MİSYONERSAVAR YAZILAR

Estimated Range of Dating: 110-160 A.D.

.The Gospel of Matthias was, at one time, almost as popular as the Gospel of Thomas. Origen (Homily on Luke 1:1) and Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica III.25.6) viewed Thomas and Matthias as a twin threat, and the great churchmen Jerome (Praef. in Matth.), Pope Gelasius I (Decree VI, 8), and (although I haven't found the reference yet) Ambrose still felt the need to debunk Matthias up to the sixth century. The last to list it was the seventh-century Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books. On a more positive note, Clement of Alexandria quoted thrice from a work he called the "Traditions of Matthias". The Gospel of Matthias has understandably not received nearly as much press as has Thomas, however, because Thomas has been found and Matthias is still missing.

OXYRHUNCHUS 840:

...before he does wrong makes all manner of subtle excuse. But give heed lest ye also suffer the same things as they; for the evil-doers among men receive their reward not among the living only, but also await punishment and much torment. And he took them and brought them into the very place of purification, and was walking in the temple. And a certain Pharisee, a chief priest, whose name was Levi, met them and said to the Saviour, Who gave thee leave to walk in this place of purification and to see these holy vessels, when thou hast not washed nor yet have thy disciples bathed their feet? But defiled thou hast walked in this temple, which is a pure place, wherein no other man walks except he has washed himself and changed his garments, neither does he venture to see these holy vessels. And the Saviour straightaway stood still with his disciples and answered him, Art thou then, being here in the temple, clean? He saith unto him, I am clean; for I wasked in the pool of David, and having descended by one staircase I ascended by another, and I put on white and clean garments, and then I came and looked upon these holy vessels. The Saviour answered and said unto him, Woe ye blind, who see not. Thou hast washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night and day, and hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe and beautify for the lust of men; but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness. But I and my disciples, who thou sayest have not bathed, have been dipped in the waters of eternal life which come from . . . But woe unto the . . .

What follows below are the notes on pp. 8-10; transcription of the Greek is approximate. (By contrast, the text of POxy 840 above has been carefully checked and double checked to be perfect.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-7. This sentence is very obscurely worded, and perhaps corrupt. The contrast is, we think, between punishment in this life and in the world to com; hence we prefer zwoiV 'living' to zwoiV 'animals'. The use of zwoiV, a poetical word employed also by Xenophon, is curious, but en tois zwios seems to yield no sense. The absence of an object for apolambanousin (e.g. ton misqon) is awkward, even if one could be supplied from the sentence preceding l. I; and after alla kai a phrase to balance en tois zwois would be expected. Possibly some words have dropped out; the scribe seems to have been rather prone to omission. For kolaisiV in reference to the next world cf. Matt. xxv. 46 apeleusontai outoi eiV kolasin aiwnion: basanoV is not so used in the N.T., though cf. Matt. xviii. 34.

8. agneuthrion: this term is not found elsewhere in connexion with the Temple, and what the author of the gospel exactly meant by it is not clear. The context shows that it was within the inner enclosure, and ll. 12-3, where pat[ein] touto to agneuthrion corresponds to periepatei en ierw suggests that it was a large open court rather than a particular room, especially as the term agneuthrion is not a suitable description for any of the known rooms in Herod's Temple. The 'Chamber of Washers' (Middoth v. 4) was employed for cleansing the inwards of offerings, not for ceremonial ablutions. If agneuthrion implies a place where rites of purification were performed, the only part of the Temple to which the name would be at all appropriate is the space around the brazen laver, which stood between the Temple-porch and the altar, having succeeded to the 'molten sea' of Solomon's Temple (cf. l. 25, note). But this is not likely to be the meaning of agneuthrion, for the brazen laver was in the court of the priests, which could not be entered by lay Israelites except for the purpose of sacrifice (Kelim, i. 8 quoted in Schurer, Gesch. d. Jud. Volkes, ii. p. 273), and other indications in the papyrus (cf. ll. 12-21, note) besides the general probabilities of the case suggest that Jesus and His disciples had not penetrated farther than the 'court of the men of Israel', the term seems to be applied to it not because it was a place where purification was performed but because it could only be entered by Israelites who were perfectly pure; cf. Josephus, Bell. Iud. v. 5 andrwn d oi mh kaqapan hgneukoteV eirgonto thV endon aulhV kai ton ierewn oi mh kaqareuontes eirgonto, and Contra Apion. bantur). But it may be doubted whether the author of this gospel had any clear conception of the topography of the Temple, and the employment of the term agneuthrion may be a mere error; cf. introd.

10. farisaioV tiV arciereuV: by arceireiV in the N.T. and Josephus are meant primarily the high priest actually in office and his predecessors, but also secondly members of the families from which the high priests were drawn; cf. Schurer, op. cit. ii. pp. 221-4. There is therefore no necessity for this person to have been the high priest in office at the moment. Most of the high priests were Sadducees, and hence are often in the N.T. contrasted with the Pharisees, but instances of high priests where were Pharisees occur; cf. Schurer, op. cit. ii. p. 201. The combination farisaioV tiV arceireuV is therefore quite legitimate, and such a person is particularly appropriate as the champion of external purity; cf. ll. 24-30.

Lei[eis]: the reading is extremely doubtful, but neither Ann[aV nor Kai[afaV is admissable. The first two letters, if not le, seem to be as, and the third, if not u to be i or k.

12-21. From this speech of the Pharisee it appears firstly that entrance to that part of the Temple to which Jesus and His disciples had penetrated was permitted only to those who had bathed (l. 19 lousamenos; cf. l. 24) or at any rate had washed their feet, and had put on fresh clothes, secondly that from this part of the Temple the holy vessels were visible. The principal holy vessels, e.g. the table of shewbread and the seven-branched candlestick, stood in the hekal or larger room of the sanctuary; but this was only entered by the officiating priests, and the writer of this gospel is not likely to have been so ignorant of the facts concerning the Temple-service as to suppose that Jesus and His disciples could have wished to enter the sanctuary, mcuh less that they could have succeeded in doing so without opposition from the Temple guards and with no stronger remonstrance from the high priest than that related here. Other sacred vessels were kept in the small chambers (38 in number), which surrounded the sanctuary on all sides except that of the porch; cf. Middoth iv. These chambers were apparently entered from the inside of the building, so that in order to reach them it would be necessary to pass through the Temple-porch, and their contents can hardly have been visible from the priests' court which immediately surrounded the Temple-building, much less from the court of the men of Israel which was outside the court of the priests. Since the court of the priests was only accessible to lay Israelites for the purpose of sacrificing at the great altar, it is almost as difficult to suppose that Jesus and His disciples penetrated to these chambers as they entered the sanctuary. The nature of the remonstrance addressed to them by the chief priest, who reproaches them not with being laymen but with being unclean, suggests that the scene of the conversation is the court of the men of Israel, which, as Josephus says, could only be entered by the mundi atque purificati or kaqopan hgneukotes (cf. l. 8, note). Hence if agia skeuh implies more than the bronze laver, and the rings, tables, and other accessories of the sacrifices, all of which objects, being outside the Temple-building, would be visible from the court of the men of Israel, the author of the gospel has fallen into a somewhat serious error. Moreover, the statement in ll. 18-20 that bathing and changing of clothes were required from ordinary Israelites when visiting the Temple is not confirmed by anything in the authorities, which record the observance of these formalities only in the case of the officiating priests; cf. ll. 25 and 27, notes. Josephus' reference to kaqapan hgneukoteV probably means merely persons who were Levitically pure, and does not imply the performance of special rites of purification. Schurer, therefore, seems to be right in supposing that the author of the gospel has by mistake referred to laymen the regulations applicable only to priests.

15. ba]ptisqentwn: baptizein is used here and in l. 42 not in the ordinary technical sense of baptizing, but with reference to ceremonial ablution, as in Luke xi. 38 o de farisaios idwn eqaumasen oti ou prwton ebaptisqh pro tou apistou, and perhaps in Mark vii. 4 ean mh baptiswntai ouk esqiousi, where the reading is doubtful; cf. also Sir. xxxi. 25 baptizomenos apo nekrou.

20. o[ran: s may be read in place of o.

