THE GOSPEL OF GAMALIEL

The Gospel of Gamaliel

Or the Lament of the Virgin and the Martyrdom of Pilate

LAMENT OF THE VIRGIN

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we will write a discourse composed　by Cyriacus, 1 bishop of the town of Bahnasa, 2 on the merits of the pure Virgin our Lady 3Mary, and her affectionate weeping on the day of the crucifixion of our Lord,when on the day of His holy resurrection she went to the door of the sepulchre of her Son and didnot find His body, because He had risen up from the dead. May his 4 blessing be with us. Amen.He said :The weeping of Jacob, the head of the Patriarchs, has been renewed to-day, O my beloved ; whythen should not the Virgin Mary weep over her Son whom she conceived in virginity ? Whyshould not the Virgin Mary weep over the one for whom she suffered the pangs of parturition ? xWhy should not the Virgin Mary weep over the one into whose divine mouth she placed her　virginal breast ? Why should not the Virgin weep over the manger, which^ is in Bethlehem ?Why should not the Virgin weep over her beloved Son whom she carried during nine months of　gestation ? Why should not the Virgin weep over the one whom she brought forth and suckled ?If Rachel weeps over children whom she has never embraced, why should not the Virgin weepover the one whom she carried in her arms like all babes ? ' If Rachel weeps over children for　whom she did not run from place to place, why should not the Virgin weep over her child withwhom she ran from country to country ? If Rachel weeps over children whose tombs she has notseen, why should not the Virgin weep at the door of her only Son's sepulchre ?The weeping of a venerable old man" 3 has been renewed to-day for a young, 4 virgin woman.Jacob did not see Joseph bound by his brothers, but the Virgin saw her Son nailed to the wood of　the cross. Jacob did not see Joseph when his brothers threw him while hungry into the depths of　the well, so that he might weep over him ; but the Virgin saw her Son hanging on the cross in themiddle (of two male- factors), before all the Jews. Jacob did not see Joseph when his　brothers stripped him of his clothes, but the Virgin saw her Son in a naked state in the middle of　Jews devoid of understanding. Jacob did not see Joseph being sold to Egyptian merchants for　thirty denarii, but the Virgin saw her Son when Judas sold Him for thirty pieces of silver. Jacobwept over a foreign blood and over a robe that was not torn by wild beasts, but it is over a divine　blood smeared on the rock of the Kranion '" that the Virgin is weeping, and over the foreignrobe which her Son was wearing, since they had divided His garments among themselves. The　brothers of Joseph wept and repented that they had sold their brother, but the Children of Israeldid not weep when they sold their Lord. 1 The sons of Jacob rejoicedwhen their brother reigned (over Egypt), but the Jews did not rejoice when their Lord rose upfrom the dead.O pure Virgin, your wailing over the tomb of your beloved Son is truly sweet and your voice ismelodious in the middle of the angels, when they brought to you the sad news and said : " OMary, what are you doing sitting, while your Son is standing before the Governor and is being　judged and insulted by the High Priest of the Jews ? " O Mary, what are you doing sitting, whileyour Son is being stripped in the court of His garment dyed (with His blood) ? O daughter of　Joiakim, what are you doing sitting, while your Son is carrying alone a cross in the streets of　Jerusalem, and no one comes near Him ? O dove of Hannah what are you doing sitting, whileyour Son is being crucified in the place of the Kranion ? O seed of David, why havethey lifted your Son on the cross ?O my pure and Virgin Lady, your wailing is truly sweet to-day in the house of John, while saying: 2 " Oh, how bitter is this messenger who came to me to-day ! He is more bitter than themessenger of death who came to Job and to Jacob Israel. Oh, how cruel is the intelligencer whocame to me to-day, O my Child ! He is more cruel than the one who announced to Lot the　burning of his town. Oh, how painful is the news that came to me to-day, O my child ! It is more　painful than the news concerning the death of the valiant men of Israel. Oh, how cruel is themessenger who brought me this bad news, O my child ! (This child) has comfortedme for thirty years, and He never furnished me with an occasion to chide Him and scold Him.(What adds bitterness) to the news is that the one who brought it to me is Salome ! All mysorrow has began again !" O my child, I have never been to a Governor, nor have I ever stood before a judge. I have never　seen a robber being killed, nor have I ever gone to the Kranion, nor do I know the place of theGolgotha. O my child, I have never stood before a man engaged in litigation so that I mightrealise the false wisdom (that has been applied to your case) ; nor have I ever been present in alaw court, so that I might realise the injustice that has been done to you. O my child, I am insidethe house of John, and you are in the house of the High- Priest Annas. O my child, this cruelnews that concerns you has outweighed the sadness of my orphanhood, and the painfulinformation relating to you has to-day l deprived me of my joy. The angel announced to me your　　birth in Nazareth, and I have been announcedthis cruel news about you in Jerusalem.' Your Annunciation occurred to me in the house of　Joseph, and this bad news was brought to me in the house of John. O my beloved, I was rejoicingin my heart and saying constantly, ' To-morrow we shall have our passover, accomplish theordinance of the feast and return to our home ; ' the passover has come to me, O my beloved Son,with weeping and wailing ! My feast has changed into lamentation and my passover into grief ! "The Virgin uttered this affectionate wailing " in the house of John when they brought to her thesad news of her Son. Then she began to look for one of His holy disciples to walk with her, butshe did not find any, because all had fled and forsaken Him from fear of the Jews. She asked for　Peter to accompany her, and she was informed that from his fear of the High Priest he had deniedher Son, saying, " I do not know Him," and that he had gone and hidden himself from Him.She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Himon the mount where He was seized. She asked for Andrew, and she was informed that he hadnever come with Him to town at all. She asked for Thomas, and she was in- formed that he hadthrown down his garments and fled. She asked for the son of Tulmas, 4 and she was informedthat he was the first of His brethren to flee. She asked for Philip, and she was informed thatwhen he saw the torches burning, he was terrified and fled. She asked for James, the brother of　John, and she was informed that he never even looked at Him. She asked for Matthew, and shewas informed that he was afraid of the Jews more than all others, as they had a special grudge against him from the time he used to collect taxes fromthem, and he had, therefore, fled in the darkness of the night. In short she asked for all of them,and she did not find a single one of them except John who had accompanied Him to the Kranionand the Golgotha.Then the Virgin resumed her weeping and wailing, because she was not able to find any of theApostles, the disciples of her Son, except John, and said while weeping :" Woe is me, O my Son and O my beloved, because your brethren fled and disappeared. O myfather Peter, I was thinking every day that you would not deny your Master. You have not beengiven gold and silver that you denied Him so quickly. You have not been presented with a boatand oars, why then did you deny to-day your Master and your Lord ? You have not had the giftof a son or a daughter (as the price of your denial), O Peter, and you have not had the offer of　exchanging Him for a brother or a friend, why then this spiritless weakness of yours ? You didnot see a second cross, O Peter, which you believed might be for you, that you were so terrifiedthat you denied Him. He gave you a tongue of iron, O Peter, and you melted it and spoiled itwithout fire or a smith. He bestowed grace upon you, 1 O Peter, more than all men, and you didnot bear now a single slap for your Master. He bestowed on you, O Peter, two eyes the light of　which does not fade, and you did not feel ashamed to deny their light." He confided to you, OPeter, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and you did not suffer a short time (for Him) inthe prison of the High Priest." He made you, O Peter, His deputy to all the world, and you did not endure a single temptation3 for your Master. He made you, O Peter, a father to all the world, and you did not act in a　brotherly love for a single short hour towards my Son. He imposed His divine hand on your　head, 4 O Peter, and you did not agree b to have a crown of thorns on your head before you haddenied Him. Even if you say, Peter, that my Son is not your Master but only your friend, it didnot behoove you to deny Him in this way. If you had to endure, O Peter, all the tribulationsundergone with us by my father : Joseph, you should have been dragged to Herod with my Son.'If you had to bear like him the pains of the journey to the country of Egypt, you might not have　been able to endure a single one of them. May the dew of heaven nurture your bones, O myfather Joseph, the just man, and may the tree of life nourish 3 your soul because you haveendured my tribulations with me, and have not denied my Son ! O Peter, they have not broughtyou before the Governor, nor have they placed you before the high tribunal that you denied your　Master so quickly."When the Virgin finished her lamentations over the denial of Peter in the house of John, she sentfor John, who came and found her weeping. Then both John and the Virgin wept over the LordJesus. Then John said to the Virgin : " O my mother, do not weep over Peter for his denial of myMaster, because he has not the same blame attached to him as that which attaches to Judas who　betrayed Him.1 heard what "my Master said at the evening meal and what Peter said to Him, ' Be it far fromyou, Lord, this shall not be unto you,' 4 but I will give my life for you. And I heard my Lord andmy Master rebuking him three times saying to him, ' Go ye behind me, Satan, you have become

Gospel of Gamaliel: Early Evidence for the Survival of Jesus' Shroud

Dan Scavone

The survival of an imaged burial wrapping of Jesus in early Eastern texts is

supported by a pair of texts encompassed under the name "The Gospel of Gamaliel

(GG)." This apocryphal gospel has been found in Coptic, Greek, Ethiopic, Garshuni

(Syriac transcribed in Arabic script), and Syriac fragments that are closely related to the

Gospel of Nicodemus, which is dated anywhere from the 2nd to 6th c.1 The latest

scholarship has concluded that while the GG is not a slavish minion of a Greek prototype,

"it is an original Coptic reworking of material already extant in Greek models."2 I would

emphatically include the NT among these Greek models so freely adapted by this

"unauthorised version" of Jesus' Passion and Death. The Coptic fragments have been

prioritised because in the most complete version in 15th c. Garshuni, edited and

translated by Mingana, Pilate is placed in an honourable role in keeping with the fact that

the Roman procurator was transformed into a saint of the Coptic church--and only there.3

The text as it is pieced together today is best dated in the 5th-6th c.4

The copyist -- not the author – of the Garshuni version was one Heryaqos Bishop

of Al-Bahnasa (Cyriacus, bishop of Oxyrhynchus). But the text itself refers frequently to

"I, Gamaliel," as the author, by whom is meant the "contemporary of Christ, the Rabbi

Gamaliel the Elder known from Acts (5:34; 22:3) and also from the Mishnah. The name

'Gospel' was bestowed on this document by Anton Baumstark and Paulin Ladeuze.5 Not

one editor has commented on the gratuitous but pervasive importance placed in this GG

on the "burial wrappings" of Jesus and on Pilate's intimate association with them.

