iv. V.\lue. — The question of greatest moment which arises in estimating the value of the Apoc- ryphal Gospels naturally has reference to their worth as additional sources for the life and teach- ing of Jesus. From what has been already said about their origin and their relation to the canoni- cal Gospels, their value In this respect will appear to be extremely slight. A comparison of the Apocryphal Gospels with those In the Canon makes the pre-eminence of the latter Incontestably clear, and shows that as sources of Christ's life the former, for all practical purposes, may he neglected. The simple beauty and verisimilitude of the picture of Jesus in the four Gospels stand out in strong relief when viewed in the light of the artificial and legendary stories which characterize most of the Apocryphal Gospels. The proverbial simplicity of truth receives a striking commentary when (for example) the miracles of the Canonical Gospels are compared ^^'lth those of the Apocryphal writings. The former, for the most part, are instinct with ethical purpose and significance, and are felt to be the natural and unforced expression of the sublime personality of Jesus ; the latter are largely theatri- cal exhibitions without ethical content. In them 'we find no worthy conception of the laws of providential interfeVenc e : they are wrought to supply personal want-, or to jiatify private feel- ings, and often are jm-itiv 'ly iinmoral (Westcott). In a few of the Gospel- « lii'eh .-.how signs of inde- pendence, there may be here and there a trace of primitive and trustworthy tradition : but all such details, which have a reasonable claim to be con- sidered authentic, do not sensibly increase the sum of our knowledge about Christ. The conclusion, based on the comparison of the Apocryphal with the Canonical Gospels, is amply warranted, that In rejecting the fonuer and cnoosln" the latter as authoritative Scriptures tlie Church showed a true feeling for what was original and authentic.
Though the Apocryphal Gospels aflford us little additional knowledge ahout Christ, they are in-
GOSPELS (APOCRYPHAL)
G0SPP:LS (APOCRYPHAL
valuable as enabling us to realize more clearly the conditions under whicli the four Gospels were received in the Church, until they were finally established as authoritative in the Gospel Canon. The existence of so many Evangelic writings shows that for some time after the Canonical Gospels appeared, tliey had no position of commanding influence. The high place which oral tradition— 'the living and abiding voice' — stUl retained in the estimation of the Church (ef. Euseb. HE iii. 39. 4) militated against the acceptance of any written Gospel as authoritative beyond the com- munities in which it was current. In the early part of the 2nd cent, we have, accordingly, to think of the four Gospels as having merely a local and cir- cumscribed authority, while in different sections of the Church the production of Evangelic literature still proceeded, in which the tradition was handled more or less freely to suit the dominant conceptions and needs. But by the middle of the century there were indications that the four Gospels, already widely kno^vn through the constant intercourse that united Christian communities together, were being elevated above their competitors to a place of excep- tional authority. This was due, not to mere good fortune or to any arbitrary dealing on the part of the Church, but to the superior claims of the writ- ings themselves, which were recognized when the necessity arose of counteracting, by trustworthy and autlientic records, the rapid growth of a l^seudo-tradition in Gnostic circles. This rise of our four Gospels to a commanding and unchallenge- able position bears witness not only to their inherent value, — which the Church, with a fine spiritual sensitiveness, perceived, — but to the conviction that, as opposed to fictitious writings which ap- peared under the names of Apostles, they embodied the testimony of Apostolic writers. By the time of Irenffius (c. 180) the Gospel canon may be re- garded as definitely fixed ; and although Apocryphal Gospels continued to circulate, the authoritative position of the four Gospels was finally assured.
Perhaps the chief value of the Apocryphal Gospels is to be found in the light which they oast on the conditions of life and thought Ln early Christian times. They are of service in the difficult work of reconstructing the complex environment in which Christianity grew up.
When, for example, one reads in the Childhood Gospel of Thomas the account of the miracles wrought by the child Christ, and marks the spirit of diablerie so frequently exhibited, one is conscious of nothing but a painful feeling of wonder, that fables so bizarre and so revolting could fever have been tolerated in a communitv of Christians. Of any ethical sympathy with the spirit of Christ, of any recognition of the beauty and simplicity of Christ's childhood, as He ^ew in grace and wisdom, in favour with God and man, there is in this Gospel hardly the faintest trace. Though worthless as an account of Christ s child- hood, the Gospel of Thomas is yet a mirror in which we see reflected the curious condition of the society which accepted it. We see here, in a typical instance, how strong were the external influences which played on the development of phristianitv in
early times. In the process of permeating thi its great thought of Redemption and its loft, Christianity, as was inevitable, was itself coloured, and