VIII

VIIIWe now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian document—its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.The fragment commences,“but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.79(2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by“Herod the King”“to take the Lord”evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading[pg 048]part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising“that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,”and sending him to Herod,“who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.”The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the matter. When, according to our fragment,“Pilate rose,”he seems to have passed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits. The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in[pg 049]writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying“Not this man, but Barabbas.”There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.According to the four canonical Gospels,80the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is“When even was come”that he goes to[pg 050]Pilate; in Mark it is“When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.”In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44):“And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph.”In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.):“A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (v.54):“And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,”—which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38):“After these things [thecrurifragiumand piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.”In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial.“Pilate rose,”and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3.“But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate81and of the Lord, and knowing that they[pg 051]are about to crucify (σταυρίσκειν) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said:‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.’”It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii. 50-51), that Joseph was“a councillor”who had“not consented to their counsel and deed,”which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though analogous, tradition.If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics:“He went in unto Pilate [and] asked for the[pg 052]body of Jesus”(προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,82Matthew and Luke; εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Mark). In Peter we have:“He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord”(ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that σταυρίσκειν, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that ταφή only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.The fragment continues:And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said:“Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the Son of God as we have power over him.”7. And they clad him with purple (πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον) and set him on a seat of judgment (καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying:“Judge justly (δικαίως κρῖνε), King of Israel.”8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying:“With this honour honour we the Son of God.”[pg 053]Before proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn83and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are,“he delivered him to the people”(παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this:“but Jesus he delivered up to their will”(τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.):“Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him.”It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains:“The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus,”&c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2.“And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”Who are indicated by[pg 054]the pronoun“them”?84Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph,“knowing that they are about to crucify him,”came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod“with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him,”and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion“before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,”that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he[pg 055]associate with that the circumstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.85The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the clothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring whilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case. The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified. He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.):“Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.):“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and[pg 056]mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.”In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.):“And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.”The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.):“And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him.”Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other. The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.):“And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.”This passes, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11):“And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.”In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus[pg 057]is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2):“And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.”In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said:“And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!”Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares,“I find no crime in him,”is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the passage of Peter in which it is said that“they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.”Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just[pg 058]quoted: ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, which are compared with the ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words“and set him on the judgment seat,”understanding the verb καθίζειν to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add αὐτὸν to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin:“For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!”The Septuagint has: αἰτεῖτέ με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν ... λέγοντες. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for“seat of judgment”in the fragment, ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, differ entirely from the ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. The analogous“Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”and the“Hail, King of the Jews,”are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the“Judge justly!”is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the“King of Israel”a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that“others pierced him with a reed”is also a variation[pg 059]from the canonical Gospels, which only say,“they took the reed and smote him on the head.”The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear“that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced,”but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17):“They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull.’”Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.“And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38):“Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left.”Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.):“And there were also two others, malefactors, led with[pg 060]him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called‘The skull,’there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.”The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.):“They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull,’which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation.“But he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr. Murray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer“gives them an innocent”(that is, not a Docetic)“interpretation.”Et in his omnibusunigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig.in Mat.125.86Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said:“And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith[pg 061]Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9):“And he [Herod] questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely—and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel—the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11.“And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon:‘This is the King of Israel.’”We have here a continuation of the indefinite“they,”which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37):“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;”Mark (xv. 26):“The King of the Jews;”Luke (xxiii. 38):“This is the King of the Jews,”and John (xix. 19):“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title“was written in Hebrew, in[pg 062]Latin, and in Greek,”and further gives a conversation between the“chief priests of the Jews”and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put“that he said, I am King of the Jews,”to which Pilate answered briefly,“What I have written, I have written.”With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?87The author of the fragment continues: 12.“And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (λαχμὸν ἔβαλον) for them.”In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said:“And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots”(βάλλοντες κλῆρον); in Mark (xv. 24):“And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον) upon them, what each should take.”In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34):“And parting his garments among them, they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.):“The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (λάχωμεν) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this passage, and now confront it with all the four[pg 063]Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word λαχμός, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb λαγχάνω, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ἔβαλον κλῆρον. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the λαχμός is decisive proof of his independence.The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13.“But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.):“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily,[pg 064]I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic. That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of thecrurifragiumwhich is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares:“And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so remarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be considered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to[pg 065]the malefactor and not to Jesus.88In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of αὐτῷ to Jesus“appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context.”89Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of thecrurifragiumas drawn by the caricaturist from the“Motive”of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence:“Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself”!90Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the αὐτῷ to the malefactor;91but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,92and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest[pg 066]light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the passage seems to be“And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment.”However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment. It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not havinghislegs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to breakhislegs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now thecrurifragiumis here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to[pg 067]breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken. Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as thecrurifragiumhad been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that thecrurifragiumwas applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts thecrurifragium. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.):“The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,[pg 068]they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.”The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs“of the first,”—and by this description they imply that they begin at one end—and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs“of the first, and of the other,”they come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the passage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.The fragment proceeds:

