Lost and Hostile Gospels

379

Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 6.

380

Ibid. 9.

381

Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 9.

382

“Sensus, quae symbolice mulier est.” – Philo: Quaest. et Solut. i. 52. “Generatio ut sapientum fert sententia, corruptionis est principium.” —Ibid. 10.

383

Nicolas: Études sur les Evangiles apocryphes, pp. 128-130. M. Nicolas was the first to discover the intimate connection that existed between the Gospel of the Egyptians and Philonian philosophy.

The relation in which Philo stood to Christian theology has not, as yet, so far as I am aware, been thoroughly investigated. Dionysius the Areopagite, the true father of Christian theosophy, derives his ideas and terminology from Philo. Aquinas developed Dionysius, and on the Summa of the Angel of the Schools Catholic theology has long reposed.

384

Tert. De praescr. haeretica, c. 51. “Cerdon solum Lucae Evangelium, nec tamen totum recipit.”

385

For an account of the doctrines of Marcion, the authorities are, The Apologies of Justin Martyr; Tertullian's treatise against Marcion, i. – v.; Irenaeus against Heresies, i. 28; Epiphanius on Heresies, xlii. 1-3; and a “Dialogus de recta in Deum fide,” printed with Origen's Works, in the edition of De la Rue, Paris, 1733, though not earlier than the fourth century.

386

1 Cor. iv. 4.

387

Rom. v. 20.

388

Rom. vi. 5.

389

Rom. vii. 7.

390

Rom. viii. 2.

391

Rom. iii. 28.

392

Gal. iii. 23-25.

393

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 15, vii. 12. De Martyr. Palaest. 10.

394

Cf. 1 Col. ix. 1, xv. 8; 2 Cor. xii.

395

Epiphan. Haeres. xlii. 11.

396

Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 11.

397

“Contraria quaeque sententiae emit, competentia autem sententiae reservarit.” – Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. 6.

398

Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 9-12.

399

“Ego meum, (Evangelium) dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos disceptabit?” – Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 4.

400

Not St. John's Gospel; that is unique; a biography by an eye-witness, not a composition of distinct notices.

401

2 Cor. ii. 17, and iv. 2.

402

Matt. v. 17, 18.

403

Luke xvi. 16.

404

Tert.: “Transeat coelum et terra citius quam unus apex verborum Domini;” but Tertullian is not quoting directly, so that the words may have been, and probably were, τῶν λόγων μου, not τῶν λόγων τοῦ θεοῦ.

405

Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12; Theod. Fabul. haeret. ii. 2.

406

Epiphan. Ancor. 31.

407

Hieron. adv. Pelag. ii.

408

Hilar. De Trinit. x.

409

“Christus Jesus in evangelio tuo meus est.”

410

See note 4 on p. 240.

411

As xix. 10 “Filius hominis venit, salvum facere quod perfit … elisa est sententia haereticorum negantium carnis salutem; – pollicebatur (Jesus) totius hominis salutem.”

412

Sch. 4. ἐν αὐτοῖς for μετ᾽ αὐπῶν. Sch. 1, ὑμῖν for αὐτοῖς. Sch. 26, κλῆσιν for κρίσιν. Sch. 34, πάτερ for πάτερ ὑμῶν, &c.

413

Marcion called his Gospel “The Gospel,” as the only one he knew and recognized, or “The Gospel of the Lord.”

414

The division into chapters is, of course, arbitrary.

415

Ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος (St. Luke, ἐπιτροπεύοντος), Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, κατῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Καπερναούμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ εὐθέως τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκε (St. Luke, καὶ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν).

416

Ναζαρηνέ omitted.

417

St. Luke iv. 37 omitted here, and inserted after iv. 39.

418

Luke iv. 15 inserted here.

419

οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος omitted.

420

ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶσαι omitted, and Luke iv. 17-20.

421

καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν αὐτοῖς. St. Luke has, Ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτούς, ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν.

422

The rest of the verse (22) omitted.

423

ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου omitted.

424

ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ after ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου.

425

ἐπορεύετο εἰς Καπερναούμ. St. Luke has, ἐπορεύετο καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ.

426

τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί.

427

Εὐχαριστῶ καὶ ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅτι ἅτινα ἦν κρυπτὰ σοφοῖς καὶ συνετοῖς ἀπεκάλυψας, &c. St. Luke has, ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας, &c.

