the verb without a subject expressed, and he made “the disciples of John”
ask the question.
Mark vi. 10: Ὅπου ἂν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε ἕως ἄν ἐξέλθητε
ἐκεῖθεν. That is, “Wherever (_i.e._ in whatsoever town or village) ye
enter into a house, therein remain (i.e. in that house) till ye go away
thence (_i.e._ from that city or village).” By leaving out the word
_house_, Matthew loses the sense of the command (x. 11), “Into whatsoever
town or village ye enter—remain in it till ye go out of it.”
Mark vii. 27, 28. The Lord answers the Syro‐Phoenician woman, “Let the
children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread,
and to cast it unto the dogs.” The woman answers, “Yes, Lord; yet the dogs
under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” The meaning is, God gives
His grace and mercy first to the Jews (the children); and this must not be
taken from the Jews to be given to the heathen (the dogs). True, answers
the woman; but the heathen do partake of the blessings that overflow from
the portion of the Jews.
But the so‐called Matthew did not catch the signification, and the point
is lost in his version (xv. 27). He makes the woman answer, “The dogs eat
of the crumbs which fall from _their masters’_ table.”
Mark x. 13. According to St. Mark, parents brought their children to
Christ, probably with some superstitious idea, to be touched. This
offended the disciples. “They rebuked those that brought them.” But Jesus
was displeased, and said to the disciples, “Suffer the little children to
come unto me.” And instead of fulfilling the superstitious wishes of the
parents, he took the children in his arms and blessed them. But the text
used by St. Matthew’s compilator was probably defective at the end of
verse 13, and ended, “and his disciples rebuked....” The compiler
therefore completed it with αὐτοῖς instead of τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, and then
misunderstood verse 14, and applied the ἄφετε differently: “Let go the
children, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” In St. Mark, the
disciples rebuke the parents; in St. Matthew, they rebuke the children,
and intercept them on their way to Christ.
Mark xii. 8: “They slew him and cast him out,” _i.e._ cast out the dead
body. The compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel did not see this. He could not
understand how that the son was killed and then cast out of the vineyard;
so he altered the order into, “They cast him out and slew him” (xxi.
38).(275)
Examples might be multiplied, but these must suffice. If I am not
mistaken, they go far to prove that the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel
used the material, or some of the material, out of which St. Mark’s Gospel
was composed.
But there are also other proofs. The text of St. Mark has been taken into
that of St. Matthew’s Gospel, but not without some changes, corrections
which the compiler made, thinking the words of the text in his hands were
redundant, vulgar, or not sufficiently explicit.
Thus Mark i. 5: “The whole Jewish land and all they of Jerusalem,” he
changed into, “Jerusalem and all Judaea.”
Mark i. 12: “The Spirit driveth,” ἐκβάλλει, he softened into “led,”
ἀνήχθη.
Mark iii. 4: “He saith, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath‐days, or to
do evil?” In St. Matthew’s Gospel, before performing a miracle, Christ
argues the necessity of showing mercy on the Sabbath‐day, and supplies
what is wanting in St. Mark—the conclusion, “Wherefore it is lawful to do
well on the Sabbath‐days” (xii. 12).
Mark iv. 12: “That seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not
hear.” This seemed harsh to the compiler of St. Matthew. It was as if
unbelief and blindness were fatally imposed by God on men. He therefore
alters the tenor of the passage, and attributes the blindness of the
people, and their incapability of understanding, to their own grossness of
heart (xiii. 14, 15).
Mark v. 37: “The ship was freighted,” in St. Matthew, is altered into,
“the ship was covered” with the waves (viii. 34).
Mark vi. 9 “Money in the girdle,” changed into, “money in the girdles” (x.
9).
Mark ix. 42: “A millstone were put on his neck,” changed to, “were hung
about his neck” (xviii. 6).
Mark x. 17: “Sell all thou hast;” Matt. xix. 21, “all thy possessions.”
Mark xii. 30: “He took a woman;” Matt. xxii. 25, “he married.”
But if it be evident that the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel laid under
contribution the material used by St. Mark, it is also clear that he did
not use St. Mark’s Gospel as it stands. He had the fragmentary memorabilia
of which it was made up, or a large number of them, but unarranged. He
sorted them and wove them in with the “Logia” written by St. Matthew, and
_afterwards_, independently, without knowledge, probably, of what had been
done by the compiler of the first Gospel, St. Mark compiled his. Thus St.
Matthew’s is the first Gospel in order of composition, though much of the
material of St. Mark’s Gospel was written and in circulation first.
This will appear when we see how independently of one another the compiler
of St. Matthew and St. Mark arrange their “memorabilia.”
It is unnecessary to do more to illustrate this than to take the contents
of Matt. iv.—xiii.
According to St. Matthew, after the Sermon on the Mount, Christ heals the
leper, then enters Capernaum, where he receives the prayer of the
centurion, and forthwith enters into Peter’s house, where he cures the
mother‐in‐law, and the same night crosses the sea.
But according to St. Mark, Christ cast out the unclean spirit in the
synagogue at Capernaum, then healed Peter’s wife’s mother, and, not the
same night but long after, crossed the sea. On his return he went through
the villages preaching, and then healed the leper.
The accounts are the same, but the order is altogether different. The
deutero‐Matthew must have had the material used by Mark under his eye, for
he adopts it into his narrative; but he cannot have had St. Mark’s Gospel,
or he would not have so violently disturbed the order of events.
The compiler has been guilty of an inaccuracy in the use of “Gergesenes”
instead of Gadarenes. St. Mark is right. Gadara was situated near the
river Hieromax, east of the Sea of Galilee, over against Scythopolis and
Tiberias, and capital of Peraea. This agrees exactly with what is said in
the Gospels of the miracle performed in the “country of the Gadarenes.”
The swine rushed violently down a steep place and perished in the lake.
Jesus had come from the N.W. shore of the Sea to Gadara in the S.E. But
the country of the Gergesenes can hardly be the same as that of the
Gadarenes. Gerasa, the capital, was on the Jabbok, some days’ journey
distant from the lake. The deutero‐Matthew was therefore ignorant of the
topography of the neighbourhood whence Levi, that is Matthew, was called.
St. Mark says that Christ healed one demoniac in the synagogue of
Capernaum, then crossed the lake, and healed the second in Gadara. But St.
Matthew, or rather the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel, has fused
these two events into one, and makes Christ heal both possessed men in the
country of the Gergesenes. In like manner we have twice the healing of two
blind men (ix. 27 and xx. 30), whereas the other evangelists know of only
single blind men being healed on both occasions. How comes this? The
compiler had two accounts of each miracle of healing the blind, slightly
varying. He thought they referred to the same occasion, but to different
persons, and therefore made Christ heal two men, whereas he had given
sight to but one.
In the former case the compiler had not such a circumstantial account of
the restoration to sound mind of the demoniac in the synagogue as St. Mark
had received from St. Peter. He knew only that on the occasion of Christ’s
visit to the Sea of Tiberias he had recovered two men who were possessed,
and so he made the healing of both take place simultaneously at the same
spot.
An equally remarkable instance of the fact that St. Matthew’s Gospel was
made up of fragmentary “recollections” by various eye‐witnesses, is that
of the dumb man possessed with a devil, in ix. 32. At Capernaum, after
having restored Jairus’ daughter to life and healed the two blind men, the
same day the dumb man is brought to him. The devil is cast out, the dumb
speaks, and the Pharisees say, “He casteth out devils through the prince
of the devils.”
This is exactly the same account which has been used by St. Luke (xi. 14).
But in xii. 22 we have the same incident over again. There is brought unto
Christ one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; him Christ heals;
whereupon the Pharisees say, “This fellow doth not cast out devils but by
Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Then follows the solemn warning
against blasphemy.
It is clear that the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel must have had
two independent accounts of this miracle, one with the warning against
blasphemy appended to it, the other without. He gives both accounts, one
as occurring at Capernaum, the other much later, after Jesus had gone
about Galilee preaching, and the Pharisees had conspired against him.
St. Matthew says that after the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother, Jesus,
that same evening, cured many sick, and in the night crossed to the
country of the Gergesenes. But St. Mark says that he remained that night
at Capernaum, and rose early next morning before day, and went into a
solitary place. According to him, this crossing over the sea did not occur
till long after.
The following table will show how remarkably discordant is the arrangement
of events in the two evangels. The order of succession differs, but not
the events and teaching recorded; surely a proof that both writers
composed these Gospels out of similar but fragmentary accounts available
to both. The following table will show this disagreement at a glance.
ST. MATTHEW. ST. MARK.
(At Capernaum), iv. 13. (At Capernaum), i. 21.
1. Goes about preaching in the Heals man with unclean spirit
villages of Galilee (23), 1. (23‐28).
2. Sermon on the Mount 5. Peter’s mother‐in‐law
(v.‐vii.). healed (30, 31).
3. Leper cleansed (viii. 2‐4). 6. At even heals the sick
(32‐34).
4. Centurion’s servant healed
(5‐13).
5. Peter’s wife’s mother Next day rises early and goes
healed (14, 15). into a solitary place (35‐37).
(Leaves Capernaum).
6. At even cures the sick 1. Goes about the villages of
(16). Galilee (38‐39).
7. Same night crosses the sea 3. Heals the leper (40, 41).
(18‐27).
(In the country of (Outside the town of
Gergesenes). Capernaum), 45.
8. Heals two demoniacs
(28‐39).
(Returns to Capernaum), ix. 1. (Returns to Capernaum), ii. 1.
9. Sick of the palsy healed 9. Sick of the palsy healed
(2‐8). (2‐13).
10. Calls Matthew (9).
11. Hemorrhitess cured 10. Levi called (14).
(20‐22).
12. Jairus’ daughter restored 19. Plucks the ears of corn
(18‐26). (23‐28).
13. Two blind men healed 20. Heals the withered hand
(27‐30). (iii. 1‐5).
14. Dumb man healed (32, 33). 21. Consultation against
Jesus (6). (Leaves Capernaum),
7.
15. Warning against blasphemy 6. Heals many sick (10‐12).
(34).
(Goes about Galilee), 35 and Goes into a mountain and
xi. 1.
16. Sends out the Twelve (x). chooses the Twelve (13‐19).
(Probably at Capernaum). 15, 23. The Pharisees
blaspheme;
17. John’s disciples come to warning against blasphemy
him (xi. 2‐6). (22‐30).
18. Denunciation of cities of 24. Mother and brethren seek
Galilee (20‐24). him (31‐35).
19. Plucks the ears of com 25. Teaches from the ship;
(xii. 1‐9). parable of the sower (iv.
1‐20).
20. Heals the withered hand 7. Crosses the lake in a storm
(10‐13). (35‐41).
21. Consultation against Jesus (In the country of Gadarenes).
(14).
(Leaves Capernaum), 15. 8. Heals the demoniac (v.
1‐20).
22. Heals deaf and dumb man (Returns to Capernaum), 21.
(22).
23. Denunciation of blasphemy 11. Hemorrhitess healed
(24‐32). (25‐34).
12. Jairus’ daughter restored
(22‐43).
24. Mother and brethren seek 16. Sends out the Twelve (vi.
Jesus (46‐50). 7‐13).
25. Teaches from the ship;
parable of sower (xiii. 1‐12).
(Returns to his own country),
53.
The order in St. Luke is again different. Jesus calls Levi, chooses the
Twelve, preaches the sermon on the plain, heals the Centurion’s servant,
goes then from place to place preaching. Then occurs the storm on the
lake, and after having healed the demoniac Jesus returns to Capernaum,
cures the woman with the bloody flux, raises Jairus’ daughter and sends
out the Twelve.
In the Gospel of St. Mark, the parable of the sower is spoken on “the same
day” on which, in the evening, Jesus crosses the lake in a storm.
In the Gospel of St. Matthew, this parable is spoken long after, on “the
same day” as his mother and brethren seek him, and this is after he has
been in the country of the Gadarenes, has returned to Capernaum, gone
about Galilee preaching, come back again to Capernaum, but has been driven
away again by the conspiracy of the Pharisees.
It would appear from an examination of the two Gospels that articles 23,
24 and 25 composed one document, for both St. Matthew and St. Mark used it
as it is, in a block, only they differ as to where to build it in.
19, 20 and 21 formed another block of Apostolic Memorabilia, and was built
in by the deutero‐Matthew in one place and by St. Mark in another. 5 and
6, and again 9 and 10, were smaller compound recollections which the
compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel and St. Mark obtained in their concrete
forms. On the other hand, 3 and 16 formed recollections consisting of but
one member, and are thrust into the narrative where the two compilers
severally thought most suitable. We are therefore led by the comparison of
the order in which events in our Lord’s life are related by St. Matthew
and St. Mark, to the conclusion, that the author of the first Gospel as it
stands had not St. Mark’s Gospel in its complete form before him when he
composed his record.
We have yet another proof that this was so.
St. Matthew’s Gospel is not so full in its account of some incidents in
our Lord’s life as is the Gospel of St. Mark.
The compiler of the first Gospel has shown throughout his work the
greatest anxiety to insert every particular he could gather relating to
the doings and sayings of Jesus. This has led him into introducing the
same event or saying over a second time if he found more than one version
of it. Had he all the material collected in St. Mark’s Gospel at his
disposal, he would not have omitted any of it.
But we do not find in St. Matthew’s Gospel the following passages:
Mark iv. 26‐29, the parable of the seed springing up, a type of the growth
of the Gospel without further labour to the minister than that of
spreading it abroad. The meaning of this parable is different from that in
Matt. xii. 24‐30, and therefore the two parables are not to be regarded as
identical.
Mark viii. 22‐26. By omitting the narrative of what took place at
Bethsaida, an apparent gap occurs in the account of St. Matthew after xvi.
4‐12. The journey across the sea leads one to expect that Christ and his
disciples will land somewhere on the coast. But Matthew, without any
mention of a landing at Bethsaida, translates Jesus and the apostolic band
to Caesarea Philippi. But in Mark, Jesus and his disciples land at
Bethsaida, and after having performed a miracle of healing there on a
blind man—a miracle, the particulars of which are very full and
interesting—they go on foot to Caesarea Philippi (viii. 27). That the
compiler of the first Gospel should have left this incident out
deliberately is not credible.
Mark ix. 38, 39. In St. Matthew’s collection of the Logia of our Lord
there existed probably the saying of Christ, “He that is not with me is
against me” (Matt. xii. 30). St. Mark narrates the circumstances which
called forth this remark. But the deutero‐Matthew evidently did not know
of these circumstances; he therefore leaves the saying in his record
without explanation.(276)
Mark xii. 41‐44. The beautiful story of the poor widow throwing her two
mites into the treasury, and our blessed Lord’s commendation of her
charity, is not to be found in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Is it possible that
he could have omitted such an exquisite anecdote had he possessed it?
Mark xiv. 51, 52. The account of the young man following, having the linen
cloth cast about his naked body, who, when caught, left the linen cloth in
the hands of his captors and ran off naked—an account which so
unmistakably exhibits the narrative to have been the record of some eye‐
witness of the scene, is omitted in St. Matthew. On this no stress,
however, can be laid. The deutero‐Matthew may have thought the incident
too unimportant to be mentioned.
Enough has been said to show conclusively that the deutero‐Matthew, if we
may so term the compiler of the first Canonical Gospel, had not St. Mark’s
Gospel before him when he wrote his own, that he did not cut up the Gospel
of Mark, and work the shreds into his own web.
Both Gospels are mosaics, composed in the same way. But the Gospel of St.
Mark was composed only of the “recollections” of St. Peter, whereas that
of St. Matthew was more composite. Some of the pieces which were used by
Mark were used also by the deutero‐Matthew. This is patent: how it was so
needs explanation.
It is probable that when the apostles founded churches, their instructions
on the sayings and doings of Jesus were taken down, and in the absence of
the apostles were read by the president of the congregation. The Epistles
which they sent were, we know, so read,(277) and were handed on from one
church to another.(278) But what was far more precious to the early
believers than any letters of the apostles about the regulation of
controversies, were their recollections of the Lord, their Memorabilia, as
Justin calls them. The earliest records show us the Gospels read at the
celebration of the Eucharist.(279) The ancient Gospels were not divided
into chapters, but into the portions read on Sundays and festivals, like
our “Church Services.” Thus the Peschito version in use in the Syrian
churches was divided in this manner: “Fifth day of the week of the
Candidates” (Matt. ix. 5‐17), “For the commemoration of the Dead” (18‐26),
“Friday in the fifth week in the Fast” (27‐38), “For the commemoration of
the Holy Apostles” (36‐38, x. 1‐15), “For the commemoration of Martyrs”
(16‐33), “Lesson for the Dead” (34‐42), “Oblation for the beheading of
John” (xi. 1‐15), “Second day in the third week of the Fast” (16‐24).
To these fragmentary records St. Luke alludes when he says that “many had
taken in hand to arrange in a consecutive account (ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν)
those things which were most fully believed” amongst the faithful. These
he “traced up from the beginning accurately one after another”
(παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς). Here we have clearly the
existence of records disconnected originally, which many strung together
in consecutive order, and St. Luke takes pains, as he tells us, to make
this order chronological.
Some Churches had certain Memorabilia, others had a different set. That of
Antioch had the recollections of St. Peter, that of Jerusalem the
recollections of St. James, St. Simeon and St. Jude. St. Luke indicates
the source whence he drew his account of the nativity and early years of
the Lord,—the recollections of St. Mary, the Virgin Mother, communicated
to him orally. He speaks of the Blessed Virgin as keeping the things that
happened in her heart and pondering on them.(280) Another time it is
contemporaries, Mary certainly included.(281) On both occasions it is in
reference to events connected with our Lord’s infancy. Why did he thus
insist on her having taken pains to remember these things? Surely to show
whence he drew his information. He narrates these events on the testimony
of her word; and her word is to be relied on; for these things, he assures
us, were deeply impressed on her memory.
The “Memorabilia” in use in the different Churches founded by the apostles
would probably be strung together in such order as they were generally
read. How early the Church began to have a regulated order of seasons, an
ecclesiastical year, cannot be ascertained with certainty; but every
consideration leads us to suspect that it grew up simultaneously with the
constitution of the Church. With the Church of the Hebrews this was
unquestionably the case. The Jews who believed had grown up under a system
of fasts and festivals in regular series, and, as we know, they observed
these even after they were believers in Christ. Paul, who broke with the
Law in so many points, did not venture to dispense with its sacred cycle
of festivals. He hasted to Jerusalem to attend the feast of
Pentecost.(282) At Ephesus, even, he observed it.(283) St. Jerome assures
us that Lent was instituted by the apostles.(284) The Apostolic
Constitutions order the observance of the Sabbath, the Lord’s‐day,
Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany, the days of the Apostles, that of St.
Stephen, and the anniversaries of the Martyrs.(285) Indeed, the observance
of the Lord’s‐day, instituted probably by St. Paul, involves the principle
which would include all other sacred commemorations; for if one day was to
be set apart as a memorial of the resurrection, it is probable that others
would be observed in memory of the nativity, the passion, the ascension,
&c.
As early as there was any sort of ecclesiastical year observed, so early
would the “Memorabilia” of the apostles be arranged as appropriate to
these seasons. But such an arrangement would not be chronological;
therefore many took in hand, as St. Luke tells us, to correct this, and he
took special care to give the succession of events as they occurred, not
as they were read, by obtaining information from the best sources
available.
It is probable that the “Recollections” of St. Peter, written in
disjointed notes by St. Mark, were in circulation through many Churches
before St. Mark composed his Gospel out of them. From Antioch to Rome they
were read at the celebration of the divine mysteries; and some of them,
found in the Churches of Asia Minor, have been taken by St. Luke into his
Gospel. Others circulating in Palestine were in the hands of the deutero‐
Matthew, and grafted into his compilation. But as St. Luke, St. Mark, and
the composer of the first Gospel, acted independently, their chronological
sequences differ. Their Gospels are three kaleidoscopic groups of the same
pieces.(286)
Had St. Matthew any other part in the composition of the first Canonical
Gospel than contributing to it his “Syntax of the Lord’s Sayings”? Of that
we can say nothing for certain. It is possible enough that many of the
“doings” of Jesus contained in the Gospel may be memorabilia of St.
Matthew, circulating in _anecdota_.
A critical examination of St. Matthew’s Gospel reveals _four_ sources
whence it was drawn, three threads of different texture woven into one.
These are:
1. The “Memorabilia” of St. Peter, used afterwards by St. Mark. These the
compiler of the first Gospel attached mechanically to the rest of his
material by such formularies as “in those days,” “at that time,” “then,”
“after that,” “when he had said these things.”
2. The “Logia of the Lord,” composed by St. Matthew.
3. Another series of sayings and doings, from which the following passages
were derived: iii. 7‐10, 12, iv. 3‐11, viii. 19‐22, ix. 27, 32‐34, xi.
2‐19. Some of these were afterwards used by St. Luke.(287) Were these by
St. Matthew? It is possible.
4. To the fourth category belong chapters i. and ii., iii. 3, xiv. 15, the
redaction of iv. 12, 13, 14, 15, v. 1, 2, 19, vii. 22, 23, viii. 12, 17,
x. 5, 6, xi. 2, xii. 17‐21, xiii. 35‐43, 49, 50, the redaction of xiv.
13_a_, xiv. 28‐31, xv. 24, xvii. 24_b_‐27, xix. 17_a_, 19_b_, 28, xx. 16,
xxi. 2, 7, xxi. 4, 5, xxiii. 10, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, 35, the redaction
of xxiv. 3, 20, 51_b_, xxv. 30_b_, xxvi. 2, 15, 25, xxvii. 51‐53, xxvii.
62‐66, xxviii. 1_a_, 2‐4, 8, 9, 11‐15.
Was this taken from a collection of the recollections of St. Matthew, and
the series 3 from another set of Apostolic Memorabilia? That it is not
possible to decide.
Into the reasons which have led to this separation of the component parts
3, 4, the peculiarities of diction which serve to distinguish them, we
cannot enter here; it would draw us too far from the main object of our
inquiry.(288)
The theory that the Synoptical Gospels were composed of various
disconnected materials, variously united into consecutive biographies, was
accepted by Bishop Marsh, and it is the only theory which relieves the
theologian from the unsatisfactory obligation of making “harmonies” of the
Gospels. If we adopt the received popular conception of the composition of
the Synoptical Gospels, we are driven to desperate shifts to fit them
together, to reconcile their discrepancies.
The difficulty, the impossibility, of effecting such a harmony of the
statements of the evangelists was felt by the early Christian writers.
Origen says that the attempt to reconcile them made him giddy. Among the
writings of Tatian was a Diatessaron or harmony of the Gospels. Eusebius
adventured on an explanation, “of the discords of the Evangelists.” St.
Ambrose exercised his pen on a concordance of St. Matthew with St. Luke;
St. Augustine wrote “De consensu Evangelistarum,” and in his effort to
force them into agreement was driven to strange suppositions—as that when
our Lord went through Jericho there was a blind man by the road‐side
leading into the city, and another by the road‐side leading out of it, and
that both were healed under very similar circumstances.
Apollinaris, in the famous controversy about Easter, declared that it was
irreconcilable with the Law that Christ should have suffered on the great
feast‐day, as related by St. Matthew, but that the Gospels disagreed among
themselves on the day upon which he suffered.(289) The great Gerson sought
to remove the difficulties in a “Concordance of the Evangelists,” or
“Monotessaron.”
Such an admission as that the Synoptical Gospels were composed in the
manner I have pointed out, in no way affects their incomparable value.
They exhibit to us as in a mirror what the apostles taught and what their
disciples believed. Faith does not depend on the chronological sequence of
events, but on the verity of those events. “See!” exclaimed St.
Chrysostom, “how through the contradictions in the evangelical history in
minor particulars, the truth of the main facts transpires, and the
trustworthiness of the authors is made manifest!”
In everything, both human and divine, there is an union of infallibility
in that which is of supreme importance, and of fallibility in that which
concerns not salvation. The lenses through which the light of the world
shone to remote ages were human scribes liable to error. Θεῖα πάντα καὶ
ἀνθρώπινα πάντα, was the motto Tholuck inscribed on his copy of the Sacred
Oracles.
Having established the origin of the Gospel of St. Matthew, we are able
now to see our way to establishing that of the Gospel of the Twelve, or
Gospel of the Hebrews.
No doubt it also was a mosaic made out of the same materials as the Gospel
of St. Matthew. There subsisted side by side in Palestine a Greek‐speaking
and an Aramaic‐speaking community of Christians, the one composed of
proselytes from among the Gentiles, the other of converts from among the
Jews. This Gentile Church in Palestine was scarcely influenced by St.
Paul; it was under the rule of St. Peter, and therefore was more united to
the Church at Jerusalem in habits of thought, in religious customs, in
reverence for the Law, than the Churches of “Asia” and Greece. There was
no antagonism between them. There was, on the contrary, close intercourse
and mutual sympathy.
Each community, probably, had its own copies of Apostolic Memorabilia, not
identical, but similar. Some of the “recollections” were perhaps written
only in Aramaic, or only in Greek, so that the collection of one community
may have been more complete in some particulars than the collection of the
other. The necessity to consolidate these Memorabilia into a consecutive
narrative became obvious to both communities, and each composed “in order”
the scraps of record of our Lord’s sayings and doings they possessed and
read in their sacred mysteries. St. Matthew’s “Logia of the Lord” was used
in the compilation of the Hebrew Gospel; one of the translations of it,
which, according to Papias, were numerous, formed the basis also of the
Greek Gospel.
The material used by both communities, the motive actuating both
communities, were the same; the results were consequently similar. That
they were not absolutely identical was the consequence of their having
been compiled independently.
Thus the resemblance was sufficient to make St. Jerome suppose the Hebrew
Gospel to be the same as the Greek first Gospel; nevertheless, the
differences were as great as has been pointed out in the preceding pages.
II. The Clementine Gospel.
We have now considered all the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews that
have been preserved to us in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome
and Epiphanius.
But there is another storehouse of texts and references to a Gospel
regarded as canonical at a very early date by the Nazarene or Ebionite
Church. This storehouse is that curious collection of the sayings and
doings of St. Peter, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies.
That the Gospel used by the author or authors of the Clementines was that
of the Hebrews cannot be shown; but it is probable that it was so.
The Clementines were a production of the Judaizing party in the Primitive
Church, and it was this party which, we know, used the Gospel of the
Twelve, or of the Hebrews.
The doctrine in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies bears close
relations to that of the Jewish Essenes. The sacrificial system of the
Jewish Church is rejected. It was not part of the revelation to Moses, but
a tradition of the elders.(290)
Distinction in meats is an essential element of religion. Through unclean
meats devils enter into men, and produce disease. To eat of unclean meats
places men in the power of evil spirits, who lead them to idolatry and all
kinds of wickedness. So long as men abstain from these, so long are the
devils powerless against them.(291)
The observance of times is also insisted on—times at which the procreation
of children is lawful or unlawful; and disease and death result from
neglect of this distinction. “In the beginning of the world men lived
long, and had no diseases. But when through carelessness they neglected
the observance of the proper times ... they placed their children under
innumerable afflictions.”(292) It is this doctrine that is apparently
combated by St. Paul.(293) He relaxes the restraints which Nazarene
tradition imposed on marital intercourse.
The rejection of sacrifices obliged the Nazarene Church to discriminate
between what is true and false in the Scriptures; and, with the Essenes,
they professed liberty to judge the Scriptures and reject what opposed
their ideas. Thus they refused to acknowledge that “Adam was a
transgressor, Noah drunken, Abraham guilty of having three wives, Jacob of
cohabiting with two sisters, Moses was a murderer,” &c.(294)
The moral teaching of the Clementines is of the most exalted nature.
Chastity is commended in a glowing, eloquent address of St. Peter.(295)
Poverty is elevated into an essential element of virtue. Property is, in
itself, an evil. “To all of us possessions are sins. The deprivation of
these is the removal of sins.” “To be saved, no one should possess
anything; but since many have possessions, or, in other words, sins, God
sends, in love, afflictions ... that those with possessions, but yet
having some measure of love to God, may, by temporary inflictions, be
saved from eternal punishments.”(296)
“Those who have chosen the blessings of the future kingdom have no right
to regard the things here as their own, since they belong to a foreign
king (_i.e._ the prince of this world), with the exception only of water
and bread, and those things procured by the sweat of the brow, necessary
for the maintenance of life, and also one garment.”(297)
Thus St. Peter is represented as living on water, bread and olives, and
having but one cloak and tunic.(298) And Hegesippus, as quoted by
Eusebius, describes St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, as “drinking
neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstaining from animal food. A
razor never came upon his head, he never anointed himself with oil, and
never used a bath. He never wore woollen, but linen garments.”(299)
The Ebionites looked upon Christ as the Messiah rather than as God
incarnate. They gave him the title of Son of God, and claimed for him the
highest honour, but hesitated to term him God. In their earnest
maintenance of the Unity of the Godhead against Gnosticism, they shrank
from appearing to divide the Godhead. Thus, in the Clementines, St. Peter
says, “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator
of all, nor did he proclaim himself to be God, but he pronounced him
blessed who called him the Son of that God who ordered the universe.”(300)
The Ebionitism of the Clementines is controversial. It was placed face to
face with Gnosticism. Simon Magus, the representative of Gnosticism, as
St. Peter is the representative of orthodoxy, in the Recognitions and
Homilies, contends that the God of the Jews, the Demiurge, the Creator of
the world, is evil. He attempts to prove this by showing that the world is
full of pain and misery. The imperfections of the world are tokens of
imperfection in the Creator. He takes the Old Testament. He shows from
texts that the God of the Jews is represented as angry, jealous,
repentant; that those whom He favours are incestuous, adulterers,
murderers.
This doctrine St. Peter combats by showing that present evils are
educative, curative, disguised blessings; and by calling all those
passages in Scripture which attribute to God human passions, corruptions
of the sacred text in one of its many re‐editions. “God who created the
world has not in reality such a character as the Scriptures assign Him,”
says St. Peter; “for such a character is contrary to the nature of God,
and therefore manifestly is falsely attributed to Him.”(301)
From this brief sketch of the doctrines of the Ebionite Church from which
the Clementines emanated, it will be seen that its Gospel must have
resembled that of the Hebrews, or have been founded on it. The
“Recollections of the Twelve” probably existed in several forms, some more
complete than others, some purposely corrupted. The Gospel of the Hebrews
was in use in the orthodox Nazarene Church. The Gospel used by the author
of the Clementines was in use in the same community. It is therefore
natural to conclude their substantial identity.
But though substantially the same, and both closely related to the
Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, they were not completely identical; for
the Clementine Gospel diverged from the received text of St. Matthew more
widely than we are justified in concluding did that of the Gospel of the
Hebrews.
That it was in Greek and not in Hebrew is also probable. The converts to
Christianity mentioned in the Recognitions and Homilies are all made from
Heathenism, and speak Greek. It is at Caesarea, Tripolis, Laodicaea, that
the churches are established which are spoken of in these books,—churches
filled, not with Jews, but with Gentile converts, and therefore requiring
a Gospel in Greek.
The Clementine Gospel was therefore probably a sister compilation to that
of the Hebrews and of St. Matthew. The Memorabilia of the Apostles had
circulated in Hebrew in the communities of pure Jews, in Greek in those of
Gentile proselytes. These Memorabilia were collected into one book by the
Hebrew Church, by the Nazarene proselytes, and by the compiler of the
Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. This will explain their similarity and
their differences.
From what has been said of the Clementines, it will be seen that their
value is hardly to be over‐estimated as a source of information on the
religious position of the Petrine Church. Hilgenfeld says: “There is
scarcely any single writing which is of such importance for the history of
the earliest stage of Christianity, and which has yielded such brilliant
disclosures at the hands of the most careful critics, with regard to the
earliest history of the Christian Church, as the writings ascribed to the
Roman Clement, the Recognitions and the Homilies.”(302)
No conclusion has been reached in regard to the author of the Clementines.
It is uncertain whether the Homilies and the Recognitions are from the
same hand. Unfortunately, the Greek of the Recognitions is lost. We have
only a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), who took
liberties with his text, as he informs Bishop Gaudentius, to whom he
addressed his preface. He found that the copies of the book he had
differed from one another in some particulars. Portions which he could not
understand he omitted. There is reason to suspect that he altered such
quotations as he found in it from the Gospel used by the author, and
brought them, perhaps unconsciously, into closer conformity to the
received text. In examining the Gospel employed by the author of the
Clementines, we must therefore trust chiefly to those texts quoted in the
Homilies.
Various opinions exist as to the date of the Clementines. They have been
attributed to the first, second, third and fourth centuries. If we were to
base our arguments on the work as it stands, the date to be assigned to it
is the first half of the third century. A passage from the Recognitions is
quoted by Origen in his Commentary on Genesis, written in A.D. 231; and
mention is made in the work of the extension of the Roman franchise to all
nations under the dominion of Rome, an event which took place in the reign
of Caracalla (A.D. 211). The Recognitions also contain an extract from the
work _De Fato_, ascribed to Bardesanes, but which was really written by
one of his scholars. But it has been thought, not without great
probability, that this passage did not originally belong to the
Recognitions, but was thrust into the text about the middle of the third
century.(303)
I have already pointed out the fact that the Church in the Clementines is
never called “Christian;” that the word is never employed. It belonged to
the community established by Paul, and with it the Church of Peter had no
sympathy. To believe in the mission of Christ is, in the Clementine
Homilies, to become a Jew. The convert from Gentiledom by passing into the
Church passes under the Law, becomes, as we are told, a Jew. But the
convert is made subject not to the Law as corrupted by the traditions of
the elders, but to the original Law as re‐proclaimed by Christ.
The author of the Recognitions twice makes St. Peter say that the only
difference existing between him and the Jews is in the manner in which
they view Christ. To the apostles he is the Messiah come in humility, to
come again in glory. But the Jews deny that the Messiah was to have two
manifestations, and therefore reject Christ.(304)
Although we cannot rely on the exact words of the quotations from the
Gospel in the “Recognitions,” there are references to the history of our
Lord which give indications of narratives contained in the Gospel used by
the pseudo‐Clement, therefore by the Ebionite Christians whose views he
represents. We will go through all such passages in the order in which
they occur in the “Recognitions.”
The first allusion to a text parallel to one in the Canonical Gospels is
this: “Not only did they not believe, but they added blasphemy to
unbelief, saying he was a gluttonous man and slave of his belly, and that
he was influenced by a demon.”(305) The parallel passage is in St. Matthew
xi. 18, 19. It is curious to notice that in the Recognitions the order is
inverted. In St. Matthew, “they say, He hath a devil.... They say, Behold
a man gluttonous, and a wine‐bibber;” and that the term “wine‐bibber” is
changed into “slave of his belly.” Probably therefore in this instance the
author of the Clementines borrowed from a different text from St. Matthew.
In the very next chapter the Recognitions approaches St. Matthew closer
than the lost Gospel. For in the account of the crucifixion it is said
that “the veil of the Temple was rent,” whereas the Gospel of the Hebrews
stated that the lintel of the Temple had fallen. But here I suspect we
have the hand of Rufinus the translator. We can understand how, finding in
the text an inaccuracy of quotation, as he supposed, he altered it.
The next passage relates to the resurrection. “For some of them, watching
the place with all care, when they could not prevent his rising again,
_said that he was a magician_; others pretended that he was stolen
away.”(306) The Canonical Gospels say nothing about this difference of
opinion among the Jews, but St. Matthew states that it was commonly
reported among them that his disciples had stolen his body away. Not a
word about any suspicion that he had exercised witchcraft, a charge which
we know from Celsus was brought against Christ later.
The next passage is especially curious. It relates to the unction of
Christ. “He was the Son of God, and the beginning of all things; he became
man; _him God anointed with oil that was taken from the wood of the Tree
of Life_; and from this anointing he is called Christ.”(307) Then St.
Peter goes on to argue: “In the present life, Aaron, the first high‐
priest, was anointed with a composition of chrism, which was made after
the pattern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken before....
But if any one else was anointed with the same ointment, as deriving
virtue from it, he became either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then,
this temporal grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, _consider __
how potent was that ointment extracted by God from a branch of the Tree of
Life_, when that which was made by men could confer so excellent dignities
among men.”
Here we have trace of an apparent myth relating to the unction of Jesus at
his baptism. Was there any passage to this effect in the Hebrew Gospel
translated by St. Jerome? It is hard to believe it. Had there been, we
might have expected him to allude to it.
But that there was some unction of Christ mentioned in the early Gospels,
I think is probable. If there were not, how did Jesus, so early, obtain
the name of Christ, the Anointed One? That name was given to him before
his divinity was wholly believed in, and when he was regarded only as the
Messiah—nay, even before the apostles and disciples had begun to see in
him anything higher than a teacher sent from God, a Rabbi founding a new
school. It is more natural to suppose that the surname of the Anointed One
was given to him because of some event in his life with which they were
acquainted, than because they applied to him prophecies at a time when
certainly they had no idea that such prophecies were spoken of him.
If some anointing did really accompany the baptism, then one can
understand the importance attached to the baptism by the Elkesaites and
other Gnostic sects; and how they had some ground for their doctrine that
Jesus became the Christ only on his baptism. It is remarkable that,
according to St. John’s Gospel, it is directly after the baptism that
Andrew tells his brother Simon, “We have found the Messias, which is ...
the Anointed.”(308) Twice in the Acts is Jesus spoken of as the Anointed:
“Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed.”(309) The second occasion
is remarkable, for it again apparently associates the anointing with the
baptism. St. Peter “opened his mouth and said ... The word which God sent
unto the children of Israel ... that word ye know, which was published
throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John
preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with
power.”(310) I do not say that such an anointing did take place, but that
it is probable it did. When Gnosticism fixed on this anointing as the
communication to Christ of his divine mission and Messiahship, then
mention of it was cut out of the Gospels in possession of the Church, and
consequently the Canonical Gospels are without it to this day. But the
Christian ceremonial of baptism, which was founded on what took place at
the baptism of the Lord, maintained this unction as part of the sacrament,
in the Eastern Church never to be dissociated from the actual baptism, but
in the Western Church to be separated from it and elevated into a separate
sacrament—Confirmation.
But if in the original Hebrew Gospel there was mention of the anointing of
Jesus at or after his baptism, as I contend is probable, this mention did
not include an account of the oil being expressed from the branch of the
Tree of Life; that is a later addition, in full agreement with the
fantastic ideas which were gradually permeating and colouring Judaic
Christianity.
After the baptism, “_Jesus put out_, by the grace of baptism, _that fire
which the priest kindled for sins_; for, from the time when he appeared,
the chrism has ceased, by which the priesthood or the prophetic or the
kingly office was conferred.”(311) The Homilies are more explicit: “He put
out the fire on the altars.”(312) There was therefore in the Gospel used
by the author of the Clementines an account of our Lord, after his
anointing, entering into the Temple and extinguishing the altar fires.
In St. John’s Gospel, on which we may rely for the chronological sequence
of events with more confidence than we can on the Synoptical Gospels, the
casting of the money‐changers out of the Temple took place not long after
the baptism. In St. Matthew’s account it took place at the close of the
ministry, in the week of the Passion. That this exhibition of his
authority marked the opening of his three years’ ministry rather than the
close is most probable, and then it was, no doubt, that he extinguished
the fires on the altar, according to the Gospel used by the author of the
Clementines. Whether this incident occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews
it is not possible to say.
We are told that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had a command ...
not to enter into their cities (_i.e._ the cities of the Samaritans), nor
to bring the word of preaching to them.”(313) “And when our Master sent us
forth to preach, he commanded us, But into whatsoever city or house we
should enter, we should say, Peace be to this house. And if, said he, a
son of peace be there, your peace shall come upon him; but if there be
not, your peace shall return unto you. Also, that going from house to
city, we should shake off upon them the very dust which adhered to our
feet. But it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in
the day of judgment than for that city or house.”(314) The Gospel of the
Clementines, it is plain, contained an account of the sending forth of the
apostles almost identical with that in St. Matthew, x.
“And ... Jesus himself declared that John was greater than all men and all
the prophets.”(315) The corresponding passage is in St. Matthew.(316)
The Beatitudes, or some of them, were in it. “He said, _Blessed are the
poor_; and promised earthly rewards; and promised that those who maintain
righteousness shall be satisfied with meat and drink.”(317) “Our Master,
inviting his disciples to patience, impressed on them the blessing of
peace, which was to be preserved with the labour of patience.... He
charges (the believers) to have peace among themselves, and says to them,
_Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the very sons of
God_.”(318) “The Father, whom only those can see who are pure in
heart.”(319) Again strong similarity with slight difference. “He said, _I
am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword; and henceforth you shall
see father separated from son, son from father, husband from wife, and
wife from husband, mother from daughter, and daughter from mother, brother
from brother, father‐in‐law from daughter‐in‐law, friend from
friend_.”(320) This is fuller than the corresponding passage in St.
Matthew.(321)
“_It is enough for the disciple to be as his master._”(322) “He mourned
over those who lived in riches and luxury, and bestowed nothing upon the
poor; showing that they must render an account, because they did not pity
their neighbours, even when they were in poverty, whom they ought to love
as themselves.”(323) “In like manner he charged the Scribes and Pharisees
during the last period of his teaching ... with hiding the key of
knowledge which they had handed down to them from Moses, by which the gate
of the heavenly kingdom might be opened.”(324) The key of knowledge occurs
only in St. Luke’s Gospel. Had the author of the Clementines any knowledge
of that Gospel? I do not think so, or we should find other quotations from
St. Luke. St. Matthew says, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye shut up (κλείετε) the kingdom of heaven.”(325) St. Luke
says, “Ye have taken away the key (τὴν κλεῖδα) of knowledge.”(326) The
author of the Clementines says, “Ye have hidden the key,” not “taken
away.” I do not think, when the expression in St. Matthew suggests the
“key,” that we need suppose that the author of the Recognitions quoted
from St. Luke; rather, I presume, from his own Gospel, which in this
passage resembled the words in St. Luke rather than those in St. Matthew,
without, however, being exactly the same.(327)
“_Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand._”(328) “_Seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall
be added to you._”(329) The writer knew, in the same terms as St. Matthew,
our Lord’s sayings: “_Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast
your pearls before swine._”(330) “_Whosoever shall look upon a woman to
lust after her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart.... If thy
right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members perish, rather than thy whole
body be cast into hell‐fire._”(331)
The woes denounced on the Scribes and Pharisees,(332) and the saying that
the Queen of the South should “rise in judgment against this
generation,”(333) are given in the Recognitions as in St. Matthew, as also
that “the harvest is plenteous,”(334) “that no man can serve two
masters,”(335) and the saying on the power of faith to move
mountains.(336)
We have the parables of the goodly pearl,(337) of the marriage
supper,(338) and of the tares,(339) but also that of the sower,(340) which
does not occur in St. Matthew, but in St. Luke. This therefore was found
in the Gospel used by the author of the Recognitions. There are two other
apparent quotations from St. Luke: “_I have come to send fire on the
earth, and how I wish that it were kindled_”;(341) and the story of the
rich fool.(342) The first, however, is differently expressed from St.
Luke. There are just two more equally questionable quotations: “_Be ye
merciful, as also your heavenly Father is merciful, who makes his sun to
rise upon the good and the evil, and rains upon the just and the
unjust._”(343) We have the Greek in one of the Homilies.(344) In St. Luke
it runs, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.”(345)
In St. Matthew, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and
persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in
heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”(346) Is it not clear that
either the pseudo‐Clement condensed the direction, “Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them that despitefully use you, and persecute you,” into the brief maxim,
“Be ye good and merciful,”—or that, and this is more probable, there were
concurrent traditional accounts of our Lord’s saying, and that St.
Matthew, St. Luke, and the writer of the Gospel used by the pseudo‐
Clement, made use of independent texts in their compilations?
The next passage is a saying of our Lord on the cross, which is given in
the Recognitions: “_Father, forgive them their sin, for they know not what
they do._”(347) In the Homilies we have the original Greek: “Father,
forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.”(348) Rufinus has
unconsciously altered the text in translating it by making “sins” singular
instead of plural.
It is not necessary to note the insignificant difference of the word ἅ in
the Homily and the word τί in the Gospel. But who cannot see that the
addition of the words, “their sins,” completely changes the thought of the
Saviour? Jesus prays God to forgive the Jews the crime they commit in
crucifying him, and not to pardon all the sins of their lives that they
have committed. The addition of these two words not merely modify the
thought; they represent another of an inferior order. They would not have
been introduced into the text if the author of the Gospel used by the
pseudo‐Clement had had the Gospel of St. Luke before him. These words were
certainly not derived from St. Luke; they are due to a separate
recollection or tradition of the sayings of the Saviour on the cross.
Those sayings we may well believe were cherished in the memory of the
early disciples. Tradition always modifies, weakens, renders commonplace
the noblest thoughts and most striking sayings, and colours the most
original with a tint of triviality.(349)
We find in both the Recollections and Homilies a passage which has been
thought to be a quotation from St. John: “_Verily I say unto you, That
unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven._”(350) Here, again, the hand of Rufinus is to be traced. The
same quotation is made in the Homilies, and it stands there thus: “_Verily
I say unto you, Unless ye be born again of the water of life_ (or _the
living water_) _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven._”(351)
That the narrative of the interview with Nicodemus was in the Gospel of
the Hebrews, we learned from Justin Martyr quoting it. We will place the
parallel passages opposite each other:
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
JUSTIN MARTYR, 1 Apol. 61. c. iii. 3, 5.
“_Christ said, Except ye be “3. Jesus answered and said
born again, ye cannot enter unto him, Verily, verily, I
into the kingdom of heaven._” say unto thee, Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God.”
PSEUDO‐CLEMENT, Hom. xi. 26.
“_And Christ said (with an “5. Jesus answered, Verily,
oath),_(_352_)_ Verily I say verily, I say unto thee,
unto you, Unless ye are born Except a man be born of water
again of the water of life (in and spirit, he cannot enter
the name of the Father, and of into the kingdom of God.”
the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost), ye cannot enter into
the kingdom of Heaven._”
The fragment in the Homilies clearly belongs to the same narrative as the
fragment in Justin’s Apology. Both are addressed in the second person
plural, “Except ye be born again;” in the Gospel of St. John the first is,
“Except a man be born again;” the second, “Except a man be born of water
and spirit;” both in the third person singular. The form of the first
answer in Justin differs from that in St. John: “he cannot enter the
kingdom,” “he cannot see the kingdom.”
That these are independent accounts I can hardly doubt. The words, “in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” are an obvious
interpolation, perhaps a late one, in the text of the Homilies; for
Rufinus would hardly have omitted to translate this, though he did allow
himself to make short verbal alterations.
There is another apparent quotation from St. John in the fifth book of the
Recognitions: “_Every one is made the servant of him to whom he yields
subjection._”(353) But here again the quotation is very questionable. St.
John’s version of our Lord’s saying is, “Whosoever committeth sin is the
servant of sin.” St. Paul is much nearer: “Know ye not, that to whom ye
yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?”(354)
The quotation in the Recognitions is not from St. Paul, for the author
expressly declares it is a saying of our Lord. St. Paul could not have had
St. John’s Gospel under his eye when he wrote, for that Gospel was not
composed till long after he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He gives no
hint that he is quoting a saying of our Lord traditionally known to the
Roman Christians. He apparently makes appeal to their experience when he
says, “Know ye not.” Yet this fragment of an ancient lost Gospel in the
Clementine Recognitions gives another colour to his words; they may be
paraphrased, “Know ye not that saying of Christ, To whom ye yield
yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are?” It appears, therefore,
that this is an earlier recorded reminiscence of our Lord’s saying than
that of St. John.
There is one, and only one, apparent quotation from St. Paul in the
Recognitions: “In God’s estimation, he is not a Jew who is a Jew among
men, nor is he a Gentile that is called a Gentile, but he who, believing
in God, fulfils his law and does his will, though he be not
circumcised.”(355) St. Paul’s words are: “He is not a Jew which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but
he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,
in the spirit, and not in the letter.”
There is no doubt a resemblance between these passages. But it is probable
that the resemblance is due solely to community of thought in the minds of
both writers. It would be extraordinary if this were a quotation, for the
author of the Recognitions nowhere quotes from any Epistle, not even from
those of St. Peter; and that he, an Ebionite, should quote St. Paul, whose
Epistles the Ebionites rejected, is scarcely credible.
The Recognitions mention the temptation: “The prince of wickedness ...
presumed that he should be worshipped by him by whom he knew that he was
to be destroyed. Therefore our Lord, confirming the worship of one God,
answered him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
only shalt thou serve. And he, terrified by this answer, and fearing lest
the true religion of the one and true God should be restored, hastened
straightway to send forth into this world false prophets and false
apostles and false teachers, who should speak, indeed, in the name of
Christ, but should accomplish the will of the demon.”(356) Here we have
Christ indicated as the one who was to restore that true worship of God
which Moses had instituted, but which the Ebionites, with their Essene
ancestors, asserted had been defaced and corrupted by false traditions.
And in opposition to this, the devil sends out false apostles, false
teachers, to undo this work, calling themselves, however, apostles of
Christ. There can be little doubt who is meant. The reference is to St.
Paul, Silas, and those who accepted his views, in opposition to those of
St. James and St. Peter.
In Homily xii. is a citation which seems to indicate the use of the third
Canonical Gospel. At first sight it appears to be a combination of a
passage of St. Matthew and a parallel passage of St. Luke. It is preceded
in the Homily by a phrase not found in the Canonical Gospels, but which is
given, together with what follows, as a declaration of the Saviour. The
three passages are placed side by side for comparison:
HOMILY xii. 19. MATT. xviii. 7. LUKE xvii. 1.
“_It must be that “It must needs be “It is impossible
good things come, that offences come; but that offences
and happy is he by but woe to that man will come; but woe
whom they come. In by whom the offence to him through whom
like manner it must cometh.” they come.”
be that evil things
come, but woe to him
by whom they
come._”(357)
The passage in the Homily is more complete than those in St. Matthew and
St. Luke. The two Canonical Evangelists made use of imperfect fragments
destitute of one member of the sentence. One cannot but wish to believe
that our Lord pronounced a benediction on those who did good in their
generation.
“There is amongst us,” says St. Peter in his second Homily, “one Justa, a
Syro‐Phoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose daughter was oppressed with a
grievous disease. And she came to our Lord, crying out and entreating that
he would heal her daughter. But he, being asked by us also, said, ‘_It is
not lawful to heal the Gentiles, who are like unto dogs on account of
their using various meats and practices, while the table in the kingdom
has been given to the sons of Israel._’ But she, hearing this, and begging
to partake as a dog of the crumbs that fall from this table, having
changed what she was (_i.e._ having given up the use of forbidden food),
by living like the sons of the kingdom, obtained healing for her daughter
as she asked. For she being a Gentile, and remaining in the same course of
life, he would not have healed her had she persisted to live as do the
Gentiles, on account of its not being lawful to heal a Gentile.”(358)
That the Ebionites perverted the words of our Lord to make them support
their tenets on distinction of meats is obvious.
In the Clementine Homilies we have thrice repeated a saying of our Lord
which we know of from St. Jerome and St. Clement of Alexandria, who speak
of it as undoubtedly a genuine saying of Christ, “_Be ye good money‐
changers_.”(359)
This text is used by the author of the Clementines to prove the necessity
of distinguishing between the gold and the dross in Holy Scripture. And to
this he adds the quotation, “_Ye do therefore err, not knowing the true
things of the Scriptures; and for this reason ye are ignorant also of the
power of God_.”(360)
The following are some more fragments from the Clementine Homilies:
“_He said, I am he of whom Moses prophesied, saying, A prophet shall the
Lord your God raise unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him hear ye
in all things; and whosoever will not hear the prophet shall die._”(361)
This saying of Moses is quoted by both St. Peter and St. Stephen in their
addresses, as recorded in the Acts. It is probable, therefore, that our
Lord had claimed this prophecy to have been spoken of him. But St. Luke
had never heard that he had done so, as he makes no allusion to it in his
Gospel or in the speeches he puts in the mouths of Peter and Stephen in
the Acts.
“_It is thine, O man, said he, to prove my words, as silver and money are
proved by the exchangers._”(362)
“_Give none occasion to the evil one._”(363)
Twice repeated we have the text, “_Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and
him only shalt thou serve_.”(364)
In St. Matthew’s Gospel (iv. 10) it runs, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy
God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
In the Clementines: “He alleged that it was right to present to him who
strikes you on one cheek the other also, and to give to him who takes away
your cloak your _hood_ also, and to go two miles with him who compels you
to go one.”(365) This differs from the account in St. Matthew, by using
for the word χιτῶνα, “tunic,” of the Canonical Gospel, the word μαφόριον,
“hood.”
There are other passages identical with, or almost identical with, the
received text in St. Matthew’s Gospel, which it is not necessary to enter
upon separately.
They are: Matt. v. 3, 8, 17, 18, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, vi. 8, 13, vii.
7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, viii. 11, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, ix.
13, x. 28, 34, xi. 25, 27, 28, xii. 7, 26, 34, 42, xiii. 17, 39, xv. 13,
xvi. 13, 18, xix. 8, 17, xxii. 2, 32, xxiii. 25, xxiv. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, xxv. 41. In all, some fifty‐five verses, almost and often quite the
same as in St. Matthew’s Gospel.
There is just one text supposed to be taken from St. Mark’s Gospel, four
from St. Luke’s, and two from St. John’s. But I do not think we are
justified in concluding that these quotations are taken from the three
last‐named Canonical Gospels. That they are not taken from St. Luke we may
be almost certain, for that Gospel was not received by the Judaizing
Christians. When we examine the passages, the probability of their being
quotations from the Canonical Gospels disappears.
We find, “He, the true Prophet, said, _I am the gate of life; he that
entereth through me entereth into life_.”(366) The words in St. John’s
Gospel are, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved.”(367) The idea is the same, but the mode of expression is
different.
“Again he said, _My sheep hear my voice_.”(368)
The quotation from St. Mark is too brief for us to be able to form any
well‐founded opinion upon it. It is this: “But to those who were misled to
imagine many gods, as the Scriptures say, he said, _Hear, O Israel; the
Lord your God is one Lord_.”(369)
No prejudice would exist among the Ebionites against the Gospel of St.
Mark, but the Christology of the Johannine Gospel, its doctrine of the
Logos, would not accord with their low views of Christ. The Ebionites who
denied the Godhead of Jesus could hardly acknowledge as canonical a Gospel
which contained the words, “And the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.”
HOM. xix. 22. JOHN ix. 1‐3.
“Our Master replied to those “And as Jesus passed by, he
who asked him concerning him saw a man which was blind from
that was born blind, and to his birth. And his disciples
whom he restored sight, if it asked him, saying, Master, who
was he or his parents who had did sin, this man, or his
sinned, in that he was born parents, that he was born
blind. _It is not that he hath blind? Jesus answered, Neither
sinned in anywise, nor his hath this man sinned, nor his
parents; but in order that the parents: but that the works of
power of God may be God should be made manifest in
manifested, who healeth sins him.”
of ignorance._”(370)
The resemblance is striking. Nevertheless I do not think we have a right
to conclude that this passage in the Clementine Homilies is necessarily a
citation from St. John.