VIIIWe now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian document—its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.The fragment commences,“but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.79(2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by“Herod the King”“to take the Lord”evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading[pg 048]part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising“that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,”and sending him to Herod,“who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.”The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the matter. When, according to our fragment,“Pilate rose,”he seems to have passed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits. The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in[pg 049]writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying“Not this man, but Barabbas.”There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.According to the four canonical Gospels,80the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is“When even was come”that he goes to[pg 050]Pilate; in Mark it is“When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.”In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44):“And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph.”In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.):“A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (v.54):“And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,”—which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38):“After these things [thecrurifragiumand piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.”In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial.“Pilate rose,”and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3.“But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate81and of the Lord, and knowing that they[pg 051]are about to crucify (σταυρίσκειν) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said:‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.’”It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii. 50-51), that Joseph was“a councillor”who had“not consented to their counsel and deed,”which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though analogous, tradition.If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics:“He went in unto Pilate [and] asked for the[pg 052]body of Jesus”(προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,82Matthew and Luke; εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Mark). In Peter we have:“He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord”(ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that σταυρίσκειν, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that ταφή only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.The fragment continues:And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said:“Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the Son of God as we have power over him.”7. And they clad him with purple (πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον) and set him on a seat of judgment (καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying:“Judge justly (δικαίως κρῖνε), King of Israel.”8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying:“With this honour honour we the Son of God.”[pg 053]Before proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn83and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are,“he delivered him to the people”(παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this:“but Jesus he delivered up to their will”(τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.):“Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him.”It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains:“The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus,”&c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2.“And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”Who are indicated by[pg 054]the pronoun“them”?84Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph,“knowing that they are about to crucify him,”came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod“with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him,”and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion“before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,”that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he[pg 055]associate with that the circumstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.85The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the clothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring whilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case. The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified. He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.):“Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.):“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and[pg 056]mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.”In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.):“And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.”The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.):“And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him.”Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other. The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.):“And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.”This passes, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11):“And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.”In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus[pg 057]is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2):“And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.”In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said:“And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!”Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares,“I find no crime in him,”is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the passage of Peter in which it is said that“they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.”Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just[pg 058]quoted: ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, which are compared with the ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words“and set him on the judgment seat,”understanding the verb καθίζειν to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add αὐτὸν to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin:“For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!”The Septuagint has: αἰτεῖτέ με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν ... λέγοντες. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for“seat of judgment”in the fragment, ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, differ entirely from the ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. The analogous“Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”and the“Hail, King of the Jews,”are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the“Judge justly!”is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the“King of Israel”a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that“others pierced him with a reed”is also a variation[pg 059]from the canonical Gospels, which only say,“they took the reed and smote him on the head.”The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear“that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced,”but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17):“They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull.’”Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.“And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38):“Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left.”Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.):“And there were also two others, malefactors, led with[pg 060]him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called‘The skull,’there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.”The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.):“They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull,’which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation.“But he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr. Murray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer“gives them an innocent”(that is, not a Docetic)“interpretation.”Et in his omnibusunigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig.in Mat.125.86Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said:“And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith[pg 061]Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9):“And he [Herod] questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely—and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel—the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11.“And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon:‘This is the King of Israel.’”We have here a continuation of the indefinite“they,”which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37):“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;”Mark (xv. 26):“The King of the Jews;”Luke (xxiii. 38):“This is the King of the Jews,”and John (xix. 19):“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title“was written in Hebrew, in[pg 062]Latin, and in Greek,”and further gives a conversation between the“chief priests of the Jews”and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put“that he said, I am King of the Jews,”to which Pilate answered briefly,“What I have written, I have written.”With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?87The author of the fragment continues: 12.“And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (λαχμὸν ἔβαλον) for them.”In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said:“And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots”(βάλλοντες κλῆρον); in Mark (xv. 24):“And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον) upon them, what each should take.”In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34):“And parting his garments among them, they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.):“The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (λάχωμεν) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this passage, and now confront it with all the four[pg 063]Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word λαχμός, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb λαγχάνω, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ἔβαλον κλῆρον. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the λαχμός is decisive proof of his independence.The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13.“But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.):“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily,[pg 064]I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic. That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of thecrurifragiumwhich is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares:“And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so remarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be considered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to[pg 065]the malefactor and not to Jesus.88In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of αὐτῷ to Jesus“appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context.”89Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of thecrurifragiumas drawn by the caricaturist from the“Motive”of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence:“Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself”!90Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the αὐτῷ to the malefactor;91but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,92and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest[pg 066]light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the passage seems to be“And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment.”However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment. It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not havinghislegs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to breakhislegs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now thecrurifragiumis here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to[pg 067]breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken. Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as thecrurifragiumhad been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that thecrurifragiumwas applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts thecrurifragium. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.):“The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,[pg 068]they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.”The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs“of the first,”—and by this description they imply that they begin at one end—and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs“of the first, and of the other,”they come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the passage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.The fragment proceeds:

VIIIWe now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian document—its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.The fragment commences,“but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.79(2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by“Herod the King”“to take the Lord”evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading[pg 048]part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising“that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,”and sending him to Herod,“who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.”The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the matter. When, according to our fragment,“Pilate rose,”he seems to have passed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits. The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in[pg 049]writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying“Not this man, but Barabbas.”There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.According to the four canonical Gospels,80the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is“When even was come”that he goes to[pg 050]Pilate; in Mark it is“When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.”In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44):“And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph.”In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.):“A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (v.54):“And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,”—which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38):“After these things [thecrurifragiumand piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.”In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial.“Pilate rose,”and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3.“But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate81and of the Lord, and knowing that they[pg 051]are about to crucify (σταυρίσκειν) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said:‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.’”It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii. 50-51), that Joseph was“a councillor”who had“not consented to their counsel and deed,”which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though analogous, tradition.If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics:“He went in unto Pilate [and] asked for the[pg 052]body of Jesus”(προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,82Matthew and Luke; εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Mark). In Peter we have:“He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord”(ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that σταυρίσκειν, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that ταφή only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.The fragment continues:And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said:“Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the Son of God as we have power over him.”7. And they clad him with purple (πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον) and set him on a seat of judgment (καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying:“Judge justly (δικαίως κρῖνε), King of Israel.”8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying:“With this honour honour we the Son of God.”[pg 053]Before proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn83and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are,“he delivered him to the people”(παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this:“but Jesus he delivered up to their will”(τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.):“Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him.”It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains:“The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus,”&c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2.“And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”Who are indicated by[pg 054]the pronoun“them”?84Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph,“knowing that they are about to crucify him,”came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod“with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him,”and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion“before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,”that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he[pg 055]associate with that the circumstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.85The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the clothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring whilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case. The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified. He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.):“Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.):“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and[pg 056]mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.”In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.):“And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.”The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.):“And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him.”Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other. The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.):“And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.”This passes, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11):“And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.”In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus[pg 057]is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2):“And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.”In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said:“And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!”Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares,“I find no crime in him,”is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the passage of Peter in which it is said that“they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.”Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just[pg 058]quoted: ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, which are compared with the ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words“and set him on the judgment seat,”understanding the verb καθίζειν to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add αὐτὸν to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin:“For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!”The Septuagint has: αἰτεῖτέ με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν ... λέγοντες. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for“seat of judgment”in the fragment, ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, differ entirely from the ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. The analogous“Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”and the“Hail, King of the Jews,”are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the“Judge justly!”is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the“King of Israel”a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that“others pierced him with a reed”is also a variation[pg 059]from the canonical Gospels, which only say,“they took the reed and smote him on the head.”The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear“that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced,”but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17):“They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull.’”Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.“And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38):“Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left.”Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.):“And there were also two others, malefactors, led with[pg 060]him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called‘The skull,’there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.”The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.):“They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull,’which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation.“But he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr. Murray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer“gives them an innocent”(that is, not a Docetic)“interpretation.”Et in his omnibusunigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig.in Mat.125.86Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said:“And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith[pg 061]Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9):“And he [Herod] questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely—and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel—the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11.“And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon:‘This is the King of Israel.’”We have here a continuation of the indefinite“they,”which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37):“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;”Mark (xv. 26):“The King of the Jews;”Luke (xxiii. 38):“This is the King of the Jews,”and John (xix. 19):“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title“was written in Hebrew, in[pg 062]Latin, and in Greek,”and further gives a conversation between the“chief priests of the Jews”and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put“that he said, I am King of the Jews,”to which Pilate answered briefly,“What I have written, I have written.”With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?87The author of the fragment continues: 12.“And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (λαχμὸν ἔβαλον) for them.”In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said:“And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots”(βάλλοντες κλῆρον); in Mark (xv. 24):“And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον) upon them, what each should take.”In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34):“And parting his garments among them, they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.):“The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (λάχωμεν) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this passage, and now confront it with all the four[pg 063]Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word λαχμός, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb λαγχάνω, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ἔβαλον κλῆρον. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the λαχμός is decisive proof of his independence.The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13.“But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.):“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily,[pg 064]I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic. That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of thecrurifragiumwhich is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares:“And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so remarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be considered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to[pg 065]the malefactor and not to Jesus.88In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of αὐτῷ to Jesus“appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context.”89Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of thecrurifragiumas drawn by the caricaturist from the“Motive”of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence:“Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself”!90Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the αὐτῷ to the malefactor;91but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,92and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest[pg 066]light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the passage seems to be“And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment.”However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment. It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not havinghislegs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to breakhislegs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now thecrurifragiumis here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to[pg 067]breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken. Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as thecrurifragiumhad been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that thecrurifragiumwas applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts thecrurifragium. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.):“The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,[pg 068]they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.”The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs“of the first,”—and by this description they imply that they begin at one end—and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs“of the first, and of the other,”they come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the passage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.The fragment proceeds:

We now come to the most important part of our examination of this fragment, whether in regard to its approximate date or to its intrinsic value as an early Christian document—its relation to our canonical Gospels. The fragment begins and ends with a broken sentence, but taking it as it stands, in comparison with the same episodes in our four canonical Gospels, it contains about a fourth more matter. It will be seen that it is very far from a Harmony of the four narratives, and still less an abridgment of their common tradition, but it has markedly the character of an independent history drawn from similar, but varying, sources.