In the first text, still best called the "Lament of the Virgin,"6 Pilate, Joseph of

Arimathea and Nicodemus are featured, as are the burial cloths. In the second, the

"Martyrdom of Pilate," Gamaliel explicitly names himself as the author, and Pilate again

joins the two Good-Friday disciples of Jesus in the retrieval of the burial cloths and in the

miracles accomplished by their means. Both parts of the GG seem to pay special

attention to the burial cloths which wrapped Jesus' body in the tomb, as did the Gospel of

Nicodemus, to which they are thus related. In both texts can be found many nuances that

conjure up a knowledge of the naked image of Jesus on a burial cloth in Constantinople.

It is well known to students of the history of the Turin Shroud that Nicholas

Mesarites was the caretaker (skeuophylax) of the relics in the imperial treasury in 1201,

about the time of the Fourth Crusade. It is also known (and largely accepted) that,

although he did not state that he saw an image, his references to Jesus' burial cloth and to

the nakedness of the body of Jesus in the same breath, so to speak, seem to be evidence

that he was an eyewitness of the Shroud in his keeping in the Pharos Chapel. In the GG

is it this same juxtaposition of burial wrappings and nudity that persuades me that the

writer, whether the Gamaliel who inserts himself in the first person in the story from time

to time or some other anonymous, had a knowledge, ocular or otherwise, of the Turin

Shroud.7

LAMENT OF THE VIRGIN 8

Approximately the first half of this section of the GG (Mingana, pp. 182-

197)relates and reiterates, always in the tenderest terms, the experiences and the

bereaved state of mind of Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus, on Good Friday. The remainder

is devoted to the deeds of Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus during and after

the crucifixion. The lament of Mary is poetic and poignantly moving. It must suffice, in

pursuit of my theme, to recite the passages which seem to point to a possible awareness

of the Shroud by the writer--whoever it really was. He was comparing the sorrows of OT

figures to those of the Virgin. Amidst a series of parallels such as "Jacob did not see

Joseph bound by his brothers, but the Virgin saw her Son nailed to the wood of the

cross". We read "Jacob did not see Joseph when his brothers stripped him of his clothes,

but the Virgin saw her Son in a naked state in the middle of the Jews devoid of

understanding" (183).

Pilate soon becomes a hero of the piece, for we read (191) "Indeed Pilate and his

wife loved (Jesus) like their own soul." The refurbishment of Pilate continues and only

increases throughout the remainder of the piece, always accompanied pari passu by an

explicit anti-Semitism.9 Finally (203), after the Resurrection, Pilate reveals to the High

Priests and other Jews his vision of Jesus while he lay in his bed the night before. In his

vision, Jesus says to him "Return to Me and I will forgive you. . . . Hasten to my tomb

and you will see the wrappings lying in it guarded by angels. Kiss them and worship

them. . . . You will witness many miracles today at the sepulchre. . . . O Pilate, you will

shine in the light of my resurrection, which the Jews will deny." Pilate has come a long

way, thanks to the beliefs of Coptic Christians, in contrast to his fate in other apocryphal

documents like The Death of Pilate in which his dead body contaminates the Tiber. It is

another story.

Meanwhile, Mary, who had been standing weeping by the cross, prepared to leave

her dying Son. Again Jesus' nudity is remarked as Mary says, "I salute your nudity, O

King, who hangs between two thieves" (191). A bit later (192) we find another

gratuitous reference to nakedness. Still grieving bitterly, Mary indulges in another poetic

litany: "O Governor, if you had judged with justice according to the law, the Son of the

King would not have been killed while hungry and thirsty. . . . O High Priest, if you had

judged with justice, Judas would have been worthy of crucifixion instead of my Son. If

you had pondered your decision, O Governor, you would not have crucified my Son in

His nudity"

The nudity of Jesus on the cross is one of the lessons taught by the Shroud. From

the beginning of artistic representations of the crucifixion (6th c.), Jesus was always

depicted fully clothed in glory and subsequently in a loincloth or perizona. If the author

of this text knew of Jesus naked on the cross, he may well have seen or otherwise been

made aware of the naked image on the Shroud.10

Mingana was able to recreate the fullest text of the GG from two MSS "of my

own collection": Mingana Syr. 87 (about 1450 CE) and Mingana Syr. 127 (dated 1683).

Syr. 87 is earlier and more complete, and is thus translated in full by Mingana. Syr. 127's

variant readings are consigned to his footnotes. It is interesting that Syr. 127 omitted "in

his nudity" in the quote on 192. On 195, where Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are

introduced, the older Syr. 87 remarks how Joseph asked Pilate for permission to take the

body of Christ down from the cross. Pilate was pleased to give it. Then "After they had

shrouded Him well in perfume, myrrh, and the new linen wrappings, which had not been

used for another man . . . they fastened Him well till the third day." Syr. 127 has omitted

this last passage in favour of the words "they placed guards over Him." It has seemed to

me that the "fastening in the shroud" of Syr. 87 continues the interest in the burial

wrappings of that MS, while once again the writer of Syr. 127 has not shared the attention

attached to this feature of the narrative.

On 196 this attention shifts to Jesus' blood, and the text manifests a certain

resonance with the literature of the Shroud. Jesus has been entombed in the absence of

His mother. Mary, still lamenting, is made to complain "Even if I could not find your

body, O my beloved, I would have grasped your blood, because although Jacob did not

find the blood of Joseph, he wept over the blood of another. Woe is me, O my beloved

Son, because I have not seen your body and your blood. (Syr. 127 omits the entire

sentence.) If I had found your blood, O my Child, I would have purified my garment

with it. . . .The blood over which Jacob wept was a foreign blood, but that over which I

weep is flowing from the side of my Son. . . . [where] they have pushed the spear-head

into your divine side." The side wound on the Shroud is arguably "the" most prominent

feature after the face and nudity of the figure on the Shroud. Again on 197 Mary is still

yearning to see her Son in His tomb and again her grief is related in a heart-wrenching

litany, each part taking the form: "You have been a physician to them, and yet they have

struck you...nailed you . . .insulted you.... The line that most directly relates to the

present theme goes: "You have been a physician, O my Son, and you cured them from

haemorrhage, and in spite of that . . . they pierced you in the side." Can this last passage

be an allusion to both the NT haemorrhissa sometimes identified with Veronica and less

directly to her veil and to the side wound seen on the unfolded Shroud?

After his nocturnal vision and interview with the risen Lord (204), Pilate tested

the four men who had been assigned to guard the tomb over the week-end, but who (the

text has previously revealed--197) had been bribed by the Jewish leaders to suppress the

fact if there should be a resurrection. Kept separate, each of them gave a different

account of the disappearance of Jesus' body. Convinced that they were lying, Pilate goes

with the high priests to the sepulchre, where "they found the wrappings lying in the tomb

without the body." Pilate remembered Jesus’ promise in the vision—that he would see

miracles at the sepulchre, and he "took the wrappings, that is to say the pieces of linen

with which Jesus was shrouded, wept over them and embraced them with joy."

Next follows one of the best known apocryphal stories, that of the centurion who

was blind in one eye and who regained his sight by embracing Jesus' funeral wrappings

and believing in Jesus. It was a miracle witnessed by Pilate, the Jewish leaders, and a

multitude that had flocked to the tomb because they had heard that Pilate was there to see

if Jesus had risen (206).

The Jews are made to go into the stock-behaviour assigned to them in the NT but

much exaggerated in the anti-Jewish apocrypha of the Christian Dark Ages: of course, for

them, all Jesus' miracles are done through Beel-Zebul, and of course they are pleased to

let His blood be on them and their children forever (206-207). Here they insist that a

body in a well there in Joseph of Arimathea's garden (site of his family sepulchre) is that

of Jesus, and all follow Pilate to the well. "And I Gamaliel was following with the

crowd." Finding a "shrouded" dead man in the well, Pilate summoned Joseph of

Arimathea and Nicodemus to identify him and also the wrappings from the tomb. The

two recent disciples indeed identify the grave-wrappings as those of Jesus but the body,

they testify, is that of the robber who was crucified with Jesus. And, just as in the Gospel

of Nicodemus, here too the Jews fall upon Joseph and Nicodemus. In the present text,

however, the two are saved by Pilate's men, whereas in the Gospel of Nicodemus, Joseph

was imprisoned only to be miraculously released by Jesus Himself and his angels. (The

latter story has become a fundamental element in the legend of the Holy Grail--but that is

outside our scope at present.)

