Thoughts on Antiquity

This post is the second part of my treatment of the Origenic canon. In 3a I discussed a catena of Origenic comments put together by Eusebius. In this post I will discuss another Origenic passage, one that lists apocryphal gospels. My sincere thanks to Phil Harland for listing this series of mine in Biblical Studies Carnival X.

It is now time to discuss the following passage from the prologue to his Homilies on Luke:

Το μεντοι επιγεγραμμενον κατα Αιγυπτιους ευαγγελιον και το επιγεγραμμενον των δωδεκα ευαγγελιον οι συγγραψαντες επεχειρησαν. ηδη δε ετολμησε και Βασιλειδης γραψαι κατα Βασιλειδην ευαγγελιον. πολλοι μεν ουν επεχειρησαν. φερεται γαρ και το κατα Θωμαν ευαγγελιον και το κατα Ματθιαν και αλλα πλειονα.

Those who wrote the gospel entitled according to the Egyptians and the gospel entitled of the twelve took it in hand. But even Basilides dared to write the gospel according to Basilides. Many, therefore, took it in hand. For also a gospel according to Thomas is extant, as well as one according to Matthias, and many others.

Ecclesia quator habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud iuxta duodecim apostolos. ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare. multi conati sunt scribere, sed quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, e quibus super persona domini et salvatoris nostri proferenda sunt dogmata. scio quoddam evangelium quod apellatur secundum Thomam et iuxta Matthiam: et alia plurima legimus, ne quid ignorares videremur propter eos qui se putant aliquid scire si ista cognoverint.

The church has four gospels, heresies very many, of which one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the twelve apostles. Even Basilides dared to write a gospel and to entitle it by his own name. Many have taken in hand to write, but four gospels only are approved, from which the dogmas about the person of our Lord and savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called according to Thomas, and one according to Matthias, and many others we read, lest we should be seen as ignorant on account of those who suppose they know something if they have knowledge of those.

Origen is playing off the wording of Luke 1.1, which claims that many have taken in hand to arrange a narrative (πολλοι επεχειρησαν αναταξασθαι διηγησιν) of the founding events of the Christian faith. The Alexandrian father takes these words in a pejorative sense, as meaning that some took matters into their own hands when compiling a gospel while others, namely the four canonical evangelists, were inspired by the holy spirit.

In taking these Lucan words in this manner, and then actually listing some of the gospels whose authors he classifies among those who took matters in hand, Origen ends up implying that these heretical gospels preceded the gospel of Luke. I am not certain that Origen was aware of this implication of his argument. Elsewhere in Christendom one of the staple arguments against the noncanonical gospels was that their authors wrote too late. We have already seen that the Muratorian canon denies the Shepherd of Hermas canonical status for its having been written recently, in our own times (nuperrime temporibus nostris). And Clement of Alexandria, in the generation immediately preceding that of Origen, writes in Miscellanies 7.17 (English translation slightly modified from that from the Ante-Nicene Fathers series):

Οτι γαρ μεταγενεστερας της καθολικης εκκλησιας τας ανθρωπινας συνηλυσεις πεποιηκασιν ου πολλων δει λογων. Η μεν γαρ του κυριου κατα την παρουσιαν διδασκαλια απο Αυγουστου και Τιβεριου Καισαρος αρξαμενη μεσουντων των Τεβεριου χρονων τελειουται, η δε των αποστολων αυτου μεχρι γε της Παυλου λειτουργιας επι Νερωνος τελειουται, κατω δε περι τους Αδριανου του βασιλεως χρονους οι τας αιρεσεις επινοησαντες γεγονασι, και μεχρι γε της Αντωνινου του πρεσβυτερου διετειναν ηλικιας, καθαπερ ο Βεσιλειδης, καν Γλαυκιαν επιγραφηται διδασκαλον, ως αυχουσιν αυτοι, τον Πετρον ερμηνεα. ωσαυτως δε και Ουαλεντινον Θεοδα διακηκοεναι φερουσιν· γνωριμος δ ουτος γεγονει Παυλου. Μαρκιων γαρ κατα την αυτην αυτοις ηλικιαν γενομενος ως πρεσβυτης νεωτεροις συνεγενετο. μεθ ον Σιμων επ ολιγον κηρυσσοντος του Πετρου υπηκουσεν. ων ουτως εχοντων συμφανες εκ της προγενεστατης και αληθεστατης εκκλησιας τας μεταγενεστερας ταυτας και τας ετι τουτων υποβεβηκυιας τω χρονω κεκαινοτομησθαι παραχαραχθεισας αιρεσεις.

For it does not require many words to show that the human assemblies which [the heretics] held were posterior to the catholic church. For the teaching of our Lord at his advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Hadrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims, as they boast, Glaucias the interpreter of Peter for his master. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter. Such being the case, it is evident from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the church that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions, and falsified.

This entire line of argumentation, with its charming image of Marcion as already a grand old don in the underworld of heretics, depends on the canonical texts preceding the heretical texts in time.

Thus I doubt that Origen really intended to imply that, say, Basilides preceded Luke. In (over)interpreting Luke 1.1, he has in his zeal, I think, unintentionally led to heretical priority as an undesirable byproduct to which he would probably object if pressed on the matter. (Or perhaps he would argue that the evangelist Luke was writing prophetically of those who would eventually pen these gospels; but this is mere speculation on my part.)

The actual list of heretical gospels seems ad hoc, given merely for the sake of example. It does not appear to be exhaustive in any sense, nor does it appear to be tied together thematically. Origen is simply listing gospel writings off the top of his head.

With one barely possible exception, Origen is not alone in condemning any of the subcanonical texts on the list, and all but one of them may be found condemned by his contemporary Hippolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies. Indeed Origen appears to have known the work of Hippolytus. In On Famous Men 61 Jerome counts on his list of Hippolytan works a certain exhortation on the praise of our Lord and savior, in which text Hippolytus signals that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen (praesente Origene se loqui in ecclesia significat). Jerome adds that Ambrosius urged Origen to write scriptural commentaries in emulation of him (in huius aemulationem), that is, in emulation of Hippolytus. As we run through this Origenic list, then, we shall keep our eyes on what Hippolytus has to say about each heretical text.

The first text on the list is the gospel according to the Egyptians. Perhaps fittingly, Clement of Alexandria in Egypt is our first and principal source for this apocryphal gospel, mentioning and quoting from it several times. In Miscellanies 3.13, for instance, he writes:

Δια τουτο τοι ο Κασσιανος φησι· Πυνθανομενης της Σαλωμης ποτε γνωσθησεται τα περι ων ηρετο, εφη ο κυριος· Οταν το της αισχυνης ενδυμα πατησητε, και οταν γενηται τα δυο εν, και το αρρεν μετα της θηλειας, ουτε αρρεν ουτε θηλυ. πρωτον μεν ουν εν τοις παραδιδομενοις ημιν τετταρσιν ευαγγελιοις ουκ εχομεν το ρητον, αλλ εν τω κατ Αιγυπτιους.

On account of this Cassianus says: When Salome inquired when the things about which she had asked would be known, the Lord said: When you have trampled the garment of shame, and when the two become one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female. First, then, we do not have this word in the four gospels delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.

This quotation bears a striking resemblance to 2 Clement 12.2:

Επερωτηθεις γαρ αυτος ο κυριος υπο τινος ποτε ηξει αυτου η βασιλεια, ειπεν· Οταν εσται τα δυο εν, και το εξω ως το εσω, και το αρσεν μετα της θηλειας, ουτε αρσεν ουτε θηλυ.

For, when the Lord was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he said: When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.

It also recalls Thomas 37; here I give it as rendered in papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655, column 1:

Λεγουσιν αυτω οι μαθηται αυτου· Ποτε ημειν εμφανης εσει, και ποτε σε οψομεθα; λεγει· Οταν εκδυσησθε κα[ι] μη αισχυνθητε.

His disciples: When to us will you be apparent, and when will we see you? He says: When you unclothe an[d] are not ashamed.

Refer also to Thomas 22. No such saying, however, appears in the gospel of the Egyptians found by that title in codex III of the Nag Hammadi library. Were there two texts that went by that title? Or is there some confusion going on between various texts and traditions?

A certain David Ross has argued online that Clement is in fact giving the gospel of Thomas a new nickname when he refers to the Egyptian gospel:

According to Stromateis 3.13 by Clement of Alexandria, the heretic Cassianus related a saying with parallels in Thomas and 2 Clement. In this saying, Salome asked when she would get an answer to some earlier questions. Jesus replied (agreeing with 2 Clement 12:2-6 and Thomas 22) that the Answer would come when “the two become one” and “when the male with the female is neither male nor female”; he also added “when you tread upon the garment of shame”, which reflects Thomas 37. Clement went on to say that this saying was to be found in the “Gospel according to the Egyptians”, but it is not in Nag Hammadi’s Gospel of the Egyptians.

We needn’t bust our chops looking for yet another “lost gospel”, though. We already have this one. The “garment of shame” may not be out of place thematically, but it is far out stylistically; the rest of Egyptians (and 2 Clement 12, and Thomas 22) is constructed in a very chiastic pattern: every verse is “when A becomes B” or “neither A nor B”. I conclude that Cassianus was juxtaposing and interpreting verses from his copy of Thomas, and that Clement caught him at it. Clement nicknamed Thomas “the Gospel of the Egyptians” so as to deny that it had apostolic authority; he assumed any readers who were familiar enough with the text could draw their own conclusions.

Salome appears once in the extant Coptic copy of Thomas. In Thomas 61:1-5 she is one who has received Jesus as a guest. The two talk about Jesus’s origins and about being whole or divided.

Such hypotheses are always worth making and investigating, for they aim at reducing our total number of lost texts in the name of parsimony. In this case, the lost gospel of the Egyptians would not actually be lost at all; it would be none other than our extant gospel of Thomas.

I do not think that this particular piece of parsimony will work, however. Clement himself appears to attribute several other sayings to his Egyptian gospel that are not found in Thomas. He writes in Miscellanies 3.9, for instance:

Οι δε αντιτασσομενοι τη κτισει του θεου δια της ευφημου εγκρατειας κακεινα λεγουσι τα προς Σαλωμην ειρημενα, ων προτερον εμνησθημεν· φερεται δε, οιμαι, εν τω κατ Αιγυπτιους ευαγγελιω. φασι γαρ οτι αυτος ειπεν ο σωτηρ· Ηλθον καταλυσαι τα εργα της θηλειας. θηλειας μεν της επιθυμιας, εργα δε γεννησιν και φθοραν.

But those who order themselves against the creation of God on account of the euphemism of Encratism also say those things that were said to Salome, of which we first made mention. And it is extant, I suppose, in the gospel according to the Egyptians. For they say that the savior himself said: I came to abolish the works of the female. What are of the female are desires, but the works are birth and corruption.

Clement says that he supposes (οιμαι) that this saying is extant in the Egyptian gospel. It is worth thinking about the possibility that Clement knows this gospel only through the Cassianus that he cites in Miscellanies 3.13. But a bit further on in the same passage he adds:

Οθεν εικοτως, περι συντελειας μηνυσατος του λογου, η Σαλωμη φησι· Μεχρι τινος οι ανθρωποι αποθανουνται; ανθρωπον δε καλει η γραφη διχως, τον τι φαινομενον και την ψυχην· παλιν τε αυ τον σωζομενον και τον μη. και θανατος ψυχης η αμαρτια λεγεται. διο και παρατετηρημενως αποκρινεται ο κυριος· Μεχρις αν τικτωσιν αι γυναικες, τουτεστι μεχρις αν αι επιθυμιαι ενεργωσι.

Whence reasonably, after the word had told about the consummation, Salome says: Until when will men die? But the scripture calls him man in two ways, the one that is apparent and the soul, and again that being saved and that not being saved. And sin is said to be the death of the soul. And in keeping with this the Lord answers: As long as women give birth, that is, as long as desires are at work.

Then, a little later again, he writes:

Τι δε ουχι και τα εξης των προς Σαλωμην ειρημενων επιφερουσιν οι παντα μαλλον η τω κατα την αληθιαν ευαγγελικω στοιχησαντες κανονι; φαμενης γαρ αυτης· Καλως ουν εποιησα μη τεκουσα, ως ου δεοντως της γενεσεως παραλαμβανομενης, αμειβεται λεγων ο κυριος· Πασαν φαγε βοτανην, την δε πικριαν εχουσαν μη φαγης.

But those who [prefer] all things rather than to conform to the evangelical rule according to the truth, why do they not quote the things that follow those said to Salome? For when she says: I did well, then, in not giving birth, as if not accepting childbirth as fitting, the Lord responds saying: Eat every plant, but do not eat the one that has bitterness.

These dominical statements to Salome all look like patches from the same quilt. If they also hail from the gospel according to the Egyptians, then that gospel can hardly be the gospel of Thomas. Nor is Clement is our only witness to the Egyptian gospel. When Hippolytus refers to the gospel according to the Egyptians, he may be referring to the text from Nag Hammadi, though the fit is far from perfect. Refutation 5.7.8b-9a:

Ειναι δε φασι την ψυχην δυσευρετον πανυ και δυσκατανοητον· ου γαρ μενει επι σχηματος ουδε μορφης της αυτης παντοτε, ουδε παθους ενος, ινα τις αυτην η τυπω ειπη η ουσια καταληψεται.

And they say that the soul is unfindable and unknowable; for it remains neither upon the same scheme or form always nor in one passive [state], that one might speak of it by a type or comprehend it in being.

Τας δε εξαλλαγας ταυτας τας ποικιλας εν τω επιγραφομενω κατ Αιγυπτιους ευαγγελιω κειμενας εχουσιν. απορουσιν ουν, καθαπερ οι αλλοι παντες των εθνων ανθρωποι, ποτερον ποτε εκ του προοντος εστιν, εκ του αυτογενους, η εκ του εκκεχυμενου χαους.

But they have these various changes set down in the gospel inscribed according to the Egyptians. They are therefore in doubt, just as all the other men of the gentiles, whether it is at all from the pre-being, from the self-born, or from the poured-out chaos.

The Nag Hammadi gospel of the Egyptians does refer to the chaos a few times; but I cannot find that it refers to the changes of the soul as such, though there are lacunae in the text, and perhaps Hippolytus is reading these changes out of the various aeons discussed therein. With a bit of imagination, then, it may be possible to claim that Clement and Hippolytus are referring to two completely different texts, Clement to the gospel of Thomas, as mediated through Cassianus, and Hippolytus to our Nag Hammadi gospel.

But I think that the testimony from Epiphanius stands against such a view. The Egyptian gospel from Nag Hammadi begins by equating the great invisible spirit with the father, then proceeds to enumerate the three powers that came from it, to wit, the father, the mother, and the son. Epiphanius mentions the trinity of father, son, and spirit when he refers to what he calls the Egyptian gospel in Panarion 62:

Την δε πασαν αυτων πλανην, και την πλανης αυτων δυναμιν, εχουσιν εξ αποκρυφων τινων, μαλιστα απο του καλουμενου Αιγυπτιου ευαγγιλιου, ω τινες το ονομα επεθεντο τουτο. εν αυτω γαρ πολλα τοιαυτα ως εν παραβυστω μυστηριωδως εκ προσωπου του σωτηρος αναφερεται, ως αυτου δηλουτος τοις μαθηταις τον αυτον ειναι πατερα, τον αυτον ειναι υιον, τον αυτον ειναι αγιον πνευμα.

But their whole deception, and the whole power of their deception, they have from certain apocryphal [writings], especially from the gospel called Egyptian, upon which some place this name. For in it many such things are quoted mysteriously, as if in a corner, as if from the person of the savior, such as when he makes clear to the disciples that he himself is the father, that he himself is the son, and that he himself is the holy spirit.

These words, however, are said to have been spoken in the Egyptian gospel by the savior to his disciples, yet the Nag Hammadi text lacks such dialogue; indeed, it lacks any mention of disciples at all. It seems to me, then, that it is better to suppose that there once was indeed a gospel of the Egyptians that is now lost to us; it would have contained dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (so Epiphanius) and Salome (so Clement), much as we find in the gospel of Thomas, but also would have contained gnostic speculations, placed onto the lips of Jesus, similar to those found in our Nag Hammadi text (so Hippolytus and Epiphanius). For I do not think that any extant text really satisfies the references from any one of our commenting fathers, let alone from all three of them.

(But I insist on the caveat, which I shall revisit later in this post, that not every patristic quotation is necessarily to be taken at face value. Sometimes the fathers did confuse various texts, attributing statements to one from memory that were actually in another, or conflating two or more texts from free association of word or theme. In this particular case I find the combination of Clement and Epiphanius in favor of the dialogue format and the combination of Hippolytus and Epiphanius in favor of the gnostic speculations strong enough to posit a lost text. But I would not go so far as to say that the case is absolutely a lock.)

Given that the Egyptian gospel probably existed in its own right, then, I would say that Origen is probably referring to it here, even if his only information about it might have come from his predecessor Clement and his contemporary Hippolytus.

The second text on the list is the gospel according to the twelve. This exact title is original to Origen, as far as I know, but we are not left bereft of guidance as to the identification of this text. In Against the Pelagians 3.2 Jerome refers to the gospel according to the Hebrews as according to the apostles, or, as most would term it, according to Matthew (secundum apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant iuxta Matthaeum). It does not seem farfetched to suggest that a gospel known as that according to the apostles might also be known as that according to the twelve. Indeed, the Latin version of Origen at this point has iuxta duodecim apostolos instead of the shorter Greek title. Is this then, as Jerome would have it, the same text as the famed gospel according to the Hebrews? Not necessarily. The titles of the various Jewish-Christian gospels were apparently confused in the patristic period, and Jerome is chief among those fathers who wrote confusingly about these gospels.

I think that the gospel according to the twelve, or the gospel according to the apostles, is the gospel of the Ebionites. Epiphanius provides the main clue in Panarion 30.3, writing of the Ebionites:

Και δεχονται μεν και αυτοι το κατα Ματθαιον ευαγγελιον. τουτω γαρ και αυτοι, ως και οι κατα Κηρινθον και Μηρινθον, χρωνται μονω. καλουσι δε αυτο κατα Εβραιους….

And they themselves also accept the gospel according to Matthew. For this they use alone, as also those from Cerinthus and Merinthus. But they call it according to the Hebrews….

The Ebionite gospel, then, was called both according to Matthew and according to the Hebrews. According to another passage from Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13, the Ebionite gospel boasted the following line:

Εγενετο τις ανηρ ονοματι Ιησους, και αυτος ως ετων τριακοντα, ος εξελεξατο ημας.

There was a certain man, Jesus by name, and he himself was about thirty years old, who elected us.

In context it is indeed the apostles who are speaking here in the first person plural. This snippet makes sense of calling the Ebionite gospel the gospel according to the twelve (Origen) or according to the apostles (Jerome), and the fact that all the Jewish-Christian gospels were called the gospel according to the Hebrews would account for any confusion on the part of Jerome, who seems rather to be referring to a Nazoraean gospel, not the Ebionite. Finally, Origen regards this gospel as heretical, a judgment which makes more sense with respect to the Ebionite gospel than with respect to the gospel of the Hebrews, which was widely respected among the fathers.

For further information, I recommend Aurelio de Santos Otero, Los evangélios apócrifos, pages 47-49; I also highly recommend A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, in its entirety.

The third text on the list is the gospel of Basilides. Not a few commentators, however, are of the opinion that this title may be misleading, for what Basilides is better attested to have written is actually a commentary in twenty-four books. Clement of Alexandria, for example, quotes from the twenty-third book of this commentary in Miscellanies 4.12. Thus some scholars ascribe our Origenic statement on a gospel of Basilides to this commentary. Others feel that Basilides wrote a work apart from this commentary to which Origen assigned the genre of gospel, but that even this (presumably much shorter) work was not what we would tend to call a gospel. Aurelio de Santos Otero, for example, writes as follows on page 74 of Los evangélios apócrifos:

[El evangelio de Basílides n]o se trata de un evangelio apócrifo propiamente dicho, sino de una compilación, hecha a base de los sinópticos, in que Basílides fue intercalando sus ideas gnósticas.

I would translate: [The gospel of Basilides d]oes not apply to an apocryphal gospel properly speaking, but rather to a compilation, made on the basis of the synoptics, into which Basilides inserted his own gnostic ideas.

The extant quotations that we have from Basilides would seem to support this assessment, for none of which I am aware come off sounding like a gospel per se; rather, they each sound like an interpretation of gospel materials.

Regardless of the exact nature of this text, Basilides himself provides us with important attestation for several other primitive Christian texts, particularly the gospels of Luke and Matthew.

As for Luke, Hippolytus writes of Basilides in Refutation 7.14:

Τουτο εστι, φησι, το ειρημενον· Πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε, το απο της υιοτητος δια του μεθοριου πνευματος επι την ογδοαδακαι την εβδομαδα διελθον μεχρι της Μαριας, και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι, η δυναμις της κρισεως απο της ακρωρειας ανωθεν του δημιουργου μεχρι της κτισεως, ο εστι του υιου.

This is, he says, that which is spoken: The holy spirit shall come upon you, that which came away from the sonship through the coterminous spirit upon the ogdoad and the hebdomad, unto Mary, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you, the power of judgment from the height from above, the demiurge, unto the creation, that is, the son.

The very wording here, if we can trust Hippolytus, suggests a comment(ary) on an already extant text, for Basilides is apparently referring to that which is spoken (το ειρημενον). The quotation which follows is from Luke 1.35, in which the angel Gabriel is announcing the virgin birth to Mary. The remarks about the ogdoad and hebdomad and about the demiurge both interrupt the Hebraistic parallelism of the Lucan passage and seem intended to define or fill out what has gone before. In other words, Basilides is interpreting Luke.

As for Matthew, Epiphanius writes in Panarion 24.5.2:

Αλλα φησιν ο αγυρτης· Ημεις, φησιν, εσμεν οι ανθρωποι, οι δε αλλοι παντες υες και κυνες. και δια τουτο ειπεν· Μη βαλητε τους μαργαριτας εμπροσθεν των χοιρων, μηδε δωτε το αγιον τοις κυσιν.

But the collector [Basilides] says: We, he says, are the men, but the others are all hogs and dogs. And on account of this he said: Do not cast the pearls before the swine, nor give what is holy to the dogs.

We can probably not read very much into Epiphanius calling Basilides a collector, since even if Basilides and Matthew were both tapping into a third text or tradition Epiphanius would probably interpret the overlap as a Basilidean theft from Matthew. Nevertheless, again, the words attributed to Basilides here make it look very much as if Basilides is quoting from an already extant text, now defining or filling out who are the men and who are the animals. The reference is to Matthew 7.6, and if Basilides is indeed referring to this passage then he is interpreting Matthew.

Unless we are to imagine a very lively oral tradition surviving deep into century II, Basilides also attests to the synoptic gospels in general in that he offers a rather unique interpretation, according to Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1.24.4, of the incident involving Simon of Cyrene (refer to Matthew 27.31b-32 = Mark 15.20b-21 = Luke 23.26). According to Hippolytus, Refutation 7.15, Basilides also appears to cite John 2.4. In chapter 12 of his Miscellanies Clement of Alexandria also offers a quotation from Basilides which seems to be interpreting 1 Peter 4.12-19, thus providing attestation for this epistle, as well.

Thus, on the face of it, Basilides himself attests to the existence and circulation of quite a number of primitive Christian texts no later than the middle of century II in Alexandria. Had his work survived the centuries in a more complete state, I might have had occasion to insert a post in this series dealing with the Basilidean canon!

The fourth text on the list is the gospel of Thomas. This text is the easiest to identify, precisely because it (unlike every other text on our Origenic list) is extant today, both in Greek fragments and in Coptic translation from the Nag Hammadi cache. Refer to my own page on this gospel for general information and even more informative links to online resources.

But I would like to take this opportunity to touch again upon a useful caveat about ancient quotations of lost works (which I mentioned above in connection with the Egyptian gospel). Since we possess the gospel of Thomas, it might be instructive to compare patristic quotations of it to the text itself. I have in mind in particular the following quotation from Hippolytus, Refutation 5.7.20-21, writing of the Naassenes:

…ηνπερ [φυσιν] φασιν εντος ανθρωπου βασιλειαν ουρανων ζητουμενην, περι ης διαρρηδην εν τω κατα Θωμαν επιγραφομενω ευαγγελιω παραδιδοασι, λεγοντες ουτως· Εμε ο ζητων ευρησει εν παιδιοις απο ετων επτα· εκει γαρ εν τω τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατω αιωνι κρυβομενος φανερουμαι. τουτο δε ουκ εστιν Χριστου, αλλα Ιπποκρατους, λεγοντος· Επτα ετων παις πατρος ημισυ. οθεν ουτοι, την αρχεγονον φυσιν των ολων εν αρχεγονω τιθεμενοι σπερματι, το Ιπποκρατειον ακηκοοτες οτι εστιν ημισυ πατρος παιδιον επτα ετων, εν τοις τεσσαρσι {και δεκα} φασιν ετεσι, κατα τον Θωμαν, ειναι φανερουμενον.

…which [nature] they say is the kingdom of the heavens which is sought within a man, concerning which they deliver an explicit saying in the gospel inscribed according to Thomas, saying thus: He who seeks me will find me in children from seven years. For there, hidden in the fourteenth age, I shall appear. But this is not of Christ, but of Hippocrates, saying: A child of seven years is half a father. Whence these men, placing the arch-begotten nature of the whole of things in an arch-begetting seed, having heard the Hippocratean [saying] that a child of seven years is half a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, it is made apparent.

The saying about the kingdom of the heavens being within a man has a parallel in Thomas 3 (both Greek and Coptic), and our extant text of Thomas 4 (both Greek and Coptic) has a saying about seeking out a child of seven days (not years), but the saying about the fourteenth year does not appear in our extant gospel of Thomas. Either Hippolytus has attributed this one of his three statements to this gospel in error or the version of Thomas in his hands was not quite like ours. Admittedly, a comparison and contrast of the Greek fragments with the Coptic translation of this text will point to divergent editions of the gospel; but it also seems possible that Hippolytus was conflating the gospel of Thomas with some other text or tradition known to and used by the Naassenes. I have no firm answer to this question, but merely wish to point out that not every patristic quotation of a lost work is necessarily the end of the story of attestation.

The fifth and final text on the list is the gospel of Matthias. But there may have been more than one text circulating under the name of Matthias. Clement of Alexandria refers to a text that he calls the traditions of Matthias in Miscellanies 2.9 and 7.13. Is this gospel of Matthias the same text?