The fragment commences,“but of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither Herod nor any of his judges; and as they were not minded to wash, Pilate rose.79(2) And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”It is clear from this that the tribunal before which it is represented that Jesus was taken for trial was quite different from that described in the canonical Gospels. Herod and other Jewish judges must, according to the writer, have sat along with Pilate, but the order given by“Herod the King”“to take the Lord”evidently shows that he is represented as playing the leading[pg 048]part. Although the episode of the washing of the hands (of which so much more is made by the author of the first Synoptic, who alone of the canonical Evangelists refers to it) must have been introduced, we have no means of knowing how far the two accounts may have agreed. Both, at least in one shape or another, adopt a tradition so incredible as that representing a Roman governor coerced into condemning an innocent man, and helplessly going through such a ceremony for the purpose of clearing himself from responsibility for gross injustice. The third Synoptist is the only one of the canonical Evangelists who prominently brings forward the share of Herod in judging Jesus (xxiii. 6-15), and he is in curious agreement with the spirit of Peter's account when he represents Pilate (xxiii. 6-7), on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, recognising“that he was of Herod's jurisdiction,”and sending him to Herod,“who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.”The statement also (xxiii. 12) that Herod and Pilate, having before been at enmity, became friends that day through this very act recognising Herod's jurisdiction, seems to point to a tradition coupling Herod with the trial, a form of which we have in the fragment. All the other Gospels are not only silent upon the point, but exclude his participation in the matter. When, according to our fragment,“Pilate rose,”he seems to have passed out of all connection with the trial and condemnation of Jesus.

At this point, Peter represents the request for the body of Jesus as having been made but, before considering this part of his narrative, we must note the portions of the canonical account which he altogether omits. The first of these to which we must refer is the preference of Barabbas, which all of our four Evangelists carefully relate. Considering that his main object in[pg 049]writing this Gospel, according to some critics, was animosity to the Jews and a desire to cast upon them the whole guilt and responsibility of the death of Jesus, it is very remarkable that he should altogether exclude this picturesque episode, and sacrifice so favourable an opportunity of throwing upon them the odium of crying“Not this man, but Barabbas.”There is strong presumptive evidence here of his entire independence of our four Gospels, for it is not reasonable to suppose that, if he had them before him, he could deliberately have passed over such striking material. A further indication of the same kind is to be found in the fact that he apparently knows nothing of the appeals made by Pilate to the people in favour of Jesus, so furiously rejected by them. It is distinctly a merit in the narrative of Peter that he does not, like the four Evangelists, give us the very extraordinary spectacle of a Roman Governor and Judge feebly expostulating with a noisy Jewish mob in favour of an accused person brought for trial before him, whom he repeatedly declares to be innocent, and at last allowing himself to be coerced against his will into scourging and crucifying him.

According to the four canonical Gospels,80the request of Joseph for the body of Jesus is made after he has expired on the cross. In Matthew (xxvii. 57 f.) he is a rich man from Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus, and he goes to Pilate and asks for the body, which Pilate commands to be given to him. In Mark (xv. 43) Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God, boldly goes in unto Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus. According to Matthew it is“When even was come”that he goes to[pg 050]Pilate; in Mark it is“When even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.”In Matthew, Pilate simply commands that the body should be given; but in Mark it is further related (xv. 44):“And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion he granted the corpse to Joseph.”In Luke (xxiii. 50 f.):“A man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”It is implied, but not said, that it was granted, and the time is mentioned further on (v.54):“And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on,”—which recalls Mark. In John (xix. 38):“After these things [thecrurifragiumand piercing of the side], Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.”In Peter, the request is made before Jesus is actually sent to be crucified, and the author is sometimes accused of perverting the narrative by introducing it at this time. It is impossible to see any object for so altering the sequence of events as given by the four canonical Gospels, on the supposition that he knew them, and it will be seen that the time in Peter's narrative is in perfect accord with the version which he gives of the trial.“Pilate rose,”and it is to be inferred that he left the Praetorium. It is at this moment that Joseph seizes the opportunity of asking for the body: 3.“But there was there Joseph the friend of Pilate81and of the Lord, and knowing that they[pg 051]are about to crucify (σταυρίσκειν) him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked for his body; 5. and Herod said:‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had begged for him, we should have buried him, because the Sabbath is at hand, for it is written in the Law: The sun must not go down upon one put to death.’”It is to be noted that, whilst in the four canonical Gospels the request for the body is immediately followed by the entombment, in our fragment the request is made in anticipation, when a favourable moment for the request presented itself, and the actual reception of the body follows later, in its proper place. It is possible that the statement, in Luke (xxiii. 50-51), that Joseph was“a councillor”who had“not consented to their counsel and deed,”which is here alone referred to, may indicate another tradition, of part of which Peter may have availed himself, and that it included his presence at the trial and consequently presented the opportunity of at once going to Pilate. That Pilate should send on the request to Herod is only in keeping with the representation that he had withdrawn from the trial, and would not himself further interfere in the matter. The mode of carrying on his narrative, by direct utterances put into the mouths of his personages, is particularly characteristic of the writer, and forms a remarkable feature of his style throughout. There is no sign of dependence upon the canonical Gospels in all this: but, on the contrary, the almost complete departure from their representations, in order and in substance, is only explicable on the hypothesis of a separate, though analogous, tradition.