428

οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδε τὸν υἱόν τις γινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ῷ ἂν ὁ υἱός ἀποκαλύψη.

429

In some of the most ancient codices of St. Luke, “which art in heaven” is not found. Πάτερ, ἐλθέτω πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου.

430

κλῆσιν instead of κρίσιν.

431

ὑμῶν omitted.

432

τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ, for ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλακῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ.

433

πάντας τοὺς δικαίους.

434

ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω.

435

ἐμόν for ὑμέτερον.

436

ἢ τῶν λόγων μου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

437

Some codices of St. Luke have, λίθος μυλικὸς; others, μύλος ὀνικός.

438

Ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς λέγων.

439

μὴ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς ουτος omitted; the previous question, Οὐχ εὑρέθησαν κ.τ.λ., made positive; and Luke iv. 27 inserted.

440

Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν, εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατήρ.

441

ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ inserted.

442

Καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας after διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος, and καὶ ἀναστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα after φόρους μὴ δοῦναι.

443

ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ omitted. Possibly the whole verse was omitted.

444

οἷς ἐλάλησεν ὑμῖν, instead of ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται. Volckmar thinks that in v. 19, “of Nazareth” was omitted, but neither St. Epiphanius nor Tertullian say so.

445

Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 2. “Marcion evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit nomen.”

446

Ἕν ἐστι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ ὁ Χριστὸς ἔγραψεν.

447

Rom. i. 16, xv. 19, 29; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4, ix. 13; Gal. i. 7.

448

Rom. i. 9.

449

Rom. i. 1, xv. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 9; 1 Tim. i. 11.

450

Volckmar: Das Evangelium Marcions; Leipzig, 1852, p. 54.

451

Luke ii. 19, 51.

452

Luke i. 66.

453

John xix. 26.

454

This was some time prior to the composition of St. John's Gospel. The first two chapters of St. Luke's Gospel were written apparently by the same hand which wrote the rest. Similarities, identity of expression, almost prove this. Compare i. 10 and ii. 13 with viii. 37, ix. 37, xxiii. 1; also i. 10 with xiv. 17, xxii. 14; i. 20 with xxii. 27, and i. 20 with xii. 3, xix. 44; i. 22 with xxiv. 23; i. 44 with vii. 1, ix. 44; also i. 45 with x. 23, xi. 27, 28; also i. 48 with ix. 38; i. 66 with ix. 44; i. 80 with ix. 51; ii. 6 with iv. 2; ii. 9 with xxiv. 4; ii. 10 with v. 10; ii. 14 with xix. 18; ii. 20 with xix. 37; ii. 25 with xxiii. 50; ii. 26. with ix. 20.

455

The descent of the Holy Ghost in bodily shape explains why in iv. 1 he is said to have been full of the Holy Ghost. I suspect the narrative of the unction occurred here. This was removed to cut off occasion to Docetic error, and the gap was clumsily filled with an useless genealogy.

456

Ναζωραῖος for Ναζαρηνός omitted.

457

Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. c. 25, “ut doctor de ea vita videatur consuluisse quae in lege promittitur longaeva.”

458

ὅταν ὄψησθε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω. – Epiph. Schol. 40; Tertul. c. 30.

459

Luke xiii. 25-30.

460

Matt. vii. 13.

461

Hist. of the Christian Religion, tr. Bohn, ii. p. 131.

462

παρέκοψε τό: λέγετε, ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν: ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι πεποιήκαμεν, Sch. 47.

463

Baur calls it an “ungeschickte Zusatz.”

464

The Gospel is printed in Thilo's Codex Apocryph. Novi Testamenti, Lips. 1832, T.I. pp. 401-486. For critical examinations of it see Ritschl: Das Evangelium Marcions und das Kanonische Ev. Lucas, Tübingen, 1846. Baur: Kritische Untersuchungen über die Kanonischen Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847, p. 393 sq. Gratz: Krit. Untersuchungen über Marcions Evangelium, Tübing. 1818. Volckmar: Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipz. 1852. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, Paris, 1866, pp. 147-160.

465

Luke iv. 18.

466

Luke iv. 28; compare vi. 13 with Matt. x. and Luke x. 1-16, vii. 36-50, x. 38-42, xvii. 7-10, xvii. 11-19, x. 30-37, xv. 11-32; Luke xiii. 25-30, compared with Matt. vii. 13; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48, xviii. 42, &c.