As a climax to this Lament of the Virgin, Pilate asks Joseph and Nicodemus to

wrap the thief in Jesus' shroud and place him in the same tomb with the stone rolled into

place. This done, Pilate prays aloud that the Lord should make crystal clear his power

over death by raising even this "good" thief. It happens as he hoped and prayed. From

inside the tomb the voice of this early-day Houdini called out to open the door of the

tomb that he might come out. Christ had announced to him yet in the tomb that both he

and Pilate would be in Paradise (209).

"At that moment I Gamaliel followed the crowd and my fathers Joseph and

Nicodemus, because fear did not allow the Apostles to come to the sepulchre and witness

what happened to Him. They were hiding in every place from fear of the Jews. I

Gamaliel, walked with the crowds and witnessed all that happened in the tomb of my

Lord Jesus, and the great fight that Pilate undertook against the High Priests . . . while

Pilate was holding the wrappings on his arms ... And Pilate said to the centurion: Oh my

brother, you saw with your own eyes and heard (with your own ears) the great number of

people who believed in Jesus Christ on account of the resplendent miracles witnessed

also by the wicked and accursed Jews, who did not believe."

"Let us here end the discourse on the Virgin and her sweet wailing, and on the

death and resurrection of her Son from the dead. These words have been written by

Gamaliel and Nicodemus, the venerable chiefs, and they placed them in Jerusalem, the

holy city, and in all the districts that surround it, by the grace and love of our Lord and

God Jesus Christ to whom are due glory, power, and honour for ever and ever. Amen.

Here ends this great discourse. May God have mercy upon the scribe, the reader, the

attentive hearers, and all the believers."

MARTYRDOM OF PILATE

11

The second segment of the GG reviews the Lament of Mary before going on to

develop the situation leading to Pilate's martyrdom and sainthood in the Coptic church.

The writer is again explicitly Bishop Cyriacus, who found it in a copy written by

Gamaliel and Horus12 because, with Joseph and Nicodemus, they witnessed the ordeals of

Christ. The theme given in the first lines is the resurrection of Christ and the "tribulations

undergone by Pontius Pilate in the holy city, at the time of the crucifixion ...and of the

persecution suffered by Pilate at the hand of the Jews for the name of Christ . . . and the

torments inflicted on him by Herod before he was sent ... to the Metropolis, the great city

of Rome, where his head was cut off and his martyrdom completed" (244).

The events of Passion weekend are rehearsed from the NT itself, but one recalls

some of the imagined details present in the Lament (245-246). The story moves to Jesus

descending to Hell and His dogmatic "Harrowing," i.e., releasing Adam (especially

named) and all the others who suffered a long sojourn there prior to the act of salvation of

Good Friday. The same topic is given a treatise of its own in connection with the Gospel

of Nicodemus (247-248).

The beginning of the end for Pilate came when Herod wrote letters to Emperor

Tiberius slandering Pilate. Pilate also sent reports to the emperor relating "all the deeds

of Jesus, His crucifixion, His death, His resurrection from the dead, the quaking of the

earth, the eclipse of the sun". Tiberius was immediately converted by Pilate's letter, and

he took it out on the Jews who had delivered Herod's lies and were still in Rome. They

were killed and strung up around the city gates. Then he summoned Pilate. Joseph, and

Nicodemus (253).

Still in Jerusalem, Pilate was interrogated, stripped, flogged by the Jews and, with

his wife Procula, was dragged through the streets with permission of the Emperor's

messenger/ vizier. All the while he and Procula were jubilant in the hope of joining

Christ in Heaven all the sooner. But the vizier restrained the Jews and took Pilate into his

custody again (254-255). A similar treatment was imposed upon Nicodemus and Joseph,

after which they too were detained in a prison cell with Procula and Pilate. Finally the

Jews managed to bribe Tiberius' messenger to permit the death of all four.

Then comes an unanticipated turn of events. The jail keepers come to the Roman

and beg to be rid of the four prisoners since, they say, "a spiritual man is constantly with

them, whose light is more dazzling than that of the sun. We saw him coming down from

Heaven and embracing them" thus melting their shackles. The column to which they

were tied bent down to worship this being. The guards continued, "He is a Galilean by

appearance, and his hair is beautiful and flowing in curls around him." [Syr. 127 gives

"He is Jesus of Nazareth."] The figure advised Pilate that he would be crowned with

thorns [like me] and crucified twice, once in Jerusalem (where he would not die) and

again in Rome at Tiberius' command (256-259).

In the meantime, Tiberius' only son had died. The emperor and his wife grieved

bitterly, until the wife recalled the wonders worked by Jesus, as they had been related in

Pilate's letter and others they had received from Jerusalem. Tiberius wrote to Jesus

confessing his faith and announcing that he was sending his dead son to be laid in the

sepulchre of the Savior, for he had heard of the miracles worked in that place. (The son

was exhumed and found to be little more than bones.) (261-262)

When the boy's body arrived, Herod was intent that he not be revived and gave

bribes to his handlers to steal the body and hide it. The angel Gabriel, however, revealed

the hiding place to Joseph and Nicodemus and they "sent for me. In secret, me Gamaliel."

Just then the body was discovered to the discredit of Herod (265). After four days in the

tomb of Jesus, the boy returned to life and the stone moved away from the opening of its

own accord (266-267). Then the Roman messenger wrote a letter to Tiberius and the

boy, Caesar, added words in his own hand. The news and the boy's return to Rome

caused great joy in the royal family and, of course, resulted in their Christianization (268-

271).

But Tiberius had other feelings regarding Pilate, now delivered to Rome. "You

saw all the miracles and prodigies which Jesus wrought, and I have been informed that at

the time of his crucifixion you were sitting and judging his case. Now describe to me His

image, His portraiture, His picture, His majesty, and His beauty." Pilate could not do so.

"O Emperor, my lord, . . . I did not ascertain His portraiture and His characteristics: once

I saw that He was of the colour of fire, and once I saw Him like a bird flying to the

heights of Heaven and the angels speaking to Him" 13. Nevertheless, Pilate was ordered

to again be crucified and then beheaded (271-273). "I, Gamaliel, was not able to restrain

my tears when I saw the weeping of the blessed Pilate when he began to implore the

soldiers to deliver his body to his servants after they had cut off his head" (274).

Back in Jerusalem, Procula and her children had died, the Virgin Mother had been

raised to become Queen of Heaven, and Herod had been slain by an arrow from Tiberius'

messenger (274-275). Troops sent by Tiberius to find the Virgin were thus disappointed

and returned bringing instead the disciple John to the emperor. From this point in the

narrative to the end, the alert reader finds a number of reflections of the Shroud. To

Tiberius' question "How could the Jews pierce His heart with a spear?" John replied:

"The life of us all consists of water and blood, and both of them sprang from His holy

side."

Tiberius then makes a strange request: "You will then know how to paint His

image for me in the figure which He had on the cross, exactly as He was crucified for

us." And he ordered a slab of good stone, and John painted the figure of Jesus. "When it

was finished the blessed John bent his head over it in order to kiss it with his mouth, and

immediately after the lips of the Saviour turned to the lips of the blessed John, and they

kissed each other. The Emperor Tiberius witnessed all this, and he was greatly amazed

and bewildered. Then the painting ...cried and said: 'It is enough, O John, that you

painted my image and the figure of my crucifixion, as you witnessed it on the day of

crucifixion. It was not fair on your part, you my beloved, to crucify me after my

resurrection from the dead; it would have been better if you had painted my figure

according to the image you saw of me after my resurrection. The Jews crucified me once

at the hand of Herod, why do you crucify me again at the hand of Tiberius? ... Do not

allow the inhabitants of Rome also to see my nudity. My side was pierced with a spear

on Friday, do not pierce me, O John my beloved, another time after my resurrection ...' "

(279) ... And the Emperor took the image and embraced it, then he placed it on a high

pedestal at that place, like the image of the Son of God in the country of the Byzantines

[or of the Armenians] (280). From this account, the portrait hardly seems an image on

stone, but rather resonates with another full body image of Jesus, similarly honored as

miraculously created: the famous cloth Image of Edessa. It is possible that the writer of

the Martyrdom of Pilate may have seen the latter remarkable image, for he has noticed its

nudity.

"And I Gamaliel had learnt the art of writing ... and learnt the mystery of the

resurrection of the Lord Christ, and the miracles which He performed, and what

happened to the vizier of the Emperor ... and to the Emperor Tiberius, and I put all to

writing and composed it as a memorial of the holy resurrection. . . . He who says a bad

word shall be met with its equal, but he who finds a mistake and corrects it, the Lord will

improve for him this world and the world to come with His peace. Amen."

