§ 14. Ira l. 9.

apocalapse etiam Johanis et Pe

tri tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nos

tris legi in eclesia nolunt

1. 9. apocalapse should of course be apocalypses.

The book called the Apocalypse of Peter is spoken of in a doubtful manner, so as to imply, in accordance with what had been said above, that the Apocalypse of John in contrast was received without doubt. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25) speaks of that of Peter as a spurious book; ἐν τοῖς νόθοις κατατετάχθω καὶ τῶν Παύλου Πράξεων ἡ γραφή, ὅ τε λεγόμενος Ποιμήν, καὶ ἡ ̓Αποκάλυψις Πέτρου: he thus ranks it with forged Acts and a fictitious vision: and Sozomen (vii. 19), while mentioning the variations in the customs of different churches and countries, states that then, in the fifth century, τὴν καλουμένην ἀποκάλυψιν Πέτρου ὡς νόθον παντελῶς πρὸς τῶν ἀρχαίων δοκιμασθεῖσαν ἔν τισιν ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Παλαιστίνης εἰσέτι νῦν ἅπαξ ἑκάστου ἔτους ἀναγινωσκομένην ἔγνωμεν, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ παρασκευῆς ἣν εὐλαβῶς ἄγαν ὁ λαὸς νηστεύει ἐπὶ ἀναμνήσει τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους.

Eusebius (H. E. iii. 3), in speaking of the writings bearing the name of the Apostle Peter, after mentioning his Epistles and his so-called Acts and Gospel, adds, τό τε λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ Κήρυγμα καὶ τὴν καλουμένην Αποκάλυψιν, οὐδ ̓ ὅλως ἐκ καθολικοῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδόμενα, ὅτι μή τε ἀρχαίων μή τε τῶν καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς τις ἐκκλησιαστικὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις. However, in another place (H. E. vi. 14), this statement is modified as to the Apocalypse of Peter alone, when speaking of the writings of Clement of Alexandria: ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑποτυπώσεσι, ξυνελόντα εἰπεῖν, πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαθήκον γραφῆς ἐπιτετμημένας πεποίηται διηγήσεις, μηδὲ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελθών· τὴν Ἰούδα λέγω καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς καθολικὰς ἐπιστολάς, τήν τε Βαρνάβα, καὶ τὴν Πέτρου λεγομένην Αποκάλυψιν.

In Clement," Ex scriptis propheticis eclogae," are some fragments quoted from the so-called Apocalypse of Peter; of which Routh says (i. 426), “ Attamen nimis ludicra sunt brevia illa translata ex Petri Apocalypsi ad Eclogas Clementi Alex. attributas, quam ut vel minimam liber habeat venerationem." His judgment is certainly not too severe; and indeed of the Hypotyposes as a whole, as quoted by Eusebius, he says, "Si modo Clementis fuerint Hypotyposes illae quae multa saltem frivola atque absurda continebant." (i. 405.)

The passages are:

ἡ γραφή φησι, “ τὰ βρέφη τὰ ἐκτιθέντα τημελούχῳ παραδίδοσθαι ἀγγέλῳ, ὑφ' οὗ παιδεύεσθαί τε καὶ αὔξειν· καὶ ἔσονται, φησίν, ὡς οἱ ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν ἐνταῦθα πιστοί.” διὸ καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ̓Αποκαλύψει φησί, “ Καὶ ἀστραπὴ πυρὸς πηδῶσα ἀπὸ τῶν

66

66

βρεφῶν ἐκείνων καὶ πλήσσουσα τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῶν γυναικῶν·” ἐπεὶ ὁ δίκαιος ὡς σπινθὴρ διὰ καλάμης ἐκλάμπει καὶ κρινεῖ ἔθνη. Sap. iii. 7. (§ 41. Potter, p. 999.) αὐτίκα ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει φησίν, “ Τὰ βρέφη ἐξαμβλωθέντα τῆς ἀμεί νονος ἐσόμενα μοίρας· ταῦτα ἀγγέλῳ τημελούχῳ παραδίδοσθαι, ἵνα γνώσεως μεταλαβόντα τῆς ἀμείνονος τύχῃ μονῆς, παθόντα ἃ ἂν ἔπαθεν καὶ ἐν σώματι γενόμενα· τὰ δ ̓ ἕτερα μόνης τῆς σωτηρίας τεύξεται ὡς ἠδικημένα ἐλεηθέντα, καὶ μένει ἄνευ κολάσεως, τοῦτο γέρας λαβόντα.” (§ 48. p. 1000.)

From this quotation it seems as if the words cited in the first extract with ἡ γραφή φησιν are from the Apocalypse of Peter as well as what is taken from it expressly. Probably two fragments are here joined which did not belong together, and thus Pseudo-Peter seems to be cited to confirm himself.

