Lods, De Evang. secundum
Petrum, 1892, pp. 8 ff.; Harnack, Bruchstücke d. Evang.
u.s.w. des Petrus, zweite Aufl. 1893, p. 41; Zahn,
Das Ev.
des Petrus, 1893, pp. 5 f., 70 ff.; Kunze,
Das neu
aufgef. Bruchstück des sogen. Petrusev. 1893, pp. 10
f.; Swete, The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocr. Gospel of
St. Peter, 1893, pp. xii f., xliv f.; Hilgenfeld,
Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1893, ii. Heft. pp. 221 f., 239 ff.; J.
Armitage Robinson, B.D., The Gospel according to Peter,
&c., 1892, pp. 15 ff.; Martineau, The Nineteenth
Century, 1893, pp. 906 ff.; J. R. Harris,
Contemp. Rev. August 1893, p.
236; van Manen, Theol. Tijdschr. Juli 1893, p.
385.
Zahn, Gesch. des N. T.
Kanons, ii. 742 f.; Lods, l.c.
pp. 14 ff. Zahn, however, admits that Theodoret's statement may at
least be taken as testimony that the Gospel was in use amongst a
sectarian community in Syria. Das Ev. d. Petrus, pp. 70
f.
Harnack, l.c.
pp. 40 ff.; Zahn, l.c. pp. 57 ff.; J. O. F.
Murray, The Expositor, January 1893, pp.
55 ff.; Kunze, l.c. pp. 35 ff.; Hilgenfeld,
l.c. pp. 242 ff.; Bernard,
Academy, December 1892,
September 30, 1893; Swete, l.c. p. xxxi.
The detailed statement of the case may
be found in Supernatural Religion, complete
ed. 1879, i. 283 ff. Hort (Journal of Philology, iii. 155
ff.) places it as early as a.d. 148.
The word used in the Gospel is σύρω,
to drag along, but Justin's word is merely the same verb with the
addition of δια, διασύρω, to worry, or harass with abuse. Although
the English equivalent is thus changed, and conceals the analogy of
the two passages, the addition of δια, strictly considered, cannot
so change the meaning of σύρω, but rather should imply a
continuance of the same action. This is also Dr. Martineau's
view.
This passage has been discussed at
some length by Dr. Martineau (Nineteenth Century, October
1893, pp. 647 ff.), in controversy with Mr. T. Rendel Harris
(Contemp.
Rev. August 1893, pp. 234 ff.), as it has frequently
before been. Dr. Martineau seems to be in the right upon all points
in connection with it.
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss.
Theol. 1893, pp. 249 ff.; cf. Lods, De Evang. sec.
Petrum, pp. 12 f.; Harnack, l.c.
pp. 38 f., 63 f.; Martineau, Nineteenth Century, October
1893, pp. 650 f.; cf. Swete, l.c. p. xxxiv.
Swete, l.c. p.
xxxiv. Mr. Rendel Harris says: “I regard it
as certain that the reading λαχμὸς implies connection between
Justin and Peter, either directly or through a third source
accessible to both.”Contemp. Rev. August 1893, p.
231.
Dial. ciii. There is another
passage in Dial. cxxv., which may be
compared: Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ καὶ ναρκᾶν ἔμελλε, τουτέστιν ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν
ἀντιλήψει τοῦ πάθους, ὅτε σταυροῦσθαι ἔμελλεν, ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ
ἡμέτερος, κ.τ.λ.
Mr. Murray, for instance, quotes a
passage from Origen, using a similar expression to that in our
fragment, that Jesus was silent as suffering no pain, with a
comment which shows that he did not suspect a Docetic
interpretation. Expositor, January 1893, pp. 55
f.
Harnack, l.c.
pp. 38 ff.; Lods, l.c. pp. 12 f.; Hilgenfeld,
Zeitschr.
wiss. Theol. 1893, pp. 221, 241, 267; van Manen,
Theol.
Tijdschrift, 1893, pp. 385 f., 551 ff.; Martineau,
Nineteenth Century, June 1893,
p. 910, October, pp. 643 f.; cf. J. Rendel Harris, Contemp.
Rev. August 1893, pp. 227 ff., 231.
