Скачать книгу
in the
Southern Pres. Rev.,
1883, p. 390 sqq., and Salmon’s Introduction to the N. T.,
p. 512 sqq. 5 Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.
6 These πρ€ξεις (or περίοδοι, as they are often called) Πέτρου were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the heretical
Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collection of περίοδοι τῶν ἀποστόλων, which were ascribed to Lucius Charinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work, as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the title
Passio Petri. Upon these
Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius,
Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten,
II. I, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli
already referred to, this work, too, was used in the composition of the Catholic
Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still extant, and which assumed their present form in the fifth century, according to Lipsius. These Catholic
Acts of Peter and Paul
have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his
Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1–39. English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.
7 This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained. It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical; also by Origen (
in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (
de vir. ill.
1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From Serapion’s account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ’s life, but rather in adding to the account given by them. This, of course, favors Lipsius’ hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the same chapter) was used by the
Docetæ, but that does not imply that it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ’s body (cf. note 8 on that chapter). The Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace’s
Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.
8 This
Preaching of Peter (Κήρυγμα Πέτρου,
Prædicatio Petri), which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost
Preaching of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria,
Strom. VI. 5, and Lactantius,
Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter’s teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his
Spic. Patr. I. 55–71, and by Hilgenfeld in his
N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (
in Johan. XIII. 17, and
De Princ. Præf. 8), and in the latter place is expressly classed among spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius, closely connected with the
Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above. Lipsius, however, regards those
Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the
Preaching is not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is to be distinguished from the Ebionitic κηρύγματα. It would seem therefore that he must put the
Preaching later than the original of the
Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the
Preaching is as old as the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works recording Peter’s preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the
Acts did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of Peter’s preaching embodied in the
Acts and in the
Preaching. The latter (if it included also the
Preaching of Paul,
as seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account of some of the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin. Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.
I. p. 28 (Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts
), and Salmon’s article on the
Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV. 329.
9 The
Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his
Hypotyposes (according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The
Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter’s ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre (
Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius). After Eusebius’ time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to Sozomen,
H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his
Stichometry puts it among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of John. As Lipsius remarks, its “lay-recognition in orthodox circles proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians” (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog.
I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his
Nov. Test. extra Can. receptum,
IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr.
I. 71 sqq.
10 οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἐν καθολικαῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένα
11 Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The
Apocalypse of Peter
was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14) wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.
12 τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων
13 περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων
14 ὧν μόνην μίαν γνησίαν žγνων.
15 As above; see note 2.
16 The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the Tübingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was first questioned
Скачать книгу