“ τὸ δὲ γάλα τῶν γυναικῶν ῥέον ἀπὸ τῶν μαστῶν καὶ πηγνύμενον,” φησὶν ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, “ γεννήσει θηρία λεπτὰ σαρκοφάγα, καὶ ἀνατρέχοντα εἰς αὐτὰς κατεσθίει,” διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας γίνεσθαι τὰς κολάσεις διδάσκων. “ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν γεννᾶσθαι αὐτάς,” φησιν, ὡς διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐπράθη (? ἐπειράσθη) ὁ λαός, καὶ διὰ τὴν εἰς χριστὸν ἀπιστίαν, ὥς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἐδάκνοντο. (§ 49.)

Methodius appears to cite this book as inspired Scripture ; ὅθεν δὴ καὶ τημελούχοις ἀγγέλοις, κἂν ἐκ μοιχείας ὦσι, τὰ ἀποτικτόμενα παραδίδοσθαι παρειλήφαμεν ἐν θεοπνεύστοις γράμμασιν. (Conv. ii. 6. 45. p. 75 Combefis, p. 16 Jahn P.)

Well may we approve the judgment of those of whom the writer of the Fragment speaks as to this Apocalypse, “quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt." This book being put forth in the name of Peter, seems on that account, and that only, to have met with a reception which now seems surprising. Its name long remained in the lists of books belonging to or rejected from the New Testament: it thus has a place in the Stichometry in the Codex Claromontanus, where the list is closed with “REVELATIO PETRI CCLXX;” that is the number of στίχοι which it contained. As in the same list the Revelation of St. John has 1200, the spurious Apocalypse of Peter would be about two-ninths in quantity; and

P Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. iv. 77) conjectures that a passage cited as from a prophet in Hippolytus De Christo et Antichristo, cap. 15, is from the Apocalypse of Peter: but of this there is no proof. The strange statements in the fragment of Hippolytus on Hades, Πρὸς Έλληνας (Fabricius, i. 220-2 ; Lagarde, 68-73), are far more probably taken from this book. If the basis of this so-called Apocalypse was 1 Pet. iii. 19, and iv. 6, then the accounts of

John the Baptist preaching in Hades as our Lord's forerunner there, as on earth, would seem to be taken from it: Οὗτος προέφθασε καὶ τοῖς ἐν ᾅδῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ἀναιρεθεὶς ὑπὸ ̔Ηρώδου, πρόδρομος γενόμενος ἐκεῖ· σημαίνειν μέλλων κἀκεῖσε κατελεύσεσθαι τὸν σωτῆρα λυτρούμενον τὰς ἁγίων ψυχὰς ἐκ χειρὸς θανάτου. Hippolytus de Christo et Antichristo, 45. (Fabricius, i. 22; Lagarde, 22.)

this is confirmed by the Stichometry of Nicephorus, in which, although the numbers in each case are rather higher, yet the proportions are about the same; Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου στίχοι αυ. Αποκάλυψις Πέτρου στίχοι τ' : i. e. 1400 and 300.

In the Codex Sinaiticus, between the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which are subjoined to the canonical books, six leaves are gone; and Tischendorf conjectured that the Apocalypse of Peter had been once there as part of the Codex: but these leaves would have contained a great deal too much; for the Revelation of St. John in that MS. is comprised in about eight leaves and a half.

nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe

roma herma conscripsit sedente cathe

tra urbis romae aeclesiae Pio episcopus fratre

15 eius et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se pu
plicare uero in eclesia populo neque inter
profetas conpletum numero neque inter
apostolos in finem temporum potest.

1. 14.

1. 13. " Herma," read Hermas. Freindaller supplies "in" before cathedra: so also others. "eps," read episcopo; at first there was episcopus frater, but when the latter word was corrected into fratre, the final letter of the contraction eps was, it seems, inadvertently left unchanged. ll. 15, 16. "se puplicare," "sed publicari vero. Graece, àλrà Snμoσieveσdai dý." Routh: so Van Gilse, and Bunsen. Others keep the reading of the MS.; though Westcott and Hilgenfeld regard Snμoσieveσaι as the word of the original. 1. 17. "conpletum;" completos, Routh, Van Gilse, Credner. completo Bunsen, Hilgenfeld. Volkmar makes no correction. Westcott says, "Completum numero. This appears to be corrupt, for the phrase can scarcely mean, a collection made up fully in number,' as if Prophetas were equivalent to Corpus Prophetarum (Volkmar)." Prophetas completo numero ought, I believe, to be read.

This passage is of particular importance as to the date of the authorship of the Fragment, and also as to the care taken not to admit into public use as sacred books those which were known to have no claim to be thus received. It seems to be introduced here, because the Shepherd of Hermas in its form claims to be a Divine vision; and thus it would be a kind of Apocalypse if accepted at all: we know that such a mistake was made; and this was probably the case before the author wrote the

Fragment; for he could hardly give his counter-testimony against a non-existent error.

The purport of the sentence is clear enough:-Now Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently in our time in the city of Rome, while Pius his brother the bishop sat in the chair of the church of the city of Rome.-And thus it should be read. But to read it in the church publicly to the people, neither amongst the prophets, the number being complete, nor amongst the apostles, in respect of the limit of time, is admissible.

But the book was in circulation, and in many places in which the history of its authorship was not known, it was received, on the ground of its apparent claims, by those who were unconscious that the form of a vision was only the drapery used by the author.

