PART II. THE LOST PETRINE GOSPELS.

Under this head are classed all those Gospels whose tendency is Judaizing,

which sprang into existence in the Churches of Palestine and Syria.

These may be ranged in two sub‐classes—

a. Those akin to the Gospel of St. Matthew.

b. Those related to the Gospel of St. Mark.

To the first class belong—

1. The Gospel of the Twelve, or of the Hebrews.

2. The Gospel of the Clementines.

To the second class belong, probably—

1. The Gospel of St. Peter.

2. The Gospel of the Egyptians.

I. The Gospel Of The Hebrews.

1. The Fragments extant.

Eusebius quotes Papias, Irenaeus and Origen, as authorities for his

statement that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew.

Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John, and

who carefully collected all information he could obtain concerning the

apostles, declares that “Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew

dialect,(137) and that every one translated it as he was able.”(138)

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and therefore also likely to have

trustworthy information on this matter, says, “Matthew among the Hebrews

wrote a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching

the gospel at Rome, and founding the Church there.”(139)

In a fragment, also, of Irenaeus, edited by Dr. Grabe, it is said that

“the Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews, for they

earnestly desired a Messiah of the posterity of David. Matthew, in order

to satisfy them on this point, began his Gospel with the genealogy of

Jesus”.(140)

Origen, in a passage preserved by Eusebius, has this statement: “I have

learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received

without dispute by the Church of God under heaven, that the first was

written by St. Matthew, once a tax‐gatherer, afterwards an apostle of

Jesus Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts,

composed in the Hebrew language.”(141) And again, in his Commentary on St.

John, “We begin with Matthew, who, according to tradition, wrote first,

publishing his Gospel to the believers who were of the circumcision.”

Eusebius, who had collected the foregoing testimonies on a subject which,

in that day, seems to have been undisputed, thus records what he believed

to be a well‐authenticated historical fact: “Matthew, having first

preached to the Hebrews, delivered to them, when he was preparing to

depart to other countries, his Gospel composed in their native

language.”(142)

St. Jerome follows Papias: “Matthew, who is also Levi, from a publican

became an apostle, and he first composed his Gospel of Christ in Judaea,

for those of the circumcision who believed, and wrote it in Hebrew words

and characters; but who translated it afterwards into Greek is not very

evident. Now this Hebrew Gospel is preserved to this day in the library at

Caesarea which Pamphilus the martyr so diligently collected. I also

obtained permission of the Nazarenes of Beraea in Syria, who use this

volume, to make a copy of it. In which it is to be observed that,

throughout, the Evangelist when quoting the witness of the Old Testament,

either in his own person or in that of the Lord and Saviour, does not

follow the authority of the Seventy translators, but the Hebrew

Scriptures, from which he quotes these two passages, ‘Out of Egypt have I

called my Son,’ and, ‘Since he shall be called a Nazarene.’ ”(143) And

again: “That Gospel which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews, and which

has lately been translated by me into Greek and Latin, and was used

frequently by Origen, relates,” &c.(144) Again: “That Gospel which the

Nazarenes and Ebionites make use of, and which I have lately translated

into Greek from the Hebrew, and which by many is called the genuine Gospel

of Matthew.”(145) And once more: “The Gospel of the Hebrews, which is

written in the Syro‐Chaldaic tongue, and in Hebrew characters, which the

Nazarenes make use of at this day, is also called the Gospel of the

Apostles, or, as many think, is that of Matthew, is in the library of

Caesarea.”(146)

St. Epiphanius is even more explicit. He says that the Nazarenes possessed

the most complete Gospel of St. Matthew,(147) as it was written at first

in Hebrew;(148) and “they have it still in Hebrew characters; but I do not

know if they have cut off the genealogies from Abraham to Christ.” “We may

affirm as a certain fact, that Matthew alone among the writers of the New

Testament wrote the history of the preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew, and

in Hebrew characters.”(149) This Hebrew Gospel, he adds, was known to

Cerinthus and Carpocrates.

The subscriptions of many MSS. and versions bear the same testimony.

Several important Greek codices of St. Matthew close with the statement

that he wrote in Hebrew; the Syriac and Arabic versions do the same. The

subscription of the Peschito version is, “Finished is the holy Gospel of

the preaching of Matthew, which he preached in Hebrew in the land of

Palestine.” That of the Arabic version reads as follows: “Here ends the

copy of the Gospel of the apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of

Palestine, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language,

eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven,

and in the first year of the Roman Emperor, Claudius Caesar.”

The title of Gospel of the Hebrews was only given to the version known to

Jerome and Epiphanius, because it was in use among the Hebrews. But

amongst the Nazarenes it was called “The Gospel of the Apostles,”(150) or

“The Gospel of the Twelve.”(151) St. Jerome expressly says that “the

Gospel used by the Nazarenes is also called the Gospel of the

Apostles.”(152) That the same Gospel should bear two names, one according

to its reputed authors, the other according to the community which used

it, is not surprising.

Justin Martyr probably alludes to it under a slightly different name, “The

Recollections of the Apostles.”(153) He says that these Recollections were

a Gospel.(154) He adopted the word used by Xenophon for his recollections

of Socrates. What the Memorabilia of Xenophon were concerning the martyred

philosopher, that the Memorabilia of the Apostles were concerning the

martyred Redeemer.

It is probable that this Hebrew Gospel of the Twelve was the only one with

which Justin Martyr was acquainted.

Justin Martyr was a native of Samaria, and his acquaintance with

Christianity was probably made in the communities of Nazarenes scattered

over Syria. By family he was a Greek, and was therefore by blood inclined

to sympathize with the Gentile rather than the Jewish Christians. This

double tendency is manifest in his writings. He judges the Ebionites, even

the narrowest of their sectarian rings, with great tenderness; but he

proclaims that Gentiledom had yielded better Christians than Jewdom.(155)

Justin distinguishes between the Ebionites. There were those who in their

own practice observed the Mosaic Law, believing in Christ as the flower

and end of the Law, but without exacting the same observance of believing

Gentiles; and there were those, who not only observed the Law themselves,

but imposed it on their Gentile converts. His sympathies were with the

former, whom he regards as the true followers of the apostles, and not

with the latter.

Justin’s conversion took place circ. A.D. 133. He is a valuable testimony

to the divisions among the Nazarenes or Ebionites in the second century,

just when Gnostic views were infiltrating among the extreme Judaizing

section.

Justin Martyr’s Christian training took place in the Nazarene Church, in

the orthodox, milder section. He no doubt inherited the traditional

prejudice against St. Paul, for he neither mentions him by name, nor

quotes any of his writings. That he should have omitted to quote St. Paul

in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is not surprising; but one cannot

doubt that had he seen the Epistles of the Apostle of the Gentiles, he

would have cited them, or shown that they had influenced the current of

his thoughts in his two Apologies addressed to Gentiles. He quotes “the

book that is called the Gospel” as if there were but one; but what Gospel

was it? It has been frequently observed that the quotations of Justin are

closer to the parallel passages in St. Matthew than to those of the other

Canonical Gospels. But the only Gospel he names is the Gospel of the

Twelve.

Did Justin Martyr possess the Gospel of St. Matthew, or some other?

It is observable that he diverges from the Gospel narrative in several

particulars. It is inconceivable that this was caused by defect of memory.

Two or three of those texts in which he differs from our Canonical Gospels

occur several times in his writings, and always in the same form.(156)

Would it not be strange that his memory should fail him each time, and on

each of these passages? But though his memory may have been inaccurate in

recording exact words, the differences that have been noticed between the

citations of Justin Martyr and the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew are not

confined to words; they extend to particulars, to facts. Verbal

differences are accountable for by lapse of memory, but it is not so with

facts. One can understand how in quoting by memory the mode of expressing

the same facts may vary, but not that the facts themselves should be

different. If the facts cited are different, we are forced to conclude

that the citations were derived from another source. And such is the case

with Justin.

Five or six times does he say that the Magi came from Arabia;(157) St.

Matthew says only that they came from the East.(158)

He says that our Lord was born in a cave(159) near Bethlehem; that, when

he was baptized, a bright light shone over him; and he gives words which

were heard from heaven, which are not recorded by any of the Evangelists.

That our Lord was born in a cave is probable enough, but where did Justin

learn it? Certainly not from St. Matthew’s Gospel, which gives no

particulars of the birth of Christ at Bethlehem. St. Luke says he was born

in the stable of an inn. Justin, we are warranted in suspecting, derived

the fact of the stable being a cave from the only Gospel with which he was

acquainted, that of the Hebrews.

The tradition of the scene of Christ’s nativity having been a cave was

peculiarly Jewish. It is found in the Apocryphal Gospels of the Nativity

and the Protevangelium, both of which unquestionably grew up in Judaea.

That Justin should endorse this tradition leads to the conclusion that he

found it so stated in his Gospel.

I shall speak of the light and voice at the baptism presently.