If we look at the language, we find that critics point out one phrase which is common to the three Synoptics:“He went in unto Pilate [and] asked for the[pg 052]body of Jesus”(προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,82Matthew and Luke; εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Mark). In Peter we have:“He came to Pilate and asked for the body of the Lord”(ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾔτησε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου). It will be observed that the language of the three Synoptists is almost exactly the same, and although their interdependence throughout requires another explanation, which need not be entered into here, it is quite unreasonable to infer dependence on the part of Peter from similarity in these few words. It is the description of a perfectly simple action, in the most simple and natural language, and it is difficult to imagine what other words could be used without inflation. All the rest of the episode differs in every respect of language, order and substantial detail. It is right to add, however, that no great weight is attached by anyone to the point. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that σταυρίσκειν, in Peter, is a most uncommon word, not used in the New Testament at all, and that ταφή only occurs once in the New Testament, in Matt. xxvii. 7.

The fragment continues:

And he delivered him to the people before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast (πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν). 6. And taking the Lord they pushed him hurrying along, and said:“Let us drag along (σύρωμεν) the Son of God as we have power over him.”7. And they clad him with purple (πορφύραν αὐτὸν περιέβαλλον) and set him on a seat of judgment (καθέδραν κρίσεως), saying:“Judge justly (δικαίως κρῖνε), King of Israel.”8. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the head of the Lord. 9. And others standing by spat in his eyes, and others smote him on the cheeks; others pierced him with a reed, and some scourged him, saying:“With this honour honour we the Son of God.”

Before proceeding to compare this passage with our Gospels, it may be well to determine who the mockers in this fragment really are. It is argued by Zahn83and others, that Herod, according to this representation, hands Jesus over to the Jews, and that the people, and not the soldiers, as in the Gospels, conduct the mockery which is here described. It cannot be denied that the words used are,“he delivered him to the people”(παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ), but the question is, whether the meaning is that he actually delivered him into the hands of the mob, and that the subsequent mockery, scourging, crucifixion and parting of the garments were performed by the people, or that, in delivering Jesus to the people, the meaning is not rather that he gave him up to their demands that he should be crucified, and that all the rest followed between soldiers and people, as in the other narratives. We cannot but affirm that this latter interpretation is the true one. In Luke (xxiii. 25) the form of words used exactly expresses this:“but Jesus he delivered up to their will”(τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). But a still more close representation of the case occurs in the fourth Gospel, where we read (xix. 16 f.):“Then, therefore, he delivered him unto them [the people and the chief priests] to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore ... unto the place called, &c. ... where they crucified him.”It is only in verse 23 that the narrative goes back and explains:“The soldiers, therefore, when they had crucified Jesus,”&c. In the fragment, moreover, there is an important indication in the portion previously quoted, where we read: 2.“And then Herod the King commandeth the Lord to be taken, saying unto them:‘Whatsoever I commanded that ye should do, that do unto him.’”Who are indicated by[pg 054]the pronoun“them”?84Doubtless the context would have explained this and probably made clear all that follows, for the orders given must have been regarding the crucifixion, since in the following verse (3) it is said that Joseph,“knowing that they are about to crucify him,”came to Pilate. Nothing had previously been said, in this fragment, of crucifixion. It is not possible to admit that the writer intends to represent that the people themselves carried out the crucifixion, or that the orders given by Herod were to the crowd. Herod, in all probability, is represented as commanding his own soldiers, which would accord with the statement in the third Synoptic (xxiii. 11), that Herod“with his soldiers set him at nought and mocked him,”and so on. The doubt only proceeds from indefinite statement on the part of the writer, and preconceived ideas on the part of critics.

It is evident, from the statement that Jesus was delivered for crucifixion“before the first day of the Unleavened bread of their feast,”that the Gospel of Peter adopts the same chronology as the fourth Gospel, in contradiction to that of the three Synoptics, and represents Jesus as put to death on the 14th Nisan. His agreement with the fourth Gospel, however, is limited to the mere matter of date, for on all other points the author takes a widely different view. As Hilgenfeld points out, for him all the feasts prescribed by the Law are mere Jewish institutions, and he has none of the Johannine (xix. 33 f.) views as to the death of Jesus representing the Paschal offering, nor does he[pg 055]associate with that the circumstances regarding the breaking of the limbs, and the thrust of the spear in his side, which he altogether omits.85

The author of the fragment is reproached with the looseness of his narrative of the mockery, on the supposition that he represents the clothing in purple and the setting on the seat of judgment as occurring whilst Jesus is being dragged along by the Jews; but this is not the case. The hurrying along commences the mockery in verse 6. Then in verse 7 begins another episode. They clothe Jesus in purple and set him on the judgment seat. Now, before going into the details of this mockery, it is necessary to consider how the narrative in general accords with the account in the four canonical Gospels. In Peter, the whole of the mockery is represented as taking place after Jesus is delivered to be crucified. He is hustled along, clothed in purple and set upon a seat of judgment; the crown of thorns is put upon his head, they spit in his eyes and smite him on the cheeks, pierce him with a reed and scourge him. In the Synoptics, especially, the ill-usage is as much as possible lengthened and intensified. In Matthew, the mockery begins when Jesus is in the house of Caiaphas (xxvi. 67 f.):“Then did they spit in his face and buffet him; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”After Pilate causes Jesus to be scourged, and delivers him, the mockery begins afresh (xxvii. 27 ff.):“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Palace and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and[pg 056]mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.”In Mark, the mockery also begins in the house of the high priest (xiv. 65 ff.):“And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.”The mockery recommences after Jesus is scourged and delivered over to be crucified (xv. 16 ff.):“And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they begin to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees, worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments, and they led him out to crucify him.”Of course it is unnecessary to point out how these two accounts depend upon each other. The same representation is made in the third Synoptic (xxii. 66 ff.):“And the men that held him mocked him and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.”This passes, as in the other Synoptics, in the house of the high priest, but the subsequent mocking does not take place after Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, but after he has been examined by Herod (xxiii. 11):“And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.”In the fourth Gospel there is only the one scene of mockery, and that is placed where Jesus[pg 057]is scourged by the order of Pilate (xix. 2):“And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.”In many respects this is the most incredible of the four narratives, for the scene is reported as taking place in the presence of Pilate and before his final condemnation of Jesus; and in the very next verse (4) it is said:“And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them; Behold the man!”Although this scene, which has been the delight of artists ever since, is so picturesque, it is quite evident that it is opposed to all that we have in the Synoptics, as well as in our fragment, and that the representation of Pilate allowing his soldiers in his presence to act in such a way, not to speak of the scourging, to a man accused before him, of whom he so strongly declares,“I find no crime in him,”is quite inadmissible. The narrative in Peter is at variance with all these accounts, whilst reproducing a similar tradition, and not varying more from our Gospels than they do from each other. The variation, however, is not that of a writer compiling a narrative from the canonical Gospels, but the distinct representation of one independently making use of similar, but separate, materials.

We have already discussed, in connection with Justin's reference, the passage of Peter in which it is said that“they clad him with purple and set him on a seat of judgment, saying: Judge justly, King of Israel.”Of course it is argued by some that this is derived from the fourth Gospel, on the strength of the words just[pg 058]quoted: ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, which are compared with the ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. It is said that Archbishop Whately used to render these words“and set him on the judgment seat,”understanding the verb καθίζειν to be used transitively, and thus stating that Pilate actually set Jesus in mockery upon a judgment seat. It is suggested that both Justin, as we have seen, and Peter may have misunderstood the passage, and based their statement upon it. Now, although it must be admitted that the Greek may be rendered in this way, yet it would be necessary to add αὐτὸν to justify such use of the verb. In connection with this argument they cite the words of Isaiah lviii. 2, in the Septuagint version, referred to by Justin:“For as the prophet said, they dragged him, and set him on the judgment seat, and said: Judge for us!”The Septuagint has: αἰτεῖτέ με νῦν κρίσιν δικαίαν ... λέγοντες. It is asserted that the idea of setting Jesus on the judgment seat came from the passage of the fourth Gospel which is quoted above, understood transitively. The representation that Pilate actually set Jesus on the judgment seat, if linguistically defensible, is rejected by most critics and, as has already been mentioned, amongst others by the Revisers of the New Testament. The words used for“seat of judgment”in the fragment, ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, differ entirely from the ἐπὶ βήματος of the fourth Gospel. The analogous“Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?”and the“Hail, King of the Jews,”are, of course, widely different from the representation in Peter, in which the“Judge justly!”is evidently in mockery of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and the“King of Israel”a peculiarity of this Gospel to which we shall have to refer again further on. The statement that“others pierced him with a reed”is also a variation[pg 059]from the canonical Gospels, which only say,“they took the reed and smote him on the head.”The fourth Gospel has alone the representation of the soldier piercing the side of Jesus with a spear“that the Scripture might be fulfilled.... They shall look on him whom they pierced,”but in our fragment the representation is made casually and without any appearance of dogmatic intention. The crown of thorns is used merely incidentally, as in the case of the Synoptics, and without the artistic prominence given to it in the fourth Gospel.

There is no mention in Peter of any one bearing the cross, and in this there is a departure from the narrative both of the Synoptics and of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptics have in common, as usual, the story regarding its being laid on the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene (Matt. xxvii. 32 f., Mark xv. 21 f., Luke xxiii. 26 f.), whom they compelled to carry it to Calvary. The fourth Gospel not only omits this episode, but contradicts it in good set terms (xix. 17):“They took Jesus, therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull.’”

Peter does not enter into any intermediate detail, but at once says: 10.“And they brought two malefactors and crucified between them the Lord; but he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”The canonical Gospels all narrate the crucifixion of the two malefactors, but the various terms in which this is done must be given for comparison. Matthew says (xxvii. 38):“Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left.”Mark uses almost the same words (xv. 27). Luke, with some exercise of his usual constructive style, says the same thing (xxiii. 32 f.):“And there were also two others, malefactors, led with[pg 060]him to be put to death. And when they came unto the place which is called‘The skull,’there they crucified him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.”The fourth Gospel reads (xix. 17 f.):“They took Jesus therefore; and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called‘The place of a skull,’which is called in Hebrew Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”The only remark necessary here is that in Peter the common tradition is given with independence and simplicity.