Mr. Murray points out that Origen
likewise regards the “gall” as
baleful, as he likewise represents with our fragment the breaking
of the limbs as an act of mercy (Expositor, January 1892, pp. 56
f.). Hilgenfeld is quite convinced that the Epistle derives the
passage from Peter (Zeitschr. 1893, ii. 255
f.).
Harnack finds it almost certain that
the Didache made use of this Gospel
(l.c. pp. 58 f., 80); so also van
Manen (Theol. Tijdschr. September 1893,
pp. 353 f.) and others.
Ib. p. 76. It should be stated
that the Syriac version of Cureton to Luke xxiii. 48 gives nearly
this sentence, and that the old Latin Codex of St. Germain reads:
“dicentes: Vae nobis, quae facta sunt hodie
propter peccata nostra; appropinquavit enim desolatio
Hierusalem.” Mr. Harris of course refers to these passages.
Harnack considers that this passage is derived from our Gospel
according to Peter (l.c. p. 57).
L.c. p. 81. It may be well to
give the passage now in Moesinger's work: “ ‘Vae fuit, vae fuit
nobis, Filius Dei erat hic.’ Quum autem eis
sol naturalis defecisset, tunc per istas tenebras eis lucidum
fiebat, excidium urbis suae advenisse: ‘venerunt, ait, judicia dirutionis
Jerosolymorum.’ Quia itaque haec urbs non recepit eum qui
eam aedificaverat, restabat ei ut ruinam suam videret.”Evang.
Concord. Expositio, 1876, pp. 245 f.
L.c. pp. 83 f. Cf. Zahn,
l.c. p. 65. Zahn considers it in
the highest degree improbable that this was taken by Tatian from
Peter, but the improbability is by no means made out.
Lods (before a.d. 150), Ev. sec.
Petrum, 1893, pp. 26 f.; Robinson (before
a.d. 160), The Gospel according
to Peter, &c., 1892, p. 32; Harnack (beginning of
second century), l.c. p. 80; Zahn (a.d. 140-145),
Das Ev.
des Petrus, 1893, p. 75; Kunze (about a.d. 170), Das neu aufgefund.
Bruchstück des sogen. Petrusev. 1893, p. 47;
Hilgenfeld (end of first century), Zeitschr. 1893, pp. 266 f.;
Swete (a.d. 150-165),
The
Akhmîm Fragment, 1893, p. xlv; von Schubert (soon
after middle of second century), Die Comp. des
Pseudopetr. Ev. Fragments, 1893, p. 195; W. C. van
Manen (older, rather than later, than our Gospels), Theol. Tijdschr. 5de
Stuk, 1893, pp. 565 ff.; Martineau (a.d. 130), Nineteenth
Century, June 1893, p. 925, September, p. 633; J.
Rendel Harris (no objection to a.d.
130), Contemp. Rev. August 1893, p.
236.
Hilgenfeld conjectures that this
abrupt mention of Joseph indicates that he must already have been
mentioned in the Gospel of Peter. Zeitschr. 1893, 11. Heft, pp.
244 f.
Zahn, of course, argues that the
commands of Herod can only have been given to the previously named
Jews, the judges of Jesus, “and perhaps to
their servants” (und etwa deren
Diener), and he finds fault with Harnack for here
bringing in “soldiers” from the
canonical Gospels, without warrant from the text. He declares them
to be directly excluded by the leading tendency of the Gospel of
Peter (l.c. p. 27). This supposed
“leading tendency,” of hatred of the
Jews, is a good deal exaggerated.
Van Manen conjectures that the author
got this “King of Israel” from the
independent use of some Hebrew or Aramaic source. Tijdschr. Juli 1893, p.
408.
So, for instance, Swete, J. Rendel
Harris, Robinson, and others. Others distinctly identify the αὐτῷ
with the malefactor: as, for instance, Kunze, l.c. p.
22; Von Schubert, l.c. pp. 28 f.; cf. Lods,
l.c. p. 21.
