The three Synoptics have an account of this darkness in words which nearly repeat each other. Matthew xxvii. 45: “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour.” Mark (xv. 33): “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth (ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour.” In Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) other details are, as usual, added: “And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole earth (ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν) until the ninth hour, the sun failing [or rather ‘being eclipsed,’ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος].”94 It is a very extraordinary circumstance that, whether a miraculous eclipse or not, whether this darkness came over the whole land or the whole earth, the fourth Gospel has either not believed in it, or thought it unworthy of mention, for no reference to the astonishing phenomenon is found in it. Peter, in a [pg 070] manner quite different from the Synoptics, and in fuller detail, describes this darkness and its effect upon the people. For the second time, he refers to a portion of the Jewish law, interpreted from Deut. xxi. 23, to illustrate the anxiety which the supposed going down of the sun had excited. This expression does not favour any theory of his being acquainted with the third Synoptic.
The most important part of the passage is that in v. 16: “And one of them said: ‘Give him to drink gall with vinegar;’ and having mixed they gave him to drink.” This proceeding is represented as the result of their anxiety at the sun going down whilst Jesus still lived, and the gall and vinegar are regarded as a potion to hasten death. This view is foreign to all of our Gospels. In Matthew xxvii. 48, when Jesus gives the loud cry, “My God, my God,” &c., we read: “And straightway one of them ran and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.” In Mark (xv. 36) the representation is almost the same. In both of these cases death follows almost immediately. In Luke (xxiii. 36) a very different representation is made. There is no such cry connected with it, but it is simply said: “And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself.” In John the episode has quite another, and purely dogmatic, tendency (xix. 28 ff.). It commences immediately after the episode of the mother and the beloved disciple, and without any previous cry: “After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of vinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon [pg 071] hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” Of course the Scripture which is represented as being thus fulfilled is Psalm lxix. 21: “... and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” In all of these Gospels, the potion is simply vinegar, and being evidently associated with this Psalm, it is in no way connected with any baleful intention. The Psalm, however, commences: “They gave me also gall for my meat,” and in connection with the combination of gall with vinegar in Peter, as a potion to hasten death, it may be mentioned that the word which is in the Psalm translated “gall” may equally well be rendered “poison”—as, indeed, is also the case with the Latin “fel.” Peter, by what is said in v. 17—“And they fulfilled all things, and completed their sins upon their own head”—is more anxious to show that the Jews had put the final touch to their cruel work, in thus completing the death of Jesus, than to refer to the mere fulfilment of the Psalm. The only Gospel which mentions gall is the first Synoptic, in which it is said (xxvii. 34) that when they had brought Jesus to Golgotha before the crucifixion, “They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall; and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.” This is a very different representation from that of Peter, and the potion was obviously that often offered to persons about to suffer, in order to dull sensation. The passage might almost be represented as Docetic, from the writer's intention to show that Jesus refused to adopt a usual method of diminishing pain. There does not seem to be any warrant for supposing that the author of the fragment derived the passage we are examining from our Gospels, from which it is in all essential points distinct.
[pg 072]The narrative of the fragment continues, v. 19: “And the Lord cried aloud, saying, ‘Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me!’ (ἡ δύναμίς μου, ἡ δύναμις, κατέλειψάς με), and having spoken, he was taken up (ἀνελήφθη).” In this passage there is a very marked departure from the tradition followed by our four Gospels. Before considering the actual words of the cry recorded here, it may be desirable to form a general idea of the representations of the Synoptists and of the author of the fourth Gospel regarding the words spoken from the cross.
It might naturally have been supposed that, in describing the course of so solemn an event as the crucifixion, unusual care, securing unusual agreement, would have been exercised by Christian writers, and that the main facts—and still more the last words—of the great Master would have been collected. As we have already seen, however, in no portion of the history is there greater discrepancy in the accounts in the four Gospels, nor greater contradictions upon every point.