St. Epiphanius says that the Ebionite Gospel began with, “In the days of

Herod, Caiaphas being the high‐priest, there was a man whose name was

John,” and so on, like the 3rd chap. St. Matthew. But this was the

mutilated Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Gnostic Ebionites, who were

heretical on the doctrine of the nativity of our Lord, and whom Justin

Martyr speaks of as rejecting the supernatural birth of Christ.(160)

Among the Nazarenes, orthodox and heretical, but one Gospel was

recognized, and that the Hebrew Gospel of the Twelve; but the Gospel in

use among the Gnostic Ebionites became more and more corrupt as they

diverged further from orthodoxy.

But the primitive Hebrew Gospel was held “in high esteem by those Jews who

received the faith.”(161) “It is the Gospel,” says St. Jerome, “that the

Nazarenes use at the present day.”(162) “It is the Gospel of the Hebrews

that the Nazarenes read,” says Origen.(163)

Was this Gospel of the Twelve, or of the Hebrews, the original of St.

Matthew’s Canonical Greek Gospel, or was it a separate compilation? This

is a question to be considered presently.

The statement of the Fathers that the Gospel of St. Matthew was first

written in Hebrew, must of course be understood to mean that it was

written in Aramaic or Palestinian Syriac.

Now we have extant two versions of the Gospels, St. Matthew’s included, in

Syriac, the Peschito and the Philoxenian. The latter needs only a passing

mention; it was avowedly made from the Greek, A.D. 508. But the Peschito

is much more ancient. The title of “Peschito” is an emphatic Syrian term

for that which is “simple,” “uncorrupt” and “true;” and, applied from the

beginning to this version, it strongly indicates the veneration and

confidence with which it has ever been regarded by all the Churches of the

East.(164) When this version was made cannot be decided by scholars. A

copy in the Laurentian Library bears so early a date as A.D. 586; but it

existed long before the translation was made by Philoxenus in 508. The

first Armenian version from the Greek was made in 431, and the Armenians

already, at that date, had a version from the Syriac, made by Isaac,

Patriarch of Armenia, some twenty years previously, in 410. Still further

back, we find the Peschito version quoted in the writings of St. Ephraem,

who lived not later than A.D. 370.(165)

Was this Peschito version founded on the Greek canonical text, or, in the

case of St. Matthew, on the “Hebrew” Gospel? I think there can be little

question that it was translated from the Greek. There can be no question

that the Gospels of St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, the Acts of the

Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, and those of the other Epistles

contained in this version,(166) are from the Greek, and it is probable

that the version of St. Matthew was made at the same time from the

received text. The Syrian churches were separated from the Nazarene

community in sympathy; their acceptance of St. Paul’s Epistles is a proof

that they were so; and these Epistles were accepted by them at a very

early age, as we gather from internal evidence in the translation.

The Syrian churches would be likely, moreover, when seeking for copies of

the Christian Scriptures, to ask for them from churches which were

regarded as orthodox, rather than from a dwindling community which was

thought to be heretical.

The Peschito version of St. Matthew follows the canonical Greek text, and

not the Gospel of the Hebrews, in such passages as can be compared;(167)

not one of the peculiarities of the latter find their echo in the Peschito

text.

The Gospel of the Hebrews has not, therefore, been preserved to us in the

Peschito St. Matthew. The translations made by St. Jerome in Greek and

Latin have also perished. It is not difficult to account for the loss of

the book. The work itself was in use only by converted Jews; it was in the

exclusive possession of the descendants of those parties for whose use it

had been written. The Greek Gospels, on the other hand, spread as

Christianity grew. The Nazarenes themselves passed away, and their

cherished Gospel soon ceased to be known among men.

Some exemplars may have been preserved for a time in public libraries, but

these would not survive the devastation to which the country was exposed

from the Saracens and other invaders, and it is not probable that a

solitary copy survives.

But if the entire Gospel of the Hebrews has not been preserved to us, we

have got sufficiently numerous fragments, cited by ancient ecclesiastical

writers, to permit us, to a certain extent, to judge of the tendencies and

character of that Gospel.

It is necessary to observe, as preliminary to our quotations, that the

early Fathers cited passages from this Gospel without the smallest

prejudice against it either historically or doctrinally. They do not seem

to have considered it apocryphal, as open to suspicion, either because it

contained doctrine at variance with the Canonical Greek Gospels, or

because it narrated circumstances not found in them. On the contrary, they

refer to it as a good, trustworthy authority for the facts of our Lord’s

life, and for the doctrines he taught.

St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Smyrnians,(168) has inserted in it a

passage relative to the appearance of our Lord to his apostles after his

resurrection, not found in the Canonical Gospels, and we should not know

whence he had drawn it, had not St. Jerome noticed the fact and recorded

it.(169)

St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the same

terms as he speaks of the writings of St. Paul and the books of the Old

Testament.(170) Origen, who makes some quotations from this Gospel, does

not, it is true, range it with the Canonical Gospels, but he speaks of it

with great respect, as one highly esteemed by many Christians of his

time.(171)

In the fourth century, no agreement had been come to as to the value of

this Gospel. Eusebius tells us that by some it was reckoned among the

Antilegomena, that is, among those books which floated between the

Canonical and the Apocryphal Gospels.(172)

The Gospel of St. Matthew and the Gospel of the Hebrews were not

identical. It is impossible to doubt this when we examine the passages of

the latter quoted by ecclesiastical writers, the majority of which are not

to be found in the former, and the rest differ from the Canonical Gospel,

either in details or in the construction of the passages which correspond.

Did the difference extend further? This is a question it is impossible to

answer positively in one way or the other, since we only know those

passages of the Gospel of the Nazarenes which have been quoted by the

early Fathers.(173)

But it is probable that the two Gospels did not differ from each other

except in these passages; for if the divergence was greater, one cannot

understand how St. Jerome, who had both under his eyes, could have

supposed one to have been the Hebrew original of the other. And if both

resembled each other closely, it is easy to suppose that the

ecclesiastical writers who quoted from the Nazarene Gospel, quoted only

those passages which were peculiar to it.

Let us now examine the principal fragments of this Gospel that have been

preserved.

There are some twenty in all, and of these only two are in opposition to

the general tone of the first Canonical Gospel.

With one of these I shall begin the series of extracts.

“_And straitway_,” said Jesus, “_the Holy Spirit [my mother] took me, and

bore me away to the great mountain called Thabor_.”(174)

Origen twice quotes this passage, once in a fuller form. “(She) _bore me

by one of my hairs to the great mountain called Thabor_.” The passage is

also quoted by St. Jerome.(175) Origen and Jerome take pains to give this

passage an orthodox and unexceptionable meaning. Instead of rejecting the

passage as apocryphal, they labour to explain it away—a proof of the high

estimation in which the Gospel of the Twelve was held. The words, “my

mother,” are, it can scarcely be doubted, a Gnostic interpolation, as

probably are also the words, “by one of my hairs;” for on one of the

occasions on which Origen quotes the passage, these words are omitted.

Probably they did not exist in all the copies of the Gospel.

Our Lord was “led by the Spirit into the wilderness” after his

baptism.(176) Philip was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord from the

road between Jerusalem and Gaza, and was found at Azotus.(177) The notion

of transportation by the Spirit was therefore not foreign to the authors

of the Gospels.

The Holy Spirit was represented by the Elkesaites as a female

principle.(178) The Elkesaites were certainly one with the Ebionites in

their hostility to St. Paul, whose Epistles, as Origen tells us, they

rejected.(179) And that they were a Jewish sect which had relations with

Ebionitism appears from a story told by St. Epiphanius, that their

supposed founder, Elxai, went over to the Ebionites in the time of

Trajan.(180) They issued from the same fruitful field of converts, the

Essenes.

The term by which the Holy Spirit is designated in Hebrew is feminine, and

lent itself to a theory of the Holy Spirit being a female principle, and

this rapidly slid into identification of the Spirit with Mary.

The Clementines insist on the universe being compounded of the male and

the female elements. There are two sorts of prophecy, the male which

speaks of the world to come, the female which deals with the world that

is; the female principle rules this world, the body, all that is visible

and material. Beside this female principle stands Christ, the male

principle, ruling the spirits of men, and all that is invisible and

immaterial.(181) The Holy Spirit, brooding over the deep and calling the

world into being, became therefore the female principle in the Elkesaite

Trinity.

In Gnosticism, this deification of the female principle, which was

represented as Prounikos or Sophia among the Valentinians, led to the

incarnation of the principle in women who accompanied the heresiarchs

Simon and Apelles. Thus the Eternal Wisdom was incarnate in Helena, who

accompanied Dositheus and afterwards Simon Magus,(182) and in the fair

Philoumena who associated with Apelles.

The same influence seems imperceptibly to have been at work in the Church

of the Middle Ages, and in the pictures and sculptures of the coronation

of the Virgin. Mary seems in Catholic art to have assumed a position as

one of the Trinity.

In the original Gospel of the Hebrews, the passage probably stood thus:

“And straightway the Holy Spirit took me, and bore me to the great

mountain Thabor;” and Origen and Jerome quoted from a text corrupted by

the Gnostic Ebionites. The words “bore me by one of my hairs” were added

to assimilate the translation to that of Habbacuc by the angel, in the

apocryphal addition to the Book of Daniel.