The text is quoted in connection with the peculiar Ebionite doctrine of
seasons and days already alluded to. When our Lord says that he heals the
sins of ignorance, he is made in the Clementine Gospel to assert that the
blindness of the man was the result of disregard by his parents of the new
moons and sabbaths, not wilfully, but through ignorance. “The afflictions
you mentioned,” says St. Peter in connection with this quotation, “are the
result of ignorance, but assuredly not of wickedness. Give me the man who
sins not, and I will show you the man who suffers not.”
But though this is the interpretation put on the words of our Lord by the
Clementine Ebionite, it by no means flows naturally from them; it is
rather wrung out of them.
The words, I think, mean that the blindness of the man is symbolical; its
mystical meaning is ignorance. Our Lord by opening the eyes of the blind
exhibits himself as the spiritual enlightener of mankind. He is come to
unclose men’s eyes to the true light that he sheds abroad in the world.
In St. John’s Gospel, after having declared that blindness was not the
punishment of sin in the man or his parents, our Lord continues, “I must
work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh,
when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the
world.”
Put this last declaration in connection with the saying, “I am come to
heal the sins of ignorance,” and the connection of ideas is at once
apparent. The blindness of the man is symbolical of the ignorance of the
world. “I am the light of the world, and I have come to dispel the
darkness of the ignorance of the world.” And so saying, “he spat on the
ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the
blind man with the clay.”
A few important words in Christ’s teaching had escaped the memory of St.
John. But they had been noted down by some other apostle, and the
recollections of the latter were embodied in the Gospel in use among the
Ebionites.
The texts resembling passages in St. Luke are four, but all of them are
found in St. Matthew’s Gospel as well.
“_Blessed is that man whom his Lord shall appoint to the ministry of his
fellow‐servants._”(371)
“_The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation, and shall
condemn it; because she came from the extremities of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and ye do
not believe him._
“_The men of Nineveh shall rise up with this generation and shall condemn
it, for they heard and repented at the preaching of Jonas: and behold, a
greater is here, and no one believes._”(372)
The compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel had this striking passage in an
imperfect condition. St. Luke had it with both its members. So had also
the compiler of the Clementine Gospel. The wording is not exactly
identical with that in St. Luke, but the difference is not material, “Ye
do not believe him,” “And no one believes,” exist in the Ebionite, not in
the Canonical text.
“_For without the will of God, not even a sparrow can fall into a gin.
Thus even the hairs of the righteous are numbered by God._”(373)
III. The Gospel Of St. Peter.
Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, in 190, on entering his see, learned that
there was a Gospel attributed to St. Peter read in the sacred services of
the church of Rhosus, in Cilicia. Taking it for granted, as he says, that
all in his diocese held the same faith, without perusing this Gospel, he
sanctioned its use, saying, “If this be the only thing that creates
difference among you, let it be read.”
But he was speedily made aware that this Gospel was not orthodox in its
tendency. It favoured the opinions of the Docetae. It was whispered that
if it had an apostolic parentage, it had heretical sponsors. Serapion
thereupon borrowed the Gospel, read it, and found it was even as had been
reported. “Peter,” said he, “we receive with the other apostles as Christ
himself,” but this Gospel was, if not apocryphal as to its facts, at all
events heretical as to its teaching.
Thereupon Serapion, regretting his precipitation in sanctioning the use of
the Gospel, wrote a book upon it, “in refutation of its false
assertions.”(374)
This book unfortunately has been lost, so that we are not able to learn
much more about the Gospel. What was its origin? Was it a forgery from
beginning to end? This is by no means probable.
The Gospel of St. Mark, as we have seen, was due to St. Peter, and by some
went by the name of the Gospel of St. Peter. It was a Gospel greatly
affected by the Docetae and Elkesaites. “Those who distinguish Jesus from
Christ, and who say that Christ was impassible, but that Jesus endured the
sufferings of his passion, prefer the Gospel of Mark,” says Irenaeus.(375)
It was likely that they should prefer it, for it began at the baptism, and
this event it stated, or was thought to state, was the beginning of the
Gospel; to Docetic minds an admission, an assertion rather, that all that
preceded was of no importance; Jesus was but a man as are other men, till
the plenitude of the Spirit descended on him. The early history might be
matter of curiosity, but not of edification.
That matter is evil is a doctrine which in the East has proved the fertile
mother of heresies. Those infected with this idea—and it is an idea, like
Predestinarianism, which, when once accepted and assimilated, pervades the
whole tissue of belief and determines its form and complexion—could not
acknowledge frankly and with conviction the dogma of the Incarnation. That
God should have part with matter, was as opposed to their notions as a
concord of light with darkness. Carried by the current setting strongly
that way, they found themselves landed in Christianity. They set to work
at once to mould Christianity in accordance with their theory of the
inherent evil in matter. Christ, an emanation from the Pleroma, the
highest, purest wave that swept from the inexhaustible fountain of Deity,
might overshadow, but could not coalesce with, the human Jesus. The
nativity and the death of our Lord were repugnant to their consciences.
They evaded these facts by considering that he was born and died as man,
but that the bright overshadowing cloud of the Divinity, of the Christ,
reposed on him for a brief period only; it descended at the baptism, it
withdrew before the passion.
Such were the party—they were scarcely yet a sect—who used the Gospel of
St. Peter. Was this Gospel a corrupted edition of St. Mark? Probably not.
We have not much ground on which to base an opinion, but there is just
sufficient to make it likely that such was not the case.
To the Docetae, the nativity of our Lord was purely indifferent; it was
not in their Gospel; that it was miraculous they would not allow. To admit
that Christ was the Son of God when born of Mary, was to abandon their
peculiar tenets. It was immaterial to them whether Jesus had brothers and
sisters, or whether James and Jude were only his cousins. The Canonical
Gospels speak of the brothers and sisters of Christ, and we are not told
that they were not the children of Mary.(376) When the Memorabilia were
committed to writing, there was no necessity for doing so. The
relationship was known to every one. Catholics, maintaining the perpetual
virginity of the mother of Jesus, asserted that they were children of
Joseph by a former wife, or cousins. The Gospel of St. Peter declared them
to be the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. Origen says, “There
are persons who assure us that the brothers of Jesus were the sons whom
Joseph had by his first wife, before he married Mary. They base their
opinion on either the Gospel entitled the Gospel of Peter, or on the Book
of James (the Protevangelium).”(377)
Such a statement would not have been intruded into the Gospel by the
Docetae, as it favoured no doctrine of theirs. It must therefore have
existed in the Gospel before it came into their hands.
We know how St. Mark’s Gospel was formed. After the death of his master,
the evangelist compiled all the fragmentary “Recollections” of St. Peter
concerning our Lord. But these recollections had before this circulated
throughout the Church. We have evidence of this in the incorporation of
some of them into the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Others, besides
St. Mark, may have strung these fragments together. One such tissue would
be the Gospel of St. Peter. It did not, perhaps, contain as many articles
as that of St. Mark, but it was less select. Like those of St. Matthew and
St. Luke, on the thread were probably strung memorabilia of other apostles
and disciples, but also, perhaps, some of questionable authority.
This collection was in use at Rhosus. It may have been in use there since
apostolic days; perhaps it was compiled by some president of the church
there. But it had not been suffered to remain without interpolations which
gave it a Docetic character.
Its statement of the relationship borne by the “brothers and sisters” to
our Lord is most valuable, as it is wholly unprejudiced and of great
antiquity. The Gospel, held in reverence as sacred in the second century
at Rhosus, was probably brought thither when that church was founded, not
perhaps in a consecutive history, but in paragraphs. The church was a
daughter of the church of Antioch, and therefore probably founded by a
disciple of St. Peter.
IV. The Gospel Of The Egyptians.
The Gospel known by this name is mentioned by several of the early
Fathers.(378) It existed in the second half of the second century; and as
it was then in use and regarded as canonical by certain Christian sects,
it must have been older. We shall not be far out if we place its
composition at the beginning of the second century.
To form an idea of its tendency, we must have recourse to two different
sources, the second Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the author of which seems
to have made use of no other Gospel than that of the Egyptians, and
Clement of Alexandria, who quotes three passages from it, and refutes the
theories certain heretics of his time derived from them.
The second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome is a Judaizing work, as
Schneckenburg has proved incontestably.(379) It is sufficient to remark
that the Chiliast belief which transpires in more than one place, the
analogy of ideas and of expressions which it bears to the Clementine
Homilies, and finally the selection of Clement of Rome, a personage as
dear to the Ebionites as the apostles James and Peter, to place the
composition under his venerated name, are as many indications of the
Judaeo‐Christian character and origin of this apocryphal work.
The Gospel cited by the author of this Epistle, except in two or three
phrases which are not found in any of our Canonical Gospels, recalls that
of St. Matthew. Nevertheless, it is certain that the quotations are from
the Gospel of the Egyptians, for one of the passages cited in this Epistle
is also quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who tells us whence it comes—from
the Egyptian Gospel. We may conclude from this that the Gospel of the
Egyptians presented great analogy to our first Canonical Gospel, without
being identical with it, and consequently that it was related closely to
the Gospel of the Hebrews.