NOTES


(1) For mss history and bibliography on GG see Anton Baumstark, "Un evangile de Gamaliel,"

Revue Biblique

, n.s. 3, (1906) 253-259. See also M.-A. van den Oudenrijn , "The Gospel of

Gamaliel" in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (Westminster/John Knox

Pr, 1991), 558-560). For the best and fullest translation, taken from the Garshuni mss in the

library of A. Mingana, see his Woodbrooke Studies. Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and

Garshuni.

Vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer 1928) 163-332, esp. 278ff.

(2) See Schneemelcher (n. 1) 559.

(3) Good discussion by Rendel Harris who wrote the Introduction to Mingana (n. 1) 165-177.

(4) M. R. James, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon 1963, rp. of 1924)

147. Schneemelcher 559.

(5) van Oudenrijn (n. 1) 558.

(6) van Oudenrijn 558.

(7) See Daniel Scavone, "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: the Documentary Evidence," in

Robert F. Sutton, Jr., ed., Daidalikon:Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S.J.

(Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publ., 1989) 312-329, esp. 320.

(8) Mingana 182-210.

(9) Fragment 1, the opening of the Akhmim Egypt tomb discovery of the lost Gospel of Peter in

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder was a Christian!


Saint Gamaliel the Elder, Jewish Tanna Christian Saint, Son of Hillel and His Role in Christian Tradition


One of the most interesting themes in the literature of the late second temple period and late antiquity onwards is the treatment of well respected Jewish personalities. In this category of tradition is included Saint Epiphanius of Salmis' Panarion where in the section on the Ebionites he relates the death bed conversion of Hillel II and his assistant Joseph and Severus of Minorca's record of the conversion of all the Jews on the island of Minorca in the 4th century due to the reception of the bones of St Stephen the first Christian martyr. One of the more enduring traditions of this kind is that relating to the first century Jewish sage known in Jewish tradition as Gamaliel the Elder the first to receive the title rabban in Jewish tradition. In Jewish tradition "When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (mSotah xv:18). Christian tradition numbers him among the saints, not just a believer but a saint. He is a figure who appears in visions and reveals things to people and is one of the eyewitnesses of the trial and crucifixion and resurrection of "Jesu Christ" as Gamaliel calls him in one of his revelations below. The purpose of this paper is to explore the features of the traditions regarding Gamaliel which have been handed down in the Church from the first century onwards. Whilst the historicity of the tradition would be difficult to confirm at least we can trace some of the lines of the story of Gamaliel among the Christian from the time of Christ through the 7th century.

Sources
The sources we have pointing to the relationship of Gamaliel to the Church are some of the most interesting and most difficult to come by in Church hagiography. Gamaliel is a saint of the Eastern Church. He appears in the Greek manuscripts of New Testament, Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic sources. He appears in Christian sources before he appears in Jewish sources, and the Churches tradition regarding him start with the first century Acts of the Apostles written in koine Greeks. Here Gamaliel not only enters Church tradition but the scene of history. The next source we have is the second century pseudipigraphical Clementine Recognitions. These are traditions handed down in the Church of the East, in Syriac. They propose to be the work of Clement of Rome who wrote the early Epistles to the Corinthian Church. We then have the apocryphal work the Gospel of Nicodemus. These are second or third century documents. When we reach the 5th century we have the interesting tradition of the priest Lucius finding the bones of St Stephen the Christian proto martyr of first century Jerusalem. Here in his tomb was found the body of Gamaliel. We also have a 5th century document called the Gospel of Gamaliel (Bausmark 1906. p253) which relates his eyewitness record of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The book originally went the title of the Lament of the Virgin (Laha Maryam in Ethiopic) but in the second half where Gamaliel is clearly the writer, she is not mentioned at all. The Martyrdom of Pilate is another document assigned to the Gospel of Gamaliel with the record of Gamaliel the eye witness where Pilate is exonerated and shown to be a believer in the resurrection.
Approach
Gamaliel the Elder is respected greatly in both the Church traditions and in the Rabbinic traditions. What is even more interesting is the two biographies he is given. He dies as a great and wise tanna and he dies as a Christian saint. Perhaps he is finally the great bridge all the ecumenists are looking for. In Rabbinic tradition he is to be son of Simon, son of Gamaliel. He comes into the fore in about 20 AD and is held to be the successor to the seat of nasi in the Sanhedrin. He is the first to hold the seat without an assistant and the first teacher to be granted the title rabban (our Rabbi). According to tradition he dies 18 years before the destruction of the Temple and is succeeded as nasi by Simon his son. The epigram which Rabbinic literature gives to him speaks of the respect with which he was held:
When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct"(Sotah xv: 18).
Historically we know that he was an important Jewish leader of the first century, while the New Testament says nothing of his father and his position as nasi, it confirms that he was part of the Sanhedrin, a doctor of the law and respected by the people. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles records all this along with the fact that he is a Pharisee and the teacher of the Apostle Paul. To Luke the term Pharisee was descriptive and not necessarily written with a negative connotation for Paul himself claimed to be a Pharisee in the Acts of the Apostles. Gamaliel flourished then from about 20 AD to 52 AD, this was the period in which the Church first grew up. If he was nasi in this period then while he headed up the party of the Pharisees, Jesus said: "The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, so all that they say to you, observe and do". Which could be a way of saying they have the authority to make halakah for the disciples. Since Gamaliel is held to sit at the steps of temple mount and issue letters from there it is likely he saw Jesus in action or heard him teach and perhaps even dialogued with him.

Gamaliel in the First Century
Gamaliel is mentioned twice in the New Testament. In the first place it is in the narrative of Acts chapter 5. Luke[1] is writing Acts to a man called Theophilus[2] who he calls Most Excellent (kratiste). He is writing to Kratiste Theophilus to assure him of the things, which were being taught to him as a catechumen. Luke asserts that he had investigated all the events accurately and is clearly respected by Theophilus. The identity of this man is uncertain.[3] In his record Luke has described the birth of the Church and how it had begun to spread its good news though Jerusalem. By the time Gamaliel is introduced the Church is made up of at least 5000 brethren, the women and children being in addition. The Church was born on Shavuot 30 AD. In chapter 1 Jesus commissions the Church from Jerusalem and taken up (eperthee) into heaven and disappeared into a cloud. In chapter two the 11 apostles appoint a replacement for Judas (Yehudah). And spend time in prayer with 120 disciples, women, Mary and Jesus brethren. The twelve have the job of bearing witness to resurrection of Jesus. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit falls on the apostles and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy. Peter proclaims the Gospel in Jerusalem and 3000 men join the Church. The proclamation continues in chapter three in the temple with Peter and John taking center place. They are witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead. In chapter four Peter and John are arrested by the "captain of the temple (stategos tou herou) and the Saducees" arrested because they were preaching the resurrection (anastasin) in Jesus. At that same time the number who believed reached to 5000. This meant they outstripped both the Pharisees and the Essenes according Josephus’ numbers. They were now the fastest growing sect in Jerusalem and perhaps the biggest. Peter and John performed a miracle in Jesus name.
Gamaliel and the motif of protection of the Church
The next day the rulers (archontas), elders (presbeterous), scribes (grammateis) along with Annas the high priest, Kaiaphas, John and Alexander who were members of the high priestly race (genous) met to try Peter and John.
The apostles were on trial for the first time. They are questioned:
Ev poiaai dunamei ee Ev poiooi onomati epoieesate touto humeis;
In what power or in what name did you do this?
Peter proclaims Jesus as the only name under heaven given among men that men could be saved. The court release Peter and John but forbids them from speaking in the name of Jesus.
In order that it may not spread further among the people,
Let us warn them to speak no more to any man in the name (NASB Acts 4:17))

The church made the threat of the rulers a subject of prayer and continued to proclaim "the word of the Lord". At this point Luke describes the Church as having everything in common with a system to receive property of new members. In chapter a couple die for claiming to have sold property and given the proceeds to the community, this was lying to Holy Ghost.
Peter and John continued preaching and miracles continued to happen. People were coming from cities (poleoon) near Jerusalem. The High priest and the Sadducees arrested them and locked up in public jail (teereesei deemosia). In the morning they were to be tried but the officers (huperetai) who went to take them to court found the prison empty. They had been released by an angel and told to preach in the Temple which they did from dawn. The strategos and his huperetais went to the temple brought gently for trial again. The Sanhedrin is convened. The high priest says:
We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this mans blood upon us (NASB Acts 5:28)

The high priest feels that Peter and John are accusing them of killing Jesus.
Peter and the Apostles claim that they must,
Obey God rather than men. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put
to death by hanging him on the cross. He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a Prince (Archeegon) and a Savior (Sooteera), to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things. And so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him. (NASB Acts 5:30-32)


The chief priests are reacting to this accusation, that they are guilty of shedding the innocent blood of Jesus. Luke notes that the ones listening were cut (dieprioto) and
Eboulonto analein autous autous
Intending to slay them (NASB Acts 5:33)
The Apostles lives were threatened according to Lukes record and the element that saved them may have only been the intervention of Gamaliel as the representative of the Pharisees.
It is at this point that Gamaliel is first introduced to history[4]. In the story of Acts into which Gamaliel is introduced it is the first introduction of the Pharisees and hence perhaps the tannaim into the narrative. Luke identifies him by his name, Gamaliel, with a number four other factors:
1 He is a certain Pharisee
2 He is a teacher of the Torah (nomodidskalos)
3 Honored (timios) by all the people
4 He commanded (ekeleusen) that Peter and John be put outside
We find that that Gamaliel in relation to the Sanhedrin has enough authority to command the defendents to be put out of the court and to address the court and expect them to be listened to. We may wonder who he commanded to take them out and did his authority equal the high priests? Luke then gives a speech or a summary of the speech of Gamaliel.
Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men
For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody;
And a group of about four hundred men joined up with him.
And he was slain and all those who followed him were dispersed
And came to nothing. After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the
days of the census and drew away some people after him, he too
Perished and all those who followed him were scattered.
And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men
And let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men
It will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow
Them; or else you may even be found fighting against God (Acts 5: 35-38)
We see then according to Luke’s record Gamaliel spoke with favour almost in defence of the Church and may have saved there lives. But he does not claim that Gamaliel is a believer. This appears in later traditions. The motifs represented here of Gamaliel is protection and observation and reserved judgement (gather evidence to ascertain the truth or falsehood) of the message. For this Gamaliel the teacher of the Torah with authority to command the proceedings of the court, a movement will be known by its fruit (App 2)
Our focus is on Gamaliel’s role. We see here perhaps a pattern of the trial of the prophet Jeremiah. He was tried for speaking about the destruction of the temple. Precedents were cited regarding how past prophets Urijah and Micah were treated by authorities[5]. Then one man rose up in support of Jeremiah so he was not killed. Perhaps Luke has patterned this trial a little along the lines of the trial of Jeremiah.
The role of Gamaliel in the defence of the Church is interesting. Firstly we see that the intention of the unidentified listeners was to kill the apostles. Gamaliel intervenes at this point. His main message appears leave these men alone. But his message is also maybe this Jesus is a prince and a saviour. Maybe he is seated at God’s right hand and granting repentance (metanoian) to Israel and forgiveness of sins (aphesin harmatioon). For Gamaliel and perhaps for the tannaim he represented of beit Hillel, the message of the Church at this point appears to be possibly a message from God. The theme of Gamaliel's defence of the apostles is expanded in Christian traditions of the second century. We will seek to look at the later traditions regarding the role of Gamaliel in light of this first Lukan exposition. Most scholars see this intervention of Gamaliel in the trial of the apostles as the catalyst for the later traditions on Gamaliel. He is a kind of Christian fifth column in the midst of the Jewish authorities. He remains among his people with the permission of the apostles in order to protect the Church from too much destruction. This is one of the themes in the second century traditions regarding Gamaliel which we turn to now.
Gamaliel in the Second and Third Century Syriac Traditions
The Recognitions (Anagnoseis) of Clement are a kind of philosophical and theological romance. It is one of a category of literary traditions including Clementine Homilies and two Epitomes. The Recognitions have been preserved in a Latin manuscript. In their present condition they are dated to early part of the third century. There authorship is uncertain. They appear to have Jewish Christian or Ebionite sympathies and to be unsympathetic to the apostle Paul.[6] They are quoted by Origen in 231 in his commentary to Genesis.[7] And they contain a large section from Bardesanes De Fato. The Recognitions claim to come from Clement of Rome traditionally the fourth bishop of Rome from the turn of the first century. However some believe he has been confused with Flavius Clemens the kinsman of Emperor Domitian. The translation we will use that from The Ante Nicene Fathers (Roberts and Donaldson). Recognitions consists of 10 books which are in many places parallel to the Clementine Homilies. However the story relating to Gamaliel and the Church is only in Recognitions[8]. In Book 1 chap we find scenes described reminiscent of those in Luke 5. Clement[9], the narrator, relates stories regarding the relationship between the Apostles, Annas and Gamaliel and the people of Israel. From chapter 39 the coming of the True Prophet is described. It is Simon Peter who is teaching. He described how baptism was instituted in place of sacrifice. The chapters then speak of Advent of the True Prophet, Rejection of the True Prophet, Call of the Gentiles, Success of the Gospel and the Challenge by Caiaphas.
In these chapters Peter relates some of the story of Jesus. He came, he selected 12 apostles and 72 disciples as had Moses. He performed many miracles but he suffered from the 6th to the 9th hour and rose again. He was accused of being a magician or some pretended the body was stolen. However the truth prevailed, "So that the priests at one time were afraid, lest haply, by the providence of God to their confusion, the whole of the people should come over to the faith" (ANC, VIII 89)

The priests often sent and asked for a discussion with the Apostles as to whether Jesus was the Prophet Moses had foretold.
For on this point only does there seem to be any difference between us
Who believe in Jesus, and unbelieving Jews.
But while they often made such requests to us, and we sought for a fitting
Opportunity, a week of years was completed from the passion of the Lord
The Church of the Lord which was constituted in Jerusalem was most plentifully multiplied and grew, being governed with most righteous ordinances by James, Who was ordained bishop in it by the Lord (ANC VIII, 89)

So we see Simon Peter in the tradition sets the date of the events to be related to Passover 37 AD. On that day the twelve apostles came together with a very large multitude. They related what they had been doing as James requested. It is Caiaphas the high priest who sent priests to the Apostles repeatedly to arrange a debate. The Apostles regularly put it off waiting for a more opportune time. The day comes and the Church decides to go to the temple to testify publicly. The scene is set where the various Jewish sects are refuted by the Apostles.
The tradition in the Recognitions is a variant on the tradition in Acts. Gamaliel is the apparent impartial protector. In the scene in the Recognitions Book I:65, he stills a tumult set off by the Churches teaching against the temple status quo in Jerusalem The scene is a public discussion initiated by the high priest. The apostles refute the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Disciples of John the Baptist. Caiaphas then arises and seeks to undermine the teaching of the Apostles about Jesus. Caiaphas looks at Simon Peter and tells him not to preach Christ Jesus any more, Simon Peter replies that sacrifices are over with and God is not pleased with the Sacrifice and that the temple will be destroyed. This causes an uproar and Gamaliel as in the Acts above, intervenes to quell the storm. However the narrative has a number of differences to Luke’s narrative some of which are interesting to us.
The first insights are two comments by Simon Peter the narrator of this part of the book. He tells us that Gamaliel was actually a follower of Jesus Christ and a brother in the faith. These comments assign motives to Gamaliel's activity, which identify him as a secret believer, like Nicodemus in the Gospel of John (chap 3) who came by night to talk to Jesus.
When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests, were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple. Which when Gamaliel, a chief of the people, saw—who was secretly our brother in the faith, but by our advice remained among them—because they were greatly enraged and moved with intense fury against us, he stood up, and said,593 ‘Be quiet for a little, O men of Israel'... (CR LXV)
Then, when profound silence was obtained, Gamaliel, who, as we have said, was of our faith, but who by a dispensation remained amongst them, that if at any time they should attempt anything unjust or wicked against us, he might either check them by skillfully adopted counsel, or might warn us, that we might either be on our guard or might turn it aside;—he therefore, as if acting against us, first of all looking to James the bishop, addressed him in this manner ( CR LXVI)

So we see that the second century tradition maintains Gamaliel's role as an impartial defender of the Church but asserts that he was also a secret "brother in the faith", who by the permission of the apostles "remained amongst them" in order to avert injustices and wicked acts intended against the Church. Interestingly the Hebraic branch of the Church represented by the apostles suffered little from persecution in the early years. The first martyr Stephen was a Hellenist and he in later tradition is associated with Gamaliel.
The tradition of Gamaliel’s secret belief is interesting. And we find in later traditions that it is with the other secret believers who were people in high authority among the Jews in the first century whom Gamaliel is associated with, namely Nicodemas (App 4) of John 3 and Joseph of Arimathea who took possession of Jesus body after his crucifixion. Joseph was a rich man and Nicodemas a teacher of Israel of high rank. Thus to the Lukan story, aside from many other added details we find a second level of narrative explaining motives for Gamaliel's actions.
In the Clementime narrative we see a competition between Caiaphas the Sadducee and Gamaliel the secret brother. Caiaphas is suspicious regarding Gamaliel’s intentions and of course quite rightly so.
Another interesting feature of the narrative which Recognitions has is a focus on the place where the Apostles stood to conduct their apology. The LV it says they "we went up to the temple, and, standing on the steps together with our faithful brethren" and when they returned for the continued debate the next day with Gamaliel at the helm the notice says
There we found a great multitude, who had been waiting for us from the middle of the night. Therefore we took our stand in the same place as before, in order that, standing on an elevation, we might be seen by all the people.
That is they went to the temple and stood on the steps so that they could be seen by the people. According to Jewish tradition Gamaliel stood on steps to make his decrees and issues his letters. Not only so but according to Neusner one of the distinguishing features of pericope related to Gamaliel the Elder, in the Mishnahh, Tosephtah and the Talmuds is relating the place he was standing when an event was taking place. We can not show this parallels are any more than coincidence but clearly in this tradition the apostles stood on steps in the temple and in Jewish tradition Gamaliel did. In both cases there seems to be some kind of emphasis on that place. This comment is an aside and so we turn back to the development of the traditions. We turn to the continuation of the theme of Gamaliel in the second and third centuries.
In the Gospel of Nicodemus also known as the Acts of Pilate another tradition arises which can be dated at least to the second century. It like the later Gospel of Gamaliel has a focus on the exoneration of Pilate. The book begins with a certain "Ananias, an officer of the guard" who is learned in the law and through the scriptures came to know Jesus Christ. He indicates that he had searched for reports from the time of Jesus Christ and found one written in Hebrew. This document he translated from Hebrew into Greek "for the information of all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". These documents may have been mentioned by Justin Martyr but were almost certainly mentioned by Tertullian (Chandler, p.158). Ananias gives the date of the event as the 19th year of Tiberius Caeser, the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad on the eighth day before the kalends of April, or the 25th of March. This would place it in about the year AD33. Ananias claims the record is that of Nicodemus. Gamaliel first appears in the council of priests and scribes who are named as the main accusers of Jesus. The council consisted of Annas, Caiaphas, Semes, Dathaes, Gamaliel, Judas, Levi, Nephtalim, Alexander and Jairus and the "rest of the Jews". The story deals with the testimony of Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea and their persecution for being sympathetic to Jesus. A number of miracles occur, for example Joseph is arrested and imprisoned in a room with no windows. Jesus appears to him and transfers him supernaturally to his house in Aramathea. In one recension of the book[10] a group go to Galilee to bring some witnesses to describe Jesus’ activities in Hades. Those who went were "Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel" We should notice that in this listing Gamaliel is seen with Nicodemus and Joseph but he is connected with the council not the believers[11]. In the whole book he does not say a word but is with the council in their investigations. The tradition then in this documented connected him with these two secret believers independently of the tradition of him as a secret believer in Recognitions.

