VI The Gospel of Judas
The Pauline Protestantism of the first two centuries of the Church had not exhausted itself in Valentinianism. The fanatics who held free justification and emancipation from the Law were ready to run to greater lengths than Marcion, Valentine, or even Marcus, was prepared to go.
Men of ability and enthusiasm rose and preached, and galvanized the latent Paulinian Gnosticism into temporary life and popularity, and then disappeared; the great wave of natural common-sense against which they battled returned and overwhelmed their disciples, till another heresiarch arose, made another effort to establish permanently a religion without morality, again to fail before the loudly-expressed disgust of mankind, and the stolid conviction inherent in human nature that pure morals and pure religion are and must be indissolubly united.
Carpocrates was one of these revivalists. Everything except faith, all good works, all exterior observances, all respect for human laws, were indifferent, worse than indifferent, to the Christian: these exhibited, where found, an entanglement of the soul in the web woven for it by the God of this world, of the Jews, of the Law. The body was of the earth, the soul of heaven. Here, again, Carpocrates followed and distorted the teaching of St. Paul; the body was under the Law, the soul was free. Whatsoever was done in the body did not affect the soul. “It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”502
“All depends upon faith and love,” said Carpocrates; “externals are altogether matters of indifference. He who ascribes moral worth to these makes himself their slave, subjects himself to those spirits of the world from whom all religious and political ordinances have proceeded; he cannot, after death, pass out of the sphere of the metempsychosis. But he who can abandon himself to every lust without being affected by any, who can thus bid defiance to the laws of those earthly spirits, will after death rise to the unity of that Original One, with whom he has, by uniting himself, freed himself, even in this present life, from all fetters.”503
Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, a youth of remarkable ability, who died young, exhausted by the excesses to which his solifidianism exposed him, wrote a work on Justification by Faith, in which he said:
“All nature manifests a striving after unity and fellowship; the laws of man contradicting these laws of nature, and yet unable to subdue the appetites implanted in human nature by the Creator himself—these first introduced sin.”504
With Epiphanes, St. Epiphanius couples Isidore, and quotes from his writings directions how the Faithful are to obtain disengagement from passion, so as to attain union with God. Dean Milman, in his “History of Christianity,” charitably hopes that the licentiousness attributed to these sects was deduced by the Fathers from their writings, and was not actually practised by them. But the extracts from the books of Isidore, Epiphanes and Carpocrates, are sufficient to show that their doctrines were subversive of morality, and that, when taught as religious truths to men with human passions, they could not fail to produce immoral results. An extract from Isidore, preserved by Epiphanius, giving instructions to his followers how to conduct themselves, was designed to be put in practice. It is impossible even to quote it, so revolting is its indecency. In substance it is this: No man can approach the Supreme God except when perfectly disengaged from earthly passion. This disengagement cannot be attained without first satisfying passion; therefore the exhaustion of desire consequent on the gratification of passion is the proper preparation for prayer.505
To the same licentious class of Antinomians belonged the sect of the Antitactes. They also held the distinction between the Supreme God and the Demiurge, the God of the Jews,506 of the Law, of the World. The body, the work of the God of creation, is evil; it “serves the law of sin;” nay, it is the very source of sin, and imprisons, degrades, the soul entangled in it. Thus the soul serves the law of God, the body the law of sin, i.e. of the Demiurge. But the Demiurge has imposed on men his law, the Ten Commandments. If the soul consents to that law, submits to be in bondage under it, the soul passes from the liberty of its ethereal sonship, under the dominion of a God at enmity with the Supreme Being. Therefore the true Christian must show his adherence to the Omnipotent by breaking the laws of the Decalogue,—the more the better.507
Was religious fanaticism capable of descending lower? Apparently it was so. The Cainites exhibit Pauline antinomianism in its last, most extravagant, most grotesque expression. Their doctrine was the extreme development of an idea in itself originally containing an element of truth.
Paul had proclaimed the emancipation of the Christian from the Law. Perhaps he did not at first sufficiently distinguish between the moral and the ceremonial law; he did not, at all events, lay down a broad, luminous principle, by which his disciples might distinguish between moral obligation to the Decalogue and bondage to the ceremonial Law. If both laws were imposed by the same God, to upset one was to upset the other. And Paul himself broke a hole in the dyke when he opposed the observance of the Sabbath, and instituted instead the Lord’s-day.
Through that gap rushed the waves, and swept the whole Decalogue away.
Some, to rescue jeoparded morality, maintained that the Law contained a mixture of things good and bad; that the ceremonial law was bad, the moral law was good. Some, more happily, asserted that the whole of the Law was good, but that part of it was temporary, provisional, intended only to be temporary and provisional, a figure of that which was to be; and the rest of the Law was permanent, of perpetual obligation.
The ordinances of the Mosaic sanctuary were typical. When the fulfilment of the types came, the shadows were done away. This was the teaching of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, called forth by the disorders which had followed indiscriminating denunciation of the Law by the Pauline party.
But a large body of men could not, or would not, admit this distinction. St. Paul had proclaimed the emancipation of the Christian from the Law. They, having been Gentiles, had never been under the ceremonial Law of Moses. How then could they be set at liberty from it? The only freedom they could understand was freedom from the natural law written on the fleshy tables of their hearts by the same finger that had inscribed the Decalogue on the stones in Sinai. The God of the Jews was, indeed, the God of the world. The Old Testament was the revelation of his will. Christ had emancipated man from the Law. The Law was at enmity to Christ; therefore the Christian was at enmity to the Law. The Law was the voice of the God of the Jews; therefore the Christian was at enmity to the God of the Jews. Jesus was the revelation of the All-good God, the Old Testament the revelation of the evil God.
Looking at the Old Testament from this point of view, the extreme wing of the Pauline host, the Cainites, naturally came to regard the Patriarchs as being under the protection, the Prophets as being under the inspiration, of the God of the Jews, and therefore to hold them in abhorrence, as enemies of Christ and the Supreme Deity. Those, on the other hand, who were spoken of in the Old Testament as resisting God, punished by God, were true prophets, martyrs of the Supreme Deity, forerunners of the Gospel. Cain became the type of virtue; Abel, on the contrary, of error and perversity. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were pioneers of Gospel freedom; Corah, Dathan and Abiram, martyrs protesting against Mosaism.
In this singular rehabilitation, Judas Iscariot was relieved from the anathema weighing upon him. This man, who had sold his Master, was no longer regarded as a traitor, but as one who, inspired by the Spirit of Wisdom, had been an instrument in the work of redemption. The other apostles, narrowed by their prejudices, had opposed the idea of the death of Christ, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.”508 But Judas, having a clearer vision of the truth, and the necessity for the redemption of the world by the death of Christ, took the heroic resolution to make that precious sacrifice inevitable. Rising above his duties as disciple, in his devotion to the cause of humanity, he judged it necessary to prevent the hesitations of Christ, who at the last moment seemed to waver; to render inevitable the prosecution of his great work. Judas therefore went to the chiefs of the synagogue, and covenanted with them to deliver up his Master to their will, knowing that by his death the salvation of the world could alone be accomplished.509
Judas therefore became the chief apostle to the Cainites. They composed a Gospel under his name, τό Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Ἰουδα.510 Irenæus also mentions it;511 it must therefore date from the second century. Theodoret mentions it likewise. But none of the ancient Fathers quote it. Not a single fragment of this curious work has been preserved.
“It is certainly to be regretted,” says M. Nicolas, “that this monument of human folly has completely disappeared. It should have been carefully preserved as a monument, full of instruction, of the errors into which man is capable of falling, when he abandons himself blindly to theological dogmatism.”512
In addition to the Gospel of Judas, the Cainites possessed an apocryphal book relating to that apostle whom they venerated scarcely second to Judas, viz. St. Paul. It was entitled the “Ascension of Paul,” Ἀναβατικὸν Παύλου,513 and related to his translation into the third heaven, and the revelation of unutterable things he there received.514
An “Apocalypse of Paul” has been preserved, but it almost certainly is a different book from the Anabaticon. It contains nothing favouring the heretical views of the Cainites, and was read in some of the churches of Palestine. This Apocalypse in Greek has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his Apocalypses Apocryphae (Lips. 1866), and the translation of a later Syriac version in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VIII. 1864.515
Footnotes
1 Joseph. Antiq. xii. 5; 1 Maccab. i. 11-15, 43, 52; 2 Maccab. iv. 9-16.
2 πονήροι, ἀσεβεῖς.—Antiq. xiii. 4, xii. 10.
3 Baba-Kama, fol. 82; Menachoth, fol. 64; Sota, fol. 49; San-Baba, fol. 90.
4 Menachoth, fol. 99.
5 Baba-Kama, fol. 63.
6 Mass. Sopherim, c. i. in Othonis Lexicon Rabbin. p. 329.
7 Philo is not mentioned by name once in the Talmud, nor has a single sentiment or interpretation of an Alexandrine Jew been admitted into the Jerusalem or Babylonish Talmud.
8 Aristobulus wrote a book to prove that the Greek sages drew their philosophy from Moses, and addressed his book to Ptolemy Philometor.
9 Gal. iv. 24, 25.
10 Col. i. 16.
11 1 Cor. x. 21.
12 Dante, Parad. xiv.
13 See the question carefully discussed in M. F. Delaunay’s Moines et Sibylles; Paris, 1874, pp. 28 sq.
14 See, on this curious topic, C. Aubertin: Sénèque et St. Paul; Paris, 1872.
15 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. The Bishop of Caesarea is quoting from Philo’s account of the Therapeutae, and argues that these Alexandrine Jews must have been Christians, because their manner of life, religious customs and doctrines, were identical with those of Christians. “Their meetings, the distinction of the sexes at these meetings, the religious exercises performed at them, are still in vogue among us at the present day, and, especially at the commemoration of the Saviour’s passion, we, like them, pass the time in fasting and vigil, and in the study of the divine word. All these the above-named author (Philo) has accurately described in his writings, and are the same customs that are observed by us alone, at the present day, particularly the vigils of the great Feast, and the exercises in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among us. He states that, whilst one sings gracefully with a certain measure, the others, listening in silence, join in at the final clauses of the hymns; also that, on the above-named days, they lie on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his own words, abstain altogether from wine and from flesh. Water is their only drink, and the relish of their bread salt and hyssop. Besides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those who administer the ecclesiastical functions committed to them, those of deacons, and the presidencies of the episcopate as the highest. Therefore,” Eusebius concludes, “it is obvious to all that Philo, when he wrote these statements, had in view the first heralds of the gospel, and the original practices handed down from the apostles.”
16 It is deserving of remark that the turning to the East for prayer, common to the Essenes and primitive Christians, was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and denounced by prophets. When the Essenes diverged from the Law, the Christians followed their lead.
17 Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ιησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή; ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τ᾽ ἀληθῆ δεχομένων; καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν. Καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἵ γε πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες; ἐφάνη γαρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων; εἰς ἔτι νῦν τῶν χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλίπε τὸ φῦλον.—Lib. xviii. c. iii. 3.
18 Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. iii.
19 He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ, Contr. Cels. i.
20 Juvenal, Satir. vi. 546. “Aere minuto qualiacunque voles Judaei somnia vendunt.” The Emperors, later, issued formal laws against those who charmed away diseases (Digest. lib. i. tit. 13, i. 1). Josephus tells the story of Eleazar dispossessing a demon by incantations. De Bello Jud. lib. vii. 6; Antiq. lib. viii. c. 2.
21 Hist. Eccl. i. 11.
22 Contr. Cels. i. 47; and again, ii. 13: “This (destruction), as Josephus writes, ‘happened upon account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, called the Christ;’ but in truth on account of Christ Jesus, the Son of God.”
23 Acts xxiii.
24 Bibliothec. cod. 33.
25 Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 17; Epiphan. adv. Haeres. xix. 1.
26 Epiphan. adv. Haeres. x.
27 For information on the Essenes, the authorities are, Philo, Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον, and Josephus, De Bello Judaico, and Antiq.
28 Compare Luke x. 4; John xii. 6, xiii. 29; Matt. xix. 21; Acts ii. 44, 45, iv. 32, 34, 37.
29 Compare Matt. vi. 28-34; Luke xii. 22-30.
30 Compare Matt. v. 34.
31 Compare Matt. vi. 25, 31; Luke xii. 22, 23.
32 Compare Matt. xv. 15-22.
33 Compare Matt. vi. 1-18.
34 From אסא, meaning the same as the Greek Therapeutae.
35 Compare Luke x. 25-37; Mark vii. 26.
36 Matt. iv. 16, v. 14, 16, vi. 22; Luke ii. 32, viii. 16, xi. 23, xvi. 8; John i. 4-9, iii. 19-21, viii. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, 10, xii. 35-46.
37 Luke viii. 10; Mark iv. 12; Matthew xiii. 11-15.
38 Clem. Homil. xix. 20.
39 Compare Matt. xv. 3, 6.
40 The reference to salt as an illustration by Christ (Matt. v. 13; Mark ix. 49, 50; Luke xiv. 34) deserves to be noticed in connection with this.
41 Clem. Homil. xiv. 1: “Peter came several hours after, and breaking bread for the Eucharist, and putting salt upon it, gave it first to our mother, and after her, to us, her sons.”
42 Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 9.
43 Const. Apost. lib. viii. 33.
44 Acts ii. 46, iii. 1, v. 42.
45 Acts xv.
46 Acts i. 22, iv. 2, 33, xxiii. 6.
47 Acts xxiii. 7.
48 Acts xv. 5.
49 Acts xv. 29.
50 Clem. Homil. vii. 8.
51 Col. ii. 21.
52 Gal. iv. 10. When it is seen in the Clementines how important the observance of these days was thought, what a fundamental principle it was of Nazarenism, I think it cannot be doubted that it was against this that St. Paul wrote.
53 Col. ii. 16.
54 Clement. Homil. xix. 22.
55 Gal. v. 2-4.
56 1 Cor. v. 1.
