Mr. Harris goes on to affirm that the measure of this encroachment is, in the first two centuries, one of the best indications of doc.u.mentary date we possess: "As a test, it will settle the period of many a doc.u.ment, and perhaps the measure of the appeal to prophecy will even determine the chronological order of the Gospels themselves: Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew."(125) This order will probably surprise a good many readers, and shake the faith they might perhaps be disposed to repose in the test which is supposed to have decided it. Mr. Harris applies the test in various instances to Peter, and we shall briefly examine his results.
It will be remembered that in _v._ 35 f. whilst the soldiers were keeping watch over the sepulchre, there was a great voice in the heavens, and they saw the heavens opened, and "two men" (d?? ??d?a?) came down from thence with great light, and approach the tomb, and the stone which had been laid at the door rolled away, and they entered it, but presently they beheld again three men (t?e?? ??d?a?) coming out, and the two were supporting or conducting the other by the hand, and the lofty stature of the three is described. Now the "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" by which, according to Mr. Harris, this representation was composed is as follows, though only the main lines of the painful process can be given. In the prayer of Habakkuk (iii. 2), according to the Septuagint, the words which stand in our Bible, "In the midst of the years make known" reads: "In the midst of _two lives_" (or of _two living creatures_) "thou shalt be known." This is referred in two ways: to "Christ"s incarnation" and to his "Death and Resurrection." In the former case the two animals are the ox and the a.s.s at the Nativity. The interpretation in the second case: the "living creatures" are the seraphim, two in number, because in Isaiah (vi. 3) "one called to the other and said:" "and we have only to find a situation in which Christ is seen between two angels, and the prophecy is fulfilled.
This situation is made in the Gospel of Peter by Christ rising between two supporting angels." Mr. Harris endeavours to strengthen this by referring to Cyril of Alexandria"s comment on the two living creatures (in the fourth century). Cyril is in doubt whether the two living creatures are the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Old and New Testament, but recurs to the earlier interpretation that they are the Cherubim. Mr. Harris also cites the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Zechariah iii. 7: "If thou wilt keep the observation of my word, _I will raise thee up in the resurrection of the dead, and set thy feet walking between the two cherubim_." Then, as soon as this identification of the two living creatures had been made, it was easy, says Mr. Harris, to pa.s.s over to the ninety-ninth Psalm, which Justin(126) affirms to be a prediction of Christ.
A little study of the opening words will show some interesting parallels with Peter. "The Lord hath reigned! Let the people be enraged! Sitting on the Cherubim, let the earth be shaken. The Lord in Zion is great and high above all the people." Here we have a parallel to the "Jews burning with rage," and to the enormous stature of the risen Christ, and, perhaps to the quaking of the earth. Nor is it without interest that Justin, having spoken of this great and high Christ, should turn immediately to another Psalm (xix.) where the sun is said to come forth as a bridegroom from his chamber, and to rejoice _as a giant_ to run a race.(127)
In order to be as just as possible, all this has been given in greater detail than perhaps the case deserves. It seems rather a heavy avalanche of conjecture to bring down upon Peter, who simply narrates, without the most distant reference to any prophetic texts; and it is perhaps a little hard that Justin, who in all probability had the Gospel already written and before him, should contribute in this casual way to the author"s discomfiture. However, let us see what there is to be said upon the other side. The first general remark that may be made is, that it can scarcely be considered evidence of the later date of Peter to ascribe to him, as the source of this detail, an elaborate twisting of texts through the operation of gnosis, which has not been proved to have existed in this form before the epoch at which he wrote. This is said without any intention of casting doubt on the general operation of supposed prophetic pa.s.sages on the evolution of Gospel history, but merely as questioning this particular explanation of the mode in which this representation was originally suggested, and more especially for the purpose of adding that, whatever reproach of this kind is cast upon the Gospel according to Peter, must equally be directed against the canonical gospels.
It will be remembered that, in the third Synoptic, "two men in shining apparel" a.s.sist at the resurrection, and that in the fourth Gospel Mary sees in the tomb "two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." Here there is an occasion for applying with equal-or, as we shall presently see, greater-propriety the argument of "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" to the writers, and so explaining their representation. But there is more to be suggested in connection with the matter. In the first and second Synoptics, only one angel a.s.sists at the scene, who in the second Synoptic is called "a young man" (?ea??s???). Now the "two men" of great stature in Peter only go into the tomb and come out again with Jesus; but subsequently the heavens were again opened (_v._ 44), and a certain man descends and goes into the tomb and remains there, for when the women come (_v._ 55) they see there "a certain young man" (?ea??s???) "sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clad in a shining garment," who speaks to them as in the two Synoptics, and tells them that "Jesus is gone thither whence he was sent." This, then, is the angel who appears in Matthew and Mark. We have already mentioned that the two men of _v._ 36 have been identified by some critics as Moses and Elias. The account of the transfiguration is given in all the Synoptics, though it does not seem to have been known to the author of the fourth Gospel-although "John" was an actor in the scene-but that in the third Synoptic is fuller than the rest (ix. 28 ff). Jesus takes with him Peter and John and James, and goes up into the mountain to pray; and as he prays his countenance was altered, and his raiment becomes white and dazzling; "and behold there talked with him two men (??d?e? d??), which were Moses and Elijah; who appeared in glory, _and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem_." When Peter and the others were fully awake, "they saw his glory and the two men (d?? ??d?a?) that stood with him. And it came to pa.s.s, as they were parting from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah: _not knowing what he said_. And while he said these things there came a cloud, and overshadowed them ...
and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my son, my chosen: hear ye him." To this episode Mr. Harris might reasonably apply the test of the "highly evolved prophetic gnosis;" but in any case, the view that the two men of the fragment are intended to represent Moses and Elijah-the law and the prophets-who had so short a time before "spoken of his decease which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem," and who now came, in stature reaching to the heavens, but less than his which rose above the heavens, and conducted Jesus the Christ forth from the tomb, in which that decease had been fulfilled, is in the highest degree probable. Much more might be said regarding this, but too much time has already been devoted to the point.
The second application of Mr. Harris"s test is to the sealing of the stone at the sepulchre with seven seals. The Gospel of Peter simply states that the stone was sealed with seven seals, and Mr. Harris endeavours to find some abstruse meaning in the statement, which is peculiar to the fragment in so far as the number of seals is concerned. Where did Peter get the idea? Mr. Harris says, first from Zechariah iii. 9: "For behold the stone that I have set before Joshua; upon one stone are seven eyes; behold I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts;" and the name Joshua is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus. A reference is also made by the Fathers of the second century to pa.s.sages to prove that Christ was the stone (of stumbling to the Jews, but the corner stone to believers).
"Justin recognised Christ in the stone cut out without hands, of which Daniel speaks; in the stone which Jacob set for his pillow, and which he anointed with oil; in the stone on which Moses sat in the battle with Amalek," and the like. "Bearing in mind that there was an early tendency to connect the language of the "Branch" pa.s.sage with the resurrection, we can see that the interpretation took a second form, viz. to regard the stone before the face of Jesus as a prophecy of the stone which closed the tomb in the evangelic story." There is evidence, Mr. Harris says, that the seven eyes were early interpreted by Biblical Targumists to mean seven seals.
We need not be surprised, then, that the Peter Gospel speaks of the stone as sealed with seven seals; it is an attempt to throw the story into closer parallelism with Zechariah, no doubt for polemic purposes against the Jews. That he uses the curious word ?p????sa?, which we are obliged, from the exigencies of language, to translate "they smeared" or "plastered" seven seals, but which to the writer meant much the same as if he were to say, "they on-christed seven seals," is due to the lurking desire to make a parallel with Christ and the stone directly, and with the anointed pillar of Jacob. The stone has a chrism.... But this is not all; in Zechariah (iv. 10) there is a pa.s.sage, "they shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel," but in the Septuagint it runs, "they shall see the tin-stone." How is this to be connected with the "stone before the face of Joshua or Jesus"? The answer is found in the pages of the Peter Gospel: "a great crowd came from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood _to see the tomb which had been sealed_." It only remains to identify the stone which they saw with the tin-stone. Symmachus retranslated the Hebrew word for "tin" as if it came from the root which means "to separate or divide," and in the Gospel of Peter, "the stone which had been laid on the door of the tomb withdrew (or separated) gradually"
(?pe????se pa?? ????).
"The "plummet" of Zerubbabel," Mr. Harris triumphantly concludes, "is used by Peter to make history square with prophecy."(128)
Now again the general remark has to be made that, in order to convict Peter of a late date, Mr. Harris takes all this "highly evolved gnosis"
wherever he can find it, without consideration of epochs, and in some parts upon mere personal conjecture. He even confesses that he does not know the date of the translation of Symmachus, which he nevertheless uses as an argument. He observes, himself, that it is "a little awkward" that the stone, which at one time represents Jesus, has to be treated in the same breath as before the face of Jesus. The terribly complicated and involved process, by which it is suggested that the author of the Gospel according to Peter evolved a detail so apparently simple as the sealing of the sepulchre with seven seals, is difficult enough to follow, and must have been still more difficult to invent, but in his anxiety to a.s.sign a late date to the fragment, Mr. Harris forgets that, if the number seven is evidence of it, a large part of the New Testament must be moved back with the fragment. The Synoptics are full of it,(129) but it is quite sufficient to point to the Apocalypse, which has this typical number in almost every chapter: the message to the seven churches; the seven spirits before the throne; the seven golden candlesticks; the seven stars; seven lamps of fire burning; seven angels; seven trumpets; seven thunders; the dragon with seven heads, and seven diadems; the seven angels with seven plagues; the woman with seven heads, and so on. The most striking and apposite instance, which Mr. Harris indeed does not pa.s.s over, but mentions as having "a curious and suggestive connection" and "every appearance of being ultimately derived from the language of Zechariah,"(130) is the Book which is close sealed with seven seals, and the Lamb standing as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are seven spirits of G.o.d, which is found worthy to take the book and open the seals.(131) Instead of giving the author of the fragment, who does not make the slightest claim to it, credit for so extraordinary a feat of synthetic exegesis, is it not more simple and probable that he used the number seven as a mere ordinary symbol of completeness? but if more than this be deemed requisite, and the detail has a deeper mystical sense, he can only be accused of "highly evolved prophetic gnosis," in company with the author of the Apocalypse and other canonical books, and this still gives him a position in the same epoch with them, more than which, probably, no one demands.
Another instance may be rapidly disposed of. The writer of Peter, Mr.
Harris affirms, was not ignorant of the gnosis of the Cross wrought out by the Fathers from the Old Testament, on the "Wood" and the "Tree." One pa.s.sage at which they laboured heavily is in Habakkuk ii. 11: "The stone cries out of the wall, and the cross-beam answers back to it." Mr. Harris proceeds:
Now the author of the Peter Gospel has been at work on the pa.s.sage; he wishes to make the cross talk, and not only talk, but answer back; accordingly, he introduces a question: "Hast thou preached to them that are asleep?" and the response is heard from the cross, "Yea." As far as I can suspect, the first speaker is Christ, the Stone; and the answer comes from the Cross, the Wood.
It is then the Cross that has descended into Hades. But perhaps this is pressing the writer"s words a little too far.(132)
Is it not also pressing the writer"s thoughts a little too far to suggest such trains of childish interpretation as the origin of all his characteristic representations? Mr. Harris, by way of bringing the charge nearer to Peter, says that the pa.s.sage of Habakkuk "is quoted by Barnabas, though no doubt from a corrupted text, with a positive a.s.sertion that the Cross is here intimated by the prophet."(133) This is not so. The pa.s.sage in Barnabas (xii.) reads: "He defineth concerning the Cross in another prophet, who saith: "And when shall these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. Whensoever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree." Again thou art taught concerning the cross and him that was to be crucified." This is not a quotation from Habakkuk, but from 4 Esdras v. 5. This is, however, not of much importance. It is of greater moment to observe that Mr. Harris, in applying this test, is only able to "suspect" that, in this episode in Peter, the speaker who asks the question is Christ the "stone," and the answer from the cross, the "wood;" but as the first "speaker" is a voice "out of the heavens," it is difficult to connect it with "Christ the Stone," to whom the question is actually addressed. According to this, he puts the question to himself. Such exegesis, applied to almost any conceivable statement, might prove almost any conceivable hypothesis.
The next instance requires us to turn to a pa.s.sage in Amos (viii. 9-10, LXX): "And it shall come to pa.s.s in that day, saith the Lord G.o.d, that the sun shall set at midday, ... and I will turn your feasts into wailing and all your songs to lamentation, and I will lay sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head; and I will set him as the wailing for the beloved, and those that are with him as a day of grief." With it, we are told, must be taken the parallel verse in which Zechariah (xiv. 6, 7) predicts a day in which "there shall be no light, but cold and frost ... but towards evening there shall be light." This was one of the proofs with early Christians of the events which happened at the crucifixion, and St.
Cyprian, for instance, quotes it. It is also quoted in the sixth Homily of the Persian Father Aphrahat against the Jews. "The Gospel of Peter did not apparently possess the gnosis in such a highly evolved form as this," but works on the same lines. Mr. Harris then quotes pa.s.sages from the fragment, which we shall give after him, with his inserted comments, but as he does not mark the intervals which occur between them, we shall take the liberty of inserting the verses from which they are taken between brackets.
15. It was mid-day and darkness over all the land of Judaea....
22. then the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour [_at evening time it shall be light_]; 23. and the Jews rejoiced.... 25. and the Jews began to wail [_I will turn your feasts into mourning_].... 26. We also were fasting and sitting down (_i.e._ sitting on the ground in sackcloth(134)); [_I will lay sackcloth on all loins_]. 50. Mary Magdalene had not done at the tomb as women are wont to do over their dead beloveds, so she took her friends with her to wail [_I will set him as the Wailing for the Beloved_].
The writer is, therefore, drawing on the details of prophecy, as suggested by the current testimonies against the Jews, and most likely on a written gnosis involving these testimonies. That he veils his sources simply shows that he is not one of the first brood of anti-Jewish preachers. If he had been early, he would not have been artificial or occult.(135)
Now, as before, Mr. Harris uses the eccentricities of a gnosis which he does not prove to have existed at the time the fragment may have been written and, for instance, he quotes St. Cyprian, who wrote in the second half of the third century, and the Persian Father Aphrahat, also a writer long after the Gospel of Peter was composed, and his remark that the writer "did not apparently possess the gnosis in so highly evolved a form"
as Aphrahat, is not so much an admission in his favour as to prepare the reader to be content with inferior evidence. The test, however, quite as much applies to our Gospels as to the Gospel of Peter. In the previous working, of which the fragment says nothing, those who pa.s.s "wag their heads" and rail, in each of the Synoptics, in a jubilant way. The first Synoptic says (xxvii. 45 f.) "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." The centurion and those who were watching "feared exceedingly." In Mark (xv. 33) there also "was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour," but in Luke (xxiii. 44 f.) the resemblance is still more marked. The darkness comes over the whole earth from the sixth until the ninth hour, "the sun"s light failing." (48) "And all the mult.i.tudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, _returned smiting their b.r.e.a.s.t.s_." In the fourth Gospel (xx. 11), Mary goes to the tomb weeping. We shall have more to say regarding the Gospels presently, but here we need only remark that, whether in exactly the same way or not, the "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" has certainly done its work in all of them. In this respect, the Gospel of Peter merely takes its place with the rest.
There is only one other instance to be noticed here. It refers to some of the details which the writer of the fragment introduces into the mockery which precedes the crucifixion. Some of the mockers "p.r.i.c.k" Jesus with a reed; others spat on his eyes. This, Mr. Harris says, is connected with a view early taken regarding a change of Jewish feasts. In the Epistle of Barnabas, there is the best exposition of the doctrine that the Feast should be turned into mourning and the Pa.s.sover at which Jesus suffered should be treated as if it had been the Day of Atonement. In Barnabas, the ritual of the great day is discussed in detail, and the rules of procedure for the Priests and the People, apparently taken, Mr. Harris thinks, from a Greek handbook, prove a variety of local usage such as would not have been suspected from the Scripture, read apart from the rest of the literature of the time. The "unwashed inwards" of one goat, offered at the fast for all sins, are to be eaten by the priests alone, with vinegar, while the people fast and wail in sackcloth and ashes. This goat is one of two over which lot is cast on the Day of Atonement; the other is the scape-goat, Azazel, which, according to Barnabas, was to be treated with contumely, and sent away into the wilderness: "All of you spit on him, and p.r.i.c.k him, and put the scarlet wool on his head," &c. Now the two goats both represent Christ, according to Barnabas, "who twists these written regulations into prophecies of the first and second Advents, and of the details of the Pa.s.sion."
The mention of vinegar to be eaten with the bitter portion of the goat, suggested the words of the Psalm: "Gall for my meat and vinegar for my drink;" the command to spit on the goat and p.r.i.c.k (or pierce) him [which ill-usage, by the way, the Talmud admits to have been the practice of the Alexandrian Jews], is interpreted by Barnabas to be a type or a prophecy of Christ "set at naught and pierced and spat on." Is there any trace of the gnosis of the two goats in Peter? If we may judge from the conjunction of the words in the account of the Mockery, there is a decided trace: "Others stood and spat on his eyes ... others p.r.i.c.ked him with a reed;" it is Christ as the goat Azazel.
Mr. Harris quotes "an almost contemporary Sibyllist," "They shall p.r.i.c.k his side with a reed, _according to their law_;" and he continues: "If the Sybillist is quoting Peter, he is also interpreting him, and his interpretation is, they shall p.r.i.c.k him, as is done to the goat Azazel."
To make Peter responsible for the ideas or interpretations of the Sybillist is a little hard. However, let us examine this matter. It is to be observed that the only innovation in Peter, regarding the spitting, is the expression that they "spat upon _his eyes_" instead of simply "upon him," or "in his face," as in the Gospels; but upon this nothing turns.
The point is not even mentioned; so it may be dismissed. Regarding the reed, Peter says they "pierced" him with it, instead of "smote him" with it. Let us leave the "piercing" aside for the moment. In all other respects, the contumely is the same in the Gospels. Before the high priest, in Matthew and Mark (Matt. xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65), they spit in his face and buffet him, and smite him with the palms of their hands; and in Luke (xxii. 63 f.) they mock and beat him and revile him. It is curious that, according to the second Synoptist, all this was foretold, for he makes Jesus say (x. 33 f.): "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes: and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again." After the trial before Pilate, in Mark (xv. 17 ff.), they put on him a purple robe, and the crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his hand, and spit upon him, and take the reed and smite him on the head. In Peter, likewise, they clothe him in purple, put on his head the crown of thorns, spit upon his eyes, smite him on the cheeks, and pierce him with a reed.
What difference is there here except the mere piercing? Yes! there is a difference, for Mr. Harris has forgotten to refer to the scarlet wool put on the goat Azazel. There is nothing in Peter which corresponds with the scarlet wool. The robe that is put upon Jesus is purple. Now Barnabas, in the chapter from which Mr. Harris quotes all these pa.s.sages, finds this point of the "scarlet wool" fulfilled in Jesus: "For they shall see him in that day wearing the long scarlet robe about his flesh."(136) But if we look in the first Synoptic we also find this, for we read (xxvii. 28): "And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe" (??a?da ????????).
