« הקודםהמשך »
alluded to it, that “it was unknown to him : “ nor if it was known to him, that he did not “believe it genuine; nor yet, that his silence “concerning it amounts to a rejection of it.” This answer to Michaelis may be applied, and I trust effectually, in case it shall be concluded that Ignatius “has passed over the Apocalypse in silence.” But there are some passages in his Epistles, which may perhaps be admitted to allude to this sacred book. It may be thought, that if Ignatius had not seen the Apocalypse, he would not have used certain expressions, which he has employed in the following passages. I shall present them at length, because they have never yet been produced.
The text of the Apocalypse is here taken from the approved edition of Griesbach ; and it is a confirmation to be added to his supports of this text, that it was thus read by Ignatius. This expression, though the idea be quite scriptural, is to be found, I believe, in no other passage of the New Testament, but in this of the Apocalypse only.
Here the use of the word zozoronosyol, following so immediately after the words Trouagusyo and ess, and with such connection of thought and of imagery, affords reason to suppose, that Ignatius had seen this passage of the Apocalypse. Ignatius appears to me to comment on St. John, referring this passage to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the same images are used, and by a comparison with which it is best explained. A better illustration cannot be given of xixo~ponsory to ay?pt aving, than in these parallel words of Ignatius, xix.org.npsy", effoxal; Ina’s Xpts 8. The one is the mystical expression; the other is its meaning, when disrobed of the figurative dress.
from, or allude to each. The expression, in the first part of the sentence, may be taken from any, or all of them, as well as from this passage in the Apocalypse. But the peculiar turn and form of the latter clause is only to be found here. And I think it probable, that Ignatius would not have relinquished the form observed in the other quotations for this mode of expression, which is very peculiar, if he had not seen and remembered it in the Apocalypse. They are, indeed, the very same words; only with that grammatical alteration which was necessary to fit them to the circumstances; that is, to the application which Ignatius makes of them to himself, and his readers. I submit the consideration of these passages to the learned reader, who may perhaps determine, that Ignatius has not “passed over the “Apocalypse in silence.” The next writer, from whom Michaelis expects evidence respecting the Apocalypse, is the old Syriac translator. He has taken considerable pains to shew, that the first Syriac translation is of great antiquity*. But, whoever has read the notes of his learned translator, upon this part of Michaelis's works, must be convinced that there is no sufficient evidence to shew, that the Syriac version was made before the fourth century; because the first quotation from it is by Ephrem, who lived in that pe
* Introd. vol. 1. part 1.
fiod *. In this case, it cannot be admitted 98 an evidence, belonging to this early class. HERMAs, or the author bearing that name, or the Shepherd, is not mentioned by Michaelis. But Lardner has produced some passages from this book, by which he was inclined to think, that Hermas “ had seen and imitated “the Apocalypse.” I have examined these passages attentively, but can see no such particular expressions, (such as we have observed in Ignatius) as will lead me to conclude that Hermas had seen this book. There are, indeed, images and descriptions, which bear some affinity to those of the Apocalypse; but the sources, from which these were probably derived, may be shewn in other parts of Sacred Scripture. There appears to me nothing either in the imagery or expression of Hermas which will prove that he copied after the Apocalypse. But the time, in which Hermas wrote, is supposed by Lardner and others, upon probable grounds, to have been before the conclusion of the first century; some name the year 75, others 92 i ; but, as this book was written at Rome, it is not probable that the author could, in any part of that century, have obtained a sight of the Apocalypse, which, as we have observed, began to be circulated in Asia, only about the year 97. If Hermas had seen the Apocalypse, * Marsh's Notes to Michaelis's Introd. vol. 2. ch. vii. sect. 6. f Tillemont.
it is to be expected that his narration would have been strongly and unquestionably tinged with the imagery and appropriate expressions of this sublime book*. If, then, Hermas wrote before he could see the Apocalypse, his silence is no evidence against its authenticity: but it is an additional proof, to be classed with those of the preceding chapter, that the Apocalypse was not published till late in Domitian's reign. Poly C A R P has not been cited as an evidence in the question before us. He is reported, by Irenaeus, to have written many epistles. But only one of these is come down to us. And this is so replete with practical exhortations, that there is little reason to expect in it any quotations from this mystical book. We have, however, other reasons to conclude, that Polycarp received the Apocalypse as divine Scripture; because it was so received by Irenaeus, his Auditor, who appeals to him and the Asiatic Churches, over one of which Polycarp presided, for the truth of his doctrines. This apostolical man suffered martyrdom, about seventy years after the Apocalypse had been published. An account of this event is given in an interesting Epistle written from the Church of Smyrna, over which Polycarp had presided. In this
* This seems to be the case in the Apocryphal Esdras. Compare 2 Esdras, ii. 42.—47. with Rev. vii. 9. Also, vi. 17. 31.
58. V. 4. vii. 57. 58. ix. 38. x. 37. xi. 5. 22. Epistle,