APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 437
ence to our Lord’s saying about the impossibility of serving ‘two masters,’ these being, in his view, ‘pleasure and God.’ Lipsius and Zahn identify this work with the Gospel according to Matthias mentioned by Origen. Lipsius allows that the identification is a conjecture ; Zahn enters into a detailed argument in support of the suggestion (Geschichte des NT Kanons, ii. 751 ff.). But Har- nack’s refutation of this theory is powerful and convincing. In the earlier part of his work (Christliche Urlitteratur, i. 18) he speaks with qualified approval of Zahn’s arguments in favour of identification, and assigns to them a measure of probability ; but his more mature judgment is that they are inconclusive (Chron. ii. 597). In the work known to Clement the speaker is not our Lord, but Matthias. Neither this fact nor the title ‘Traditions’ is favourable to the hypothesis that it was in reality a Gospel. Some of Zahn’s reasoning is based upon conjectural emendations of the text; but, unless these subjective altera- tions are accepted, the authorities he quotes refer not to Matthias but to Matthew.
ili, SUPPOSED CONTENTS.—The passages quoted by Clement of Alexandria from the ‘ Traditions of Matthias’ are given here because they have an interest of their own apart from their relation to the Gospel according to Matthias, of which it is probable that we know nothing but the name.
‘Wonder at the things present, for that is the first step to- wards a knowledge of the things beyond’ (Strom. ii. 9).
‘The flesh must be fought and evil entreated, and its un- bridled lust must in no wise be yielded to; but the soul must grow through faith and knowledge’ (Strom. ili. 4).
‘If the neighbour of an elect person sin, the elect one sinned, For if he had conducted himself as the word enjoins, his neighbour would have so reverenced his manner of life as not to sin’ (Strom. vii. 13).
iv. ORIGIN AND DATE.—In accordance with the views already expressed, nothing can be said of the ‘Gospel according to Matthias,’ except that it was known to Origen in the early part of the 3rd century. The ‘Traditions of Matthias’ was quoted with respect by a Christian Father towards the close of the 2nd cent., and it appears to have been highly esteemed by Gnostics on account of its ascetic teaching, though in the extant frag- ments there is nothing extravagant. Harnack finds in the phrase ‘as the word enjoins’ (as 6 Néyos araryopever) the stamp of Greek philosophy ; but this is by no means certain.
C. 4, BASILIDES, GOSPEL ACCORDING T0.—
i. Evidence of existence.
ii. Character and contents. Date.
i. EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE.—Origen (c. 246) is the oldest and probably the sole authority for the statement that Basilides (c. 133), the founder of a Gnostic school in Egypt, ‘had even the audacity (érédunoe) to write a Gospel card Baowtdnv’ (Hom. in Luc. 1). Later writers who express a similar judgment, but can scarcely be quoted as independ- ent witnesses, are Ambrose (Hap. im Luc. 1) and Jerome, who includes a ‘Gospel of Basilides’ in his list of Apocryphal Gospels (Pref. in Matt.).
ii, CHARACTER AND CONTENTS.—More is known of Basilides’ Lwegetica, » commentary on ‘the Gospel,’ than of the Gospel which he is said to have written. Agrippa Castor, to whom Eusebius (HE iv. 7) refers as a ‘most renowned writer,’ who ‘exposed the error’ of Basilides, says that he ‘wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel’ (els 76 evayyédoy BiBrta). A more specific title (H&qynrixa els 7d evaryyéduov) is given to this work by Clement of Alexandria (175-200), who quotes from the twenty-third book (Strom. iv. 12) a passage which treats of the relation of sin to suffering and
438
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
martyrdom. lLipsius thinks that Basilides is endeavouring to base his Gnostic teaching on an exposition of Lk 21%; but Zahn suggests Jn 91%, to which the resemblances are closer (Geschichte des NT Kanons, i. 767; ef. McGiffert, Husebius, p. 179, n. 12).
Another fragment from ‘the thirteenth book of the treatises (tractatwum) of Basilides’ is preserved in the Acta disputationis Archelai et Manetis, ¢. 55 (see Galland, Bibl. Patr. iii. 608). This passage contains an exposition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16). Zahn traces to the Lxegetica the Basilidian teaching about marriage in Clement (Sérom. iii. 1), where the reference is clearly to Mt 19-12, It is reasonable to assume that the ‘Treatises’ and ‘Expositions’ of Basilides are different titles for the same work. In regard to the number of the canonical Gospels upon which the Huegetica were based nothing can be positively asserted; but it is known that the schools of Valentinus and Basilides used the Gospels on which the extracts from this work are based. The Ezegetica almost certainly includes John as well as Luke, probably Matthew also.
In regard to the relation of ‘the Gospel’ to the Exegetica different opinions are held. McGiffert (op. cit.) suggests that ‘Origen mistook the Hae- getica for a Gospel’; but it is necessary neither to ascribe this confusion to him, nor to suppose that he inferred the existence of an apocryphal Gospel from the variations from the text of the canonical Gospels in the passages upon which he comments. There is evidence that the followers of Basilides made use of the ‘ Traditions of Matthias’ (Hippol. Philos. vii. 20), and that he claimed to have re- ceived instruction from ‘Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.’ Herein may be found the explanation of his departures from the Evangelic tradition. There is nothing inherently improbable in the hypothesis, which seems best to account for all the tacts, that in the interests of Gnostic doctrine Basilides wrote a Gospel and afterwards a com- mentary on it. His Gospel may be described, with Zahn, as ‘a kind of Harmony’; but the sources from which his narrative was derived pis to have been used with considerable free- dom.