5

name (or perhaps we should say the nickname given by their opponents) of a small sect founded by Julius Cassianus. The name, no doubt, was given to them on account of their Docetic opinions; but the odd thing is that in the early part of the third century, when Hippolytus hears of a sect called Docetæ (or, as his manuscript has it, Aokiтaí), he has no idea what the word means, and 2 tries to derive it from Soxós. And in the account which he gives of the doctrines of these people Docetism has no prominent place. The connexion of Cassianus with the sect rests on the authority of Clement of Alexandria, who calls Cassianus ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων, but in the context he deals with Cassianus as a defender, not of Docetism, but of Encratism. There was a connexion between these two doctrines, which had a common root in the principle held by so many Gnostic sects, that evil had its origin in the essential depravity of matter. Thus they felt it to be unlawful to extend the dominion of matter by procreation; and it was repugnant to them to believe that our Lord had a material body. St. Jerome in Gal. vi. 8, connects these two opinions of Cassianus: 'Cassianus, qui putativam Christi carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem masculi ad feminam immundam arbitratur.'

In this controversy it appears from Clement that the Encratites appealed to the Gospel according to the Egyptians, whence it has very commonly been supposed that Cassianus taught in Egypt. Zahn, on the other hand, concludes from the fact that it appears to have been in Antioch that the name Docete was given to the sect, that it must have been there that Cassianus taught. However this may be, what we here wish to point out is that the people who were called Doceta had other peculiar doctrines besides Docetism; and therefore that it is possible that the additions which Serapion charges them with having made to the commandments of our Lord might have had an Encratite tendency.

The observation just made throws light on the only information we had had before the late find as to anything con

1 See Ignat. Trall. 10, Smyrn. 2, 4. 3 Matt. vii. 3.

2 Hær. viii. 8, II.

It is one of the circumstances which cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of the informant of Hippolytus that in the document which came into his possession 'Docetaæ' appears to be the name given to the sect by themselves. Now, however freely they may have used the word Sóknσis in speaking of our Lord's life on earth, it is not likely that they would have taken the name Docetæ for themselves; and in fact Serapion distinctly says those whom we call Docetæ.'

5 Strom. iii. 13.

tained in the Gospel of Peter. Origen says, 'Some say that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, taking their opinion from a tradition in the Gospel which is inscribed " according to Peter" or from the book of James.' The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary would be likely to be dwelt upon by an Encratite.

The only other piece of patristic information about this Gospel must be rejected as untrustworthy, viz. that Theodoret states 2 that it was used by the sect of the Nazarenes. Theodoret, writing in the middle of the fifth century, does not profess to know anything about the early Jewish sects but what he had learned from former writers. He begins his second book on heresies by stating that there were two classes of Ebionites-the one acknowledging our Lord's miraculous Conception, and the other rejecting it; and that besides these there were the Nazarenes, viz. Jews who honoured Jesus as a just man. When we compare this account with what we know of his authorities, it does not commend itself to us as trustworthy; and when he goes on to make a distribution of heretical gospels among these sects, stating that the first of them used the Gospel according to Matthew, the second that according to the Hebrews, and the third that according to Peter, we are little tempted to give credence to his story, even if the newly-discovered fragment did not refute the theory of a Jewish origin of the Gospel.

To the passages we have quoted we have only to add that Jerome 3 mentions Gospel and Apocalypse among five writings ascribed to Peter but rejected as apocryphal. We cannot say whether he had ever seen the Gospel himself, or merely echoed the judgment of Eusebius. The Gospel is named in the Gelasian list of apocryphal books; but even the mention of the name of this Gospel by any Father is so rare that it is one of the last books we could beforehand have expected to

recover.

III. The contents of the newly-discovered fragment.—This document has been made so easily accessible by Professors Swete and Robinson, by Mr. Rendel Harris, and others, that although printing a translation of it entire would make our comments more easily intelligible, we do not feel justified in so occupying space. Suffice it to say that the fragment contains that part of the Gospel which gave the history of our Lord's Passion, beginning with Pilate's washing of his hands,

1 Comm. in Matt. t. x. 17, opp. iii. 462 or iii. 45, Lommatzsch.
2 Hær. Fab. ii. 1.

De Virr. illust. 1.

and ending with the account of the appearance of the angel to the women as told in St. Mark xvi. 1–8.

It may be regarded as undisputed that the fragment now discovered is really a portion of the work which had some circulation in the second century under the title of the 'Gospel according to Peter.' True, we are not in possession of that part of the document which contained the title; but the narrative is written in the first person, and professes to be that of an eyewitness, and at the very close the narrator gives his name—‘I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets.' The fragment, therefore, is part of a Gospel which claimed Peter as its author; and internal evidence altogether favours the belief that the Gospel was that which in early times was attributed to that Apostle.

We inquire, Is the fragment likely to have belonged to that Gospel of which Serapion tells as being in use among the Docetæ ? And to this question an affirmative answer may be given. Instead of relating, as do the Canonical Gospels, that our Lord was silent when questioned by His judges, this Gospel makes Him silent when crucified, as feeling no pain (ἐσιώπα ὡς μηδὲν πόνον ἔχων). The form in which our Lord's cry on the Cross is given-'My power, why hast thou forsaken me?'-indicates adoption of the theory, common to different Gnostic sects, of a kind of double personality in our Lord, the Divine Power which had dwelt within Him during His life of mighty works being withdrawn at His Crucifixion.

