2, Origen in his Commentary on Lk 1 (e. 220)
424 APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
gives the unknown authors of 7d kar’ Alyumrious evayyéhuoy the first place in his list of those who ‘took in hand to draw up a narrative of Gospel occurrences.’ With these writers who took the matter in hand he contrasts the four Evangelists who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (€& dylov kwotpevos mvevuaros). Latin translations of Origen’s notes on this passage are given by Jerome and by Ambrose ; both place the Gospel in the class of heretical writings. Jerome’s words are: ‘Leclesia quatuor habet evangelia, hereses plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur ‘* secundum Aigyptios.”’ (Cf. Zahn, Geschichte, ii, 625). After naming other apocryphal Gospels, Jerome says ‘et alia plura legimus’: these words are not in the extant Greek text; but as it bears elsewhere signs of abbreviation, and as Ambrose in his in- dependent version essentially agrees with Jerome, the Latin is probably a correct rendering of Origen’s words. Harnack and Zahn conclude that Origen had this Gospel in his hands; hence we may, with some degree of confidence, accept his judgment as to the character of a work which he had himself read.
3. This Gospel was known by name to two other authors. Hippolytus (155-235) quotes from a Naassene work a passage which treats of the constitution of the human soul, and says (Philos. v. 7) that this Gnostic sect found support for their fantastic theories év 7@ émvypadouévy kar’ Aiyumrtous evayyedly. Of the Naassenes little is known. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 1893, pp. 408, 411-418) sought to prove that the érepodidacxadodvres of the Pastoral Hoistles closely resembled them ; but Hof- mann, B. Weiss, and Hort (Judaistic Christianity, 1894, pp. 1380-146) have shown that this view does not meet the requirements of strict exegesis. The Naassenes were not Jewish legalists, but Gnostics ‘in whose syncretistic system there were Jewish elements’ (cf. Zahn, Einleitung, i. 476).—Epi- phanius (377) states that the Sabellians appealed to this Gospel in support of their doctrine ; he does not give a quotation from it, but says that it represents ‘the Saviour’ as teaching His disciples that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same (roy atrov elvar warépa, rov airdv elvar vidv, Tov avroy eivar aytor mvedua); he also asserts that the heresy was derived from apocryphal sources, especially from ‘the Egyptian Gospel’ (é€ dzo- Kptouy Twav, uddiora ard ToD Kadouuevoy Aiyumritou evayyeAlov). The slight change in the title (Aiyir- Tiov evayyédov) renders still more probable the view taken above of its meaning; Epiphanius (Her, xxx. 13) also speaks of a Hebrew Gospel (Efpaixéy), and the natural explanation yields good sense in both cases: the Gospels would fitly be so described which were used respectively by the Egyptians and by the Hebrews.
4. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome.—Of writings which are supposed to con- tain quotations from this Gospel, although it is not named, the most important is the ‘ Ancient Homily,’ which from the 5th cent. was known as the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (130-140). Pseudo-Clement — unlike the genuine Clement, whose Scripture references are almost exclusively to the OT—makes many allusions to the Evangelic history, using both the canonical Gospels and apocryphal narratives. In one passage there are verbal agreements with the Gospel according to the Egyptians: ‘ For the Lord himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, When the two shail be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female neither male nor female’ (2 Clem. xil.). Lightfoot concludes (Apost. Fathers, pt. i. vol. ii. p. 238) that ‘our pseudo-Clement would seem to have employed this apocryphal Gospel as
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
a principal authority for the sayings of our Lord.’ Harnack is quite certain that he did, but the evidence does not warrant a positive statement ; there are differences as well as agreements in the two forms in which the saying is quoted (cf. iii. below). The two versions may therefore be derived from a common source, either oral or written, the purer form of the saying being found in pseudo- Clement. Zahn and Resch oppose the identifica- tion of the source as strongly as Hilgenfeld and Harnack assert it; Harnack assigns three other quotations in the Homily to this Gospel (Chron. i. 618). Ropes says that it is impossible to express a confident opinion (Die Spriiche Jesu, pp. 182, 146).
4 In recent criticism there has been manifested a tendency to refer back to this Gospel sayings of our Lord and narratives of events found in other fragmentary sources. Harnack favours the theory that the Logia in the Oxyrhynchus Fragment were taken from this Gospel (cf. Expositor, 5th series, vi. 411) ; Sanday does not adopt this view, but is of opinion that ‘they may well have had their birth in proximity to it’ (Crit. Rev. viii. 140); Armitage Robinson says: ‘I am not at present prepared to say that the newly discovered sayings are excerpts from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. I must content myself with the state- ment that such a view is not improbable’ (Ez- positor, 5th series, vi. 421). Itisa mere conj ecture that the Faydéim Fragment (Mk 14°58 abbreviated, with v.%8 omitted) is an extract from this Gospel. Harnack (Chron. i. 590) suggests the Gospel ac- cording to the Hebrews as an alternative source, whilst Zahn regards the verses as the fragment of a homily (Geschichte, ii. 789f.). Volter (Petrus- evangelium oder Afigypterevangeliwm ?) holds that the Gospel of Peter is identical with this Gospel, in which, however, he is compelled to acknowledge the presence of interpolations. The reasoning has failed to convince scholars who have made a special study of the Gospel of Peter (cf. Crit. Rev. v. 299). Other conjectures, as, ¢.g., that this Gospel is re- lated to the Didache and to Tatian’s Diatessaron, are mentioned by Harnack, but he does not deem it needful to discuss them. On the general ques- tion, it may be said that it is hazardous to treat one Gospel, whether canonical or apocryphal, as dependent on another, because similar reports of our Lord’s words or deeds are found in both ; they may be independent of each other, but dependent on a common source, oral or written.