« הקודםהמשך »
except that to the Romans, the First to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and the Second to Timothy. But shall we affirm, that Ignatius rejected two of the Gospels, and fourteen other books of sacred Scripture, because no evident allusion to them can be found in these his hasty Epistles ? No one will make this affirmation. The authenticity and divine inspiration of these books are supported by other and sufficient evidence: and the conclusion which Michaelis invites us to draw, from the silence of Ignatius respecting the Apocalypse, must appear rash and unfounded. It is in contradiction to the remarks of this able critic himself, in his observations on the same subject, in another passage of his work. of his work. For he tells
us, after having first assigned the reasons on which he grounds his assertion, that “ It is therefore
no objection to the New Testament, if it is so “ seldom cited by the Apostolic Fathers; and even could
any one be produced, who had not “ made a single reference to these writings, it “ would prove as little against their authenticity,
as St. Paul's never having quoted the Epistles “ of St. Peter, or the Gospels of St. Matthew " and St. Luke.” But if this holds good, as applied to the Scriptures in general, it is peculiarly applicable to a book of mysterious prophecy, and of so late publication as the Apocalypse. And we cannot conclude even if it should appear that Ignatius has not mentioned the Apocalypse, nor
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.
Ignat. ad Rom. ad fin.
Εν υπομονη Ιησε Χρισ8. .
Εν υπομενη Ιησε Χρισε, .
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.
Rev, xxi. 2,
Ignat. ad Ephes. sect, 3.
Την τσολιν την άγιαν απο τα Θεο
Λιθοι ναι σαρος
Here the use of the word κεκοσμημενοι, following so immediately after the words Θεέ, 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 κεκοσμημενην το ανδρι αυτης, than in these parallel words of Ignatius, κεκοσμημενην εολαις Ιησε Χρισε. The one is the mystical expression ; the other is its meaning, when disrobed of the figurative dress.
Rev, xxi, 3.
Ignat. ad Ephes, sect. 15. Και αυθοι λαοι αυλου μσονlαι, και αυλος ο Θεος Ινα ωμεν αυλου ναοι (fors, λαοι) και αυλος Εσαι μεθ' αυλων, Θεος αυίων.
Η εν ημιν, Θεος ημων.
Both these passages seem to have reference to 2 Cor. V. 16. και εσομαι αυθων ο Θεος, και αυτοι εσούαι μοι λαος, which is taken from Lev. XXvi. 12. και εσομαι υμων Θεος, και υμεις
μοι λαος: Οr from Jer. Xxxi. 33. και εσομαι αύοις εις Θεον, και αυλοι εσoναι μοι εις λαον. Or Jer. Xx xii. 38. και εσολαι μοι εις λαον, και εγω εσομαι αυτοις εις Θεον. Or from Ezek. XXXvi. 23. και εσούαι μοι εις λαον, και εγω κυριος εσομαι αυθοις εις
I have produced all these passages to shew in what degree Ignatius can be supposed to quote
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 pot 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 ex. pects 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.
riod *. In this case, it cannot be admitted as an evidence, belogging 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, indced, 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+; 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, + Tillemont.