In the apocryphal work called
Anaphora
Pilati, an account of the crucifixion supposed to be
sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius, Pilate is represented as
describing the darkness which comes over the whole earth, and
saying that the Emperor could not be ignorant “that in all the world they lighted lamps from the
sixth hour until evening” (ὅτι ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἧψαν
λύχνους ἀπὸ ἕκτης ὥρας ἕως ὀψίας). Anaphora
Pilati, B. 7; Tischendorf, Evang.
Apocr. 1853, p. 423.
With regard to this addition of Luke,
we may refer to a very interesting letter of Dr. Abbott's in the
Spectator of October 21, 1893,
from which we take the liberty of extracting the following passage:
“In Luke (xxiii. 45) the correct reading is
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος, of which the natural interpretation is,
the sun
being eclipsed. Now, as it was well known that an
eclipse could only happen at new moon, and as Passover was at
full moon, this would involve a
portentous miracle. The probability is that Luke, who was by no
means afraid of miracles, meant a miracle here. Not content with
saying (with the Synoptics) ‘darkness came
over all the land,’ he adds, in order to show that the
darkness was miraculous, ‘the sun
being
eclipsed.’ But is this eclipse ‘an invention of a conscious or unconscious
romancer’? An examination of the parallel passages in Mark
and Matthew will show that it is not. There we find that Jesus
uttered a cry to God as abandoning Him. These words caused
difficulty from the first. The words ‘my
God’ were rendered by some (e.g.
the Gospel of Peter) ‘my Power;’ by
the fourth Gospel the words were omitted; our oldest manuscripts
exhibit many variations: ἠλι, ἠλει, ἐλωι; the very bystanders are
said to have interpreted the words as referring to Elias failing to
help. Now ‘Elias failing to
help’ might be, in Greek, ἡλείου ἐκλειπόντος, or
quite as often ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος, i.e.the sun
being eclipsed. It seems extremely probable, then, that
Luke is not here ‘inventing’ a miracle, but
suggesting, or adopting, an edifying and miraculous interpretation
of what seemed to him a non-edifying tradition” (pp. 546
f.).
It will be remembered that the same
accusation is brought against Stephen in Acts. The mockery of the
passers-by (Matt. xxvii. 40), “Thou that
destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save
thyself,” is also in the same vein.
Cf. Justin, Apol.
i. 55: Dial. lxxxvi. xci.; Irenaeus,
C.
Haer. ii. 24, 4; v. 17, 3 f. In the Ev.
Nicod. ii. (Lat. B), in which the descent is fully
treated, Jesus Christ is begged to make the sign of the cross:
“Et factum est ita, posuitque dominus
crucem suam in medio inferni, quae est signum victoriae et usque in
aeternum permanebit” (Evang. Nicodemi, Pars ii. Latine
B. cap. x. (xxvi.); Tischendorf, Evang.
Apocr. 1853, p. 409; Ep.
Barn. c. 12; Greg. Nyss. Adv.
Jud. c. 7).
Harnack, l.c.
pp. 68 f.; Lods, l.c. p. 48, although with a ?;
Zahn, l.c. pp. 22 f.; Robinson,
l.c. pp. 24 f.; Swete,
l.c. pp. xiv. 19. (Dr. Swete
considers any reference to 1 Pet. iii. 19 improbable.) J. Rendel
Harris, l.c. pp. 51 f., 89; von
Schubert, l.c. pp. 101 f.; cf. van Manen,
l.c. pp. 522 f.; Martineau,
l.c. pp. 917 f.
In the passage 1 Cor. xi. 23 mention
is made of a betrayal: “in the night in
which he was betrayed,” but without further detail, and it
is quite consistent to suppose that the “betrayal” is not attributed to one of the
Twelve. However, there is considerable reason for believing that
this passage is an interpolation. It is a fact that a betrayal is
not alluded to in any other place where we might expect to find it
in these Epistles; e.g. Rom. iv. 25; viii. 32; Gal.
ii. 20.
Harnack argues at considerable length
that the Gospel according to Peter must have contained the episode
of the woman taken in adultery, inserted into the fourth
Gospel.
This is not expressed in the text,
which Mr. Harris rather strains for his purpose. The correct
reading is: “We were fasting, and we sat
mourning and weeping,” καὶ ἐκαθεζόμεθα πενθοῦντες καὶ
κλαίοντες.