57 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 29.
58 Ibid.
59 “Lies der Papisten Bücher, höre ihre Predigen, so wirst du finden, dass diess ihr einziger Grund ist, darauf sie stehen wider uns pochen und trotzen, da sie vorgeben, es sei nichts Gutes aus unserer Lehre gekommen. Denn alsbald, da unser Evangelium anging und sie hören liess, folgte der gräuliche Aufruhr, es erhuben sich in der Kirche Spaltung und Sekten, es ward Ehrbarkeit, Disziplin und Zucht zerrüttet, und Jedermann wolte vogelfrei seyn und thun, was ihm gelüstet nach allem seinen Muthwillen und Gefallen, als wären alle Gesetze, Rechte und Ordnung gans aufhoben, wie es denn leider allzu wahr ist. Denn der Muthwille in allen Ständen, mit allerlei Laster, Sünden und Schanden ist jetzt viel grösser denn zuvor, da die Leute, und sonderlich der Pöbel, doch etlichermassen in Furcht und in Zaum gehalten waren, welches nun wie ein zaumlos Pferd lebt und thut Alles, was es nur gelüstet ohne allen Scheu.”—Ed. Walch, v. 114. For a very full account of the disorders that broke out on the preaching of Luther, see Döllinger’s Die Reformation in ihre Entwicklung. Regensb. 1848.
60 Epistolas, 1528, ii. 192.
61 1 Cor. xi. 1.
62 Acts xxi. 23, 24.
63 James ii. 20.
64 It is included by Eusebius in the Antilegomena, and, according to St. Jerome, was rejected as a spurious composition by the majority of the Christian world.
65 Rev. ii. 1, 14, 15.
66 בלעם, destruction of the people, from בלע, to swallow up, and עם, people = Νικόλαος.
67 2 Pet. ii. 21.
68 Τοῦ ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνομον τίνα καὶ φλυαρώδη διδασκαλιάν—Clem. Homil. xx. ed. Dressel, p. 4. The whole passage is sufficiently curious to be quoted. St. Peter writes: “There are some from among the Gentiles who have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the Law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God, which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”
69 “Apostolum Paulum recusantes, apostatam eum legis dicentes.”—Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 26. Τὸν δὲ ἀπόστυλον ἀποστάτην καλοῦσι.—Theod. Fabul. Haeret. ii. 1.
70 Hom. xi. 85.
71 Hom. iv. 22.
72 Clem. Homil. ii. 38-40, 48, iii. 50, 51.
73 Of course I mean the designation given to the Pauline sect, not the religion of Christ.
74 Adv. Haeres. i. 24.
75 Origen, Contr. Cels. lib. viii.
76 Ibid. lib. vi.
77 Contra Cels. lib. i.
78 Ibid. lib. ii.
79 Amongst others, Clemens: Jesus von Nazareth, Stuttgart, 1850; Von der Alme: Die Urtheile heidnischer und jüdischer Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 1864.
80 Adv. Haer. lib. iii; Haer. lxviii. 7.
81 “Quantae traditiones Pharisaeorum sint, quas hodie vocant δευτερώσεις et quam aniles fabulae, evolvere nequeo: neque enim libri patitur magnitudo, et pleraque tam turpia sunt ut erubescam dicere.”
82 Haeres. xiii.
83 Beracoth, xi. a.
84 Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 107, and Sota, fol. 47.
85 Bartolocci: Bibliotheca Maxima Rabbinica, sub. nom.
86 Sepher Nizzachon, n. 337.
87 Eisenmenger: Neuentdecktes Judenthum, I. pp. 231-7. Königsberg, 1711.
88 Tract. Sabbath, fol. 67.
89 Ibid. fol. 104.
90 The passage is not easy to understand. I give three Latin translations of it, one by Cl. Schickardus, the second quoted from Scheidius (Loca Talm. i. 2). “Filius Satdae, filius Pandeirae fuit. Dixit Raf Chasda: Amasius Pandeirae, maritus Paphos filius Jehudae fuit. At quomodo mater ejus Satda? Mater ejus Mirjam, comptrix mulierum fuit.” “Filius Stadae filius Pandirae est. Dixit Rabbi Chasda: Maritus seu procus matris ejus fuit Stada, iniens Pandiram. Maritus Paphus filius Judae ipse est, mater ejus Stada, mater ejus Maria,” &c. Lightfoot, Matt. xxvii. 56, thus translates it: “Lapidârunt filium Satdae in Lydda, et suspenderunt eum in vesperâ Paschatis. Hic autem filius Satdae fuit filius Pandirae. Dixit quidem Rabb Chasda, Maritus (matris ejus) fuit Satda, maritus Pandira, maritus Papus filius Judae: sed tamen dico matrem ejus fuisse Satdam, Mariam videlicet, plicatricem capillorum mulierum: sicut dicunt in Panbeditha, Declinavit ista a marito suo.”
91 פנדירה. As a man’s name it occurs in 2 Targum, Esther vii.
92 Avoda Sava, fol. 27.
93 Talmud, Tract. Beracoth, ix. fol. 61, b.
94 Gittin, fol. 90, a.
95 Chajigah, fol. 4, b.
96 Calla, fol. 18, b.
97 Son of Levi, according to the Toledoth Jeschu of Huldrich.
98 In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus as a boy behaves without respect to his master and the elders; thence possibly this story was derived.
99 Fol. 114.
100 Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 17 and 108.
101 Cont. Cels. lib. iii.
102 Lettres sur les Juifs. Œuvres, I. 69, p. 36.
103 Luther’s Works, Wittemberg, 1556, T. V. pp. 509-535. The passage quoted is on p. 513.
104 Lib. viii. 33.
105 Martyrol. Rom. ad. 1 Januar.
106 Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N.T. ii. p. 493.
107 Whereas the bitter conflict of Simon Peter and Simon Magus was a subject well known in early Christian tradition.
108 Wagenseil: Tela ignea Satanae. Hoc est arcani et horribiles Judaeorum adversus Christum Deum et Christianam religionem libri anecdoti; Altdorf, 1681.
109 Nob was a city of Benjamin, situated on a height near Jerusalem, on one of the roads which led from the north to the capital, and within sight of it, as is certain from the description of the approach of the Assyrian army in Isaiah (x. 28-32).
110 Herod put Alexander Hyrcanus to death B.C. 30. Alexandra, the mother of Hyrcanus, reigned after the death of Jannaeus, from B.C. 79 to B.C. 71.
111 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. ii. 1.
112 Acta Sanct. Mai. T. I. pp. 445-451.
113 Ps. lxix. 22.
114 Isa. liii. 5.
115 Rome. Simon Cephas is Simon Peter, but the miraculous power attributed to him perhaps belongs to the story of Simon Magus.
116 Isa. i. 14.
117 Hosea i. 9.
118 Matt. xix. 28.
119 The Oelberg was especially characteristic of German churches, and was erected chiefly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They remain at Nürnberg, Xanten, Worms, Marburg, Donauwörth, Landshut, Wasserburg, Ratisbon, Klosterneuburg, Wittenberg, Merseburg, Lucerne, Bruges, &c.