The same is the case with regard to what has still to be examined, and notably in the words and cries from the cross. In the first two Synoptics, with the exception of the inarticulate cry “with a loud voice” (Matt. xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37) when yielding up his spirit, the only utterance recorded is one resembling that in Peter (Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34): “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”95 (ἠλωί ἠλωί λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί? τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν; θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες?). It will be observed that here there is a demonstration of great accuracy, in actually giving the original words used and translating them, which is uncommon in the Gospels. It is all the more extraordinary that neither of the other Gospels gives this [pg 073] cry at all, but that they represent Jesus as uttering quite different words. The third Synoptist represents Jesus immediately after the crucifixion as saying (Luke xxiii. 34): “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” The other evangelists do not evince any knowledge of this, and as little of the episode of the penitent thief (xxiii. 39 ff.)—which we have already considered—in which Jesus uses the remarkable words (v. 43): “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” In Luke, further, the inarticulate cry is interpreted (xxiii. 46): “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said this, he gave up the ghost.” Of this the other Synoptists do not say anything. The author of the fourth Gospel has quite a different account to give from any of the Synoptists. He seems to be ignorant of the words which they report, and substitutes others of which they seem to know nothing. The episode of the penitent thief is replaced by the scene between Jesus and his mother and the disciple “whom he loved” (xix. 25 ff.). Not only is this touching episode apparently unknown to the Synoptists, but the proximity of the women to the cross is in direct contradiction to what we find in Matthew and Mark, for in the former (xxvii. 55 f.) it is said that many women, “among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” were “beholding afar off;” and the latter (xv. 40 f.) reports: “And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.” In the fourth Gospel (xix. 28), Jesus is moreover reported to have said “I thirst,” in order “that the Scripture might be accomplished”—a fact which is not recorded in any of the Synoptics—and [pg 074] having received vinegar upon hyssop, “he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” The last words of Jesus, therefore, according to the fourth Gospel, are different from any found in the three Synoptics. The Gospel of Peter differs as completely from the four canonical Gospels as they do from each other, and the whole account of the agony on the cross given in it is quite independent of them.
The only words recorded by Peter as uttered on the cross are those quoted higher up: “Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,” the second “my” being omitted, and the question of the two Synoptics, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” being changed into a declaration by the omission of ἵνα τί (or εἰς τί, Mark). We have already discussed the Docetic nature of this cry, and are now only considering it in relation to our Gospels. It is obvious that the substitution of “Power, my Power” for “My God, my God” introduces quite a different order of ideas, especially followed as it is by the remarkable statement: “He was taken up.” Eusebius tells us that Aquila rendered the words of Psalm xxii. 1—whence the first two Synoptists take their cry—as ἰσχυρέ μου, ἰσχυρέ μου (“My strong one, my strong one”), but that the more exact sense was ἰσχύσ μου, ἰσχύς μου (“My strength, my strength”);96 but though this is interesting as in some degree connecting the cry with the Psalm, it does not lessen the discrepancy between Peter and the Gospels, or in the least degree favour the theory of acquaintance with them.
The expression used to describe what follows this cry completes the wide separation between them: “And having spoken, he was taken up” (ἀνελήφθη). In the first Synoptic, after his cry (xxvii. 50), “he yielded up the spirit” (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα), whilst the second [pg 075] and third say (Mark xv. 37, Luke xxiii. 46), “he gave up the ghost” ἐξέπνευσεν, and the fourth Gospel reads (xix. 30), “he delivered up the spirit” (παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα). The representation in Peter is understood to be that the divine descended upon the human Christ in the form of the dove at baptism, and immediately ascended to Heaven again at his death. There is not here, however, any declaration of a double Christ, or any denial of the reality of the Christ's body, such as characterised the later Docetae; indeed, the fact that the dead body is still always spoken of as that of “the Lord” seems distinctly to exclude this, as does the whole subsequent narrative. Whatever Docetism there may be in this fragment is of the earliest type, if indeed its doctrines can be clearly traced at all; but undoubtedly when the sect had become pronounced heretics, orthodox Christians detected their subtle influence in much that was in itself very simple and harmless.
The fragment continues (v. 20): “And the same hour the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem was torn in twain” (διεράγη τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς δύο). This expression the “temple of Jerusalem” is one of those which seem to indicate that the Gospel was written away from Palestine, but in this it probably differs little from most of the canonical Gospels. The statement regarding the veil of the temple is almost the same in the first two Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38). “And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο). In Luke (xxiii. 45) the rent is “in the midst” (μέσον), but otherwise the words are the same. The use of διεράγη instead of the ἐσχίσθη of the three Synoptics is characteristic. The fourth Gospel, strange to say, does not record at all this extraordinary phenomenon of the rending in [pg 076] twain of the veil of the temple. There are some further peculiarities which must be pointed out. The third Synoptist sets the rending of the veil before Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost; whilst in Matthew and Mark it is after the cry and giving up the spirit. Moreover, in Matthew, it is associated with an earthquake, and the rending of the rocks and opening of tombs, and the astounding circumstance that many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many: of all of which the other three Gospels make no mention, nor does Peter in this connection.
The narrative in the fragment continues:
This passage is full of independent peculiarities. Although none of the canonical Gospels, except Matthew, says anything of an earthquake, and the first Synoptist associates it with the moment when Jesus “gave up the ghost,” Peter narrates that when the body of the Lord was unloosed from the cross, the moment it was laid on the ground the whole earth quaked beneath the awful burden: a representation almost grander than anything in the four Gospels.
The canonical Gospels do not speak of the nails being [pg 077] taken out, and although Peter states that they were removed from the hands, he does not refer to the feet. The fourth is the only canonical Gospel that speaks of the nails at all, and there it is not in connection with the crucifixion, but the subsequent appearance to the disciples and the incredulity of Thomas (xx. 20, 25, 27). Here also, only the marks in the hands are referred to. The difference of the two representations is so great that there can really be no question of dependence, and those who are so eager to claim the use of the fourth Gospel simply because it is the only one that speaks of “nails” (“the print of the nails”) might perhaps consider that the idea of crucifixion and the cross might well be independently associated with a reference to the nails by which the victim was generally attached. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 39), the inference is inevitable that both hands and feet were supposed to be nailed. When the report, “The Lord is risen,” is brought to the eleven, Jesus is represented as standing in their midst and assuring them that he was not a spirit, by saying: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself”—meaning of course the prints of the nails in both. The statement in Peter that on the occurrence of the earthquake “great fear came [upon them]” (φόβος μέγας ἐγένετο) is not even mentioned in Matthew when he narrates the earthquake, which he represents as occurring when Jesus expired. The expression is characteristic of the author, who uses it elsewhere.
The representation that the sun shone out and that the Jews were glad when they found it was the ninth hour, and that consequently their law, twice quoted by the author, would not be broken, is limited to the fragment; as is also the statement that they gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, “for he had beheld the good works that he did.” As we have already seen, [pg 078] the canonical Gospels represent Joseph as going to Pilate at this time and begging for the body of Jesus, and it will be remembered that, in Mark (xv. 44), it is said that “Pilate marvelled if he were already dead,” and called the centurion to ascertain the fact before he granted the body. In Peter, the body was of course given in consequence of the previous order, when Pilate asked Herod for it.
Joseph is represented, here, as only washing the body and wrapping it in linen (λαβὼν δὲ τὸν κύριον ἔλουσε καὶ εἴλησε σινδόνι). The first Synoptist (xxvii. 59) says that Joseph took the body and “wrapped it in a clean linen cloth” (ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι καθαρᾷ). Mark similarly describes that (xv. 46), bringing “a linen cloth and taking him down, he wound him in the linen cloth” (καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι). The third Synoptist has nearly the same statement and words. The fourth Gospel has a much more elaborate account to give (xix. 38 ff.). Joseph goes to Pilate asking that he may take away the body, and Pilate gives him leave. He comes and takes away the body. “And there came also Nicodemus ... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes (καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις) with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.” This account is quite different from that in the Synoptics, and equally so from Peter's, which approximates much more nearly to that in the latter.
Peter says that Joseph then “brought him into his own grave, called ‘Joseph's Garden’ ” (εἰσήγαγεν εἰς ἴδιον τάφον καλούμενον Κῆπον Ἰωσήφ). The account of the tomb is much more minute in the canonical Gospels. In Matthew (xxvii. 60), Joseph is said to lay the body “in his own new tomb (μνημείῳ), which he had hewn out [pg 079] in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb (μνημείου) and departed.” In Mark (xv. 46), he lays him “in a tomb (μνήματι) which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (μνημείου). Luke has a new detail to chronicle (xxiii. 53): Joseph lays him “in a tomb (μνηματί) that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain.” The first two Synopists, it will be observed, say that Joseph rolls a stone against the entrance to the tomb: but neither Luke nor Peter has this detail, though the former leaves it to be inferred that it had been done, for (xxiv. 2) the women who came on the first day of the week find the stone rolled away from the tomb. In Peter, on the contrary, the stone is rolled against the tomb by the guard and others later, as we shall presently see.
In the fourth Gospel, the account has further and different details, agreeing, however, with the peculiar statement of Luke (xix. 41 f.): “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden (κῆπος), and in the garden a new tomb (μνημεῖον) wherein was never man yet laid. There then, because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb [μνημεῖον] was nigh at hand), they laid Jesus.” Some stress has been laid upon the point that both Peter and the fourth Gospel use the word “garden,” and that none of the Synoptics have it, and as these critics seem to go upon the principle that any statement in Peter which happens to be in any canonical Gospel, even although widely different in treatment, must have been derived from that Gospel, and not from any similar written or traditional source, from which that Gospel derived it, they argue that this shows dependence on the fourth Gospel. There is certainly no evidence of dependence here. In Peter, the grave (τάφος) is simply [pg 080] said to be called “Joseph's Garden” (Κήπον Ἰωσηφ),98 and described as “his own grave.” The fourth Gospel does not identify the garden as Joseph's at all, but says that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden,” and in it “a tomb” (μνημεῖον), and the reason given for taking the body thither is not that it belonged to Joseph, but that the tomb “was nigh at hand,” and that on account of the Jews' Preparation they laid it there. The whole explanation seems to exclude the idea that the writer knew that it belonged to Joseph. Peter simply contributes a new detail to the common tradition. There is no appearance of his deriving this from our canonical Gospels, from which he differs in substance and in language. Neither Peter nor the Synoptics know anything of the co-operation of Nicodemus.
The narrative in the fragment continues:
We have already discussed this passage in connection with the “Diatessaron,” and have now only to consider it as compared with our Gospels. There is no equivalent in any of them, except that the third Synoptist (xxiii. 48) says that when Jesus gave up the ghost: “All the multitude that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts (τύπτοντες τὰ στήθη ὑπέστρεφον).” The reason for this change of mood is, of course, the eclipse and consequent darkness in the third Synoptic, and the earthquake and darkness in Peter; but in the former “all the multitude” smite their breasts, and in the latter [pg 081] “the Jews and the elders and the priests.” It may be suggested whether the words inserted in the ancient Latin Codex of St. Germain, “Vae nobis, quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, appropinquavit enim desolatio Hierusalem,”99 may not have been taken from our Gospel of Peter, for an expansion of the original text of the third Synoptic, by the author of this version.
The common reference of the fragment is to “the Jews,” “the Jews and the elders and the priests,” “the scribes and Pharisees and elders,” and “the elders and scribes.” Throughout the same part of the narrative in Matthew, we have “the scribes and elders,” “chief priests and elders of the people” (this, most frequently), “chief priests with the scribes and elders,” and in speaking of the guard at the sepulchre, “the chief priests and the Pharisees.” In Mark, the same leaders are named, whilst in Luke we have “the chief priests and captains of the Temple and elders,” “the elders of the people and both the chief priests and scribes,” and, repeatedly, the “chief priests and rulers.” The fourth Gospel usually cites “the chief priests and Pharisees,” “chief captains and officers of the Jews,” “the Jews,” and “the chief priests of the Jews.” There is more analogy, in this respect, between the fragment and the fourth Gospel than between it and the Synoptics.
We come now to an important and characteristic part of the fragment:
There is no parallel to this passage in our Gospels, but in the statement that the Apostles had hidden themselves [pg 082] (and—taken in connection with v. 59, where the same fact is again mentioned—this means all the twelve) we have here agreement with the narrative of the first and second Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 56; Mark xix. 50), that on the arrest of Jesus “all the disciples left him and fled.” This passage seems to exclude the incident of the sword and Malchus which, as Hilgenfeld points out,100 is also excluded by a passage in Justin; the denial of Peter, which Justin equally passes over unmentioned; and the episode of the “beloved disciple” by the cross. The reason given for hiding themselves, that they were accused of wishing to burn the temple, has some connection with the tradition, that testimony had been given against Jesus that he had said he could destroy this temple and build it in three days (Matt. xxvi. 60; Mark xiv. 58).101 The passage is one of those in which the writer speaks in the first person and represents himself as an Apostle, which he still more clearly does, v. 60, where he distinctly calls himself Simon Peter.