If the second Epistle of Clement of Rome determines for us the family to
which this Gospel belonged, the passages we shall extract from the
Stromata of Clement of Alexandria will determine its order. There are
three of these passages, and very curious ones they are.
The first is cited by both Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, by
one more fully than by the other.
“_The Lord, having been asked by Salome when his kingdom would come,
replied, When you shall have trampled under foot the garment of shame,
when two shall be one, when that which is without shall be like that which
is within, and when the male with the female shall be neither male nor
female._”(380)
The explanation of this singular passage by Clement of Rome is, “Two shall
be one when we are truthful with each other, and when in two bodies there
will be but one soul, without dissimulation and without disguise. That
which is without is the body; that which is within is the soul. Just as
your body appears externally, so should your soul manifest itself by good
works.” The explanation of the last member of the phrase is wanting, as
the Epistle has not come down to us entire.
But this is certainly not the real meaning of the passage. Its true
signification is to be found in the bloodless, passionless exaltation at
which the ascetic aimed who held all matter to be evil, the body to be a
clog to the soul, marriage to be abominable, meats to be abstained from.
It points to that condition as one of perfection in which the soul shall
forget her union with the body, and, sexless and ethereal, shall be
supreme.
It was in this sense that the heretics took it. Julius Cassianus, “chief
of the sect of the Docetae,”(381) invoked this text against the union of
the sexes. This interpretation manifestly embarrassed St. Clement of
Alexandria, and he endeavours to escape from the difficulty by weakening
the authority of the text.
He does this by pointing out that the saying of our Lord is found only in
the Gospel of the Egyptians, and not in those four generally received. But
as Julius Cassianus appealed at the same time to a saying of St. Paul, the
authenticity of which was not to be contested, the Alexandrine doctor did
not consider that he could avoid discussing the question; and he gives, on
his side, an interpretation of the saying of Jesus in the Apocryphal
Gospel, and of that of St. Paul, associated with it by Julius Cassianus.
The words of St. Paul quoted by the heretic were those in Galatians (iii.
28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, male or
female.” Cassianus paid no regard to the general sense of the passage,
which is, that the privileges of the gospel are common to all of every
degree and nation and sex, but fastening on the words “neither male nor
female,” contended that this was a prohibition of marriage. St. Clement
pays every whit as little regard to the plain sense of the passage, and
gives the whole an absurd mystic signification, as far removed from the
thought of the apostle as the explanation of Julius Cassianus. “By male,”
says he, “understand anger, folly. By female understand lust; and when
these are carried out, the result is penitence and shame.”
It has been thought that the words “when two shall be one” recall the
philosophic doctrine of the Pythagoreans on the subject of numbers and the
dualism which was upheld by many of the Gnostics. St. Mark, according to
Irenaeus, taught that everything had sprung out of the monad and
dyad.(382) But it is not so. The teaching was not philosophic, but
practical. It may be thus paraphrased: “The kingdom of heaven shall have
come when the soul shall have so broken with the passions and feelings of
the body, that it will no longer be sensible of shame. The body will be
lost in the soul, so that the two shall become one; the body which is
without shall be like the soul within, and the male with the female shall
be insensible to passion.”
It was a doctrine which infected whole bodies of men later: the
independence of the soul from the body led to wild asceticism and frantic
sensuality running hand in hand. Holding this doctrine, the Fraticelli in
the thirteenth century flung themselves into the most fiery temptations,
placed themselves in the most perilous positions; if they fell, it
mattered not, the soul was not stained by the deeds of the body; if they
remained unmoved, the body was indeed mastered, “the two had become one.”
The garment of shame is to be trampled under foot. Julius Cassianus
explains this singular expression. It is the apron of skins wherewith our
first parents were clothed, when they blushed at their nakedness. They
blushed because they were in sin; when men and women shall cease to blush
at their nudity, then they have attained to the spiritual condition of
unfallen man.
We see in embryo the Adamites of the Middle Ages, the Anabaptists of the
Reformation.
But the garment of skin has a deeper signification. Philo taught(383) that
it symbolized the human body that clothed the nakedness of the Spirit.
Gnosticism caught at the idea. Unfallen man was pure spirit. Man had
fallen, and his fall consisted in being clothed in flesh. This garment of
skin must be trodden under foot, that the soul may arise above it, be
emancipated from its bonds.
The second passage is quite in harmony with the first: “_Salome having
asked how long men should die, the Lord answered and said, As long as you
women continue to bear children._(_384_)_ Then she said, I have done well,
I have never borne a child. The Lord answered, Eat of every herb, but not
of that containing in itself bitterness._”(385)
Cassian appealed to this text also in proof that marriage was forbidden.
But Clement of Alexandria refused to understand it in this sense. He is
perhaps right when he argues that the first answer of our Lord means, that
as long as there are men born, so long men will die. But the meaning of
the next answer entirely escapes him. When our Lord says, “Eat of every
herb save that in which is bitterness,” he means, says Clement, that
marriage and continence are left to our choice, and that there is no
command one way or the other; man may eat of every tree, the tree of
celibacy, or the tree of marriage, only he must abstain from the tree of
evil.
But this is not what was meant. Under a figurative expression, the writer
of this passage conveyed a warning against marriage. Death is the fruit of
birth, birth is the fruit of marriage. Abstain from eating of the tree of
marriage, and death will be destroyed.
That this is the meaning of this remarkable saying is proved conclusively
by another extract from the Gospel of the Egyptians, also made by Clement
of Alexandria; it is put in the mouth of our Lord. “_I am come to destroy
the works of the woman; of the woman, that is, of concupiscence, whose
works are generation and death._”(386) This quotation bears on the face of
it marks of having been touched and explained by a later hand. “Of the
woman,—that is, concupiscence, whose works are generation and death,” are
a gloss added by an Encratite, which was adopted into the text received
among the Egyptian Docetae. The words, “I am come to destroy the works of
the woman,” _i.e._ Eve, may have been spoken by our Lord. By Eve came sin
and death into the world, and these works Christ did indeed come to
destroy.
But the gloss, as is obvious, alters the meaning of the saying. The woman
is no longer Eve, but womankind in general; and by womankind, that is, by
concupiscence, generation and death exist.
Clement of Alexandria was incapable of seizing the plain meaning of these
words. He says, “The Lord has not deceived us, for he has indeed destroyed
the works of concupiscence, viz. love of money, of strife, glory, of women
... now the birth of these vices is the death of the soul, for we die
indeed by our sins.”
We must look to Philo for the key. The woman, Eve, means, as he says, the
sense; Adam, the intellectual spirit. The union of soul and body is the
degradation of the soul, the fertile parent of corruption and death.(387)
Out of Philo’s doctrine grew a Manichaeanism in the Christian community
before Manes was born.
The work of Jesus was taught to be the emancipation of the soul, the
rational spirit, Νοῦς, from the restraints of the body, its restoration to
its primitive condition. Death would cease when the marriage was dissolved
that held the spirit fettered in the prison‐house of flesh.
Philonian philosophy remained vigorous at Alexandria in the circle of
enlightened Jews. It struck deep root, and blossomed in the Christian
Church.
A Gospel, _which_ we do not know—it may have been that of Mark—was brought
into Egypt. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, an Epistle clearly
addressed to the Alexandrine Jews, prepared their minds to fuse Philonism
with Christianity. We see its influence in the Gospel of St. John. That
evangelist adopted Philo’s doctrine of the Logos; the author of the Gospel
of the Egyptians, that of the bondage of the spirit in matter.
The conceptions contained in the three passages which Clement of
Alexandria has preserved are closely united. They all are referable to a
certain theosophy, the exposition of which is to be found in the writings
of Philo, and which may be in vain sought elsewhere at that period. Not
only are there to be found here the theosophic system of the celebrated
Alexandrine Jew, but also, what is a still clearer index of the source
whence the Egyptian Gospel drew its mystic asceticism, we find the quaint
expressions and forms of speech which belonged to Philo, and to none but
him. No one but Philo had thought to find in the first chapters of Genesis
the history of the fall of the soul into the world of sense, and to make
of Eve, of the woman, the symbol of the human body, and starting from this
to explain how the soul could return to its primitive condition, purely
spiritual, by shaking off the sensible to which in its present state it is
attached. When we shall have trampled under foot our tunics of skins
wherewith we have been covered since the fall, this garment, given to us
because we were ashamed of our nakedness,—when the body shall have become
like the soul,—when the union of the soul with the body, _i.e._ of the
male and the female, shall exist no more,—when the woman, that is the
body, shall be no more productive, shall no more produce generation and
death,—when its works are destroyed, then we shall not die any more; we
shall be as we were before our fall, pure spirits; and this will be the
kingdom of the Lord. And to prepare for this transformation, what is to be
done? Eat of every herb, nourish ourselves on the fruit of every tree of
paradise,—that is, cultivate the soul, and not occupy it with anything but
that which will make it live; but abstain from the herb of bitterness,—the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is,—reject all that can weave
closer the links binding the soul to the body, retain it in its prison,
its grave.(388)
It is easy to see how Philonian ideas continued to exert their influence
in Egypt, when absorbed into Christianity. It was these ideas which
peopled the deserts of Nitria and Scete with myriads of monks wrestling
with their bodies, those prison‐houses of their souls, struggling to die
to the world of matter, that their ethereal souls might shake themselves
free. Their spirits were like moths in a web, bound by silken threads; the
spirit would be choked by these fetters, unless it could snap them and
sail away.