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 assigned 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.[2]_ 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 title is first met with in the 13th century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing entitled 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.[2]_ pp. 333-335. This work gives an account of the Passion (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[2]_, 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 Massoretic 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.

_Gospel of Thomas._--This gospel professes to give an account of our Lord's boyhood. It appears in two recensions. The more complete recension bears the title [Greek: Thoma Isrealitou Philosophou hreta eis ta paidika Kuriou], and treats of the period from the 7th to the 12th year (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha[2]_, 1876, 140-157). The more fragmentary recension gives the history of the childhood from the 5th to the 8th year, and is entitled [Greek: Sungramma tou hagiou apostolou Thoma peri tes paidikes anastrophes tou Kuriou] (Tischendorf, _op. cit._ pp. 158-163). Two Latin translations have been published in this work by the same scholar--one on pp. 164-180, the other under the wrong title, _Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium_, on pp. 93-112. A Syriac version, with an English translation, was published by Wright in 1875. This gospel was originally still more Docetic than it now is, according to Lipsius. Its present form is due to an orthodox revision which discarded, so far as possible, all Gnostic traces. Lipsius (Smith's _Dict. of Christ. Biog._