but that probably only this one passage occurrcl ■ '
could be adduced m favour of the extreme asc i 1 1 i i . n , (CAron. i. 616). That the Gospel contained iiuieli ■ I entirely- free from suspicion of heresy is ninli:ii.l' n I :i
while others, with considerable divergences, are : acter. On the assumption, which is i>ossibIe th of proof, that 2iid Clenierit drew llie sa\ iM'.,'s of .
will the the out- male no
III;- been asked by some one. When !. When the two shall be one, and 1 the male with the female, neither
GOSPELS (APOCKYPHAL)
and containing in some instances savings in a form even more original than they (Chron. i. 610 f.). One must confess that so extremely favourable a judgment, reared on a somewhat un- certain basis, does not inspire entire confidence when over against it one places Origen's view of the Gospel as heretical and its use by the Naassenes and Sabellians. While it may be allowed that there were probably passages in the Gospel which ranked it with the Synoptics, it seems clear that it showed affinities with the speculative teaching of Gnostic schools. It contained references to ' manifold changes ' of the soul which were relied on by the Naassene sect in building up their system of thought ; and Epiphanius in refuting the heresy of the Sabel- lians, who made use of the Gospel according to the Egyptian.<i, declared that ' there were in it many things put into the mouth of the Saviour, and s.aid as in a corner ni\ stica,lly, such as His declaration to the disciples that the Father, the' Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same ' (Hier. 62. 2).
With so little to rest a confident judgment on, it is extremely difficult to characterize this Gospel, but it may be near tlie trutli to say that it was a Gospel of tlie Synoptic type with a slight Gnostic colouring. *
The disposition to refer to this Gospel isolated fragments and utterances of Jesus, such as the Faywm Fragment and the Oxyrhyneus Sayings, is extremely hazardous. All that can with certainty be said is that some of the recently discovered say- ings ' belong to the same sphere of thought ' as the Gospel. Further than that it is impossible to go (see Grenfell and Hunt, New Sayings, 27 fl'.).
The date of the Gospel is about the middle of the 2nd cent., probably between 1.30 and 150.
LiTERATURE.—Hilgenfeld, AT extra can. iv. 42 ff.; Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt. i 12 ff., Chrmi. i. 61211.; Zahn, NT Kan. ii. 628 ff.; Volter, Petrusevangelium Oder Aegypterevangelium, 1893 ; Schneckenburger, Ueber das Evangelinm der Aegypter, 1834; Hennecke, NT Apokr. 21 ff., Handb. 38 ff.; Tasker, I.e. 423 ff.
A. 3. Gospel of Peter. — In his enumeration of Petrine writings, Eusebius mentions {HE iii. 3) a Gospel which, along with the Acts, Preaching and Apocalypse of Peter, he declares to be spurious, and not considered authoritative by any ecclesiastical writer. Until fourteen years ai;(., i.ui kmiwledge of the contents of the Gospel was <■!' I lie scantiest description, being based on a sljelii leliMeiiee by Origen, on a letter by Serapicm, IhsIk.]! c,f Aiitiocli (end of 2nd cent.), and on a jiassage in Theodoret, now generally discredited, which states that the Nazarenes, who honoured Christ as a just man, used the Gospel according to Peter (Hmr. Fabb. ii. 2). Origen's reference (Com. in Matt. bk. x. 17) teUs us nothing more than that those who be- lieved the brethren of Jesus to be the sons of Josejih by a former wife relied on the Gospel of I'i'trr ami the Book of James ; from which we infer tli.il ilir Cuspel contained the narrative of the \ ir-in liiith. From Serapion's letter (part of it piesei\ eil in Euseb. HE vi. 12), which was written to the Church in Rhoasus in the diocese of Antioch, we gather the following facts about the Gospel. When on a visit to Rhossus, Serapion had the ( iospel brought under his notice, as teing the 'leasion of some ill-feeling in the Church. Not iispecting any heretical leanings on the part of ill ISO who were favourable to the Gospel, the liisli(.|i, wilhout .any eaieful examination of its ■ •laileiiN. ,-,iu;jlii Id (.,i:i lili-h peace by authorizing il 111 lie ir.i.l. Il,i\iie: I. 1 1 lied afterwards that the (e.,].el had iiii'jinalecl aiiieiif;' tlie Docetie, lie pro- cured a cdjiy (rum some members of that party, and found that, while it contained much true teach- ing, there were additions of a questionable char- acter, to which he proceeded to call attention. Until recently this was all that was known of the Gospel of Peter ; not a single fragment had been handed down ; one could only gather that it was a
• V.ih hi I,' I'l. iirchr. Gemeinden, 190) finds in the On.^p, I .lie idea of the subversion of all ordi-
iiai\ - 1 , ; . i , irom which * it is only a short 8tep Ui
the pet.: I . iiieal conceptions.' This view is justly
opposeil li\ /.iliii i,.\ /■ Kan. ii. 640).
678 GOSPELS (APOCRYPHAL)
GOSPELS (APOCRYPHAL)
Uospel with a slight Docetic colouring, but for the most part entirely orthodox.
Of this long lost Gospel we have now a fragment of considerable length dealing with the Passion and Resurrection of Clirist. The fragment was found in the winter of 1SS6-I887 at Akhmim, in Upper Egypt, by the Frencli Archaeological Mission, and was published by M. Bouriant in 1892. The narra- tive claims to be the personal witness of the Apostle Peter, and reveals the Docetic tendency referred to by Serapion. The fragment begins at the end of the judgment-scene, after Pilate had washed his hands, and ends in the middle of a sentence, which introduces the narrative describing the appearance of Christ to His disciples at the Sea of Galilee. The nature of the contents can here only be indi- cated.