It is only in the last words of the verse that we have an important variation.“But he kept silence, as feeling no pain.”We have already referred to this as one of the recognised Docetic passages of the fragment, although there is no necessity to read it in this sense. Mr. Murray has pointed out a passage in Origen in which that writer“gives them an innocent”(that is, not a Docetic)“interpretation.”

Et in his omnibusunigenita virtus nocita non est, sicut nec passa est aliquid, facta pro nobis maledictum, cum naturaliter benedictio esset; sed cum benedictio esset, consumpsit et solvit et dissipavit omnem maledictionem humanam. Orig.in Mat.125.86

Although there is no exact parallel to this in our Gospels, it is worth a moment's notice that the silence of Jesus during the trial is mentioned as remarkable and as exciting wonder. We have not in our fragment, unfortunately, the earlier part of the trial, and cannot, therefore, see whether the words used have any reference to previous representations. In Matt. xxvii. 12 f., it is said:“And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith[pg 061]Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”An almost identical account is given in Mark. In Luke it is to the questioning of Herod that Jesus is silent (xxiii. 9):“And he [Herod] questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”In the fourth Gospel not only is nothing said of the silence of Jesus, but he is represented as answering freely—and in the tone of the discourses which characterise that Gospel—the questions of Pilate. Now, in the Synoptics, we have a silence described, which causes the governor to marvel greatly, that is not, however, when we go into detail, very marked in them, and is excluded by the fourth Gospel. Can a silence have been referred to, in the original tradition, which was connected with the trial, instead of the cross, because it began to receive a Docetic application, but which we have, in its earlier form, in Peter?

In our fragment, the narrative continues: 11.“And as they set up the cross they wrote thereon:‘This is the King of Israel.’”We have here a continuation of the indefinite“they,”which it becomes at every step more impossible to identify otherwise than with the soldiers. It is a most curious circumstance, frequently pointed out, that no two of the Gospels agree even in so plain a matter as should be the inscription on the cross, and that the Gospel of Peter differs from them all. Matthew gives it (xxvii. 37):“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews;”Mark (xv. 26):“The King of the Jews;”Luke (xxiii. 38):“This is the King of the Jews,”and John (xix. 19):“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”The author of the fourth Gospel adds the statement that this title“was written in Hebrew, in[pg 062]Latin, and in Greek,”and further gives a conversation between the“chief priests of the Jews”and Pilate, in which they complain of this superscription, and wish it to be put“that he said, I am King of the Jews,”to which Pilate answered briefly,“What I have written, I have written.”With so many forms to select from, is it reasonable to suppose that Peter would have invented another superscription, if these four Gospels had actually been before him?87

The author of the fragment continues: 12.“And they laid the clothes before him and distributed them and cast lots (λαχμὸν ἔβαλον) for them.”In Matthew (xxvii. 35) it is said:“And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots”(βάλλοντες κλῆρον); in Mark (xv. 24):“And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον) upon them, what each should take.”In Luke there is a similar statement (xxiii. 34):“And parting his garments among them, they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In the fourth Gospel, as usual, we have further details (xix. 23 f.):“The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots (λάχωμεν) for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots”(ἔβαλον κλῆρον). In discussing the connection of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, we have already partly dealt with this passage, and now confront it with all the four[pg 063]Gospels. It is obvious that the language of the three Synoptics is distinct from that of Peter, who uses the unusual word λαχμός, not found in any of the Gospels. The fourth Gospel has the common verb λαγχάνω, whilst the quotation from the Psalm (xxii. 18), from which the whole episode emanates, uses the expression common to the three Synoptics, ἔβαλον κλῆρον. There is no reason for supposing that Peter makes use of our Gospels here, and in the absence of other evidence, the λαχμός is decisive proof of his independence.

The author of our fragment, after the crucifixion, has none of the mocking speeches of the four Gospels, and he ignores the episode of the penitent thief, as it is told in the third Synoptic, but he relates, instead, how one of the malefactors rebuked the mockers: 13.“But one of these malefactors reproved them, saying: We have suffered this for the evil which we wrought, but this man who has become the saviour of men, what wrong hath he done you? 14. And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”

It will be remembered that the episode of the penitent thief is given in Luke only, and that the other Gospels do not mention any utterance of the two malefactors said to have been crucified with Jesus. Luke's narrative reads (xxiii. 39 f.):“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying: Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily,[pg 064]I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”That all the other Gospels should have excluded an incident like this, supposing it to have really occurred, is very extraordinary, and the only conclusion to which we can come is either that it did not occur, or that they were ignorant of it. Peter has evidently got an earlier form of the story, without those much later touches with which the third Synoptist has embellished it. The malefactor rebukes the Jews and not his fellow, and if he display a piety which is not very natural under the circumstances, he is not in this more remarkable than his counterpart in the third Synoptic. That the author was not acquainted with the form in Luke, and is quite uninfluenced by it, seems to us manifest.