We next come to a passage found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria,

who compares it with a sentence from the Theaetetus of Plato: “_He who

wondereth shall reign, and he who reigneth shall rest._”(183)

This, like the preceding quotation, has a Gnostic hue; but it is

impossible to determine its sense in the absence of the context. Nor does

the passage in the Theaetetus throw any light upon it. The whole of the

passage in St. Clement is this: “The beginning of (or search after) truth

is admiration,” says Plato. “And Matthias, in saying to us in his

Traditions, Wonder at what is before you, proves that admiration is the

first step leading upwards to knowledge. Therefore also it is written in

the Gospel of the Hebrews, He who shall wonder shall reign, and he who

reigns shall rest.”

What were these Traditions of Matthias? In another place St. Clement of

Alexandria mentions them, and quotes a passage from them, an instruction

of St. Matthias: “If he who is neighbour to one of the elect sins, the

elect sins with him; for if he (the elect) had conducted himself as the

Word requires, then his neighbour would have looked to his ways, and not

have sinned.”(184) And, again, he says that the followers of Carpocrates

appealed to the authority of St. Matthias—probably, therefore, to this

book, his Traditions—as an excuse for giving rein to their lusts.

These Traditions of St. Matthias evidently contained another version of

the same passage, or perhaps a portion of the same discourse attributed to

our Lord, which ran somehow thus: “_Wonder at, what is before your eyes_

(_i.e._ the mighty works that I do); _for he that wondereth shall reign,

and he that reigneth shall rest_.”

It is not impossible that this may be a genuine reminiscence of part of

our Lord’s teaching.

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, says that Jesus

exercised the trade of a carpenter, and that he made carts, yokes, and

like articles.(185)

Where did he learn this? Not from St. Matthew’s Gospel; probably from the

lost Gospel which he quotes.

St. Jerome quotes as a saying of our Lord, “_Be ye proved money‐

changers._”(186) He has no hesitation in calling it a saying of the

Saviour. It occurs again in the Clementine Homilies(187) and in the

Recognitions.(188) It is cited much more fully by St. Clement of

Alexandria in his Stromata: “_Be ye proved money‐changers; retain that

which is good metal, reject that which is bad._”(189) Neither St. Jerome,

St. Clement of Alexandria, nor the author of the Clementines, give their

authority for the statement they make, that this is a saying of the Lord;

but we may, I think, fairly conclude that St. Jerome drew it from the

Hebrew Gospel he knew so well, having translated it into Greek and Latin,

and which he looked upon as an unexceptionable authority.

Whence the passage came may be guessed by the use made of it by those who

quote it. It probably followed our Lord’s saying, “I am not come to

destroy the Law, but to fulfil it.” “Nevertheless, be ye proved

exchangers; retain that which is good metal, reject that which is bad.”

Another passage is not given to us verbatim by St. Jerome; he merely

alludes to it in one of his Commentaries, saying that Jesus had declared

him guilty of a grievous crime who saddened the spirit of his

brother.(190) It probably occurred in the portion of the Gospel of the

Hebrews corresponding with the 18th chapter of St. Matthew, and may be

restored somewhat as follows: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for

it must needs be that offences come; _but woe to that man by whom the

offence cometh, and the soul of his brother be made sore_. Wherefore if

thy hand or thy foot offend thee,” &c.

Another passage is in perfect harmony with the teaching of our Lord, and,

like that given last, may very possibly have formed part of his teaching.

It is also given by St. Jerome, and therefore in Latin: “_Be never glad

unless ye are in charity with your brother_.”(191)

St. Jerome, in his treatise against Pelagius, quotes from the Gospel of

the Hebrews the following passage: “_If thy brother has sinned in word

against thee, and has made satisfaction, forgive him unto seven times a

day. Simon, his disciple, said unto him, Until seven times! The Lord

answered, saying, Verily I say unto thee, until seventy times seven_;” and

then probably, “_for I say unto thee, Be never glad till thou art in

charity with thy brother_.”(192)

The Gospel of the Nazarenes supplied details not found in that of St.

Matthew. It related of the man with the withered hand, healed by our

Lord,(193) that he was a mason,(194) and gave the words of the appeal made

to Jesus by the man invoking his compassion: “_I was a mason, working for

my bread with my hands. I pray thee, Jesus, restore me to soundness, that

I eat not my bread in disgrace._”(195)

It relates, what is found in St. Mark and St. Luke, but not in St.

Matthew, that Barabbas was cast into prison for sedition and murder;(196)

and it gives the interpretation of the name, “Son of a Rabbi.”(197) These

particulars may be correct; there is no reason to doubt them. The

interpretation of the name may be only a gloss which found its way into

the text.

Eusebius says that Papias “gives a history of a woman who had been accused

of many sins before the Lord, which is also contained in the Gospel

according to the Hebrews.”(198) Of this we know nothing further, for the

text is not quoted by any ancient writers; but probably it was the same

story as that of the woman taken in adultery related in St. John’s

Gospel.(199) But then, why did not Eusebius say that Papias gave “the

history of the woman accused of adultery, which is also related in the

Gospel of St. John”? Why does he speak of that story as being found in a

Gospel written in the Syro‐Chaldaean tongue, with which he himself was

unacquainted,(200) when the same story was in the well‐known Canonical

Greek Gospel of St. John? The conclusion one must arrive at is, either

that the stories were sufficiently differently related for him not to

recognize them as the same, or that the incident in St. John’s Gospel is

an excerpt from the Gospel of the Hebrews, or rather from a translation of

it, grafted into the text of the Canonical Gospel. The latter opinion is

favoured by some critics, who think that the story of the woman taken in

adultery did not belong to the original text, but was inserted in it in

the fourth or fifth century.

Those passages of the Gospel of the Nazarenes which most resemble passages

in the Gospel of St. Matthew are not, however, identical with them; some

differ only in the wording, but others by the form in which they are

given.

And the remarkable peculiarity about them is, that the lessons in the

Gospel of the Hebrews seem preferable to those in the Canonical Gospel.

This was apparently the opinion of St. Jerome.

In chap. vi. ver. 11 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, we have the article of the

Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread.” The words used in the

Greek of St. Matthew are, τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον. The word ἐπιούσιος

is one met with nowhere else, and is peculiar. The word οὐσία means

originally that which is essential, and belongs to the true nature or

property of things. In Stoic philosophy it had the same significance as

ὕλη, matter; ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον would therefore seem most justly to be

rendered by _supersubstantial_, the word employed by St. Jerome.

“Give us this day our supernatural bread.” But in the Gospel of the

Nazarenes, according to St. Jerome, the Syro‐Chaldaic word for ἐπιούσιον

was מחד, which signifies “to‐morrow’s,” that is, our “future,” or “daily”

bread. “_Give us this day the bread for the morrow_,”(201) certainly was

synonymous with, “Give us this day our daily bread.” It is curious that

the Protestant Reformers, shrinking from translating the word ἐπιούσιον

according to its apparently legitimate rendering, lest they should give

colour to the Catholic idea of the daily bread of the Christian soul being

the Eucharist, should have adopted a rendering more in accordance with an

Apocryphal than with a Canonical Gospel.

In St. Matthew, xxiii. 35, Jesus reproaches the Jews for their treatment

of the prophets, and declares them responsible for all the blood shed upon

the earth, “from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,

son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar.”

Now the Zacharias to whom our Lord referred was Zechariah, son of

Jehoiada, and not of Barachias, who was stoned “in the court of the house

of the Lord” by order of Joash.(202) Zacharias, son of Barachias, was not

killed till long after the death of our Lord. He was massacred by the

zealots inside the Temple, shortly before the siege, _i.e._ about A.D. 69.

Either, then, the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew was not written till after

the siege of Jerusalem, and so this anachronism passed into it, or the

error is due to a copyist, who, having heard of the murder of Zacharias,

son of Barachias, but who knew nothing of the Zacharias mentioned in

Chronicles, corrected the Jehoiada of the original into Barachias,

thinking that thereby he was rectifying a mistake.

Now in the Gospel of the Nazarenes the name stood correctly, and the

passage read, “_from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of

Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada_.”(203)

In both these last quoted passages, the preference is to be given to the

Nazarene Gospel, and probably also in that relating to forgiveness of a

brother. The lost Gospel in that passage requires the brother to make

satisfaction. It is no doubt the higher course to forgive a brother,

whether he repent or not, seventy times seven times in the day; but it may

almost certainly be concluded that our Lord meant that the forgiveness

should be conditional on his repentance, for in St. Luke’s Gospel the

repentance of the trespassing brother is distinctly required. “If thy

brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

And if he trespass against thee seven times a day, and seven times in a

day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”(204) In

St. Luke this is addressed to all the disciples; in St. Matthew, to Peter

alone; but there can be little doubt that both passages refer to the same

instruction, and that the fuller accounts in St. Luke and the Gospel of

the Hebrews are the more correct. There may be less elevation in the

precept, subject to the two restrictions, first, that the offence should

be a verbal one, and secondly, that it should be apologized for; but it

brings it more within compass of being practised.

