We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
From its earliest beginnings Christianity has always believed itself to be the religion of a book, or to phrase it perhaps a bit more exactly, has had a Bible which it regarded as unique and directly inspired, if not actually written, by God himself. This confidence has always been central and unwavering. But the book has gone through many editions and has shown amazing differences.
1 In his so-called “Prologus galeatus” (Praefat. in libr. Samuel et Malachim — Migne, P. L., XXVIII, pp. 555 f.), after listing the twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon (viginti et duas litteras … apud Hebraeos) he concludes with the oftquoted words: “Hic prologus Scriptuarum, quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest: ut scire valeamus quidquid extra hos est inter ἀπόκρυϕα esse ponendum….” Frequently he speaks disparagingly of them. For example, in Liber contra Vigilantium 6 (Migne, P. L., XXIII, pp. 344 f.) he refers to a librum apocryphum qui sub nomine Esdrae, and dismisses it contemptuously as not received by the church (quod ecclesia non recipit). He warns Laeta (Ep. cvii, 12 — Migne, P. L., XXII, p. 877) to avoid all apocryphal writings (multaque his admixta vitiosa, et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere). His translation of these non-Hebrew writings was a most indifferent and hasty performance. But “apocrypha” for Jerome included in addition to these writings noncanonical Christian books as well (Barnabas Cyprius … ad aedificationem ecclesiae pertinentem epistulam composuit, quae inter apocrypha legitur — De Vir. Inl. 6 [Migne, P. L., XXVIII, pp. 555 f.]).
2 For a recent discussion of these books — their history and the probable reason they were never regarded by orthodox Jewry as canonical — see Zeitlin, S., “Jewish Apocryphal Literature” in Jewish Quarterly Review, XL, 3 (January, 1950), pp. 223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 De Princ. iii, 2, 1.
4 I Clem. 8:2 f.
5 Vis. ii, 3, 4
6 In 1672 Cotelier published a collection of the works of “the holy fathers who flourished in the days of the apostles” (Patres aevi apostolici sive SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerant). Since then it has been common practice to group them together and to refer to them by the not too happy title “Apostolic Fathers.”
7 Leben Jesu, pp. 35–39 [Engl. Transl., pp. 46–52].
8 Fragments of an Unknown Gospel.
9 Theophany (Frg. xxii) in Migne, Patr. Gr. XXIV, 685D. That this Greek fragment is actually a part of the Theophany has been often doubted, nor is it certain to what writing he is referring. Instead of such an introduction as ἧν τὸ καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει (H. E. iii, 39, 17), the words are ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἧκον Ἑβραϊκοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν εὐαγγέλιον. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange's “L'Évangile selon les Hébreux” in Revue Biblique, xxxi (1922), pp. 177 f.
10 John 21:25.
11 Eusebius, H. E. iii, 39, 15.
12 Christian Beginnings, pp. 383 f.
13 Matt. 14:28 ff.
14 Matt. 16:17 ff.
15 Mark 6:45–52; 8:27–33.
16 Luke 17:11–19.
17 Mark 1:40–45.
18 Rev. 22:18 f.
19 The absence of stories during the eighteen years between his visit to the temple and his public advent is at first surprising. Is this due to the express statement in John 2:11 that the miracle at Cana was the first which Jesus wrought?
20 De Vir. Inlustr. 2; cf. Comm. in Matt. (12:13), Patr. Lat. XXVI, 78D.
21 This is essentially the position adopted by B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, in the important Appended Note VI (“Mt. and the Jewish-Christian Gospels”), pp. 478–495.
22 Strom, iii, 13, 92.
23 Cf. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 11. This volume by James is still the most convenient introduction to this whole welter of writings.
24 Mark 12:25 and parallels.
25 Strom, v, 14, 96.
26 Comment, in Joan, ii, 12 (87); In Jerem. hom. xv, 4.
27 Mark 1:12.
28 Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:1.
29 Ezek. 8:3.
30 Bel and the Dragon 33–39.
31 Matt. 4:1.
31a Cf. my article, “Hagiographic Mistletoe,” in Journal of Religion, XXV, 1 (January, 1945), pp. 10–24Google Scholar.
32 Cf. Mark 14:47; Matt. 26:51; Luke 22:49 ff.; John 18:10.
33 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. xxvi, 13, 2.
34 The former is mentioned by Origen (in Lucam, horn, i) and the latter (παραδόσεις) by Clement (Strom, ii, 45; ill, 4, 26; vii, 13, 82). They may well be the same writing.
35 Op. cit., p. 14. James lists the brief references.
36 See Eusebius, H. E. vi, 12, 1–6, for the story of Serapion's decision in regard to it.
37 Adv. Haer. xxvi, 12, 1–9.
38 Adv. Haer. xxvi, 8, 2 ff. M. R. James in error says that the quotation is from the Lesser Questions. Epiphanius refers to both, but his quotation is from the Greater.
39 Adv. Haer. xxx, 16, 7; cf. B. W. Bacon, op. cit., pp. 488 ff.
40 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. xxxviii, 1, 5; cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. i, 31, 1.
41 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. xxxviii, 2, 5.
42 Cf. my article “The Artistry of Mark” in JBL, LXVI, 4 (1947), pp. 391Google Scholar ff.
43 Mark 12:35–37.
44 Luke 1:80.
45 Luke 2:40.
46 Josephus, Antt. ii, 9, 6 f; Philo, Vit. Mos. i, 5 f.
47 Herodotus, Hist, i, 114 f.
48 Plutarch, Alex. 5.
49 Josephus, Vit. 2.
50 F. L. Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, pp. 44, 50. Griffith dated this papyrus ca. A.D. 80 (p. 41).
51 Arabic Gospel of the Infancy 50–54 (The Anti-Nicene Fathers [Edinburgh, 1870], pp. 123 f.).
52 Apoc. of Paul 3.
53 “Being the same in number as the letters in their alphabet.” This curious statement apparently reflects the twenty-four courses into which the priests were divided and which corresponded in number with the Greek author's alphabet. His twenty-four may well have been subsequently “corrected” to twenty-two by a copyist to make it conform to the Hebrew alphabet.
This story is found in the apocryphal fragment, How Jesus Christ was made a Priest, in the Lexicon of Suidas. See J. deQ. Donehoo, The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, pp. 189 f.
54 Adv. Pelag. ii, 17.
55 Epist. xxv, 4; cf. Epist. xxvi, 13 f.
56 Eusebius, H. E. i, 13, 6–10.
57 De Cons. Evang. i, 9(14)–10(16).
58 See Donehoo, op. cit., pp. 274 f.
59 See “The Date of Peter's Confession” in Quantulacumque: Studies Presented Kirsopp Lake by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, edited by R. P. Casey and others, pp. 116–122.
60 Menahot 29b.
