nether world, divided into seven circles. The heavenly world of the
Chaldees was also divided into seven circles, each ruled by a planet. The
poem therefore exhibits a descent instead of an ascent. But there is
little reason to doubt that the passage in each case would have been
analogous. We have no ancient Assyrian account of an ascent; we must
therefore content ourselves with what we have.
Istar descends into the lower region, and as she traverses each circle is
despoiled of one of her coverings worn in the region above, till she
stands naked before Belith, the Queen of the Land of Death.
i. “At the first gate, as I made her enter, I despoiled her; I took the
crown from off her head.
“ ‘Hold, gatekeeper! Thou hast taken the crown from off my head.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
ii. “At the second gate I made her enter; I despoiled her, and took from
off her the earrings from her ears.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of the earrings from
my ears.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
iii. “At the third gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of the precious
jewels on her neck.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of the jewels of my
neck.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
iv. “At the fourth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of the brooch of
jewels upon her breast.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of the brooch of
jewels upon my breast.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
V. “At the fifth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of the belt of
jewels about her waist.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of the belt of jewels
about my waist.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
vi. “At the sixth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of her armlets
and bracelets.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of my armlets and
bracelets.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this stage of the
circles.’
vii. “At the seventh gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of her skirt.
“ ‘Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of my skirt.’
“ ‘Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this degree of
circles.’ ”(500)
We have something very similar in the judgment of souls in the Egyptian
Ritual of the Dead. From Chaldaea or from Egypt the Gnostics who used the
Gospel of St. Philip drew their doctrine of the soul traversing several
circles, and arrested by an angel at the gate of each.
The soul, a divine element, is in the earth combined with the body, a work
of the Archon. But her aspirations are for that which is above; she
strives to “extirpate his roots.” All her “scattered members,” her
thoughts, wishes, impulses, are gathered into one up‐tapering flame. Then
only does she “know (God) for what He is,” for she has learned the nature
of God by introspection.
Such, if I mistake not, is the meaning of the passage quoted by St.
Epiphanius. The sect which used such a Gospel must have been mystical and
ascetic, given to contemplation, and avoiding the indulgence of their
animal appetites. It was that, probably, of Prodicus, strung on the same
Pauline thread as the heresies of Marcion, Nicolas, Valentine, Marcus, the
Ophites, Carpocratians and Cainites.
Prodicus, on the strength of St. Paul’s saying that all Christians are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, maintained the sovereignty of every
man placed under the Gospel. But a king is above law, is not bound by law.
Therefore the Christian is under no bondage of Law, moral or ceremonial.
He is lord of the Sabbath, above all ordinances. Prodicus made the whole
worship of God to consist in the inner contemplation of the essence of
God.
External worship was not required of the Christian; that had been imposed
by the Demiurge on the Jews and all under his bondage, till the time of
the fulness of the Gospel had come.(501) The Prodicians did not constitute
an important, widely‐extended sect, and were confounded by many of the
early Fathers with other Pauline‐Gnostic sects.
VI. The Gospel Of Judas.
The Pauline Protestantism of the first two centuries of the Church had not
exhausted itself in Valentinianism. The fanatics who held free
justification and emancipation from the Law were ready to run to greater
lengths than Marcion, Valentine, or even Marcus, was prepared to go.
Men of ability and enthusiasm rose and preached, and galvanized the latent
Paulinian Gnosticism into temporary life and popularity, and then
disappeared; the great wave of natural common‐sense against which they
battled returned and overwhelmed their disciples, till another heresiarch
arose, made another effort to establish permanently a religion without
morality, again to fail before the loudly‐expressed disgust of mankind,
and the stolid conviction inherent in human nature that pure morals and
pure religion are and must be indissolubly united.
Carpocrates was one of these revivalists. Everything except faith, all
good works, all exterior observances, all respect for human laws, were
indifferent, worse than indifferent, to the Christian: these exhibited,
where found, an entanglement of the soul in the web woven for it by the
God of this world, of the Jews, of the Law. The body was of the earth, the
soul of heaven. Here, again, Carpocrates followed and distorted the
teaching of St. Paul; the body was under the Law, the soul was free.
Whatsoever was done in the body did not affect the soul. “It is no more I
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”(502)
“All depends upon faith and love,” said Carpocrates; “externals
are altogether matters of indifference. He who ascribes moral
worth to these makes himself their slave, subjects himself to
those spirits of the world from whom all religious and political
ordinances have proceeded; he cannot, after death, pass out of the
sphere of the metempsychosis. But he who can abandon himself to
every lust without being affected by any, who can thus bid
defiance to the laws of those earthly spirits, will after death
rise to the unity of that Original One, with whom he has, by
uniting himself, freed himself, even in this present life, from
all fetters.”(503)
Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, a youth of remarkable ability, who died
young, exhausted by the excesses to which his solifidianism exposed him,
wrote a work on Justification by Faith, in which he said:
“All nature manifests a striving after unity and fellowship; the
laws of man contradicting these laws of nature, and yet unable to
subdue the appetites implanted in human nature by the Creator
himself—these first introduced sin.”(504)
With Epiphanes, St. Epiphanius couples Isidore, and quotes from his
writings directions how the Faithful are to obtain disengagement from
passion, so as to attain union with God. Dean Milman, in his “History of
Christianity,” charitably hopes that the licentiousness attributed to
these sects was deduced by the Fathers from their writings, and was not
actually practised by them. But the extracts from the books of Isidore,
Epiphanes and Carpocrates, are sufficient to show that their doctrines
were subversive of morality, and that, when taught as religious truths to
men with human passions, they could not fail to produce immoral results.
An extract from Isidore, preserved by Epiphanius, giving instructions to
his followers how to conduct themselves, was designed to be put in
practice. It is impossible even to quote it, so revolting is its
indecency. In substance it is this: No man can approach the Supreme God
except when perfectly disengaged from earthly passion. This disengagement
cannot be attained without first satisfying passion; therefore the
exhaustion of desire consequent on the gratification of passion is the
proper preparation for prayer.(505)
To the same licentious class of Antinomians belonged the sect of the
Antitactes. They also held the distinction between the Supreme God and the
Demiurge, the God of the Jews,(506) of the Law, of the World. The body,
the work of the God of creation, is evil; it “serves the law of sin;” nay,
it is the very source of sin, and imprisons, degrades, the soul entangled
in it. Thus the soul serves the law of God, the body the law of sin,
_i.e._ of the Demiurge. But the Demiurge has imposed on men his law, the
Ten Commandments. If the soul consents to that law, submits to be in
bondage under it, the soul passes from the liberty of its ethereal
sonship, under the dominion of a God at enmity with the Supreme Being.
Therefore the true Christian must show his adherence to the Omnipotent by
breaking the laws of the Decalogue,—the more the better.(507)
Was religious fanaticism capable of descending lower? Apparently it was
so. The Cainites exhibit Pauline antinomianism in its last, most
extravagant, most grotesque expression. Their doctrine was the extreme
development of an idea in itself originally containing an element of
truth.
Paul had proclaimed the emancipation of the Christian from the Law.
Perhaps he did not at first sufficiently distinguish between the moral and
the ceremonial law; he did not, at all events, lay down a broad, luminous
principle, by which his disciples might distinguish between moral
obligation to the Decalogue and bondage to the ceremonial Law. If both
laws were imposed by the same God, to upset one was to upset the other.
And Paul himself broke a hole in the dyke when he opposed the observance
of the Sabbath, and instituted instead the Lord’s‐day.
Through that gap rushed the waves, and swept the whole Decalogue away.
Some, to rescue jeoparded morality, maintained that the Law contained a
mixture of things good and bad; that the ceremonial law was bad, the moral
law was good. Some, more happily, asserted that the whole of the Law was
good, but that part of it was temporary, provisional, intended only to be
temporary and provisional, a figure of that which was to be; and the rest
of the Law was permanent, of perpetual obligation.
The ordinances of the Mosaic sanctuary were typical. When the fulfilment
of the types came, the shadows were done away. This was the teaching of
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, called forth by the disorders
which had followed indiscriminating denunciation of the Law by the Pauline
party.
But a large body of men could not, or would not, admit this distinction.
St. Paul had proclaimed the emancipation of the Christian from the Law.
They, having been Gentiles, had never been under the ceremonial Law of
Moses. How then could they be set at liberty from it? The only freedom
they could understand was freedom from the natural law written on the
fleshy tables of their hearts by the same finger that had inscribed the
Decalogue on the stones in Sinai. The God of the Jews was, indeed, the God
of the world. The Old Testament was the revelation of his will. Christ had
emancipated man from the Law. The Law was at enmity to Christ; therefore
the Christian was at enmity to the Law. The Law was the voice of the God
of the Jews; therefore the Christian was at enmity to the God of the Jews.
