cure-real
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why did the Apocalypse of Peter not make it into the canon?

  1. #1

    Why did the Apocalypse of Peter not make it into the canon?

    According to wiki, Clement of Alexandria, considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture.

    The Mutorian feagment, the earliest existing list of canonic sacred writings of the New Testament, which is assigned on internal evidence to the last quarter of the second century (i.e. ca 175-200), gives a list of works read in the Christian churches that is similar to the modern accepted canon; however, it also includes the Apocalypse of Peter.

    The Muratorian fragment states: "the Apocalypses also of John and Peter only do we receive, which some among us would not have read in church." The Muratorian fragment is ambiguous whether both books of Revelations were meant as not received, or just Peter's. (It is interesting that the existence of other Apocalypses is implied, for several early apocryphal ones are known: see Apocalyptic literature.)

    Although the numerous references to it attest to its being once in wide circulation, the Apocalypse of Peter was ultimately not accepted into the Christian canon, being passed over in favor of the Revelation of John.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    933
    Blog Entries
    4
    It was left out because the people who compiled the bible did not believe it was written by the apostle Peter. Nor did they believe it was inspired. And I agree with them.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    According to wiki, Clement of Alexandria, considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture.

    The Mutorian feagment, the earliest existing list of canonic sacred writings of the New Testament, which is assigned on internal evidence to the last quarter of the second century (i.e. ca 175-200), gives a list of works read in the Christian churches that is similar to the modern accepted canon; however, it also includes the Apocalypse of Peter.
    The Muratorian Fragment shows that people always had doubts, and it eventually became clear that it was written well after Peter had died.

    Eusebius, in his 4th-century History of the Church, writes "The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,301
    Yes and it's pretty clear why.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norfolk Broads
    Posts
    3,168
    Blog Entries
    3
    It's depiction of Hell has far more to do with Hellenistic notions of Hades than Hell as described by Jesus. For example, nowhere in Scripture is it suggested that the damned shall be tortured by demons. This is a purely Greek notion. Nobody has power over anyone in hell. The demons will suffer there just as much as the human damned... Peter himself in Scripture says that they are chained. So the depiction of humans being tortured by demons, since it contradicts Scripture, is obviously uninspired. It also contradicts the Bible when it suggests universal salvation. Yet we are told in Revelation "he who is filthy, let him be filthy still", and in the OT we're told, "where the tree falls, there let it lie." Scripture assures us that our acts in this life have eternal consequences in the next. This book suggests the opposite... again, uninspired.

    These are examples of the heavy influence of Greek mystery cults, most notably the Sybilline prophecies, plus which, it contains references to literature written after Peter was martyred.
    Please could everyone pray for Mieke and Charles.

    My testimony http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthr...ight=testimony

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wreaking havoc again....
    Posts
    1,890
    Blog Entries
    93
    I have never read the Apocolypse of Peter? Never even heard of it....

    Should I ?

    Purely for literary purposes of course....

    I will say this....

    All of the books of the Bible support each other....

    If the Apocolypse of Peter does not....

    That is why it didn't make it into the Canon....

    And I wondered about the Catholic Apocrypha (sp?)....

    Because I have never read it....

    Does it share the same detraction that the Apocolypse of Peter does?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wreaking havoc again....
    Posts
    1,890
    Blog Entries
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Radagast View Post
    The Muratorian Fragment shows that people always had doubts, and it eventually became clear that it was written well after Peter had died.

    Eusebius, in his 4th-century History of the Church, writes "The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them."
    Acts of Peter is not the book of Acts right? But a completely different work?

    Acts in the Bible was written by Luke.... Who also wrote Luke.... Which was Peter's memoir as told to Luke....

    Not the same?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    suburb of judea
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryFreeman View Post
    Acts of Peter is not the book of Acts right? But a completely different work?

    Acts in the Bible was written by Luke.... Who also wrote Luke.... Which was Peter's memoir as told to Luke....

    Not the same?
    The book of Mark is Mark's recollections of Peter's stories and tales that he used to tell about Jesus all the time.

    So...if you want to know how Peter seen and viewed Christ...you need to know the book of Mark.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    Although the numerous references to it attest to its being once in wide circulation, the Apocalypse of Peter was ultimately not accepted into the Christian canon, being passed over in favor of the Revelation of John.

    Hello Chad

    The word "apocalypse" comes from the Greek word "apokalypsis" but is shown in our english bibles as the word "Revelation".

    The word "Revelation" means to make known, to reveal or unveil.

    It is common for mankind to incorrectly call the last book of the Bible by "Revelations" or "the Revelation of John" but God in His word has titled the book in the first verse of the last book of the Bible and the true title is,


    Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:


    Therefore the last book of the Bible is titled, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"

    We can learn of John and Peter throughout the Bible but God in His word reveals the title of the last book in our Bible to us so that no man can deny what the true title of the last book of the Bible truly is.

    Hope this helps.

    Bless you,
    Love Fountain

  10. #10
    Hi Chad
    http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scriptur...dp/083081258X/
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    According to wiki, Clement of Alexandria, considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture.
    These are Clement of Alexandria's references to Apoc. Peter from fragments which survive of his Hypotyposes.
    a. (41.1) The Scripture saith that the children which have been exposed (by their parents) are delivered to a care-taking angel by whom they are educated, and made to grow up, and they shall be, it saith, as the faithful of an hundred years old are here (in this life). b. (41. 2) Wherefore also Peter in the Apocalypse saith: And a flash (lightning) of fire leaping from those children and smiting the eyes of the women.

    2. Ibid. (48 . 1 ) The providence of God doth not light upon them only that are in the flesh. For example, Peter in the Apocalypse saith that the children born out of due time (abortively) that would have been of the better part (i. e. would have been saved if they had lived) -these are delivered to a care-taking angel, that they may partake of knowledge and obtain the better abode, having suffered what they would have suffered had they been in the body. But the others (i.e. those who would not have been saved, had they lived) shall only obtain salvation, as beings that have been injured and had mercy shown to them, and shall continue without torment, receiving that as a reward.

    But the milk of the mothers, flowing from their breasts and congealing, saith Peter in the Apocalypse, shall engender small beasts (snakes) devouring the flesh, and these running upon them devour them: teaching that the torments come to pass because of the sins (correspond to the sins).
    These fragments are confirmed in the Ethiopic text
    Other men and women shall stand above them, naked; and their children stand over against them in a place of delight, and sigh and cry unto God because of their parents, saying: These are they that have despised and cursed and transgressed thy commandments and delivered us unto death: they have cursed the angel that formed us, and have hanged us up, and withheld from us (or, begrudged us) the light which thou hast given unto all creatures. And the milk of their mothers flowing from their breasts shall congeal, and from it shall come beasts devouring flesh, which shall come forth and turn and torment them for ever with their husbands, because they forsook the commandments of God and slew their children. As for their children, they shall be delivered unto the angel Temlakos (i.e. a care-taking angel: see above, in the Fragments). And they that slew them shall be tormented eternally, for God willeth it so.
    This is all pretty standard stuff for NT Apocrypha / Nag Hammadi materials ---- popular Jewish belief had already been Hellenized during the Maccabean period, with concepts such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham replacing OT beliefs (Psalm 6:5 etc etc etc) about Sheol, which is to be distinguished from angels being chained in Tartarus in 1Enoch. Though Jews still reserved Gehenna for the coming of the Messiah --- see Gehenna in the Mishnah etc.

    What's probably more distinctive about this book, for Clement of Alexandria at least, is all the theology of what happens to the souls of aborted/exposed children.
    S.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryFreeman View Post
    Acts of Peter is not the book of Acts right? But a completely different work?
    Yes, completely different book.

    There was a problem after about the year 100 where some Christians (or people claiming to be Christians) wrote fake books. Like the "Acts of Peter". But right from the start, most Christians realised they were fake and didn't put them in the Bible.

    The "Epistle of Barnabus" made it into one old version of the Bible, but it was fake too (Barnabus didn't write it), so it soon got dumped.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven3 View Post
    These are Clement of Alexandria's references to Apoc. Peter from fragments which survive of his Hypotyposes.
    I think Clement of Alexandria was one of the few people who took the "Apocalypse of Peter" seriously. Eventually everyone realised that Peter didn't write it -- that it was fake.

  13. #13
    Does anyone know if the "Apocalypse of Peter" was read in church. The Muratorian fragment suggests it was?

    The Muratorian fragment states: "the Apocalypses also of John and Peter only do we receive, which some among us would not have read in church."

  14. #14
    Well, there are actually several completely different "Apocalypse of Peter"s. The two most well known ones are the "Coptic Apocalypse of Peter", and the "Greek Apocalypse of Peter".

    Coptic Apocalypse of Peter: Peter has a vision in which he sees Jesus' death from the spiritual realm. Jesus' death was not a sacrifice for sins, but instead it allowed the human being Jesus to escape his physical body, so that his spiritual being has become free. This book didn't "make it into the canon" because it contradicts the entirety of canon Scripture. It is rejected by the Church because it is incredibly obviously Gnostic in nature, and appeared to late to have been written by Peter.

    Greek Apocalypse of Peter: This book describes the various punishments that the unsaved will undergo in the final judgment, and is practically a precursor to Dante's Inferno, or the Greek mythologies of hades. Most of what it teaches is unsupported by canon Scripture, and occasionally contradicts canon Scripture. The Greek Apocalypse of Peter was used by Christians in the second century AD, but passed out of favor because it was determined to not have been written by Peter. It is rejected by the Church because it is, while canon Scripture does affirm the punishment of the wicked, never obsesses over it as this book seems to do. And again, it appeared to late to have been written by Peter.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •