reference to the Death of the Lord: and the Petrine writer distinctly asserts a Resurrection (avéorn).
We may now enter upon the question, To what form of Docetism does our fragment incline?
1. One of the earliest forms of second century Docetism is criti- cised in the letters of Serapion’s great predecessor in the see of Antioch, St Ignatius. Bishop Lightfoot’ has characterised the Docetism which is condemned by the Ignatian letters as (1) ‘thorough going,” (2) “Judaic.” (1) It denied the reality of the Passion ; it was scandalised by the Cross.
1S. Jenatius, i. 373.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
Ignatius meets it by asserting that the Lord was truly born, was truly arraigned before Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and truly died’. (2) Lightfoot maintains that the Judaism which Ignatius attacks was only another side of the Docetic heresy. His argument is not perhaps absolutely convincing, but it establishes a probability that the Ignatian Docetae were disposed to Judaize. Certainly there is no trace in the references of Ignatius to these heretics of any antagonism to Judaism on their part, whilst on the other hand it is obvious that there were important points of contact between them and the Judaizers.
In the early part of the second century this cruder form of Docetism seems to have been widely prevalent in the Churches of Asia Minor. It is condemned more or less directly in the Ignatian letters to Tralles, Smyrna, Ephesus, Magnesia, and Philadelphia; the only genuine writings of Ignatius which are free from all allusion to it are the letter to the Romans, and the personal letter to Polycarp. Yet it is clearly not the é80«yors with which the Petrine writer is in sympathy. For (1) he does not suggest that the Trial and the Cruci- fixion were putative; on the contrary he emphasises both events, only reserving for the Lord an immunity from physical pain. And (2) he is not merely free from any suspicion of Judaizing; he is, as we have seen, aggressively anti-Judaic.
z. At first sight we may be tempted to connect our writer with the school of Cerinthus or of Carpocrates. According to Irenaeus, who is followed by Hippolytus, Cerinthus taught that, though Jesus suffered, died and rose again, the Christ was impassible and left Him before the Passion®. Carpocrates, it seems, spoke of a Power which was sent down by the Unbegotten God upon the soul of Jesus, and eventually ascended to its source*. Ideas of the same general character are to be found in our fragment, but they appear there in a more guarded, a more complex, and probably a later form. Moreover, the Judaizing tendency of Cerinthus and the humanitarianism of both Cerinthus and Carpocrates exclude the supposition of any direct in- fluence having been exercised by them upon ‘Peter.’ The early ‘Ophite’ system described by Irenaeus approaches nearer to Peter’s view. According to that system Jesus was born of a Virgin by Divine operation; subsequently the Christ descended on Him, withdrawing before the Crucifixion; after the Crucifixion a Power was sent down upon the Crucified which restored Him to life in a psychic and spiritual
1 Magn.9. Eph.8. Trail. 9. 33- 2 Tren. i. 26. 2, iii, r1.1. Hipp. vii. 3 Tren. i. 25. 1. Hipp. vii. 32.
xl INTRODUCTION.
Body, the Body of the Flesh being however left behind'. But the Petrine doctrine differs from this in a material point, for it regards the higher nature of the Lord as remaining with Him on the Cross up to the moment of His Death; nor is there any trace in ‘ Peter’ of the other features of the intricate gnosis with which the Ophite Christology was closely bound up.
3. The two great schools of Basilides and Valentinus claimed for their founders spiritual descent from the Apostles Peter and Paul re- spectively*. Both leaders appear to have accepted in substance the Gospels now regarded as canonical, admitting the facts of the Gospel history, while putting an heretical construction upon them. Of the Basilidians Hippolytus expressly states: yéyove mavta opolws Kat adtovs .. Ws év Tois evayyeAlous yeyparrat®. But Basilides gave an entirely new complexion to both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The pur- pose of the Passion was the draipeors of the composite factors of the Lord’s Person, which restored each element to its proper sphere. The cupartikoy pépos suffered and returned to auop¢ia, the psychic was restored to the Hebdomad, and so forth. With these ideas the Petrine fragment has nothing in common.
The sphere of Basilides’ influence seems to have been nearly limited to Egypt. Valentinus was the centre of a larger movement. We find him first in Egypt, then in Cyprus, and finally, between a.p. 138 and 160, at Rome. His followers were divided into two schools, Eastern and Western, the ‘Anatolic’ and the ‘Italic.’ The Valentinians, ac- cording to Hippolytus*, recognised two Christs, the aeon who, together with the Holy Spirit, emanated from Nots and ’AAyGea, and another who was the common product of the whole Pleroma. To the Son of Mary they attributed a psychic, or, as the Eastern Valentinians pre- ferred to say, a pneumatic Body. The fragments of Valentinian teaching excerpted by Clement and representing chiefly the Eastern school, are nearer in tone and general tendency to the Petrine frag- ment than any Gnostic utterances we have as yet encountered. The following may be taken as specimens :
6 Kiptos Sid woAARY Tarewodpootyyny odx ws ayyeos dPOn GAN ws
+ 32S; x A: ia), a > Lo» Nc 35 8 2 \ \ avOpwros...adTds yap Kal QVW pas WV Kal EOTL* TO erupavev €v OGpkKt Kat
1 Tren. i. 30. 12, 13. yeyovec Tlavdov. Can Glaucias have been 2 Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17 kaOdmep 6 the name of the supposed translator of Baowdeldns, kav Tavxiay érvypdg@ynra d- the Petrine Gospel, i.e. the assumed name ddoxahoy, ws adyotow adrol, roy Ilérpov of the author? Epunvéa’ woattws 6€ kat Ovadevrivoy Oco- 3 Hipp. vii. 27. Sade axnxodvar Pépovaw, yrwpysos 6’ obros 4 Hipp. vi. 35.
INTRODUCTION. xii
‘ J] a > ee > Va a SQN 8 A ee y , 7d évradba dpbevy ody taTepoy Tot dvw, otde SieKéxowTo 7 avwHey petéoTn a > i. ae ES - a ‘, ‘ n x, 2 lal , bs > Setpo...ddN qv 76 TavTy Ov Kal Tapa TO warp KavratGa: Svvapes yap BY tov matpos (exc. Theod. § 4). + &., c , > ¢ A t ~ > fad dvacras 6 Kipios ednyyedtoato Tovs Stxatous Tovs év TH KaTa- 4 \ rs > BA *: t TAVOeL Kal peTeoTHOEV adTors Kal weTéOyKev (§ 18). a ar di 5 oraupds Tod év tAypdpate dpov onueidv eotu Xwpiler yap Tous dai- A a j orous TOV arlatwv, ws éxeivos TOV Kéopov TOD TANPwpaTos (§ 42). i \ = 2% ¢ = hs * , “ 2 ® © a? a od rt pev ovv abrds Erepos iv @ dveihydhev SHrov &€ wv dmodroyel “Eywo 4 Lor .. cat bray héyy Act tov vidv tot dvOpadrov arodoxyacOyvat, EBpicOnvas, oravpwhjvat, ws wept dAAov daiverar éywv, SyrovdTe TOD éprabods’ aa eee en Kat zpodéw ipas, Aéyet, TH tpiry TOV ypepav eis THY Tadiraiav- avtos yap a 8 ; ; mpodye ravra Kal THY dpavas culomevay Wuxyy dvacTycEL Hriccero Kal aroKxatacTycev ot viv mpodye. amavey 8 droatdytos TOU , ae ee oe ; , : , wee KkataBavtos ém air én 7G “lopddavyn rvevpatos...avactethas tiv éred- a 2 a. a re c Pas ? , s x ra % ay Gotoav axtiva THs Suvdpews 6 Swrnp ameihyoce pev tov Odvatov ro bé 6] lal > ‘ 2 > rd 2% by 3 > o Oyntov copa atoBadov raby avéotynoev. Ta YuxiKa wey ovV OUTS ae 4. > ¥ 2 + 8 wS * ‘\ > a aviorara, Kai dvacwlerar...cdOyrae pev ov 6 WuxiKds Xptords ev deka
Tod Syprovpyod (§§ 61, 62).
The last of these extracts appears to represent Western rather than Eastern Valentinianism ; a member of the Anatolic school would have spoken of the Risen Christ as ‘pneumatic’ and not ‘psychic.’ But the point is not important for our present purpose. We see how a Valen- tinian writer could make the facts of the Gospel history the vehicle of Gnostic teaching; and we understand why the Docetic author of the Petrine Gospel was content to accept the canonical narrative as the basis of his own. But besides this, we recognise in these Valentinian comments points of contact with our fragment where the latter reveals its true character. We observe in both the same distinction between the Impassible Christ and the Passible ; in both the Power from above leaves the Lord at His death; in both there is a Resurrection effectuated by an external agency and apparently not extending to the natural Body. Both again are characterised by the prominence which is given to the Cross and to the Preaching to the Dead, although neither of these particulars is worked out in the same way by the two writers. On the whole, while the evidence does not justify us in regarding the Petrine writer as a Valentinian, there is reason to suppose that he has felt the influence of the Valentinian School.
4. Both Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus speak of a party who bore the name of Docetae, and who are distinguished from the
S. P. a
xlil INTRODUCTION. Valentinians and other Gnostic sects. According to Clement’, the founder of this party was Julius Cassianus, originally a member of one of the Valentinian schools. Cassian shared ‘Vatian’s Encratism, and his interest in Docetism appears to have been largely due to his Encratite views. Hippolytus’ attributes to the later Docetae, presumably the sect which Cassian originated or one nearly allied to it, an elaborate system of gnosis, which combines features apparently derived from several earlier systems, as those of Basilides, Valentinus, and the Naas- senes. When we come to the Christology of these Docetae, it proves to be a curious syncretism presenting points of contact with orthodoxy on the one hand, and with many forms of Gnostic speculation on the other. The higher Nature of Christ is the Only Begotten Son, Who is equal in all respects (generation excepted) to the Ingenerate. The Only Begotten contracts Himself and descends through the Aeons, till at length He enters the world and is born of Mary. The Docetic writer proceeds :
eyervnby to @ aitis ws yéypamtau yevvynbev dé évedioato airs avabev uv, kal TavTa eToinoeEV OVTWS Ws ev TOLS EdayyeArluLS yéypamTaL €Aoveato eis tov “lopddvyv: éXovoaro 6é TUTOV Kaiogpayiopa AaBov ev TG VdaTl Tod yeyevynpevov TUpatos amo THS TapHEevor, tv’ dtav 6 apxwv Katakpivy TO tdiov Adc pa Oavatw TH oTarvpe, Wx éxelvy év TO THparTe tpapeca amrekdvoapevy TO copa...un edpeOH yuyvy, aN évddonras 7d év 7G VbaTt OTe CBarrilero avtl THS TapKos exelvyns ExTETUTMMEVOY TOA.
Unfortunately the Hippolytean account breaks off at this point. Its importance for our enquiry lies in the witness which it bears to the existence of a party in the second half of the second century (for the syncretistic spirit it displayed cannot have been earlier) who called themselves Docetae but accepted the Gospel narrative, and whose déx«yous was apparently limited to a belief in a pneumatic Body, the impress or counterpart of the Body born of the Virgin, which was acquired by the Lord at the Baptism, and remained as the clothing of His soul after the
Crucifixion.
1 Clem. Alex. iii. 13 tovodrous émexerpet kal 6 Tis doxjoews é&dpxwv "Lovdwos Kao- ovaves.
2 Hipp. vili. ro sqq. Hippolytus plays all round the name, but seems not to per- ceive its true significance: viii. 8 ézel oi moddol TP TOO Kuplou cuvBouvrla wh xpw- pevo. Thy Soxdy &v TH pOarug eyxovTes opay émaryyéddovrae TuPAWTTOVTES, SoKEt
There is no evidence that this particular theory was
Tuy pnde Ta ToUTwWY SbymaTa cw... kal rods TW SoKkeiv dogdddeay Adywr KeE- KThoOar éhéyEouer, oye éavrods Aoxnras dmexddecav, Soypmartlfovres tara (cf. 7b. 11 70 doxeiv eval tTwas...7a 5dfarvTaQ). His statement that the name proceeded from the party itself is of a piece with the explanation of its meaning.
INTRODUCTION. xlili
present to the mind of the Petrine writer, but it is not inconsistent with his story; nor does there appear to be any improbability in the sup- position that the Encratite sect founded in Egypt by Julius Cassianus, the Docetae of Hippolytus, and the Docetae of Serapion were closely allied to each other if not identically the same.
IX.
The style of the Petrine fragment has points of contact with the canonical Gospels, especially with St Luke and St John; yet on the whole it differs materially. Here and there the writer uses a phrase of Aramaic origin such as pla tov alipwr, avd dvo dvo. More frequently he manifests a tendency to substitute classical for Hellenistic forms. Thus he writes xafapedw for dOuos eiue amo, and employs the optative after ozws. In his choice of words he appears to be guided by such writers as Plutarch, Polybius, Dionysius of Hali- carnassus ; we have des for offaApol, aywrav for poBeicba followed by py, and the phrases ¢déyeoGar dro opyis, tetpdcGa xara didvoiay. In common with the author of the Acts, whose work seems to be often in view, Peter uses pafsjrpia and yetpaywyety ; with Symmachus, the perhaps heretical translator of the Old Testament, he shares the very rare words dropbotv and ovvokértecOa1, He shews a partiality for unusual words: for oravpicxew and oxedoxo7eiv he is as yet our only authority ; vraxoy : in the sense of a ‘response’ does not seem to occur elsewhere before the last years of the third century, although vraxovew ‘to respond’ is found in other apocryphal writings of the second; Aaxpés is in itself a rare word, and in the phrase Aaxpor BadAev seems to be limited to two or three Christian writers. A characteristic habit of affixing an almost otiose éxetvos (of kaxotpyor éxeivor, 6 AlGos exeivos, of oTpatwrat éxeivor) appears also in the Petrine Apocalypse, and in other apocryphal literature. But the most decisive indication of the re- latively late composition of our fragment is to be found in its use of 7 xupiaxy. In the Apocalypse of St John we already have 7 xvpiaxy npépa; the Dédache follows with xvptax7} Kvpiov; Ignatius speaks of those who live kata xvpiaxyv; Melito, Bishop of Sardis, about the middle of the second century wrote a treatise repi xvpiaxns. The name was therefore familiar amongst Eastern Greek-speaking Christians from the end of the first century. But Peter not only uses it freely, but seems to be unconscious that he is guilty of an anachronism when he imports this exclusively Christian term into the Gospel history. ‘H
xliv INTRODUCTION.
kuptaky has so completely supplanted 7 pla tév cafBdrov, that it is twice used to describe the first Easter Day in a document which usually manifests precision in such matters.
A more vital distinction between the literary character of the Petrine fragment and that of the canonical Gospels lies in the assumption of the first person by the writer of the former. The design of the Synoptic Gospels excludes personal narrative; but it is equally foreign to the Fourth Gospel, even where reference is made to the evangelist as an eye-witness (xix. 35, XX. 30, 31). The method of putting the Gospel- history into the mouth of an Apostle belongs to a type of literature later than the canonical Gospels. Zahn remarks that the first specimen of the kind hitherto known is to be found in the Gospel of the Twelve, an Ebionite apocrvphon which was circulated in Palestine probably about a.p. 170’. The Dydascalia and the Constitutions furnish later examples.
Xs
We may now approach the question of locality and date. Where and when was the Gospel of Peter written ?
1. All the evidence points to Western Syria as the place of origin. The Gospel was read at Rhosus in the time of Serapion. In the next century it was in the hands of the author of the Dédascalia, and of Ongen during his residence in Palestine. Its name and general character were familiar to Eusebius of Caesarea; Cyril of Jerusalem had studied its contents; Theodoret of Cyrrhus knew of its existence. No Western writer shews any independent knowledge of the Petrine Gospel, unless it be Jerome, who like Origen lived for years in Palestine. The discovery of a fragment of the Gospel in the grave of an Egyptian monk proves nothing as to a circulation of the Gospel in Egypt. The writer was in possession of a few leaves only, and the leaves or the copy from which they were detached may have been brought to the Thebaid by some exile from Syria. It will be re- membered with interest that in his last wanderings Nestorius paid more than one visit to Panopolis*.
2. The Gospel of Peter was in use about the year 190, and, according to Serapion, it was the work of at least a generation earlier. Thus the ¢erminus ad guem may be fixed at a.D. 170. The other limit is more difficult to determine. Yet if the evidence already produced is
1 Das Ev. des Petrus, p. 173 cf. Gesch. ° Evagr. Schol. i. 7. des N. T. Kanons, ii. 2, p. 725.
INTRODUCTION. xlv
trustworthy, it can scarcely be rash to say that the Gospel, so far as it may be judged by the fragment which survives, was not written before the middle of the second century. The Akhmim fragment presup- poses a knowledge and use of the Four Gospels, and of a text of the Gospels which is already marked by a characteristic interpolation’. Its author seems to have had access to a Harmony nearly akin to Tatian’s Diatessaron. If he is not actually indebted to Justin, he is versed in the apologetic use of certain passages of the Old Testament which was prevalent among literary Christians from Justin’s time. Above all, his doctrinal affinities are those of the second half of the second century. His Docetism is not of the type which was familiar to Ignatius ; his Gnosticism connects itself with the schools of Valentinus and Julius Cassianus; his anti-Judaic spirit is worthy of Marcion; his apocalyptic tone finds its nearest parallels in the literature which passes under the name of Leucius Charinus. The conditions are those of the age which followed Justin, and not of that which preceded him. We shall not perhaps be wide of the mark if we place the composition of the Petrine Gospel midway between the limits already indicated, ie. about A.D. 165 ; we cannot, consistently with our reading of the facts, place it before a.D. 150.
XI.
On his journey up the Nile, between Assiout and Abu Girgeh, the traveller passes on the East bank, at a little distance from the stream, the large market town of Akhmim. It marks the site of one of the oldest cities of the Thebaid, the Chemmis of Herodotus (ii. 91), the Panopolis of Strabo (xvii. p. 812). Once the stronghold of the worship of Khem, identified with the Greek Pan, Panopolis became in Christian times a centre of monastic life. An extensive Christian necropolis, begun in the fifth century, bears witness to the ecclesiastical importance of the place in days before the Arab invasion, and Akhmim is said to contain at the present time a relatively large proportion of Christian inhabitants.
During the winter of 1886—y7 the researches of the French Archaeological Mission in Egypt led to the discovery in one of the graves of Christian Panopolis of a small book measuring 6 inches by 44, and containing 33 leaves of parchment, stitched together into covers of pasteboard roughly cased in leather. The book was found to contain
1 That the interpolation in Luke xxiii, changing the connexion after his usual 48 originated with Peter is improbable. manner of dealing with evangelical Peter puts it into the mouth of the elders, materials.
xlvi INTRODUCTION.
fragments of the lost Petrine Gospel and Apocalypse, and of the Greek version of the Book of Enoch; on the inside of the further cover was pasted a single leaf of the Greek Acts of St Julian. The Petrine writings occupy the first nine leaves. The vec/o of the first leaf bears a Coptic cross supported by A and 9; the fragment of the Gospel begins under a smaller cross on the second page, ending on fol. 5, where its conclusion is marked by three crosses resting on an ornamental band. A blank leaf follows the Gospel, which is succeeded by the fragment of the Apocalypse. The latter has either been stitched into the volume upside down, or the gathering has been turned by the writer; the two fragments are in the same hand and were probably written about the same time. The writing will be described presently ; meanwhile it may be remarked that it can be distinguished at a glance from the hands in which Enoch and the fragment of the Acts have been written. The rest of the book is in uncial characters which appear to be those of the seventh or eighth century; the Petrine fragments are written in a cursive script of a peculiar type, probably belonging to the same period. It is worthy of notice that while each of the Petrine fragments is followed by a blank, as if the writer had stopped because he had reached the end of his copy, there is no such blank between the fragments of the Enoch or at the end of the Codex. It would seem as if the writer of the Petrine matter having in his possession some leaves of Enoch which were nearly of the same size with his ‘Peter,’ bound the whole together. At the death of the writer (or of the last owner of the book, if it fell into other hands) the precious collection was buried with him. From the position of the grave, M. Bouriant infers that the burial took place not before the beginning of the eighth century, nor after the end of the twelfth.
The palaeographical features which distinguish the Petrine fragments are well defined. The writing is that of a rapid writer who seems unwilling to lift his hand from the parchment. We notice at times the characteristic ‘linking’ of the letters which marks the papyrus cursive. Many of the letters preserve the uncial form, e.g. r, A, H, M, N, P, C, Y. But the writer’s practice is not uniform; thus , occasionally appears almost in the form of d, and H becomes h. | is often inordinately long, «x takes the shape of k, c is large and singularly formed. The writing is either nearly perpendicular or inclines slightly to the left. Some of the peculiarities in detail occur also in the Akhmim mathematical papyrus, which M. Baillet ascribes to century vii—viii. But in its general effect, so far as a judgement can be based upon a comparison of the litho- graphed specimens of the papyrus with the heliotype of the Petrine
INTRODUCTION. xlvii
fragments, the writing of the latter is quite distinct; the hand is freer, bolder, and more suggestive of the rapid execution of a practised scribe.
M. Lods points out that the writer of the Petrine fragments has used the familiar abbreviations avos, xs, 0s, and the horizontal bar for the finaly. In one instance a dative is followed by the « ascript; once also an apostrophe occurs at the end of a proper name; double dots are occasionally placed over « and v, and once over . There are no breathings or accents, and no stops, except a colon which is said to mark the end of the fragment, but does not appear in the heliograph.
The MS. in places has suffered from damp. The first lines of ff. 1 4, za, and the words lying nearest to the right hand margin of ff. 2a, 30, 4a, are from this cause more or less difficult to decipher. For words or portions of words which are illegible in the heliotype, I have been com- pelled, with M. Lods, to trust to M. Bouriant’s reading of the MS.; these are indicated by being inclosed in square brackets in the lower margin of the text. An insect has gnawed through the first leaf, destroying the tops of some of the letters in f. 14, line 2; happily the restoration here proposed by M. Lods is scarcely open to doubt. At the beginning of f. 54 the writing suddenly becomes lighter and finer, and continues so throughout the page, but the difference appears to be due merely to a change of pen.
There is some reason to think that the parchment had been at least in places previously occupied by other writing. Traces of an earlier cursive hand are here and there discoverable.
XII.
A considerable literature has already begun to spring up round the Petrine fragments. The following are the most important editions of the fragment of the Gospel and books connected with it.
Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Frangaise au Caire sous la direction de M. U. Bouriant. Tome neuvieme, 1° fascicule, 1892: 3° fascicule, 1893. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter: the Greek text of the newly discovered fragment. London: Macmillan and Co., 1892. Revised edition with some corrections from the MS., 1893.
The Gospel according to Peter and the Revelation of Peter. Two lectures by J. Armitage Robinson, B.D., and M. R. James, M.A. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1892. Second edition, 1892.
xlviil INTRODUCTION.
A popular account of the newly recovered Gospel of St Peter. By J. Rendel Harris. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1892.
Evangelii secundum Petrum et Petri Apocalypseos quae supersunt ...edidit Adolphe Lods. Parisiis ap. Ern. Leroux, 1892.
Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus, von Adolf Harnack. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893. Second edition, 1893.
Das Evangelium des Petrus, von D. Theodor Zahn. Erlangen u. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893’.
Important contributions to the subject will be found in the Guardian (Dec. 7, 14, 1892), Academy (Dec. 10, 17, 24, 1892), Atheneum (Dec. ‘17, 1892, May 13, 1893), Expositor (Jan., 1893), Classical Review (Feb., 1893), Scottish Guardian (Feb. 24, &c., 1893), Preussische Jahrbiicher (Jan., 1893), Theol. Literaturseitung (Dec. 10, 1892, Jan. 21, Apr. 1, 1893), Theol. Tijdschrift (May, 1893).
1 Jn the critical notes the follow- B.=Bouriant, H.=Harnack, L.=Lods, ing abbreviations have been used: R.=Robinson, Z.=Zahn.
EYATTEAION KATA’ TIETPON
I. Tov 8€ *lovdaiwy ovde’s évifvato Tas yeipas,
Ql € / aN) ioe bat o~ > ot \ \ ovdé ‘Hpwdns ovS eis Twv KpiT@y avToU: Kat py
BovrAnbévtwv vivacOa advertn TletNaTos.
1 tor] ovde Tis
destroyed: remaining traces support the reading adopted
I. tov 8 “Iov8alwy «.7d.] The callousness of the Jewish leaders is sharply contrasted with the scruples of the Gentile Procurator. Didase. v. 19 6 pev GAAOHvAOS Kperys vivrapevos Tas yeipas eimev AO@ds eiwe.. 6 dé "Ia- pany émeBonoe To aipa avrod ep? nas. Oi "Iovdatoe are more especially the Pharisees and priestly party (comp. Pet. vii.); the phrase is from St John
(i. 19, &c.). —*Eviiparo: Matt. xxvii. 24 dmeviiparo. The simple verb is used also in Didasc. 7. ¢c. and
Ev. Nicod. i. (B) 10 vurropevos tas xélpas.
2. od8 els tOv Kpitdv abrod K.T.A.] “Nor yet any one of His judges,’ ie., the members of the Sanhedrin who had condemned Him (Mark xiv. 64). On ovdé eis see Winer-Moulton, 216, nm. 2: for ovdels...ovde...ovdé Zahn compares Mark xiii. 32. Kai py Bovdndévrwy : see the critical note. The reluctance was significant; cf. Mark vii. 3 of yap bapicaion.. éav py muypn viywvrat tas xeipas ovK éoOiov- ow. Origen. Matt. 124 “et ipse qui- dem se lauit, illi autem non solum se mundare noluerunt a sanguine
Si P;
\ , Kat TOTE
2 eis is uncertain: ovd es has perhaps been corrected to 2—3 Parts of the letters represented by «ai yy 8 have been
3, TleAarns
Christi, sed etiam super se suscepe- runt.”
3. Since no one chose to follow his example, Pilate rose up from the Biya; his part in the trial was over. Cf. Acts xxvi. 30 dvéorn re ¢ Baaireds kal o nyeuwv. “And then” (cai rore occurs again c. vi.) Herod assumes the vdle of judge, and orders that the prisoner be taken over (wapadnp- POnva, comp. Matt. xxvii. 27 of orpa- Tora . . mapadaBovtes Tov “Inaovy ; infra, c. iil.). The object is to minimise the sin of the Procurator by laying the chief guilt at the door of Herod, the representative of the Jews (1, 2). Peter remembers that the Lord was ek ris éLoucias “Hpw dou (Luke xxiii. 7). He remembers also Ps, il, 2 of Baowdets ris yhs Kai of ap- xovres cvrnyOnoav k.7.Xr., together with the comment in Acts iv. 27 ovyx6n- cay yap én’ ddneias....Hp@dns Te kal Tlovrios Wewkaros. The Didascalia fol- lows Peter (v. 19 ‘H. 6 Baaideds éxé- Aevogev avrov cravpwOyva); in the Constitutions the sentence is recast to save the appearance of a conflict with the canonical Gospels: Il. o jyepav
I
2 EYATTEAION KATA TTETPON
/ , € 7. lol A 2 KEAEVEL ‘Hewdns 0 Baoirevs mapadnupenvat TOV KUpLOV, > \ ’ ~ @ ¢ 2 con a se eimwy avtois OTt “Oca éxéXevoa vuly Toca avTa, TONTATE. ¢ , II. ‘lwonp 6 piros TeXatou
\ ~ , § 38 5 of , a. L Kat TOU KUQLOU, Kat ElOws oTl TTAVPLOKELV QuUTOV meA-
‘lornxe. Se é€xet
oO a \ oof ‘ ns Novaw, nAGev wpos Tov MedaTov Kal HTnoE TO THOMA ie , \ , \ € lod , \ TOU Kupiov mpos Tapyv. Kat 0 TeNaTos wéuy-as Tpos , wy £ A -~ & ¥ wo ‘Howdny ntnoev avtov TO cwua, Kal 6 ‘Hpwdns epn
"Adere Merate, ci kal py tis adtov yTHKEL, rpeEls 1 map[adn ]upOnvat
kal ‘H. 6 Baowets exédevoav. ‘O sending it on to Herod as the
Baotdeds‘H.=6 rerpadpyns occurs in Mark vi. 14 (cf. Matt. xiv. 9).
2. “Ooa exédevoa tpiv «.t.A.] This order is possibly intended to include the mockery. Herod’s words may refer to an earlier portion of the Petrine narrative based upon Luke xxiii, 11 (€Lovdevnoas).
4. torryker 8& exet “Iworjp «.7,A.] Meanwhile Joseph, who had antici- pated the sentence, was standing near the spot (cf. John xviii. 16 6 dé Tlérpos tornkes mpos TH Ovpa ea: xix. 25 toryxercay S€ rapa Te aravps k.t.d.), ready to prefer his request. Amro “Aptuadaias (Mt., Mk., L., J.) is wanting in Peter, and its place is filled by 6 idos II. kai tov kupiov. For Joseph’s connexion with Christ see Matt. XXVil. 57 €uaOnrevOn Te “Inood, John xix. 38 dv pabnris rot “Incod Kexpup- pevos, and Pet. vi. His acquain- tance with Pilate may have been inferred from his wealth and posi- tion (aAovows, Mt., evoxnuer Bov- Aeurys, Mk.), or from his boldness; a different account is given of the rodpa in Lv. Nicod. i. (B) 11. Pilate is again placed in a favourable light; he is a friend of the Lord’s friend, and he endorses Joseph’s request,
"Hryce :
person who possesses jurisdiction.
Mt, Mk, L., yryoaro; J., Hpwtnoev. Sravpiocxew is unknown to the lexicons ; oravpdcew has been proposed, but perhaps unnecessarily.
7. Ipods rapny : comp. Matt. xxvii. 7 eis rayy.
g. *ASeApt TledGre «.7.4.] Luke xxili. 12 eyévorvro ido. In his reply Herod identifies himself with the Jews: ‘although no one had asked for Him, we (nets) should bury Him (for the construction cf. John xix. 11 ovk efyes eEovciay...et yy nv dSeddpuevov) ; our law forbids us to let the sun go down on the unburied corpse of a murdered man; and on this occasion we should be the more careful, since (émel cat) the Sabbath is coming on.’ For emupdoxery in this sense comp. Luke xxiii. 54 nuépa Hv mapackeuis kal caSPBarov emébwcker ; and Pet. ix. ra vukri 7 éeméhookev 7 kKuptaky. Peter seems to refer to John xix. 31 of bev oty “Tovdaior, ret mapacKeun WY iva ad petvy émt Tov oravpou - Ta g@pata ev TO caBBare... Rpatnocav Tov TlevAarov 7% iva KaTeayoow avrav ra oKéAn kal apOdow. It is re- markable that the Peshitto works into this verse the Petrine phrase
wn
wn
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 3
> \ > , > \ avtov €0amTopev, é7rél
§ Kal
caBBatov éripworKet:
éyparrat yap €v TM VOMw HALOV Ay SUVaL él TEpovEv- veEvp l yap €v Tw VoL HALOY f4y OU p
MEVeD. ITT,
/ cal © ral cod d@uwy, THs EopTis avTav.
& < ~ ~ ~ a Kal rrapédwxev avtov To aw Td plas TAY
ot dé AaBovTes TOY KUpLOV
5 Tov ku
emel oaBBarov empdoxe, rendering év 76 caBBire by AALS A\=, moaX without support from any
Greek Ms. So too the Arabic Dia- tessaron.
2. yéypamra, yap év Td vépw] Deut. xxi, 23, LXX. od xoysnOnoerar TO copa avrov émt tov Evdov, adda rap7 Garpere aito ev TH nuépa exeivn. Similarly Aq., Symm., Theod. Peter has read into this text the interpretation given to it by the precedent of Jos. x. 27 mpos jAlov Svapas...KabetAov avrous and tav EvNov. The Constitutions fol- low Peter (v. 14 Oamrerat mpd Alou Svcews), and Epiphanius (aer. 66. 79) even cites the Deuteronomic law in this form : €Aeyev 6 vopos . . od py ddvy 6 yALos em aT@.. Oapavres Oavare adtov mpd Svcews Tov HArtov. The gloss can however be traced back to Philo and Josephus; cf. Phil. de spec. legg. 28 pynoi My émibdvéra 6 WAwos dverKoAomopevots, GAN emixpuTr- réabwoay y7 mpd Siaews Kabaipebértes. Jos. B. J. iv. 5. 12 mpoo7ndOor bé eis rocovTov daacBeias aate Kat darapous pia, xairot tocavtny “lovdaiwy rept tas tapas mpovotay Totovpévav wate kal Tous €k katadixns dvactavpoupévous mpo Svvtos ndiov KaGedeiy te Kal barat, Iledovevpéevm is strangely attributed to Herod, from whom we should have expected kexpepacpéve or the like ; but it agrees with the anti- Judaic tone of the fragment. The Cru- cifixion was a judicial murder ; Acts vil. 52 rou Suxaiov.. povets eyéverbe. James v. 6 éhovedcare roy dikaov.
4. kal rapéSuxey adrdy K.7.A.] “And
he delivered Him to the people be- fore the first day of unleavened bread, their feast.” Tapédoxevisin Mt., L., J., but the person who delivers the Lord is in the canonical Gospels Pi- late; in Peter, Herod. The surrender is to the Jeople, who share the guilt of their leaders (Matt. xxvii. 25 mas 6 Aads). Ilpd peas rév d(yuov=mpo mpo- ts tr. at. (Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12). Peter follows St John’s reck- oning and makes the first day of the Passover correspond with the Sab- bath, and the Crucifixion precede it.
Tis €optins avrav also is Johannine, cf. John vi. 4 70 macxa 7 €oprh tev ‘Tovdalwv ; also v. I, vii. 2- From Peter the phrase has found its way into the Didascalia v. 15 év abrh yap év péo@ avtav THs EoptHs Tov addpov é€oTaipwody je, kaTa TO mpoeipnuevoy imo AaBid “EGevto Ta onpeia adtav ev pécw THs €opthis adrav (Ps. Ixxiii.= Ixxiv. 4, 5). Since the Mss. of the LXX. seem invariably to read év péow THs €optis cov, it appears that the Didascalia, followed by the Cozrstd- tutions (v. 15), has imported the Pe- trine phrase into the Psalm; unless the change belongs to a primitive interpretation of the Psalm anterior both to the Dzdascalia and to Peter.
In Peter ris éopris adtavy makes a fresh point against the Jews ; they committed the murder on the eve of their greatest sacred festival.
5. of 8 AaBdvres Tov Kiptov k.7.A.] The dass are the subject, for AaBdvres takes up wapedwxey—comp. John xix, 16, 17 mapédaxev adrov avtois (=Tois *Iovdalots, cf. 14)...mapéAaBov ovy Tov
I—2
4 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
ot > \ , \ oo , \ eA wOouvv avtov TpexyovTes, Kal éXeyov Cupwpev Tov viov
Tov Oeov, éEovciav avTov éoynkores.
\ / kat Topdupav
avtov mepeBarXdov, Kal éxabioav avtov émi Kabedpav
=~ ~ ~ ¥ Kpiaews, NéyovTes Atkaiws Kpive, Bacired Tov *lopannr.
, Ped 2 \ L > or at 8 Kal TLS AUTWV EVEYKWV oTepavov axav@wov éOnkev E€7l
I auTov
*Incovv. The soldiers are not men- tioned by Peter even at the Cruci- fixion, the Jews being regarded as the real executioners; comp. St Peter’s words in Acts ii. 23 da xetpos dvipoov mpoomnEarres aveihare. "OQbovv adrov TpexovtTes suggests that what follows takes place on the way to the Cross, which otherwise finds no place in Peter; yet some of the details, e.g. the placing of tlie Lord on the xa6édpa, look the other way. The whole scene is in fact foreshortened without regard to historical accu- racy. The eagerness of the per- secutors implied by rpéyovres was perhaps no uncommon feature in the experience of the second cen- tury: comp. mart. Polyc. 7 é&jhOov Os emt AnotHy TpéxovTes—the spec- tators wondering why there was TocavtTn omovdn...tov ovdrAnPOjvat Totovrov mpecButny avdpa.
I. Zbpwopev «.7.A.] The sequence
dOovy.. kal €deyoy S. is not very felici- tous. But ovpew was familiarized by
its use in the Acts (viii. 3, xiv. 9, xvii. 6), and is employed on similar occa- sions by other apocryphal writers, eg Acta Philippi 15 Bialws kai arav- Opdreas cvpopévav avrav. Comp. Epiph. Aaer. 76. 1 cupévros bAnv oxedov Ti TwoAW Kat ovTws dmobavertos. With é&. avrov éoxnkores comp. John xix. 10, Il.
2. mophtpay airdv mepiéBaddov] Mark xv. 17 €vdid0cxovow avrov mop- pupay. Luke xxiii. 11 wepsBadoy éoOqra Aaympav. John xix. 2 iparioy noppupovy mepréBadov avrov.
3 exdbicav atrév eéml KabéSpav
kploews x.7.A.] Possibly based upon John xix. 13 6 oty Tedaros...ityayer tEw tov “Inoowv, kai exdbioev emi Brpa- tos: for xai¢ew trans. comp. 1 Cor. vi. 4, Eph. 1. 20. The reference to St John seems to be more direct in Justin afol. i. 35 Kai yap (és elmev 6 mpopnrns) Stacdpovres avtov éxadioay émt Bhparos, kat etrov Kpivoy nuiv. Yet Justin refers to ‘the Prophet,’ z.c. Isaiah lvili. 2 (a passage which he has just quoted) airotoiv pe viv kpiow dexaiay. Peter avoids Biya, pre- ferring perhaps a word of Jewish as- sociations (Ps.cvi.(cvii.) 32 €v cabedpacs mpeoBurépwv, Matt. xxiii. 2 émt tips Mavoews xadedpas); and if he has a prophecy in view, it may be Ps. Ixxi. (Ixxii.) I, 2 6 Beds, 76 kpipa cov Ta Baowdret Sods...kpivery tov adv gov ev Stxatoovyn. In Prov. xxiv. 77 (xxxi. 9) we have the exact phrase xpive di- xaiws; Harnack (Bruchstiicke, p. 25) points out that this combination appears also in 1 Pet. ii. 23, and com- pares John vii. 24. Baowed trav ‘lovdaiwy is the title used by the mockers in Mt., Mk., J.; Peter writes tov “IopaxdA both here and below, c. iv.; comp. Matt. xxvii. 42, John xii, 13.
5. Kal mis adrav éveykdv k.t.A.] Peter individualizes where the Syn- optic Gospels speak generally ; 3 SO below (c. v) kai Tis auTay clmev Tlorivare avrév. For oréavov axdav- Owov €Onxev comp. Mark xv. 17 we- piriOéacw ait@ mdéEavtes axdvO.vor orépavoy. *Evérrvoyv is from Mark xv. 19, épamicay from Matt. xxvi. 68 (John xix. 3). Tais @Weow corre-
wn
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 5
re ~ ~ d \ la col Cee THs Keparys Tou Kuplour Kae ETEPOL ETTWTES EVETTUOV
ie ~ 2 \ oo \ - > =~ avTov Tais bveot, Kal adAOL Tas oiayovas avTOU
, f af > / , €pamirav: eTepor Kadauw Evvocov avTov, Kal TUES
2 \ ? , ¥ , co an , avtov éuactiCov NEyovTes Tavtn TH Tipy TYunTwpEY
\ eA 4 -~ Tov viov tou Geov.
» ¥ IV. Kai nveyxov dvo Kkakovpyous, Kal érTavpwoar
aN , te \ , > \ >: > , ¢ eh ava METOV AUTWY TOV Kuploy’ QUTOS O€ ETLWTA, WS [NOEV
I kat €repou...dWeot ai] For the most part illegible in the heliotype
2 owayovas épamirav: obscure
sponds to eis To mpdcwmov avroi, Matt. xxvi. 67; for ai dwes=oi opOadpoi, comp. Zahn, Acta Foannis, 248 6 émavoiEas pou Tov vou Tas des. Polyb. 3. 79. 12 éorepyOn ths peas dWews. Plutarch. symp. i. p. 615 D kiKA@ Tals deow émehOdv Tovs KaTa- ketsévous. Euseb. zz Esa. liii. 5 ras bets pamiCopevos. Tas orayovas may look back to Matt. v. 39 doris oe pamiCer eis tv SeEiav oiayova k.T.A., but more probably rests directly on Isaiah 1. 6 ras b€ ctayovas pov eis pamiopara [éSwxa]. Kadayo evuocoy gives a new turn to the canonical érumrov .. kaddu@ (Mark xv. 19, cf. Matt. xxvii. 30), combining it with Aoyyn evvEev (John xix. 34); cf. Ovac. Stbyll. viii. 296 wAeupas vigovow Ka- Adu@. Lastly, éudoreCov seems to refer to John xix. 1 6 eAaros .. euacriyw- gev—so serious a punishment was kept by the Procurator in his own hands, but Peter attributes it to the Jews, in agreement with Mark x. 34, &c. For the form paorifew see Acts xxii. 25, and comp. Covstitutions, v. 6 oravp@ pera Td paotixOjvar mpoon- AGO.
4. Tatry th tit Tinryoopev k.7.A.] “With this honour let us honour” or ‘At this price let us apprize, the Son of God.” There is perhaps a play upon the double sense of tyun and riyav. For the first we may compare (with Har- nack) Acts xxviii. 10 wodhais tysais
6 nrleyxov]
7 avt[wv tov Kv] | pndeva R., L.
ériunoay jpas, and the proverb in John iv. 44, perhaps also 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7; for the second, Matt. xxvii. 9 rH Tysny TOU TETYNMEvou OY €TLUNnTAVTO arb vidv "Iopand. St Matthew cites Zech. xi. 13 where the LXX. misses the sense, but Aquila (Euseb. d@. e. 479) had vmeppeyeOns 1) Tun fy erywy- Onv dep aitav. The double meaning is recognised in Tertullian Marc. iv. 4o “pretium appretiati vel honora- ti”; comp. also Cyril. cadech. xiii. 10.
6. Kal tveykov 8t0 Kakobpyous «.7.A.] The Crucifixion follows im- mediately upon the Mockery. Comp. Luke xxiii. 32 pyovro S€ Kal érepor kaxoupyoe dv0. Constitutions, v. 14 do Kakovpyous €atavpwoay atv auTo. Ev. Nicod.i.(A) 10 Gua 8€ Kat rods bv0 kakoupyous éxpéuacav. In the N. T. kaxovpyes is used only by St Luke and St Paul (2 Tim. ii. 9); St Peter has xaxozrows four times. ’Eora’poaav dvd pécov avray Tov kYptov Comes Near- est to John xix. 18 pécov d€ rov Inaoiv. Cf. Matt. xiii. 25; Mk. vil. 31.
7. avrdos 8 éordaa, ds pdtv movov éxoav] Comp. Matt. xxvi. 63 0 dé "Ingots éowwra. The silence of Christ before His judges becomes in Peter a silence at the moment of crucifixion. Peter omits (with 8*BD*) the first of the words on the Cross, although it seems to have belonged (W. H. app. 67 f.) to the ‘ western’ text, and stood (further on) in the Diatessaron. It would not have been in keeping
6 EYAPTEAION KATA TIETPON
td f TOvov Exwv.
\ / ot \ ld > Va kat OTE we0woav Tov oTavpOY, ETE-
/ > ‘ , 5 ' ‘ SE yparvav btu Ofte éctin 6 Bacideyc TOY’ IcparA. Kal TEDELKOTES
Yoo 7 a >on , \ < Ta evoupata éumpoobev avTou SieuepicavTo, Kat Naxpov
1 rovov Z. | o[....] | cav: ort ewpOacav B.: bre bpd. R., H., L., Z. | rov
uraupwv
2 [Baorrevs]
with his anti-Judaic position. But he has another reason for the exci- sion, which is betrayed by his com- ment on the Lord’s silence. The death of the Son of God must be painless; that it was so, is indi- cated by His silence. Mr Rendel Harris points out to me that the Curetonian Syriac in Luke xxiil. 9 explained ovdév amexpivato by adding “as if He were not there”; comp. Cod. Colbert. (c) “quasi non audiens.” The comparison is instructive; in Peter the gloss is less innocent. Yet Peter’s Docetism is so guarded that Origen is able to use similar words in a Catholic sense: AZatt. 125 “ uni- genita uirtus nocita non est sicut nec passa est aliquid.”
For woévos ‘pain, cf. Gen. xxxiv. 25, Isa. lili. 4, Apoc. xvi. 10, 11, xxi. 45 and for the construction pydev «7d. see Apoc. iii. 17 ovdév xpeiav exw—a reference which I owe to Mr Murray.
I. 8re dpOwrav tov oravpdv] A detail not in the canonical Gospels, although implied in their account of the bearing of the Cross to the place of execution: cf. also John iii. 14, viii. 28, &c. It does not appear whether Peter regards the Crucified as lifted together with the Cross, or attached to it after the elevation; see Justus Lipsius de cruce, p. 82 ff. (ed. 1685). "EapOwcar, if sound, is formed on the analogy of éwOovy, éapaka, &c. ; but the « cannot be detected in the heliographic reproduction of the Ms.
2. Odrés éotiv 6 Bacrreds Tod "Io- pavd] Mt., Otrds eorw "Inavis 6 B. rev Jovdaiov. Mk.,‘O B. rev Iovdaiav. L., ‘0 B. rév "Iovdaiav otros. J., Incots o Nafwpaios 6 8. Tay ‘Iovdaiwv. Peter’s
3 epn[poober]
émtypady comes nearest to St Luke’s, but differs from allin substituting rod ‘Iopand for rév "Iovd. The title is regarded as the work of the Jews (éméypawav), not of Pilate ; and the change is consistent with its assumed origin. In Matt. xxvii. 42, Mark xv. 32, the Jews under the Cross speak derisively of “the King of Israel.”
3. Ta évSdpara,..Stepeploravro k.7.d. | Ps. xxi. (xxil.) 19 Otepepioavro Ta ipa- Tud pov éautois, kal éml tov ipatiopoy pov €Badov kAjpov. The words are quoted by St John (xix. 24), and occur with slight variations in each of the Synoptic Gospels. Peter, after his manner, changes something —iparia gives place to évdvpata. In common with Mt., Mk., L., he does not distinguish between the iudria and the inariopos of the second member of the parallelism, which St John iden- tifies with the y:rwév. The distinction is ignored by Justin also, although the latter quotes the Psalm, and seems to allude to St John. (See next note.)
kal Aaxpov Badov er’ adrois] Comp. Justin, dal. 97 of cravpecartes a’rov éuépioay Ta inatia avrov éavrois, Aaxpov BadAovres Exactos xara | Thy Tou KAnpou emiBoArny, 0 éxhéEac ar éBeBovAnro. Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. xlil. 26 of orpati@ta: Stepepicavto To mepiBoraoy . . 6 b€ xuTav ovK éocxic6n . . Kal Aaxpos mepi Tovrou yiverat Tois oTparirats. Kal TO pev pepiCovrat, mept rovrou S€ Aayxdvovow. dpa kat rovto yéypamta; ... Sveme- pioavro «tA. (Ps. xxi 2 oa)... KAjpos 8€é iv 0 Naxpos. Cf. Etymol. magn. 519. 10 KAApos .. onuaiver. . Wr- gbous twas év ais éeonpewdvto «at
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 7
Da > 9 > - a ld ~ / > , EBadov én avtois. eis d€ Tis TwéY KakoUpywv éxElvoV > , ? \ a © a \ \ A oN » , wveidirev avTous Aéywv ‘Hyeis dia Ta Kaka & €rroITameEV / ¥ « \ A la lad ovTw merovOauer* ovTos O€ GwTNp ‘yEevouevos Tw / ay avakTnOavTes
> e: , 2a © Pig \ dvOpwrwv Ti noiknoev Uuas; Kal
a9 cy SS Sf \ - of eT avTw exeNevoay iva py oxedoxornOn, d7rws Bacavi-
, > “ Copevos arroOavot.
V. “Hy &€ pweonuBpia, Kai oKxoTos KaTéaxXe TATAY
1 [avros] 2 wvednoev
eypahoyv ta ovopata avray, dep Kat Aaxpos Aéyerat. The lexx. notice but one other instance of this use of Aaxueds in Christian literature (Jo- seph. Aypomtnest. ap. Fabric. pseud- epigr. V. T. 144 7 bia KAjpor...7 bia Aaxpev); but add Nonn. paraphr. P. 202 Aaypyo mavres Wompev ddnpiro tivos éorat(J.M.C., Scottish Guardian, March 10). It should be observed
that Symmachus translated bah sB in the Ps. by eAdyyavoy, and that St John represents the soldiers as saying in reference to the yirdv, Ady oper mept avo.
I. els 8€ tis THY Kakotpyov K.T.A.] St Luke begins nearly in the same way : eis 6€ Tay KpeuacOertwr Kaxovpyav. But Peter’s treatment of the incident is widely different. He ignores the impenitent malefactor; he omits the conversation between the penitent and our Lord, and he represents the penitent’s reproof as falling not on his comrade, but on the Jews. The speech is clearly an imitation of Luke xxiii. 40, 41 jets pev dixaios, d&a yap dv émpagayev drokapPBavopev* obros dé oddev dromoy empa€er : cf. Matt. XXVIL 23 Tl yap Kkaxor erroingev ; In owrnp yevojevos we have an echo of St Luke’s gacov ceavrov Kat nuas (V. 39). But the writer borrows also from Mt. and Mk.; @veidicev avrovs is from Matt. xxvii. 44, Mark xv. 32, and
3 ovros] OUT@S
6 dmoOdvy H.
iva py oxedoxornb7, while it contra- dicts a statement of St John, is probably based upon it: see next note.
5. Wa pt oxedokorndy k.t-A.] The crurifragiun was, it seems, employed incrucifixions among the Jews in order to comply with the law of Deut. xxi. Comp. John xix. 31, 32, where an ex- ception is made only in the case of our Lord, because He was already dead (J. Lipsius, p. 109). To have aban- doned it in this case would have been to bring about the very infringement of the Law which Peter represents the Jews as anxious to prevent. Either he has overlooked this point, or he means to suggest that their conduct was as shortsighted as it was cruel. In any case he looks upon the crurifragium of the crucified as an act of mercy, and this, it has been observed, is regarded by Origen also as one if not the more probable of two alternative aspects of the practice: Matth.140 “misertisunt ergo Judaei... aut forte non propter misericordiam hoc fecerunt...sed principaliter prop- ter sabbatum”; cf. Nonnus ad Joc. SkeAoxorrety is unknown to the lexi- cons, but there are exx. of oxeAoxoria.
7. mv 8& peonpBpla] Mt., dd dé éxrns pas: Mk., kai yevouéyns spas éxrns: L., kat qv 76n woel dpa extn. MeonpBpia in this sense occurs in
8 EYAFTEAION KATA TIETPON
\ > cy al t tyHv lovéaiav' Kat eGopuBovvTo Kal irywviwy wn TOTE O
4 oe 2 y » 2 o of nAtos edu, é€Edn ETL EM" yeypanrat avtTois nALov
Mn Ouvat
> ‘ , emt Trepoveupevy.
Kal TIS aUTwY ElTTEV
3 mepavevpevo
the N. T. only in Acts xxii. 6, In the LXX. it is common, and the word is possibly preferred by Peter on account of its use in Amos viii. 9 dvoerar 6 FAtos peonpBplas Kat cuaKo- Tave. emi Tis yas ev nuépa TO pas, a passage which is interpreted as a prophecy of the Three hours’ dark- ness by Euseb. dem. ev. p. 486, Cyril of Jerusalem catech. xiii. 25, and Cyril of Alexandria, ad doc.
okétos katécxe TaCaV THY Lovsalav] Mt., oxéros éeyévero éml macay thy yay (Mk., L., ef’ dAnv thy ynyv). For oxotos xaréoxe cf. 2 Kings i. 9 kar- éoxev pe oxoros Sewov: Origen Matt. 134 interprets ry yy with the same reservation: “tenebrae tantum- modo super omnem terram Iudaeam sunt factae.” Comp. Ciasca, Tadzaz, p. 92 “‘tenebrae occupaverunt uni- versam terram.”
1. @opuBodyro kal jyevlwv] For dopu- BeioOa in this sense comp. Mark v. 39 Ti OopuBeiabe kai Kdaiere ; *Ayo- may is a form unknown to the N. T., but common in Polybius, e.g. 2. 6. 8, 5. 34.9; in Dan. i. 10 LXX. dyoma .=qoBodpat Theod. The fear was that the sun had already set; for He was yet alive, and the Law would be broken by the Crucified remaining on the Cross after sunset. The repetition of the words yéypamra: «.7.A. without a connecting ydp has sug- gested the idea that in this place they have been brought in from the margin and were not part of the original text. In any case Peter adheres to the interpretation of Deut. xxi. 23 which he has given above
(c. ii).
3. Kal tis adray elev k.t.A.] Mt., eis e£ a’rav. The best course was now to hasten the death, and it is apparently with this intention that the draught which Peter describesis administered. Origen JZa¢t. 137 may have had this in view when he compares the sponge to the writings of unbelievers filled “non de uerbo potabili neque de uino laetificante cor hominis ne- que de aqua refectionis, sed de aliquo contrario et nociuo et non potabili aceto intelligibili.”. Nonnus modifies this view of the incident by ascribing the intention to our Lord: vojeas | 6rtt Bods TeréXeoto, OowTepov Ocdev eat. Peter’s account depends here not upon the Gospels, but upon Ps. Ixviii. (=1xix.) 22 kal eaxav eis 1d Bpdpa pov xoAnvy, kai els THY Siyav pov émortoay pe d€0s (comp. Origen Z. c. “sic impleuit prophetiam”). The Psalm is not directly quoted by any of the Evangelists, and the yody is mentioned only in Matt. xxvii. 34, which refers to the draught offered to our Lord before the Crucifixion, and not to that which was adminis- tered just before His death: edaxay atr@ mei oivoy (v. 2 d€os) pera xoANs peutypevov. The combination d€os peta xoAns is not unusual (e. g. Constitutions, v. 14 @wxav aire b&os meiv peta yoAns: cf. Ev. Nicod. i. (A) 16; for the form suggested by the Psalm compare Barnabas 7 péA- Aere mroricew yodjy pera G£ous: Orac. Sibyl. viil. 303 és 8€ rd Bpdpa xoAqv kai muepev d€0s eSwxav: Ev. Nicod. i. (B) 10 AaBdy omoyyov kai rAnoas adroy xorns kal d€0us. Cyril, who follows Peter in citing the Psalm in this
wn
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 9
if > \ V \ ot 43 , lloricate avtov yoAnvy peta O€ous' Kal KEepacavTeEs
¥ - ETOTLO AY.
qi “ ~ é 4 sal A hd Fd KaTa THS Kepadns auTWY Ta apapTnMaTa.
‘ > , ‘a A ’ , Kat emAnpwoav TavTa, Kal €eTEElwoay
TEOL-
v4 / NPXOVTO d€ woANol pera AUyVWY, vomiCovTeEs OTe w~E
€or: [ Teves de | é€meoavTo.
I moricare avrov xodny: obscure
\ © f > t kat 6 Kuptos dveBonce
5—6 weE éeorw...é€nécavto] émécavta may have been re-written: the scribe seems to have begun vu€earwec..
Re bo 2.
read émecap re, H. prefers [kai] émécavro: Redpath conjectures e&icravro.
connexion, explains yoAy as refer- ring to Mark xv. 23 (catech. xiii. 29 xorwdns S€ Kai kaTamixpos 7 TpUp- va). With moricate..xoAnv comp. Jer. viii. 14 éroriey pas vdap xorjs, ix. 15 moti avrous vOwp yoArs.
2. Kal érArjpacay mdvTa k.7.d.] This fulfilment of Psalm lxix.completed the accomplishment of the Passion-pro- phecies. The reference is perhaps to John xix. 28 ff. iva rererwOn 4 ypady Déyer Aupa .. dre obv EXaBev 76 vEos 6 "Inaovs etwev Terédeotae (consummata sunt omnia in the Arabic Diates- saron; cf. 28 mavra reréheora). St John uses wAnpovy of the fulfilment of Scripture in the same context (xix. 24, 36). With éeredetwoay.. ra dpap- Thpara comp. Gen. xv. 16 ovmw dva- mem\jpwrtat ai dwapria. Matt. xxiii. 32 mAnpsdoare 70 peérpov. 1 Thess. ii. 16 eis TO avarAnpocat avTay Tas auaptias. See Barn. xiv. 5 iva kdkeivou Tedeww- Oaow rots duaptnpaow. Didasc. v. 17 éreXecay THY Tovnpiay avTav. Kara THs Kepadns probably refers to Matt. xxvii. 25 ef nuas: cf. Acts xviii. 6, and for the exact phrase 1 Cor. x1. 4.
3. Tepujpxovro 8 trodAol pera Adx- voy «7.A.] <nvaph. Pilati (B) 7 év TavTi TO Kéop@ Yay Avyvous amd éxtns @pas ews ovpias. With vopi- (ovres Ore vvé eorw compare Orac. Stoyll. viii. 305—-6 jyare péoo@ | vv éora: oxotoecoa: Didasc. v. 14 érevra eyévero Tpeis Bpas okoros kal €hoyia On vv& Euseb. de. p. 487 nuépas ovens vv& amo wpas extns TO meptexov cuv-
éoxe péxpt ths evarns. Cyril. catech. xiii. 24 oxoros éyévero ev tuépa péon ++. Gvopace b€ 6 Geds TO oKOTOS VUKTA. The Didascalia reveals a motive for the stress laid upon the night-like character of the darkness; if the three hours were counted as a night, it was possible to maintain the literal accuracy of Matt. xii. 40. Reference is also made to Amos viii. 9, Zech. xiv. 6,7. ’Eméoavro has caused much difficulty. Prof. Robinson at once suggested a reference to John xviii. 6 and to Isaiah lix. 10 mecotvrar ev eon Bpia, and if the word is sound, the latter passage is almost certainly in view. See however the critical note.
5. 6 kiptos dveBdnoe k.7.A.] The silence is broken at length by a loud cry: Matt. xxvii. 46 dveBdnoev (€Bdn- cv BL, 33, al., so Mk.) 6 "Inoois povy peydry. The words of the cry in the Petrine fragment depart widely from those in Mt. and Mk., as well as from the original; 6 6eds (= 6e€ Mk.) becomes 7 Stvayus, the second pou and iva ri (els ri Mk.) disappear, eyxaréhumes is replaced by xaréXewras (cf. Acts vi. 3). The variants of the Lxx. throw no light on any of these changes, nor is the Fourth Word cited in any but the canonical form by the great writers of the second and third centuries. Eu- sebius indeed throws light on the substitution of ddvayis for beds ; after remarking (dem. ev. p. 494) that the
Heb. has °?% and not ON he points
10 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
t ‘ ' ' Coane 1 , pa AEYwv H AYNAMIC MOY, F AYNAMIC, KATEAEIYAC ME* Kae ELT WV > 7A fod € 4 t avednpen. Kat adris [THs] wWpoas Suepayn TO KaTare- Tagua TOU vaov THs lepoveadrnp Eis SvO.
2 avrijs tis Spas] avros wpas: avris ris d. R., H., Z., avris dpas L.
out that Aquila alone recognised the distinction: ovk« nkiwcer dpolws rots Aourois 6 OEOC 6 BEdC MOY peTaBarav eimetv, GAAd icxypé Moy Icxypé MOY adding rd 8€ dxpiBés éarw icyyc moy icxyc Moy. The Lord, Eusebius adds, would not have died, unless His Strong One (¢.e. the Father) had left Him: xaradéAourev oty avrov 6 *Ioxupos avrov, OeAjoas avrov péxpe Oavarov..xareddetv. For SN =Siieues comp. Justin, dial 125 1d ov TopanaA dvopa toto onpaiver” AvOpw- mos vixav Sivapw: TO yap lopa avOpwros vikov éott, TO O€ FA Svvapes: and the O. T. phrase "TY 5x? (pyye (Gen. xxxi. 29, Prov. iii. 27, Mic. ii. 1, Neh. v. 5 where the LXx. has ovk Zorw ddvapus xetpos jpov). But by may have been confused with 210, and if so, Aquila’s iox’s was, as Euse- bius says, axpySés: Svvayis is the LxXx. rendering of bon in about 150 places. Cf. Theodoret. haer. fabd. v. 470 8€ nA Wirovpevoy pev Kal ado dnAot Tov Gedy, Sacurdpevoy b€ rov io- Xupov. More remarkable is Peter’s conversion of the question into a direct statement by the omission of twa ti. I can produce only one parallel: Ephraim tells us (serm. adv. haer. 56) that at the assemblies of a Gnostic sect which he connects with the name of Bardaisan a hymn was sung in which a female voice
recited the words wimqya alee?’
widsls wheaar “My God
and my Head, thou hast left me alone.”
(I owe the ref. to D. C. B. 1. 253.) A Valentinian party mentioned by Irenaeus (i. 8. 2) taught that the Lord év pév 76 eiretv ‘O Oeds pov [Lat. Deus meus Deus meus] eis ti eyxaré- umes pe; pepnvunévar ore dmedeihOn dmé Tov horos 7 Zodpia kai éxwdvdn umd Tov “Opov tis eis tovpmpoobev oppis. But the original form of the word is here retained.
I. Kal elrdy dvedh0y] Comp. ‘Mark’ xvi. 19 6 pev obv KUpios peta TO Aadjoa avrois dveAjupbn. Peter removes the dvadnyus to the moment of death, and the expression has been adopted by Origen JJazt. 140 “sta- tim ut clamavit ad Patrem recep- tus est...post tres horas receptus est”; the Greek is lost, but veceptus est is the O. L. rendering of dve- djuPOn in Irenaeus and in the Munich Gospels known as g (White, p. 137). With Peter’s view of this dvadknis comp. Clem. Alex. ex. Theod, § 61 améOavev Sé dmoaravros tov xataBavros ém ait@ émi tro "lop- Savy mvevparos.
2. Sepdyn 1d Kararéracpa K.7.A.] Cyril. catech, xiii. 32 76 xataméracpa Tod vaov.. SveppyEaro. 1b, 39 TO Tore Suappayév. Jerome 77 Matt. xxvii. “in euangelio culus saepe facimus mentionem [eu. sec. Hebraeos] super- liminare templi infinitae magnitu- dinis fractum esse atque diuisum legimus.” Ths “lepovoadnp is one of several indications that the frag- ment was written outside Palestine, or at all events for non-Palestinian readers,
EYATPEAION KATA TTETPON II
VI.
hj / > , AY [74 ’ \ ~ Kat rote amécTacay Tovs HnAoUS amo TwY
~ - , q \ Youn ~ \ XElpwr TOV Kupiov, Kat EOnKav avTov émt THS YyNS* Kat
€ a =” ? a \ / My > / 1 yn Taca éveiaOn Kai PoBos peyas éyeveTo. © of € e > qAvos EXaue Kai evpéeOn wpa evaTn.
, TOTE
> , Oe € EXxapnoav € Ol
"lovdator kal SedcdKact TH ’lwonp TO Toya aiTov iva
> , s a \ > , avo Oban, éreidy Oeacapevos jv doa ayaba eroincer.
3 éyévero] 17 m. eyevere
I. kal téve dmérracav tobs tous kt.) With kai rore comp. c. i. The Fourth Gospel alone mentions the #Aoe and, like Peter, mentions them only in connexion with the Hands. So Cyril. catech. xiii. 28 egérewvev dvOpwmivas xeipas...xal mpoce- maynoav ros. On the other hand Justin, referring to Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 17, writes (dal. 97) éoratpwcay adrov éumnocortes Tuvs Aus Tas Xetpas Kal Tovs modas avtov wpvéav : 27fra, modas kal xelpas wpvyn.
2. €nkav...écelo@q] ‘When the Lord’s Body was laid upon the earth, the whole earth quaked.’ The in- cident is mentioned only by St Matthew (xxvii. 51), who however connects it with the Death, and not with the preparation for Burial. Ilaca (which is not in Matt.) suggests a reference to Jer. viii. 16 éveioOn maca n yy: comp. Ev. Nicod. i. (B) 11 cetopos yap éyévero emt Thy yay dracay.
3. Kal dédBos péyas éyévero] Matt. XXVIL. 54 6 O€ Exardvrapxos Kat of pet avrov ... iSdvres TOV ceiopoy Kal Ta yevopeva epoByOncay opodpa.
rote Atos eAape K.7.A.] Cyril. catech, xiii. 24 pera thy evarny éhaprpev 6 HAdlos* mpodéye Kat TovTO o mpodpy- ts (Zech. xiv. 7) Kai mpos éomépav éora pos. Ephraim, evang. concord. exp. p. 257 “tres horas sol obtene- bratus est et postea denuo luxit.” Once more the gxomon shewed the hour, and it was seen to be (evpeOn) 3p-m. The fact came to the Jews
5 wwe
with the force of a discovery, so impressed had they been with the belief that it was night.
4. éxdpynoav 8& of “Tov8ator «.7.d.] The Jewish leaders rejoiced, whether at the reappearance of the Sun, the frustration of their fears that the Law would be broken (c. v.), or the success of their murderous design ; if the last, comp. John xvi. 21 0 8€ Koopos xapnoera. In their joy they place no difficulty in Joseph’s way; dedoxaor. implies that the power to refuse was really in their hands, not- withstanding Herod's jurisdiction (cf. c. ii.); for the perfect, cf. c. viii. (mapa- dédaxer). °Eresd) Oeacapevos... émoingey must be taken as a jeer: ‘Joseph had been a disciple, he had witnessed all the good deeds of the Crucified; let him bury the Body if he would’; unless we accept the sug- gestion of Mr Nicholson (Academy, Dec. 17), that the words were ori- ginally a marginal note attached to the story of the penitent thief, and were afterwards shifted into the margin of the present passage and from thence into the text. But this explanation seems unnecessary. In their lightheartedness the Scribes and Priests indulge themselves in heartless banter at the expense of Joseph. The words appear to have been suggested by John xi. 45 6ea- gapevos 0 (v. 2. &) émoinoev: comp. Acts ix. 36 qv wAnpns epywv dyadar. dv €7TOLEL.
12 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
» af , \ AaBov dé Tov KU@LOV éXovoe Kal elAnoe oivdoom Kal
¥ » cal I elonyaryev eis ioLov Tao kadoupevov Kyzov *lwand.
VIL.
Tote ot “loviaior Kai ot mperBuTeEpor Kai ot
e ~ , iy \ ~ , aot lEpeis, YvovTES Oloy Kakov EavTols Eérolnoay, npEavTo
f \ if SN 7 € , € lal KomTecOat Kat Every Oval Tais auapTias nuwv:
I etAnoe] evetAnoe H., Z. | owdovw ealurots | [n]pélalvro korre[o] [ax]
I, AaPdy S& Tov Kiprov k.7.A.] Matt. XXV11. 59 kat AaBav To copa, John xix. 40 @daBov rd copa. Comp. John xx. 2 hpav tov KUptoy ék Tod prynpeiov. For gdovce see Acts ix. 37 Aov- cavres b€ €Onkav ev Umepe@. Eldnoe owdou is from Mark xv. 46 éveiAnoev ™ owdou: Mt. L., have evervdckev [ev] owd., J. has @noav dOoviors.
2. eoryayey ... Kirov *Iworo] EOnxev avro[v] (so all the Synoptists) év TO kaiv@ avrov pynuelo (Mk.). Taos is used-by Mt. just afterwards (xxvil. 61, xxviii. 1), *Hv dé (adds St John xix. 41) €v T@ Tor@ drov eoravpaby KHTOS, kal €v TO KnT@ pynpetov KaLvor... eke ovv...0Te eyyds iv TO pvnetov €6nxav “Incovv. In the Diatessaron these words intervene between Mark xv. 46 and Matt. xxvii. 60. Peter’s Kjos KaNovpevos xk.t.A. may have arisen simply from a desire to con- vey the impression of independent knowledge; yet Harnack’s question should be kept in view: “war der kntmos “I. zur Zeit des Verfassers etwa eine bekannte Localitat?” Comp. Acts 1. 19 yuwordy éyévero mace Tois katotkovow "lepovoaArp, Gore KAnOjvat TO xwpiov éxetvo...Xwptov aiparos.
3. tote of “Iov8aior x«.7..] The momentary joy is changed into gene- ral mourning, in which for different reasons the Jewish leaders (c. vii.), the Disciples (z.), and the whole people (c. viii.), take part. There is again a reference to prophecy: comp. Amos viil. 10 peracrpéow ras éoptas vpav eis mévOos kai macas ras
3, of lepeis] ovepers 4 [kaxov
@das var eis Opfvov...ds mévOos dya- anrov. Eusebius (d. e. p. 486) inter- prets Amos /c. in a wider sense: e& éxeivou kat eis Sevpo peréatpeev adrav 6 eds tas éopras eis mévOos...tHs mept- Borrov pntpordAews drroatepnaas avTous k.7.A. Cyril however (cadech. xill. 25) follows Peter: év d¢vpous yap Av TO mpayOev kai TH Tov maoxa éopty, and proceeds to describe the grief of the Apostles and the women. “The Jews’ are the Elders and Priests: cf. c. vill. of ypaypareis kal Sapicaior kal mpecBurepa: 22fra, ot mpecB., mpeoB. kal ypaupateis: comp. Matt. XXVIi. 41 of apyvepeis .. pera TOY ypaypa- réwy Kat mpecBurépwv, 62 of apytepeis kai of Papioaios, XXviii. 11 Tois apyee- pedow...pera TOY mperBuTépar.
4. mpkavro komrer Oar kal Aéyerw Odal k.t.4.] The words attributed to the leaders are substantially those which are put into the mouth of the éxAou in some early versions of Luke xxiii. 48: the Curetonian Syriac inserts
there aA... AM <i a 2X
prays = et (comp. the Doctrine of Addai, Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, pp. 9, 10), and in a fuller form, closely akin to that which seems to have been known to Peter, they occur in the O.L. cod. Sangerman- ensis (gt) “uae nobis quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, appro- pinquauit enim desolatio Hierusa- lem.” That the words in some form stood in the text of Tatian is probable from Ephraim’s comment
on
EYAPTEAION KATA TIETPON
ot c , \ \ , ’ , nyyiev n Kpiows Kat TO TEAOS ‘lepovoadAnp.
13 eyo o€
‘ . © , > , \ , \ META TWwWY ETALOWY [Mou é€AuTrOUMNY, Kal TETPWHEVOL KaTa
diavoiay éxpuBoueba: éCntoupeOa yap vm avTay ws
= yoe \ ‘ , ’ ~ . #9 de Kakovpyot Kat WS TOV VaOV OéXovTes EUTONTAL €7t O€
, a ‘ , 4 3 , 6 6 a TouTos Tacw éynoTevouer, Kal ExabeCoucba mwevOouvTes
\ , \ \ ¢.7 4 ~ , Kal KAQLOVTES VUKTOS Kal neEoas EWS TOU oaBBatov.
2—3 kara d:a]voay
ev. conc. p. 248 “ quia uox prima ludi- brium erat in ore eorum...uox altera Vae factaest in ore eorumet complosio manuum in pectore eorum”; further on E. refers to the prophets who ‘foretold the destruction of their city’ (cf. zafra, p. 252). The genesis of the interpolation is hardly doubtful. Ovai is the natural accompaniment of xomeros, comp. 3 Kings xiii. 30 exdavto avrov Oval adeApé, and would soon assert its right to follow Tuntovres Ta oTHOn. Or it may have alluded to a prophetic /ocus classicus ; Cyril. ca¢ech. xiii. 12 refers to Isa. iti. Q ovai TH Wuyy adrav bre BeBovdevvrat BovAhy rovnpay ka@ éavray (cf. p. 12, 1.4). The next step would be to add the words #yyicev 1) Kpiows Or 7 épnuwors or To TéAos “IepovoaAnp, Or some com- bination of them founded on Dan. ix. 2, 26 or on Luke xxi. 20 (comp. Apoc. XVlii. 10, 19 ovat oval n modus f peyddAn «9 AOEn 7} Kpiows Gov...7pn2dOn). Such words would have acquired a special force in reference to Jerusalem at the time of the final crushing out of the Jewish national life under Hadrian. I. éyd 8 petd tdv Eralpwv K.7.A.] The personal character of the narra- tive appears here; cf. zzfra, c. xii. eyo Sipey Ilérpos. Comp. Constitu- tons ii. 46, iv. 7, Vv. 7, Vi. 12, vil. II. ‘Eratpos is not used in the N. T. as= ovppabntyis (John xi. 16). With éArv- movpny comp. John xvi. 20 and Pet. xi. Terpwpevor kara duavoray, again, is not in the style of the N.T., but a. similar phrase occurs in
4 ¢[umpyoa]
5 exal OeCope ]Oa
2 Macc. iii. 16; comp. Diod. Sic. 17. I12olovetrerpwpevostnyuxny. °E- kpuBouea mayhave been suggested by John viii. 59, xii. 36 (cf. xix. 38), or by the incident of John xx. 19; it is copied by Cyril. cazech. xiii. 25 bduv- Gvro S€é aroxpuBevres of dmocroAou.
3. enrotpeda yap «.7.A.] Comp. Matt. xxii. 7 daodecev rots oveis éxeivous Kat THY TOALY a’Tav évérpyoer. Ephraim Zc. “sanctuarium combus- tum et templum dirutum est.” That the Apostles had designs upon the Temple might well have been inferred from the language attributed to the Master (Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29; cf. Acts vi. 13, 14).
4. @wl 88 tobros maw évy- otetopev] ‘To add to our troubles we were keeping fast.’ Mark ii. 20 édev- covrat O€ nyépat Otay amapOy an’ avtav 6 vupdhios Kal TéTe mnotevcovow ev exeivn TH npepa (L., ev ékeivais rais nuépas). Constit. v. 19 tpeis évy- otevoapey ev TH dvarnupOnvar avrov ag’ nov. The Didascalia (v. 14) represents the Paschal meal as having been eaten on Tuesday evening (rq yap tpitn éomépas civ vpiv TO Tacxa épayov), and followed the same night by the arrest, after which the Lord is kept in ward for two days before the Crucifixion. If this was Peter’s view, the third day of the fast had already come.
5. exadeLdneOa mevd. kal KAalovres wt.A.] Neh. i. 4 éxdOtoa kal éxAavoa kal érévOnoa nuépas Kal nunv ynorevov. Ps. CXxxvi. (CXXxVil.) I éxadioapev
14 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
VIM,
- ‘ , > > , yA Galo Kat meer BUTEpoL Tpos a@AAnAous, akovaavTes OTt
Cuvaybévtes 8é of ypampareis Kal Papi-
6 Aaos ras yoyyuer Kal korreTat Ta TTHON NEyoVTES bt: Ei to Oavatw ai’tov tabta Ta péyioTta onpeia yévyovev, ioere St mocov Sikaos €oTwW" epoBnOncav ols mperBurepor, kai HAOov moos FleNaTov Seopevor avTou kal AéyouTtes Mapados juiv oTpaTwras, va puraFol pev | TO pwd avTou emi TpEls nuépas, pn ToTE ENOOVTES OF
\ a iA ? \ / \ Mabntal aitot Krdéywow aitov Kal vrodkaGBn 6 aos
oS - / , eon / OTL EK VEKNWY dVETTH, Kal TOLNTWOLY HIV Kaka.
5 drt écov] érocov H., Z.
H., L. 8 nylepas]
Thren. i. 1 éxaurev *Tepepias Kdaiwv cai eOpyyqoev. John xi, 20 €v T@ otk éxadéCero. The order mevOeiv kai kAaiey occurs in Mark xvi. 10, James iv. 9. "Ews Tov caBBdrov may refer to the Paschal Sabbath which was now at hand, or possibly to the Sabbath of Easter week (cx/ra, c. xil.); in the former case vuerés Kat nuepas looks back to the interval be- tween the arrest and the night of Good Friday.
I. ovvaxGévres 8&...4\8ov mpds ITe- harov] Matt. xxvii. 62 cuvnyOnoav of apxtepeis Kal of Papicaioe mpos Tlet- Aarov (cf. xxviii. 12). In Mt. the gathering takes place on the Sabbath (ri}...€mavpiov Aris €otlv pera THY mapa- oxeunv), and the party seem to go to Pilate without previous confer- ence. With ovvay. mpos addAndous compare Acts iv. 15 ovvéBadXov mpos dAAndous. Peter adds a new reason for these fears—the changed attitude of the populace.
3. 6 ads Gras yoyytte. Kal Kéa- vera. Ta oT Oy K.T.A.] Luke xxiii. 48 mayres vf ovvmapayevopevot GyAoL emt tiv Oewpiay ravtny, Oewpnaoavtes Ta yevomeva, TUmTovTes Ta oaotndn
ey y kal éxdavoapev.
0 o€
7 pvdrako: drdrdEolor} R., Z., puraéo[per]
vréotpepov. John vii. 32 jxovoay of apicaior Tov bxyAov yoyyvovros rept avrov tavra. Peter throws the yoy- yvopos into words which combine L.’s version of the Centurion’s confession (dvrws 6 dvOpwmos ovros Sixatos Hv) with a reference to the phaenomena that attended the Crucifixion (ratra Ta péeyiora onpeia). Konrerat Ta orn mixes the two phrases kémre- o6ai [rwa] (Luke xxiii. 27) and tumrew Ta arnOn. “dere dru mogoy is a con- flate of iSere bre and tere mocor, whether due to the writer himself or to the copyists.
7. otpatiétas|] The first mention in the fragment of the Roman soldiers. No part has been assigned to them either in the mockery or at the Crucifixion. Mt. speaks here of a xovorwdia xxvii. 65, 66; but cf. xxvill. 13 Tots orparidras. “Iva gvu- Adéopev (? hvddEwor: MS., hvdrako) «7A. Comp. Mt. céXevoov od acda- AucOqvae Tov Tapoyv ews THs Tpitns npépas, pn wore edOovres of pabyral (avrov] khétpwow adriv kal elmoow TO hag “Hyép6y awd rédv vexpov with moiowow...kaxd, and supra (c. vii.) otov Kakoy éavrois émoingay.
wn
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
15
FleXaros mapadéswxev avtots [etpwviov Tov KevTupiwva
A -~ a \ ¥ META oTpaTWwTwv duvrdaccev Tov Tadov.
\ \ Kal GuV
~ > f = \ ca auTtots nAGov mpea BuTEpot Kae YPaMMarers él TO puna,
\ ‘4 , fd \ cal / \ kal kvAioaytes NiBor Meyav KaTa TOU KEYTUpLWYOS Kat
A a a , 7 ? ~ of bY TWV TTPATLWTWY OMoU TavTES OL OVTES EkEl EOnKaY ert
om , “~ ks a TH OUpe TOU pynuaTos, Kal éréxpiTay ErTAa THpayicas,
2 oTpatiwrov
1. ILerpévov tov kevruplova] The traditional name of the centurion at the Cross was Longinus (£v, Nicod. i. (B) 11 Aoyyivos 6 éxarévrap- xos iordpevos etmev "AAnOds Oeod vids jv ovros). A Spaniard named Oppius is mentioned in the same connexion by Dexter, Chron. a. 34. Peter, who transfers the centurion to the Tomb, finds another name for him. Tlerpw- nos, Petronius, is of frequent occur- rence in inscriptions of the time of the early Empire, and is familiar to readers of Josephus (Ad. xviii. 8. 2, B. F. ii. 10) as the name of the governor of Syria who was charged by Caligula with the task of setting up the Emperor’s statue in the Tem- ple. But its use by Peter may have been suggested by the similarity in sound of Terp#mos and [lérpos. Pe- tronilla is the legendary name of St Peter’s daughter (Lightfoot, Clemenz, i. 37). Peter writes xevrupioy here and zz/fra (cc. ix., x.) in preference to éxarovrapyos. So St Mark (xv. 39, 44,45): cf. mart. Polyc. 18.
2. ov airois 7rOov mperPiresor wt.d.] Matt. xxvil. 65 of d€ mopevdevres jopadicavto tov rapov oppayicarres tov Aidov pera THs KovoTwdias. Peter accentuates the cooperation of the Jewish leaders ; zz/ra (c. ix.) mapjoav yap avroi pudacoortes. Mpyjpa is St Luke’s word (xxiii. 53, xxiv. I).
4. Kvdloavres AlOov péyav k.7.A,] In Mt. Mk. this is attributed to Joseph (mpookvdicas Aibov péyav rH
4 xara] pera R., H., L., Z.
6 emexpercav
Opa rod prnpeiov amndOev =mpoceki- Aeoev ALOov emi THY OUpay Tod punpeiov). But to roll to the door the great stone (uéyas oddpa, Mark xvi. 4) which was afterwards to be rolled away by superhuman power, seemed to need greater strength than that of an individual, and Peter therefore ascribes it to the combined efforts of the members of the Sanhedrin and of the guard (aavres ot dvres éxet). Comp. the reading of D in Luke xxiii. 53 enéOnkey TH pyucio AiBov ov poyts elkoae exvAcoy and the parallels in Cod. Colbert. (guem vix viginti vol- vebant) and Theb. (J. R. Harris, Study of Codex Bezae, pp. 47— 51). Kara Tov k. kal Tov arp. ‘to exclude the Centurion and soldiers,’ who might be bribed to deliver the Body to the disciples. The watch of course are not cognisant of this purpose.
6. éméxpicav éwrd ohpayisas] Mt. simply odpayicavres. For éméxpioav comp. John ix. 6, 11 eméypioev (BC*vid enéOnxev) avtov Tov mndov én rods opOarpovs : mnov émoingey Kal émé- xXpioey pov Tors ddOarpovs. Lucian (nas det ior. ovyyp. 62): emexypicas ..TiTadv@ Kal eémxadtwas éméypawe ToUvoua Tov TOTe BagtAEvovTos. For the number of the seals comp. Acts xii. 10 (D) xatéBnoay rovs ¢’ Babyods and Apoc. v. I PBXiov...nareagpa- yionevov oppayiowvénmrad. But Peter may also have in view Zech. iii. 9 éwi Tov Aidov roy eva Emra dpOarpol
16 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
\ \ > la , > la Kal OKNVHV EKEL anEavTes epuAaEar.
, 4 2. TOWLAS O€, €71-
pwoKxovtos Tov caBBaTouv, nAOev dyAos a0 ’ lepovea-
\ \ on , 4 ot v - > An Kal THS TEptywpov iva idwor TO jAVHpEtoV erdpa-
Yylopevov.
IX. Ty dé wri H errepwaKey i Kuplakn, gpurac- 5
, lal ~ ’ \ , , \ , COVTWY TwV TTOATIWT WV ava ovo ovo KaTa Ppoupay,
5 7
eiow. iv. 10 émrd ovrot dpOadpoi eioww ot emiBrérovtes emt macav THY yy: Cf. Apoc. v. 6. The ‘seven seals’ not only constitute a perfect safe- guard, but probably belong to the symbolical teaching of the frag- ment.
I. oknvyy exet mrkavres ebtratav] Matt. xvii. 4 moujow dde Tpeis oKnvas (cf. Mk., L.). Heb. viii. 2 oxnvis...qv emn£€ev 6 Kvptos.
mpwlas 8 «.7.A.] The rumour that the tomb was sealed and guarded had reached the City and suburbs during the night, and early on the Sabbath morning crowds came to see it. Comp. John xii. 9 6 dxNaos... HrOav ...iva...idoow. Tepixwpos ‘le- povoadjy (BY APB) occurs Neh. ii Acts xiv. 6 AépBnv ‘Joseph’s Garden’
Peter outside the a Sabbath day’s
lil. 9, 12; comp. kal THY Tepixwpov. is according to city, yet within journey.
5. TH 88 vunrl 4 emrépwokev 1 Kupta- xy] With the exception of the in- cident just related, the Sabbath hours of daylight are passed by without remark, as in the canonical Gospels. The thread of the story is taken up again on Saturday night. Comp. Matt. xxvili. 1 de 8€ caBBdrav ri éemupwokovon eis piav caBBarov. The other Gospels represent the Sabbath as past, as it was in fact when the women arrived (Mk. dcayevopevou rot caBBarov, L. ry Sé€ pea tov caBBa-
Tov). For 9 xuptaxn=1 pia rév caBBdarwy see Apoc. i. 10 éyevcpuny év mvevpate €v TH Kuptaky nuépa (where
however the sense is disputed). Didach. 14 xata xupiaxny b€ Kupiov ouvayOévres kdaoate aprov. Ign.
Magn. 9 pnxére caBBatigovres, adda kara kuptaxny (dvres. In Barnabas 15 the day is 4 jpépa n dyddn, in Justin apol. i. 67 7 rov ndiou Aeyopérn, but Barnabas is contrasting the eighth day with the seventh, and Justin’s words are addressed to pagan readers. It is noticeable that as Peter uses the term, an anachronism is involved. The Dedascalia avoids this error, V.14 TH vuKti ry enupookovon TH mia TOV caBBarey. Comp. on the other hand Ev. Nicod. i. (B) 12, where the Jews say to Joseph, Ty xupiaxy mooi Gavaro mapadobnon. Zahn remarks (p. 19): “die feste Auspragung des Namens 7 kuptaky tritt uns vollig klar und sicher erst in dem Titel einer Schrift Melitos mept kuptaxns (Eus. iv. 26. 2) und in den Leucianischen Apostelgeschich- ten.”
oriaccévtev tay oTpatiwtav dvd 8t0 8%0] The xovorwdia consists of eight men and the centurion. Jn Acts xii. 4 there are sixteen (réaoap- owy Terpadios), but eight of the whole number are required to guard the prisoner’s person (6); here it is enough to provide two sentries at the door for each watch. "Ava dvo dvo is a mixture of two con- structions, which is admitted by
wn
°
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 17
, ee a > = 2 ° \ ” > / meyaAn pwr éyéveTo €v TH OVpava Kai Eidov dvoryGer- sy > AY \ , oo ia 2 “ Tas Tovs ovpavous Kai dvo avopas kaTehOovTas éxeiber, ‘ , at ee , ~ , © be modu Ppeyyos ExoVTAs, Kal EyyloavTas TW Taw. Oo OE , > - © , 2 \ - , rel € or AlBos exeivos 6 eBAnuEevos ext TH Opa ad éavTou \ ? Gi A , \ £ / ? fé Kudo Geis ETEXWPNTE Tapa MEpOS, Kal O Taos Hvoiyn \ > , € , aA Ne > kal aducorepot ot veavioxor etondAOov. toovTeEs ovr ~ — > f \ / \ ol OTPATLWTAL €KELVOL eEuTucay TOV KEVTUDLWVAa Kal \ , =. A , TOUS mpeo BuTépous, Tapjoav yap Kal avtol guvac- / 2 ° av iy , al covtes* Kat €Enyouuevwy avtwv a eidov, Tadw oOpwoww 2 2 = er ~ af ‘ y éEeNOovtas amo Tov Tadov Tpeis avdpas, Kal Tovs dvo I avotxOevres 2 exeie 4 Aewos | exerv[os] 5 xvA[co Gers] | emexopnoe| avexopnoe H., vmexepnoe R., Z. | jvoltyn] evoryn: last syllable uncertain; the word may have been longer 6 wd[ovres] 7 k[evru]| pewva 8 avrot] The heliotype is indistinct: av oc B., avrot R., H., L., Z.; Redpath
conjectures GAAoe 9 opacw 10 e£edOovres | avdpes
W. H. as a primary reading in Luke x. I, where it stands in BK. It occurs also in Acta Philipp. 36 BadiCovear ava dvo dvo. Kara povpay seems to=xara pudakny ‘for each watch of the night’; for dpoupa in this sense comp. Herodian. iii. 11.
I. peyddn hovi éyévero ev TH otpava] Apoc. xi. 15 eyévovro @ovai peyada. xii. 10 yKovea Horny peyadny ék Tov ovpavov. The rest of the imagery is also apocalyptic: comp. Ezek. i. 1 nvoixOnoay of ovpavoi. Apoc. XXi. 10, 11 Gecé€y poe Thy woAwy THY ayiay..KaTa- Baivovoay ¢x Tod ovpavov ~youcay iy deEav rot Beov" 6 pwornp avrhs k.T.r. Tlodv déyyos éxovras may have form- ed the end of a hexameter in some Christian poem (cf. J. R. Harris, Cod. Bez. p. 49). For bvo0 avdpas comp. Luke xxiv. 4 idod avdpes S00 eméatnaav avrais (the women). Mt. relates the descent, but limits it to one (@yyedos yap Kupiov kataBas €& ovpavod...qv dé n idéa avrov ws aotpamn). The two soldiers on guard find them- selves suddenly confronted by two
S. P.
dazzling members of the orparia ovpanos.
3. 6 8& AlOos exeivos K.T.A.] ‘The stone above mentioned’ (cf. zuz/ra oi orpati@rat ékeivor. Xi. TOY OTAaUpw- Oevra éxeivov. Pet. Afoc. rot BopBopov exeivov). In Mt. the Angel rolls away the stone, cf. Mk. (dmokexv- Avorat), L. (dmoxexvAtcpevov); P. re- presents it as moving of its own accord. Comp. Acts xii. 10 rv nvAny THY oLdnpay...nTLs avTopaTH Hvotyn avrois (although an Angel is present to whom the task might have been assigned). ‘Orados jvotyn: cf. 22/7. c. x1. 29 edpov Tov ragov Hrvewypevor, Matt. XXVli. 52 Ta prnueia dvedyOnoar. Oi veavioxot elon AOov : comp. Mark xvi. 5 eloehOotoa eis TO pvnpetov edo veaviooy.
8. mapfoay yap kal aitol dudde- govres] Sc. of mpecBurepo.. Comp. Cc. x. Tov taoy bv épddacaov, where, although oi mepi rov kevrupiwva are named, the context shews that ‘the Jews’ are intended.
10. pets dvBpas k.7.A.] They had seen two men enter. Comp. Dan. iii,
2
18 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
‘ of € & \ \ > ~ > Tov €va vropbovvTas, Kal oTavpdy adkoAovOovvTa av-
~ \ - \ , ‘ \ a t TOL" Kal TWVY [EV ovo THY Keparny Xwpovaav Mex pt
1 axoAoOovrra
24,25. The Third is ‘supported’ by the two, but the support appears to be regarded as nominal only, since He is also said to be ‘conducted’ (énfra,xeipaywyoupévov). The very rare word umopOouv was used by Symm. in the phrase ra vmopOowra pe= WN (Ps. xliii. 19, Ixxii. 2). With this vision of the three, comp. the addi- tion to Mark xvi. 3 in the O. L. cod. Bob. (4): “descenderunt de caelis angeli, et surgent[es] in claritate uiui dei simul ascenderunt cum eo.” The Ascension of Isaiah de- scribes a similar vision: “‘descensus angeli ecclesiae Christianae quae in caelis est et angeli (?angelus) Spiritus Sancti et Michaelis angeli (? Michael angelus) angelorum sanctorum, et drt tertio die aperuit sepulchrum eius, et dilectus ille sedens super humeros seraphin exibit.”
I. Kal oravpdv dkodovbotvTa av- trois] In Ev. Wicod. ii. 10 the penitent Anorns appears in Paradise Bacralwy emt TOV @uwv avTov Kal oravpov. The Lord’s Cross ‘follows’ Him, endued with a quasi-personality. See Didron, Iconographie chrétienne, p. 375 ff. “la croix est plus qu’une figure du Christ; elle est, en iconographie, le Christ lui-méme ou son symbol” ; and comp. his remarks on ‘the Cross of the Resurrection,’ 26. p. 393 ff. Comp. Zahn, Acta Foannts, p. 223 (fragm. 2) 6 oravpos 0 TOU dards mote wev oyos Kadeirar Um’ euou Ov vuas, wore dé vous, mote dé Xptoros, wore Ovpa, wore odds, MOTE UpTOS, TOTE OTOpPOS, ToTE avacTacts, more “Ingovs, wore maTnp, more mvevpa, moté (wn, more adnOea, more xapis. Malan, Conjiicts of the Apostles, p.9: St Peter going up to the cross on which he is to suffer addresses it
thus: “ In the name of the Cross, the hidden mystery, the grace ineffable... Jesus Christ.. is the Tree of the Cross, the cleansing of men,” &c. The acros- tics in the Sibylline Oracles, viii. 217 ff, where thirty-four lines be- gin with the consecutive letters of "Inoovs Xpevoros Geov vids cwrnp orav- pos, indicate a similar identification of the Cross with the Crucified. It is noteworthy that in quoting the passage Augustine (ccvzt. Ded xviit. 23) excludes the craupos lines. They run as follows :
Sjpa 6€ rou rore wact Bporois oppn-
yis emionpos,
To EvAov év morots, TO Képas TO TO-
Oovpevov ora,
*Avdpav evoeBéwv Cay, mpoorKoppa Se
koopou,
"ySart erifov KAntovs ev dddexa
mnyats”
‘PaBdos roaivovea atdnpein ye Kpa-
THOEL.
Otros 6 viv mpoypadeis ev axpo-
ortxios Oeoonpos
Swrjp aOavaros Bacirevs, 6 wadav
evey” npav.
The Valentinian schools used Srav- pds as a synonym for “Opos, the limit of the mAjpwpua: Iren. i. 3. 5. Hippol. vi. 31. Clem. Alex. exe. § 42.
2. Kal rdv piv 860 THy Kepadiy k.t.4.] The colossal stature assigned to the two Angels finds some prece- dent in Apoc. x. I, 2; comp. Azaph. Pilati (A) 9 av8pes eaivovto dyndot. For the supereminent height ascribed to our Lord comp. Phot. d20/. cod. 114 Aéyet b€ pS evarOpwrncat adrndas ava d0€y (edd. S0£ar) kai wodda mod- Aakis havivar trois pwaOntais . . Kat pel- (ova kal éAdtrova kai péeyloT ov, @orTe thy Kopumyy Sinxery €oO ore pe-
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 1g
* - sa hee . TOU ovpavov, Tov O€ YELpaywyoumevov Um avTaV
e ts A v UmepBatvovray Tovs ovpavous.
\ ~ af > kat wns nKovov €K
a - , 7 tL ‘ TwY ovpavwy ReEyouons *Extipyzac Toic KOIM@MENOIC’ KGL
© \ > , y \ lod ed vA ' UTaKON NKOVETO ato TOV GTavpOU [0 ]re Nai.
I yxetparwroupevov: xepaywy. R., H., Z.
koopevos; R., Z., korpwpevors. L,
2 hon 3 Kotv@pevois: 3—4 kal Urakon] vmaxoyy; kai H.
4 61. Nai] rwat appears in the heliotype: dre vai R., H., L., Z.; I had con-
jectured ro Nai
xpts ovpavov. Similarly in Hermas, stm. ix. 6, the man who is afterwards identified with the Son of God is Upyhos TO peyéOer Oaote Tov TUpyov umepéxetv. Hilgenfeld (on Hermas 7. c.) adduces 4 Esdr. ii. 43 “in medio eorum erat iuuenis statura celsus eminentior omnibus illis .. et dixi angelo Ile iuuenis, quis est?. . et respondens dixit mihi Ipse est filius Dei.” Comp. the description of the angel from whom the Book of Elkesai purported to be a revelation, and who was said to be the Son of God (Hipp. ix. 13).
Dr C. Taylor (Hermas and the fourth Gospel, p. 78) refers to Gen. xxviii. 12 [John i. 51], and compares the Talmudic first Adam. Streane, Chagigah, p. 58 “R. El’azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament...and in- asmuch as he sinned, the Holy One .. placed His hand upon him and made him small.” The Sinless Man would reassume the proportions of the progenitor of the race. Xewpaywyeiv occurs in Acts ix. 8, xxii. 11 (in refer- ence to Saul).
2. Kal davis Hkovov k.7.d.] Comp. p- 17,1. 1. This second voice from Hea- ven is audible : John xii. 28, 29, 2 Pet. 1.17, 18. "Exnpvéas rois xotpapévors is probably not a question addressed te the Cross, but the revelation of a fact. It is natural to compare I Pet. iii. 18 Oavarodeis prev capkt Cworoinbeis dé mvevpate’ ev @ Kal Tots ev pudaky mvevpacw tropevbels exnpugev : 20. iv. 6 kai vexpois evnyyedioOn. Kotpopévous
was perhaps suggested by ray xexot- pnwevoy ayioy in Matt. xxvii. 52; the resurrection of ‘the Saints that slept’ is regarded by Euseb. d@ é. 500 as a result of the Descent :—for the pres. part. comp. 1 Thess. iv. 13 Tepi TOY Koipwpévwv (So NBA &c.). For early references to the Preaching in Hades see Bp Lightfoot’s note on Ign. Magz.9; an apocryphal pro- phecy quoted by Justin (dal. 72) and by Irenaeus (iii. 20. 4 and else- where), and attributed to Jeremiah or Isaiah, is of special interest in this connexion : ¢uvjo6n dé Kupuios o Oeds dro [v. 2. aytos] Iopand Trav vexpdv av- Tov TOY KEeKoLUNLevar els yy XepaTos (cf. Dan. xii. 2], cal xaréBn mpds avtovs evayyeXicacOat avrois TO Ga@Tnptov av- Tov.
4. tmaxor jkotero «.7.A.] For vmakon, a response or refrain, comp. Method. conviv. x virg. 208 c thy Oékhav. .en . . kooplos waddew" Tas b€ Aouras év KUKA@ Kabdmep ev xopot oXjpart guotagas vmrakovew avtTq— after which the vmaxoy follows at in- tervals. The verb is used in a similar sense in earlier Christian literature ; comp. Zahn, A. F., p. 220 mpets ku- kAevovres VanKovTapey aT@ TO Apry. Mart. Barth. 7 wajxovoav rd ’Apny. Dorm. Mariae 44 imnxoveay rd “AdAn- Aovia. See also Malan, Conflicts of the Apostles, p. 9. Warnack corrects vmaxonv, and punctuates exnputas rois Kou. Umakony ; kal jKovETO k.T.A., SUP- posing Peter to refer to 1 Pet. iii. 19. But a change is unnecessary, and the allusion improbable.
2—2
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
4 ky é ~ -~ X. Cuvecxérrovto ovv ad\AnAots exetvor arreNOeiv A > , lod - , \ at kal evpavica tavta Tw TledaTw. Kal Ett dvavoov- , > ~~ Pa t > ¥ © > A Mévwy avTwv paivovra: madw avorxOevtes ot ovpavot \ of t \ \ ’ AY > \ rd Kal avOpwros Tis KaTENOwy Kal eioeNOwy Eis TO punpa. -~ td A A , at TAaUTA LOOVTES OL TEDL TOV KEVTUPiwVA VUKTOS EaTrEVTA) 5 \ - ra A , ray # moos [leatov, apevTes Tov Ttagov ov épvAacoor, \ > , of es z ~ t Kal €Enynoavto Tavta aTeEp eldov, aywriwyTes peya- y if = sy cad \ Aws Kal NEvyovtes ’AAnNOws vids Hv Oeov. azroKpLOels a , \ , n , ~ 6 fleNatos epn “Eyw Kabapevw Tov aiatos Tov
4 Kare Gov 5 KevTup@va
“Or. Nai is printed above as nearer to the MS. than ro Nai which I had previously given. The
Classical Review (vii. 1—2, p. 42) quotes a parallel from Lord Bute’s Coptic Morning Service; at the kiss of peace in the liturgy, in answer to the deacon’s exhortation ’AorraleaOe ddAnAous ev hirrpare ayie, the congregation answer Kupte, éAén- cov (thrice): vai, Kupee. A similar response occurs in the Acta Joannts, p- 239. Comp. also 2 Cor. i. 20 év avt@ TO Nai? 60 cai 60 adrod ro *Apnv. The whole sentence suggests that the preceding words éxypvgéas «.7.A. belong to a hymn or other litur- gical form.
I. ovverkérrovto ovv dAAtAots K.T.A. | Ps. ii. 2 Symm. trapyoe ouverkéntovro épobupaddyv. For evpaviferw, ‘to make an official report,’ comp. Acts xxili. 15, 22, XXlv. I, XXV. 2, I5.
3. mddw..avOpwrds tis kared Ody] Peter distinguishes between the de- scent of the two Angels (avdpes dvo, Luke xxiv. 4, dVo ayyeAous, John xx. 12) and the descent of the one (dyyedos Kupiov xatafds, Matt. xxviii. 2, veavio- xov, Mark xvi. 5). ‘The incidents are distinguished by Tatian also, but he places them in the reverse order. For ceived Pav, see above on c. ix.
5. ol wepl Tov kevtuptwva] Sc. of mpec-
7 dyondvres] anamwvtes: ayov. R., H., L., Z.
Bdrepor Or of Iovdaior, not the soldiers; comp. 22/7. dpiv 6¢ rovro oer. Up to this time they had not left the tomb (épvAagooy, cf. c. ix.). ’EEnyn- cavro, comp. Luke xxiv. 35, Acts x. 8, &c. ~Aywmavres, cf. c. v.
°AAnOGs vids Av Oeod is the confes- sion of the Centurion at the Cross and his soldiers (of per’ avrov) in Mt., Mk. (dAnOas Oeot vids Fv ovros= dAnOads ovros 6 dvOpwros vids Oeot jv). Ephraim, probably referring to Tatian, connects the words with the remorse of the crowd (uae fuzt, wae furt nobis, jilius Dei erat hic); to the crowd Peter has already assigned St Luke’s version of them.
8. daroxpiOels 6 TLeXairos ey x.7.A.] Comp. Matt. xxvii. 24. In Peter the words possibly did not accompany the symbolic washing, but were re- served for this later juncture. ’AO@ os eiue dé has been replaced by the classical ka@apevw : Tod viov row Geod echoes back the confession of the Jews, but answers to rov dixatov rovrov which probably stood in the text of Mt. known to Peter; comp. Ciasca, Zatian, p. go. ‘Ypeis dere, which could not stand in the altered position of the words, is represented by wyiv dé rovro eSofe— ‘the sentence was yours, not mine’: comp. Matt. xxvi. 66 ri vpiv Soxei;
Io
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 2!
viov Tou Oeov, vutv Sé TovTO eOogev. eiTa mpoTEd- Oovtes mavtTes éd€0vTO avToU Kal TrapekaNouv KeAEvoal Tw KEVTUPLWYL Kal TOlS GTpaTWTaIs pNoEeV EiTrEV a eidov' cuupeper yap, paciv, ruiv dpAnoa peyiorny duaptiav éumpoobev tov Meov, Kai py eurreceiv eis xeipas Tov Aaov Twv “lovdaiwy Kat ALacOnva. €éKé- Aeveey ovv 6 TMeaTos TH KEVYTUpiwNt Kal TOIs TTPATIW- Tats pndev EiTreiv.
XI. "OpOpov dé tis Kupiakijs Mapiau i Maryda- Ann, waOntpia Tov Kuplov (poBoupéevn dia Tous ’lovdai- ous, €7reL0n] epr€yovTo UTO THS Opyns, ovK érolnoev Eri TH puynuate TOU Kupiov a ElwOe~av TroLEly ai yuvaikes
\ lol > ‘ \ an > f - emt Tois amobynoKxovet Kai Tols ayarwpeEvols avTais),
I nuw 2 Kaurep exadouy
Blass
I2 movev
7 TMV KEVTUPLOV
For pydév it has been proposed to read pndevi, but the change is perhaps unnecessary.
4. ovpdéper yap, daclv, ypty k.7.A.] For the construction comp. Matt. v.29 cuppéper yap cot va drodnta év Tov peAGv gov Kal pt ddov TO cdpua BANO7 eis yéevvav. John xi. 50 cupdéper dpiv iva els GvOpwros drobavn.. kat py ddov To €Ovos amoAntat (cp. Xviil. 14). But Peter can hardly mean to charge the Jews with the impiety of regarding a violent death as a greater evil than the extreme displeasure of God. Pro- bably, as Harnack suggests, he for- gets that he has begun with cuppéper, and intends to say ‘to have incurred a grievous sin is enough, without being stoned besides’ (das Eine ist schon genug Strafe). For éumeceiv eis xetpas comp. Heb. x. 31, and for the fear expressed by the Jewish leaders, Acts v. 26, epoBodvro yap roy adv py ArLGacdaaur.
9. bpOpov 8 THs KupiaKis k.T.A.]
Q opOov | Maprap’ | Maydaduvn
3 Tw Kevrwpiov | pndev] pndevi Z. | a] dv
10 [yrs] PoB. R.
Luke xxiv. 1 77 d€ puad tov caBBdarav bpOpov Babéws emi rd pvijpa HAOay : 70. 22 yevopevat opOpival emt TO pynpeiov.
For r. kupraxys see note on p. 16, |. 5.
The form Maprdp is well supported in John xx. 16, 18 and is the reading of 8C in Matt. xxvill. 1. The N.T. has paéjrpia only in Acts ix. 36. In Coptic Gnostic literature (Pzstzs Sophia, Second Book of Fen), the padnrpiae correspond to the paén- Tai=anoorodo, and are headed by Mary Magdalene(Schmidt, Grostische Schriften, p. 452).
10. hoBoupévy...atrais] Thesentence is overweighted, and has fallen into grammatical confusion, I have fol- lowed Harnack’s example in the pro- visional use of brackets, which makes it possible to construe without emend- ing the text. For $déyeoOae vd ths opyis comp. pA. umd ris Pidore- pias, Dion. Chrys.i.p.158. The phrase is not in the N. T., but belongs to the literary style which Peter partly
22
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
= a \ > \ = AaBovoa pel éavtTns Tas pidas nrOe él TO pYnpeEtov os > , \ a ‘ 3.8 omouv nv Ttebeis. Kat Ep~oBovvto pn iswow avTas ol % - ae ? \ \ > 2 , ~*~ © / ec lovdaior, Kat éXeyov Ei Kal pn év éxeivy TH Tpepa 1 2 ¥ a wn \ ~ extavpwOn edunOnuev KAatoa Kal KovracOat, Kat voy \ col # n~ t a émi TOU puynparos avToU ToMmowpey TavTa. Tis O€5 ’ £ Con \ ‘ ¥ \ t > \ ~ amokuNice uiv Kal Tov AiBov tov TebevTa Emi THs , ae x of is ig Gupas Tov pwwnpelov, iva eioeNovoa rrapaxabec bwpev
ie \ , Yo o> ce f , \ > ‘ aUTW Kat TTOLYOWMEV TA ope: OMeva, preyas yap nV oO
Alos, Kal PoBovpefa py Tis jas in.
, > \ r K@L El PAY ouva-
\ * bia f / aA , peOa, kav ért ths Oupas Barwuev a Pepouer Eis pvnpo- / > lod , / af avynv avtov, KNavoouev Kal KoYoucOa Ews EAOwpeD Ets
\ y co TOV OlKOY nuwv.
4 kower9a: | kal] cay H., Z. (after Blass).
kai ko epeda R., H., Z.
adopts. In kal rots dyan. either kal or trois is superfluous. “Ayaw. may allude to Zech. xii. Io xéovra.. &s én adyannto. Tas didas: the Gospels mention Mapia 4 “laxkaBov, Saroun, *Iwava; and there were others who are not named (L., ai Aourai ody av- tais). In the Fourth Gospel Mary Magdalene seems to be alone. “Ozov Av rebels: comp. Luke xxiii. 55 éOed- cavto TO pynpetov, Kai os éréOn Td capa avrod. Peter stands alone in suggesting that fear had prevented the women from ministering at the tomb before the morning of Easter day; in the Synoptic Gospels they return from the Burial to keep the legal Sabbath-rest (Luke xxiii. 56), and after the Sabbath is over they are busy with preparations for their work (Mark xvi. 1, Luke xxiv. 1).
2. Kal époBotvro pi wow airds x.7.4.] This seems to be an inference from dpOpov Babéws—they came at break of day before sunrise, in order to escape observation; cf. zz/ra, |. 9. The canonical Gospels again are silent as to the motive of fear; the
\ > ome Gi \ , > Kat ameNGovaat evpov TOV Taoy ijvEew-
8 odiAopeva
II kAavowpev
12 evpov| gupov
early visit to the tomb which they report might have been prompted by eager devotion. For xAatoae kai xd- aoa comp. Luke viii. 52 ékAavov d¢ mavres kal €xdrrovro avTnv. Apoc. xviil. 9; tnfra, |. 11.
5. tls 8& drokvdtoe «.7.d.] Mark xvi. 3. tls dmoxvAloer nuiy tov ALOov ek ths OUpas Tov pyynpeior;
ElaeAOovoa. occurs in Mk. xvi. 5 (SACD). TapaxabecOdpev is perhaps suggested by Luke x. 39 mapaxa@io- Ociaa mpos tovs modas Tov Kupiov: comp. also John xx. 12 Oewpei dvo ‘yyéAous . . KabeCopevous . . drrov ExetTo TO copa. Méyas yap jv 6 dios: comp. Mk. xvi. 4 qv yap péyas oodpa.
9. Kal e pr Sivapeda K.7.r.] ‘If we cannot execute our mission within the tomb, we will bewail Him on the way home; we shall not be content with placing our offerings at the door.” “A dépopev=4 Hroipacay dpo- para (L.). For penpoovrn the LXX. and N. T. use prnudovvor (e.g. Matt. XXV1. 13).
12. edpov Tov tdpov yvewypévov k.t.A.] Luke xxiv. 2 edpov roy Nido
EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON 23
t i" fal / > load be ~ 2 ~ YMEvov" Kat mpoweNOovoa TapeKUY ay EKEL, Kal OPMOLY EKEL , t ‘ad -~ v © ~ J Tia veaviokov KkabeCouevoy werw TOV Tahou, weatov Kal tf b | s TA wv 96 meptBeBAnuévov oTOAHV AaUTpOTATHY, OOTIS edn auTais Ti at 6 “a , nn \ \ , . - 6 t wAOaTte; Tiva CyTEiTE; ay TOV oTaVpwHEYTA EKEIVOY; > 7 \ ae 2 \ \ y h
dverTn Kat amndOev: ci d€ un moTevETE, TapakUaTeE
\ / Lt ‘é ” at v4 Fy ig kal loaTe Tov Toro évOa ExeLTO, OTL OUK ETI: avEeTTN
\ \ id satel ad > / ~ yao Kai arnev éxet B0ev dreatadn. TOTE ai ryuvaixes
poBnbeioa epuryov. XII.
2 év perm H,, Z. 8 PoBnberepuyov
dmoxexudtcpévov. Matt. xxvii. 52 ra pynueia dvedxOnoav. Tlapéxvwap: John xx. II Mapia.. mwapéxuwev eis rd punwetoy: comp. I Pet. i. 12 ets 6 éeme-
Oupodow dyyedor mapakva. “Opaow ...Aaumporarny : Mark xvi. 5 eidov veavioxov KaOrjpevov . . mepiBeBAnpévov
aroAny Aaumpav.
4. Tl qdOare «.7.d.] Matt. xxvii. 5 ff. rov eoravpwpévov (nretre’ ovK gor dde* HyépOn yap . . Were rov rémov rou éxecro. Comp. with Peter’s version of the Angel’s words Ev. Nicod. i. (B) 13 ovk €orw ade dAAa dvéorn Kiware kal Were Tov Tadhov drov eketro TO TGpa avrov. The omission of dd in Peter finds a parallel in the S. Ger- main MS. ¢? (zon est, surrexit, Luke xxiv. 4). *Avéotn may have been (as Dr Taylor points out) suggested by Mark xvi. 9 (dvactas 8€ mpwt mpdtn caBBdarov earn mpotov Mapia Ty Maydadjvn). For mapaxiare see last note.
7. daadOev exet 0ev dreotddy| Mt., Mk., have mpodyeu dpas eis thy Tade- Aaiav’ ext avrov dpeoOe. Amn bev in Peter seems to look back either to avehnOn (c. v.) ; comp. Constitutions viii. 1 aveAnpOn mpos Tov amoareihavra avrov) ; or to the exit from the tomb described in c. ix. For arze- arddn see Matt. x. 4o, xv. 24, &c.,
3—4 avraore
7H Oe , € 4 al ? i \ vy 0€ TeAEVTAla Huepa TwY aCUUwY, Kal
5 meoreveTar 6 exe?
and esp. John xvi. 5, xx. 21. In Aphraates hom. 22 (cited by Prof. Robinson, Peer,p. 29 n.), ed. Wright,
p. vwA-x, a similar saying is as- cribed to the Angel at the tomb :
mi atmaw ~awln Sipa mi wor soil INL J hal. The words
are not in the Arabic Tatian or in Ephraim’s commentary, but may have stood, as has been suggested, in the original Diatessaron on which “the first 22 homilies [of Aphraates] are based” (J. R. Harris, Zatian, p. 19). Cf. Cyril. catech. xiii. 41 Tov amoora- hévra Kiptoy .. Tov amooTeiAavTa TaTépa Oeov.
ai yuvatkes boBnbetoar Xpuyov] Mark xvi. 8 épuyov dro tov pynpeiov.. é€poBovvro yap. Mt. represents the fear of the women as mixed with joy (wera PoBou kai xapas peyadys).
Q. jv St TeAevtala qpépa Tov dLipev] If Peter is following Jewish reckon- ing, he passes abruptly from Easter day to the Friday in Easter week (Nisan 21). M. Lods however sug- gests (p. 21) that Peter ‘has here transferred Christian ideas to the Jewish feast,and has called Easter-day
24 EYATTEAION KATA TIETPON
, ? , € / > \ ot TONAOL TLVES eEnpxXovTo, UTOG TpEPOVTES €ls TOUS ULKOUS
> _ a a , = ‘ , auTwv THs EopTHsS Tavoapuerns. nets Se of SwoeKa \ es , 2 , \ > , A Ma@ntal Tov Kupiov éKAalouer Kat éAuroumeba, Kal 4 Z wo ON ‘ \ > , > \ ékaoTos AuTroUmMEvos Oia TO GuUPay amnAAaYN Els TOV > > - \ 7 ‘ \ £ e oikov avrou. éyw de Ciuwv Tlétpos Kal ’Avopeas 6 , é © nal § I , > adeAgos pov AaBovtes yuwy Ta Awa adanOaper ets
> ae ‘ a , thy Oadracoav’ Kat jv ovv nut Aevers 6 Tov ‘AXpatou,
ov Kuptos * * *
2 mavoapivns
‘the last day of the feast of unlea- vened bread,’ because it was regarded as closing the Christian pascha. On the whole question see the Intro- duction, t. iv.
With reAevraia nuépa comp. John Vii. 37 ev O€ TH eayarn Nucpa TH weyady ths €éoptns. The return to their homes of the visitors who had attended the feast reminds us of Luke ii. 43, 44 TekelwoadvT@y Tas nuepas ev TO Umrootpéepery...ev TH cvvodia.
2. of Sa8exa padyral] Comp. John XX. 24 Oapas dé eis ek trav badexa. 1 Cor. xv. 5 &6y Knda eira rots dadexa. An exact parallel occurs in Pet. aoc. nueis of dddexa padnrat éder- Onuev (where, as Mr James points out, the time is probably subsequent to the Resurrection); see also Zahn, Acta Foannts, p. 32 pera ro dvacriva avrov épavn nuiv Tots Sadexa aroardAots avrov. Acta Thadd. 6 df6n.. Kai jpiv tots dddexa.
3. ékalopev kal eAvrotpeOa}] See supra, c. vii. With ro cvpBav comp. Luke xxiv. 14 dpidouy mpds ddAnAovus Tepl mavreav TOY ocupBeBnkoTwy TovTav: the word occurs also in 1 Pet. iv. 12, 2 Pet. ii. 22. AmnAAayn x.7.A. finds a parallel in the pericope de adult. which begins kal émopevOnoav éxagros eis Tov otkov avtod. The bond of co- hesion was gone since the Master’s departure.
7 Oar\A\accay
8 [6] Kupuos R., Z.
5. éyd 8 Dlpov [lérpos] Similarly in the Constitutions (e.g. ii. 46, iv. 7, Vv. 7, vi. 12, vii. 11), St Peter is the speaker when events in the Gospel history are related in which he took a part.
The narrative upon which Peter is about to enter is probably to be identified with that of John xxi. 1 ff.; the scene is here as there éeml ris Oadaoons Tis TiBepiddos. *Hoav opoi, St John begins, Siwy Meérpos kai Ow- pas..xai NaOavand .. kal of Tov ZeBe- Saiov kai addXou ek TaY padnrar avrov duo. Whether Peter proceeded to name Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, can be matter for conjec- ture only; it is possible, as has been suggested to me by Mr Wallis, that he means to identify Andrew and Levi with the dAdo dvo0 in St John. Andrew is mentioned also by Non- nus, but the name of Simon Peter’s brother may have occurred to him independently. Ta Aiva may be=ra Oixrva (Athenaeus 7, p. 284 B Aiva.. eumdea); if we are to understand ‘fishing lines,’ comp. Matt. xvii. 27 mopevdeis eis Oddacoav Bade ayKio- Tpov.
8. 8y Kipios] We may supply éxade- oev KaOnwevoy emt To TeAwMoy (Matt. ix. 9, Mark ii. 14), or, since Peter usually departs from the precise wording of the canonical Gospels, some equiva- lent phrase.
on
TRANSLATION.
I. But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod, nor any one of His judges; and since they did not choose to wash them, Pilate arose. And then Herod the king commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them, What things soever I commanded you to do unto Him, do ye.
II. Now there stood there Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord; and knowing that they were about to crucify Him, he came to Pilate, and begged the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and begged His body; and Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no man had begged Him, we should bury Him, inasmuch as the Sabbath draweth on; for it is written in the law that the sun set not on one that hath died by violence.
IIT. And he delivered Him to the people before the first day of unleavened bread, their feast. So they took the Lord and pushed Him as they ran, and said, Let us hale the Son of God, since we have gotten power over Him. And they clothed Him with purple, and set Him on a seat of judgement, saying, Judge righteously, O King of Israel. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord, and others stood and spat upon His eyes, and others smote His cheeks; others pierced Him with a reed, and some scourged Him saying, With this honour let us honour the Son of God.
IV. And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the Lord in the midst of them; but He held His peace, as in no wise suffering pain. And when they had set up the cross, they placed on it the superscription, This is the King of Israel. And they laid His garments before Him, and parted them, and cast lots upon them. But one of the male- factors upbraided them, saying, We have suffered thus for the ills that we wrought, but this man—what wrong hath He done you in that He became the Saviour of men? And they had indignation against him, and commanded that his legs should not be broken, to the end that he might die in torments.
26 TRANSLATION.
V. Now it was midday, and darkness overspread all Judea; and they were troubled and distressed lest the sun had set, inasmuch as He was yet alive ; it is written for them that the sun set not on one that hath died by violence. And one of them said, Give Him gall to drink with vinegar ; and they mixed and gave Him to drink. So they accom- plished all things, and filled up their sins upon their head. And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night; and some fell. And the Lord cried aloud, saying, My power, my power, thou hast left Me; and having said this He was taken up. And the same hour the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was torn in twain.
VI. And then they drew the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid Him upon the earth; and the whole earth was shaken, and great fear came upon them. Then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. But the Jews rejoiced, and they gave His body to Joseph to bury it, inasmuch as he beheld all the good things that He did. So he took the Lord and washed Him, and wrapped Him in linen and brought Him into his own tomb, called Joseph’s Garden.
VII. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, knowing what evil they had done to themselves, began to bewail and say, Woe to our sins! the judgement is at hand, and the end of Jerusalem. And I with my fellows was in sorrow, and being wounded at heart we hid ourselves, for we were sought for by them as malefactors and as minded to burn the temple; and besides all this, we were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.
VIII. But the Scribes and Pharisees and elders, being assembled together and hearing that the whole people murmured and beat their breasts, saying, If these exceeding great signs were wrought at His death, see how righteous He was—the elders were afraid and came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Deliver to us soldiers, that we may guard His sepulchre for three days, lest His disciples come and steal Him away, and the people suppose that He is risen from the dead, and do us mischief. So Pilate delivered unto them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb; and with them there came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone against the centurion and the soldiers, all who were there together placed it at the door of the sepulchre ; and they spread upon it seven seals, and pitched a tent there and kept guard. Now when it was morning, at the dawning of the Sabbath, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the country round about to see the sepulchre, how it had been sealed.
IX. Now on the night when the Lord’s Day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard by two and two in a watch, there was a great
TRANSLATION. 27
voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with much light and draw nigh unto the tomb. And the stone which had been cast at the door rolled away of itself and made way in part, and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. The soldiers, therefore, when they saw it, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they were also there keeping watch) ; and as they told the things that they had seen, again they see three men coming forth from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, and a cross following them; and the head of the two reached to heaven, but that of Him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou didst preach to them that sleep ; and a response was heard from the cross, Yea.
X. They took counsel therefore with one another to go and shew these things unto Pilate. And while they yet thought on this, the heavens again appeared to open, and a man descended and entered into the sepulchre. When they saw this, they of the centurion’s company hastened by night to Pilate, leaving the tomb which they were guarding, and told all that they had seen, greatly distressed and saying, Truly He was the Son of God. Pilate answered and said, I am clean from the blood of the Son of God, but this was your pleasure. Then they all came near and besought him, and entreated him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing as to the things which they had seen; for it is expedient for us (they said) to be guilty of a very great sin before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned. Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
XI. Now at dawn on the Lord’s Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord—afraid by reason of the Jews, forasmuch as they were inflamed with wrath, she had not done at the sepulchre of the Lord what women are wont to do for those who die and who are dear to them—took with her her female friends, and came to the sepulchre where He was laid. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and they said, Although we could not weep and bewail Him on the day when He was crucified, let us do so now at His sepulchre. But who shall roll us away the stone which was laid at the door of the sepulchre, that we may enter in and sit by Him, and do the things that are due? for the stone was great, and we fear lest any man see us. And if we cannot, even though we should cast at the door the things which we bring for a memorial of Him, we will weep and bewail Him until we come to our house. So they went and found the tomb open, and they came near and stooped down to look in there; and they see there
28 TRANSLATION.
a young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, fair and clothed with a robe exceeding bright, who said to them, Wherefore are ye come? whom seek ye? Him Who was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if ye believe not, stoop down and look in, and see the place where He lay, that He is not here; for He is risen and gone thither from whence He was sent. Then the women fled affrighted.
XII. Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many went out of the city returning to their houses, the feast being at an end. And we the twelve disciples of the Lord wept and were in sorrow, and every man withdrew to his house sorrowing for that which had come to pass. But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus whom the Lord * * =
I
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS USED IN THE FRAGMENT.
