The Apocalypse of Peter is unique because of the Muratorian fragment. That fragment dated to about 170 AD is frequently cited as evidence that our current Canon was basically agreed upon very early. However a few books in our current canon aren't mentioned (James, and both of Peter's Epistles are absent and it seemingly knows only two of John's). And it approves of three books not in our current Canon, though one of those is explicitly said not to be Scripture just that it isn't objectionable, the Shepherd of Hermas. It mentions The Wisdom of Solomon, which seems odd to be mentioned here since it would be Old Testament if it was Canon (it might be included as a reference point for how Paul uses it in Romans with the purpose of refuting it). And lastly it defines as inspired Scripture the Apocalypse of Peter, yet strangely says how some think it shouldn't be read in Church. According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria also considered the Apocalypse of Peter canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter is preserved for us in two versions, a Greek Text found in Egypt, Akhmim specifically, and the Ethiopian version. The translation Bart Ehrman included in his Lost Scriptures book is based on the Akhmim text, and in a 30 minute lecture on the book on YouTube he acts like only that version exists, claiming the book was lost until that manuscript was found when in fact the Ethiopian version was already well known even to Western scholars. So be aware that Ehrman doesn't provide all the information.
Now I think I'd already said in a prior post how the Apocalypse of Peter supports the interpretation that the Fig Tree of Matthew 24 represents Israel.
The Ethiopic version contains a passage that explicitly promises the eventual Salvation of all Sinners.
"My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, ... It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men... "There are a few reasons why I think this was in the original version and not something added on the way to Aksum.
First of all that the surrounding context of this promise includes statements that it should be kept a secret from Sinners is the best explanation for why the Muratorian fragment says some felt it shouldn't be read in Church. This attitude (also held by Origen a student of Clement) is part of why I don't support adding this book to the Canon, I disagree with it as a modern Evangelical Universalist. Maybe it made some practical sense in the circumstances of 2nd/3rd century Egypt, but today the perception that God is a Wrathful monster who tortures people without end is purely an obstacle to The Gospel.
M.R. James who made the 1924 Translation for The Apocryphal New Testament expresses the opinion that the Ahkmim text isn't the proper Apocalypse of Peter at all but an Abridged version written to be included in a Gospel of Peter as it's Olivte Discourse. The promise of Universal Salvation may have been removed for the above stated reason.
The Christian Sibylline Oracles which were influenced by the Apocalypse of Peter also includes an equivalent promise.
And then lastly if we view it as God's Word, the Ethiopian version is the received text, so like my reasons for choosing the Textus Receptus Greek Text for the canonical New Testament, and why many Aramaic primacy supporters favor the Peshita over the Sinai Gospels, the true version must be the one The Holy Spirit preserved, not something buried and forgotten for millennia.
Meanwhile the Ahkmim version still doesn't contradict the promise of Universal Salvation. Chances are the word translated Eternal is Aionion/Aionios, but even if not I could still argue it to be compatible. At face value what's said in chapter 13 of Ehrman's version might seem to rule out Universal Salvation, but that scene happens in the Ethiopian version as well, then later on Peter pleads for them. That passage says they won't get released before their sentence is up based on their own repentance, just like a modern Prison sentence. But eventually it will be the Believers having mercy on them that will trigger their release.
If I were to view this text as Scripture, how would I deal with any apparent contradictions to other Scripture? Well first of all I see it being framed in a parable like fashion, so the details need not be something we build doctrine on, (like with the Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16), but is rather making the point that the punishments will fit the crime. I certainly don't think it intends to say it's a Sin for Women to braid their hair, that sequence is probably meant to be about Prostitution, though I don't know whether or not the word Porneia was used where English translations often say Fornication.
However I still do not view it as Scripture. But that it was pretty popular with the Early Church shows that Universal Salvation was not something they had a problem with. And I can build the Doctrine of Universal Salvation using John's Apocalypse.
I think you misunderstand M.R. James' comments. Prior to your "universal salvation" passage, he plainly states, "There is a great deal more of the Ethiopic text, but it is very evidently of later date…". This includes the entire subsequent section.
ReplyDeleteOn that I would say he is Mistaken.
DeleteWhat's your basis for that?
DeleteThe evidence laid out in this post.
Delete"Peter's revelation of heaven and its wonders and the horrors of hell was widely known and cited in the early church. Many reckoned it as canonical scripture; it appears in the "disputed writings" category in the Muratorian Canon and historical commentary by Eusebius, but it is listed simply as scripture in Codex Claromontanus alongside the Shepherd of Hermas and Acts of Paul. The fifth-century church historian Sozomen tells us that in his day the Apocalypse of Peter was publicly read every Good Friday in congregations throughout Palestine. A Greek-language fragment of about half the text was discovered in 1884 in a tomb in Akhmim, Egypt, in a little book also containing portions of 1 Enoch and the Gospel According to Peter. In fact, as M.R. James has suggested, the Petrine gospel probably had an edited version of the Petrine apocalypse as one of its chapters. The version presented here is based on the more complete and seemingly more faithful Ethiopic translation of the original Greek.
ReplyDeleteThe Apocalyse seems to have incorporated material from 4 Ezra 8:44-47, which would mean it could not have been written earlier than about 100 CE. It is also based on both the Transfiguration scene and the Olivet discourse and is aware of Luke's parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9). Clement of Alexandria cites it as scripture, and this implies it must have been extant by 150 CE. [PD notes, 'I do not agree on this point.']
The interest of Peter's apocalypse is obvious: unlike the Revelation of John, it gives many specifics of the judgement process and the blessings of heaven and punishments of hell. As the Akhmim fragment appears to have been copied in the ninth century, the Apocalypse must have been in circulation for at least that long. As far as we know, it is the single greatest source of early and medieval Christian beliefs about the torments of hell. It is obviously an important precursor to Dante's 𝘐𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰. There is at least one other ancient text called the Apocalypse of Peter, discovered at Nag Hammadi, but it does not seem to have attained the circulation or esteem garnered by the present book, which is why only the latter is included here."
Robert Price, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦-𝘕𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘛𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵: 𝘍𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘺-𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴 (Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2006), pp. 851-852.
How old the book as a whole is is not my concern since I don't ultimately view it as Canon. My interest is simply in proving the Universal Salvation part was always there.
DeleteThe only way to do that is to show attestation - a Church Father quoting that particular passage, which would tentatively date the passage. Since it does not turn up in the 9th century Akhmim fragment, it's entirely possible that it's an accretion to the text from later still.
DeleteMy own disagreement with Dr Price on Clement of Alexndria's attestation dating the book to at least 150 CE is twofold. First, that the book "is aware of Luke's parable of the barren fig tree." The Gospel of Luke is dated to the latter quarter of the 2nd century because of its dependence/polemical difference with Matthew (itself circa 150 - 170 CE), and its dedication to the late 2nd century bishop of Antioch, Theophilus. Secondly, because the writings of pre-Nicene Fathers invariably survive only as ostensible quotes in later material, i.e. Eusebius. And the earliest manuscripts of Eusebius are 9th century. The possibility/probability that such material was embellished or created out of whole cloth by later Church ecclesiastics as a means of supporting later Church innovations is high.
I would place ApocPt a few decades later, around 180-230 CE, more or less contemporary with the Ecclesiastical Redactor responsible for the Pastoral Stratum and Pauline pseudepigraphs.
Devils excrement is worthless
ReplyDelete