Jesus was the revelation of the All‐good God, the Old Testament the
revelation of the evil God.
Looking at the Old Testament from this point of view, the extreme wing of
the Pauline host, the Cainites, naturally came to regard the Patriarchs as
being under the protection, the Prophets as being under the inspiration,
of the God of the Jews, and therefore to hold them in abhorrence, as
enemies of Christ and the Supreme Deity. Those, on the other hand, who
were spoken of in the Old Testament as resisting God, punished by God,
were true prophets, martyrs of the Supreme Deity, forerunners of the
Gospel. Cain became the type of virtue; Abel, on the contrary, of error
and perversity. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were pioneers of
Gospel freedom; Corah, Dathan and Abiram, martyrs protesting against
Mosaism.
In this singular rehabilitation, Judas Iscariot was relieved from the
anathema weighing upon him. This man, who had sold his Master, was no
longer regarded as a traitor, but as one who, inspired by the Spirit of
Wisdom, had been an instrument in the work of redemption. The other
apostles, narrowed by their prejudices, had opposed the idea of the death
of Christ, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto
thee.”(508) But Judas, having a clearer vision of the truth, and the
necessity for the redemption of the world by the death of Christ, took the
heroic resolution to make that precious sacrifice inevitable. Rising above
his duties as disciple, in his devotion to the cause of humanity, he
judged it necessary to prevent the hesitations of Christ, who at the last
moment seemed to waver; to render inevitable the prosecution of his great
work. Judas therefore went to the chiefs of the synagogue, and covenanted
with them to deliver up his Master to their will, knowing that by his
death the salvation of the world could alone be accomplished.(509)
Judas therefore became the chief apostle to the Cainites. They composed a
Gospel under his name, τό Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Ἰουδα.(510) Irenæus also mentions
it;(511) it must therefore date from the second century. Theodoret
mentions it likewise. But none of the ancient Fathers quote it. Not a
single fragment of this curious work has been preserved.
“It is certainly to be regretted,” says M. Nicolas, “that this monument of
human folly has completely disappeared. It should have been carefully
preserved as a monument, full of instruction, of the errors into which man
is capable of falling, when he abandons himself blindly to theological
dogmatism.”(512)
In addition to the Gospel of Judas, the Cainites possessed an apocryphal
book relating to that apostle whom they venerated scarcely second to
Judas, viz. St. Paul. It was entitled the “Ascension of Paul,” Ἀναβατικὸν
Παύλου,(513) and related to his translation into the third heaven, and the
revelation of unutterable things he there received.(514)
An “Apocalypse of Paul” has been preserved, but it almost certainly is a
different book from the Anabaticon. It contains nothing favouring the
heretical views of the Cainites, and was read in some of the churches of
Palestine. This Apocalypse in Greek has been published by Dr. Tischendorf
in his Apocalypses Apocryphae (Lips. 1866), and the translation of a later
Syriac version in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VIII.
1864.(515)
FOOTNOTES
1 Joseph. Antiq. xii. 5; 1 Maccab. i. 11‐15, 43, 52; 2 Maccab. iv.
9‐16.
2 πονήροι, ἀσεβεῖς.—Antiq. xiii. 4, xii. 10.
3 Baba‐Kama, fol. 82; Menachoth, fol. 64; Sota, fol. 49; San‐Baba,
fol. 90.
4 Menachoth, fol. 99.
5 Baba‐Kama, fol. 63.
6 Mass. Sopherim, c. i. in Othonis Lexicon Rabbin. p. 329.
7 Philo is not mentioned by name once in the Talmud, nor has a single
sentiment or interpretation of an Alexandrine Jew been admitted into
the Jerusalem or Babylonish Talmud.
8 Aristobulus wrote a book to prove that the Greek sages drew their
philosophy from Moses, and addressed his book to Ptolemy Philometor.
9 Gal. iv. 24, 25.
10 Col. i. 16.
11 1 Cor. x. 21.
12 Dante, Parad. xiv.
13 See the question carefully discussed in M. F. Delaunay’s Moines et
Sibylles; Paris, 1874, pp. 28 sq.
14 See, on this curious topic, C. Aubertin: Sénèque et St. Paul; Paris,
1872.
15 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. The Bishop of Caesarea is quoting from
Philo’s account of the Therapeutae, and argues that these
Alexandrine Jews must have been Christians, because their manner of
life, religious customs and doctrines, were identical with those of
Christians. “Their meetings, the distinction of the sexes at these
meetings, the religious exercises performed at them, _are still in
vogue among us at the present day_, and, especially at the
commemoration of the Saviour’s passion, we, like them, pass the time
in fasting and vigil, and in the study of the divine word. All these
the above‐named author (Philo) has accurately described in his
writings, and _are the same customs that are observed by us alone_,
at the present day, particularly the vigils of the great Feast, and
the exercises in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among
us. He states that, whilst one sings gracefully with a certain
measure, the others, listening in silence, join in at the final
clauses of the hymns; also that, on the above‐named days, they lie
on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his own words, abstain
altogether from wine and from flesh. Water is their only drink, and
the relish of their bread salt and hyssop. Besides this, he
describes the grades of dignity among those who administer the
ecclesiastical functions committed to them, those of deacons, and
the presidencies of the episcopate as the highest. Therefore,”
Eusebius concludes, “it is obvious to all that Philo, when he wrote
these statements, _had in view the first heralds of the gospel, and
the original practices handed down from the apostles_.”
16 It is deserving of remark that the turning to the East for prayer,
common to the Essenes and primitive Christians, was forbidden by the
Mosaic Law and denounced by prophets. When the Essenes diverged from
the Law, the Christians followed their lead.
17 Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ιησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα
αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή; ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδάσκαλος
ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τ᾽ ἀληθῆ δεχομένων; καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους,
πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν. Καὶ
αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος
Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἵ γε πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες; ἐφάνη γαρ
αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ
ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων; εἰς ἔτι νῦν τῶν χριστιανῶν
ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλίπε τὸ φῦλον.—Lib. xviii. c. iii. 3.
18 Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. iii.
19 He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in
Christ, Contr. Cels. i.
20 Juvenal, Satir. vi. 546. “Aere minuto qualiacunque voles Judaei
somnia vendunt.” The Emperors, later, issued formal laws against
those who charmed away diseases (Digest. lib. i. tit. 13, i. 1).
Josephus tells the story of Eleazar dispossessing a demon by
incantations. De Bello Jud. lib. vii. 6; Antiq. lib. viii. c. 2.
21 Hist. Eccl. i. 11.
22 Contr. Cels. i. 47; and again, ii. 13: “This (destruction), as
Josephus writes, ‘happened upon account of James the Just, the
brother of Jesus, called the Christ;’ but in truth on account of
Christ Jesus, the Son of God.”
23 Acts xxiii.
24 Bibliothec. cod. 33.
25 Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 17; Epiphan. adv. Haeres. xix. 1.
26 Epiphan. adv. Haeres. x.
27 For information on the Essenes, the authorities are, Philo, Περὶ τοῦ
πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον, and Josephus, De Bello Judaico, and
Antiq.
28 Compare Luke x. 4; John xii. 6, xiii. 29; Matt. xix. 21; Acts ii.
44, 45, iv. 32, 34, 37.
29 Compare Matt. vi. 28‐34; Luke xii. 22‐30.
30 Compare Matt. v. 34.
31 Compare Matt. vi. 25, 31; Luke xii. 22, 23.
32 Compare Matt. xv. 15‐22.
33 Compare Matt. vi. 1‐18.
34 From אסא, meaning the same as the Greek Therapeutae.
35 Compare Luke x. 25‐37; Mark vii. 26.
36 Matt. iv. 16, v. 14, 16, vi. 22; Luke ii. 32, viii. 16, xi. 23, xvi.
8; John i. 4‐9, iii. 19‐21, viii. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, 10, xii. 35‐46.
37 Luke viii. 10; Mark iv. 12; Matthew xiii. 11‐15.
38 Clem. Homil. xix. 20.
39 Compare Matt. xv. 3, 6.
40 The reference to salt as an illustration by Christ (Matt. v. 13;
Mark ix. 49, 50; Luke xiv. 34) deserves to be noticed in connection
with this.
41 Clem. Homil. xiv. 1: “Peter came several hours after, and breaking
bread for the Eucharist, and putting salt upon it, gave it first to
our mother, and after her, to us, her sons.”
42 Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 9.
43 Const. Apost. lib. viii. 33.
44 Acts ii. 46, iii. 1, v. 42.
45 Acts xv.
46 Acts i. 22, iv. 2, 33, xxiii. 6.
47 Acts xxiii. 7.
48 Acts xv. 5.
49 Acts xv. 29.
50 Clem. Homil. vii. 8.
51 Col. ii. 21.
52 Gal. iv. 10. When it is seen in the Clementines how important the
observance of these days was thought, what a fundamental principle
it was of Nazarenism, I think it cannot be doubted that it was
against this that St. Paul wrote.
53 Col. ii. 16.
54 Clement. Homil. xix. 22.
55 Gal. v. 2‐4.
56 1 Cor. v. 1.
57 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 29.
58 _Ibid._
59 “Lies der Papisten Bücher, höre ihre Predigen, so wirst du finden,
dass diess ihr einziger Grund ist, darauf sie stehen wider uns
pochen und trotzen, da sie vorgeben, es sei nichts Gutes aus unserer
Lehre gekommen. Denn alsbald, da unser Evangelium anging und sie
hören liess, folgte der gräuliche Aufruhr, es erhuben sich in der
Kirche Spaltung und Sekten, es ward Ehrbarkeit, Disziplin und Zucht
zerrüttet, und Jedermann wolte vogelfrei seyn und thun, was ihm
gelüstet nach allem seinen Muthwillen und Gefallen, als wären alle
Gesetze, Rechte und Ordnung gans aufhoben, wie es denn leider allzu
wahr ist. Denn der Muthwille in allen Ständen, mit allerlei Laster,
Sünden und Schanden ist jetzt viel grösser denn zuvor, da die Leute,
und sonderlich der Pöbel, doch etlichermassen in Furcht und in Zaum
gehalten waren, welches nun wie ein zaumlos Pferd lebt und thut
Alles, was es nur gelüstet ohne allen Scheu.”—Ed. Walch, v. 114. For
a very full account of the disorders that broke out on the preaching
of Luther, see Döllinger’s Die Reformation in ihre Entwicklung.
Regensb. 1848.
60 Epistolas, 1528, ii. 192.
61 1 Cor. xi. 1.
62 Acts xxi. 23, 24.
63 James ii. 20.
64 It is included by Eusebius in the Antilegomena, and, according to
St. Jerome, was rejected as a spurious composition by the majority
of the Christian world.
65 Rev. ii. 1, 14, 15.
66 בלעם, _destruction of the people_, from בלע, _to swallow up_, and
עם, _people_ = Νικόλαος.
67 2 Pet. ii. 21.
68 Τοῦ ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνομον τίνα καὶ φλυαρώδη διδασκαλιάν—Clem.
Homil. xx. ed. Dressel, p. 4. The whole passage is sufficiently
curious to be quoted. St. Peter writes: “There are some from among
the Gentiles who have rejected my legal preaching, attaching
themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who
is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still
alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in
order to the dissolution of the Law; as though I also myself were of
such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For
such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God, which was
spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of
its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: The heavens and the
earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law.”
69 “Apostolum Paulum recusantes, apostatam eum legis dicentes.”—Iren.
Adv. Haeres. i. 26. Τὸν δὲ ἀπόστυλον ἀποστάτην καλοῦσι.—Theod.
Fabul. Haeret. ii. 1.
70 Hom. xi. 85.
71 Hom. iv. 22.
72 Clem. Homil. ii. 38‐40, 48, iii. 50, 51.
73 Of course I mean the designation given to the Pauline sect, not the
religion of Christ.
74 Adv. Haeres. i. 24.
75 Origen, Contr. Cels. lib. viii.
76 _Ibid._ lib. vi.
77 Contra Cels. lib. i.
78 _Ibid._ lib. ii.
79 Amongst others, Clemens: Jesus von Nazareth, Stuttgart, 1850; Von
der Alme: Die Urtheile heidnischer und jüdischer Schriftsteller,
Leipzig, 1864.
80 Adv. Haer. lib. iii; Haer. lxviii. 7.
81 “Quantae traditiones Pharisaeorum sint, quas hodie vocant
δευτερώσεις et quam aniles fabulae, evolvere nequeo: neque enim
libri patitur magnitudo, et pleraque tam turpia sunt ut erubescam
dicere.”
82 Haeres. xiii.
83 Beracoth, xi. _a_.
84 Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 107, and Sota, fol. 47.
85 Bartolocci: Bibliotheca Maxima Rabbinica, sub. nom.
86 Sepher Nizzachon, n. 337.
87 Eisenmenger: Neuentdecktes Judenthum, I. pp. 231‐7. Königsberg,
1711.
88 Tract. Sabbath, fol. 67.
89 _Ibid._ fol. 104.
90 The passage is not easy to understand. I give three Latin
translations of it, one by Cl. Schickardus, the second quoted from
Scheidius (Loca Talm. i. 2). “Filius Satdae, filius Pandeirae fuit.
Dixit Raf Chasda: Amasius Pandeirae, maritus Paphos filius Jehudae
fuit. At quomodo mater ejus Satda? Mater ejus Mirjam, comptrix
mulierum fuit.” “Filius Stadae filius Pandirae est. Dixit Rabbi
Chasda: Maritus seu procus matris ejus fuit Stada, iniens Pandiram.
Maritus Paphus filius Judae ipse est, mater ejus Stada, mater ejus
Maria,” &c. Lightfoot, Matt. xxvii. 56, thus translates it:
“Lapidârunt filium Satdae in Lydda, et suspenderunt eum in vesperâ
Paschatis. Hic autem filius Satdae fuit filius Pandirae. Dixit
quidem Rabb Chasda, Maritus (matris ejus) fuit Satda, maritus
Pandira, maritus Papus filius Judae: sed tamen dico matrem ejus
fuisse Satdam, Mariam videlicet, plicatricem capillorum mulierum:
sicut dicunt in Panbeditha, Declinavit ista a marito suo.”
91 פנדירה. As a man’s name it occurs in 2 Targum, Esther vii.
92 Avoda Sava, fol. 27.
93 Talmud, Tract. Beracoth, ix. fol. 61, _b_.
94 Gittin, fol. 90, _a_.
95 Chajigah, fol. 4, _b_.
96 Calla, fol. 18, _b_.
97 Son of Levi, according to the Toledoth Jeschu of Huldrich.
98 In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus as a boy behaves without
respect to his master and the elders; thence possibly this story was
derived.
99 Fol. 114.
100 Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 17 and 108.
101 Cont. Cels. lib. iii.
102 Lettres sur les Juifs. Œuvres, I. 69, p. 36.
103 Luther’s Works, Wittemberg, 1556, T. V. pp. 509‐535. The passage
quoted is on p. 513.
104 Lib. viii. 33.
105 Martyrol. Rom. ad. 1 Januar.
106 Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N.T. ii. p. 493.
107 Whereas the bitter conflict of Simon Peter and Simon Magus was a
subject well known in early Christian tradition.
108 Wagenseil: Tela ignea Satanae. Hoc est arcani et horribiles
Judaeorum adversus Christum Deum et Christianam religionem libri
anecdoti; Altdorf, 1681.
109 Nob was a city of Benjamin, situated on a height near Jerusalem, on
one of the roads which led from the north to the capital, and within
sight of it, as is certain from the description of the approach of
the Assyrian army in Isaiah (x. 28‐32).
110 Herod put Alexander Hyrcanus to death B.C. 30. Alexandra, the mother
of Hyrcanus, reigned after the death of Jannaeus, from B.C. 79 to
B.C. 71.
111 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. ii. 1.
112 Acta Sanct. Mai. T. I. pp. 445‐451.
113 Ps. lxix. 22.
114 Isa. liii. 5.
115 Rome. Simon Cephas is Simon Peter, but the miraculous power
attributed to him perhaps belongs to the story of Simon Magus.
116 Isa. i. 14.
117 Hosea i. 9.
118 Matt. xix. 28.
119 The Oelberg was especially characteristic of German churches, and
was erected chiefly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They
remain at Nürnberg, Xanten, Worms, Marburg, Donauwörth, Landshut,
Wasserburg, Ratisbon, Klosterneuburg, Wittenberg, Merseburg,
Lucerne, Bruges, &c.
120 Mááse, c. 188. I have told the story more fully in the Christmas
Number of “Once a Week,” 1868.
121 Joh. Jac. Huldricus: Historia Jeschuae Nazareni, a Judaeis blaspheme
corrupta; Leyden, 1705.
122 The mystery of the chariot is that of the chariot of God and the
cherubic beasts, Ezekiel i. The Jews wrote the name of God without
vowels, Jhvh; the vowel points taken from the name Adonai (Lord)
were added later.
123 The story is somewhat different in the Talmudic tract Calla, as
already related.
124 From Mizraim, Egypt.
125 Evidently the author confounds John the Baptist with John the
Apostle.
126 Judas Iscarioth. In St. John’s Gospel he is called the son of Simon
(vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26). Son of Zachar is a corruption of Iscarioth.
The name Iscarioth is probably from Kerioth, his native village, in
Judah.
127 Isa. lxiii. 1‐3. Singularly enough, this passage is chosen for the
Epistle in the Roman and Anglican Churches for Monday in Holy Week,
with special reference to the Passion.
128 Gen. xxxi. 47.
129 Isa. ii. 3.
130 1 Sam. ii. 6.
131 Lev. xxiv. 16.
132 This is taken from Sanhedrim, fol. 43.
133 It is worth observing how these two false witnesses disagree in
almost every particular about our blessed Lord’s birth and passion.
134 This is probably taken from the story of Simon Magus in the Pseudo‐
Linus. Simon flies from off a high tower. In the Apocryphal Book of
the Death of the Virgin, the apostles come to her death‐bed riding
on clouds. Ai is here Rome, not Capernaum.
135 The author probably saw representations of the Ascension and of the
Last Judgment, with Christ seated with the Books of Life and Death
in his hand on a great white cloud, and composed this story out of
what he saw, associating the pictures with the floating popular
legend of Simon Magus.
136 In the story of Simon the Sorcerer, it is at the prayer of Simon
Peter that the Sorcerer falls whilst flying and breaks all his
bones. Perhaps the author saw a picture of the Judgment with saints
on the cloud with Jesus, and the lost falling into the flames of
hell.
137 Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ.
138 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 39.
139 _Ibid._ lib. v. c. 8.
140 Spicileg. Patrum, Tom. I.
141 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25.
142 _Ibid._ iii. 24.
143 St. Hieron. De vir. illust., s.v. Matt.
144 _Ibid._ s.v. Jacobus.
145 _Ibid._ in Matt. xii. 13.
146 _Ibid._ Contra. Pelag. iii. 1.
147 Ἔχουσι δὲ (οἱ Ναζαραῖοι) τὸ κατὰ Μαθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πληρέστατον
ἑβραιστι.—Haer. xxix. 9.
148 Καθῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη.—_Ibid._
149 _Ibid._ xxx. 3.
150 Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους.
151 Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς δώδεκα. Origen calls it “The Gospel of the
Twelve Apostles,” Homil. i. in Luc. St. Jerome the same, in his
Prooem. in Comment. sup. Matt.
152 Adv. Pelag. iii. 10.
153 Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων.
154 “Ἐν τοῖς γεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἅ καλεῖται
Εὐαγγέλια.” And “ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Εὐαγγελίῳ,” when speaking of these
Reminiscences, Dialog. cum Tryphon. §11. Just. Mart. Opera, ed.
Cologne, p. 227.
155 1 Apol. ii.
156 Justin Mart. Opp. ed. Cologne; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dialog. cum Tryph. p.
301; _ibid._ p. 253; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dial. cum Tryph. p. 326; 2 Apol.
pp. 95, 96.
157 Οἱ ἐξ Ἀραβίας μάγοι, or μάγοι ἀπὸ Ἀραβίας.—Dialog. cum Tryph. pp.
303, 315, 328, 330, 334, &c.
158 Matt. ii. 1.
159 Ἐν σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης κατέλυσε.—Dialog. cum. Tryph. pp.
303, 304.
160 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 291.
161 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 25.
162 Adv. Pelag. iii. 1.
163 Comm. in Ezech. xxiv. 7.
164 “De versione Syriacâ testatur Sionita, quod ut semper in summâ
veneratione et auctoritate habita erat apud omnes populos qui
Chaldaicâ sive Syriacâ utuntur linguâ, sic publicè in omnibus eorum
ecclesiis antiquissimis, constitutis in Syriâ, Mesopotamiâ,
Chaldaeâ, Aegypto, et denique in universis Orientis partibus
dispersis ac disseminatis accepta ac lecta fuit.”—Walton: London
Polyglott, 1657.
165 In Matt. iii. 17; Luke i. 71; John i. 3; Col. iii. 5.
166 It omits the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of Jude,
and the Apocalypse.
167 As in the food of the Baptist, in the narrative of the baptism, in
the mention of Zacharias, son of Barachias, in place of Zacharias,
son of Jehoiada, the instruction to Peter on fraternal forgiveness,
&c. It interprets the name Emmanuel.
168 Ignat. Ad. Smyrn. c. 3.
169 Catal. Script. Eccl. 15.
170 Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 9.
171 Hom. xv. in Jerem.
172 Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. Some of those books of the New Testament now
regarded as Canonical were also then reckoned among the
Antilegomena.
173 Ἄρτι ἔλαβε μέ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μοῦ,
καὶ ἀνήνενκε μὲ εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ μέγα Θαβὼρ.—Origen: Hom. xv. in
Jerem., and in Johan.
174 Ἄρτι ἔλαβε μέ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μοῦ,
καὶ ἀνήνενκε μὲ εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ μέγα Θαβὼρ.—Origen: Hom. xv. in
Jerem., and in Johan.
175 “Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus in uno capillorum
meorum.”—Hieron. in Mich. vii. 6.
176 Matt. iv. 1.
177 Acts viii. 39.
178 Τὴν δε θήλειαν καλεῖσθαι ἅγιον πνεῦμα.—Hippolyt. Refut. ix. 13, ed.
Dunker, p. 462. So also St. Epiphanius, εἶναι δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα
θηλεῖαν.—Haeres. xix. 4, liii. 1.
179 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 38.
180 Haeres. xix. 1, xxx. 17.
181 Homilies, iii. 20‐27.
182 In the “Refutation of Heresies” attributed by the Chevalier Bunsen
and others to St. Hippolytus, Helena is said in Simonian Gnosticism
to have been the “lost sheep” of the Gospels, the incarnation of the
world principle—found, recovered, redeemed, by Simon, the
incarnation of the divine male principle.
183 Ὁ θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει, γεγράπται, καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαύσεται.
Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. 9.
184 Strom. lib. vii. This was exaggerated in the doctrine of the
Albigenses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The “Perfects,”
the ministers of the sect, “reconciled” the converted. But if one of
the Perfect sinned (_i.e._ ate meat or married), all whom he had
reconciled fell with him from grace, even those who were dead and in
heaven.
185 Dial. cum Tryph. § 88.
186 “Sicut illud apostoli libenter audire: Omnia probate; quod bonum est
tenete; et Salvatoris verba dicentis: Esto probati
nummularii.”—Epist. ad Minervium et Alexandrum.
187 Homil. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20. Γίνεσθε τραπεζίται δόκιμοι.
188 Recog. ii. 51.
189 Stromat. i. 28.
190 “Inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum
contristaverit.” St. Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. xvi. 7.
191 “Nunquam læti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in
charitate.”
192 “Si peccaverit frater tuus in verbo, et satis tibi fecerit, septies
in die suscipe eum. Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus: Septies in
die? Respondit Dominus et dixit ei: Etiam ego dico tibi, usque
septuagies septies.”—Adv. Pelag. i. 3.
193 Matt. xxvii. 16.
194 “Homo iste qui aridam habet manum in Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei
caementarius scribitur.”—Hieron. Comm. in Matt. xii. 13.
195 “Homo iste ... scribitur istius modi auxilium precans, Caementarius
eram, manibus victum quaeritans; precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restituas
sanitatem, ne turpiter manducem cibos.”—_Ibid._
196 _Ibid._ xxvii. 16.
197 “Filius Magistri eorum interpretatus.”—_Ibid._
198 Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
199 viii. 3‐11.
200 He probably knew it through a translation.
201 Comm. in Matt. i. 6.
202 2 Chron. xxiv. 20.
203 “In Evangelis quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachiae, filium
Jojadae reperimus scriptum.”—Hieron. in Matt. xxiii. 35.
204 Luke xvii. 3, 4.
205 “Dixit ad eum alter divitum: Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam?
Dixit ei: Homo, leges et prophetas fac. Respondit ad eum: Feci.
Dixit ei: Vade, vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus, et
veni, sequere me. Caepit autem dives scalpere caput suum et non
placuit ei. Et dixit ad eum Dominus: Quomodo dicis: Legem feci et
prophetas, quoniam scriptum est in lege: Dilige proximum tuum sicut
teipsum, et ecce multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt
stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis
et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos. Et conversus dixit
Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se: Simon fili Joannae, facilius
eat camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in regnum
coelorum.”—Origen, Tract. viii. in Matt. xix. 19. The Greek text has
been lost.
206 It is found in the Talmud, Beracoth, fol. 55, _b_; Baba Metsia, fol.
38, _b_; and it occurs in the Koran, Sura vii. 38.
207 Matt. iii. 13.
208 “In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos ... narrat historia: Ecce, mater Domini
et fratres ejus dicebant ei, Joannes Baptista baptizat in
remissionem peccatorum, eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis;
quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod
dixi, ignorantia est.”—Cont. Pelag. iii. 2.
209 “Ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma paene invitum a Matre sua Maria
esse compulsum.”—In a treatise on the re‐baptism of heretics,
published by Rigault at the end of his edition of St. Cyprian.
210 “Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons
omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum et dixit illi, Fili
mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem
in te. Tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui
regnas in sempiternum.”—In Mich. vii. 6.
211 St. Epiph. Haeres. xxx. § 13. Τοῦ λαοῦ βαπτισθέντοσ, ἦλθε καὶ Ἰησοῦς
καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰωάννου. Καί ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος,
ἠνοίχησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἴδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἶδει ἐν
περιστερὰς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτόν. Καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσα: Σύ μου εἴ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἔν σοὶ ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ
πάλιν; Ἐγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε. Καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς
μέγα. Ὂ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ: Σύ τίς εἵ, κύριε? Καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν: Οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐφ᾽ ὂν
ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ τότε ὁ Ἰωάννης προσπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε: Δέομαι σου,
κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. Ὁ δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτῷ, λέγων: Ἄφες, ὅτι οὔτως
ἐστι πρέπον πληρωθῆναι πάντα.
212 I put them in apposition:
_Justin._ Καὶ πῦρ ανήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.—Dial. cum Tryph. § 88.
_Epiphan._ Καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα.—Haeres. xxx. §
13.
_Justin._ Υἱος μου εἴ συ; ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε.—Dial. cum Tryph.
§ 88 and 103.
_Epiphan._ Ἐγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε.—Haeres. xxx. § 13.
213 Heb. i. 5, v. 5.
214 John i. 29‐34.
215 “Etiam in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti sunt Spiritu sancto,
inventus est sermo peccati.”—Contr. Pelag. iii. 2.
216 1 Cor. xv. 7.
217 “Evangelium ... secundum Hebraeos ... post resurrectionem Salvatoris
refert:—Dominus autem, cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit
ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum
panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum
resurgentem a dormientibus.—Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait
Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur:—Tulit panem et
benedixit, ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo, et dixit ei: Frater mi,
comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius hominis a
dormientibus.”—Hieron. De viris illustribus, c. 2.
218 Euseb. H. E. lib. ii. c. 23.
219 Acts xxiii. 14.
220 Hist. Eccl. Francorum, i. 21.
221 The “History of the Apostles” purports to have been written by
Abdias B. of Babylon, disciple of the apostles, in Hebrew. It was
translated into Greek, and thence, it was pretended, into Latin by
Julius Africanus. That it was rendered from Greek has been
questioned by critics. As we have it, it belongs to the ninth
century; but the publication of Syriac versions of the legends on
which the book of Abdias was founded, Syriac versions of the fourth
century, which were really translated from the Greek, show that some
Greek originals must have existed at an early age which are now
lost.
222 Καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλεν ἔφη αὐτοῖς: λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατε
με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὺκ εἰμί δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. Καὶ εὐθύς αὐτοῦ
ἥψαντο και ἐπιστεύσαν.—Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. 3. St. Jerome also:
“Et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis:
Ecce palpate me et videte quia non sum daemonium incorporale. Et
statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt.”—De Script. Eccl. 16. Eusebius
quotes the passage after Ignatius. Hist. Eccl. iii. 37.
223 Luke xxiv. 37‐39.
224 Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν: ἄν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσελθῆτε εἰς τὴν
Βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.—1 Apolog. § 61. Oper. p. 94.
225 Ἐὰν μήτις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ
Θεοῦ.—John iii. 3.
226 “In Evangelio ... legimus non velum templi scissum, sed
superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse.”—Epist. 120, Ad
Helibiam.
227 Ἔλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐαν μή ταύσασθε τοῦ θυεῖν, οῦ
παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ ὀργή.—Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. § 16.
228 Recog. i. 36.
229 Recog. i. 54.
230 Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1, 5; Philo Judaeus. Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον
εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. See what has been said on this subject already, p.
16.
231 Heb. x. 5.
232 (Μὴ) ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (κρέας) τοῦτο τό πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν;
Epiph. Heræs. xxx. 22. The words added to those in St. Luke are
placed in brackets; cf. Luke xxii. 15.
233 Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 15.
234 Καὶ Ἰησοῦς γοῦν φησὶ, Διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἠσθένουν, καὶ διὰ τοὺς
πεινῶντας ἐπείνων, καὶ διὰ τοὺς διψῶντας ἐδίψων. In Matt. xvii. 21.
235 Perhaps this passage was in the mind of St. Paul when he wrote of
himself, “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak.”
1 Cor. ix. 22.
236 Αἰτεῖσθε γάρ, φησί, τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσαται.
Clemens Alex. Stromatae, i. Καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια
ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται.—Origen, De Orat. 2 and 43.
237 Cont. Cels. vii. and De Orat. 53.
238 Acts xi. 35. It is also quoted as a saying of our Lord in the
Apostolic Constitutions, iv. 3.
239 Ep. 4.
240 Οὕτοι, φαεσὶν, ὁι θέλοντές με ἰδεῖν, καὶ ἅψασθαί μου τῆς βασιλείας,
ὀφείλουσι θλιβέντες καί παθόντες λαβεῖν με.—Ep. 7.
241 Διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἡμῶν πρασσόντων, εἶπεν ὁ κύριος, ᾽Εὰν ἦτε μετ᾽ ἐμου
συνηγμένοι ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου, καὶ μὴ ποιεῖτε τὰς ἐντολάς μου, ἀποβαλῶ
ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν, ὑπάγετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς, ἐργάται ἀνομίας.
2 Ep. ad Corinth. 4.
242 Λέγει γὰρ ὁ κύριος, ἔσεσθε ὡς ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ
Πέτρος αὐτῷ λέγει, Ἐαν οὖν διασπαράξωσιν οἱ λύκοι τὰ ἀρνία? Εἶπεν ὁ
Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ. Μὴ φοβείσθωσαν τὰ ἀρνία τοὺς λύκους μετὰ τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν αὐτά. Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ φοβεῖσθε τοὺς ἀποκτέινοντας ὑμᾶς, καὶ
μηδὲν ὑμῖν δυναμένου ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ φοβεῖσθε τὸν μετὰ το ἀποθανεῖν
ὑμας ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος τοῦ βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν πυρὸς.
_Ibid._ 5.
243 Ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λέγει: Τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καί τὴν σφραγίδα
ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν αἰώνιον ξωὴν ἀπολάβητε.—_Ibid._ 8.
244 Rom. iv. 11 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; 2 Tim. ii. 19.
245 Ἐν οἶς ἀν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ.—Just. Mart. in
Dialog. c. Trypho. Ἐφ᾽ οἶς γὰρ εὕρω ἡμᾶς, φησὶν, ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ
κρινῶ. Clem. Alex. Quis dives salv. 40.
246 Μυστήριον ἐμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου μου.—Clem. Alex. Strom.
v.
247 Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις.
248 Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο, ἡρμήνευσε δὲ
αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
249 τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα; and οὐ ποιούμενος
σὺνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων.
250 συνεγράψατο τὰ λόγια.
251 ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ.
252 Iren. c. Haeres. v. 33.
253 Scarcely actual disciples and eye‐witnesses.
254 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
255 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν.
256 καθ᾽ Ἑβραιοὺς εὐαγγέλιον. H. E. iii. 25, 27, 39; iv. 22.
257 συγγράμματα πέντε.
258 Aram. ריקא.
259 Aram. ממונא.
260 Aram. גהנם.
261 Aram. אמן.
262 μιά κεραὶα, Aram. קוץ or עוקץ.
263 vi. 7, βαττολογεῖν; v. 5, κληρονομεῖν τὴν γῆν; v. 2, ἀγνοίγειν τὸ
στόμα; v. 3, πτωχοί; v. 9, υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ; v. 12, μισθὸς πολύς; v.
39, τῷ πονηρῷ; vi. 25; x. 28, 39, ψυχὴ, for life; vi. 22, 23, ἀπλοῦς
and πονηρὸς, sound and sick; vi. 11, ἄρτος, for general food; the
“birds of heaven,” in vi. 25, &c. &c.
264 Targum, Gen. xxiv. 22, 47; Job xlii. 11; Exod. xxxii. 2; Judges
viii. 24; Prov. xi. 22, xxv. 12; Hos. ii. 13.
265 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
266 ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, and σποιήσατο πρόνοιαν τοῦ μηδέν παραλιτεῖν ἢ
ψεύδασθαι.
267 Οὐ μέντοι τάξει, and ἕνια γράφας, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν.
268 λεχθέντα καὶ πραχθέντα.
269 Μαθαῖος τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο—. Μάρκος ... οὐκ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν
κυριακῶν λογίων ποιούμενος.
270 Μάρκος ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ἔγραφεν.
271 Mark i. 20, “they left their father Zebedee in the ship _with the
day‐labourers;_” i. 31, “_he took her by the hand_;” ii. 3, “a
paralytic _borne of four_;” 4, “they broke up the roof and let down
the bed;” iii. 10, “they pressed upon him to touch him;” iii. 20,
“they could not so much as eat bread;” iii. 32, “the multitude sat
about him;” iv. 36, “they took him _even as he was_,” without his
going home first to get what was necessary; iv. 38, “_on a pillow_;”
v. 3‐5, v. 25‐34, vi. 40, the ranks, the hundreds, the green grass;
vi. 53‐56, x. 17, there came one running, and kneeled to him; x. 50,
“casting away his robe;” xi. 4, “a colt tied by the door without in
a place where two ways met;” xi. 12‐14, xi. 16, xiii. 1, the
disciples notice the _great stones_ of which the temple was built;
xiv. 3, 5, 8, xiv. 31, “he spoke yet more vehemently;” xiv. 51, 52,
66, “he warmed himself at the fire;” xv. 21, “coming out of the
country;” xv. 40, 41, Salome named.
272 Mark i. 33, 45, ii. 2, 13, iii. 9, 20, 32, iv. 10, v. 21, 24, 31,
vi. 31, 55, viii. 34, xi. 18.
273 Mark i. 7, “he bowed himself;” iii. 5, “he looked round with anger;”
ix. 38, “he sat down;” x. 16, “he took them up in his arms, and laid
his hands on them;” x. 23, “Jesus looked round about;” xiv. 3, “she
broke the box;” xiv. 4, “they murmured;” xiv. 40, “they knew not
what to answer him;” xiv. 67, &c.
274 Compare Mark iv. 4 sq.; viii. 1 sq.; x. 42 sq.; xiii. 28 sq.; xiv.
43 sq. &c. Matt. xiii 4 sq.; xv. 32 sq.; xx. 28 sq.; xxiv. 32 sq.;
xxvi. 47 sq. &c.
275 For more examples, see Scholten, Das älteste Evangelium, Elberfeld,
1869, pp. 66‐78.
276 Mark ix. 37‐50 is another instance of difference of order of sayings
between him and St. Matthew.
With Mark ix. 37 corresponds Matt. x. 40.
With Mark ix. 40 corresponds Matt. xii. 30.
With Mark ix. 41 corresponds Matt. x. 42.
With Mark ix. 42 corresponds Matt. xviii. 6.
With Mark ix. 43 corresponds Matt. v. 29 and xviii. 8.
With Mark ix. 47 corresponds Matt. xvii. 9.
With Mark ix. 50 corresponds Matt. v. 13.
277 Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27.
278 Col. iv. 16.
279 Apost. Const. viii. 5.
280 Luke ii. 19, 51.
281 Luke i. 66.
282 Acts xx. 16.
283 1 Cor. xvi. 8.
284 Epist. xxvii. ad Marcellam.
285 Apost. Const. viii. 33.
286 St. Luke, however, has much that was not available to the deutero‐
Matthew, and St. Mark rigidly confined himself to the use of St.
Peter’s recollections only.
287 St. Luke’s Gospel contains Hebraisms, yet he was not a Jew (Col. iv.
11, 14). This can only be accounted for by his using Aramaic texts
which he translated. From these the Acts of the Apostles are free.
288 Cf. Scholten: Das älteste Evangelium; Elberfeld, 1869. See also on
St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, Saunier: Ueber der Quellen des
Evang. Marc., Berlin, 1825; De Wette: Lehrb. d. Hist. Krit. Einleit.
in d. N.T., Berl. 1848; Baur: Der Ursprung der Synop. Evang.,
Stuttg. 1843; Köstlin: Das Markus Evang., Leipz. 1850; Wilke: Der
Urevang., Dresd. 1838; Réville: Etudes sur l’Evang. selon St. Matt.,
Leiden, 1862, &c.
289 Chron. Paschale, p. 6, ed. Ducange. Τῆδε μεγάλη ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων
αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν, καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν, ὅθεν ἀσύμφωνος,
τῷ νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ στασιάζειν δοκαῖν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ
εὐαγγελία.
290 Homil. iii. 45.
291 Homil. ix. 9‐12.
292 Homil. xix. 22.
293 Gal. iv. 10.
294 Homil. ii. 38, 50, 52.
295 Homil. xiii. 13‐21.
296 Homil. xv. 9; see also 7.
297 Homil. xv. 7.
298 Homil. xii. 6.
299 Hist. Eccl. ii. 23.
300 Homil. xvi. 15.
301 Homil. xviii. 22.
302 Hilgenfeld: Die Clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien; Jena,
1848. Compare also Uhlhorn: Die Homilien und Recognitionen;
Göttingen, 1854; and Schliemann: Die Clementinen; Hamburg, 1844.
303 Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, Halle, 1863, p. 113. That the
“Recognitions” have undergone interpolation at different times is
clear from Book iii., where chapters 2‐12 are found in some copies,
but not in the best MSS.
304 Recog. i. 43, 50.
305 _Ibid._ i. 40.
306 Recog. i. 42.
307 _Ibid._ 45.
308 John i. 41.
309 Acts iv. 27.
310 Acts x. 34‐38.
311 Recog. i. c. 48.
312 Πῦρ βώμων ἐσβέννυσεν, Homil. iii. 26.
313 Recog. i. c. 57.
314 _Ibid._ ii. 30, also ii. 3.
315 Recog. i. c. 60.
316 Matt. xi. 9, 11.
317 Recog. i. c. 61, ii. c. 28.
318 _Ibid._ ii. 27, 29.
319 _Ibid._ ii. 22, 28.
320 _Ibid._ ii. 28, 32.
321 Matt. x. 34‐36.
322 Recog. ii. 27; Matt. x. 25.
323 _Ibid._ 29.
324 Recog. ii. 30.
325 Matt. xxiii. 13.
326 Luke xi. 52.
327 Recog. ii. c. 46: “They must seek his kingdom and righteousness
which the Scribes and Pharisees, having received the key of
knowledge, have not shut in but shut out.” The same Syro‐Chaldaic
expression has been variously rendered in Greek by St. Matthew and
St. Luke. See Lightfoot: Horae Hebraicae in Luc. xi. 52.
328 Recog. ii. 31, 35.
329 _Ibid._ iii. 41, 37, 20.
330 _Ibid._ iii. i.
331 _Ibid._ vii. 37.
332 Recog. vi. 11.
333 _Ibid._ vi. 14.
334 _Ibid._ iv. 4.
335 _Ibid._ v. 9.
336 _Ibid._ v. 2.
337 _Ibid._ iii. 62.
338 _Ibid._ iv. 35.
339 _Ibid._ iii. 38.
340 _Ibid._ iii. 14.
341 _Ibid._ vi. 4.
342 _Ibid._ x. 45.
343 _Ibid._ v. 13, iii. 38.
344 Hom. iii. 57.
345 Luke vi. 36.
346 Matt. v. 44‐46.
347 Recog. vi. 5.
348 Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν οὐγὰρ οἴδασιν ἅ ποιούσιν. Hom.
xi. 20. In St. Luke it runs, Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς; οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί
ποιοῦσι.—Luke xxiii. 34.
349 M. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, pp. 72, 73.
350 Recog. vi. 9.
351 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἒαν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζωῆς (in another place
ὕδατι ζῶντι), εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς, υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ
εἰσελθῆτε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.—Homil. xi. 26.
352 Recognitions vi. 9: “For thus hath the true prophet testified to us
with an oath: Verily I say unto you,” &c. The oath is, of course,
the Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν.
353 Recog. v. 13; John viii. 34.
354 Rom. vi. 16.
355 Recog. v. 34; Rom. ii. 28.
356 Recog. iv. 34. The same in the Homilies, xi. 35.
357 Τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δέι, μακάριος δὲ δι᾽ οὗ ἔρχεται ὅμοιως καὶ τὰ κακὰ
ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν, οὐαι δὲ δι᾽ οὖ ἔρχεται.
358 Hom. ii. 19.
359 _Ibid._ ii. 51.
360 _Ibid._ ii. 51, xviii. 20.
361 _Ibid._ ii. 53.
362 Homil. ii. 61.
363 _Ibid._ xix. 2.
364 _Ibid._ viii. 21. In the Hebrew תירא rendered by the LXX. φοβηθήση.
The word in St. Matthew is προσκυνήσεις.
365 _Ibid._ xv. 5.
366 Homil. iii. 52.
367 John x. 9.
368 Homil. iii. 52; cf. John x. 16.
369 _Ibid._ iii. 57; Mark xii. 29.
370 HOMIL. ix. 27.
Οὔτε οὗτος τι ἥμαρτεν, οὗτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ
φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα.
JOHN. ix. 3.
Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν, οὗτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.
371 Homil. iii. 64; cf. Luke xii. 43, but also Matt. xxiv. 46.
372 _Ibid._ xi. 33; cf. Luke xi. 31, 32, but also Matt. xii. 42, 41. The
order in Matt. reversed.
373 Homil. xii. 31; cf. Matt. x. 29, 30; Luke xii. 6, 7.
374 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12.
375 “Qui Jesum separant a Christo et impassibilem perseverasse Christum,
passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferunt
Evangelium.”—Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 2. The Greek is lost.
376 Matt. xii. 47, 48, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 20; John vii.
5.
377 Origen, Comment. in Matt. c. ix.
378 Τὸ αἰγύπτιον Εὐαγγέλιον; Epiphan. Haeres. lxii. 2; Evangelium
secundum Ægyptios; Origen, Hom. i. in luc.; Evangelium juxta
Aegyptios; Hieron. Prolog. in Comm. super Matth.
379 Schneckenburg, Ueber das Evangelium der Aegypter; Berne, 1834.
380 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Stromat. iii. 12.
Πυνθανομένης τῆς Σαλωμῆς πότε γνωσθήσεται τὰ περὶ ὦν ἥρετο, ἔφη ὁ
κύριος; ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γένηται τὰ
δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἄῤῥεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας οὔτε ἄῤῥεν οὔτε θῆλυ.
CLEMENT OF ROME. 2 Epist. c. 12.
Ἐπερωτηθείς γάρ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ὑπὸ τινος πότε ἥξει αύτοῦ ἡ βασιλεία?
ὅταν ἔσται τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἔξω ὡς ἔσω, καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν μετὰ τῆς
θηλείας οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ.
381 Ὅ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων.—Stromat. iii. 13.
382 Adv. Haeres. i. 11.
383 “Ad mentem vero tunica pellicea symbolice est pellis naturalis, id
est corpus nostrum. Deus enim intellectum condens primum, vocavit
illum Adam; deinde sensum, cui vitae (Eva) nomen dedit; tertio ex
necessitate corpus quoque facit, tunicam pelliceam, illud per
symbolum dicens. Oportebat enim ut intellectus et sensus velut
tunica cutis induerent corpus.”—Philo: Quaest. et Solut. in Gen. i.
53, trans. from the Armenian by J. B. Aucher; Venice, 1826.
384 Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 6.
385 _Ibid._ 9.
386 Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 9.
387 “Sensus, quae symbolice mulier est.”—Philo: Quaest. et Solut. i. 52.
“Generatio ut sapientum fert sententia, corruptionis est
principium.”—_Ibid._ 10.
388 Nicolas: Études sur les Evangiles apocryphes, pp. 128‐130. M.
Nicolas was the first to discover the intimate connection that
existed between the Gospel of the Egyptians and Philonian
philosophy.
The relation in which Philo stood to Christian theology has not, as
yet, so far as I am aware, been thoroughly investigated. Dionysius
the Areopagite, the true father of Christian theosophy, derives his
ideas and terminology from Philo. Aquinas developed Dionysius, and
on the Summa of the Angel of the Schools Catholic theology has long
reposed.
389 Tert. De praescr. haeretica, c. 51. “Cerdon solum Lucae Evangelium,
nec tamen totum recipit.”
390 For an account of the doctrines of Marcion, the authorities are, The
Apologies of Justin Martyr; Tertullian’s treatise against Marcion,
i.‐v.; Irenaeus against Heresies, i. 28; Epiphanius on Heresies,
xlii. 1‐3; and a “Dialogus de recta in Deum fide,” printed with
Origen’s Works, in the edition of De la Rue, Paris, 1733, though not
earlier than the fourth century.
391 1 Cor. iv. 4.
392 Rom. v. 20.
393 Rom. vi. 5.
394 Rom. vii. 7.
395 Rom. viii. 2.
396 Rom. iii. 28.
397 Gal. iii. 23‐25.
398 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 15, vii. 12. De Martyr. Palaest. 10.
399 Cf. 1 Col. ix. 1, xv. 8; 2 Cor. xii.
400 Epiphan. Haeres. xlii. 11.
401 Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 11.
402 “Contraria quaeque sententiae emit, competentia autem sententiae
reservarit.”—Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. 6.
403 Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 9‐12.
404 “Ego meum, (Evangelium) dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis
affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos
disceptabit?”—Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 4.
405 Not St. John’s Gospel; that is unique; a biography by an eye‐
witness, not a composition of distinct notices.
406 2 Cor. ii. 17, and iv. 2.
407 Matt. v. 17, 18.
408 Luke xvi. 16.
409 Tert.: “Transeat coelum et terra citius quam unus apex verborum
Domini;” but Tertullian is not quoting directly, so that the words
may have been, and probably were, τῶν λόγων μου, not τῶν λόγων τοῦ
θεοῦ.
410 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12; Theod. Fabul. haeret. ii. 2.
411 Epiphan. Ancor. 31.
412 Hieron. adv. Pelag. ii.
413 Hilar. De Trinit. x.
414 “Christus Jesus in evangelio tuo meus est.”
415 See note 4 on p. 240.
416 As xix. 10 “Filius hominis venit, salvum facere quod perfit ...
elisa est sententia haereticorum negantium _carnis_
salutem;—pollicebatur (Jesus) _totius_ hominis salutem.”
417 Sch. 4. ἐν αὐτοῖς for μετ᾽ αὐπῶν. Sch. 1, ὑμῖν for αὐτοῖς. Sch. 26,
κλῆσιν for κρίσιν. Sch. 34, πάτερ for πάτερ ὑμῶν, &c.
418 Marcion called his Gospel “The Gospel,” as the only one he knew and
recognized, or “The Gospel of the Lord.”
419 The division into chapters is, of course, arbitrary.
420 Ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος,
ἡγεμονεύοντος (St. Luke, ἐπιτροπεύοντος), Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς
Ἰουδαίας, κατῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Καπερναούμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ
εὐθέως τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκε (St. Luke,
καὶ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν).
421 Ναζαρηνέ omitted.
422 St. Luke iv. 37 omitted here, and inserted after iv. 39.
423 Luke iv. 15 inserted here.
424 οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος omitted.
425 ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶσαι omitted, and Luke iv. 17‐20.
426 καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν αὐτοῖς. St. Luke has, Ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς
αὐτούς, ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν.
427 The rest of the verse (22) omitted.
428 ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου omitted.
429 ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ after ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου.
430 ἐπορεύετο εἰς Καπερναούμ. St. Luke has, ἐπορεύετο καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς
Καπερναούμ.
431 τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί.
432 Εὐχαριστῶ καὶ ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅτι ἅτινα ἦν
κρυπτὰ σοφοῖς καὶ συνετοῖς ἀπεκάλυψας, &c. St. Luke has,
ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι
ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας, &c.
433 οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδε τὸν υἱόν τις γινώσκει εἰ
μὴ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ῷ ἂν ὁ υἱός ἀποκαλύψη.
434 In some of the most ancient codices of St. Luke, “which art in
heaven” is not found. Πάτερ, ἐλθέτω πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου.
435 κλῆσιν instead of κρίσιν.
436 ὑμῶν omitted.
437 τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ, for ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλακῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ.
438 πάντας τοὺς δικαίους.
439 ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω.