The mere detail of piercing with the reed instead of smiting with it is trifling compared with this, and in all essential points Mr. Harris"s test more fitly applies to the first Synoptic than to Peter, and equally so to the other two.
As for the piercing with the reed, however, we have only to turn to the fourth Gospel, and we find its counterpart (xix. 34) where one of the soldiers with a spear pierced the side of Jesus. Why? (36) "That the Scripture might be fulfilled.... "They shall look on him whom they pierced." " Here is the "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" without any disguise. If one writer prefer to fulfil one part of Scripture, the other may select another without much difference in standing. Even Mr. Harris admits that "the gnosis on which Barnabas works is ultimately based on the same pa.s.sage" as that quoted as fulfilled in the fourth Gospel(137); then what distinction of date is possible when both apply the same gnosis based on the same texts?
XI
We have now discussed practically all the test instances advanced by Mr.
Rendel Harris, and the result at which we arrive is, that he has not succeeded in proving that the Gospel of Peter betrays such traces of a "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" as require us to a.s.sign to it a later date than the canonical Gospels. If this system of elaborate and perverted ingenuity were applied to these Gospels, as it has been to the fragment, and every kind of false exegesis, childish reasoning, and wild interpretation, such as was current amongst the Fathers, brought forward to explain the construction of the four canonical works, the consequence would be terribly surprising to pious readers. That this exegesis began early is quite undeniable, and it is not too much to say that it is palpably visible on the very surface of most of the books of the New Testament. It had, as Mr. Harris must admit and does admit, practical effect on the composition of the Gospels as they have come down to us, but it is fully displayed in some of the Epistles of Paul, still more in those pa.s.sing under his name, is supreme in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and as for the Acts, the Apostles are, from the very opening, made to express the highly evolved prophetic gnosis of the author. We do not, of course, argue that the writer of the fragment is free from it, but merely that he shares it equally with the other Evangelists, however much their canonicity, derived from the very Fathers who are steeped in this gnosis, may protect them from Mr. Harris"s dangerous attack. Without going into an explanation of the genesis of various important points in the story, which would require a volume, we may just glance at some of the points at which the Evangelists frankly declare the source of the gnosis, and allow the process to be seen.
Let us take for instance the first Synoptic. The events previous to the birth of Jesus (i. 18 if.) take place "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel," and it is only an ill.u.s.tration of the _navete_ of the period that two verses further on they call the son, not Immanuel, but Jesus. The chief priests and scribes inform Herod (ii. 5 f.) that the Christ should be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, because it was written by the prophet: "And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Which shall be shepherd of my people Israel." Joseph takes the young child and his mother into Egypt (ii. 15 f.), "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son." Herod slays all the male children in Bethlehem and in all the borders thereof (ii. 16 f.) and "then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children," &c. On returning from Egypt they settle in Galilee, in a city called Nazareth (ii. 23), "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." John the Baptist comes preaching "in the wilderness" (iii. 1 f.), "for this is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness," &c. The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is based upon three texts: (iv. 1 ff.) "Man shall not live by bread alone," &c.; "He shall give his angels charge concerning thee," &c., and "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy G.o.d,"
&c. When John is delivered up (iv. 12 ff.) Jesus leaves Nazareth and dwells "in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did light spring up." In the episode of John in prison sending his disciples to Jesus (xi. 2 ff.), the whole reply is based indirectly on prophetic gnosis, and the _v._ 10 directly: "This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee," and _v._ 14, "And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, which is to come." When the Pharisees take counsel to destroy him (xii. 14 f.), and Jesus withdraws, healing the sick and enjoining them that they should not make him known, it is "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold my servant," &c. There is an exhibition of "highly evolved prophetic gnosis" (xii. 39 ff.) when a sign is asked for, and the sign of Jonah the prophet is given, "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," a gnosis which helped to shape the representation of the entombment. The speaking in parables is justified, not originated (xiii. 14 f.), as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, "By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand," &c, and (_v._ 35) "I will open my mouth in parables," &c. Of course, as Mr. Harris says, "no sane person would take St. Matthew"s quotation as the cause of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parabolic discourse;"(138) but, as he admits, the prophetic pa.s.sages were in the author"s mind, and are amongst "the first faint shadows cast by the prophecy [?] upon the history," and they certainly led to the representation that those who heard the parabolic teaching, and notably the disciples, did not understand the most luminous discourses, and required a private explanation of the clearest allegories.