467

He died about A.D. 160.

468

Clem. Alex. Strom. vi.

469

Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 3-7.

470

Strom. iv.

471

Tertul. De Præscrip. 49.

472

Tertul. De Praescrip. 38.

473

Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 20.

474

Ibid. iii. 11.

475

“Suum praeter haec nostra.” – Tertull. de Praescrip. 49.

476

Epiphan. Haeres. xxxiv. 1; Iren. Haer. i. 9.

477

Iren. i. 26.

478

Wright: Syriac Apocrypha, Lond. 1865, pp. 8-10.

479

Tischendorf: Codex Apocr. N. T.; Evang. Thom. i. c. 6, 14.

480

Ibid. ii. c. 7; Latin Evang. Thom. iii. c. 6, 12.

481

Pseud. Matt. c. 31.

482

Epiph. Hæres. xxvi. 3.

483

The second passage and its meaning are: Εἶδον δένδρον φέρον δώδεκα καρποὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, καὶ εἶπέ μοι; τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ αὐτοῖ ἀλληγορούσιν εἰς τὴν κατὰ μῆνα γινομένην γυναικείαν ῥύσιν. Μισγόμενοι δὲ μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων τεκνοποιΐαν ἀπαγορεύουσιν. οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τεκνοποιῆσαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἡ φθορὰ ἐσπούδασται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡδονῆς χάριν. – Epiph. Haeres. xxvi. 5.

484

Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 2. He says, moreover: οὐκ αἰσχυνόμενοι αὐτοῖς τοῖς ῥήμασι τὰ τῆς πορνείας διηγεῖσθαι πάλιν ἐρωτικὰ τῆς κύπριδος ποιητούματα.

485

Iren. Haeres. i. 35.

486

Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, p. 168.

487

Baur: Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 193.

488

ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἀναγινώσκοντες. – Haeres. xxvi. 5.

489

Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1.

490

Acts viii. 5, 13, 27-39, xxi. 8.

491

Acts xxi. 8.

492

Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 13.

493

Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 107. See my “Legends of Old Testament Characters,” II. pp. 108, 109.

494

2 Cor. xii. 2.

495

The cuneiform text in Lenormant, Textes cuneiformes inédits, No. 30. The translation in Lenormant: Les premières civilizations, 1. pp. 87-89.

496

Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. f. 304; iii. f. 438; vii. f. 722.

497

Rom. vii. 17.

498

Iren. Haeres. i. 25.

499

Compare Rom. iii. 20. Epiphanes died at the age of seventeen. Epiphan. Haeres. xxxii. 3.

500

Epiphan. xxxii. 4.

501

Clem. Strom. iii. fol. 526.

502

It is instructive to mark how the enunciation of the same principles led to the same results after the lapse of twelve centuries. The proclamation of free grace, emancipation from the Law, justification by faith only, in the sixteenth century quickened into being heresies which had lain dead through long ages. Bishop Barlow, the Anglican Reformer, and one of the compilers of our Prayer-book, thus describes the results of the enunciation of these doctrines in Germany and Switzerland, results of which he was an eye-witness: “There be some which hold opinion that all devils and damned souls shall be saved at the day of doom. Some of them persuade themselves that the serpent which deceived Eve was Christ. Some of them grant to every man and woman two souls. Some affirm lechery to be no sin, and that one may use another man's wife without offence. Some take upon them to be soothsayers and prophets of wonderful things to come, and have prophesied the day of judgment to be at hand, some within three months, some within one month, some within six days. Some of them, both men and women, at their congregations for a mystery show themselves naked, affirming that they be in the state of innocence. Also, some hold that no man ought to be punished or suffer execution for any crime or trespass, be it ever so horrible” (A Dyalogue describing the orygynall ground of these Lutheran faccyons, 1531). We are in presence once more of Marcosians, Ophites, Carpocratians. Had these sects lingered on through twelve centuries? Possibly only; but it is clear that the dissemination of the same doctrines caused the production of these obscene sects by inevitable logical necessity, whether an historical filiation be established or not.

503

Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Mark vii. 31.

504

Ideas reproduce themselves singularly. There is an essay by De Quincy advocating the same view of the character and purpose of Judas.

505

Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 1.

506

Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 31.

507

Etudes, p. 176.

508

Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 2.

509

2 Cor. xii. 4.

510

Reprinted in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, p. 372.