440 ἐμόν for ὑμέτερον.
441 ἢ τῶν λόγων μου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.
442 Some codices of St. Luke have, λίθος μυλικὸς; others, μύλος ὀνικός.
443 Ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς λέγων.
444 μὴ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς ουτος omitted; the previous question, Οὐχ εὑρέθησαν
κ.τ.λ., made positive; and Luke iv. 27 inserted.
445 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν, εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατήρ.
446 ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ inserted.
447 Καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας after διαστρέφοντα τὸ
ἔθνος, and καὶ ἀναστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα after φόρους
μὴ δοῦναι.
448 ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ omitted. Possibly the whole verse was omitted.
449 οἷς ἐλάλησεν ὑμῖν, instead of ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται. Volckmar thinks
that in v. 19, “of Nazareth” was omitted, but neither St. Epiphanius
nor Tertullian say so.
450 Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 2. “Marcion evangelio scilicet suo nullum
adscribit nomen.”
451 Ἕν ἐστι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ ὁ Χριστὸς ἔγραψεν.
452 Rom. i. 16, xv. 19, 29; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4, ix. 13;
Gal. i. 7.
453 Rom. i. 9.
454 Rom. i. 1, xv. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 9; 1 Tim. i. 11.
455 Volckmar: Das Evangelium Marcions; Leipzig, 1852, p. 54.
456 Luke ii. 19, 51.
457 Luke i. 66.
458 John xix. 26.
459 This was some time prior to the composition of St. John’s Gospel.
The first two chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel were written apparently
by the same hand which wrote the rest. Similarities, identity of
expression, almost prove this. Compare i. 10 and ii. 13 with viii.
37, ix. 37, xxiii. 1; also i. 10 with xiv. 17, xxii. 14; i. 20 with
xxii. 27, and i. 20 with xii. 3, xix. 44; i. 22 with xxiv. 23; i. 44
with vii. 1, ix. 44; also i. 45 with x. 23, xi. 27, 28; also i. 48
with ix. 38; i. 66 with ix. 44; i. 80 with ix. 51; ii. 6 with iv. 2;
ii. 9 with xxiv. 4; ii. 10 with v. 10; ii. 14 with xix. 18; ii. 20
with xix. 37; ii. 25 with xxiii. 50; ii. 26. with ix. 20.
460 The descent of the Holy Ghost in bodily shape explains why in iv. 1
he is said to have been full of the Holy Ghost. I suspect the
narrative of the unction occurred here. This was removed to cut off
occasion to Docetic error, and the gap was clumsily filled with an
useless genealogy.
461 Ναζωραῖος for Ναζαρηνός omitted.
462 Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. c. 25, “ut doctor de ea vita videatur
consuluisse quae in lege promittitur longaeva.”
463 ὅταν ὄψησθε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ
ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω.—Epiph. Schol. 40; Tertul. c. 30.
464 Luke xiii. 25‐30.
465 Matt. vii. 13.
466 Hist. of the Christian Religion, tr. Bohn, ii. p. 131.
467 παρέκοψε τό: λέγετε, ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν: ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι
πεποιήκαμεν, Sch. 47.
468 Baur calls it an “ungeschickte Zusatz.”
469 The Gospel is printed in Thilo’s Codex Apocryph. Novi Testamenti,
Lips. 1832, T.I. pp. 401‐486. For critical examinations of it see
Ritschl: Das Evangelium Marcions und das Kanonische Ev. Lucas,
Tübingen, 1846. Baur: Kritische Untersuchungen über die Kanonischen
Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847, p. 393 sq. Gratz: Krit. Untersuchungen
über Marcions Evangelium, Tübing. 1818. Volckmar: Das Evangelium
Marcions, Leipz. 1852. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes,
Paris, 1866, pp. 147‐160.
470 Luke iv. 18.
471 Luke iv. 28; compare vi. 13 with Matt. x. and Luke x. 1‐16, vii.
36‐50, x. 38‐42, xvii. 7‐10, xvii. 11‐19, x. 30‐37, xv. 11‐32; Luke
xiii. 25‐30, compared with Matt. vii. 13; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48,
xviii. 42, &c.
472 He died about A.D. 160.
473 Clem. Alex. Strom. vi.
474 Epiphan. Haeres. xxx. 3‐7.
475 Strom. iv.
476 Tertul. De Præscrip. 49.
477 Tertul. De Praescrip. 38.
478 Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 20.
479 _Ibid._ iii. 11.
480 “Suum praeter haec nostra.”—Tertull. de Praescrip. 49.
481 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxiv. 1; Iren. Haer. i. 9.
482 Iren. i. 26.
483 Wright: Syriac Apocrypha, Lond. 1865, pp. 8‐10.
484 Tischendorf: Codex Apocr. N. T.; Evang. Thom. i. c. 6, 14.
485 _Ibid._ ii. c. 7; Latin Evang. Thom. iii. c. 6, 12.
486 Pseud. Matt. c. 31.
487 Epiph. Hæres. xxvi. 3.
488 The second passage and its meaning are: Εἶδον δένδρον φέρον δώδεκα
καρποὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, καὶ εἶπέ μοι; τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ
αὐτοῖ ἀλληγορούσιν εἰς τὴν κατὰ μῆνα γινομένην γυναικείαν ῥύσιν.
Μισγόμενοι δὲ μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων τεκνοποιΐαν ἀπαγορεύουσιν. οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸ
τεκνοποιῆσαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἡ φθορὰ ἐσπούδασται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡδονῆς
χάριν.—Epiph. Haeres. xxvi. 5.
489 Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 2. He says, moreover: οὐκ αἰσχυνόμενοι αὐτοῖς
τοῖς ῥήμασι τὰ τῆς πορνείας διηγεῖσθαι πάλιν ἐρωτικὰ τῆς κύπριδος
ποιητούματα.
490 Iren. Haeres. i. 35.
491 Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, p. 168.
492 Baur: Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 193.
493 ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἀναγινώσκοντες.—Haeres. xxvi. 5.
494 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1.
495 Acts viii. 5, 13, 27‐39, xxi. 8.
496 Acts xxi. 8.
497 Epiphan. Haeres. xxvi. 13.
498 Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 107. See my “Legends of Old Testament
Characters,” II. pp. 108, 109.
499 2 Cor. xii. 2.
500 The cuneiform text in Lenormant, Textes cuneiformes inédits, No. 30.
The translation in Lenormant: Les premières civilizations, 1. pp.
87‐89.
501 Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. f. 304; iii. f. 438; vii. f. 722.
502 Rom. vii. 17.
503 Iren. Haeres. i. 25.
504 Compare Rom. iii. 20. Epiphanes died at the age of seventeen.
Epiphan. Haeres. xxxii. 3.
505 Epiphan. xxxii. 4.
506 Clem. Strom. iii. fol. 526.
507 It is instructive to mark how the enunciation of the same principles
led to the same results after the lapse of twelve centuries. The
proclamation of free grace, emancipation from the Law, justification
by faith only, in the sixteenth century quickened into being
heresies which had lain dead through long ages. Bishop Barlow, the
Anglican Reformer, and one of the compilers of our Prayer‐book, thus
describes the results of the enunciation of these doctrines in
Germany and Switzerland, results of which he was an eye‐witness:
“There be some which hold opinion that all devils and damned souls
shall be saved at the day of doom. Some of them persuade themselves
that _the serpent which deceived Eve was Christ_. Some of them grant
to every man and woman two souls. Some affirm lechery to be no sin,
and that one may use another man’s wife without offence. Some take
upon them to be soothsayers and prophets of wonderful things to
come, and have prophesied the day of judgment to be at hand, some
within three months, some within one month, some within six days.
Some of them, both men and women, at their congregations for a
mystery show themselves naked, affirming that they be in the state
of innocence. Also, some hold that no man ought to be punished or
suffer execution for any crime or trespass, be it ever so horrible”
(A Dyalogue describing the orygynall ground of these Lutheran
faccyons, 1531). We are in presence once more of Marcosians,
Ophites, Carpocratians. Had these sects lingered on through twelve
centuries? Possibly only; but it is clear that the dissemination of
the same doctrines caused the production of these obscene sects by
inevitable logical necessity, whether an historical filiation be
established or not.
508 Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Mark vii. 31.
509 Ideas reproduce themselves singularly. There is an essay by De
Quincy advocating the same view of the character and purpose of
Judas.
510 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 1.
511 Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 31.
512 Etudes, p. 176.
513 Epiphan. Haeres. xxxviii. 2.
514 2 Cor. xii. 4.
515 Reprinted in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record,
p. 372.