The account that the Apostles were fasting and sat mourning and weeping “night and day until the Sabbath” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἕως τοῦ σαββάτου) opens out an interesting problem. As a rule, the Greek expression would be ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, so if we are to take the words actually used as deliberately intended to represent the time, we should have to count at least one night and one day between the death of Jesus and the Sabbath, or in other words, that the crucifixion took place, not on Friday, but upon Thursday, which, according to the statement in v. 5, would really be the [pg 083] 13th Nisan. A great deal might be said in support of this view,102 but it need not be entered into here. It is probable that, as Harnack suggests,103 the author really thinks of the whole time from the Thursday night, when the arrest was made.
With the next portion of the fragment the narrative of the resurrection may be said to begin:
There is no parallel to this narrative in any of our canonical Gospels except the first Synoptic, which alone mentions the circumstance that a watch was set over the sepulchre, a fact of which the other Gospels seem quite ignorant, and states that application was made to Pilate for a guard for that purpose. The account in Matthew is as follows (xxvii. 62 f.):
The fact that only one of the four canonical Gospels has any reference to this episode, or betrays the slightest knowledge of any precautions taken to guard the tomb, is remarkable. The analogies in the narrative in Peter with the general account, and the similarity of the language in certain parts, together with the wide variation in details and language generally, point to the conclusion that both writers derive the episode from a similar source, but independently of each other. The casual agreement with continuous dissimilarity of statement and style, are evidence of the separate treatment of a common tradition, and put the fragment upon a very different footing from the Synoptics in relation to each other. The absence of verisimilitude is pretty nearly equal in both Gospels, but these traditions grew up, and were unconsciously rounded by the contributions of pious imagination.
In the fragment it is “the scribes and Pharisees and elders” (οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι) who meet together, but only the “elders” go to Pilate; in the Synoptic, “the chief Priests and the Pharisees” (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) meet and go to Pilate. Pilate gives them “Petronius the centurion with soldiers” to watch the tomb; in Matthew, he gives them “a guard,” bidding them make it sure; so they go and seal [pg 085] the stone, the guard being with them. In Peter, the “elders and scribes” go to the grave, and themselves with the soldiers, “all who were there together,” roll a great stone and set it at the door of the grave. Doubtless this trait is intended to convey an impression of the great size of the stone. A curious peculiarity occurs in the statement, “they roll the stone against the centurion and the soldiers,” the intention of the words probably being that, in their suspicious mood, they thus protected themselves from possible fraud on the part even of the soldiers.104 The motive for the application to Pilate, in the fragment, is fear on the part of the elders, in consequence of the murmuring and lamentation of the people, who are represented as being convinced by the great signs occurring at the death of Jesus “how just a one” he was. This is quite a variation from the Synoptic version, but both agree in the explanation given to Pilate of anxiety lest the disciples should steal the body, and say that Jesus had risen from the dead. In Matthew, they simply “seal the stone,” but in the fragment they put or smear (ἐπέχρισαν) “seven seals” upon it. Some important peculiarities then occur in the narrative of Peter. They set up a tent beside the tomb and keep guard, and in the morning a multitude from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood come out to see the sealed-up grave. There is nothing corresponding to this in the Synoptic Gospel.
The narrative proceeds:
Here commences an account of the resurrection very different in every respect from that in our canonical Gospels, and the treatment of a tradition in some points necessarily common to all is evidently independent. In Matthew, the scene commences with an earthquake—earthquakes are, indeed, peculiar to the first Synoptist—(xxviii. 2 f.): “And behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the watchers did quake and become as dead men.” Here only one angel comes down, whilst in Peter there are two men, whom some critics—amongst whom may be mentioned Nestle, with whom Harnack is inclined to agree, more especially as they are never called angels, but merely “two men”—identify as Moses and Elias. The angel rolls away the stone, which in Peter rolls away of itself, and sits upon it, whilst in Peter the two men enter into the tomb. No account is given in Mark of the opening of the tomb, the women simply finding the stone rolled away, and a young man (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side arrayed in a white robe (xvi. 4 f.); the author does not mention any earthquake. In the third Synoptic (xxiv. 2 f.), the women also find the stone already rolled away from the tomb; there is no earthquake. When the women enter the tomb they do not find “the body of the Lord Jesus,” but while they are perplexed two men stand by them in dazzling apparel. In the fourth Gospel (xx. 12 f.), Mary, coming to the sepulchre, sees two angels in white sitting—the one at the head, the other at the foot—where the body of Jesus had lain. Thus, to sum up, in Matthew there is one angel, in Mark one young man, in Luke two [pg 087] men, in the fourth Gospel two angels, and in Peter two men descend from heaven to the tomb.
Peter goes on: