Page:Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ.djvu/76

lxxii Bishop Ellicott observes in his excellent essay, that in this story "we can scarcely recognize more than two elements, pious fraud and disguised heresy; the third element in these productions, ancient traditions and a credulity that reproduces or embellishes them, finds here but little place." And again, "the miracle-mongering is so gross, and the dogmatical propensions of the writer are so obvious, that it may be reasonably doubted, whether, even at the time it appeared, it was regarded as a regular historical compilation at all." It is tolerably certain that the orthodox would not believe it; but if it was written in the interests of a sect it was meant to be accepted as a true portrait of the character and mode of life of the child Jesus.

Bishop Ellicott says again: "The language is unusually barbarous, the style hopelessly bad, and the narrative itself unconnected and incoherent." All this is true; but what the original language was I am not prepared to say. The book itself was circulated in the West and in the East; we have it in