We come next to a much longer fragment, which shall be placed parallel

with the passage with which it corresponds in St. Matthew.

THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. ST. MATTHEW xix. 16‐24

“_Another rich man said unto “And, behold, one came and

him: Master, what good thing said unto him, Good Master,

shall I do that I may live? He what good thing shall I do,

said unto him: O man, fulfil that I may have eternal life?

the Laws and the Prophets. And And he said unto him, Why

he answered him, I have done callest thous me good? there

so. Then said he unto him, Go, is none good but one, that is,

sell all that thou hast, and God: but if thou wilt enter

give to the poor, and come, into life, keep the

follow me. Then the rich man commandments. He saith unto

began to smite his head, and him, Which? Jesus said, Thou

it pleased him not. And the shalt do no murder, Thou shalt

Lord said unto him, How sayest not commit adultery, Thou

thou, I have fulfilled the Law shalt not steal, Thou shalt

and the Prophets, when it is not bear false witness. Honour

written in the Law Thou shalt thy father and thy mother:

love thy neighbour as thyself; and, Thou shalt love thy

and lo! many of thy brethren, neighbor as thyself. The young

sons of Abraham, are covered man saith unto him, All these

with filth, and dying of things have I kept from my

hunger, and thy house is full youth up; what lack I yet?

of many good things, and Jesus said unto him, If thou

nothing therefrom goeth forth wilt be perfect, go and sell

at any time unto them. And that thou hast, and give to

turning himself about, he said the poor, and thou shalt have

unto Simon, his disciple, treasure in heave: and come

sitting near him, Simon, son and follow me. But when the

of Jonas, it is easier for a young man heard that saying,

camel to go through the eye of he went away sorrowful: for he

a needle, than for a rich man had great possessions. Then

to enter into the kingdom, of said Jesus unto his disciples,

heaven_.”(205) Verily I say unto you, That a

rich man shall hardly enter

into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It

is easier for a camel to go

through the eye of a needle,

than for a rich man to enter

into the kingdom of God.”

The comparison of these two accounts is not favourable to that in the

Canonical Gospel. It is difficult to understand how a Jew could have

asked, as did the rich young man, what commandments he ought to keep in

order that he might enter into life. The Decalogue was known by heart by

every Jew. Moreover, the narrative in the lost Gospel is more connected

than in the Canonical Gospel. The reproach made by our Lord is admirably

calculated to bring home to the rich man’s conscience the truth, that,

though professing to observe the letter of the Law, he was far from

practising its spirit; and this leads up quite naturally to the

declaration of the difficulty of a rich man obtaining salvation, or rather

to our Lord’s repeating a proverb probably common at the time in the

East.(206)

And lastly, in the proverb addressed aside to Peter, instead of to the

rich young man, that air of harshness which our Lord’s words bear in the

Canonical Gospel, as spoken to the young man in his sorrow, entirely

disappears. The proverb is uttered, not in stern rebuke, but as the

expression of sad disappointment, when the rich man has retired.

Another fragment from the Gospel of the Hebrews relates to the baptism of

our Lord.

The Gospel of St. Matthew gives no explanation of the occasion, the

motive, of Jesus coming to Jordan to the baptism of John. It says simply,

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of

him.”(207) But the Nazarene Gospel is more explicit.

“_Behold, his mother and his brethren said unto him, John the Baptist

baptizeth for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him. But

he said unto them, What sin have I committed, that I should be baptized of

him, unless it be that in saying this I am in ignorance?_”(208)

This is a very singular passage. We do not know the context, but we may

presume that our Lord yields to the persuasion of his mother. Such is the

tradition preserved in another apocryphal work, the “Preaching of St.

Paul,” issuing from an entirely different source, from a school hostile to

the Nazarenes.(209)

Another fragment continues the account after a gap.

“_And when the Lord went up out of the water, the whole fountain of the

Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said unto him, My Son, I

looked for thee in all the prophets, that thou mightest come, and that I

might __ rest upon thee. For thou art my rest, thou art my first‐begotten

Son, who shalt reign throughout eternity._”(210)

But this is not the only version we have of the narrative in the Gospel of

the Hebrews. St. Epiphanius gives us another, which shall be placed

parallel with the corresponding account in St. Matthew.

GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. ST. MATTHEW iii 13‐17.

“_The people having been “Then cometh Jesus from

baptized, Jesus came also, and Galilee to Jordan unto John,

was baptized by John. And as to be baptized of him. But

he came out of the water, the John forbad him saying, I have

heavens opened, and he saw the need to be baptized of thee,

Holy Spirit of God descending and cometh thou to me? And

under the form of a dove, and Jesus answering, said unto

entering into him. And a voice him, Suffer it to be so now:

was heard from heaven, Thou for thus it becometh us to

art my beloved Son, and in fulfill all righteousness.

thee am I well pleased. And Then he suffered him. And

again, This day have I Jesus, when he was baptized,

begotten thee. And suddenly went up straightway out of the

there shone a great light in water: and, lo, the heavens

that place. And John seeing were opened unto him, and he

it, said, Who art thou, Lord? saw the Spirit of God

Then a voice was heard from descending like a dove, and

heaven, This is my beloved lighting upon him: And lo a

Son, in whom I am well voice from heaven, saying,

pleased. Thereat John fell at This is my beloved Son, in

his feet and said, I pray whom I am well pleased.”

thee, Lord, baptize me. But,

he would not, saying, Suffer

it, for so it behoveth that

all should be

accomplished._”(211)

That the Gospel stood as in this latter passage quoted in the second

century among the orthodox Christians of Palestine is probable, because

with it agrees the brief citation of Justin Martyr, who says that when our

Lord was baptized, there shone a great light around, and a voice was heard

from heaven, saying, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Both occur in the Ebionite Gospel; neither in the Canonical Gospel.(212)

This Gospel was certainly known to the writer of the Canonical Epistle to

the Hebrews, for he twice takes this statement as authoritative. “For unto

which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day, have I

begotten thee?” and more remarkably, “Christ glorified not himself to be

made an high‐priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to‐day

have I begotten thee.”(213) In the latter passage the author is speaking

of the calling of priests being miraculous and manifest; and then he cites

this call of Christ to the priesthood as answering these requirements.

The order of events is not the same in the Gospel of Twelve and in that of

St. Matthew: verses 14 and 15 of the latter, modified in an important

point, come in the Ebionite Gospel after verses 16 and 17.

There is a serious discrepancy between the account of the baptism of our

Lord in St. Matthew and in St. John. In the former Canonical Gospel, the

Baptist forbids Christ to be baptized by him, saying, “I have need to be

baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” But Jesus bids him: “Suffer it

to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then

Jesus is baptized, and the heavens are opened. But in St. John’s Gospel,

the Baptist says, “I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with

water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit

descending, and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with

the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of

God.”(214)

Now the account in the Gospel of the Twelve removes this discrepancy. John

does not know Jesus till after the light and the descent of the dove and

the voice, and then he asks to be baptized by Jesus.

It is apparent that the passage in the lost Gospel is more correct than

that in the Canonical one. In the latter there has been an inversion of

verses destroying the succession of events, and thus producing discrepancy

with the account in St. John’s Gospel.

With these passages from the Gospel of the Twelve may be compared a

curious one from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. It occurs in the

Testament of Levi, and is a prophecy of the Messiah. “The heavens shall

open for thee, and from above the temple of glory the voice of the Father

shall dispense sanctification upon him, as has been promised unto Abraham,

the father of Isaac.”

The passage quoted by St. Epiphanius is wholly unobjectionable

doctrinally. It is not so with that quoted by St. Jerome; it is of a very

different character. It exhibits strongly the Gnostic ideas which infected

the stricter sect of the Ebionites.

It was precisely on the baptism of the Lord that they laid the greatest

stress; and it is in the account of that event that we should expect to

find the greatest divergence between the texts employed by the orthodox

and the heretical Nazarenes. Before his baptism he was nothing. It was

then only that the “full fount of the Holy Ghost” descended on him, his

election to the Messiahship was revealed, and divine power was

communicated to him to execute the mission entrusted to him. A marked

distinction was drawn between two portions in the life of Jesus—before and

after his baptism. In the first they acknowledged nothing but the mere

human nature, to the entire exclusion of everything supernatural; while

the sudden accruing of supernatural aid at the baptism marked the moment

when he became the Messiah. Thus the baptism was the beginning of their

Gospel.

Before that, he is liable to sin, he suggests that his believing himself

to be free from sin may have precipitated him into sin, the sin of

ignorance. And “_even in the prophets, after they had received the unction

of the Holy Ghost, there was found sinful speech_.”(215) This quotation

follows, in St. Jerome, immediately after the saying cited above enjoining

forgiveness, but it in no way dovetails into it; the passage concerning

the recommendation by St. Mary and the brethren that they should go up to

be baptized of John for the remission of sins, comes in the same chapter,

and there can be little doubt that this reference to the prophets as

sinful formed part of the answer of the Virgin to Jesus when he spoke of

his being sinless.

St. Jerome obtained his copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews from Beraea in

Syria, and not therefore from the purest source. Had he copied and

translated the codex he found in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea,

instead of that he procured from Beraea, it is probable that he would have

found it not to contain the passages of Gnostic tendency.

These interpolations were made in the second century, when Gnostic ideas

had begun to affect the Ebionites, and break them up into more or less

heretical sects.

Their copies of the Gospel of the Hebrews differed, for the Gnostic

Ebionites curtailed it in some places, and amplified it in others.

In reconstructing the primitive lost Gospel of the Nazarenes, it is very

necessary to note these Gnostic passages, and to withdraw them from the

text. We shall come to some more of their additions and alterations

presently. It is sufficient for us to note here that the heretical Gospel

in use among the Gnostic Ebionites was based on the orthodox Gospel of the

Hebrews. The existence of these two versions explains the very different

treatment their Gospel meets with at the hands of the Fathers of the

Church. Some, and these the earliest, speak of this Gospel with reverence,

and place it almost on a line with the Canonical Gospels; others speak of

it with horror, as an heretical corruption of the Gospel of St. Matthew.

The former saw the primitive text, the latter the curtailed and amplified

version in use among the heretical Ebionites.

St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, alludes to one of the

appearances of our Lord after his resurrection, of which no mention is

made in the Canonical Gospels: “After that, he was seen of James.”(216)

But according to his account, this appearance took place after several

other manifestations, viz. after that to Cephas, that to the Twelve, and

that to five hundred brethren at once. But it preceded another appearance

to “all the apostles.” If we take the first and second to have occurred on

Easter‐day, and the last to have been the appearance to them again “after

eight days,” when St. Thomas was present, then the appearance to St. James

must have taken place between the “even” of Easter‐day and Low Sunday.

Now the Gospel of the Hebrews gives a particular account of this visit to

James, which however, according to this account, took place early on

Easter‐day, certainly before Christ stood in the midst of the apostles in

the upper room on Easter‐evening.

St. Jerome says, “The Gospel according to the Hebrews relates that after

the resurrection of the Saviour, ‘_The Lord, after he had given the napkin

to the servant of the priest, went to James, and appeared to him. Now

James had sworn with an oath that he would not eat bread from that hour

when he drank the cup of the Lord, till he should behold him rising from

amidst them that sleep._’ And again, a little after, ‘_The Lord said,

Bring a table and bread_.’ And then, ‘_He took bread and blessed and

brake, and gave it to James the Just, and said unto __ him, My brother,

eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that

sleep._’ ”(217)

This touching incident is quite in keeping with what we know about St.

James, the Lord’s brother.

James the Just, according to Hegesippus, “neither drank wine nor fermented

liquors, and abstained from animal food;”(218) and though the account of

Hegesippus is manifestly fabulous in some of its details, still there is

no reason to doubt that James belonged to the ascetic school among the

Jews, as did the Baptist before him, and as did the orthodox Ebionites

after him. The oath to abstain from food till a certain event was

accomplished was not unusual.(219)

What is meant by “the Saviour giving the napkin to the servant of the

priest,” it is impossible to conjecture without the context. The napkin

was probably that which had covered his face in the tomb, but whether the

context linked this on to the cycle of sacred sindones impressed with the

portrait of the Saviour’s suffering face, cannot be told. The designation

of “the Just” as applied to James is for the purpose of distinguishing him

from James the brother of John. He does not bear that name in the

Canonical Gospels, but the title may have been introduced by St. Jerome to

avoid confusion, or it may have been a marginal gloss to the text.

The story of this appearance found its way into the writings of St.

Gregory of Tours,(220) who no doubt drew it from St. Jerome; and thence it

passed into the Legenda Aurea of Jacques de Voragine.

If the Lord did appear to St. James on Easter‐day, as related in this lost

Gospel, then it may have been in the morning, and not after his appearance

to the Twelve, or on his appearance in the evening he may have singled out

and addressed James before all the others, as on that day week he

addressed St. Thomas. In either case, St. Paul’s version would be

inaccurate as to the order of manifestations. The pseudo‐Abdias, not in

any way trustworthy, thus relates the circumstance:

“James the Less among the disciples was an object of special

attachment to the Saviour, and he was inflamed with such zeal for

his Master that he would take no meat when his Lord was crucified,

and would only eat again when he should see Christ arisen from the

dead; for he remembered that when Christ was alive he had given

this precept to him and to his brethren. That is why he, with Mary

Magdalene and Peter, was the first of all to whom Jesus Christ

appeared, in order to confirm his disciples in the faith; and that

he might not suffer him to fast any longer, a piece of an

honeycomb having been offered him, he invited James to eat

thereof.”(221)

Another fragment of the lost Gospel of the Hebrews also relates to the

resurrection:

“_And when he had come to [Peter and] those that were with Peter, he said

unto them, Take, touch me, and see that I am not a bodiless spirit. And

straightway they touched him and believed._”(222)

St. Ignatius, who cites these words, excepting only those within brackets,

does not say whence he drew them; but St. Jerome informs us that they were

taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews. At the same time he gives the

passage with greater fulness than St. Ignatius.

The account in St. Matthew contains nothing at all like this; but St. Luke

mentions these circumstances, though with considerable differences. The

Lord having appeared in the midst of his disciples, they imagine that they

see a spirit. Then he says, “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts

arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me

have.”(223)

The narrative in St. Luke’s Gospel is fuller than that in the Gospel of

the Hebrews, and is not derived from it. In the Nazarene Gospel, as soon

as the apostles see and touch, they believe. But in the Canonical Gospel

of St. Luke, they are not convinced till they see Christ eat.

Justin Martyr cites a passage now found in the Canonical Gospel of St.

John, but not exactly as there, evidently therefore obtaining it from an

independent source, and that source was the Gospel of the Twelve, the only

one with which he was acquainted, the only one then acknowledged as

Canonical in the Nazarene Church.

The passage is, “_Christ has said, Except ye be regenerate, ye cannot

enter into the kingdom of heaven._”(224)

In St. John’s Gospel the parallel passage is couched in the third person:

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”(225) The

difference stands out more clearly in the Greek than in English.

We may conjecture that the primitive Gospel of the Hebrews contained an

account of the interview of Nicodemus with our Lord. When we come to

consider the Gospel used by the author of the Clementine Homilies and

Recognitions, we shall find that the instruction on new birth made to

Nicodemus was familiar to him, but not exactly in the form in which it is

recorded by St. John.

St. Jerome informs us that the lost Gospel we are considering did not

relate that the veil of the Temple was rent in twain when Jesus gave up

the ghost, but that the lintel stone, a huge stone, fell down.(226)

That this tradition may be true is not unlikely. The rocks were rent, and

the earth quaked, and it is probable enough that the Temple was so shaken

that the great lintel stone fell.

St. Epiphanius gives us another fragment:

“_I am come to abolish the sacrifices: if ye cease not from sacrificing,

the wrath of God will not cease from weighing upon you._”(227)

In the Clementine Recognitions, a work issuing from the Ebionite anti‐

Gnostic school, we find that the abolition of the sacrifices was strongly

insisted on. The abomination of idolatry is first exposed, and the strong

hold that Egyptian idolatry had upon the Israelites is pointed out; then

we are told Moses received the Law, and, in consideration of the

prejudices of the people, tolerated sacrifice:

“When Moses perceived that the vice of sacrificing to idols had

been deeply ingrained into the people from their association with

the Egyptians, and that the root of this evil could not be

extracted from them, he allowed them to sacrifice indeed, but

permitted it to be done only to God, that by any means he might

cut off one half of the deeply ingrained evil, leaving the other

half to be corrected by another, and at a future time; by him,

namely, concerning whom he said himself, A prophet shall the Lord

your God raise unto you, whom ye shall hear, even as myself,

according to all things which he shall say to you. Whosoever shall

not hear that prophet, his soul shall be cut off from his

people.”(228)

In another place the Jewish sacrifices are spoken of as sin.(229)

This hostility to the Jewish sacrificial system by Ebionites who observed

all the other Mosaic institutions was due to their having sprung out of

the old sect of the Essenes, who held the sacrifices in the same

abhorrence.(230)

That our Lord may have spoken against the sacrifices is possible enough.

The passage may have stood thus: “Think not that I am come to destroy the

Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil;

nevertheless, I tell you the truth, I am come to destroy the sacrifices.

But be ye approved money‐changers, choose that which is good metal, reject

that which is bad.”

It is probable that in the original Hebrew Gospel there was some such

passage, for St. Paul, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to the

Hebrews, apparently alludes to it twice. He says, “When he cometh into the

world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast

thou prepared me.”(231) The plain meaning of which is, not that David had

used those words centuries before, in prophecy, but that Jesus had used

them himself when he came into the world. If the writer of the Epistle did

quote a passage from the Hebrew Gospel, it will have been the second from

the same source.