Thus it was treated with most undeserved respect by some, both in the West and East. Irenaeus thus quotes from it as Scripture: (the Greek of the passage is preserved by Eusebius, H. E. v. 8;) kadŵs oûv eîπev ǹ ypapǹ ἡ λέγουσα, Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἰς ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. (Mand. i.)

In the same age the book had reached Alexandria, where Clement quoted it as if it were an authority in matters of fact: thus, déyeɩ dè kai ὁ Ποιμήν, ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς μετανοίας, τῷ Ἑρμᾷ, Strom. i. 17 (p. 369). See also Strom. i. 29 (p. 426); ii. 1 (p. 430); ii. 9 (p. 452); ii. 12, 13 (pp. 458, 9); iv. 9 (p. 596); vi. 6 (p. 764); vi. 15 (p. 806). Sometimes the writer is cited, sometimes the book, sometimes only the words.

Origen, too, gave his opinion of the book, which he ascribed to the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul; "Salutate Asyncretum, Phlegontem, Hermen, Patroban, Herman, et si qui cum eis sunt fratres. de istis simplex est salutatio, nec aliquid eis insigne laudis adjungitur. Puto tamen quod Hermas iste sit scriptor libelli illius qui Pastor appellatur. quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur et ut puto divinitus inspirata.” Orig. Int. iv. 683. The connection of utilis with divinitus inspirata is clearly suggested by 2 Tim. iii. 16. Some of Origen's predecessors may have shared in what he thus gives as his personal opinion, and thus they may have spoken of the book with reverence: but there is no authority prior to that of Origen for attributing the book to the Hermas of Rom. xvi. 14; and he gives this as his own supposition merely. He thus cites it several times; De Princ. i. 3 (i. 61); ii. 1 (p. 79); iii. 2 (p. 140). In Ezek. (iii. 404); in Hos. (iii. 439); in Matt. (iii. 877); in Luc. (iii. 973); in Johan. (iv. 19); though occasionally with an intimation that it was not received by all; διὰ τοῦτο ἡμεῖς καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ ὑπό τινων καταφρονουμένῳ βιβλίῳ τῷ ποιμένι, περὶ τοῦ προστάσσεσθαι τὸν Ἑρμᾶν δύο γράψαι βιβλία κ. τ. λ. De Princ. iv. II (i. 168). από τινος φερομένης μὲν ἐν

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ γραφῆς, οὐ παρὰ πᾶσι δὲ ὁμολογουμένης εἶναι θείας κ.τ.λ. In Matt. tom. xiv. 21 (iii. 644a), see also ii. 294, “si cui tamen scriptura illa recipienda videtur;" and iii. 872.

But the claims of this book did not pass unchallenged: Tertullian, who had in an earlier work quoted it, but without giving any opinion, afterwards delivers a judgment going far beyond what was merely personal. "Cederem tibi si scriptura Pastoris quae sola moechos amat divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, adultera et ipsa patrona sociorum." (De Pudicitia 10.) Also, "Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae [i. e. ad Hebraeos canonica] illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum." (De Pud. 20.) Eusebius, H. E. iii. 3, refers to the assertion that Hermas, Rom. xvi. 14, was the author; ou paσìv vτáρxei Tò Toû Hoμévos βιβλίον, ἱστέον ὡς καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς μέν τινων ἀντιλέλεκται. In iii. 25 he ranks it ἐν τοῖς νόθοις. He says nothing of his own as to the authorship; but v. 8 he notices how it had been received by Irenaeus, οὐ μόνον δὲ εἶδεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποδέχεται τὴν τοῦ Ποίμενος γραφήν, then giving the words cited above from Irenaeus.

ws

Jerome, as in several other cases, expresses contradictory opinions as to this book, following apparently sometimes his own judgment, sometimes that of some authority before him. Thus he says, De Vir. Ill. c. 1o, "Herman cujus Apostolus Paulus ad Romanos scribens meminit. . . . asserunt auctorem esse libri, qui appellatur Pastor, et apud quasdam Graeciae ecclesias jam publice legitur. Revera utilis liber, multique de eo scriptorum veterum usurpavere testimonia, sed apud Latinos pene ignotus est." In his Prologus Galeatus, before the books of Kings, he says, " Igitur Sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur et Jesu filii Sirach liber et Judith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone." On Habakkuk i. 14 he thus contemptuously refers to it: "Ex quo liber ille apocryphus stultitiae condemnandus est, in quo scriptum est, quemdam angelum nomine Tyri praeesse reptilibus" (ed. Vallarsi, vi. 604). In the Decretum of Gelasius (A. D. 492– 496) it is thus rejected: "§ 17. Liber, qui appellatur Pastoris apocryphus," where the word means more than exclusion from all ecclesiastical use; it is a list of certain writings, "quae . . . a catholicis vitanda sunt."

66

The testimony of Tertullian of this book having been condemned as apocryphal," ab omni concilio ecclesiarum," shews that in the second century a writing could not be put forth in a form claiming Divine revelation without the claims being subject to examination: and the historical ground on which such claims could be set aside is stated by the author of the Fragment.