This is rendered all the more apparent by the continuation in Peter, in which, instead of any reply from Jesus, or any promise of Paradise, there is connected with the rebuke of the malefactor on the cross a view of thecrurifragiumwhich is quite foreign to the canonical Gospels. When the malefactor had spoken, instead of their being mollified, the fragment declares:“And they were angry with him, and they commanded that his legs should not be broken, in order that he might die in torment.”Now, here, there is a point which demands examination. To whom does this sentence refer? to Jesus or the malefactor? It is at first sight, and apart from consideration of the style of the writer, a reference to the latter, but on closer examination it seems to us more probable that the writer intended it to apply to Jesus. In any case, it is a point in which so remarkable a version of the story is concerned that it cannot but be considered as very singular that most apologetic critics have passed it over without any notice whatever, and apparently treated the order not to break the legs as applying to[pg 065]the malefactor and not to Jesus.88In the first edition of his article on the fragment, Harnack took the view that more probably the malefactor was indicated here, but in his second edition he withdraws this, and adopts the conclusion that the reference of αὐτῷ to Jesus“appears more acceptable, both on account of John xix. 32 f., and also on account of the context.”89Zahn considers the whole episode in Peter as a caricature of the Gospel tradition, through the author's hatred of the Jews, and refers only indirectly to the version of thecrurifragiumas drawn by the caricaturist from the“Motive”of the fourth Evangelist, but does not further go into the matter than to say, with mysterious reticence:“Whoever is of another opinion should keep it to himself”!90Hilgenfeld, who considers the whole passage as quite independent of our Gospels, regrets Harnack's change of view, and applies the αὐτῷ to the malefactor;91but many able critics, with equal decision, understand it as a reference to Jesus,92and Harnack himself, of course, sees that, even adopting his later view, there is a clear contradiction in the account in Peter to the representation of the fourth Gospel. To independent criticism, the result is a matter of indifference, and we shall merely state the reasons which seem to favour the view that the passage was intended to apply to Jesus, and then present the consequence if it be referred to the malefactor.

Throughout the whole of the fragment, the sustained purpose of the author is to present Jesus in the strongest[pg 066]light, and subordinate everything to the representation of his sufferings and resurrection. At the part we are considering, the narrative is of the closest and most condensed character: the crucifixion between the two malefactors; the silence as feeling no pain; the superscription on the cross, and the parting of the garments, are all told without wasting a word. The reproach of the malefactor, apparently addressed to those who are parting the garments, is more intended to increase our sympathy for Jesus than to excite it for the speaker, and it is certainly not the writer's purpose to divert our attention from the sufferings of Jesus by presenting those of the generous malefactor. Rather it is to show that the more the high character and mission of Jesus are set forth, the more bitter becomes the animosity and hatred of the Jews; so that, to the remonstrance of the malefactor, they reply by increasing the sufferings of Jesus. In short, the sense of the passage seems to be“And they, being angered at what was said, commanded that the legs of Jesus should not be broken, that he might die in torment.”However, let us take the view that the command was given that the malefactor's legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment. It clearly follows that, if he was to be made to suffer more by not havinghislegs broken, the legs of the other two must on the contrary have been broken. The command not to breakhislegs necessarily implies that otherwise the legs of all would have been so broken. There is really no escape from this inference. Now thecrurifragiumis here represented as an act of mercy and to hasten death, but in the immediate context we are told that they were troubled and anxious lest the sun should have set whilst Jesus still lived. No anxiety of this kind is felt lest the malefactors should still be alive, and why? Because if an exception to[pg 067]breaking the legs had been made in one case, and that exception had been Jesus, the malefactors would be supposed to be already dead. If, on the contrary, the legs of Jesus had been broken, they would not have feared his being alive, but rather the malefactor whose legs had not been broken. Jesus having been left to linger in torment is still alive, and the potion of vinegar and gall is given to him to produce death, and not to the malefactor. The whole context, therefore, shows that no means such as thecrurifragiumhad been used with Jesus to hasten death, and that the potion was at last given for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the legs of Jesus were actually broken, and not those of the malefactor, a most complete contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel is given, and of the Scripture which is said in it to have been fulfilled.

Let us now see how the account in Peter compares with that in the fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis that the writer intended to represent that, in order to lengthen his sufferings, the legs of Jesus were not broken. It would follow that thecrurifragiumwas applied to the two malefactors, and that Jesus was left to a lingering death by the cruel animosity of his executioners. It will, of course, be remembered that the fourth Gospel is the only one which recounts thecrurifragium. In this narrative it is not represented as an act of mercy to shorten the sufferings of the crucified. It is said (xix. 31 f.):“The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,[pg 068]they brake not his legs ... that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.”The object of the author in relating this is obviously dogmatic, and to show the fulfilment of Scripture, but the way in which he brings the matter about is awkward, to say the least of it, and not so natural as that adopted by Peter. The soldiers brake the legs“of the first,”—and by this description they imply that they begin at one end—and proceed to the second, who would be Jesus; but not so, for having broken the legs“of the first, and of the other,”they come to Jesus, whom they must have passed over. Is this passing over of Jesus in the first instance a slight indication of a tradition similar to that which has been reproduced in Peter? However this may be, it is quite clear that, while the fourth Gospel deals with the episode purely from a dogmatic point of view, this is completely absent from Peter, who even leaves it in doubt, and as a problem for critics, whether the legs of Jesus were broken or not, and evidently does not give a thought to the Johannine representation of Jesus as the Paschal lamb. Whichever way the passage in Peter is construed, the entire independence of the writer from the influence of the fourth Gospel seems to be certain.

The fragment proceeds:

Back to IndexNext