Euangélion kata Pétron. The Akhmîm fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter

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 - ‘
eێrewev 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 8ێ 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 Sێ 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 ێoptns. 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