109 them that they are not of groat value in a study of

Jewlah-Olxristian thought# The pseuclo-Olementines

reflect Jewish-Ohristian thought and show some relations ships with Gnostic thought, although scholars are not agreed as to.the nature of that relationahip.^ J. version of Matthew (Kpiphanxus, jpan. 29*9*4) or the

Go bpel according to the Hebrews {Jerome* De vir. ill. 2}* Jerome ment zoned a Hebrew book used by the

Nazarenes and the Ebionites, a book considered a Hebrew version of Matthew (Jerome, In Mat,t* 12.13). A number of other writers cited the go^jffTlaooording to tho Hebrews. .Busebiua, Theophany 4.12,3:'efei^red to the %oepe]. the Jews had in the Hebrew language, and eomo Mas. of Matthew have notes referring to

rd "louôat\^ov.

Bpiphanius gave a number of quotations from a Gospel used by the Bblonites (Epiphanius, Fan. 30)*

These refs, could indicate a single work ixi two rooensiona; of. A. Rouanet, Jstude exëgétlquo ^

ûe SBÏi^f'Waris, 1904). Or

they Gould refer to as many as 3 sopai^ate works: of. H. Waitz, "Neuo Hntorsuchungen hber die sogen. juden- ohristlloheii Evan^^elien," 36 (1937), 60-81. In the pz'Gsent study (for convenience alone) the citations in E%>iphaniue, Fan. 30, are refez'red to as from the Gpspql of t M j|Mpnites (KvBb)i the rest as from the Gospel

iM)£ Qga ( S-vHe). For the qv.estioiâs ' involved, the various hypotheses advanced, and bibll- ography, of, Byengelios, pp. 32-97; ?. Vielhauer in Apok 3, pp* 7§-lbB,

'^Scholars generally agree that the pseudo- Clemezitines reflect Jowish-Ohristian tradition; see Bohoeps, @iG0lggle und G ^ o h l ^ e ÉÊm

and 8tracker, Das JirXonchrlatontzua in den PsoudokXeiaen- tinen. Although most scholars feel That Gnostic thought influenced the pscudo-01ementinea, Hchoopa, op. olt,, argued that they oppose Gnosticism; of. also’* Bchoepa, Urgem^nde, J#moWti8t#tw%, Gnosis.

110

Danielou, with some j us tification # included the Apocalypse of Deter and the Epietie of the Apostles

1

among Jewish-Ohristie.n writings* In the last century one writer or another considered a number of apocrypha Jewish Christian, but other scholars did not concur.^ Some of these writings may have exhibited a few Jewish- Christian influences, but perhaps none of them should

% have been called Jewish-Ohristian products."^

The Hag Hammadi library included a number of Gnostic apocrypha, although few have yet been vmb-

1_{Danielou, Théologie du .ludéo-ohrietianisme.} .pp.

p

Tor various opinions concerning the origin of Prot, see above, pp. 5f. M. Nicolas, Etudes sur lea

évangiles apooryphes (Paris, 1866), pp. 334f#1 consi­ dered Inf* Tho* Jewish Christian; of* also van Oleef and Hofatede dé Groot, De apooryfe evangalien naar de

niewste uitgaven van 0. Tischondorf* pp* 44-46. Of* more recently Quasten, Patrology, I, 121* 'Daniôlou, op*

olt,, pp* 31ft, has considered EvPe Jewish Christian*" 3

"API is a possible exception; see I* 0* Thilo, Codex apocryphuB Novi Testament!, I (Mpsiae, 1832), bxix: B* li* Oowper, The Apocryphal Gospels (London, 1867), pp. Ixxxviiif#; Bvaimelioe, p* 422; ApzNT,

pp* 144f. Bee also P. Scheidv/eiler in Apok 3, p* 331. But for a denial of the Jewish-Ohristian character of Api of* Nicolas, op. cit* * pp. 371f.; R* A. Lipslus, Die Pilatus-Acten kritisoh untersucht (Kiel, 1871); E. von Dobschhtz, "Dor Process J'esu naoh den Acta Pilati, " ZEE

3 (1902), pp. 89f* One Ms* titles API evangelimi Nazaraoorumi of* 0* Tiechendorf, Evangelia apocrypha ( Lipsiae, ^ 1876 ), p . 333*

Ill

liBhed/^ Many of the writings frojn Hag Hammadi are not

p

Hew Testament apocrypha^“ euch worlce help elucidate (jxaoBtic thought but otherwise do not enter the present study* Borne of the other writings in that library, although used and possibly modified by Gnostios, may

%

originally have been written in non-Chiostic cira3.es

That loaves only a few available apocrypha that a%*e unambiguously Gnostic* Theee include (besides the

]p]rx5\rionw^3]Lar-k::KK)t4ii ajcwl tsecorwliajfTf P is t i s B ophia , booka ^pf

^Boe above, p, 33 n* 2.

p_{"Borne are Gnostic treatises, not apocrypha#}

These include Hyp* Arch* and OrWor. Some others are more accurately described as OT apocrypha* For deeorlp- tions of the works from Mag Hammadi not yet published,

BOB _{rueoh) nouveaux écrits gaostiques découverts en}

Hauto-Ëgypte," Oqptiç Studies in Honor of Walter @fing Orum# pp# 9I-I5T 3 Se"cr pf3he ^ ^ Hg^yptian Gnosticp # For tho^ included} among" the %

apoorypha see H.-C* Puoclx in Apok 3, pp* 160-66, 168-74, 194-224, 229-43? 245-49. BvTr should probably not be considered one of the NT apocrypha* In spite of its title it is a homily, not a Gospel1 of* van Urmik, "The

*Gospel of Truth * and the New Testament," F. 1. Cross, ed*, The Jui^ Godex, pp# 104-07; Pueoh in Apok 3, pp* 3.65f.

The library includes Hoxmetio writings and an ApoQalypae of Paul much like the already-known ApPa %Doressa,\g^r pp. 237f.). Van Hmiik, "The Origin

of the Reccnitly Discovered *Apocryphon Jacobi, VC 10 (1956), 149-56, folt that the Apooryphqn of James in the

112

^ 1

Jeu and an untitled work) the Apooryphon of John, the Sophia JoBu Ohx'isti# and the Goa pel of Mary.^ The

•taWitiuMlMiV *' 1 MNU# #M#»#*JkW#.%» ikij’iOj 1*#»## * r# %*,*#»)*#

Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, and Gospel of Philip

are olosely related to Gnostloiem, but they do not %

present characteristic Gnostic teacixings# Of other

Gnostic books mentioned by the ohuroh fathers almost

1_{For these works see 0. Schmidt, Koptlsoh-gnqa-}

tisch Bohriften, ed, W* Till (Berlin, 19547T For an

English trane, of Pistis Sophia soe G* R* S, Mead,

Fistis Sophia, a Gnostic Miaoellany (Bondon, 1921)* For text, commentary, and trans# of the untitled work see G.

Baynes, A Ooptic Gnostic Treatise contained in the .Opdex

BruciariuS' (Oambridge, 193^). The entire text of t h e ™ Oodox Bruoianus, including that of tho Bopka £f Jeu, is in G. Schmidt, GnoBtisehe"Sohriften in koptiacher

Bpraoho aus ft dem Godex Brucxa#K# #w#r'i"'."I M# #,'WVIII r,,# nusnTjexp^iisr, 18921T"A mttm ' ^ f p

For text and trans, of those works see Till, Die

ff

_{ensla 8502.}

iSfJMs&ga âsW&bm Am MiiUâSihga i M M m S®eaüa-

'5_{On BvTho of* the remark by Boreeae, op* pit.,} p. 348: "In its 0optic edition, the work does contain certain Gnostic additions or corrections; but the work

as a whole contains elements which are scarcely

consonant with Gnosticism* " Of. also Fueoh in Apok 3,

p. 221; Wilsoa, SJMigs in gSSEl 3È ShQinaa. pp.

431 *

For the lack of charaoteriotic Gnostic teaching in BvPh see H,-M* Soheake in Loipoldt-Bchenke, Koptisoh gjQOsti£che Bohriften ana don Papyrua-0odioes von Nag- Hamadi. p* 34; of, also "Puech in Apok 3, p* 198* KvTr

also presents no Gnostic system; see van Gnnik, "The ♦Gospel of Truth♦ and the Mew Testament," P. B. Gross,

ea., A m m Saam, p p- k * Sï-obei, Asmml M.

113 1

nothing is Imown* The publication of more of the Mag

Hammadi library may throw light on aoiue of those *

Borne writers considerod other apocrypha Gnoetic,

2

but their views were not generally well received*

Bipelus considered most of the apocryphal Acta Gnostic

books later reworked by catholics. But his definition of Gnostiolsm was looee^ and he often read iaito the material traces of Gnostic thought that wore not

demonstrably present #- Other writers still sometimes

refei' to many of the apocryphal Aots, or to the Gospel 1_{For Gnostic apocrypha of which only titles or} single quotations remain, see Fueoh in Apok 3, pu. 158-

60, 166-68, 186-93, 228f*, 250-71.

2_{On Prot of* above, p* 5* Some have considered}

Inf. Tho* Gnostic; see e*g* J. Geffoken, OhrlBtXiohe

(Tubingen, 1908), p. 20. But of* Cullmann in

3, p. 293. ' %

*Apk* Apg., X, 3-6* He had the same opinion about other apocrypha also; of* e*g* Bipsius, Di£

p p* 43f.

Of. â. Harnaok, Qesohlohte der altohristllùhen bitteratur bis Buaebius (beipaig, 1893-1904), 11*1, 542s

"lilpsiuB hat dem Begriff ’Qnostisoh* ein gan% unstatt- hafto Wei to gegeboii."

Mote the criticisms of his conclueions in %ahn, des .fieuteBtaaentli.p.hen ganona> II, 877 n. 2, and in A* Rey, Btude sur les Acta Pauli et Thoolae et la légende de iliecîa ï'Paris * ,iii.iiiiiWli|«M<ipiHl|i . IIIII» ^ 1890).^ f

114

aocordinA' to the Egyptians * or even to the Infaacy

1

Gospel of Thomas » as GnostiOo" But the Gnostic

oharaoter of these works has not been oonvinoingly

2

demonstrated « Gnostic thought may have influenced some apoorypha to a greater or lesser degreep but that does not make them Gnostic works *

Most apoorypha are, as they stand, neither

Gnostic nor Jewish Christian g although some show

evidence of Gnostic or J ewish-Ghris tian influences « 1

The tendency to consider Inf. Tho. Gnostic resulted from the remarks of Hippolytus {Blench# 5.7), Irenaeus (Haer. 1.20.1) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Cateoh. 4.36} 6*31)7 it was assumed that the extant Inf. Tho. was an expurgated version of the older book (ApooHT, p. 14; Quasten, o£. cit.. I, 123; Altaner, Patrology. p. 69)* But it is difficult to see how redaction of a truly Gnostic work could have resulted in the existing Inf. Tho. (of. ApzNT, p. 98). The discovery at Hag

Hammadi of BvTho obviates the necessity of assuming that the fathers were all referring to Inf. Tho.

Quasten, op. oit.. I, 113, considered BvEg

Gnostic (of. also Bvangelios* p* 57; Baniélou, op. cit.* p. 31) and also called ATho Gnostic (Quasten, o£* cit.. I# 139; of* Ap%HT, p. 407). Altaner, Fatrolo^v. pp. 69f., considered BvBarth Gnostic.

o

On Inf. Tho. see above, n, 1; cf. also Sclmidt, Gesprache Jesu mit seinen JünRern nach der Auferstehung. p. 228* For ATho cf* Findlay, Byways in Early Ohristian Xiiterature. pp* 278f* EvEg was apparently an ascetic work, but not necessarily Gnostic; cf. ApjsHT, p. 34. There are no traces of specifically Gnostic teaching in EvBarth (Bvanfcelios. p. 574).

115

1

Many exist only in fragmentary form, while others exist

Q

in numerous reooneions* " These aj)oorypha, setting out the Ideas of no single, well-defined group, are of interest in an attempt to determine the relationship between Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism* Tho

influoncea they reflect indicate the impression made upon the church at large by Jewish Christians and Gnostics,

Investigators looking for traces of Gnostic or

Jewish-Christian influence may sometimes forget that

parallels do not always imply dependence and that

writers sometimes reached the some conelusions indepen­ dently* Gnostics, Jewish Otoistiane, and the writers of the apocrypha had a vast oonmon background in the

1_{A mirflber of Mas. contain fragmente from uniden-}

tified apoorypha; of. ApooNT, pp* 25-32; Bvangeliqe, pp* 81-114; Apok 3, pp. 56-74* i\ Ox. 1, 654? and 655 are from EvTho. Borne apocrypha are known only from cita­

tions in the church fathers; see especially Evangelios, pn. 32-80; Fabx'icluSs Oodax apooryphua B'ovi Testament 1 ^

i; 335-82: II, 743-632':--- p

"Of# Inf. Tho* (3 recensions; Bvangelia, pp. 140- 80) : Besc* (3 recensions; Bvangelia, pp. 322^2, 388- 432). For descriptions of NT apocrypha of. Amarm,

"Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament," Dictionnaire de la

Bible, supplément. I, 460-535; 1. Lohee, "Apokryphen II," Evangelisohes Kirchenlexikon. I (Gottingen, 1956),

170f.; J. Michl,""Evangelien II," Lexikon für Theolo^le

116

Hellenistio world, and all three made use of the Old and How Testaments. Bometlmes one must simply note

parallels without pronouncing upon the question of dependence and must he content with statements of prohability leather than of fact. But sometimes apocryphal teachings can he traced confidently to

Jewish-Ohristian or Gnostic influence#

Previous studies of the apocrypha have dealt with the apocryphal works book-hy-'book, discussing the

1

theology, origin, and influences of one book at a time. Other studies, oonoorned with the development of

particular doctrines within the church, diecussed those doctrines within the entire framework of Christian

thought and used the apocrypha only for incidental

?

references. ” The present study attempts to determine

1_{Editions and translations of the ® apoorypha}

neoessarily folloxf this procedure, as do works dealing only with a single apociyphal book. But other studies do the same; of, e.g. Apk. Apg., and Findlay, op. cit.

2_{Of, e.g. F, Haase, ApoBtel und Evaw^elisten jni}

âta 1922)

0,-M. IMsman, M baptême de feu (Cppsala, 1940 ) ;

Biotenliard, Die himmllsohe Welt im Urohrietentim und

Bpèit judentuû. , Bxeptions are some works givingThe life of "Christ as presented in the apoorypha; of. II. Hofmann, Das Beben £e£u nach don Apokryphén (Beip^ig,

1851) ; W. Bauer, Bebe^ Im

117

some of the teachings characteristlo of the apocrypha

and to examine their relationship with Jewish

Ohristlanlty and Gnosticism. Three criteria have

determined the choice of doctrines diecue8cd: in the

areas chosen the apoorypha must reflect a significant

difference in theli* doctrinal understanding from that of

the New Testament and the church fathers; the doctrines

must he common to a number of the apoorypha; and there must be some evidence that Jex\ri8h-Chrl8tian or Gnostic

CHAfTLR V

EEVBBATIOH AND BORIFTnRE

At fl)?ot sight Jewish Christ Ians and Gnostios seem to have been cLiemetrically opposed in their views üozïcerning revelation ^vzid. Boriptm'C# JewlEih Chris

proaumably iniiwited from Juclalam a high regard for the Old Teotumoat; Gnostico, having rejected the Old

1

In document Jewish Christian and Gnostic elements in the New Testament Apocrypha (Page 125-134)