120 Mááse, c. 188. I have told the story more fully in the Christmas Number of “Once a Week,” 1868.
121 Joh. Jac. Huldricus: Historia Jeschuae Nazareni, a Judaeis blaspheme corrupta; Leyden, 1705.
122 The mystery of the chariot is that of the chariot of God and the cherubic beasts, Ezekiel i. The Jews wrote the name of God without vowels, Jhvh; the vowel points taken from the name Adonai (Lord) were added later.
123 The story is somewhat different in the Talmudic tract Calla, as already related.
124 From Mizraim, Egypt.
125 Evidently the author confounds John the Baptist with John the Apostle.
126 Judas Iscarioth. In St. John’s Gospel he is called the son of Simon (vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26). Son of Zachar is a corruption of Iscarioth. The name Iscarioth is probably from Kerioth, his native village, in Judah.
127 Isa. lxiii. 1-3. Singularly enough, this passage is chosen for the Epistle in the Roman and Anglican Churches for Monday in Holy Week, with special reference to the Passion.
128 Gen. xxxi. 47.
129 Isa. ii. 3.
130 1 Sam. ii. 6.
131 Lev. xxiv. 16.
132 This is taken from Sanhedrim, fol. 43.
133 It is worth observing how these two false witnesses disagree in almost every particular about our blessed Lord’s birth and passion.
134 This is probably taken from the story of Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Linus. Simon flies from off a high tower. In the Apocryphal Book of the Death of the Virgin, the apostles come to her death-bed riding on clouds. Ai is here Rome, not Capernaum.
135 The author probably saw representations of the Ascension and of the Last Judgment, with Christ seated with the Books of Life and Death in his hand on a great white cloud, and composed this story out of what he saw, associating the pictures with the floating popular legend of Simon Magus.
136 In the story of Simon the Sorcerer, it is at the prayer of Simon Peter that the Sorcerer falls whilst flying and breaks all his bones. Perhaps the author saw a picture of the Judgment with saints on the cloud with Jesus, and the lost falling into the flames of hell.
137 Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ.
138 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 39.
139 Ibid. lib. v. c. 8.
140 Spicileg. Patrum, Tom. I.
141 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25.
142 Ibid. iii. 24.
143 St. Hieron. De vir. illust., s.v. Matt.
144 Ibid. s.v. Jacobus.
145 Ibid. in Matt. xii. 13.
146 Ibid. Contra. Pelag. iii. 1.
147 Ἔχουσι δὲ (οἱ Ναζαραῖοι) τὸ κατὰ Μαθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πληρέστατον ἑβραιστι.—Haer. xxix. 9.
148 Καθῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη.—Ibid.
149 Ibid. xxx. 3.
150 Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους.
151 Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς δώδεκα. Origen calls it “The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles,” Homil. i. in Luc. St. Jerome the same, in his Prooem. in Comment. sup. Matt.
152 Adv. Pelag. iii. 10.
153 Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων.
154 “Ἐν τοῖς γεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἅ καλεῖται Εὐαγγέλια.” And “ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Εὐαγγελίῳ,” when speaking of these Reminiscences, Dialog. cum Tryphon. §11. Just. Mart. Opera, ed. Cologne, p. 227.
155 1 Apol. ii.
156 Justin Mart. Opp. ed. Cologne; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 301; ibid. p. 253; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dial. cum Tryph. p. 326; 2 Apol. pp. 95, 96.
157 Οἱ ἐξ Ἀραβίας μάγοι, or μάγοι ἀπὸ Ἀραβίας.—Dialog. cum Tryph. pp. 303, 315, 328, 330, 334, &c.
158 Matt. ii. 1.
159 Ἐν σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης κατέλυσε.—Dialog. cum. Tryph. pp. 303, 304.
160 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 291.
161 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 25.
162 Adv. Pelag. iii. 1.
163 Comm. in Ezech. xxiv. 7.
164 “De versione Syriacâ testatur Sionita, quod ut semper in summâ veneratione et auctoritate habita erat apud omnes populos qui Chaldaicâ sive Syriacâ utuntur linguâ, sic publicè in omnibus eorum ecclesiis antiquissimis, constitutis in Syriâ, Mesopotamiâ, Chaldaeâ, Aegypto, et denique in universis Orientis partibus dispersis ac disseminatis accepta ac lecta fuit.”—Walton: London Polyglott, 1657.
165 In Matt. iii. 17; Luke i. 71; John i. 3; Col. iii. 5.
166 It omits the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse.
167 As in the food of the Baptist, in the narrative of the baptism, in the mention of Zacharias, son of Barachias, in place of Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, the instruction to Peter on fraternal forgiveness, &c. It interprets the name Emmanuel.
168 Ignat. Ad. Smyrn. c. 3.
169 Catal. Script. Eccl. 15.
170 Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 9.
171 Hom. xv. in Jerem.
172 Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. Some of those books of the New Testament now regarded as Canonical were also then reckoned among the Antilegomena.
173 Ἄρτι ἔλαβε μέ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μοῦ, καὶ ἀνήνενκε μὲ εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ μέγα Θαβὼρ.—Origen: Hom. xv. in Jerem., and in Johan.
174 Ἄρτι ἔλαβε μέ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μοῦ, καὶ ἀνήνενκε μὲ εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ μέγα Θαβὼρ.—Origen: Hom. xv. in Jerem., and in Johan.
175 “Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus in uno capillorum meorum.”—Hieron. in Mich. vii. 6.
176 Matt. iv. 1.
177 Acts viii. 39.
178 Τὴν δε θήλειαν καλεῖσθαι ἅγιον πνεῦμα.—Hippolyt. Refut. ix. 13, ed. Dunker, p. 462. So also St. Epiphanius, εἶναι δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα θηλεῖαν.—Haeres. xix. 4, liii. 1.
179 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 38.
180 Haeres. xix. 1, xxx. 17.
181 Homilies, iii. 20-27.
182 In the “Refutation of Heresies” attributed by the Chevalier Bunsen and others to St. Hippolytus, Helena is said in Simonian Gnosticism to have been the “lost sheep” of the Gospels, the incarnation of the world principle—found, recovered, redeemed, by Simon, the incarnation of the divine male principle.
183 Ὁ θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει, γεγράπται, καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαύσεται. Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. 9.
184 Strom. lib. vii. This was exaggerated in the doctrine of the Albigenses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The “Perfects,” the ministers of the sect, “reconciled” the converted. But if one of the Perfect sinned (i.e. ate meat or married), all whom he had reconciled fell with him from grace, even those who were dead and in heaven.
185 Dial. cum Tryph. § 88.
186 “Sicut illud apostoli libenter audire: Omnia probate; quod bonum est tenete; et Salvatoris verba dicentis: Esto probati nummularii.”—Epist. ad Minervium et Alexandrum.
187 Homil. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20. Γίνεσθε τραπεζίται δόκιμοι.
188 Recog. ii. 51.
189 Stromat. i. 28.
190 “Inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit.” St. Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. xvi. 7.
