• Besides an earlier study, Evangelii secundum Petrum et Petri Apocalypseot qua supersunt . . . cum latina versions et dissertatione critica, Paris, 1892.
t A smaller pamphlet by this writer (Das Petrusevangelium. f^ynoptische Tabelle nebst Uebersetzung und kritischem Apparat, Berlin, 1893) was translated by J. Macpherson (The Gospel of St. Peter, Edinburgh, 1893).
(possibly under Hadrian, or even Trajan), but the only means of determining approximately its character is furnished by the quotations made by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iv. 12) from the tAventy-third, and by the Acta Archelai (Ixvii., ed. C. H. Beeson) from the thirteenth, of the twenty- four books of Excgetica which Basilides himself composed as a commentary upon it. These quota- tions make it improbable that the Gospel was merely a collection of sayings of Jesus, like the so- called Q or second source of Matthew and Luke. The glimpses we can gain of it* rather point either (a) to a compilation or harmony based on the canonical Gospels (Zahn, Kriiger, Bardenhewer), or (6) to a more independent Gospel of the Synoptic type. The similarities between the extant frag- ments (e.g. that from the 13th book relates to the Parable of Dives and Lazarus) and Luke's Gospel have led some critics (e.g. Lipsius, Windisch, and Waitz) to conjecture that Basilides simply prepared an edition of Luke for his own purposes. In this case, his Gospel would be, like that of Marcion, an altered form of our canonical Third Gospel. Origen more than once refers in his Homilies on Luke to the numerous heretics who had recourse to this Gospel, quoting it like the devil for anti-divine purposes of their own. As Basilides is grouped with Marcion in Origen's references, and as the extant fragments can almost without exception t be described as distinctively Lucan, it is not un- likely that his e^a77Ato;' was an edition of Luke.
Special Literature. — Hilgenfeld's Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 46 f. ; Zahn's Geschichte des Kanons, i. 763-774 : 'Basilides und die kirchliche Bibel'; and H. Windisch in ZNTW, 1906, pp. 236-246 : ' Das Evangelium des BasUides.'
(/) The Gospel of Marcion. — Marcion's ' Gospel' was certainly an edition of Luke, prepared for the use of those who shared his antipathy to Judaism. This dogmatic purpose explains most of the omis- sions— e.g. of the first two chapters, of ips-ss, and of 20^^'^. It is a further question whether his text does not occasionally reproduce a more original form than that of the canonical Luke. But in any case his ' Gospel,' though to a slight degree harmon- istic (i.e. introducing material from other Gospels), is not in the strict sense of the term an inde- pendent uncanonical production. Its title was ' the Gospel of the Lord.' The best critical recon- struction is in Zahn's Gesch. des Kanons, i. 674 f., ii. 409f., together with Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century (1876, ch. viii. ). Hahn's earlier reconstruc- tion (1823) was translated into English by J. Ham- lyn Hill (Marcion's Gospel, 1891).
(g) The Gospel of Apelles. — Apelles, Marcion's disciple, is said by Epiphanius (xliv. 2) to have quoted the Logion, yiveade ddKifioi rpaire^Tai, as occurring iv ry evayye'Kiij}. If so, he must have used other Gospels than that of his master, for the saying does not occur in Marcion's Luke. But it does not follow that he edited or composed a Gospel of his own. The Logion was evidently current in many quarters (cf. Resch, TU xxx. pp. 112-128), though it never occurs in any fragment of an uncanonical Gospel. Apelles simply used it to corroborate his principle of selecting from Scripture the salient passages (xpw yap, (prtalv, d7r6 vdurTjs ypa(piji duaXiywv to. xp^ct/xa).
(A) The Gospel of the Naassenes. — In the Philo- sophoumena, Hippolytus quotes a number of Gospel-
• Jesus did not suffer on the Cross (Iren. i. 24. 4), but changed places with Simon of Gyrene, and stood mocking those who imagined they were crucifying Him. This Docetic representa- tion of Irenseus differs from that of Hippolytus, according to whom the Jesus of Basilides really died and rose (cf. p. 501).
t The fragment (Strom, iv. 12) which Zahn connects with Jn 91 3 may be connected equally well with Lk 21i2r. or 2338f. ; and the other fragment, which seems to echo Mt 19i2(Stro?n. iii. 1-2) probably was taken not from the "£.^rrp)ri.Ka. of Basilides but from the 'HdiKa of Isidore his son (mentioned in the immediate context).
GOSPELS (UA^CANONICAL)
GOSPELS (UKCANONICAL) 499
sayings from the usage of the Ophite Naassenes, but whether they came from a special Gospel com- posed by this Gnostic sect or whether they are simply citations from some treatise like the Gospel of Perfection or the Gospel of Eve, it is not possible to say. In the former case, it must have been a Gospel compiled from the uncanonical Gospels. One citation is : ' Why call me good ? One is good, my Father who is in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the just and the unjust and sends rain on the holy and on sinners' (Lk 18"*, Mt 5^»). Another is : ' Unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven — and even though you do drink the cup I drink, whither I go thither you cannot enter.' Two are distinctively Johannine ; one runs thus : ' His voice Ave heard, but his form we have not seen '; and the other, ' I am the true Door.' The follow- ing are distinctively Matthjean : ' You are whited sepulchres, inwardly full of dead men's bones, since the living Man is not among you,' and ' The dead shall leap from the tombs.' The Gospel — if it was a Gospel — was a Gnostic compilation, but neither its date nor its scope can be determined from the few extant fragments. The general tenets of the sect, as recorded by Hippolytus, suggest that it had some affinities with the circle which used the Gospel of the Egyptians.