LireraturE.—A. Meyer in Die Apokryphen des NT, p. 24. See Hilgenfeld, Harnack, Zahn, Westcott, in opp. citt.
C. 2. PHILIP, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.— i. Evidence of existence. ii. Contents of extant Fragment. iii. Characteristics. Date.
i. EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE.—The Coptic-Gnos- tie work known as Pistis Sophia testifies to the existence, in the second half of the 3rd cent., of a Gospel ascribed to Philip. This Apostle is represented as having written in a book the mysteries which the risen Lord revealed to His disciples: ‘Ht qguwm Jesus finisset dicere hac verba, exsiliens Philippus stetit, deposuit librum, qui in sua manu, iste yap est, qui scribit res omnes, quas Jesus dixit et quas fecit omnes’ (see Harnack, Christliche Urlitteratur, i. 14, where the whole passage is quoted). Epiphanius (377) knew that the Gnostic heretics, against whom he wrote, used a Gospel which bore Philip’s name (els évoua Pudimmou 700 dylov mabnrod ebayyéNoy memAacuEevov). He quotes from it the passage given below. Leontiws of Byzantium (d. 543) states that the Manicheans had composed a Gospel of Philip; but that he is referring to the work known to Epiphanius cannot be affirmed (de Sectis, ii. 1).
ii. CONTENTS OF EXTANT FRAGMENT. — The passage quoted by Epiphanius (Hw. xxvi. 13) from this Gospel is thus translated by Lipsius (Dict. Christ. Biog. ii. 716): ‘The Lord revealed to me what the soul ought to say when she mounts to heaven, and what answer she should give to
* The quotations given by Epiphanius from this Gospel have been compared by J. Rendel Harris with the contents of a Syriac MS edited by him. In his judgment the Syriac work is an extract from an adaptation of an earlier lost Gospel, and not a version of the Gnostic Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, etc., edited from the Syriac MS, Camb. 1900).
———— ———_—_————
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
the higher powers: ‘I have known myself and gathered myself together, and begotten no children for the Archon of this world, but have torn up his roots, and gathered the scattered members; and I know thee and who thou art! for I also am descended from the upper world.”’
iii, CHARACTERISTICS.—The Fragment has a few points of contact with the Fourth Gospel, but the resemblances are too slight to prove dependence (cf. Jn 11° 8), The ascetic and Gnostic tenden- cies of the work are both manifested in the single sentence, ‘I have begotten no children for the Archon of this world.’ Lipsius notes that this brief extract also dwells on a favourite theme of Gnostic writings, viz. ‘The prayers of the depart- ing soul as she passes through the various heavens’ (op. eit. 716).
Zahn (Geschichte des NT Kanons, ii. 767) thinks it probable that Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) had the authority of this Gospel for his assertion that it was Philip to whom our Lord said, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead,’ ete. (Lk 9%). Whence Clement derived this tradition cannot now be determined, but the conjecture cannot be accepted as evidence for an early date. Harnack decides for the end of the 2nd or the first half of the 3rd cent., and bases his argument on the nature of the Gnosticism which the extant Frag- ments of this Gospel reflect.
C. 3. MATTHIAS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.—
i, Evidence of existence.
ii. Conjectural identifications. iii. Supposed contents.
iv. Origin and date.
j. EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE. — Origen (c. 246) mentions a Gospel cara MarOlay (Hom. 1 in Lue.), and Husebius (c. 324) places it, together with the Gospels according to Peter and to Thomas, in his list of ‘heretical’ writings (HZ iii. 25). The name of this Gospel is also found in later lists of apoc- ryphal works, but no writer who uses this title gives any quotation from the Gospel.
ii. CONJECTURAL IDENTIFICATIONS. — Hippoly- tus (155-235) states that the Basilidians appealed to ‘secret discourses’ which had been com- municated to them by Matthias, who had been privileged to receive private instructions from our Lord: ‘daciv eipnxévac MarOlay airois Néyous dmoxptpous, ods Hkovoe- mapa Tod cwrijpos Kar’ ldlay dcdaxGels’ (Philos. vii. 20). If from other sources the contents of this Gospel were known, it might be possible to identify it with these dmrdéd«pupo Néyor, but the reference is not of necessity to a ‘ writing’ (Lipsius, Dict. Christ. Biog. ii. 716); and it would be satisfactorily explained if the Gospel of Basilides, mentioned by Origen (tract. 26 in Matt. 33, 34), claimed for the teaching of his school the authority of Matthias. The name of one who was not chosen to be an Apostle during the life of Jesus would naturally suggest itself to a Gnostic writer who knew that the only way to trace his doctrine to our Lord was to invent the fiction of secret teaching given to an Apostle in the interval between the resurrection and the ascension.
Clement of Alexandria (175-200) quotes three passages from the ‘Traditions of Matthias’ (Iapa- Sécers Mariov). The three quotations given he- low are respectively introduced by the following formule: ‘Matthias exhorting in the ‘“Tradi- tions” says ’; “They say that Matthias also taught thus’; ‘They say in the ‘“ Traditions” that Matthias, the Apostle, constantly said.’ Clement refers to the work known as the ‘ Traditions of Matthias’ with respect. In the first passage he mentions it between Plato’s 7hewtetus and the Gospel to the Hebrews; in the second passage he quotes its teaching immediately after a refer-