In the Ebionite Gospel, “by a criminal fraud,” says St. Epiphanius, a

protestation has been placed in the mouth of the Lord against the Paschal

Sacrifice of the Lamb, by changing a positive phrase into a negative one.

When the disciples ask Jesus where they shall prepare the Passover, he is

made to reply, not, as in St. Luke, that with desire he had desired to eat

this Passover, but, “_Have I then any desire to eat the flesh of the

Paschal Lamb with you?_”(232)

The purpose of this interpolation of two words is clear. The Samaritan

Ebionites, like the Essenes, did not touch meat, regarding all animal food

with the greatest repugnance.(233) By the addition of two words they were

able to convert the saying of our Lord into a sanction of their

superstition. But this saying of Jesus is now found only in St. Luke’s

Gospel. It must have stood originally without the Μὴ and the κρέας in the

Gospel of the Twelve.

Another of their alterations of the Gospel was to the same intent. Instead

of making St. John the Baptist eat locusts and wild honey, they gave him

for his nourishment wild honey only, ἐγχρίδας, instead of ἀχρίδας and μελί

ἄγριον.

The passage in which this curious change was made is remarkable. It served

as the introduction to the Gospel in use among the Gnostic Ebionites.

“_A certain man, named Jesus, being about thirty years of age, hath chosen

us; and having come to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon,

whose surname was Peter, and he said unto him, As I passed by the Sea of

Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, Simon and Andrew,

Thaddaeus, Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot; and thee, Matthew, when thou

wast sitting at thy tax‐gatherer’s table, then I called thee, and thou

didst follow me. And you do I choose to be my twelve apostles to bear

witness unto Israel._

“_John baptized; and the Pharisees came to him, and they were baptized of

him, and all Jerusalem also. He had a garment of camels’ hair, and a

leathern girdle about his loins, and his meat was wild honey, and the

taste thereof was as manna, and as a cake of oil._”

Apparently after this announcement of his choice of the apostles there

followed something analogous to the preface in St. Luke’s Gospel, to the

effect that these apostles, having assembled together, had taken in hand

to write down those things that they remembered concerning Christ and his

teaching. And it was on this account that the Gospel obtained the name of

the “Recollections of the Apostles,” or the “Gospel of the Twelve.”

The special notice taken of St. Matthew, who is singled out from the

others in this address, is significant of the relation supposed to exist

between the Gospel and the converted publican. If we had the complete

introduction, we should probably find that in it he was said to have been

the scribe who wrote down the apostolic recollections.

2. Doubtful Fragments.

There are a few fragments preserved by early ecclesiastical writers which

we cannot say for certain belonged to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but which

there is good reason to believe formed a part of it.

Origen, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, quotes a saying of our Lord

which is not to be found in the Canonical Gospels. Origen, we know, was

acquainted with, and quoted respectfully, the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is

therefore probable that this quotation is taken from it: “_Jesus said, For

the sake of the weak I became weak, for the sake of the hungry I hungered,

for the sake of the thirsty I thirsted_.”(234)

That this passage, full of beauty, occurred after the words, “This kind

goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,” in commenting on which Origen

quotes it, is probable. It is noteworthy that it is quoted in comment on

St. Matthew’s Gospel, the one to which the lost Gospel bore the closest

resemblance, and one which Origen would probably consult whilst compiling

his Commentary on St. Matthew.(235)

The saying is so beautiful, and so truly describes the love of our Lord,

that we must wish to believe it comes to us on such high authority as the

Gospel of the Twelve.

Another saying of Christ is quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by

Origen, without saying whence they drew it, but by both as undoubted

sayings of the Saviour. It ran:

“_Seek those things that are great, and little things will be added to

you._” “_And seek ye heavenly things, and the things of this world will be

added to you._”(236)

It will be seen, the form as given by St. Clement is better and simpler

than that given by Origen. It is probable, however, that they both formed

members of the same saying, following the usual Hebrew arrangement of

repeating a maxim, giving it a slightly different turn, or a wider

expansion. In two passages in other places Origen makes allusion to this

saying without quoting it directly.(237)

In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke puts into the mouth of St. Paul a

saying of Christ, which is not given by any evangelist, in these words:

“Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, _It is more blessed to

give than to receive_.”(238) It is curious that this saying should not

have been inserted by St. Luke in his Gospel. Whether this saying found

its way into the Hebrew Gospel it is impossible to tell.

In the Epistle of St. Barnabas another utterance of Christ is given. This

Epistle is so distinctly of a Judaizing character, so manifestly belongs

to the Nazarene school, that such a reference in it makes it more than

probable that it was taken from the Gospel received as Canonical among the

Nazarenes. The saying of St. Barnabas is, “All the time of our life and of

our faith will not profit us, if we have not in abhorrence the evil one

and future temptation, even as the Son of God said, _Resist all iniquity

and hold it in abhorrence_.”(239) Another saying in the Epistle of St.

Barnabas is, “_They who would see me, and attain to my kingdom, must

possess me through afflictions and suffering_.”(240)

In the second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians occurs a

very striking passage: “Wherefore to us doing such things the Lord said,

_If ye were with me, gathered together in my bosom, and did not keep my

commandments, I would cast you out, and say unto you, Depart from me, I

know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity_.”(241)

We can well understand this occurring in an anti‐Pauline Gospel.

Again. “The Lord said, _Be ye as lambs in the midst of wolves. Peter

answered and said unto him, But what if the wolves shall rend the lambs?

Jesus said unto Peter, The lambs fear not the wolves after their death;

and ye also, do not ye fear them that kill you, and after that have

nothing that they can do to you, but fear rather him who, after ye are

dead, has power to cast your soul and body into hell fire._”(242)

This is clearly another version of the passage, Matt. x. 16‐26. In one

particular it is fuller than in the Canonical Gospel; it introduces St.

Peter as speaking and drawing forth the exhortation not to fear those who

kill the body only. But it is without the long exhortation contained in

the 17‐27th verses of St. Matthew.

Another saying from the same source is, “This, therefore, the Lord said,

_Keep the flesh chaste and the seal undefiled, and ye shall receive

eternal life_.”(243) The seal is the unction of confirmation completing

baptism, and in the primitive Church united with it. It is the σφραγίς so

often spoken of in the Epistles of St. Paul.(244)

Justin Martyr contributes another saying. We have already seen that in all

likelihood he quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Recollections

of the Twelve, as he called it. He says, “On this account also our Lord

Jesus Christ said, _In those things in which I shall overtake you, in

those things will I judge you_.”(245) Clement of Alexandria makes the same

quotation, slightly varying the words. Justin and Clement apparently both

translated from the original Hebrew, but did not give exactly the same

rendering of words, though they gave the same sense.

Clement gives us another saying, but does not say from what Gospel he drew

it. “The Lord commanded in a certain Gospel, _My secret is for me and for

the children of my home_.”(246)

3. The Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

We come now to a question delicate, and difficult to answer—the Origin of

the Gospel of the Hebrews; delicate, because it involves another, the

origin of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; difficult, because of

the nature of the evidence on which we shall have to form our opinion.

Because the Gospel of the Hebrews is not preserved, is not in the Canon,

it does not follow that its value was slight, its accuracy doubtful. Its

disappearance is due partly to the fact of its having been written in

Aramaic, but chiefly to that of its having been in use by an Aramaic‐

speaking community which assumed first a schismatical, then a heretical

position, so that the disfavour which fell on the Nazarene body enveloped

and doomed its Gospel as well.

The four Canonical Gospels owe their preservation to their having been in

use among those Christian communities which coalesced under the moulding

hands of St. John. Those parties which were reluctant to abandon their

peculiar features were looked upon with coldness, then aversion, lastly

abhorrence. They became more and more isolated, eccentric, prejudiced,

impracticable. Whilst the Church asserted her catholicity, organized her

constitution, established her canon, formulated her creed, adapted herself

to the flux of ideas, these narrow sects spent their petty lives in

accentuating their peculiarities till they grew into monstrosities; and

when they fell and disappeared, there fell and disappeared with them those

precious records of the Saviour’s words and works which they had

preserved.

The Hebrew Gospel was closely related to the Gospel of St. Matthew; that

we know from the testimony of St. Jerome, who saw, copied and translated

it. That it was not identical with the Canonical first Gospel is also

certain. Sufficient fragments have been preserved to show that in many

points it was fuller, in some less complete, than the Greek Gospel of St.

Matthew. The two Gospels were twin sisters speaking different tongues. Was

the Greek of the first Gospel acquired, or was it original? This is a

point deserving of investigation before we fix the origin and determine

the construction of the Hebrew Gospel.

