Liber de infantia salvatoris
,, nativitate salvatoris et de Maria vel obstetrici.'
By a gross blunder, arising perhaps from a mis- reading of Jerome's prologue to the Gospels, tlie writer mistakes the textual recensions of the Gospels made by Lucian and Hesychius for apoc- ryphal Gospels. This does not encourage hopes of accurate information with regard to the other
* For a defence of the genuineness of this clause, which refers to the Acts of Andrew, see JThSt xiii. [1911-12] 79-80.
t Geschichle des neutest. Kanons, i. p. 179 (cf. below, p. 482).
t Ed. von Dobschiitz, rtTxxxviii. 4 [1912]. He arg-ues for its pseudonymous character, and dates it between a.d. 51!) and 535.
5 ' Apocryphum ' ('apocrypha'), which is appended to each title, has its later opprobrious meaning.
II If there ever was a Gnostic Gospel of Barnabas, it may have supplied part of the basis for the Muhammadan (Italian) Gospel of Barnabas — a curious, docetic production (ed. L. and L. Rairpr, Oxford, 1907). Cf. W. E. A. Axon in JThSt iii. [l'JOl-02] 441-451. The Gospels of Barnabas and Matthias appear also at the end of the list of the 60 hooks in Cod. Barocc. 206.
works, particularly when this blunder is regarded as a misunderstanding of what Jerome had written. Thus the writer appears to have had no independent knowledge of the Gospels of Bartholomew and Andrew ; his allusion to the former, as well as to the Gospel of Mathias ( =napa56o-ets Mar^ta), is probably drawn from Origen, his reference to the latter from Innocent. He also confines himself to Gospels bearing apostolic names.
It is not necessary to go further down for ecclesi- astical strictures upon uncanonical Gospels. Those already mentioned will suffice to give a fair idea of tiie principal writings belonging to this class which were from time to time banned by the authorities. Some, no doubt, were not Gospels at all ; * some were only censured from hearsay ; others, as we shall see, existed and flourished in a more or less provincial or surreptitious fashion. But the point is that they had to be banned, and that the ban was often ineffective.
i. We now pass from verdicts upon the uncan- onical Gospels to an outline of the information yielded by their extant fragments. But before turning into this rank undergrowth of popular literature in early Christianity, we must state and define one or two general principles and methods of criticism Avhich are essential to any survey of the position.
(a) The present state of research offers almost as many problems as results. In five directions, especially, further inquiry is necessary before the materials which are now accessible can be criti- cally arranged and assimilated, (i.) The Coptic, Sahidic, and Ethiopic fragments, which are being still recovered, require to be sifted. In some cases, as e.g. with regard to the Gospel of Bartholomew, they may prove to furnish data for reconstructing Gospels which hitherto have been mere names in early Church history ; in other cases, they may compel the re-valuation of material already known, (ii.) The entire problem of the Jewish Christian Gospels has been re-opened by the researches of critics like Schmidtke and Waitz ; the relevant factors are mainly supplied by the higher criticism of writers like Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, but the outcome of the discussion seriously affects the estimate of primitive Gospels like that of the Hebrews or of the Egyptians. The subject- matter here is not so much new material as allusions and quotations which require, or seem to require, fresh study. (iii.) Several uncanonical Gospels are still unedited, from the standpoint of modern critical research ; even the extant Greek and Latin MSS are not properly collated, in many cases. The Gospels of Thomas and of Nicodemus are instances in point. There is some prospect of these defects being remedied systematically by French scholars, but English investigation has been sadly indifferent to such pressing needs in the field of early Christian literature, (iv. ) Even where texts have been edited thoroughly, problems of higher criticism arise. In the case of Gospels, e.g., like the Protevangelium Jacobi, we are confronted witli composite productions whose sources go back to different circles and periods ; literary problems of structure have to be solved. The numerous ver- sions of some uncanonical Gospels might seem to compensate for the fragmentary condition of others, but in reality the versions are often equivalent to fresh editions rather than to translations, and in this way the recovery of the primitive nucleus is sometimes rendered more difficult than ever, (v.) Finally, the form and the content of the uncanonical
* Tatian's 'Gospel,' e.g., was simply the Diatessaron ; the Gospel of Andrew was probably the Gnostic IleptoSoi of that apostle ; the Gospel of Nicodemus was part of the Acts-literature of the 2nd cent.; and several so-called Gnostic 'Gospels' were no more than treatises on religion, as, for example, the Val- entinian ' Gospel of the Truth ' (Iren- iii. 11. 9).
GOSPELS (UisXANONICAL)
GOSPELS (UIs^CANONICAL) 48 1
Gospels open problems of their own. The stories occasionally show the naive popular imagination working upon the Old Testament, but their methods are wider. There is more in them than merely Haggadic fancy, ' Les evangiles apocryphes,' says Renan, ' sont les Pouranas du christianisme ; lis ont pour base les 6vangiles canoniques. L'au- teur prend ces 6vangiles comma un thfeme dont il ne s'ecarte jamais, quU cherche seulement kdelayer, k completer par les procedes ordinaires de la legende hebraique.' But it was not simply Semitic methods of compiling a midrash that were followed by the authors of the uncanonical Gospels. Allowance has also to be made for the influence of Hellenistic romances, particularly in the light of recent in- vestigations by Norden and Reitz«nstein.* This line of inquiry has not yet been followed up ; it will lead probably to valuable conclusions with regard to the literary texture of certain strata in these Gospels. More attention has been paid to the influence of Buddhistic and Egyptian religion upon the matter of Gospels like those of the Egyptians, of Thomas, and of Peter. Here also problems are emerging which require careful scrutiny, in view of contemporary research into the syncretistic religious situation of the 2nd cent., particularly but not exclusively with regard to the elements of Gnosticism. In the edifying romance of Barlaam and loasaph a later writer adapted boldly tlie story of Buddha to the ends of Christian monasticism. The Indian traits in our uncanonical Gospels are less plain, but they are probably present under passages which at first sigiit are almost covered with Christian fancy and doctrine.