The entry into Jerusalem (xxi. 2 f.) is arranged "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and riding upon an a.s.s, and upon a colt the foal of an a.s.s;" and the writer, not appreciating the duplication of Hebrew poetry, is literal enough to relate (_v._ 2) that Jesus tells the disciples they shall find "an a.s.s tied, and a colt with her," which they are to bring, and (_v._ 7) "they brought the a.s.s and the colt, and put on them their garments; _and he sat upon them_" (?p???
a?t??): a representation which has ever since given much trouble to pious commentators. It is not difficult to see that the "cleansing of the temple" (xxi. 12 f.) takes place because "it is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye make it a den of robbers." The trials when "the abomination of desolation (xxiv. 16 f.), which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet," is seen "standing in the holy place (_let him that readeth understand_)," is an example of the prophetic gnosis. The preparation for the pa.s.sion commences (xxvi. 2), "Ye know that after two days the pa.s.sover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified." Jesus is represented (_v._ 31) as saying to the disciples: "All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad;"
and the curious phrase which follows is worth consideration: "But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee," which seems to have slipped in here out of its place. The events which take place at the arrest, and their coming out with swords and staves as against a robber to take him (xxvi. 66), "All this is come to pa.s.s that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled;" and Jesus could not pray for legions of angels to help him, for (_v._ 66), "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled?" The conduct of Judas after he had betrayed his master, when he took back the pieces of silver, the price of his betrayal, to the priests (xxvii. 3 f.), fulfils "that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter"s field, as the Lord appointed me."
XII
This need not be further pursued, however, though the principle applies quite as much to the other Gospels. Only one pa.s.sage may be quoted from the last chapter of the third Synoptic. Jesus, when he appears to the disciples, after the episode of the fish to prove that he is not a spirit, but himself with flesh and bones (xxiv. 36 f.), is represented as saying:
These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations.
This is a direct justification of the gnosis, and it is no wonder that we find St. Sylvia, some centuries later, recording the concrete principle upon which Gospel history is written: "Nothing took place which had not been previously foretold, and nothing had been foretold which had not obtained its fulfilment."
In so far as the Gospel according to Peter is concerned, the impartial verdict must be: It is neither better nor worse than the more fortunate works which have found a safe resting-place within the Canon of the Church. It is almost impossible now to judge of these works as we judge the fragment. Centuries of reverence, and individual habit of hearing their contents with docility and with bated criticism, have rendered most of us incapable of judging the effect which a good part of their contents would make upon us if, like the fragment of Akhmim, they had been freshly discovered yesterday. There is no canonical glamour to veil its shortcomings, and it must not be forgotten that, in this short fragment, we have none of those parts of the Gospel, such as the Sermon on the Mount and some of the parables, which contain so much n.o.ble teaching and render the literature so precious. Then, as we have before pointed out, the canonical Gospels, in their greater circulation and in the process of reception by the Church, secured a gradual revision which might have smoothed away any roughness from the Gospel of Peter had it been equally fortunate. The three Synoptic Gospels are so closely dependent on each other, or on the same sources, as to be practically one work; and although this renders all the more remarkable certain indications of selection, some of which we have pointed out, it nevertheless limits our acquaintance with early belief. It is the merit of the fragment that it presents considerable variation in the original sources, and shows us the fluidity of the early reports of that which was supposed to take place during the period which it embraces. We have in it a primitive and less crystallised form of the Christian tradition.