191 “Nunquam læti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate.”
192 “Si peccaverit frater tuus in verbo, et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die suscipe eum. Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus: Septies in die? Respondit Dominus et dixit ei: Etiam ego dico tibi, usque septuagies septies.”—Adv. Pelag. i. 3.
193 Matt. xxvii. 16.
194 “Homo iste qui aridam habet manum in Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei caementarius scribitur.”—Hieron. Comm. in Matt. xii. 13.
195 “Homo iste... scribitur istius modi auxilium precans, Caementarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans; precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter manducem cibos.”—Ibid.
196 Ibid. xxvii. 16.
197 “Filius Magistri eorum interpretatus.”—Ibid.
198 Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
199 viii. 3-11.
200 He probably knew it through a translation.
201 Comm. in Matt. i. 6.
202 2 Chron. xxiv. 20.
203 “In Evangelis quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachiae, filium Jojadae reperimus scriptum.”—Hieron. in Matt. xxiii. 35.
204 Luke xvii. 3, 4.
205 “Dixit ad eum alter divitum: Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam? Dixit ei: Homo, leges et prophetas fac. Respondit ad eum: Feci. Dixit ei: Vade, vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus, et veni, sequere me. Caepit autem dives scalpere caput suum et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad eum Dominus: Quomodo dicis: Legem feci et prophetas, quoniam scriptum est in lege: Dilige proximum tuum sicut teipsum, et ecce multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos. Et conversus dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se: Simon fili Joannae, facilius eat camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in regnum coelorum.”—Origen, Tract. viii. in Matt. xix. 19. The Greek text has been lost.
206 It is found in the Talmud, Beracoth, fol. 55, b; Baba Metsia, fol. 38, b; and it occurs in the Koran, Sura vii. 38.
207 Matt. iii. 13.
208 “In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos... narrat historia: Ecce, mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei, Joannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum, eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis; quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi, ignorantia est.”—Cont. Pelag. iii. 2.
209 “Ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma paene invitum a Matre sua Maria esse compulsum.”—In a treatise on the re-baptism of heretics, published by Rigault at the end of his edition of St. Cyprian.
210 “Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum et dixit illi, Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. Tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum.”—In Mich. vii. 6.
211 St. Epiph. Haeres. xxx. § 13. Τοῦ λαοῦ βαπτισθέντοσ, ἦλθε καὶ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰωάννου. Καί ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἠνοίχησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἴδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἶδει ἐν περιστερὰς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτόν. Καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσα: Σύ μου εἴ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἔν σοὶ ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ πάλιν; Ἐγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε. Καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα. Ὂ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ: Σύ τίς εἵ, κύριε? Καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν: Οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐφ᾽ ὂν ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ τότε ὁ Ἰωάννης προσπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε: Δέομαι σου, κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. Ὁ δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτῷ, λέγων: Ἄφες, ὅτι οὔτως ἐστι πρέπον πληρωθῆναι πάντα.
212 I put them in apposition:
Justin. Καὶ πῦρ ανήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.—Dial. cum Tryph. § 88.
Epiphan. Καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα.—Haeres. xxx. § 13.
Justin. Υἱος μου εἴ συ; ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε.—Dial. cum Tryph. § 88 and 103.
Epiphan. Ἐγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε.—Haeres. xxx. § 13.
213 Heb. i. 5, v. 5.
214 John i. 29-34.
215 “Etiam in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti sunt Spiritu sancto, inventus est sermo peccati.”—Contr. Pelag. iii. 2.
216 1 Cor. xv. 7.
217 “Evangelium... secundum Hebraeos... post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert:—Dominus autem, cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus.—Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur:—Tulit panem et benedixit, ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo, et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus.”—Hieron. De viris illustribus, c. 2.
218 Euseb. H. E. lib. ii. c. 23.
219 Acts xxiii. 14.
220 Hist. Eccl. Francorum, i. 21.
221 The “History of the Apostles” purports to have been written by Abdias B. of Babylon, disciple of the apostles, in Hebrew. It was translated into Greek, and thence, it was pretended, into Latin by Julius Africanus. That it was rendered from Greek has been questioned by critics. As we have it, it belongs to the ninth century; but the publication of Syriac versions of the legends on which the book of Abdias was founded, Syriac versions of the fourth century, which were really translated from the Greek, show that some Greek originals must have existed at an early age which are now lost.
222 Καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλεν ἔφη αὐτοῖς: λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατε με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὺκ εἰμί δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. Καὶ εὐθύς αὐτοῦ ἥψαντο και ἐπιστεύσαν.—Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. 3. St. Jerome also: “Et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis: Ecce palpate me et videte quia non sum daemonium incorporale. Et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt.”—De Script. Eccl. 16. Eusebius quotes the passage after Ignatius. Hist. Eccl. iii. 37.
223 Luke xxiv. 37-39.
224 Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν: ἄν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσελθῆτε εἰς τὴν Βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.—1 Apolog. § 61. Oper. p. 94.
225 Ἐὰν μήτις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.—John iii. 3.
226 “In Evangelio... legimus non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse.”—Epist. 120, Ad Helibiam.
227 Ἔλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐαν μή ταύσασθε τοῦ θυεῖν, οῦ παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ ὀργή.—Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. § 16.
228 Recog. i. 36.
229 Recog. i. 54.
230 Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1, 5; Philo Judaeus. Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. See what has been said on this subject already, p. 16.
231 Heb. x. 5.
232 (Μὴ) ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (κρέας) τοῦτο τό πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν; Epiph. Heræs. xxx. 22. The words added to those in St. Luke are placed in brackets; cf. Luke xxii. 15.
233 Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 15.
234 Καὶ Ἰησοῦς γοῦν φησὶ, Διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἠσθένουν, καὶ διὰ τοὺς πεινῶντας ἐπείνων, καὶ διὰ τοὺς διψῶντας ἐδίψων. In Matt. xvii. 21.
235 Perhaps this passage was in the mind of St. Paul when he wrote of himself, “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak.” 1 Cor. ix. 22.
236 Αἰτεῖσθε γάρ, φησί, τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσαται. Clemens Alex. Stromatae, i. Καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται.—Origen, De Orat. 2 and 43.
237 Cont. Cels. vii. and De Orat. 53.
238 Acts xi. 35. It is also quoted as a saying of our Lord in the Apostolic Constitutions, iv. 3.
239 Ep. 4.
240 Οὕτοι, φαεσὶν, ὁι θέλοντές με ἰδεῖν, καὶ ἅψασθαί μου τῆς βασιλείας, ὀφείλουσι θλιβέντες καί παθόντες λαβεῖν με.—Ep. 7.
241 Διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἡμῶν πρασσόντων, εἶπεν ὁ κύριος, ᾽Εὰν ἦτε μετ᾽ ἐμου συνηγμένοι ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου, καὶ μὴ ποιεῖτε τὰς ἐντολάς μου, ἀποβαλῶ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν, ὑπάγετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς, ἐργάται ἀνομίας. 2 Ep. ad Corinth. 4.
242 Λέγει γὰρ ὁ κύριος, ἔσεσθε ὡς ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Πέτρος αὐτῷ λέγει, Ἐαν οὖν διασπαράξωσιν οἱ λύκοι τὰ ἀρνία? Εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ. Μὴ φοβείσθωσαν τὰ ἀρνία τοὺς λύκους μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτά. Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ φοβεῖσθε τοὺς ἀποκτέινοντας ὑμᾶς, καὶ μηδὲν ὑμῖν δυναμένου ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ φοβεῖσθε τὸν μετὰ το ἀποθανεῖν ὑμας ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος τοῦ βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν πυρὸς. Ibid. 5.
243 Ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λέγει: Τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καί τὴν σφραγίδα ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν αἰώνιον ξωὴν ἀπολάβητε.—Ibid. 8.
244 Rom. iv. 11 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; 2 Tim. ii. 19.
245 Ἐν οἶς ἀν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ.—Just. Mart. in Dialog. c. Trypho. Ἐφ᾽ οἶς γὰρ εὕρω ἡμᾶς, φησὶν, ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ. Clem. Alex. Quis dives salv. 40.
246 Μυστήριον ἐμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου μου.—Clem. Alex. Strom. v.
247 Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις.
248 Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο, ἡρμήνευσε δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
249 τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα; and οὐ ποιούμενος σὺνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων.
250 συνεγράψατο τὰ λόγια.
251 ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ.
252 Iren. c. Haeres. v. 33.
253 Scarcely actual disciples and eye-witnesses.
254 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
255 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν.
256 καθ᾽ Ἑβραιοὺς εὐαγγέλιον. H. E. iii. 25, 27, 39; iv. 22.
257 συγγράμματα πέντε.
258 Aram. ריקא.
259 Aram. ממונא.
260 Aram. גהנם.
261 Aram. אמן.
262 μιά κεραὶα, Aram. קוץ or עוקץ.
263 vi. 7, βαττολογεῖν; v. 5, κληρονομεῖν τὴν γῆν; v. 2, ἀγνοίγειν τὸ στόμα; v. 3, πτωχοί; v. 9, υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ; v. 12, μισθὸς πολύς; v. 39, τῷ πονηρῷ; vi. 25; x. 28, 39, ψυχὴ, for life; vi. 22, 23, ἀπλοῦς and πονηρὸς, sound and sick; vi. 11, ἄρτος, for general food; the “birds of heaven,” in vi. 25, &c. &c.
264 Targum, Gen. xxiv. 22, 47; Job xlii. 11; Exod. xxxii. 2; Judges viii. 24; Prov. xi. 22, xxv. 12; Hos. ii. 13.
265 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
266 ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, and σποιήσατο πρόνοιαν τοῦ μηδέν παραλιτεῖν ἢ ψεύδασθαι.
267 Οὐ μέντοι τάξει, and ἕνια γράφας, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν.
268 λεχθέντα καὶ πραχθέντα.
269 Μαθαῖος τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο—. Μάρκος... οὐκ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων ποιούμενος.
270 Μάρκος ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ἔγραφεν.
271 Mark i. 20, “they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the day-labourers;” i. 31, “he took her by the hand;” ii. 3, “a paralytic borne of four;” 4, “they broke up the roof and let down the bed;” iii. 10, “they pressed upon him to touch him;” iii. 20, “they could not so much as eat bread;” iii. 32, “the multitude sat about him;” iv. 36, “they took him even as he was,” without his going home first to get what was necessary; iv. 38, “on a pillow;” v. 3-5, v. 25-34, vi. 40, the ranks, the hundreds, the green grass; vi. 53-56, x. 17, there came one running, and kneeled to him; x. 50, “casting away his robe;” xi. 4, “a colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met;” xi. 12-14, xi. 16, xiii. 1, the disciples notice the great stones of which the temple was built; xiv. 3, 5, 8, xiv. 31, “he spoke yet more vehemently;” xiv. 51, 52, 66, “he warmed himself at the fire;” xv. 21, “coming out of the country;” xv. 40, 41, Salome named.
272 Mark i. 33, 45, ii. 2, 13, iii. 9, 20, 32, iv. 10, v. 21, 24, 31, vi. 31, 55, viii. 34, xi. 18.
273 Mark i. 7, “he bowed himself;” iii. 5, “he looked round with anger;” ix. 38, “he sat down;” x. 16, “he took them up in his arms, and laid his hands on them;” x. 23, “Jesus looked round about;” xiv. 3, “she broke the box;” xiv. 4, “they murmured;” xiv. 40, “they knew not what to answer him;” xiv. 67, &c.
274 Compare Mark iv. 4 sq.; viii. 1 sq.; x. 42 sq.; xiii. 28 sq.; xiv. 43 sq. &c. Matt. xiii 4 sq.; xv. 32 sq.; xx. 28 sq.; xxiv. 32 sq.; xxvi. 47 sq. &c.
275 For more examples, see Scholten, Das älteste Evangelium, Elberfeld, 1869, pp. 66-78.
276 Mark ix. 37-50 is another instance of difference of order of sayings between him and St. Matthew.
With Mark ix. 37 corresponds Matt. x. 40.
With Mark ix. 40 corresponds Matt. xii. 30.
With Mark ix. 41 corresponds Matt. x. 42.
With Mark ix. 42 corresponds Matt. xviii. 6.
With Mark ix. 43 corresponds Matt. v. 29 and xviii. 8.
With Mark ix. 47 corresponds Matt. xvii. 9.
With Mark ix. 50 corresponds Matt. v. 13.
277 Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27.
278 Col. iv. 16.
279 Apost. Const. viii. 5.
280 Luke ii. 19, 51.
281 Luke i. 66.
282 Acts xx. 16.
283 1 Cor. xvi. 8.
284 Epist. xxvii. ad Marcellam.
285 Apost. Const. viii. 33.
286 St. Luke, however, has much that was not available to the deutero-Matthew, and St. Mark rigidly confined himself to the use of St. Peter’s recollections only.
287 St. Luke’s Gospel contains Hebraisms, yet he was not a Jew (Col. iv. 11, 14). This can only be accounted for by his using Aramaic texts which he translated. From these the Acts of the Apostles are free.
288 Cf. Scholten: Das älteste Evangelium; Elberfeld, 1869. See also on St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, Saunier: Ueber der Quellen des Evang. Marc., Berlin, 1825; De Wette: Lehrb. d. Hist. Krit. Einleit. in d. N.T., Berl. 1848; Baur: Der Ursprung der Synop. Evang., Stuttg. 1843; Köstlin: Das Markus Evang., Leipz. 1850; Wilke: Der Urevang., Dresd. 1838; Réville: Etudes sur l’Evang. selon St. Matt., Leiden, 1862, &c.
289 Chron. Paschale, p. 6, ed. Ducange. Τῆδε μεγάλη ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν, καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν, ὅθεν ἀσύμφωνος, τῷ νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ στασιάζειν δοκαῖν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγελία.
290 Homil. iii. 45.
291 Homil. ix. 9-12.
292 Homil. xix. 22.
293 Gal. iv. 10.
294 Homil. ii. 38, 50, 52.
295 Homil. xiii. 13-21.
296 Homil. xv. 9; see also 7.
297 Homil. xv. 7.
298 Homil. xii. 6.
299 Hist. Eccl. ii. 23.
300 Homil. xvi. 15.
301 Homil. xviii. 22.
302 Hilgenfeld: Die Clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien; Jena, 1848. Compare also Uhlhorn: Die Homilien und Recognitionen; Göttingen, 1854; and Schliemann: Die Clementinen; Hamburg, 1844.
303 Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, Halle, 1863, p. 113. That the “Recognitions” have undergone interpolation at different times is clear from Book iii., where chapters 2-12 are found in some copies, but not in the best MSS.
304 Recog. i. 43, 50.
305 Ibid. i. 40.
306 Recog. i. 42.
307 Ibid. 45.
308 John i. 41.
309 Acts iv. 27.
310 Acts x. 34-38.
311 Recog. i. c. 48.
312 Πῦρ βώμων ἐσβέννυσεν, Homil. iii. 26.
313 Recog. i. c. 57.
314 Ibid. ii. 30, also ii. 3.
315 Recog. i. c. 60.
316 Matt. xi. 9, 11.
317 Recog. i. c. 61, ii. c. 28.
318 Ibid. ii. 27, 29.
319 Ibid. ii. 22, 28.
320 Ibid. ii. 28, 32.
321 Matt. x. 34-36.
322 Recog. ii. 27; Matt. x. 25.
323 Ibid. 29.
324 Recog. ii. 30.
325 Matt. xxiii. 13.
326 Luke xi. 52.
327 Recog. ii. c. 46: “They must seek his kingdom and righteousness which the Scribes and Pharisees, having received the key of knowledge, have not shut in but shut out.” The same Syro-Chaldaic expression has been variously rendered in Greek by St. Matthew and St. Luke. See Lightfoot: Horae Hebraicae in Luc. xi. 52.
328 Recog. ii. 31, 35.
329 Ibid. iii. 41, 37, 20.
330 Ibid. iii. i.
331 Ibid. vii. 37.
332 Recog. vi. 11.
333 Ibid. vi. 14.
334 Ibid. iv. 4.
335 Ibid. v. 9.
336 Ibid. v. 2.
337 Ibid. iii. 62.
338 Ibid. iv. 35.
339 Ibid. iii. 38.
340 Ibid. iii. 14.
341 Ibid. vi. 4.
342 Ibid. x. 45.
343 Ibid. v. 13, iii. 38.
344 Hom. iii. 57.
345 Luke vi. 36.
346 Matt. v. 44-46.
347 Recog. vi. 5.
348 Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν οὐγὰρ οἴδασιν ἅ ποιούσιν. Hom. xi. 20. In St. Luke it runs, Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς; οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι.—Luke xxiii. 34.
349 M. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, pp. 72, 73.
350 Recog. vi. 9.
351 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἒαν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζωῆς (in another place ὕδατι ζῶντι), εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς, υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσελθῆτε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.—Homil. xi. 26.
352 Recognitions vi. 9: “For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: Verily I say unto you,” &c. The oath is, of course, the Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν.
353 Recog. v. 13; John viii. 34.
354 Rom. vi. 16.
355 Recog. v. 34; Rom. ii. 28.
356 Recog. iv. 34. The same in the Homilies, xi. 35.
357 Τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δέι, μακάριος δὲ δι᾽ οὗ ἔρχεται ὅμοιως καὶ τὰ κακὰ ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν, οὐαι δὲ δι᾽ οὖ ἔρχεται.
358 Hom. ii. 19.
359 Ibid. ii. 51.
360 Ibid. ii. 51, xviii. 20.
361 Ibid. ii. 53.
362 Homil. ii. 61.
363 Ibid. xix. 2.
364 Ibid. viii. 21. In the Hebrew תירא rendered by the LXX. φοβηθήση. The word in St. Matthew is προσκυνήσεις.
365 Ibid. xv. 5.
366 Homil. iii. 52.
367 John x. 9.
368 Homil. iii. 52; cf. John x. 16.
369 Ibid. iii. 57; Mark xii. 29.
370 Homil. ix. 27.
Οὔτε οὗτος τι ἥμαρτεν, οὗτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα.
John. ix. 3.
Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν, οὗτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.
371 Homil. iii. 64; cf. Luke xii. 43, but also Matt. xxiv. 46.
372 Ibid. xi. 33; cf. Luke xi. 31, 32, but also Matt. xii. 42, 41. The order in Matt. reversed.
373 Homil. xii. 31; cf. Matt. x. 29, 30; Luke xii. 6, 7.
374 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12.
375 “Qui Jesum separant a Christo et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferunt Evangelium.”—Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 2. The Greek is lost.
376 Matt. xii. 47, 48, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 20; John vii. 5.
377 Origen, Comment. in Matt. c. ix.
378 Τὸ αἰγύπτιον Εὐαγγέλιον; Epiphan. Haeres. lxii. 2; Evangelium secundum Ægyptios; Origen, Hom. i. in luc.; Evangelium juxta Aegyptios; Hieron. Prolog. in Comm. super Matth.
379 Schneckenburg, Ueber das Evangelium der Aegypter; Berne, 1834.
380 Clement of Alexandria. Stromat. iii. 12.
Πυνθανομένης τῆς Σαλωμῆς πότε γνωσθήσεται τὰ περὶ ὦν ἥρετο, ἔφη ὁ κύριος; ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γένηται τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἄῤῥεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας οὔτε ἄῤῥεν οὔτε θῆλυ.
Clement of Rome. 2 Epist. c. 12.
Ἐπερωτηθείς γάρ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ὑπὸ τινος πότε ἥξει αύτοῦ ἡ βασιλεία? ὅταν ἔσται τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἔξω ὡς ἔσω, καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ.
381 Ὅ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων.—Stromat. iii. 13.
382 Adv. Haeres. i. 11.
383 “Ad mentem vero tunica pellicea symbolice est pellis naturalis, id est corpus nostrum. Deus enim intellectum condens primum, vocavit illum Adam; deinde sensum, cui vitae (Eva) nomen dedit; tertio ex necessitate corpus quoque facit, tunicam pelliceam, illud per symbolum dicens. Oportebat enim ut intellectus et sensus velut tunica cutis induerent corpus.”—Philo: Quaest. et Solut. in Gen. i. 53, trans. from the Armenian by J. B. Aucher; Venice, 1826.
384 Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 6.
385 Ibid. 9.
386 Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 9.
387 “Sensus, quae symbolice mulier est.”—Philo: Quaest. et Solut. i. 52. “Generatio ut sapientum fert sententia, corruptionis est principium.”—Ibid. 10.
388 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.