We have multiple attestation for the importance of Matthias (refer to Acts 1.23-26) among some gnostic groups. Clement of Alexandria writes in Miscellanies 3.4 of certain gnostics:

Λεγουσι γουν και τον Ματθιαν ουτω διδαξαι· Σαρκι μεν μαχεσθαι και παραχρησθαι, μηθεν αυτη προς ηδονην ακολαστον ενδιδοντα· ψυχην δε αυξειν δια πιστεως και γνωσεως.

They say that Matthias also taught thus: To fight against the flesh and misuse it, in no way giving in to it for unchastised pleasure, and to increase the soul through faith and knowledge.

And Hippolytus writes in Refutation 7.8:

Βασιλειδης τοινυν και Ισιδωρος ο Βασιλειδου παις γνησιος και μαθητης φασιν ειρηκεναι Ματθιαν αυτοις λογους αποκρυφους ους ηκουσε παρα του σωτηρος κατ ιδιαν διδαχθεις. ιδωμεν ουν πως καταφανως Βασιλειδης ομου και Ισιδωρος και πας ο τουτων χορος ουχ απλως καταψευδεται μονου Ματθιου, αλλα γαρ και του σωτηρος αυτου.

Basilides, then, and Isidore the legitimate child and disciple of Basilides say that Matthias spoke to them apocryphal words which he had heard from the savior, having been taught in private. We see, therefore, how said Basilides together with Isidore and their entire chorus make a liar, not simply of Matthias alone, but even also of his savior.

It is therefore quite conceivable that different gnostics or gnostic groups produced different gnostic texts and independently named them after Matthias. We may never know for certain unless we were to find an actual text or two capable of explaining all the patristic references.

Echoing the title used by Origen, the Gelasian decree (available online in Latin) lists a gospel of Matthias (evangelium nomine Mathiae) as an apocryphon (apocryphum), as does the list of sixty books (available online in English translation).

Implications for attestation.

We have seen several examples of indirect attestation in this endeavor. I have already pointed out that the gospel of Basilides, if Hippolytus and Epiphanius are quoting it correctly, attests to several New Testament books. But each of our other apocryphal texts from this Origenic list also bears potential witness to other primitive Christian works.

There seems to be little doubt that the Ebionite gospel depended on the gospels of Matthew and Luke, at least. And Origen is, with the possible exception of some vaguer comments by Irenaeus, our earliest father to attest to the Ebionite gospel… provided our interpretation of his title is accurate.

The gospel of the Egyptians would attest at least to the figure of Salome, familiar to us from Mark 15.40; 16.1. It is more difficult to determine whether this attestation would also extend to the gospel of Mark itself, since it is at least possible that Salome gained some fame in her own right apart from Mark (though her absence from the other canonical gospels may stand against that option).

Whether the gospel of Thomas attests the gospels is, of course, hotly debated. Some scholars suppose that it is completely independent of any of the canonical four, while others prefer to think that it presumes all four together; and there are positions staked out all along the spectrum between these two poles (Stevan Davies even suggests that Mark depended upon Thomas, and not vice versa).

Finally, the gospel or traditions of Matthias may attest to the Lucan volumes, since it is in Acts 1.23-26 that Matthias appears as a replacement for Judas, and Clement of Alexandria even mentions in Miscellanies 4.6 the opinion of some in his day that the Zaccheus who appears in Luke 19.1-10 was actually Matthias. But it is also possible (as with Salome) that Matthias may have gained some fame in his own right apart from Acts 1.23-26, and Clement does not explicitly attribute the equation of Zaccheus and Matthias to any text.

It ought to be noticed that these indirect attestations are much more tenuous than the direct attestations in which an author quotes from an extant book by name.

In my next installment I will discuss the Eusebian canon.

Update 10-18-2006: Roger Pearse notes in the comments that the online version of the Gelasian Decree actually originated on his site, and that he also has an English translation. I actually remember thinking that the copy I linked to had the look and feel of the Tertullian Project site, but I did not pursue the matter far enough to find the original online text and translation.

Thanks, Roger!