Gamaliel in the fourth and fifth Century
The Acts of Pilate sees Gamaliel as among those investigated the miracles around the trial, crucifixion and resurrection. In one second century tradition he is a believer, in the other he is an investigator. The two documents which point him as the witness and the author have him writing the story of the trial crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Here we see Gamaliel the eye witness. He does not do speeches but writes about what he saw. For Mingana the translator of our documents, these are two Egyptian documents. However the manuscripts he used were in Garshuni that is Arabic written in Syriac characters. Rendel Harris notes,
The two documents before us are concerned, the one with the spiritual history of Pontius Pilate, who is made over into an accepted and glorified saint, accepted in the Church on earth and glorified in the Church in heaven; the other with the sorrows of the Virgin, not this time at the cross, but rather at the empty tomb" (WSII, p164) So what does Gamaliel have to say? In regard to the Martyrdom of Pilate after the completion of the narrative we have:
And I Gamaliel had learnt the art of writing, the science of Judaism and that of the Apostles our fathers, and had also stepped in the science of philosophers until I had acquired the knowledge of the right answer, and learnt the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord Christ, and the miracles which he performed, and what happened to the vizier of the Emperor, and to Galil8us and the Emperor Tiberius, and I put all to writing and composed it as a memorial of the holy resurrection (WSII, p200)
As in the Jewish tradition, Gamaliel likes to write. Some have argued the Apostle Paul was like his teacher in this respect. The interesting thins about these narratives is Gamaliel general invisibility. Although they may be pseudipigraphs Gamaliel is by no means a central or important character he is simply the narrator. The Pilate documents calls itself "the history of Pilate, the Governor of the city of Jerusalem". It talks of the fact that in it "it makes mention of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the venerable chiefs" (WSII p.242). Then Gamaliel gets his first introduction:
The story is told as found in the copy written by Gamaliel and Horus (Anaius) the good, pious and respectable teachers in all things dealing with God. They wrote it because they were present with Joseph and Nicodemus and witnessed the ordeals of Christ which became the source of our life, and his glorious resurrection (WSII, p.244)
Mingana sees a connection between the Anaius here called Horus in some manuscripts and the Ananius who translated the gospel of Nicodemus. If this is the case we may see that the presence of Gamaliel with Nicodemus and Joseph in this document may come from connection with the early tradition as seen in the acts of Pilate above. However since those comments are introductory it is possible they come from the narrative it self. We find in this document a narrative of post crucifixion events. Jesus is buried by Joseph and Nicodemus and the following events are related. After some time a plot is hatched by Judas’s sister to kill Pilate. When this is mentioned suddenly the narrative is interrupted by the first person comment of Gamaliel.
After this wicked company of Jews resolved to kill Pilate with his wife and children and to plunder his possessions, when I, Gamaliel learned the conspiracy of these wicked people I did not neglect the matter, but I hastened to Joseph of Arimathea, who had shrouded the body of the Saviour, and I disclosed to him the conspiracy. (p250)
Here we see Gamaliel perhaps playing out the role assigned to him in Recognitions above. There as a secret believer he was left to be among the people lest they sought to doing anything wicked on unjust to the Church. Gamaliel becomes the secret spy of the Church. The text then moves back into narrative and Gamaliel continue to relate the story. It centres on Pilate, Joseph and Nicodemus. A confirmation of his role as secret informant is confirmed in his next interruption to the narrative. "This is what the angel Gabriel told the venerable chiefs Joseph and Nicodemus. And these two blessed ones sent for me, in secret, me Gamaliel, I the weak Gamaliel, was the disciple of those blessed ones "(p265).
We see here also an addition to the tradition. Gamaliel now describes himself as a disciple of Joseph and Nicodemus whom he respects greatly. Thus we find in the traditions he is naturally related to these two teachers and find himself in a position as their student. In the Lamentation of the Virgin, Gamaliel is again seen as a witness, one who sees all the events as they unfold. He again, very rarely, interrupts in storytelling in the first person.
And I Gamaliel was following with the crowd" (WSII, p.201) and "At that moment I followed the crowd and my fathers Joseph and Nicodemus, because fear did not allow the Apostles to come to the sepulchre and witness what happened to Him. They were hiding in every place from fear of the Jews. I Gamaliel, walked with the crowds and witnessed all what happened in the tomb of my Lord Jesus, and the great fight that Pilate undertook against the High Priests (WSII, p.210).

We see then in this last statement of Gamaliel that he is seen as a witness of the events of the death and resurrection where the other apostles were hidden and unavailable. We notice also that he calls Jesus his Lord. From these traditions it is apparent that he is a believer through the ministry of Joseph and Nicodemus his "fathers" and that he is a believer before Jesus is crucified. The end of the text tells us "These (words) have been written by Gamaliel and Nicodemus, the venerable chiefs, and they placed them in Jerusalem, the holy city, and in all the districts that surround it" (WWII, p211). With these two texts we almost 70 pages of the purported writing of Gamaliel, with traditions contained in them going back to the second and first century. They overlap with the gospels and give us a tradition which is held by the Coptic Church and other Eastern Churches. However the Gamaliel traditions do not end here. We move to our final fascinating scene in the history of Gamaliel in the Church. In this scene further additions are made to the tradition.
Gamaliel in the 5th Century
Interestingly this scene connects with the theme of honour which is linked with Gamaliel in the traditions relating to him in the Jewish community. "When he died the honour [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct"(Sotah xv: 18)." says the Mishnah This last story we will look at starts with the issue of honour. During the fifth century, the story goes a priest by the name of Lucian "of the country of Jerusalem" and who is counted among noble had a vision. He went to sleep on a Friday awoke to find an ancient man who was noble in stature and who wore a long beard dressed in a white robed with golden crosses embroidered on to it. This noble man had a golden rod in his hand and he spoke to Lucius saying: "Go and with great diligence open our tombs, for we be lain in a place dishonest and of despite. Go thou therefore unto John bishop of Jerusalem and say to him that he lay us in a more honourable place."
Here we see that word honour again. The speaker is looking for a more honourable home. It seems that it is not only by chance that these bodies need to be moved for this man is sent in order to resolve a present drought in Jerusalem: "And because that drought and tribulation is through the world, God hat ordained to be debonair and merciful to the by our suffrages and prayers". Lucian asked the man who he was. The man replied:
I am Gamaliel, which nourished the apostle Paul and ensigned him the law of my fathers, and he that lieth with me is Saint Stephen, which was stoned of the Jews and cast out of the city for to be devoured of beasts and birds, but he kept him, to whom he kept his faith, without hurting and I with great diligence took up the body and with great diligence buried it in my new tomb.[12], three things are apparent: Gamaliel once had a disciple who was extremely zealous for the law of his fathers and under Gamaliel excelled beyond most of his peers. This same disciple of Gamaliel then became the head of a sect, which spread like wild fire to the "uttermost parts of the world" and rocked Israel. Gamaliel warned the Sanhedrin to leave the "wildfire" Church alone. It is possible that the message they were bringing could be from God, and if the council resisted it they could find themselves fighting against God and they would not overthrow the work of the Church. Gamaliel in the New Testament is never seen to oppose the preaching of the name of Jesus. The council forbade them to preach but Gamaliel had advised "Refrain from these men" in public (See Acts 4-6). The role attributed to Gamaliel can perhaps bring light on later traditions regarding him.

Appendix 2
. He brought up two cases[13]. The two precedents used in Gamaliel’s example are Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Historically there was a Judas of Galilee and he did arise during the period of a census just as Luke asserts here, he is mentioned in Josephus War 2:8:1 and in Antiquities 18:1:1.
The territory of Archelaus was brought under direct Roman rule and a man of equestrian rank at
Rome, Coponius, was sent as procurator with authority from Caeser to inflict the death penalty. In his time a Galilean named Judas tried to stir the natives to revolt, saying that they would be
Cowards if they submitted to paying taxes to the Romans, and after serving God alone
Accepted human masters. This man was a Rabbi with a sect of his own, and quite unlike other.
(Jos J War 2:8:1)
We see that the revolt of this Judas took place in the time of Coponius who ruled from 6-9 AD. This agrees with the period when Quirinius legate augustus of Syria did the census in about 6 AD. The census clearly had the purpose of assessing the population for taxation purposes. This was why Judas was protesting. It was a very appropriate time for Judas to arise for it was the very time when Rome took direct control of Judea. Before this Herod and his son Archelaus were controlling Judah, but at least they were converts, but in AD 6 The Romans were taking complete control of the land and assessing it directly for taxation purposes. This event would have had great prophetic significance for the messianically oriented parts of the Jewish population. This Judas is the same as that mentioned by Gamaliel. Further details tell us he was a Gaulonite from Gamala.
As for the Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel he would need to arise before 6 AD, this raises a possible historical problem. Josephus mentioned a magician called Theudas who arose around AD 44-46 who persuaded people to follow him to the river Jordan, where he would divide it. Fadus sent a troop against him and killed many of his followers. Some scholars hold that it is the same Theudas being referred to and either Luke or Josephus has erred. I hold that two Theudases over the forty year period is historically probable. Luke refers to the earlier one[14] and Josephus to the later.

Appendix 3
Gamaliel would have watched the development of the Church, from 30-32 AD, when Peter and John performed the miracle in the name of Jesus and were tried. Then having been locked up they were found preaching in the temple courts, until 52 AD when it is traditionally held that he died.
It is not only likely that Gamaliel heard Jesus and was probably present in about AD 6 when Jesus was speaking to the doctors of the law in Jerusalem, it is also likely that Jesus heard Gamaliel in his many visits to Jerusalem. It is Gamaliel who is traditionally held to have spoken on the subject of disciples that there were four kinds:
An unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the Jordan, a fish from the Great Sea. An unclean fish Who is that? A poor youth who studies Scripture and Mishnah, Halakha and Aggada and is without understanding. A clean fish: who is that? That's the rich youth who studies…and has understanding. A fish from the Jordan…is without a talent for give and take. A fish from the Great Sea… has a talent for give and take (Nathan, 166)
And it was Jesus who said:
Follow me and I will make you as fishers of men
And The Parable of the Net
47"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51"Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked.
"Yes," they replied.
52He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." (Matthew 13 NASB)
We see then parallels between these two contempories in the traditions attributed to Gamaliel and the traditions of the Church regarding Jesus view of men[15]. There are also coincidences in numbers for example Gamaliel is said to have 500 disciples. Jesus also appeared to 500 disciples after rising from the dead as testified by the apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 15. As respected as Gamaliel was he is mysteriously omitted from the Rabbinic chain of Torah authorities:
Tradition does not represent Gamaliel as learned in the Scriptures, nor as a teacher, because the school of Hillel, whose head he undoubtedly was, always appears collectively in its controversies with the school of Shammai, and the individual scholars and their opinions are not mentioned. Hence Gamaliel is omitted in the chain of tradition as given in the Mishnah (Abot i., ii.), while Johanan b. Zakkai is mentioned as the next one who continued the tradition after Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel's name is seldom mentioned in halakic tradition (JE. Gamaliel)
Although Schechter and Bacher assert that the reason Gamaliel is missing from the chain of tradition is because he was not seen as a great scholar of the Torah. I would like to suggest that the greatness of his position and his reputation really excludes this as a reason. He is at the same time held in great respect regarding the very honor of the Torah and yet eliminated from the chain of tradition representing the transmission of the Torah. It is here where Christian tradition may be able to help give an explanation of his omission. In the first century the Church had protection inspired by Gamaliel. His word was fulfilled the Church was not overthrown but increased from strength to strength in his lifetime. According to the record in Acts thousands of Jews joined the Church, including not a few Pharisees and not a few priests.

The tradition among the Jews, although based on only two sources inidcates that he was possibly the son of a mysterious Simon. This Simon is supposed to be between him and his supposed grand father Hillel the Elder. These are all traditionally from the House of David. If this were the case we would have an immedate reason as to why Gamaliel would have a reason to relate to Jesus and his disciples. Jesus was from the House of David and so potentially a legitimate heir to the throne of David and Gamaliel was from the same family. Gamaliel's advice in Acts(4-6) shows one who had interest in messianic movements and this we would expect of someone from a Tanna from the house of David in Jerusalem in the first century. I am sure the people of this house had great theological problems with the ruling Edomites (Idumeans), Herod and his family. The family of Herod could in no way be seen as legitimate heirs to the throne of David but would have been tolerated for the sake of peace and relations with Rome. All this I admit is only probable. However if it were true we would expect a tradition of relations between the house of Joseph (Jesus's father) and then the house of Jesus, which in the first century would have been the Church, the group of those supporting the cause of the son of David, Jesus, and the house of Gamaliel, another Davidic house in Jerusalem. Perhaps we can see a parallel in the modern day Abu Huwa family of the Mount of Olives. They are more than 10,000 strong and all Abu Huwa are seen as connected. You insult one you insult them all. Thus with this hypothesis of the expected relatioship let us turn to the traditions, which no doubt had an original historical core which was later, perhaps embelished. Later embellished.

App 3: Clementine Recognitions
Chapter LV.—Public Discussion.
"However, as we were proceeding to say, when the high priest had often sent priests to ask us that we might discourse with one another concerning Jesus; when it seemed a fit opportunity, and it pleased all the Church, we went up to the temple, and, standing on the steps together with our faithful brethren, the people kept perfect silence; and first the high priest began to exhort the people that they should hear patiently and quietly, and at the same time witness and judge of those things that were to be spoken. Then, in the next place, exalting with many praises the rite or sacrifice which had been bestowed by God upon the human race for the remission of sins, he found fault with the baptism of our Jesus, as having been recently brought in in opposition to the sacrifices. But Matthew,587 meeting his propositions, showed clearly, that whosoever shall not obtain the baptism of Jesus shall not only be deprived of the kingdom of heaven, but shall not be without peril at the resurrection of the dead, even though he be fortified by the prerogative of a good life and an upright disposition. Having made these and such like statements, Matthew stopped."
Chapter LXV.—Tumult Stilled by Gamaliel.
"When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple. Which when Gamaliel, a chief of the people, saw—who was secretly our brother in the faith, but by our advice remained among them—because they were greatly enraged and moved with intense fury against us, he stood up, and said,593 ‘Be quiet for a little, O men of Israel, for ye do not perceive the trial which hangs over you. Wherefore refrain from these men; and if what they are engaged in be of human counsel, it will soon come to an end; but if it be from God, why will you sin without cause, and prevail nothing? For who can overpower the will of God? Now therefore, since the day is declining towards evening, I shall myself dispute with these men to-morrow, in this same place, in your hearing, so that I may openly oppose and clearly confute every error.’ By this speech of his their fury was to some extent checked, especially in the hope that next day we should be publicly convicted of error; and so he dismissed the people peacefully."
Chapter LXVI.—Discussion Resumed.
"Now when we had come to our James, while we detailed to him all that had been said and done, we supped, and remained with him, spending the whole night in supplication to Almighty God, that the discourse of the approaching disputation might show the unquestionable truth of our faith. Therefore, on the following day, James the bishop went up to the temple with us, and with the whole church. There we found a great multitude, who had been waiting for us from the middle of the night. Therefore we took our stand in the same place as before, in order that, standing on an elevation, we might be seen by all the people. Then, when profound silence was obtained, Gamaliel, who, as we have said, was of our faith, but who by a dispensation remained amongst them, that if at any time they should attempt anything unjust or wicked against us, he might either check them by skillfully adopted counsel, or might warn us, that we might either be on our guard or might turn it aside;—he therefore, as if acting against us, first of all looking to James the bishop, addressed him in this manner:—
Chapter LXVII.—Speech of Gamaliel.
"‘If I, Gamaliel, deem it no reproach either to my learning or to my old age to learn something from babes and unlearned ones, if haply there be anything which it is for profit or for safety to acquire (for he who lives reasonably knows that nothing is more precious than the soul), ought not this to be the object of love and desire to all, to learn what they do not know, and to teach what they have learned? For it is most certain that neither friendship, nor kindred, nor lofty power, ought to be more precious to men than truth. Therefore you, O brethren, if ye know anything more, shrink not from laying it 95before the people of God who are present, and also before your brethren; while the whole people shall willingly and in perfect quietness hear what you say. For why should not the people do this, when they see even me equally with themselves willing to learn from you, if haply God has revealed something further to you? But if you in anything are deficient, be not ye ashamed in like manner to be taught by us, that God may fill up whatever is wanting on either side. But if any fear now agitates you on account of some of our people whose minds are prejudiced against you, and if through fear of their violence you dare not openly speak your sentiments, in order that I may deliver you from this fear, I openly swear to you by Almighty God, who liveth for ever, that I will suffer no one to lay hands upon you. Since, then, you have all this people witnesses of this my oath, and you hold the covenant of our sacrament as a fitting pledge, let each one of you, without any hesitation, declare what he has learned; and let us, brethren, listen eagerly and in silence.’"
Chapter LXVIII.—The Rule of Faith.
"These sayings of Gamaliel did not much please Caiaphas; and holding him in suspicion, as it seemed, he began to insinuate himself cunningly into the discussions: for, smiling at what Gamaliel had said, the chief of the priests asked of James, the chief of the bishops,594 that the discourse concerning Christ should not be drawn but from the Scriptures; ‘that we may know,’ said he, ‘whether Jesus be the very Christ or no.’ Then said James, ‘We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to derive our discussion.’ Then he, with difficulty, at length overcome by reason, answered, that it must be derived from the law; and afterwards he made mention also of the prophets."

