The best argument seems to be that the Inquisitor's report is ultimately dependent on
an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.
(1) ~P. It is not dependent on Pseudo-Matthew itself because Pseudo-Matthew cannot offer any of the elements that could be interpreted as heretical in the Inquisitor's report.
(2) J
1. There are infancy gospels descended from Pseudo-Matthew that do have such elements that could have been interpreted as heretical in the Inquisitor's report.
(3) ~M. The Gospel of Matthew is insufficient to explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(4) ~I. The Vision of Isaiah is insufficient to explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(5) J
2. There are infancy gospels descended from Pseudo-Matthew that do explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(6) (If ~P and J
1 and ~M and ~I and J
2, then Q.) If we cannot explain the heretical elements as deriving from Pseudo-Matthew, and if we can explain the heretical elements as deriving from other known apocrypha descending from Pseudo-Matthew, and if we cannot explain the story with reference to the Gospel of Matthew, and if we cannot explain the story with reference to the Ascension of Isaiah, but we can explain the story with reference to apocrypha known to descend from Pseudo-Matthew, then the most likely conclusion is that the Inquisitor's report is dependent on an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.
(7) (Q.) Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that the Inquisitor's report is dependent on
an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.
This is not meant to be a rigorous proof, of course. It just seems to be the best conclusion available.
Many of the considerations have been adduced already and will not be repeated.
The Inquisitor has:
"Et dictum fuit eis, quod Herodes volebat eos interficere, et quod non reverterentur per terram ejus, sed per aliam viam, quia Herodes perpendens occidit multos filios."
"And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to return by way of his land, but by a different way, for Herod, considering carefully, slew many children."
This adds to the story the idea that Herod wanted to kill the magi (in the inquisitor, kings), something not found in the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 2:16 Tunc Herodes videns quoniam illusus esset a magis, iratus est valde, et mittens occidit omnes pueros, qui erant in Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus ejus, a bimatu et infra secundum tempus, quod exquisierat a magis. (Vulgate)
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.
Neither can it be found in the
Infancy Gospel of James, for whatever that is worth.
Protevangelium 22. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under.
We first find it in
Pseudo-Matthew (sixth or seventh century?):
Videns autem Herodes rex quod illusus esset a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et misit per omnes vias volens capere eos et interficere. Quos cum penitus invenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes a bimatu et infra, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis.
And when Herod saw that he had been made sport of by the magi, his heart swelled with rage, and he sent through all the roads, wishing to seize them and put them to death. But when he could not find them at all; he sent anew to Bethlehem and all its borders, and slew all the male children whom he found of two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the magi.
And again in the Arundel form:
97 Videns autem Herodes quod deluses est a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et iratus uehementer misit per omnes vias querere et capere eos, quos cum penitus inuenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. [Latin from MR James]
But when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, his heart was inflamed and, in his great anger, he sent his people out on every road to search them out and capture them. And since he was not able to find them at all, he sent soldiers to Bethlehem and killed all the children according to the time he had learned from the magi. [translation in Ehrman's book]
And again in the Hereford form:
97 Herodes autem rex cum cognouisset quod illusus est a magis, inflammatum est cor eius uehementer, et maximo furore succensus misit preoccupare omnes uias per quas eorum transitus esse sperabatur, ut ad se inuiti reducerentur. [Latin from MR James]
And when Herod the king, he knew that he was mocked of the wise men, and his heart hath been inflamed, vehement, and the greatest of them, by means of which the crossing of the roads to be furious and burned with all the sent preoccupare was hoped for, in order to get the unwilling would not be brought back. [Google translate]
Notice some of the verbal similarities between the Inquisitor and Pseudo-Matthew, in addition to the extra-canonical story elements that Herod sought to kill the magi and that Herod's men were sent out along the roads / that the magi had to avoid taking their way through his country:
Et dictum fuit eis, quod Herodes volebat eos interficere, et quod non reverterentur per terram ejus, sed per aliam viam, quia Herodes perpendens occidit multos filios. |
And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to return by way of his land, but by a different way, for Herod, considering carefully, slew many children. |
Videns autem Herodes rex quod illusus esset a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et misit per omnes vias volens capere eos et interficere. Quos cum penitus invenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes a bimatu et infra, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. | And when Herod saw that he had been made sport of by the magi, his heart swelled with rage, and he sent through all the roads, wishing to seize them and put them to death. But when he could not find them at all; he sent anew to Bethlehem and all its borders, and slew all the male children whom he found of two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the magi. |
Notice also that the Inquisitor's report leaves a logical gap in the story. What does the slaying of children have to do with the way that these three men returned home? Keep in mind that these are notes taken of actual speech, so we are only getting the speaker's words through a veil. The connection must have made a little more sense in the original speech, as it does in Pseudo-Matthew and in Compilation J.
However, since Pseudo-Matthew cannot be the source behind the Inquisitor's narrative generally, we are left with the most likely conclusion that the source behind the Inquisitor's narrative was an infancy gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew, taking a slightly more heretical bent, like the infancy gospels that we know existed, in more than one recension, under the term "Compilation J."
Last but not least, reading the introduction to
The Apocryphal Gospels today did give me this tidbit (pp. 115-116):
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel in either form is from Montpellier (Bibliotheque de l'Ecole de medicine, 55), known as M, and dating from around 800. It preserves the first twenty-one paragraphs of the Arundel recension (JAr). Even though this manuscript is at least three hundred years older than any of our other witnesses, Kaestli and McNamara judge that it does not preserve the earliest form of the text but represents a later, more heavily edited version. Other manuscripts available for the text are, for the Arundel recension, designated Z (twelfth century), L (1385), A (fourteenth century), V (fourteenth century), and W (fifteenth century); for Hereford recension (JHer), we have H and C, both of the thirteenth century. Full descriptions of the manuscripts are provided by Kaesti and McNamara (pp. 641-66).
The presence of a manuscript found in Montpellier, in southern France, dating AD 800, along with seven other manuscripts known of both recensions (dating from the twelfth to the fifteenth century), is enough to present to us the minimum standard of
plausibility that the Cathars of the 14th century in southern France were using such a text.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown