Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 2, Slice 2 Part 35

(a) _Historical._--_The History of Johannes Hyrca.n.u.s_ is mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23-24, but no trace has been discovered of its existence elsewhere. It must have early pa.s.sed out of circulation, as it was unknown to Josephus.

(b) _Legendary._--The _Book of Jubilees_ was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrca.n.u.s to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 B.C. _Jubilees_ was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic and Latin. It is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic. _Jubilees_ is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which was already at work in the Old Testament 1 and 2 Chronicles. As the chronicler rewrote the history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests' Code, so our author re-edited from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus. His work const.i.tutes an enlarged targum on these books, and its object is to prove the everlasting validity of the law, which, though revealed in time, was superior to time. Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion, he looked for the immediate advent of the Messianic kingdom.

This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung not from Judah but from Levi, that is, from the reigning Maccabean family. This kingdom was to be gradually realized on earth, the transformation of physical nature going hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man. (For a fuller account see JUBILEES, BOOK OF.)

_Paralipomena Jeremiae_, or the _Rest of the Words of Baruch._--This book has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic. The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, and next by Ceriani in 1868 under the t.i.tle _Paralipomena Jeremiae_. It bears the same name in the Armenian, but in Ethiopic it is known by the second t.i.tle. (See under BARUCH.)

_Martyrdom of Isaiah._--This Jewish work has been in part preserved in the _Ascension of Isaiah_. To it belong i. 1, 2^a, 6^b-13^a; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. 1^c-14 of that book. It is of Jewish origin, and recounts the martyrdom of Isaiah at the hands of Mana.s.seh. (See ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF.)

_Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum._--Though the Latin version of this book was thrice printed in the 16th century (in 1527, 1550 and 1599), it was practically unknown to modern scholars till it was recognized by Conybeare and discussed by Cohn in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is an Haggadic revision of the Biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. Its chronology agrees frequently with the LXX. against that of the Ma.s.soretic text, though conversely in a few cases. The Latin is undoubtedly translated from the Greek. Greek words are frequently transliterated. While the LXX. is occasionally followed in its translation of Biblical pa.s.sages, in others the Ma.s.soretic is followed against the LXX., and in one or two pa.s.sages the text presupposes a text different from both. On many grounds Cohn infers a Hebrew original. The eschatology is similar to that taught in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, Eth. En. li. 1 is reproduced in this connexion. Prayers of the departed are said to be valueless. The book was written after A.D. 70; for, as Cohn has shown, the exact date of the fall of Herod's temple is predicted.

_Life of Adam and Eve._--Writings dealing with this subject are extant in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian and Arabic. They go back undoubtedly to a Jewish basis, but in some of the forms in which they appear at present they are christianized throughout. The oldest and for the most part Jewish portion of this literature is preserved to us in Greek, Armenian, Latin and Slavonic, (i.) The Greek [Greek: Diegesis peri Adam kai Euas] (published under the misleading t.i.tle [Greek: Apokalypsis Mouseos] in Tischendorf's _Apocalypses Apocryphae_, 1866) deals with the Fall and the death of Adam and Eve. Ceriani edited this text from a Milan MS. (_Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, v. i). This work is found also in Armenian, and has been published by the Mechitharist community in Venice in their _Collection of Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament_, and translated by Conybeare (_Jewish Quarterly Review_, vii. 216 sqq., 1895), and by Issaverdens in 1901. (ii.) The _Vita Adae et Evae_ is closely related and in part identical with (i.). It was printed by W. Meyer in _Abh. d. Munch. Akad._, Philos.-philol. Cl. xiv., 1878. (iii.) The Slavonic Adam book was published by Jajic along with a Latin translation (_Denkschr. d. Wien. Akad. d. Wiss._ xlii., 1893).

This version agrees for the most part with (i.). It has, moreover, a section, ---- 28-39, which though not found in (i.) is found in (ii.).

Before we discuss these three doc.u.ments we shall mention other members of this literature, which, though derivable ultimately from Jewish sources, are Christian in their present form, (iv.) _The Book of Adam and Eve_, also called the _Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan_, translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (_Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes_, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (_Abh. d. Munch. Akad._ xv., 1870-1881). (v.) A Syriac work ent.i.tled _Die Schalzhohle_ translated by Bezold from three Syriac MSS. in 1883 and subsequently edited in Syriac in 1888. This work has close affinities to (iv.), but is said by Dillmann to be more original, (vi.) Armenian books on the _Death of Adam_ (_Uncanonical Writings of O.T._ pp. 84 sqq., 1901, translated from the Armenian), _Creation and Transgression of Adam_ (_op. cit._ 39 sqq.), _Expulsion of Adam from Paradise_ (_op. cit._ 47 sqq.), _Penitence of Adam and Eve_ (_op. cit._ 71 sqq.) are mainly later writings from Christian hands.

Returning to the question of the Jewish origin of i., ii., iii., we have already observed that these spring from a common original. As to the language of this original, scholars are divided. The evidence, however, seems to be strongly in favour of Hebrew. How otherwise are we to explain such Hebraisms (or Syriacisms) as [Greek: euo rheei to helaion ex autou] (-- 9), [Greek: ou eipen ... me phagein ap autou] (-- 21). For others see ---- 23, 33. Moreover, as Fuchs has pointed out, in the words [Greek: hesau en mataiois] addressed to Eve (-- 25) there is a corruption of [Hebrew: havalim] into [Hebrew: avalim]. Thus the words were: "Thou shalt have pangs." In fact, Hebraisms abound throughout this book. (See Fuchs, _Apok. u. Pseud, d. A.T._ ii. 511; _Jewish Encyc._ i. 179 sq.)

_Jannes and Jambres._--These two men are referred to in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The book which treats of them is mentioned by Origen (_ad Matt._ xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 [_Jannes et Mambres Liber_]), and in the Gelasian Decree as the Paenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. The names in Greek are generally [Greek: Iannes kai Iambres] (= [Hebrew: yanim veyambarim]) as in the Targ.-Jon. on Exod. i.

15; vii. ii. In the Talmud they appear as [Hebrew: iohani umamra]. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 has [Greek: Mambres], Westcott and Hort infer that this form was derived from a Palestinian source. These names were known not only to Jewish but also to heathen writers, such as Pliny and Apuleius. The book, therefore, may go back to pre-Christian times. (See Schurer iii. 292-294; _Ency. Biblica_, ii. 2327-2329.)

_Joseph and Asenath._--The statement in Gen. xli. 45, 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a heathen priest naturally gave offence to later Judaism, and gave rise to the fiction that Asenath was really the daughter of Shechem and Dinah, and only the foster-daughter of Potipherah (_Targ.-Jon._ on Gen. xli. 45; Tractat. _Sopherim_, xxi. 9; _Jalkut Shimoni_, c. 134. See Oppenheim, _Fabula Josephi et Asenethae_, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also was acquainted with some form of the legend (_Selecta in Genesin_, ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90).

The Christian legend, which is no doubt in the main based on the Jewish, is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic and Medieval Latin. Since it is not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century, it will be sufficient here to refer to Smith's _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ i. 176-177; Hastings'

_Bible Dict._ i. 162-163; Schurer, iii. 289-291.

(d) _Didactic or Sapiential._--The _Pirke Aboth_, a collection of sayings of the Jewish Fathers, are preserved in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishnah. They are attributed to some sixty Jewish teachers, belonging for the most part to the years A.D. 70-170, though a few of them are of a much earlier date. The book holds the same place in rabbinical literature as the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. The sayings are often admirable. Thus in iv. 1-4, "Who is wise? He that learns from every man.... Who is mighty? He that subdues his nature.... Who is rich?

He that is contented with his lot.... Who is honoured? He that honours mankind." (See further PIRKE ABOTH.)

2 (b). _New Testament Apocryphal Literature_:--

(a). _Gospels_:-- Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish writings.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.

" " " Hebrews.

Protevangel of James.

Gospel of Nicodemus.

" " Peter.

" " Thomas.

" " the Twelve.

Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Basilides, Cerinthus and some seventeen others.

(b) _Acts and Teachings of the Apostles_:-- Acts of Andrew and later forms of these Acts.

" John.

" Paul.

" Peter.

Preaching of Peter.

Acts of Thomas.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

Apostolic const.i.tutions.

(c) _Epistles_:-- The Abgar Epistles.

Epistle of Barnabas.

" " Clement.

"Clement's" 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.

" Epistles on Virginity.

" " to James.

Epistles of Ignatius.

Epistle of Polycarp.

Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.

(d) _Apocalypses_: see under APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

(a) GOSPELS.--_Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish Sources._--Under the head of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels only one is found, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. Of the rest the uncanonical sayings have been collected by Preuschen (_Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien_, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection will be found in Hennecke, _NTliche Apok._ 9-11. The same subject is dealt with in the elaborate volumes of Resch (_Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien_, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).

To this section belongs also the _Fayum Gospel Fragment_ and the _Logia_ published by Grenfell and Hunt.[5] The former contains two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Matt.

xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3rd century, was discovered by Bickell among the Rainer collection, who characterized it (_Z. f. kath. Theol._, 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the primitive gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. On the other hand, it has been contended that it is merely a fragment of an early patristic homily.

(See Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 780-790; Harnack, _Texte und Untersuchungen_, v. 4; Preuschen, _op. cit._ p. 19.) The _Logia_ (q.v.) is the name given to the sayings contained in a papyrus leaf, by its discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They think the papyrus was probably written about A.D. 200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from the _Gospel of the Egyptians_. All the pa.s.sages referring to Jesus in the Talmud are given by Laible, _Jesus Christus im Talmud_, with an appendix, "Die talmudischen Texte," by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The first edition of this work was translated into English by A.W. Streane (_Jesus Christ in the Talmud_, 1893). In Hennecke's _NTliche Apok.

Handbuch_ (pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A.

Meyer, ent.i.tled _Jesus, Jesu Junger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten judischen Schriflen_, to which also a good bibliography of the subject is prefixed.

_Gospel according to the Egyptians._--This gospel is first mentioned by Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), subsequently by Origen (_Hom. in Luc._ i.) and Epiphanius (_Haer._ lxii. 2), and a fragment is preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It circulated among various heretical circles; amongst the Encrat.i.tes (Clem. _Strom._ iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. _Philos._ v. 7), and the Sabellians (Epiph. _Haer._ lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments survive; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 712, 713); Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, _Reste d.

ausserkanonischen Evangelien_, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a product of pantheistic Gnosticism. With this pantheistic Gnosticism is a.s.sociated a severe asceticism. The distinctions of s.e.x are one day to come to an end; the prohibition of marriage follows naturally on this view. Hence Christ is represented as coming to destroy the work of the female (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn a.s.sign it to the middle of the 2nd century. It may be earlier.

_Protevangel of James._--This t.i.tle was first given in the 16th century to a writing which is referred to as _The Book of James_ ([Greek: he biblos Iakobou]) by Origen (tom. xi. _in Matt._). Its author designates it as [Greek: Istoria]. For various other designations see Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1 seq. The narrative extends from the Conception of the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that in the present form of the book there is side by side a strange "admixture of intimate knowledge and gross ignorance of Jewish thought and custom," and that accordingly we must "distinguish between an original Jewish Christian writing and a Gnostic recast of it." The former was known to Justin (_Dial._ 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ vii. 16), and belongs at latest to the earliest years of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast Lipsius dates about the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works arose independently the _Protevangel_ in its present form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (_Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei_). The _Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae_ is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith's _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 701-703.) But if we except the Zachariah and John group of legends, it is not necessary to a.s.sume the Gnostic recast of this work in the 3rd century as is done by Lipsius. The author had at his disposal two distinct groups of legends about Mary. One of these groups is certainly of non-Jewish origin, as it conceives Mary as living in the temple somewhat after the manner of a vestal virgin or a priestess of Isis. The other group is more in accord with the orthodox gospels. The book appears to have been written in Egypt, and in the early years of the 2nd century. For, since Origen states that many appealed to it in support of the view that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the book must have been current about A.D. 200. From Origen we may ascend to Clem. Alex. who (_Strom._ vi. 93) shows acquaintance with one of the chief doctrines of the book--the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, as Justin's statements as to the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary's descent from David show in all probability his acquaintance with the book, it may with good grounds be a.s.signed to the first decade of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, _Gesch.

Kanons_, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text see Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, _An Alexandrian erotic Fragment and other Papyri_, 1896, pp. 13-17: for the Syriac, Wright, _Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T._, 1865, pp.

3-7; A.S. Lewis, _Studia Sinaitica_, xi. pp. 1-22. See literature generally in Hennecke, _NT liche Apok. Handbuch_, 106 seq.

_Gospel of Nicodemus._--This t.i.tle is first met with in the 13th century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing ent.i.tled in the older MSS. [Greek: hypomnemata tou Kuriou hemon Iesou Christou praxchenta epi Pontiou Pilatou]; also "Gesta Salvatoris Domini ...

inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis." See Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ pp.

333-335. This work gives an account of the Pa.s.sion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the _Descensus ad Inferos_ (xvii.-xxvii.).

Chapters i.-xvi. are extant, in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, pp.

210-458). All known texts go back to A.D. 425, if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (_Haer._ i. 1.) presupposes the existence of a like text.

In 325 Eusebius (_H.E._ ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen _Acts of Pilate_, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin's reference to the [Greek: Hakta Pilatou] (_Apol._ i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian's mention of the _Acta Pilati_ (_Apol._ 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot.

Recently Schubert has sought to derive the elements which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original _Acta Pilati_, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works. Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the 2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschutz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith's _Dict. of Christ.

Biography_, ii. 708-709, and Dobschutz in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, iii. 544-547).

_Gospel according to the Hebrews._--This gospel was cited by Ignatius (_Ad Smyrnaeos_, iii.) according to Jerome (_Viris illus._ 16, and _in Jes._ lib. xviii.), but this is declared to be untrustworthy by Zahn, op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic in Hebrew letters, according to Jerome (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2), and translated by him into Greek and Latin. Both these translations are lost. A collection of the Greek and Latin fragments that have survived, mainly in Origen and Jerome, will be found in Hilgenfeld's _NT extra Canonem receptum_, Nicholson's _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ (1879), Westcott's _Introd. to the Gospels_, and Zahn's _Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons_, ii.

642-723; Preuschen, _op. cit_. 3-8. This gospel was regarded by many in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew (Jerome, _in Matt._ xii. 13; _Adv. Pelag._ iii. 1). With the canonical gospel it agrees in some of its sayings; in others it is independent. It circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria, and was composed, according to Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome identifies it with the _Gospel of the Twelve_ (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2), and states that it was used by the Ebionites (_Comm. in Matt._ xii. 13).

Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 662, 724) contests both these statements. The former he traces to a mistaken interpretation of Origen (_Hom. I. in Luc._). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements of Jerome (Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christian Biography_, ii. 709-712), and is of opinion that this gospel, in the form in which it was known to Epiphanius, Jerome and Origen, was "a recast of an older original,"

which, written originally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia used by St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke, "which itself was only a later redaction of the Logia."

According to the most recent investigations we may conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites as early as 100-125, since Ignatius was familiar with the phrase "I am no bodiless demon"--a phrase which, according to Jerome (_Comm. in Is._ xviii.), belonged to this Gospel.

The name "Gospel according to the Hebrews" cannot have been original; for if it had been so named because of its general use among the Hebrews, yet the Hebrews themselves would not have used this designation. It may have been known simply as "the Gospel." The language was Western Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and his apostles. Two forms of Western Aramaic survive: the Jerusalem form of the dialect, in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra; and the Galilean, in isolated expressions in the Talmud (3rd century), and in a fragmentary 5th century translation of the Bible. The quotations from the Old Testament are made from the Ma.s.soretic text.

This gospel must have been translated at an early date into Greek, as Clement and Origen cite it as generally accessible, and Eusebius recounts that many reckoned it among the received books The gospel is synoptic in character and is closely related to Matthew, though in the Resurrection accounts it has affinities with Luke. Like Mark it seems to have had no history of the birth of Christ, and to have begun with the baptism. (For the literature see Hennecke, _NTliche Apok. Handbuch_, 21-23.)

_Gospel of Peter._--Before 1892 we had some knowlege of this gospel.

Thus Serapion, bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203) found it in use in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia, and condemned it as Docetic (Eusebius, _H.E._ vi. 12). Again, Origen (_In Matt._ tom. xvii. 10) says that it represented the brethren of Christ as his half-brothers In 1885 a long fragment was discovered at Akhmim, and published by Bouriant in 1892, and subsequently by Lods, Robinson, Harnack, Zahn, Schubert, Swete.