The Gospel of Gamaliel

Or the Lament of the Virgin and the Martyrdom of Pilate

LAMENT OF THE VIRGIN

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we will write a discourse composed　by Cyriacus, 1 bishop of the town of Bahnasa, 2 on the merits of the pure Virgin our Lady 3Mary, and her affectionate weeping on the day of the crucifixion of our Lord,when on the day of His holy resurrection she went to the door of the sepulchre of her Son and didnot find His body, because He had risen up from the dead. May his 4 blessing be with us. Amen.He said :The weeping of Jacob, the head of the Patriarchs, has been renewed to-day, O my beloved ; whythen should not the Virgin Mary weep over her Son whom she conceived in virginity ? Whyshould not the Virgin Mary weep over the one for whom she suffered the pangs of parturition ? xWhy should not the Virgin Mary weep over the one into whose divine mouth she placed her　virginal breast ? Why should not the Virgin weep over the manger, which^ is in Bethlehem ?Why should not the Virgin weep over her beloved Son whom she carried during nine months of　gestation ? Why should not the Virgin weep over the one whom she brought forth and suckled ?If Rachel weeps over children whom she has never embraced, why should not the Virgin weepover the one whom she carried in her arms like all babes ? ' If Rachel weeps over children for　whom she did not run from place to place, why should not the Virgin weep over her child withwhom she ran from country to country ? If Rachel weeps over children whose tombs she has notseen, why should not the Virgin weep at the door of her only Son's sepulchre ?The weeping of a venerable old man" 3 has been renewed to-day for a young, 4 virgin woman.Jacob did not see Joseph bound by his brothers, but the Virgin saw her Son nailed to the wood of　the cross. Jacob did not see Joseph when his brothers threw him while hungry into the depths of　the well, so that he might weep over him ; but the Virgin saw her Son hanging on the cross in themiddle (of two male- factors), before all the Jews. Jacob did not see Joseph when his　brothers stripped him of his clothes, but the Virgin saw her Son in a naked state in the middle of　Jews devoid of understanding. Jacob did not see Joseph being sold to Egyptian merchants for　thirty denarii, but the Virgin saw her Son when Judas sold Him for thirty pieces of silver. Jacobwept over a foreign blood and over a robe that was not torn by wild beasts, but it is over a divine　blood smeared on the rock of the Kranion '" that the Virgin is weeping, and over the foreignrobe which her Son was wearing, since they had divided His garments among themselves. The　brothers of Joseph wept and repented that they had sold their brother, but the Children of Israeldid not weep when they sold their Lord. 1 The sons of Jacob rejoicedwhen their brother reigned (over Egypt), but the Jews did not rejoice when their Lord rose upfrom the dead.O pure Virgin, your wailing over the tomb of your beloved Son is truly sweet and your voice ismelodious in the middle of the angels, when they brought to you the sad news and said : " OMary, what are you doing sitting, while your Son is standing before the Governor and is being

judged and insulted by the High Priest of the Jews ? " O Mary, what are you doing sitting, whileyour Son is being stripped in the court of His garment dyed (with His blood) ? O daughter of　Joiakim, what are you doing sitting, while your Son is carrying alone a cross in the streets of　Jerusalem, and no one comes near Him ? O dove of Hannah what are you doing sitting, whileyour Son is being crucified in the place of the Kranion ? O seed of David, why havethey lifted your Son on the cross ?O my pure and Virgin Lady, your wailing is truly sweet to-day in the house of John, while saying: 2 " Oh, how bitter is this messenger who came to me to-day ! He is more bitter than themessenger of death who came to Job and to Jacob Israel. Oh, how cruel is the intelligencer whocame to me to-day, O my Child ! He is more cruel than the one who announced to Lot the　burning of his town. Oh, how painful is the news that came to me to-day, O my child ! It is more　painful than the news concerning the death of the valiant men of Israel. Oh, how cruel is themessenger who brought me this bad news, O my child ! (This child) has comfortedme for thirty years, and He never furnished me with an occasion to chide Him and scold Him.(What adds bitterness) to the news is that the one who brought it to me is Salome ! All mysorrow has began again !" O my child, I have never been to a Governor, nor have I ever stood before a judge. I have never　seen a robber being killed, nor have I ever gone to the Kranion, nor do I know the place of theGolgotha. O my child, I have never stood before a man engaged in litigation so that I mightrealise the false wisdom (that has been applied to your case) ; nor have I ever been present in alaw court, so that I might realise the injustice that has been done to you. O my child, I am insidethe house of John, and you are in the house of the High- Priest Annas. O my child, this cruelnews that concerns you has outweighed the sadness of my orphanhood, and the painfulinformation relating to you has to-day l deprived me of my joy. The angel announced to me your　　birth in Nazareth, and I have been announcedthis cruel news about you in Jerusalem.' Your Annunciation occurred to me in the house of　Joseph, and this bad news was brought to me in the house of John. O my beloved, I was rejoicingin my heart and saying constantly, ' To-morrow we shall have our passover, accomplish theordinance of the feast and return to our home ; ' the passover has come to me, O my beloved Son,with weeping and wailing ! My feast has changed into lamentation and my passover into grief ! "The Virgin uttered this affectionate wailing " in the house of John when they brought to her thesad news of her Son. Then she began to look for one of His holy disciples to walk with her, butshe did not find any, because all had fled and forsaken Him from fear of the Jews. She asked for　Peter to accompany her, and she was informed that from his fear of the High Priest he had deniedher Son, saying, " I do not know Him," and that he had gone and hidden himself from Him.She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Himon the mount where He was seized. She asked for Andrew, and she was informed that he hadnever come with Him to town at all. She asked for Thomas, and she was in- formed that he hadthrown down his garments and fled. She asked for the son of Tulmas, 4 and she was informedthat he was the first of His brethren to flee. She asked for Philip, and she was informed thatwhen he saw the torches burning, he was terrified and fled. She asked for James, the brother of　John, and she was informed that he never even looked at Him. She asked for Matthew, and shewas informed that he was afraid of the Jews more than all others, as they had a

special grudge against him from the time he used to collect taxes fromthem, and he had, therefore, fled in the darkness of the night. In short she asked for all of them,and she did not find a single one of them except John who had accompanied Him to the Kranionand the Golgotha.Then the Virgin resumed her weeping and wailing, because she was not able to find any of theApostles, the disciples of her Son, except John, and said while weeping :" Woe is me, O my Son and O my beloved, because your brethren fled and disappeared. O myfather Peter, I was thinking every day that you would not deny your Master. You have not beengiven gold and silver that you denied Him so quickly. You have not been presented with a boatand oars, why then did you deny to-day your Master and your Lord ? You have not had the giftof a son or a daughter (as the price of your denial), O Peter, and you have not had the offer of　exchanging Him for a brother or a friend, why then this spiritless weakness of yours ? You didnot see a second cross, O Peter, which you believed might be for you, that you were so terrifiedthat you denied Him. He gave you a tongue of iron, O Peter, and you melted it and spoiled itwithout fire or a smith. He bestowed grace upon you, 1 O Peter, more than all men, and you didnot bear now a single slap for your Master. He bestowed on you, O Peter, two eyes the light of　which does not fade, and you did not feel ashamed to deny their light." He confided to you, OPeter, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and you did not suffer a short time (for Him) inthe prison of the High Priest." He made you, O Peter, His deputy to all the world, and you did not endure a single temptation3 for your Master. He made you, O Peter, a father to all the world, and you did not act in a　brotherly love for a single short hour towards my Son. He imposed His divine hand on your　head, 4 O Peter, and you did not agree b to have a crown of thorns on your head before you haddenied Him. Even if you say, Peter, that my Son is not your Master but only your friend, it didnot behoove you to deny Him in this way. If you had to endure, O Peter, all the tribulationsundergone with us by my father : Joseph, you should have been dragged to Herod with my Son.'If you had to bear like him the pains of the journey to the country of Egypt, you might not have　been able to endure a single one of them. May the dew of heaven nurture your bones, O myfather Joseph, the just man, and may the tree of life nourish 3 your soul because you haveendured my tribulations with me, and have not denied my Son ! O Peter, they have not broughtyou before the Governor, nor have they placed you before the high tribunal that you denied your　Master so quickly."When the Virgin finished her lamentations over the denial of Peter in the house of John, she sentfor John, who came and found her weeping. Then both John and the Virgin wept over the LordJesus. Then John said to the Virgin : " O my mother, do not weep over Peter for his denial of myMaster, because he has not the same blame attached to him as that which attaches to Judas who　betrayed Him.1 heard what "my Master said at the evening meal and what Peter said to Him, ' Be it far fromyou, Lord, this shall not be unto you,' 4 but I will give my life for you. And I heard my Lord andmy Master rebuking him three times saying to him, ' Go ye behind me, Satan, you have become