According to a fragment of a lost work by Papias, written about the middle

of the second century, under the title of “Commentary on the Sayings of

the Lord,”(247) the apostle Matthew was the author of a collection of the

“sayings,” λόγια, of our blessed Lord. The passage has been already given,

but it is necessary to quote it again here: “Matthew wrote in the Hebrew

dialect the sayings, and every one interpreted them as best he was

able.”(248) These “logia” could only be, according to the signification of

the word (Rom. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12; Pet. iv. 11; Acts vii. 38), a

collection of the sayings of the Saviour that were regarded as oracular,

as “the words of God.” That they were the words of Jesus, follows from the

title given by Papias to his commentary, Λόγια κυριακὰ.

This brief notice is sufficient to show that Matthew’s collection was not

the Gospel as it now stands. It was no collection of the acts, no

biography, of the Saviour; it was solely a collection of his discourses.

This is made clearer by what Papias says in the same work on St. Mark. He

relates that the latter wrote not only what Jesus had _said_, but also

what he _did_;(249) whereas St. Matthew wrote only what had been

_said_.(250)

The work of Matthew, therefore, contained no doings, πραχθέντα, but only

sayings, λεχθέντα, which were, according to Papias, written in Hebrew,

_i.e._ the vernacular Aramaic, and which were translated into Greek by

every one as best he was able.

This notice of Papias is very ancient. The Bishop of Hierapolis is called

by Irenaeus “a very old man.”(251) and by the same writer is said to have

been “a friend of Polycarp,” and “one who had heard John.”(252) That this

John was the apostle is not certain. It was questioned by Eusebius in his

mention of the Prooemium of Papias. John the priest and John the apostle

were both at Ephesus, and both lived there at the close of the first

century. Some have thought the Apocalypse to have been the work of the

priest John, and not of the apostle. Others have supposed that there was

only one John. However this may be, it is certain that Papias lived at a

time when it was possible to obtain correct information relating to the

origin of the sacred books in use among the Christians.

According to the Prooemium of Papias, which Eusebius has preserved, the

Bishop of Hierapolis had obtained his knowledge, not directly from the

apostles, nor from the apostle John, but from the mouths of men who had

companied with old priests and disciples of the apostles, and who had

related to him what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and other

disciples of the Lord had said (εἶπεν). Besides the testimony of these

priests, Papias appealed further to the evidence of Aristion and the

priest John, disciples of the Lord,(253) still alive and bearing testimony

when he wrote. “And,” says Papias, “I do not think that I derived so much

benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still

surviving.”(254)

Papias, therefore, had his information about the apostles second‐hand,

from those “who followed them about.” Nevertheless, his evidence is quite

trustworthy. He takes pains to inform us that he used great precaution to

obtain the truth about every particular he stated, and the means of

obtaining the truth were at his disposal. That Papias was a man “of a

limited comprehension”(255) does not affect the trustworthiness of his

statement. Eusebius thus designates him because he believed in the

Millennium; but so did most of the Christians of the first age, as well as

in the immediate second coming of Christ, till undeceived by events.

The statement of Papias does not justify us in supposing that Matthew

wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, but only a collection of the logia, the

sayings of Jesus. Eusebius did not mistake the Sayings for the Gospel, for

he speaks separately of the Hebrew Gospel,(256) without connecting it in

any way with the testimony of Papias.

According to Eusebius, Papias wrote his Commentary in five books.(257) It

is not improbable, therefore, that the “Logia” were broken into five parts

or grouped in five discourses, and that he wrote an explanation of each

discourse in a separate book or chapter.

The statement of Papias, if it does not refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew

as it now stands, does refer to one of the constituent parts of that

Gospel, and does explain much that would be otherwise inexplicable.

1. St. Matthew’s Gospel differs from St. Mark’s in that it contains long

discourses, sayings and parables, which are wanting or only given in a

brief form in the second Canonical Gospel. It is therefore probable that

in its composition were used the “Logia of the Lord,” written by Matthew.

2. If the collection of “Sayings of the Lord” consisted, as has been

suggested, of five parts, then we find traces in the Canonical Matthew of

five groups of discourses, concluded by the same formulary: “And it came

to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings” (τοὺς λόγους τούτους), or

“parables,” vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53,. xix. 1, xxvi. 1. It is not,

however, possible to restore all the “logia” to their primitive positions,

for they have been dispersed through the Canonical Gospel, and arranged in

connection with the events which called them forth. In the “Sayings of the

Lord” of Matthew, these events were not narrated; but all the sayings were

placed together, like the proverbs in the book of Solomon.

3. The “Logia” of the Lord were written by Matthew in Hebrew, _i.e._ in

the vernacular Aramaic. If they have formed the groundwork, or a composite

part of the Canonical Gospel, we are likely to detect in the Greek some

traces of their origin. And this, in fact, we are able to do.

α. In the first place, we have the introduction of Aramaic words, as Raka

(v. 22),(258) Mammon (vi. 22),(259) Gehenna (v. 22),(260) Amen (v.

18).(261) Many others might be cited, but these will suffice.

β. Next, we have the use of illustrations which are only comprehensible by

Hebrews, as “One jot and one tittle shall in no wise fall.” The Ἰῶτα of

the Greek text is the Aramaic Jod (v. 18); but the “one tittle” is more

remarkable. In the Greek it is “one horn,” or “stroke.”(262) The idea is

taken from the Aramaic orthography. A stroke distinguishes one consonant

from another, as ח and ה from ד. With this the Greeks had nothing that

corresponded.

γ. We find Hebraisms in great number in the discourses of our Lord given

by St. Matthew.(263)

δ. We find mistranslations. The Greek Canonical text gives a wrong

meaning, or no meaning at all, through misunderstanding of the Aramaic. By

restoration of the Aramaic text we can rectify the translation. Thus:

Matt. vii. 6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your

pearls before swine.” The word “holy,” τὸ ἅγιον, is a misinterpretation of

the Aramaic קרשא, a gold jewel for the ear, head or neck.(264) The

translator mistook the word for קורשא, or קרשא without ו “the holy.” The

sentence in the original therefore ran, “Give not a gold jewel to dogs,

neither cast pearls before swine.”

Matt. v. 37, “Let your conversation be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.” This is

meaningless. But if we restore the construction in Aramaic we have יהןא

לכם הן הן, לאו לאו, and the meaning is, “In your conversation let your yea

be yea, and your nay be nay.” The yea, yea, and nay, nay, in the Hebrew

come together, and this misled the translator. St. James quotes the saying

rightly (v. 12), “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall

into condemnation.” It is a form of a Rabbinic maxim, “The yea of the

righteous is yea, and their nay is nay.” It is an injunction to speak the

truth.

We have therefore good grounds for our conjecture that St. Matthew’s

genuine “Sayings of the Lord” form a part of the Canonical Gospel.

We have next to consider, Whence came the rest of the material, the record

of the “doings of the Lord,” which the compiler interwove with the

“Sayings”?

We have tolerably convincing evidence that the compiler placed under

contribution both Aramaic and Greek collections.

For the citations from the Old Testament are not taken exclusively from

the Hebrew Scriptures, nor from the Greek translation of the Seventy; but

some are taken from the Greek translation, and some are taken from the

Hebrew, or from a Syro‐Chaldaean Targum or Paraphrase, probably in use at

the time.

Matt. i. 23, “A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.”

This is quoted as a prophecy of the miraculous conception. But it is only

a prophecy in the version of the LXX., which renders the Hebrew word

παρθένος, “virgin.” The Hebrew word does not mean virgin exclusively, but

“a young woman.” We may therefore conclude that verses 22, 23, were

additions by the Greek compiler of the Gospel, unacquainted with the

original Hebrew text.

Matt. ii. 15, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” This is quoted

literally from the Hebrew text. That of the LXX. has, “Out of Egypt have I

called my children,” τὰ τέκνα. This made the saying of Hosea no prophecy

of our Lord; consequently he who inserted this reference can have known

only the Hebrew text, and not the Greek version. But in ii. 18, the

compiler follows the LXX. And again, ii. 23, “He shall be called a

Nazarene,” Ναζωραῖος. The Hebrew is כזר of which Ναζωραῖος is no

translation. The LXX. have Ναζιραῖος. The compiler was caught by the

similarity of sounds.

Matt. iii. 3. Here the construction of the LXX. is followed, which unites

“in the wilderness” with “the voice of one crying.” The Hebrew was

therefore not known by the compiler.

Matt. iv. 15. Here the LXX. is not followed, for the word γῆ is used in

place of χώρα. The quotation is not, moreover, taken exactly from Isaiah,

but apparently from a Targum.

Matt. viii. 17. This quotation is nearer the original Hebrew than the

rendering of the LXX.

Matt. xii. 18‐21. In this citation we have an incorrect rendering of the

Hebrew לתורתו “at his teaching,” made by the LXX. “in his name,” adopted

without hesitation by the compiler. He also accepts the erroneous

rendering of “islands,” made “nation,” “Gentiles,” by the LXX.

But, on the other hand, “till he send forth judgment unto victory,” is

taken from neither the original Hebrew nor from the LXX., and is probably

derived from a Targum.

Thus in this passage we have apparently a combination of two somewhat

similar accounts—the one in Greek, the other in Aramaic.

Matt. xiii. 35. This also is a compound text. The first half is from the

LXX., but the second member is from a Hebrew Targum.

