Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/545

 APOCALYPTIC

AND

APOCRYPHAL

LITERATURE

497

Sabellians (Epiph. Hcer. Ixii. 2). Only three or four fragments survive, see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 712, 713); Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, Reste d. ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a product of pantheistic Gnosticism. Lipsius and Zahn assign it to the middle of the 2nd century. Fayum Gospel Fragment.—This small fragment contains two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Mt. xxvi. 31-34, Mk. xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3r4 century, was discovered by Bickell among the Raines 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 patriotic homily. (See Zahn, op. cit. ii. 780-790; Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 4; Preuschen, op. cit. p. 19.) Gospel according to the Hebrews.—This gospel was cited by Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, iii.) according to Jerome (Viris Ulus. 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. 5-11. 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 (pp. 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 (Horn I. in Luc.). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements New Testament Apocryphal Literature.1 of Jerome (Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christian Biography. Gnostic Acts of Peter. ii. 709-712), and is of opinion that this gospel in the form (i.) Gospels of Peter. in which it was known to Epiphanius, Jerome, and Ongen, Gospel according to the Egyp- Preaching Acts of Thomas. tians. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. was “ a recast of an older original,” which, written originFayum Gospel Fragment. ally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia used by Gospel according to the Hebrews. (iii.) Epistles. St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke. Protevangel of James. The Abgarus Epistles. “ which itself was only a later redaction of the Logia.” The Logia (?). Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans. Protevangel of James.—This title was first given in the Gospel of Nicodemus. Third Epistle of Paul to the 16th century to a writing which is referred to as The Book Gospel of Peter. Corinthians, and the Epistle Gospel of Thomas. of James (g B<'/3Aos ’laKwfiov) by Origen (tom. xi. in of the Corinthians to Paul. Gospel of the Twelve. Matt.). The narrative extends from the Conception of (iv.) Apocalypses. the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that (ii.) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch. in the present form of the book there is side by side a Testament of Hezekiah. Acts of Andrew. strange “admixture of intimate knowledge and gross Oracles of Hystaspes. Acts of John. ignorance of Jewish thought and custom,” and that accordVision of Isaiah. Acts of Paul. ingly we must “distinguish between an original Jewish Apocalypse of Peter. Acts of Paul and Thecla. Christian writing and a Gnostic recast of it.” The former I.—Gospels. was known to Justin (Dial. 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. Gospel according to the Egyptians.—This gospel is first (Strom, vii. 16), and belongs at latest to the earliest years mentioned by Clem. Alex. (Strom, iii. 63, 93), subse- of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast Lipsius dates about quently by Origen (Horn, in Luc. i.) and Epipbanius the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works (Hcer. Ixii. 2), and a fragment is preserved in the so-called arose independently the Protevangel in its present form epistle of Clem. Rom. xii. It circulated among various and the Latin pseudo-Matthseus. The Evangelium de heretical circles : amongst the Encratites (Clem. Strom. Nativitate Maries is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius iii. 9), the Naassenes (Ps. Grig. Philos, v. t), and the in Smith’s Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 701-703.) Zahn (Gesch. Kanons, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539 ; li. 774-780) assigns 1 Only such works as were written or are supposed to have been the Protevanqel to the first decade of the 2nd century. written before A.D. 170 will be considered here. S. I. — 63

Hebraisms (see Grimm, BucA der Weisheit, 1860, p. 5 ; Farrar, Speaker's Apocrypha, i. 404) the author displays a remarkable mastery in his use of it. Margoliouth has sought to show that it was composed not in Greek but in later Hebrew (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1890, pp. 263-297). But the strongly idiomatic character of its language, the philosophic cast of the thought, its Hellenistic theology and eschatology (Charles, Eschatology: Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, 1899, pp. 251-258) prove incontestably its original composition in Greek (see Freudenthal’s review of Margoliouth in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1891, ppv 722-753). The author was a Jew well versed in Greek literature. Occasionally, it is true, he uses words in a non-Greek sense; but on the other hand he is so thoroughly at home in Greek that, like Philo, he ventures to coin new compound words and phrases. Furthermore, he was a student of Greek philosophy, especially of Plato and the Stoics, and uses familiarly the technical language of the schools (Grimm, op. cit. pp. 1920; Farrar, op. cit. i. 407). The references to Egyptian animal-worship in xv. 18, 19, xvi. 1, 9, and the Hellenistic type of eschatology point to Egypt as the home of the author. The book is later than Ecclesiasticus, and probably earlier than Philo’s writings. Hence in all likelihood it originated at some time within the years 150 b.c. and a.d. 10. The writer’s object is to warn men against the folly of ungodliness, and particularly of idolatry. He takes his stand on the current dogmas of Platonic philosophy as to the essentially evil nature of matter and the pre-existence of the soul. Hence he teaches not the resurrection of the body but the immortality of the soul. This consummation can be attained only through the life of wisdom. Texts, Versions, and Editions.—In The Old Testament in Greek, ii., Swete follows B, and gives in the notes the variants of K, A and C. Fritzsehe, in his Lihri Apocryphi V. T. Grace, 1871, gives, in addition to the documents of the above MSS., those of Cod. Yen., the cursives and the versions ; but his collation of B is untrustworthy. In The Book of Wisdom, 1881, Deane gives the Greek text (agreeing mostly with Fritzsche), the Latin version, and an English translation and commentary. Besides the Latin there are Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic versions. Of these the Armenian 3is said to be the most faithful. For literature generally, see ■Schiirer, iii. 382-383.