Again we ask whether our fragment corresponds with Theodoret's account, that the Gospel of Peter was that used by the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, and here our answer must be in the negative; for this Gospel is strongly antiJewish. Not only is it so in its whole tone, but great solicitude is shown to clear the Roman authorities of the guilt of crucifying our Lord, and to throw it on the Jews. It is Herod, not Pilate, who passes sentence on our Lord; Pilate washes his hands to clear himself of participation in the crime, but we are expressly told that the Jewish judges failed to do so. Again, when those who are represented as having witnessed our Lord's resurrection report to Pilate what they had seen, exclaiming, 'Truly this was the Son of God,' Pilate is made to answer, I am clear from the blood of the Son of

With regard to the use of the word óvos may be compared the Greek Acts of Perpetua, where the Latin-Pudoris potius memor quam doloris is rendered, αἰδοῦς μᾶλλον μνημονεύσασα ἢ πόνων, and ut aliquid doloris gustaret ̓ ἵνα καὶ αὐτὴ γεύσηται τῶν πόνων. Swete refers also to Gen. xxxiv. 25.

As we have already small to allow dis

God; it was you who determined this.' intimated, Theodoret's authority is too cordance with his account to inspire any doubt that our fragment is part of the second-century Gospel of Peter.

Many of the Gnostic sects were strongly anti-Jewish, and were disposed to be so by their principles. They looked on matter as the source of all evil, and therefore regarded the Creator of the material universe as one who did no good work-who, far from being the Supreme God, must have been His enemy. The Jews in their sacred books clearly identified the God whom they worshipped with the Creator; and those who looked on the Creator as a malignant being, whose laws enlightened persons ought to resist, naturally extended their opposition to the men who worshipped him.

But the attempt to clear the Roman authorities of the guilt of Christ's death had also a more innocent source. Such a representation would clearly make the Gospel more acceptable when it was preached to Gentiles. Now all four Evangelists agree in representing Pilate as only yielding to Jewish pressure in condemning one whom he did not himself regard as worthy as death, and this is very strongly brought out in St. Matthew's Gospel. It was known that Roman governors were in the habit of reporting their proceedings to the emperor, and Christians had every reason to think that the report which Pilate sent concerning our Lord must have been a favourable one. In process of time a document purporting to give Pilate's actual report got into Christian circulation. Whatever may have been the date of such a production, it is plain that though pseudo-Peter' may have gone further than others in the whitewashing of Pilate, his action need not necessarily be ascribed to heretical motives.

IV. The relation of the Gospel of Peter to the Canonical Gospels. The coincidences are so many and so striking as to leave no doubt that either Peter copied the Canonical Gospels or vice versa, or else that both drew from common sources. On the other hand, he differs from the Canonical Gospels so freely that if he copied them he must have felt himself in no way bound to defer implicitly to their authority. Hence Harnack's idea is that 'Peter' must have written before the Canonical Gospels had attained the authority which they subsequently acquired; that in his time the Gospel materials were still fluid, consisting of traditions which different evangelists worked up each in his own way, and that the coinci

1 We must be excused if, instead of this, we say for shortness Peter when we can do so without ambiguity.

dences between Peter and our Four may be explained by both having worked on similar traditions, which had reached them independently.

Now let us say at the outset that the most conservative of critics may discuss with a perfectly unbiassed mind the questions, What is the date of this new Gospel? and Are its variations from the accepted story to be ascribed to fancy or to the use of independent traditions? What the antiquity of a Gospel may be is one question; what its authority, another. We know from the preface to St. Luke's Gospel that others before him had attempted to arrange a narrative of the things our Lord had said and done. If the evidence should show that this newly-discovered Gospel was pre-Lucan, we need have no difficulty in receiving that evidence, but we should not be thereby forced to believe that the Christian community had been wrong in giving a preference to the accepted Four, such that the ancient Gospels had become practically extinct. Again, it is very conceivable that sayings and deeds of our Lord other than those contained in the Canonical Gospels might have been preserved in the memory of His disciples, and that an uncanonical Gospel, even though later than the Four, might have been early enough to preserve some of those traditions. Many, for instance, believe that the story of the woman taken in adultery, though not properly belonging to the Gospel of St. John, may have been a true tradition, probably preserved by an early uncanonical Gospel. We have, therefore, no cause to reject offhand the suggestion that this new Gospel may be early enough to rest in some degree on independent traditions; and if so, its variations from the Canonical story would deserve attentive consideration.

Although the Church's allegiance to its old Four Gospels would not be shaken by a proof of the antiquity of that which has recently come to light, the case would be altered if we were forced to believe that it was written by Peter, as it claims to be. The story told by so close a companion of our Lord would have authority to which all other testimony must give way. But on one point all critics are agreed. No one imagines that this new find really was written by Peter. And, in fact, a Gospel written by Peter must from the first have had such authority that it is inconceivable that the Christian Church should have refused to receive it, or rather have buried it in oblivion. Now, we might reject the traditional date of any of our received Gospels without imputing forgery to the writers; for none of them, not even the Fourth, contains such an explicit claim to a particular authorship as