GOSPELS (APOCRYPHAL)
GOSPELS (APOCRYPHAL)
Jirstbom i
) reif;nei>t
\ 1 1 „s to the narratne of the
Tei 1 I I I Just rum My motltei, the
H I J My ham and bore Me anay to
th / —a fantastic description on the model
of I l)ia^on**6
I 11 1 I fourth petition runs ' Give vs to-day
ourt i Iitl \iani'llc ?nfl:ftar( to morrow')
we iua\ lia\t. 11 1 i t I is Himself in which case
iToi.<r« tran Ut 111 MIL I k 11' would 1* an ad-
jectival form 1 r 1 t X (the foUomnj dav). On
the other han 1 U 1 1 r w h i liehev e that the converse
IS the caie and that ii/aris an attempt to ^ive the meaning ofsT.^o-. (Me\erinUenn IS, Haiulb iit) The former alter- natn e is the more probable
The narntive of the healing on the Sabbath of the man with a withered hand represents the man as appealmg to Jesus on the ground that he was a mason who earned his bread bv work- ing with his hands, — a detail which may well be authentic.
In the longest fragment of the Gospel we have a version of Christ's interview with the Rich Young Ruler, which shows notable differences from tlie S\iioptic arcnuiit. Where the Synoptists speak of the ihh ni.ui'-- - , I, ii-,.. of his inability to accept Christ's trnii-, t\ ■ I'l to the
Hebrews, in \ivid and Imtinlv I .: - him as
showing astonishment and ;i l<'i!i : ■ n.) began
to scratch his head, and /' /- ' /< ' >> m reupon
Jesus rebuked him forcl:iih, .^ i I iw, when
he had neglected offices nt h I i i i i ! --I'ffoio
sayestthou, I havedoTU' tif . s ,,,>■ it is
written in the law, Thou ilnjself,
and behold, many of thy /^( '/,,./(, '' ,,■ ■< A'n- >}niiii, are covered withjilth arid are dyiwj with htiwicr. ichih' thy house is fvU of -many good things, and nothing at all goes o^U of it to them.' H this account is k> be taken as genuine, it is clear that our estimate of the Rich Young Ruler's character, based on the Synoptic tradition, will have to be considerably revised. It is, however, more probable that in this passage we have a mis- taken combination of the story of the Rich Young Ruler with the parable of Dives and Lazarus related by Luke.
After the Resurrection, Jesus is represented as appearing ylrsi to James, to release him from a vow which he had taken at the Last Supper : ' Jaines had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour, whxn he had drunk the Lord's cup, until lie should see Him risen from those that are asleep.' This is an obviously later form of the tratiition of Christ's appearing to James, due most likely to the desire of Jewish Christians to exalt their head above the Apostles of Christ. It should be noted that James is here portrayed as one of Christ's followers who partook of the Last Supper,— an unhistorical detail. There is probably a confusion between Jaines the Just and James the brother of John, an inference borne out by the reference to drinking the l/jrd's cup (ct. Mt -2022).
Into the difficult question of the relation of the Gospel according to the Hebrexvs to the Synoptics, it is impcssible in this article to enter with any fulness. That it is closely allied to them, especi- ally to Mt., is clear from the character of tlie frag- ments. Three difierent solutions of the problem have been suggested, all of them supported by competent authorities. (1) Hebrews is held to be the original Aramaic Matthew (Hilgenfeld), or an elaboration of it (Zalin), and as such, the ground- work of our canonical Matthew. This view is now almost universally rejected. (2) Hebrews is held to be independent of the Synoptics, the affinity being explained by a common reliance on oral tradition. This view, which is the one at present most widely held, is strongly supported by Harnack, who goes so far as to express the hope {Ckron. i. 645) that, after Zahn's penetrating discussion of the question, no one will have the hardihood to repeat the statement that the Gospel iicrording to the Hebrews is based on one or more canonical Gospels. That hope has not been realized. For (3) the view has recently been confidently advo- cated by Wemle [Si/non. Fragc, 248 fl". ) that 'Hebreics is dependent on all the Synoptics, making use of Matthew, and in some cases combining the accounts of Matthew and Luke. Meyer (in Henn. 1 8) sujiports
this view, and strongly emplia^izes the secondary character of the Gospel. In this jucl^iuent the present writer is disposed to concur. It appears t ) him thtt ill the tacts of the case are satisfac- t iil\ 1 \| 1 III I if \\ e hold that the GoAyc^ accorrf-
I I II II I IIS \\as written by one who used
II iiK i\ Mitllictt (and Luke), and built up his Uospel on the basis of a separate tradition, under the influence of his o\v n doctrinal prepossessions.
But e\en should the view of the Gospel's inde- pendence be accepted, this does not necessarily imjily that in it we are face to face with an earner, or an equally early, stage of the primitive tradi- tion. The realistic presentation, the fondness for little details, the quaint and, in some particulars, undiwriitied language, which are characteristic of the Gospel, may possibly be indications that in some narratives we have the tradition in its ori- ginal form ; on the other hand, these features may with as much probability be due to later manipu- lation by popular evangelists. Details, such as Christ's words before His baptism, \\\\'u-h arc Ijy some regarded as primitive on the ground that they are of such a character that they could not have been added later, are believed by others (in our opinion more justly), to be products of an age of reflexion. Traces of a later age than that of the Synoptics are found in the Resurrection frag- ment : there is the unhistorical detail in reference to the appearing of Christ to James, and the later apologetic interest is slio^\'n in securing \vitness for the resurrection from the enemies of Christ. (After rising from the dead, Jesus handed the linen cloth to the servant of the high priest). The judgment is warranted that, while the Gospel accordmg to the Hebrews probably retains in some points the freshness of the original tradition, it contains many elements that are secondary, and that, as a whole, it represents not an earlier, but a somewhat later stage of the Gospel tradition than the Synoptics. A date towards the end of the 1st cent, is probable.