Matt. xxvii. 3. In the Hebrew, the field is not a “potter’s,” nor is it in

the LXX., who use χωνευτήριον “the smelting‐furnace.” The word in the

Hebrew signifies “treasury.” The composer of the Gospel, therefore must

have quoted from a Targum, and been ignorant both of the genuine Hebrew

Scriptures and of the Greek translation of the Seventy.

These instances are enough to show that the material used for the

compilation of the first Canonical Gospel was very various; that the

author had at his disposal matter in both Aramaic and Greek.

We shall find, on looking further, that he inserted two narratives of the

same event in his Gospel in different places, if they differed slightly

from one another, when coming to him from different sources.

The following are parallel passages:

iv. 23 And Jesus went about ix. 35 And Jesus went about

all Galilee, teaching in their all the cities and villages,

synagogues, and preaching the teaching in their synagogues,

gospel of the kingdom, and and preaching the gospel of

healing all manner of sickness the kingdom, and healing every

and all manner of disease sickness and every disease

among the people. among the people.

v. 29 And if thy right eye xviii. 9 And if thine eye

offend thee, pluck it out, and offend thee, pluck it out, and

cast it from thee: for it is cast it from thee: it is

profitable for thee that one better for thee to enter into

of thy members should perish, life with one eye, rather than

and not that thy whole body having two eyes to be cast

should be cast into hell. into hell fire.

30 And if thy right hand 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy

offend thee, cut it off, and foot offend thee, cut them

cast it from thee: for it is off, and cast them from thee:

profitable for thee that one it is better for thee to enter

of thy members should perish, into life halt or maimed,

and not that thy whole body rather than having two hands

should be cast into hell. or two feet to be cast into

everlasting fire.

32 But I say unto you, That xix. 9 And I say unto you,

whosoever shall put away his Whosoever shall put away his

wife, saving for the cause of wife, except it be for

fornication, causeth her to fornication, and shall marry

commit adultery: and whosoever another, committeth adultery:

shall marry her that is and whoso marrieth her which

divorced committeth adultery. is put away doth commit

adultery.

vi. 14 For if ye forgive men xviii. 35 So likewise shall my

their trespasses, your heavenly Father do also unto

heavenly Father will also you, if ye from your hearts

forgive you: forgive not every one his

brother their trespasses.

15 But if ye forgive not men

their trespasses, neither will

your Father forgive your

trespasses.

vii. 16 Ye shall know them by xii. 33 Either make the tree

their fruits. Do men gather good, and his fruit good; or

grapes of thorns, or figs of else make the tree corrupt,

thistles? and his fruit corrupt: for the

tree is known by his fruit.

17 Even so every good tree

bringeth forth good fruit; but

a corrupt tree bringeth forth

evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring

forth evil fruit, neither can

a corrupt tree bring forth

good fruit.

ix. 13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have

what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

mercy, and not sacrifice.

ix. 34 But the Pharisees said, xii. 24 But when the Pharisees

He casteth out devils through heard it, they said, This

the prince of the devils. fellow doth not cast out

devils, but by Beelzebub the

prince of the devils.

x. 15 Verily I say unto you, xi. 24. But I say unto you,

It shall be more tolerable for That it shall be more

the land of Sodom and Gomorrha tolerable for the land of

in the day of judgment, than Sodom in the day of judgment,

for that city. than for thee.

17 But beware of men: for they xxiv. 9 Then shall they

will deliver you up to the deliver you up to be

councils, and they will afflicted, and shall kill you:

scourge you in their and ye shall be hated of all

synagogues; nations for my name’s sake.

22 And ye shall be hated of

all men for my name’s sake.

xii. 39 But he answered and xvi. 4 A wicked and adulterous

said unto them, An evil and generation seeketh after a

adulterous generation seeketh sign; and there shall no sign

after a sign; and there shall be given unto it, but the sign

no sign be given to it; but of the prophet Jonas.

the sign of the prophet Jonas.

xiii.12 For whosoever hath, to xxv. 29 For unto every one

him shall be given, and he that hath shall be given, and

shall have more abundance: but he shall have abundance: but

whosoever hath not, from him from him that hath not shall

shall be taken away even that be taken away even that which

he hath. he hath.

xiv. 5 And when he would have xxi. 26 But if we shall say,

put him to death, he feared Of men; we fear the people;

the multitude, because they for all hold John as a

counted him as a prophet. prophet.

xvi. 19 And I will give unto xviii. 18 Verily I say unto

thee the keys of the kingdom you, Whatsoever ye shall bind

of heaven: and whatsoever thou on earth shall be bound in

shalt bind on earth shall be heaven: and whatsoever ye

bound in heaven: and shall loose on earth shall be

whatsoever thou shalt loose on loosed in heaven.

earth shall be loosed in

heaven.

xvii. 20 And Jesus said unto xxi. 21 Jesus answered and

them, Because of your said unto them, Verily I say

unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith and

unto you, If ye have faith as doubt not, ye shall not only

a grain of mustard seed, ye do this which is done to the

shall say unto this mountain, fig tree, but also if ye shall

Remove hence to yonder place; say unto this mountain, Be

and it shall remove; and thou removed, and be thou cast

nothing shall be impossible into the sea; it shall be

unto you. done.

xxiv. 11 And many false xxiv. 24 For there shall arise

prophets shall rise, and shall false Christs, and false

deceive many. prophets and shall shew great

signs and wonders: insomuch

that, if it were possible,

they should deceive the very

elect.

xxiv. 23 Then if any man shall xxiv. 26 Wherefore if they

say unto you, Lo, here is shall say unto you, Behold, he

Christ, or there; believe it is in the desert, go not

not. forth: behold, he is in the

secret chamber; believe it

not.

The existence in the first Canonical Gospel of these duplicate passages

proves that the editor of it in its present form made use of materials

from different sources, which he worked together into a complete whole.

And these duplicate passages are the more remarkable, because, where his

memory does not fail him, he takes pains to avoid repetition.

It would seem therefore plain that the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel

made use of, first, a Collection of the Sayings of the Lord, of undoubted

genuineness, drawn up by St. Matthew; second, of two or more Collections

of the Sayings and Doings of the Lord, also, no doubt, genuine, but not

necessarily by St. Matthew.

One of these sources was made use of also by St. Mark in the composition

of his Gospel.

According to the testimony of Papias:

“John the Priest said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter,

whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not,

however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord,

for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said,

he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as

occasion called forth, but did not study to give a history of our

Lord’s discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by

writing this and that as he has remembered them; for he was

carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he

heard, nor to state anything falsely in these accounts.”(265)

It has been often asked and disputed, whether this statement applies to

the Gospel of St. Mark received by the Church into her sacred canon.

It can hardly be denied that the Canonical Gospel of Mark does answer in

every particular to the description of its composition by John the Priest.

John gives five characteristics to the work of Mark:

1. A striving after accuracy.(266)

2. Want of chronological succession in his narrative, which had rather the

character of a string of anecdotes and sayings than of a biography.(267)

3. It was composed of records of both the sayings and the _doings_ of

Jesus.(268)

4. It was no syntax of sayings (σύνταξις λογίων), like the work of

Matthew.(269)

5. It was the composition of a companion of Peter.(270)

These characteristic features of the work of Mark agree with the Mark

Gospel, some of the special features of which are:

1. Want of order: it is made up of a string of episodes and anecdotes, and

of sayings manifestly unconnected.

2. The order of events is wholly different from that in Matthew, Luke and

John.

3. Both the sayings and the doings of Jesus are related in it.

4. It contains no long discourses, like the Gospel of St. Matthew,

arranged in systematic order.

5. It contains many incidents which point to St. Peter as the authority

for them, and recall his preaching.

To this belong—the manner in which the Gospel opens with the baptism of

John, just as St. Peter’s address (Acts x. 37‐41) begins with that event

also; the many little incidents mentioned which give token of having been

related by an eye‐witness, and in which the narrative of St. Matthew is

deficient.(271) St. Mark’s Gospel is also rich in indications of the

feelings of the people toward Jesus, such as an eye‐witness must have

observed,(272) and of notices of movements of the body—small significant

acts, which could not escape one present who described what he had

seen.(273)

That the composer of St. Matthew’s Gospel made use of the material out of

which St. Mark compiled his, that is, of the memorabilia of St. Peter, is

evident. Whole passages of St. Mark’s Gospel occur word for word, or

nearly so, in the Gospel of St. Matthew.(274)

Moreover, it is apparent that sometimes the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel

misunderstood the text. A few instances must suffice here.

Mark ii. 18: “And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting.

And they came to him and said to him, Why do the disciples of John, and

the disciples of the Pharisees, fast, and thy disciples fast not?” It is

clear that it was then a fasting season, which the disciples of Jesus were

not observing. The “they” who came to him does not mean “the disciples of

John and of the Pharisees,” but certain other persons. Καὶ ἔρχονται is so

used in St. Mark’s Gospel in several places, like the French “on venait.”