An asterisk is prefixed to words not used, or used only in another sense, by N.T. writers; a dagger to N.T. words which are not found in the Gospels; forms entirely new are denoted by uncial type. The list is not exhaustive; common words, with no special interest attaching to their use, have not been registered.
dyad, 11 GyavaKtelv, 7 dyardy, 21 dywviay, xlili, 8, 20 ddeddds, 2, 24
See oe
adie, 7
” ,
alupa, TA, 3, 23 aipa, 20
aireiv, 2
¥ ¥
axavévos, 4 dxoAovbetv, 18 dxovew, 14, 19
addy PGs, 20 ‘AAdgaios, 24
«7
dpdpryua, 9
¢ ;
dpaptia, 12
dva. bdo dvo, xlili, 16 diva. pécov, 5
ava Boay.
s Bae ne dvadapBavev, 10
> Z
Avépéas, 24
»
avOpwrros, 7) 20 ae
avnip, 17
dvuoravat, I, 14, 23 dvoryvivat, 17, 20, 22 drahracoer Oat, 24 droOvnoKev, 7, 21 drroxvAlew, 22 dmoomayv, II adrootedXvay, 23
*
apxecOar, 12 ad’ éavtod, 17 adievar, 20
Badrew, 7, 17, 22 Bacavitew, 7 Bacireds, 2, 4, 6 BovrcoOan, 1
ypadev, 3, 8
yh 11
ywooKew, 12 yoyyilew, 14 ypappareds, 14, 15 yy, 21, 23
Seto Oat, 14, 21 dtapepiler Oar, 6 *§tavoeicbat, 20 diavoua, 13 Siapyyvivet, 10 diddvat, TI dikauos, 14 duxacws, 4 Soxety, 21 Strat, 3, 8 dvvapus, 10 dwvacbat, 22 dwdexa, of, 24
30 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
eyyile, 13, 17 iordavat, 2, 5
eidevat, 2 Twond, 2, 11 eioayewv, 12
ciwfevar, 21 *xadapevewv, xllii, 20 *eidetv, 12 Kabédpa, 4
éxeivos, xlili, 7, 17, 20, 23 kabilew, 4, 13 éprimrev, 21 Kakos, 7, 12, 14 eurpnfew, 13 Kaxodpyos, 5, 7) 13 éumrTve, 5 Kadaos, 5
€vatos, II kadety, 12
évoupa, 6 KaTd, 9, 15, 16 evpavilerv, 20 kataNeimrewv, 10 eEnyeto Oat, 17, 20 KaTaméTacpa, 10 eEovota, 4 Karéxewv, 7 eguavilew, 17 KetoOat, 23
€0pTy, 3, 24 KeAevewv, 2, 7, 21 érel, 3 kevtupiwv, 15, 17, 20, 21 éretoyn, 8, II, 21 TKepavvivat, 9 emuypade, 6 Kepady, 5, 9, 18 eripuckev, 3, 16 KnTos, 12
émuxplev, 15 Knpvocev, 19 *émuywpetv, 17 kAalewv, 13, 22, 24 érta, 15 kAerrew, 14
ératpos, 13 Koparbar, 19 eipioxew, II korreoOat, 12, 14, 22
Kpivewv, 4 oyv, 8 Kpiots, 4, 13 Cnrety, 13, 23 KpLTys, I Kpvrreiv, 13
HAvos, 3, 8, 11 KuAdew, 15, 17
HAos, TI tkupiaky, 7, xlili, 16, 21 nvepa, 13, 14, 22, 23 KUpuos, 2, 3, 5) 9, II, 12, 21, 24
“Hpwoys, 1, 2 Aap Pave, 3, 12, 22, 24
Oaracoa, 24 Aaprev, 11 Oavaros, 14 Aapmpos, 23 Oamrew, 3, 11 dads, 3, 14, 21 i ’ ; : ae
Gedoba1, 11 *)\aypos, XXxiv, xlill, 6 Gere, 13 Aevels, 24 Oeds, 4, 5, 20, 21 AOalew, 21 GopuBcicba, 8 AiPos, 15, 17, 22 Opa, 15, 17, 22 *ivov, 24
Aove, 12 isos, 12 Avretobar, 13, 24 iepevs, 12 duxvos, 9 2. e Lepovoadnp, 10, 13, 16
; ,
*lovdaia, 8 pabyrtys, 14, 24 *Tovdatot, I, II, 12, 21, 22 tpabyrpia, xlili, 21
"Iopayr, 4, 6 Maprdp 4 Moydadyvy, 21
USED IN THE FRAGMENT.
tpaorilery, xlili, 5 TpeydAws, 20
péAXewv, 2
pépos, 17 tyeonpBpia, 7
pndev (‘in no wise’), 5 *uia tov advpov, xliil, 3 pvypa, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22 punpetov, 16, 22
*uvywoovvy, 22
vai, 19
vaos, 10, 13 veavioKos, 17, 23 vexpos, 14 vyorevetv, 13 virrecOat, I voile, 9
v6 pos, 6, 3
vv, 9, 13, 16, 20
viooey, 5
otkos, 22, 24 Opov, 15 dverdilewv, 7 ¥ o€os, 9 so épyn, 21 *6p0odv, 6 4 OpOpov, 21 oval, 12 ob8 eis...005€...000€, 1 odpavos, 17, 19, 20 Odeirey, 22 *éhAnoa, 21 dxXos, 16 *oweus, al, xllil, 5
Tapa, 17
mapadioovat, 3, 14, 15 mapaxabiler Oat, 22 TapakaXetv, 21 TapakvTrev, 23 rapaAapBavev, 2 TAT XELV, y
maver Oat, 24 TleAGros, I, 2, 14, 15, 20, 21 TEMTEWV, 2
mwevOetv, 13
mepiBarrev, 4, 23
trreptepxeoOan, 9 mepixwpos, 7, 16 Tlérpos, 24
*TIerpwvios, 15 myyvivat, 16 winrew (*erecauyny), 9 TLTTEVELY, 23 tAnpory, 9 modus, 9, 24
Tzovos, 6 moppupa, 4 mogov, 14 motile, 9 mpeo Bvtepos, 12, 14, 15, 17 mpos aAAndovs, 14 mpwias, 16
pamilev, 5
caBBarov, 3, 13, 16 oeiw, 11
onpetov, 14
oiayev, 5
Sipwv, 24
cwoduv, 12
owmrdy, 5 *ckeAOKOTIEIN, Xlill, 7 oKynvy, 16
oKOTOS, 7
omevoetv, 20 CTAYPICKEIN, Xlili, 2 oravpos, 6, 18, 19 oTavpow, 5, 22, 23 orépavos, 4
ornOos, 14
oTOAn, 23 oTpatwirys, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 oupBaivev, 24 cuupepev, 21 ovvayev, 14
ovpev, 4 ouvoKxér rec Oat, xliii, 20 oppayilew, 16 Todpayis, 15
owpa, 2, IT
TwTHP, 7
*
*,
, tapy, 2 tapos, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23
3? INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
TeAELOvY, pepe, 4, 5, 22
*reXevtatos, 23 pevyew, 23
Tédos, 13 diros, 2, 22
rubévat, 4, 6, 11, 15, 22 ¥préyev, xiii, 21
Tropy tyay, 5 poBcioOat, 14, 21, 22, 23 *rurpwokewv, xliii, 13 poBos, 11
TOTOS, 23 doveve, 3, 8
TOTe, I, II, 12, 23 *hpoupa, 16
TpEXELY, 4 _ pvddocety, 14, 15, 16, £7, 20
povy, 17, 19 e vlos, 4, 5, 20, 21
*Jraxoy, xlili, 19 xalpev, II € 4 , TbrepBaivew, 19 xetp, I, II, 21 trodapBavev, 14 tyepaywyetv, xlili, 19 *bropboby, xhii, 18 xXoAR, 9 umootpepe, 24 xwperv, 18 daiverbar, 20 *aOdV, 4 Papicatos, 14 apa, 10, II
peyyos, 17 wpatos, 23
(1.
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Acts, the, xlili, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7; 12,17
Acts of John, 5, 18, 19, 20, 24; of St Julian, xlvi; of Peter, ix; of Philip, 4, 17; of Thaddeus, 24
Adam, 18
Addai, Doctrine of, 12
Age of Akhmim MS., xlvi
Age of Petrine Gospel, xliv—v
Agrapha, absence of, xv, xxxvl
Akhmim fragment, Petrine cha- racter of, xii, xili
Anaphora Pilati, xxxvii, 9, 18
Anti-Judaic tendency, xxvi, xxxviii, XXXIX, I, 3, 4, I1 ff, 15, 20, 21
Aphraates, 23
Apocalypse of Peter, 1x, xlv, xlvi, 24
Aquila, xxxiv, 3, 5, 10
Aramaisms in the fragment, xlili
Ascension of [saiah, xxxvii, 18
Azazel, the, xxxiil
Bardaisan, 10
Barnabas, xxvill, Xxxll, xxxiil, 8 Basilides, xxxvi, xl
‘Brethren of the Lord,’ x
Carpocrates, xxxix
Cassianus, Julius, xlii, xliii, xlv
Cerinthus, xxxix
Charinus, Leucius, xlv
Chemmis, xlv
Circuits of the Apostles, Xxxvii
Circulation of Petrine Gospel, xi, XXXV
Codex Bezae, 15 ; Codex Bobien- sis, 18; Codex Colbertinus, 6,15;
S. P.
Codex Sangermanensis, 12, 23; Codex Monacensis, 10
Conflicts of the Apostles, 18, 19
Constitutions, the Apostolical, xxx, I, 3, 5, 8, 13, 23, 24
Cross, the, xl, 18
Crucifixion, 6, 7, 11; day of the, XXV, 3
Crurifragium, 7
Curetonian Syriac, xix, xxii, xlv, 6, I2
Cyril of Alexandria, 8
Cyril of Jerusalem, xxxi ff., xxxivff., xliv, 6, 8, 10, II, 12, 13, 23
Descent into Hades, the, 19
Diatessaron of Tatian, xx—xxv, Xv; 2). 35°53, 8) Te; 205 23
Didascalia, xxx, 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 16
Docetae, xi, xxxviil, xxxix, xh, xlii
Docetic tendency, xxxvii ff., 5, 10, 18, 21
Easter, xxvi, 23
LElkesai, Book of, 19
Encratism, xxxvi, xii
Ephraim, xxi, xxiii, 11, 12, 13, 20 Epiphanius, 3, 4
Eusebius, ix, xliv, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12
Fasting, xxv, 13
Gelasian decree on apocrypha, xii
Glaucias, xl
Gospel of Matthias, xxxvi; of Ni- codemus, xxxvil, I, 2, 3, 5, 8, II, 16, 18, 23; of Philip, xxxvi; of the Twelve, xliv
34 INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Harmonising tendency, xxiv, xxxvi Hermas, 19
Hexameter, ending of, 17
Hymns, traces of Gnostic, xv, 9, 19
Ignatius, Epistles of St, xxxviti ff. Irenaeus, xxxix ff., 10
Jerome, ix, xliv, ro
Jett, Second Book of, 2%
Joseph’s Garden, 12, 16
Josephus, 3, 15
Julius Cassianus, xhi, xlili, xlv
Justin Martyr, xxix, xxxiil, xxxiv, 4, 6, II
Literature of the fragment, xlvii, xlviil
Longinus, 15
Lord’s Day, the, xlili, 16
Manichees, xii
Marcianus, x1
Marcion, x1, xxxvi, xlv
Mary Magdalene, 21, 22
Memoirs of Peter, xxxiil
MS., discovery of the Akhmim, xlv ; contents, xlv, xlvi; palaeo- graphy, xlvi; condition, xlvii
Naassenes, xlii Nazarenes, xii Nestorius, xliv Nonnus, xxxiv, xxxv, 7, 8
Old Testament, allusions to in the fragment, Xv, XXVi, XXVli, I, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, II, 12, 13, 15, 22
Ophites, xxxix
Opplus, 15
Origen, x, xi, xxx ff., xxxiv, xliv, 6, 7, 8; 10
Palaeography of the Akhmim MS., xlvi, xlvii
Panopolis, xlv
Passion-history of the fragment : its relative length, xiil; new in- cidents, xiii, xiv; omissions, xv, xvi; materials common to canonical Gospels, xvii, xvill; verbal coincidences with the Gospels, xviii, xix, xx; relation to a harmony, xx ff.
Person, the first, used in narrative, xliv
Peshitto, 2
Petronius, 15
Philo, 3
Photius, 18
Pilate, 1, 2, 20
Pistis Sophia, 21
Preaching of Peter, ix
Purpose of the Petrine Gospel, XXXV1
Rare words in the fragment, xliti Rhosus, x, x1, xliv
Sabbath, xxv, 2, 14, 22
Septuagint, xxviii, 9
Serapion, x, xi, xxxvii, xlill
Sibylline Oracles, xxix, xxxlll, 5, 8, 9, 18
Symmachus, xxxiv, 3, 7, 18, 20
Syria the birthplace of the Petrine Gospel, xxxv, xliv
Tatian, xlii; see Déatessaron Tertullian, 5 Theodoret, xj, xliv
Unleavened Bread, the first day of, xxv, 3; the last day, xxvi, 23
Valentinus, xxxvi, xl, xh, 18
CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Messrs MACMILLAN AND CO.’S PUBLICATIONS.
BY THE LATE BISHOP LIGHTFOOT. ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A
Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo. 12s.
ST PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A
Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. 8vo. 12s.
ST PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO PAILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. 8vo. 12s.
DISSERTATIONS ON THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Re- printed from the editions of St Paul’s Epistles. 8vo., cloth. 14s.
BIBLICAL MISCELLANIES. 8vo. [Nearly ready.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part I. ST CLEMENT OF ROME. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 2 vols., 8vo. 325.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part. STIGNATIUS TO POLYCARP. Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Disserta- tions, and Translations. 2nd Edition. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 48s.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. Com- prising the Epistles (genuine and spurious) of Clement of Rome, the Epistle of St Ignatius, the Epistle of St Polycarp, the Martyrdom of St Polycarp, the Teaching of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Fragments of Papias, the Reliques of the Elders preserved in Irenzus. Revised Texts, with short introductions and English translations. Edited and completed by J. R. HaRMER, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, sometime Chaplain to the Bishop. 8vo. 16s.
ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED “SUPER- NATURAL RELIGION.” 8vo. tos. 6a.
BY BISHOP WESTCOTT.
THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes. Third Edition. 12s. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes and Essays. Second Edition. 14s.
CLASSICAL REVIEW.—‘‘lIt would be difficult to find in the whole range of exegetical literature a volume at the same time so comprehensive and so compact. It will command the permanent attention of scholars.”
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
Messrs MACMILLAN AND CO.’S PUBLICATIONS.
BY PROFESSOR J. B. MAYOR.
THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES. The Greek Text, with Introduction, Notes and Comments. By JosEPH B. Mayor, M.A., Camb. ; Litt.D., Dublin; Emeritus Professor of King’s College, London: and sometime Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. 8vo. 145.
EXPOSITORY 7I1MES.—‘* The most complete edition of St James in the English language, and the most serviceable for the student of the Greek.”
ATHENZUM.— This is the best work on the Epistle of St James that has appeared in English: it displays everywhere adequate scholarship, careful con- sideration of all that has been written on the subject.”
BOOKMAN.—The notes are uniformly characterized by thorough scholarship and unfailing sense. The notes resemble rather those of Lightfoot than those of Ellicott....It is a pleasure to welcome a book which does credit to English learning, and which will take, and keep, a foremost place in Biblical literature.”
SCOTSMAN.—‘‘It is a work which sums up many others, and to any one who wishes to make a thorough study of the Epistle of St James it will prove indis- pensable.”
EXPOSITOR (Dr Marcus Dops).—‘‘ Will long remain the commentary on St James, a storehouse to which all subsequent students of the epistle must be indebted.”
BY THE LATE PROFESSOR HORT. LECTURES ON JUDAISTIC CHRISTIANITY.
Crown 8vo. [Ju the Press.
BY DEAN VAUGHAN, D.D.
ST PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. The Greek Text, with English Notes. By the Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D., Dean of Llandaff and Master of the Temple. 7th Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d,
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. With Notes. By
the same. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
BY REV. FREDERIC RENDALL, M.A.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS IN GREEK AND ENGLISH, With Notes. By REv. FREDERIC RENDALL. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. English Text,
with Commentary. By the same. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
BY BISHOP WESTCOTT AND PROFESSOR HORT.
GREEK TESTAMENT. Edited, with Introduction and Appendices, by Bishop Wesrcotr and Dr F. J. A. Hort. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. tos. 6d. each. Vol. I.—THE TEXT. Vol. Il.—INTRO- DUCTION and APPENDIX. An Edition of the Text, with Additions for Schools. Cloth, 45. 6d¢.; Roan, 5s. 6d.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
PHASED DETERIORATION
CONSERVATION 1994
ts ae eee eee
EEE EOE es ser
Cae
4
Pa a ad A aa ete
£4¢
OI
we
pa : ae S Bees
ae
; d EEE SLL hee, OEE, 7 ed os
aie “ae aia ane ete WISNER B OY Pah *
at
fees
, ee,
zy ee
eas
4 aaa ee
mm
wagertearegegee car ptr
35 - rhe? fe Ph tee? 4 arte hg a * a isfetehidst 4 Beesis s ; satiate sists : 4 : TCs ea eis 2 us ; ; 4 ; ‘ ? ‘ Rauatenad: 5 aha at he te CEES
or Saavdese : : 5 ‘ Der bi ia etetpee rer . ‘ z pe 2 fate
; Bains
eae bi i ; : ass Chore Scart
r ‘ ; tate act lated ais
ewe Mae serels