4. ‘When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, which came down and came upon him, And a voice cime from heaven, saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. And again: To-day have I begotten thee. And immediately a great light shone round about the place ; and John, when he saw it (the Gospel narrates), says to him : Who art thou, Lord? And again a voice came from heaven to him [John]: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And then (the Gospel says) John fell {down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him, saying, Suffer it, for thus it is becoming that all be fulfilled’ (cf. Mt 318f:),
5. ‘I came to put an end to sacrifices, and unless ye cease from sacrificing, [God’s] anger will not cease from you.’
6.=Mt 1247-50 ; the last verse reads: ‘They who do the will of my Father are my brethren and mother and sisters.’
7. ‘Have I earnestly desired to eat this flesh, the Passover, with you?’ (cf. Lk 2216),
Westcott adds—
8. ‘They say, according to their absurd argument: It is sufficient for the disciple to be as his Master ’ (cf. Mt 10).
iii, CHARACTER AND TENDENCIES.—The fore- going extracts furnish the material upon which any judgment as to the characteristics of this Gospel must be based. Its verbal agreements with the canonical Gospels are evident; references to parallel passages in the Synoptics might have been multiplied. Zahn inclines to the view that its author made use of all four Gospels (Geschichte des NT Kanons, ii. 732£.), though he grants that dependence on the Fourth is doubtful. The use of the Johannine designation ‘Lake of Tiberias’ is noted, and the unique position of John at the head of the list of the Apostles. The most strik- ing parallels with Luke occur in extracts 1 and 7. It is certain that the writer had access either to the Synoptic Gospels or to their sources; but it is also evident that he has altered the meaning of some passages and made additions to others. His heretical tendencies appear in 5, which gives ex- pression to the Elkesaite abhorrence of sacrifices ; in 7, which disparages the Passover by adding the word ‘flesh’ and by turning our Lord’s statement into a question to which a negative answer is im- plied. The vegetarian practices of the sect account for the omission in 3 of ‘locusts’ from the Baptist’s food; the comment of Epiphanius on this passage is instructive, and his play on words shows that he was using a Greek and not a Hebrew text of Matthew: ‘that they may convert the word of truth into a lie, and put honey-cakes (éyxpléas) for locusts’ (axpldas). It is plain from 1 that this Gospel had no narrative of the birth of Jesus and no genealogy ; but these omissions may not have any significance, for the story of the virgin-birth was accepted by some Gnostic Ebionites, and the resemblance to Mk 1! is obvious. The account of the baptism of Jesus should be compared with the corresponding narrative in the Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews (Nos. 3 and 4. See HEBREWS [GOSPEL ACCORDING TO], above, p. 341»); the dif- ferent traditions embodied in the two Gospels supply a strong argument for their distinctness. This section also shows that the author did not always make skilful use of his sources; the state- ment that Jesus forbade John is irrelevant, and inconsistent with the context. Only eight Apostles
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
eee a Se
are mentioned in 2, but the emphatic reference to ‘the Twelve’ in the immediate context imparts probability to the suggestion that the omission of four names is due rather to a scribe’s error than to the author’s carelessness.
The examination of the contents of the extant fragments of this Gospel yields slight evidence for its dependence upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and brings to light differences in the
parallel narratives which point to the use of dif- ferent sources. The facts have a satisfactory ex- planation, if the Gospel is a distinct work compiled to some extent from good material by an author who did not scruple to modify the Evangelic tradi- ‘tion, and to introduce spurious details in order to adapt his work to the principles and practices of a heretical Ebionite sect. The inconsistencies pre- sented by the extant passages of this Gospel are so marked as to lead Westcott to contemplate the possibility that the information of Epiphanius may have been ‘derived from different sources’; but he does not exclude. the alternative and, on the whole, more probable view that the incon- eruous elements ‘had been incorporated in the Gospel in the time of Epiphanius’ (Introd. to Study of Gospels, p.'466).*
Zalin assigns an early date to this Gospel (170), but his argument is not convincing. He supposes Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) to refer to it when he says that ‘the Lord announced in some Gospel or other: My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house’ (Strom. v. 10, 64). The ultimate source of this saying is the LXX rendering of Is 2416; but in what apocryphal Gospel Clement found his version of the passage it is hazardous to affirm. This Gospel was known to Origen, and it reflects a Gnostic form of Ebionite teaching; the latter part of the 2nd or the early part of the 3rd cent. is the probable date of its composition.