389 Tert. De praescr. haeretica, c. 51. “Cerdon solum Lucae Evangelium, nec tamen totum recipit.”
390 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.
391 1 Cor. iv. 4.
392 Rom. v. 20.
393 Rom. vi. 5.
394 Rom. vii. 7.
395 Rom. viii. 2.
396 Rom. iii. 28.
397 Gal. iii. 23-25.
398 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 15, vii. 12. De Martyr. Palaest. 10.
399 Cf. 1 Col. ix. 1, xv. 8; 2 Cor. xii.
400 Epiphan. Haeres. xlii. 11.
401 Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 11.
402 “Contraria quaeque sententiae emit, competentia autem sententiae reservarit.”—Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. 6.
403 Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 9-12.
404 “Ego meum, (Evangelium) dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos disceptabit?”—Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 4.
405 Not St. John’s Gospel; that is unique; a biography by an eye-witness, not a composition of distinct notices.
406 2 Cor. ii. 17, and iv. 2.
407 Matt. v. 17, 18.
408 Luke xvi. 16.
409 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.
410 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12; Theod. Fabul. haeret. ii. 2.
411 Epiphan. Ancor. 31.
412 Hieron. adv. Pelag. ii.
413 Hilar. De Trinit. x.
414 “Christus Jesus in evangelio tuo meus est.”
415 See note 4 on p. 240.
416 As xix. 10 “Filius hominis venit, salvum facere quod perfit... elisa est sententia haereticorum negantium carnis salutem;—pollicebatur (Jesus) totius hominis salutem.”
417 Sch. 4. ἐν αὐτοῖς for μετ᾽ αὐπῶν. Sch. 1, ὑμῖν for αὐτοῖς. Sch. 26, κλῆσιν for κρίσιν. Sch. 34, πάτερ for πάτερ ὑμῶν, &c.
418 Marcion called his Gospel “The Gospel,” as the only one he knew and recognized, or “The Gospel of the Lord.”
419 The division into chapters is, of course, arbitrary.
420 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).
421 Ναζαρηνέ omitted.
422 St. Luke iv. 37 omitted here, and inserted after iv. 39.
423 Luke iv. 15 inserted here.
424 οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος omitted.
425 ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶσαι omitted, and Luke iv. 17-20.
426 καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν αὐτοῖς. St. Luke has, Ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτούς, ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν.
427 The rest of the verse (22) omitted.
428 ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου omitted.
429 ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ after ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου.
430 ἐπορεύετο εἰς Καπερναούμ. St. Luke has, ἐπορεύετο καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ.
431 τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί.
432 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.
433 οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδε τὸν υἱόν τις γινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ῷ ἂν ὁ υἱός ἀποκαλύψη.
434 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.
435 κλῆσιν instead of κρίσιν.
436 ὑμῶν omitted.
437 τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ, for ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλακῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ.
438 πάντας τοὺς δικαίους.
439 ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω.
440 ἐμόν for ὑμέτερον.
441 ἢ τῶν λόγων μου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.
442 Some codices of St. Luke have, λίθος μυλικὸς; others, μύλος ὀνικός.
443 Ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς λέγων.
444 μὴ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς ουτος omitted; the previous question, Οὐχ εὑρέθησαν κ.τ.λ., made positive; and Luke iv. 27 inserted.
445 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν, εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατήρ.
446 ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ inserted.
447 Καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας after διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος, and καὶ ἀναστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα after φόρους μὴ δοῦναι.
448 ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ omitted. Possibly the whole verse was omitted.
449 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.
450 Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 2. “Marcion evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit nomen.”
451 Ἕν ἐστι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ ὁ Χριστὸς ἔγραψεν.
452 Rom. i. 16, xv. 19, 29; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4, ix. 13; Gal. i. 7.
453 Rom. i. 9.
454 Rom. i. 1, xv. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 9; 1 Tim. i. 11.
455 Volckmar: Das Evangelium Marcions; Leipzig, 1852, p. 54.
456 Luke ii. 19, 51.
457 Luke i. 66.
458 John xix. 26.
459 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.
460 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.
461 Ναζωραῖος for Ναζαρηνός omitted.
462 Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. c. 25, “ut doctor de ea vita videatur consuluisse quae in lege promittitur longaeva.”
463 ὅταν ὄψησθε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω.—Epiph. Schol. 40; Tertul. c. 30.
464 Luke xiii. 25-30.
465 Matt. vii. 13.
466 Hist. of the Christian Religion, tr. Bohn, ii. p. 131.
467 παρέκοψε τό: λέγετε, ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν: ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι πεποιήκαμεν, Sch. 47.
468 Baur calls it an “ungeschickte Zusatz.”
469 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.
470 Luke iv. 18.
471 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.
472 He died about A.D. 160.
473 Clem. Alex. Strom. vi.
474 Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 3-7.
475 Strom. iv.
476 Tertul. De Præscrip. 49.
477 Tertul. De Praescrip. 38.
478 Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 20.
479 Ibid. iii. 11.
480 “Suum praeter haec nostra.”—Tertull. de Praescrip. 49.
481 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxiv. 1; Iren. Haer. i. 9.
482 Iren. i. 26.
483 Wright: Syriac Apocrypha, Lond. 1865, pp. 8-10.
484 Tischendorf: Codex Apocr. N. T.; Evang. Thom. i. c. 6, 14.
485 Ibid. ii. c. 7; Latin Evang. Thom. iii. c. 6, 12.
486 Pseud. Matt. c. 31.
487 Epiph. Hæres. xxvi. 3.
488 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.
489 Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 2. He says, moreover: οὐκ αἰσχυνόμενοι αὐτοῖς τοῖς ῥήμασι τὰ τῆς πορνείας διηγεῖσθαι πάλιν ἐρωτικὰ τῆς κύπριδος ποιητούματα.
490 Iren. Haeres. i. 35.
491 Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, p. 168.
492 Baur: Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 193.
493 ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἀναγινώσκοντες.—Haeres. xxvi. 5.
494 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1.
495 Acts viii. 5, 13, 27-39, xxi. 8.
496 Acts xxi. 8.
497 Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 13.
498 Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 107. See my “Legends of Old Testament Characters,” II. pp. 108, 109.
499 2 Cor. xii. 2.
500 The cuneiform text in Lenormant, Textes cuneiformes inédits, No. 30. The translation in Lenormant: Les premières civilizations, 1. pp. 87-89.
501 Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. f. 304; iii. f. 438; vii. f. 722.
502 Rom. vii. 17.
503 Iren. Haeres. i. 25.
504 Compare Rom. iii. 20. Epiphanes died at the age of seventeen. Epiphan. Haeres. xxxii. 3.
505 Epiphan. xxxii. 4.
506 Clem. Strom. iii. fol. 526.
507 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.
508 Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Mark vii. 31.
509 Ideas reproduce themselves singularly. There is an essay by De Quincy advocating the same view of the character and purpose of Judas.
510 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 1.
511 Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 31.
512 Etudes, p. 176.
513 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 2.
514 2 Cor. xii. 4.
515 Reprinted in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, p. 372.