полная версия

Baring-Gould Sabine
Lost and Hostile Gospels

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.”³⁰⁴ 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.”³⁰⁵ 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.”³⁰⁶ Twice in the Acts is Jesus spoken of as the Anointed: “Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed.”³⁰⁷ 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.”³⁰⁸ 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.”³⁰⁹ The Homilies are more explicit: “He put out the fire on the altars.”³¹⁰ 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.”³¹¹ “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.”³¹² 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.”³¹³ The corresponding passage is in St. Matthew.³¹⁴

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.”³¹⁵ “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.”³¹⁶ “The Father, whom only those can see who are pure in heart.”³¹⁷ 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.”³¹⁸ This is fuller than the corresponding passage in St. Matthew.³¹⁹

“It is enough for the disciple to be as his master.”³²⁰ “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.”³²¹ “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.”³²² 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.”³²³ St. Luke says, “Ye have taken away the key (τὴν κλεῖδα) of knowledge.”³²⁴ 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.³²⁵

“Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.”³²⁶ “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”³²⁷ 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.”³²⁸ “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.”³²⁹

The woes denounced on the Scribes and Pharisees,³³⁰ and the saying that the Queen of the South should “rise in judgment against this generation,”³³¹ are given in the Recognitions as in St. Matthew, as also that “the harvest is plenteous,”³³² “that no man can serve two masters,”³³³ and the saying on the power of faith to move mountains.³³⁴

We have the parables of the goodly pearl,³³⁵ of the marriage supper,³³⁶ and of the tares,³³⁷ but also that of the sower,³³⁸ 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”;³³⁹ and the story of the rich fool.³⁴⁰ 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.”³⁴¹ We have the Greek in one of the Homilies.³⁴² In St. Luke it runs, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.”³⁴³ 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.”³⁴⁴ 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.”³⁴⁵ In the Homilies we have the original Greek: “Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.”³⁴⁶ 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.³⁴⁷

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.”³⁴⁸ 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.”³⁴⁹

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:

¹Recognitions 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.

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.”³⁵⁰ 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?”³⁵¹

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.”³⁵² 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.”³⁵³ 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:

¹Τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δέι, μακάριος δὲ δι᾽ οὗ ἔρχεται ὅμοιως καὶ τὰ κακὰ ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν, οὐαι δὲ δι᾽ οὖ ἔρχεται.

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.”³⁵⁴

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.”³⁵⁵

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.”³⁵⁶

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.”³⁵⁷ 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.”³⁵⁸

“Give none occasion to the evil one.”³⁵⁹

Twice repeated we have the text, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”³⁶⁰

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.”³⁶¹ 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.”³⁶² The words in St. John's Gospel are, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.”³⁶³ The idea is the same, but the mode of expression is different.

“Again he said, My sheep hear my voice.”³⁶⁴

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.”³⁶⁵

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.”

¹Homil. 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.

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.”³⁶⁶

“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.”³⁶⁷

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.”³⁶⁸