25. th limnh tou D(auei)d: 'the Pool of David' is not mentioned elsewhere, and it is not clear what the author of the gospel meant by it, or where it was situated. Schurer thinks that it refers to 'brazen' or 'molten sea' set up by Solomon between the porch and the altar (I Kings vii. 23, 2, Chron iv. 2). This was a large laver supported by 12 brazen oxen, and containing according to I Kings 2000, according to 2 Chron. 3000, baths of water. It was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 13, 16, Jer. lii. 17, 20), and though if Sir. l. 3 may be trusted the second Temple also had its brazen sea, Herod's Temple did not possess one. In its place there was firstly a bronze laver between the porch and altar (Middoth iii. 6, &c.; cf. Schurer, op. cit. p. 283) in which the officiating priests had to wash their hands and feet, secondly a room fitted up with baths for daily use by the officiating priests before entering on their duties; cf. Testam. XII Patriarch, Levi 9 kai pro tou eiselqein eis ta agia louou, and the authorities from the Mishnah cited by Schurer, a passage from the Temple-building, and was clearly outside the Temple-enclosure. That the author of the gospel had in his mind the 'brazen sea' seems to us improbable, since the limnh is called after David, not Solomon, and while the brazen sea stood close to the Temple-building itself, the limnh which had two klimakes leading down to it (ll. 25-6) and into which dogs and swine are cast (l. 33) is evidently conceived as being outside the Temple (presumably in the valley below), and thus fulfilling the functions ascribed in the Mishnah to the 'house of baptism'. Whether a pool called after David really existed is very doubtful, for the details concerning it are more picturesque than convincing. The subtle distinction of the different stairways for the use of the clean and unclean, though plausible in itself, is, in the absence of corrobaration, more likely to be due to the imagination of the author than to a have a historical basis, and the casting of dogs and swine into the pool looks like a rhetorical exaggeration; cf. note ad loc.

27. leuka endumata: on this detail, that the officiating priests put on special garments, while in colour, the author of the gospel is correct (cf. Schurer, op. cit. pp. 281-2), as he is with regard to the necessity of their taking a daily bath before entering on their religious duties; cf. l. 25, note, and introd.

31. ouai, tufloi: the dative is more common after ouai, as in l. 45; but in Luke vi, 25 ouai, oi gelwntes nun oti penqhsete, where there is an ellipse of umin, and Rev. xviii. 16 ouai ouai, h polis h megalh.

33. xoiroi: that swine were not uncommon in Palestine at the time of Christ is proved by Matt. vii. 61, viii. 30, and Luke xv. 15. The reference to the dogs and swine is introduced to heighten the effect of the contrast with the waters of life in ll. 43-4. The author of the gospel may well have had in his mind the stagnant pools which are a common feature of Egyptian villages, but the description is incredible when applied to a pool in which a chief priest bathed, and as a piece of rhetoric somewhat overshoots the mark; for the rea l point of the contrast between the two kinds of purification is not that the water was in the one case unclean, but that it only cleansed the outward skin, whereas the other form of purification was spiritual. 36. ai prnai kai a[i] aulhtrides: cf. for this collocation treis gar doulouV perieice ton men katafagonta thn uparxin meta pornwn kai aulhtridwn in the EbraikoiV carakthrsin euaggelion quoted by Eusebius in his Theophania (Resch, Agrapha, p. 388). 39. endoqen de k.t.l.: cf. the denunciations of the Pharisees in Matt. xxiii. 25 [....] 40. pepl]hrwntai: it would be possible to retain pepl]hrwtai by reading ekeina in place of ekeinai, but such a use of the neuter plural is unlikely. 42. beba[ptisqai: or beba[p][tisqai; but cf. ll. 15-6 baptisqentwn. 43. bebammeqa: a, d, or l could be read in place of the doubtful m, but not s or u, so that lelo]umeqa and bebapti]smeqa (which is also too long) are excluded, and beba]mmeqa is practically certain. baptein is a less technical word than baptizein, but there is, we think, no real distinction between the two terms here, since baptizein is not employed in a technical sense; cf. l. 15, note. 43-4. zw[hV: or zw[si, with another word in place of aiwniou. The letter before eltausin may be t or u instead of s, so that ka]telqousin is possible. udwr zwn occurs in John iv. 10, 11, vii. 38, udwr zwhV in Rev. vii. 17, xxi. 6, xxii. 1 and 17. apo, if correct, was no doubt followed by some words like ton ouranwn or tou patroV.