Volume 2, Slice 2 Part 35 (2/2)

”Clement's” 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.

” Epistles on Virginity.

” ” to James.

Epistles of Ignatius.

Epistle of Polycarp.

Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.

(d) _Apocalypses_: see under APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

(a) GOSPELS.--_Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish Sources._--Under the head of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels only one is found, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. Of the rest the uncanonical sayings have been collected by Preuschen (_Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien_, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection will be found in Hennecke, _NTliche Apok._ 9-11. The same subject is dealt with in the elaborate volumes of Resch (_Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien_, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).

To this section belongs also the _Fayum Gospel Fragment_ and the _Logia_ published by Grenfell and Hunt.[5] The former contains two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Matt.

xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3rd century, was discovered by Bickell among the Rainer collection, who characterized it (_Z. f. kath. Theol._, 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the primitive gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. On the other hand, it has been contended that it is merely a fragment of an early patristic homily.

(See Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 780-790; Harnack, _Texte und Untersuchungen_, v. 4; Preuschen, _op. cit._ p. 19.) The _Logia_ (q.v.) is the name given to the sayings contained in a papyrus leaf, by its discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They think the papyrus was probably written about A.D. 200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from the _Gospel of the Egyptians_. All the pa.s.sages referring to Jesus in the Talmud are given by Laible, _Jesus Christus im Talmud_, with an appendix, ”Die talmudischen Texte,” by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The first edition of this work was translated into English by A.W. Streane (_Jesus Christ in the Talmud_, 1893). In Hennecke's _NTliche Apok.

Handbuch_ (pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A.

Meyer, ent.i.tled _Jesus, Jesu Junger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten judischen Schriflen_, to which also a good bibliography of the subject is prefixed.

_Gospel according to the Egyptians._--This gospel is first mentioned by Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), subsequently by Origen (_Hom. in Luc._ i.) and Epiphanius (_Haer._ lxii. 2), and a fragment is preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It circulated among various heretical circles; amongst the Encrat.i.tes (Clem. _Strom._ iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. _Philos._ v. 7), and the Sabellians (Epiph. _Haer._ lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments survive; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 712, 713); Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, _Reste d.

ausserkanonischen Evangelien_, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a product of pantheistic Gnosticism. With this pantheistic Gnosticism is a.s.sociated a severe asceticism. The distinctions of s.e.x are one day to come to an end; the prohibition of marriage follows naturally on this view. Hence Christ is represented as coming to destroy the work of the female (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn a.s.sign it to the middle of the 2nd century. It may be earlier.

_Protevangel of James._--This t.i.tle was first given in the 16th century to a writing which is referred to as _The Book of James_ ([Greek: he biblos Iakobou]) by Origen (tom. xi. _in Matt._). Its author designates it as [Greek: Istoria]. For various other designations see Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1 seq. The narrative extends from the Conception of the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that in the present form of the book there is side by side a strange ”admixture of intimate knowledge and gross ignorance of Jewish thought and custom,” and that accordingly we must ”distinguish between an original Jewish Christian writing and a Gnostic recast of it.” The former was known to Justin (_Dial._ 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ vii. 16), and belongs at latest to the earliest years of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast Lipsius dates about the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works arose independently the _Protevangel_ in its present form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (_Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei_). The _Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae_ is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith's _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 701-703.) But if we except the Zachariah and John group of legends, it is not necessary to a.s.sume the Gnostic recast of this work in the 3rd century as is done by Lipsius. The author had at his disposal two distinct groups of legends about Mary. One of these groups is certainly of non-Jewish origin, as it conceives Mary as living in the temple somewhat after the manner of a vestal virgin or a priestess of Isis. The other group is more in accord with the orthodox gospels. The book appears to have been written in Egypt, and in the early years of the 2nd century. For, since Origen states that many appealed to it in support of the view that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the book must have been current about A.D. 200. From Origen we may ascend to Clem. Alex. who (_Strom._ vi. 93) shows acquaintance with one of the chief doctrines of the book--the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, as Justin's statements as to the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary's descent from David show in all probability his acquaintance with the book, it may with good grounds be a.s.signed to the first decade of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, _Gesch.

Kanons_, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text see Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, _An Alexandrian erotic Fragment and other Papyri_, 1896, pp. 13-17: for the Syriac, Wright, _Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T._, 1865, pp.

3-7; A.S. Lewis, _Studia Sinaitica_, xi. pp. 1-22. See literature generally in Hennecke, _NT liche Apok. Handbuch_, 106 seq.

_Gospel of Nicodemus._--This t.i.tle is first met with in the 13th century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing ent.i.tled in the older MSS. [Greek: hypomnemata tou Kuriou hemon Iesou Christou praxchenta epi Pontiou Pilatou]; also ”Gesta Salvatoris Domini ...

inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis.” See Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ pp.

333-335. This work gives an account of the Pa.s.sion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the _Descensus ad Inferos_ (xvii.-xxvii.).

Chapters i.-xvi. are extant, in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, pp.

210-458). All known texts go back to A.D. 425, if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (_Haer._ i. 1.) presupposes the existence of a like text.

In 325 Eusebius (_H.E._ ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen _Acts of Pilate_, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin's reference to the [Greek: Hakta Pilatou] (_Apol._ i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian's mention of the _Acta Pilati_ (_Apol._ 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot.

Recently Schubert has sought to derive the elements which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original _Acta Pilati_, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works. Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the 2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschutz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith's _Dict. of Christ.

Biography_, ii. 708-709, and Dobschutz in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, iii. 544-547).

_Gospel according to the Hebrews._--This gospel was cited by Ignatius (_Ad Smyrnaeos_, iii.) according to Jerome (_Viris illus._ 16, and _in Jes._ lib. xviii.), but this is declared to be untrustworthy by Zahn, op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic in Hebrew letters, according to Jerome (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2), and translated by him into Greek and Latin. Both these translations are lost. A collection of the Greek and Latin fragments that have survived, mainly in Origen and Jerome, will be found in Hilgenfeld's _NT extra Canonem receptum_, Nicholson's _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ (1879), Westcott's _Introd. to the Gospels_, and Zahn's _Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons_, ii.

642-723; Preuschen, _op. cit_. 3-8. This gospel was regarded by many in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew (Jerome, _in Matt._ xii. 13; _Adv. Pelag._ iii. 1). With the canonical gospel it agrees in some of its sayings; in others it is independent. It circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria, and was composed, according to Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome identifies it with the _Gospel of the Twelve_ (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2), and states that it was used by the Ebionites (_Comm. in Matt._ xii. 13).

Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 662, 724) contests both these statements. The former he traces to a mistaken interpretation of Origen (_Hom. I. in Luc._). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements of Jerome (Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christian Biography_, ii. 709-712), and is of opinion that this gospel, in the form in which it was known to Epiphanius, Jerome and Origen, was ”a recast of an older original,”

which, written originally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia used by St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke, ”which itself was only a later redaction of the Logia.”

According to the most recent investigations we may conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites as early as 100-125, since Ignatius was familiar with the phrase ”I am no bodiless demon”--a phrase which, according to Jerome (_Comm. in Is._ xviii.), belonged to this Gospel.

The name ”Gospel according to the Hebrews” cannot have been original; for if it had been so named because of its general use among the Hebrews, yet the Hebrews themselves would not have used this designation. It may have been known simply as ”the Gospel.” The language was Western Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and his apostles. Two forms of Western Aramaic survive: the Jerusalem form of the dialect, in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra; and the Galilean, in isolated expressions in the Talmud (3rd century), and in a fragmentary 5th century translation of the Bible. The quotations from the Old Testament are made from the Ma.s.soretic text.

This gospel must have been translated at an early date into Greek, as Clement and Origen cite it as generally accessible, and Eusebius recounts that many reckoned it among the received books The gospel is synoptic in character and is closely related to Matthew, though in the Resurrection accounts it has affinities with Luke. Like Mark it seems to have had no history of the birth of Christ, and to have begun with the baptism. (For the literature see Hennecke, _NTliche Apok. Handbuch_, 21-23.)

_Gospel of Peter._--Before 1892 we had some knowlege of this gospel.

Thus Serapion, bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203) found it in use in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia, and condemned it as Docetic (Eusebius, _H.E._ vi. 12). Again, Origen (_In Matt._ tom. xvii. 10) says that it represented the brethren of Christ as his half-brothers In 1885 a long fragment was discovered at Akhmim, and published by Bouriant in 1892, and subsequently by Lods, Robinson, Harnack, Zahn, Schubert, Swete.

<script>